HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON SUPPLY

3:27 P.M.

CHAIR

Dave Ritcey

THE CHAIR: The Subcommittee on Supply will come to order, to consider the estimates for the Department of Environment and Climate Change, as outlined in Resolution E7.

I will invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to continue his opening remarks from last evening. He has 14 minutes remaining in his hour intro, and if he again wishes to introduce his staff to the committee, if there’s anyone new, please do so.

HON. TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to everyone. I was very near the end of my opening remarks when we ran out of time last evening, and it was important to me in my opening remarks to provide a clear picture of the work being done within the Department of Environment and Climate Change, and the priority this government places on the environment and responding to climate change.

I think it is clear with all the work currently underway within the department that we have a plan for the path forward, and to meet our global climate responsibilities. We will be releasing the provincial risk assessment and climate plan this Spring, we are working on the next iteration of the carbon pricing program to meet federal requirements, and we have started working on implementing many of the goals in the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act based on the timelines enshrined in the Act.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’re also working to protect more of Nova Scotia’s land and water mass. We are consulting on extended producer responsibility for printed paper and packaging, we are investing in energy efficiency programs of low-income and for marginalized groups, and we are working to finalize regulations to protect our coastal line and development from increasing coastal erosion due to climate change.

When we left off last evening, I was explaining my role as regulator in ensuring all Nova Scotians are protected from environmental harm. This means treating all Nova Scotians fairly and equitably. We must do better and ensure every Nova Scotian has equitable access to a healthy, safe, and sustainable environment, and equal protection from environmental harm.

We recognize that not everyone will be impacted the same by climate change. Efforts will need to support those most vulnerable as we care for each other and the environment. We know we need to make a space for the input of community leaders to help guide us forward, and working together, we can ensure project decisions that affect communities are fair and are equitable. We know we need to build trust and genuine relationships. This is the foundation from where we must start. Equity will guide us every step of the way.

Mr. Chair, I want to conclude my remarks by acknowledging the advice of the Minister’s Round Table on Environment and Sustainable Prosperity in guiding our work. There are some amazing individuals on the Minister’s Round Table, and I certainly enjoy my interactions with them. I look forward to the ongoing collaboration with the round table members and with other departments, and our partners on the issues important to Nova Scotians.

I am extremely humbled and honoured and proud to be the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at this pivotal time in our history. As you know, I take my duties and responsibilities very seriously. That being said, I am now happy to engage in discussion, and I am happy to now take questions from members.

THE CHAIR: According to the practice that has developed in this Legislature, the Opposition caucuses take turns asking questions for approximately one hour. During a caucus’s turn, the members within the caucus may take turns examining the minister on the Estimate and Resolution. Only the minister may answer questions. Caucuses are also expected to share time fairly with the Independent member.

To begin the examination, I now recognize the Official Opposition.

The honourable member for Kings South.

HON. KEITH IRVING: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, minister, for appearing today. I look forward to our conversation.

I want to acknowledge your speech and your commitment to the environment. I also know from my 145 short days I had in your chair that you have some very talented and dedicated staff surrounding you, including communications staff that advise their ministers to stretch their answers out long. That was the advice I got last year, so I’m sure you’ve got the same advice. I will be trying to have a few more yes or no questions through the course of our conversation here, to see if we can get through as much as we can.

Just following up on your opening comments, with respect to you and your role as the Environment and Climate Change Minister, you state this is the most pressing issue facing Nova Scotia, climate change, and that 81 per cent of Nova Scotians want action - quick and bold action.

I’m wondering, minister, how you rectify that or square that with your government’s laser-focused priority of health care, and now, the secondary issue of housing. How are you as minister going to keep environment at the level of importance that it deserves considering the other pressures and priorities within this government?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question and thank you for your service and your time here at the Department of Environment and Climate Change. I know you and I were very much united in terms of how important this issue is.

It’s a very important question that you asked. Upon being named to this position, I didn’t wait for the budget. I moved quickly to signal to Nova Scotians that they have a minister - and a government, of course - that prioritizes environment and climate change policy. That’s why we moved quickly to pass the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act in our first sitting as a government - 28 goals legislated. Achievable goals, challenging goals, but goals that signal to Nova Scotians that climate change policy is a top priority.

Even before the budget, as the member may know, we have made significant investments in energy efficiency, like $57 million to energy efficiency through natural resources and renewables.

Just this fiscal, we’ve invested $44.9 million in things like solar homes, that was $8 million; home energy assessments, another $8 million; affordable housing retrofits, $2 million; Flood Line Mapping, $1 million; the Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund, $15 million; $2 million for BIPOC and Mi’kmaw energy training; $1.5 million for industrial on-site energy managers; and $1.5 million for the Next Ride Program - as a matter of fact, Mr. Rushton and I just participated in that a couple of weeks ago. We had an opportunity to test drive two vehicles. Just amazing, an amazing program.

Also, $1 million for the apartment and condo EV charging; $1.5 million for solar for not-for-profits; and $1.5 million for off-oil residential investment pilots. Along with these investments, we’ve also invested heavily in building up the climate change unit, bringing on new FTEs, utilizing Green Fund resources to build up that unit.

As minister, I didn’t wait for the budget - I got to work right away. Certainly, the investments that have taken place, I know signal to Nova Scotians that we are moving toward climate change mitigation and adaptation policies that are really going to really set the course for the next number of years.

There’s a lot more on the way, as I indicated in my opening remarks. We have the climate risk assessment, which will be coming out this Spring, to be followed up with the climate change plan, which is going to outline our steps to achieving our goals in the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

The staff here - no one’s marking time here. They’re working very hard because they know that this is the issue of our times. When I chat public policy or politics with my kids, it’s always about what the future is going to look like, how climate change is going to impact. Even when I was teaching in the classroom, this was a topic that came up time and time again, and rightly so.

It’s not just the youth of Nova Scotia that are concerned about the future on this particular file. The numbers speak for themselves. Well over 80 per cent of Nova Scotians have indicated this is a top priority, and that’s why we didn’t wait. We got to it right away by bringing in legislation that has the strongest greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in Canada: targets to preserve 20 per cent of land and water, targets to get us to 2030 with 80 per cent renewables, and 30 per cent of vehicles to be electric vehicles by 2030.

These are achievable goals, they’re challenging goals, but they are goals, certainly. In my time as minister, I’m committed to working, too, each and every day. There’s a lot going on here.

KEITH IRVING: Thank you very much, minister. Yes, I’m certainly aware of the spending that’s happening with the Green Funds from the cap and trade program, but I think I want to get to your business plan and exactly how you’re going to implement that bill, and who’s actually doing that work. I’m going to get to that.

Before I begin that, the consultation on the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Plan for Clean Growth I think touches on, in an overarching theme in the introduction, of the concerns by Nova Scotians. I just want to quote from those that participated, from that report. It says:

“Would this process result in real action, or just more reports? Will the government be transparent and accountable in this process, but also in the implementation, measurement and reporting on progress toward goals and under the Plan? Would it set real targets and abide by them?”

[3:45 p.m.]

So, minister, that’s the challenge, I think, you have for Nova Scotians. I guess my question is: Yes or no, did the minister submit his timeline that was required in his mandate letter on a plan, a timeline, to execute all items in his mandate letter?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Certainly any questions related to accountability and transparency, I know, certainly, that this matters to Nova Scotians. To answer your question: yes, that has been submitted. Due diligence has taken place.

Along the theme of transparency and accountability, one of the principles embedded in the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act is that we have to submit an annual report to the Legislature every July. You can expect the first report to be coming this July, and an update on where we’re at in achieving our environmental and climate change goals.

KEITH IRVING: Thank you very much, minister. I was looking for a yes or a no, so anyway, thank you for the yes.

We made a FOIPOP request for a copy of that timeline. That was simply a part of your mandate letter that says you are going to do what’s publicly available in a mandate letter that has been released to the public, and that is basically the timeline that you’re going to do that in.

How do you square the complete redaction of any information in that with what I’m sure is a commitment by you and the department for transparency? Are you truly uncomfortable with releasing the timeline of your work?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As a former minister, the member knows there are government-wide guidelines with respect to FOIPOP. Those things are handled not at the ministerial level. Those things are handled at the department level.

With respect to the question around transparency, as I previously indicated, there’s an annual report that’s due to the Legislature on how we’re achieving these goals, and I look forward to submitting that first one in July, because we’ve moved quickly to get going on many of these goals.

I’d just like to highlight the great work that’s been done by our Sustainability and Applied Science Division on expanded EPR. They’ve been working very hard on targeted consultation for the circular economy, for expanded EPR, for printed paper and packaging. There’s lots going on, and Nova Scotians will get an annual update from my department on how we’re achieving those goals. I believe that is a very strong mechanism of accountability and transparency.

KEITH IRVING: Yes or no, is there anything in the mandate letter that you advised the Premier that cannot be achieved?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: No doubt, the member has read that the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, and many of the mandates that I have in my letter are imbedded in EGCCRA.

Look, I’m fully committed to that mandate letter, and obviously since EGCCRA is the law, I follow the law. I am fully committed to that mandate letter, and fully committed to the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

KEITH IRVING: Minister, I think I know how you will answer this, but this is to get it on the record. Many of the items in the Act have deadlines of 2030 and 2035. We obviously advocated and put amendments forward for interim targets that were voted down.

Do you believe interim targets are needed for these long-range goals? If so, will we see them, given your budget and business plan are completed for the next year? Are we going to see any interim targets try to be achieved this year? Are interim targets going to be in the climate plan?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: This is important. I need to reiterate the fact that in the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, we have the commitment of annual reporting and we’re restoring that. That didn’t always happen under the previous government. EGCCRA commits us through that Act to restoring that annual reporting on how we’re meeting targets.

Please remember, the targets we’ve established within EGCCRA are foundational targets. These are floors, not ceilings. These are bold, ambitious targets, but they are achievable targets. We anticipate when we release the climate plan that we’re going to have specifics in that, clear actions outlined.

Along with that, we have lots of interaction with the Round Table. I meet with them every two months and really value their input. They certainly provide many great recommendations and ideas to discuss. With that - again, with that annual reporting through EGCCRA, I believe that is the real strength to that bill, that Act, that reinforces how key accountability and transparency is. As the climate plan - once the climate plan is released, you’ll see more specifics outlined in that plan.

KEITH IRVING: I’m sure Nova Scotians are very hopeful that we will see that in the plan. I think it goes without saying that if we’re going to have 30 per cent electric vehicles by 2030, we can’t wait until 2029 to get working on that. I do know your staff will be conscientious of this. My hope is that you are forceful enough at the cabinet table to get your staff the resources needed to drive this important agenda.

[4:00 p.m.]

Let’s move now to the budget, which I’m just trying to reconcile. I know the budget has been challenged with two events: the department needing to increase staff in response to COVID-19, which has bumped up the actuals in 2021; and as well, the removal of the 59 FTEs over to Department of Natural Resources and Renewables. I thanked the minister for letting us know about the 59. I was calculating it out and making a guess it was about 57.

By my numbers, it appears you back out what I’m assuming is letting go of staff that were border agents, et cetera, hired on for COVID-19 and moving the 59 FTEs out of the budget over to Natural Resources and Renewables. I went back to 2020/2021 backing out number pre-COVID-19, and it appears the budget for the department has increased by about $800,000-$808,000 over two years. That’s 2.2 per cent over two years, less than a percent a year, and given salary costs being a significant portion of any government department’s budget - I think this year the salaries are increasing by 2 per cent. I can’t remember what it was last year, whether it was 1 or 1.5 or 2 per cent.

Clearly your budget has dropped. Do you agree?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: I just want to indicate that when it comes to environment and climate change policy, EGCCRA is comprehensive in what it’s done to government departments. While we’re the face and the lead, it’s 12 government departments now that have climate change priorities and policies. This is imbedded across government. It’s an all-hands-on-deck approach.

With respect to this budget, we have seen reductions. That’s explained to the transfer of the 59 conservation officers over to Natural Resources and Renewables. As I indicated in my opening remarks, that department is best aligned with the mandates of our conservation officers, who I have the utmost respect for and appreciate, and I know Nova Scotians appreciate and value the work that they do. That change is reflected in the budget, along with the 24 border liaison officers. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for the support and the work they did on behalf of Nova Scotians. Had a very challenging time in the history of our province.

So, yes, we have seen those reductions, but those reductions are of a human resources nature. We’ve also seen additions, as well. We’ve seen additions to three meat inspectors, we’ve seen additions to FTEs for our climate change division. This work was accomplished. We didn’t wait for the budget. We got to work on this right away and, certainly, these additions highlight just how important this is. These reductions are simply a reflection on the change in human resources.

I want to offer a big thank you to the border liaison officers, for the support they offered Nova Scotians. We believe that the conservation officers are even more set up for success by being over at Natural Resources and Renewables. Along with that, they’ll continue to work with us in our inspection and compliance and enforcement division with the protected areas and wilderness areas. We certainly have a great relationship with them. Those reductions are a reflection on changes in human resources.

KEITH IRVING: Perhaps the minister didn’t fully understand what I laid out there. Going back and looking at previous budgets and backing out those FTEs going over to Natural Resources and Renewables and backing out the 24 - I had 22.9. I’m getting a little bit in line with you in terms of where the FTEs are going. Taking inflation into account, the department budget is lower than it was two years ago.

I do acknowledge that there are additional FTEs, minister, and I was going to ask a question to try and get to the bottom of that, but I think we’ve got a general sense of it. The inspection and compliance being reduced by 79.9 of those 80, and then you’re suggesting there’s - anyway, I won’t get too long into the numbers. We’ve got eight new meat inspectors, we have a couple more in sustainable and applied technologies, and we have 9.7 in the climate change department. There are some increases there, but those increases are within your existing budget.

Minister, it would appear that you have now less program dollars to do your work in your $37.9 million budget. Could you briefly outline where some of your program’s reductions are to cover off those additional FTEs that you are now paying for out of a flat or slightly lower budget?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: In the 15 years I spent teaching high school, I always would remind my students just how critical it is to always consult multiple sources before you arrive at a conclusion. You have to remember, the budget is very important but there are many other sources to consult. Certainly, what you see in our budget is what’s necessary for operations, but there’s a lot going on. You look at the investments that have been made in 2020 and 2021 for climate change mitigation and adaptation, but these are significant, significant investments.

Let’s take solar homes, for example, which was launched in 2018. In this fiscal alone, $5.5 million. This $5.5 million offers incentives to single family homes which are detached, semi-detached townhouses, rowhouses, and mobile homes to install solar PV systems. The rebate makes solar PV more affordable. It saves participants money on their electricity bills and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. This investment makes a significant difference in the lives of Nova Scotians.

Then $4,750,000 this fiscal year - 2020/2021 - for energy efficiency home upgrades at no charge to eligible Nova Scotia homeowners. To qualify for the program, the total household income must be within the low-income income cut-off figures set by Statistics Canada, plus an additional 15 per cent. Investment is for non-electrically heated homes; another significant investment made this year by the government.

Then for affordable multi-family housing, $11,450,000 this fiscal year - I’d like to tell you a little bit about this. The Affordable Multifamily Housing program offers financial incentives to owners of affordable rental units and non-profit organizations to complete efficiency upgrades. These upgrades will help Nova Scotians living on lower incomes save money on their monthly energy bills and make their homes more comfortable. Efficiency Nova Scotia arranges no-cost energy audits and works with participants to prioritize upgrades and ensure the work meets auditor recommendations. Participants work with the contractor of their choice and receive rebates. So $11,450,000 to the Affordable Multifamily Housing program.

I want to tell you a little bit about the Small Business and Not-for-Profit Energy Solutions Program that the government invested in this fiscal - $3,521,300. This offers rebates for energy-saving measures such as energy audits and products such as heat pumps for small business, not-for-profit, and institutional customers in Nova Scotia that heat using electricity. The investment expanded eligibility to those who heat with propane, natural gas, diesel, or furnace oil.

The Clean Leadership Program, a phenomenal program for our youth - $2 million invested this fiscal. This provides subsidized Summer internships in environmental fields. This program very much facilitates the next generation of environmental leaders, climate change leaders, that we need. The program supports small- and medium-sized employers through the wage subsidy and offers assistance with human resources and payroll support. The investment established a climate change cohort of interns within the Clean Leadership Program over the next five years, and they’ll work on clean growth and climate adaptation projects.

So much more, Mr. Chair; $318,900 for the Climate Adaptation Leadership Program; $200,500 for the climate change risk assessment, and this will provide reliable information that government and others - such as municipalities and business - can use to better understand and address risks, take advantage of opportunities, and adapt to the changing climate. The risk assessment is going to consider Nova Scotians’ well-being when assessing climate change risks, including identifying risks to communities, environments, economy, infrastructure, as well as exploring social, economic, and geographic differences. This risk assessment, we plan to be releasing this Spring.

These are significant investments. We’ve invested $923,000 with the Western Climate Initiative, and the Green Fund provides the annual contribution for the Western Climate Initiative for Nova Scotia’s participation in the WCI; $78,600 for a Green Fund Coordinator, and this coordinator is housed in the Department of Environment and Climate Change and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Green Fund. The position’s salary as indicated is covered by the Green Fund.

We look at the investment of $104,500 into CLIMAtlantic. Environment and Climate Change Canada led the procurement process to select and establish CLIMAtlantic, a non-profit entity based out of New Brunswick, to host the Climate Adaptation Services centre. The organization will receive resources from its provincial and federal partners to provide locally tailored climate data, information, training, and other client supports. This work will enable the province and other Nova Scotia clients to consider the impacts of climate change in planning and decision making.

Under this government, $2 million this fiscal for affordable housing retrofits. These were upgrades for affordable one- and two-unit housing in Cape Breton to be more energy efficient, reducing costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Upgrades will include energy efficiency measures such as building, envelope upgrades such as insulation, efficient lighting, and air sealing. We see panel upgrades in this investment, smart thermostats, removal of oil heating equipment, oil tanks, and replacement with central heat pumps, and heat pump and hot water heaters. The Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in partnership with the Clean Foundation, have completed energy assessments for each of the identified units using funding provided by the Low-Carbon Communities program.

As I indicated, $8 million for solar homes and $8 million for home energy assessment. The Off-oil Retrofit Incentive program is administered by Efficiency Nova Scotia, and this provides low-cost, subsidized energy assessments to participants, and incentives up to $5,000 for energy efficiency retrofits.

I want to tell you a little bit about the Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund. This fiscal, $15 million to the Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund. This is a goal established in EGCCRA, the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. This is to create competitive opportunities for our communities to undertake climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives. The fund will be administered by a partner organization and will provide additional financial support to implement transformative projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts.

Flood line mapping - $1 million this fiscal by this government. A collaborative initiative between the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Department of Environment and Climate Change, and GeoNOVA to provide communities throughout Nova Scotia with coastal and inland flood plain maps that incorporate climate change. The project aims to reduce disaster-related financial losses for all levels of government, and reduce risk by developing new tools, building capacities, implement flood risk information, and enhancing climate change resiliency.

Flood line maps are also used to inform land use planning, the siting of new developments, emergency management, and local-level decision making. This government’s not marking time, we’re making a difference. We’re making a big difference, and these investments, while I articulate them, let’s not forget they have a huge impact on improving the quality of lives for Nova Scotians.

[4:15 p.m.]

A sum of $250,000 was invested for staffing resources; $1.5 million was invested for industrial on-site energy managers to expand the On-Site Energy Manager Program to medium and large electricity consuming industrial facilities, facilitated by EfficiencyOne; and $1.5 million for the Off-oil Retrofit Incentive Pilot. This new off-oil pilot program will work directly with homeowners who wish to eliminate the use of furnace oil at their home. While most of the participants in existing programs retain oil as a supplementary or backup heating source, this new off-oil program will require all oil-heating equipment to be removed and replaced with an electric-based heating system.

The objectives of the pilot are to understand the barriers to completely removing oil systems from homes in Nova Scotia, including knowledge, technical, and financial barriers. The pilot will work directly with up to 100 homeowners across Nova Scotia. The relatively small number of homes is intentional. EfficiencyOne will have a dedicated staff resource to work directly with the homeowner and tradespeople.

Mr. Chair, $1 million invested this fiscal by this government for apartment and condo EV charging. Certainly, that’s something I hear a lot from my constituents. I represent a very suburban area of HRM, and many of my friends and neighbours have expressed to me, I want to get an EV, but we need to see more investments in the infrastructure. With this government, you’re seeing us moving on that.

What this million-dollar investment - the apartment and condo EV Charging Infrastructure Program is a new pilot program with a goal to insert the installation of Level 2 smart charging stations in new and existing condos and apartments. Existing buildings would be eligible to receive up to $2,500 incentive per charger installation and the cost of study design documents. New builds would receive a reduced incentive to install smart chargers. The program is anticipated to be offered for two years and be launched within three months after signing of the agreement. The program will be delivered by EfficiencyOne.

I want to tell you about the government’s investment of $2 million into the Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, and Mi’kmaw energy training program. The Clean Energy training pilots were launched in 2021 with the support from the Department of Natural Resources and Renewables, the Department of Environment and Climate Change, Employment Nova Scotia, and the Native Council of Nova Scotia. The pilots included recruitment, design, and development of clean energy training, and skills development programs, and have successfully trained people from under-represented groups to become energy advisors and clean energy tradespeople.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to visit Scott Skinner and his amazing colleagues at the Clean Foundation a few weeks ago to get a fantastic briefing on this amazing program and to see these investments making a real difference in the lives of Nova Scotians.

This fiscal, this government invested $1.5 million in the Next Ride EV engagement campaign. Mr. Rushton and I had a great time participating in that. What a dynamic group of people they have running that program. I’ve noticed, for a lot of folks, one of the obstacles at times is just getting comfortable and getting familiar with the technology related to EV vehicles. They’re fantastic at making you feel comfortable and getting out there and test driving this.

Next Ride is an award-winning EV engagement campaign that allows people to test drive, learn about EVs without any sales pressure to buy, and find local EV dealerships. I know anecdotally from being an MLA, just hearing from my residents. We are seeing a big demand for EVs, and rightly so. We understand why. I think it’s because people know that this is the way of the future. Education and marketing are essential complements to charging infrastructure, and purchase incentives for encouraging Nova Scotians to purchase EVs and help achieve legislated targets.

The Green Fund investment will provide stable funding for three years to expand the marketing campaign for Next Ride, to target - how shall we say - main stream consumers, further develop staff expertise related to charging infrastructure, to support organizations with their charging questions, develop more focus on rural communities, build better relationships with auto dealerships to ensure their staff are knowledgeable about EVs and to help e-supply chain constraints, focus on systematically underrepresented communities such as African Nova Scotian and our Francophone-speaking communities and Acadian communities.

These are significant investments made by the government. It highlights the level of priority we have with sustainable development - $1.5 million for solar homes for not-for-profits. This came from the Green Fund to Efficiency One to expand the successful SolarHomes Incentives Program for non-profit organizations. Expansions of eligibility will allow churches, food banks, and other registered, non-profit organizations to receive a rebate for the installation of PV systems.

In total, this fiscal, this government has invested $44.9 million - to be specific, $44,936,670. These are significant investments that show Nova Scotians that this government takes climate change, takes sustainable development very, very seriously. I look forward to working with the staff here over hopefully the next number of years to continue to make these investments that we know are right for Nova Scotia.

KEITH IRVING: Thank you very much, minister, for your second reading of your speech. First of all, I don’t need a teacher to help me read the budget - with all due respect, sir - and I am actually quite surprised that the Chair of the Treasury and Policy Board is taking light about the budget.

You have a responsibility, sir, to the people of Nova Scotia to answer questions. You spoke at length in your speech about how important this was and how you were going to be accountable to Nova Scotians. What the citizens of Nova Scotia just witnessed was an old political ploy of filibustering, sitting there reading documents.

Estimates is a time in which a minister is accountable. I asked for yes and no responses to very simple questions and I got an encyclopedia response. This is very disappointing. This is on a very important issue. You acknowledged it with words, but your actions, sir, make a mockery of accountability with respect to the environment.

I asked some fairly fair questions based on the black-and-white numbers in the budget. If we as Opposition members use our precious little time in Estimates to ask ministers questions to make them accountable for their budgets and we get filibustered - and I know it’s been done before, you’re not the first - but to do it on such an important subject, where 81 per cent of Nova Scotians want action, they don’t want words, sir.

I feel bad for your staff, sir. They need a leader who’s going to be accountable, who’s going to lead them. This is the existential threat. This has thousands of people marching in the streets, and we have a minister who wants to read about it. I think we can do better, minister. You’ve got four years.

Let’s go back to a couple questions. Minister, your business plan - a page and a half, here. There are only two items here that you are going to complete under the business plan. I know the staff are working on many other things. They’re going to begin preliminary work on this, and they will continue to develop that. I know some of these take time, but I think what Nova Scotians are looking for is things to be completed in the next year.

Right now, they’re having a Climate Change Plan for Clean Growth being completed - I know a lot of good work is going into that - and the province-wide climate change risk assessment. Those are the only two commitments in your business plan. I do know there’s a lot of work, and there are 28 goals in the Act - actually, I’ve got 37 actions here that you and 11 other departments are working on.

My question, minister, is: What is your role in the elements of this Act that do not fully or partially apply to your department? If we’re phasing out 80 per cent of electricity in the province, is it you accountable to deliver on that goal, or is it the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables?

What is your leadership role at the Cabinet table, or are you simply taking some of these goals and saying, that’s your responsibility, and then not going to answer these questions in Estimates and be accountable for them, because we should be asking another minister? Is there a role, as the minister, to oversee all of the work required over those 12 departments, or are they working separately from your leadership?

[4:30 p.m.]

TIMOTHY HALMAN: By passing the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, that Act has instilled environmental climate change policy as a priority to government. I know the member is very passionate about this issue, and rightly so. I mean, we know it is an existential crisis, and that’s why I took time to highlight $44.9 million in actions that government has taken over the last few months, and I think it’s really important to take time, so folks understand. Those just aren’t words. That $44.9 million has made a big difference in the lives of Nova Scotians in terms of climate change policy.

With respect to the question and in terms of accountability, EGCCRA has created shared responsibilities. While, often, this department and this minister is the face of climate change policy and environmental stewardship, when it comes to climate change policies, it’s across 12 departments. The major formal mechanism of that - accountability and transparency will manifest itself every July when a report has to be sent to the Legislature, to give an update on how we’re achieving our goals.

That annual reporting is critical, and Nova Scotians can expect that first report this July.

THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the Official Opposition. Just a reminder that questions come through the Chair, as do the answers. Thank you.

The member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for serving us as minister and thank you to the minister’s staff. They are behind, I think - I’m assuming flanking him off-camera. Hello to them and thank you for their hard work.

I just wanted to start by picking up on a couple of things that I’ve heard in the last hour. Twice now - and just now - the minister referenced investments in environmental climate change or climate change reduction policy spans 12 departments, which makes sense to me. It makes sense that all hands must be on deck to solve this crisis, or to act on this crisis.

As head of the Treasury and Policy Board, it seems to me that the minister would be very familiar with what investments those are and in what departments, and when we do at least a quick scan of the budget documents for any of the departments, it doesn’t appear that there’s a whole bunch of money dedicated to climate change.

I’m wondering if the minister could produce for us - obviously not right now - but if you could commit to producing a list of where those investments are across those other departments?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: It’s important to highlight that the work that EGCCRA establishes - all this work is ongoing. You’ve heard that ongoing work highlighted by ministers. I recall just the other day sitting at the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, and Minister Morrow highlighting a webinar he and I attended together back in I believe February about the impacts of climate change on agriculture. You see that coordination.

I’ve met with many of my colleagues - ministerial colleagues, specifically - to discuss climate change. Certainly, when we talk about these departments, we’re looking at Agriculture, and Public Works, obviously Natural Resources and Renewables, Education and Early Childhood Development, Economic Development, to name a few, and how EGCCRA impacts all those departments. If you look at many of the mandate letters, you certainly have big elements of greening our society.

Within the structure of government, we also had deputies meeting to discuss the impacts of climate change. Of course, as you said, in this fiscal, you saw a lot of action taken. These just aren’t words, these are action. $57 million through Natural Resources and Renewables, $57 million in December for energy efficiency. That translates into real action; $44.9 million this fiscal in the Green Fund which I just took some time to highlight those actions, those concrete actions that have been taking place.

Then, of course, as I said, the work is ongoing. Nova Scotians can expect the climate risk assessment, which is one of the goals of EGCCRA that needs to be fulfilled this year. We’re working on that, and we’ll have that ready to go in the Spring. We have our climate change plan, which is going to outline the steps we’ll be taking to meet our EGCCRA goals.

There’s a lot going on, the work is ongoing, and I can assure the honourable member that there’s a lot of work taking place bilaterally in terms of ministers meeting, ministers discussing, and at the deputy level, and in the senior civil service, as well.

SUSAN LEBLANC: I guess I’ll take that as a no - the minister can’t produce those numbers. Look, I don’t want to play the games that were just played with my colleague from the Liberal Party. It’s too big a topic to be wasting time doing this, and I really believe that the folks who work in the Department of Environment and Climate Change don’t want to waste time, either.

I’m going to ask some different questions and I’m hoping that the minister might get some advice to actually answer the questions. I mean that in a very genuine and very respectful way. This is too important to be evading questions. I just wanted to know if we could see where the investments are in other departments.

I’m going to skip around a little bit, but I’d like to talk about protected land first. The Province has a goal of protecting 20 per cent of Nova Scotia land by 2030. Before I ask any other questions, I’d like to ask why there is no interim target for 2025, which would be in the mandate of this government?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Twenty per cent of land and water to be protected by 2030 - it’s an ambitious goal, it’s an achievable goal. It’s an increase from the 13 per cent of the previous goal. Certainly, we’re looking at completing that 2013 Parks and Protected Area. Right now, we have about 12.8 per cent of land protected, so we know we have a lot of work to do. There’s lots of work taking place between Environment and Climate Change and Natural Resources and Renewables.

In EGCCRA, we have the goal of developing a land strategy to get to that 20 per cent by 2030. Also, there’s the federal Target 1 Challenge Fund that we’re a part of, as well. I want to assure the member that there’s a lot of great work taking place between the two departments. This is an ambitious goal but it’s definitely achievable. I want to assure the honourable member that there’s lots of work taking place on that.

SUSAN LEBLANC: The minister just mentioned the 2013 Parks and Protected Areas Plan and mentioned we’re about at 12.8 per cent. When that plan is completed, my understanding is we’d be at about 14 per cent. Clearly there would be more work to do to get us to 20 per cent. Has the minister determined that any areas currently in the 2013 Parks and Protected Area Plan are likely to be removed from the list?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: I want to assure the member that we’re doing all that we can to move as expeditiously to complete that 2013 plan. I know this is very important to Nova Scotians, the preservation of land and water. We’re working very, very hard to finish that plan.

There are some sites that are privately held that aren’t in our control, but we are working diligently toward completing that. As I indicated, we’re at about 12.8 per cent of protection, but we’re working expeditiously to get to that 13 per cent. From there, we get to work on developing that land strategy to get to that 20 per cent, and that needs to be completed by 2023.

SUSAN LEBLANC: The minister voted against the Owls Head Act last Fall. Will the minister be bringing in legislation that prevents areas from being delisted behind closed doors without public consultation?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: In terms of my focus, it’s outlined in my mandate letter. Certainly, what’s indicated in the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, and certainly, you know, moving forward as expeditiously as possible on finishing that 2013 plan. Among many other things, those are some of the key things I’m very much focused on.

[4:45 p.m.]

SUSAN LEBLANC: I’m wondering if the minister can give us an update on both the proposed Archibald Lake Wilderness Area and the Ingram River Wilderness Area - when can we expect to see decisions on those two areas?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question on Archibald Lake and Ingram. We’d all agree protected areas are extremely important to Nova Scotians. There are so many benefits from protected areas. Obviously, they help us mitigate and adapt to climate change, they provide us with clean air and water, they strengthen our biodiversity, they provide habitats for our wildlife, our fish and birds, and we know they improve our overall quality of life in our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being for Nova Scotians.

With respect to Archibald Lake, I want the member to know no decisions have been made with Archibald. We’ve heard many viewpoints on all sides during the consultation, and we’re taking the time to consider them carefully. Ingram is one of the many sites that were consulted on, and with respect to Ingram, we’re working to make a decision on that.

SUSAN LEBLANC: So, we don’t know when we can expect to see the decisions, but they are both being reviewed? That’s what I’m hearing from that answer. Yes, I also understand that protected areas are important for our health and well-being. Not only that, it’s the law, as the minister mentioned earlier. It’s the law that 20 per cent need to be protected by 2030.

The department’s business plan notes that they will be initiating planning toward the new 20 per cent protection goal. Initiating planning - that’s very vague wording. Once the 14 per cent of the 2013 plan would be completed, does the minister have a goal for beginning the actual protecting of the rest of the 6 per cent?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: We have about 160 sites to complete. We’re focused on that with respect to the 2013 plan. Then, from there, we’re going to obviously have to pivot very quickly to complete our work within 2023 for the EGCCRA strategy to move toward 20 per cent of protection of land and water.

I also want to highlight for the member that the Province is working with the Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw on the IPCA - the Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas. Any new IPCA sites posed for Crown Lands will undergo public and stakeholder consultations. There’s a lot of work taking place on this file within our Sustainability and Applied Science Division.

[5:00 p.m.]

SUSAN LEBLANC: I’m glad to hear those Indigenous protected areas are continuing to be worked on. I recognize that not all new areas will require purchase of land, but as the minister stated earlier, there are a few that the Province doesn’t own right now. Has there been an analysis done of how much it may cost in land purchase to reach 20 per cent, the 20 per cent goal?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: That strategy to be devised by 2023 is going to guide us to where the land is, that we’ll designate to get to that 20 per cent. That strategy, of course, is going to outline the investments that will be required. I also want to highlight the $16 million that we’re utilizing from the federal Canada Target 1 Challenge fund for land conservation. From your questions and the answers I’m giving, you can tell there’s a lot going on when it comes to land conservation.

SUSAN LEBLANC: That was one of my next questions - the $16 million. Is there money in the capital plan for purchasing land for protection in this fiscal year, or are we expecting all of the money to be coming from federal funding? You’ve mentioned $16 million of federal money - I’m wondering how much land that will buy. From the 2013 plan, there are areas that we need - if we’re going to protect them, we need to purchase them. I’m wondering, with that $16 million, how far are we getting into the plan?

The minister is the head of the Treasury and Policy Board - I know he’s interested in fiscal management, so he must be thinking about the future and how much thing are going to cost. What will $16 million get us, and is that this year? How are we looking at the budget in the future?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: We have $3.7 million left over from the federal Target 1 Challenge Fund within the operating budget. This fiscal, we used $1 million to purchase 400 hectares.

I also want to sort of caveat that with saying that a lot of the funds get directed to land trusts to facilitate that. Then with respect to the capital plan, if you look at the capital plan, Natural Resources and Renewables has land that they use for the purpose of protecting, so that’s outlined in the capital plan.

Again, I just want to highlight that this is a very important discussion that we’re having, and I want to thank the member for the question. It highlights the work that is going on now, that will really get going once we complete that 2013 plan, and then we get to working on building in a very formal way that strategy for land protection to get to that 2030 goal. We have to have that going by 2023, so a lot of work going on.

SUSAN LEBLANC: One of the mandate items for the department was, “Update the environmental impact assessment process to consider the cumulative impacts of any development that would potentially affect wetlands, rivers, lakes, or other aquatic environments.” The words “cumulative impacts” also appear in this year’s business plan, in the plan to modernize the environmental assessment process.

Can the minister talk about why we need to update our EA process to consider those impacts, and what progress has been made thus far in his mandate?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question on updating our environmental assessments. These environmental assessments that we currently use were created in 1995, and the last update was about 10 years ago. We know how important this is, and I want to assure the member that some initial work has begun on this. As a minister in charge of a regulatory department, I know how important these things are to Nova Scotians. They want our regulations modernized to reflect the times in which we’re in.

So initial work has begun, and some of that initial work has been related to jurisdictional scans, looking up what best practices are in other provinces. I want to assure the member that some initial work is ongoing, and the goal in EGCCRA is that this is to be completed by 2024.

SUSAN LEBLANC: So by 2024. I take it from that then that the updated process won’t be in place for the environmental assessments in the new special planning areas, i.e., the developments for housing that have just been approved, the nine special planning areas. Can the minister confirm that that is correct - that there will not be an updated EA process in time for those special planning areas?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As I’ve indicated, updating our environmental assessments is a goal in EGCCRA that we need to have completed by 2024. We do have a very strong regulatory regime here in Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotians expect strong regulations when it comes to the protection of our environment and mitigating the impacts to our environment. As a regulator, I’m very, very confident in those environmental assessments, but do acknowledge that we do need to look at analyzing and updating those, per the commitments in EGCCRA.

With respect to housing developments, they do not trigger an environmental assessment. As I’ve indicated, my role is to ensure all environmental processes are adhered to. For the member, just for their personal knowledge, development can happen in or near a wetland, but approval from the department is required. A developer cannot begin work until they have obtained all the required permits, and they have to meet their municipality’s requirements. If there’s impact to more than two hectares of wetland, then an environmental assessment is required. This is outlined in the Nova Scotia Wetland Conservation Policy. That outlines our approach to regulating wetlands. An environmental assessment is not triggered by a housing development.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Thanks to the minister for that clarification. As a side, lateral question here on this subject, last night in the minister’s opening comments, he referenced the beautiful lakes in our province. He and I have often proudly represented the City of Lakes together on various things. In fact, our ridings share a couple of lakes - Lake Micmac and - oh, that’s it, I think. Anyhow, I know that he is very concerned about the health of the Dartmouth lakes and urban lakes in his constituency, as I am in mine.

In the comments that the minister made last night, he referenced that people need to stop using fertilizers. We know that is a problem with the blue-green algae that’s becoming more and more common in Banook and Micmac. We also know that nutrient loading is happening because of development and the lack of enforcement - or the inability of the department and the EAs, the assessors, to keep up with the complaints.

My question about this is how many assessors does the department have that are looking at developments around urban lakes? We’ve heard from a number of people who call the department and the regulator and don’t get much of a reply in terms of what can be done. There have been big spills over the years, and that’s contributed to this issue quite a lot. I’m wondering how many assessors are on the ground in HRM working on this, and is there an increase in the budget for this type of environmental assessor to be doing this work?

Also, I guess, we’ve heard that there are issues with timelines, and, in some cases, the expertise of the enforcement officers. I’m wondering if the minister could just speak to that a little bit?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thanks to the member for this very important question. I know the member and I share a very strong passion for our lakes, not only in Dartmouth, but in the thousands of lakes we have throughout our beautiful province of Nova Scotia.

We do have a very strong and robust inspection compliance and enforcement when it comes to the health of our lakes. We have regional offices that are available throughout Nova Scotia, 24/7, if there are any issues related to our lakes. We have a great team of inspectors here in the central area at the Bedford office; 20 inspectors devoted to this. If the member ever has any concerns, reach out to that Bedford office.

The member talked about blue-green algae. We need to be aware of the potential presence of blue-green algae blooms, and we have to take the steps to protect ourselves. I’ve had quite a few briefings on blue-green algae in my time as minister. It moves around, it reforms, it reoccurs, and it makes testing challenging - testing is representative of a moment in a time and in one spot. It presents a lot of challenges.

The best protection against blue-green algae is to be informed. That’s why this year, the Department of Environment and Climate Change is going to be running an education campaign to create a greater awareness of the presence of blue-green algae and what to look for. We know that hot, dry periods followed by large rainfalls and subsequent runoff are the favourable conditions for blue-green algae, and we can expect to see blooms more frequently due to climate change. That’s going to be even in our pristine lakes.

[5:15 p.m.]

Environment and Climate Change is also committed through EGCCRA - the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. We’re committed to developing provincial water quality objective to guide activities that can affect water quality and factors in the occurrence of blue-green algae. In terms of the inspection side, we have a strong team of inspectors ready to serve, ready to go on site and work with communities. Speaking of community, certainly when it comes to the health and vitality of our lakes, it’s an all-hands-on-deck approach. Nova Scotia needs communities to take ownership of our lakes.

This Summer, you’re going to see an ad campaign from Environment and Climate Change to get information out to Nova Scotians about blue-green algae and how best to protect yourself from that.

SUSAN LEBLANC: I agree that community groups taking ownership of lakes is really important - I look to the Oathill Lake Conservation Society as a shining example of that type of work. But I will acknowledge that particular communities happen to have a number of biology experts living around the lake, as it happened, and they’ve done excellent work. It does give a sense of pride in the lake, but that’s not always possible for communities.

I hope the minister acknowledges that the buck has to stop somewhere, and there needs to be some responsibility taking for issues in our lakes. I know that in my community of Dartmouth North, people are endlessly frustrated with the batting back and forth of jurisdiction between the city, the Province, and the feds in fact about whose responsibility it is to help. In fact, there is a community group that would love to help around one of the lakes, and they’re hamstrung by the shooting back and forth of responsibilities. It’s a lot of work, and we’re going to have to keep working on it.

I’m going to change the subject now. It’s come to light that the Province has written off the largest fines for breaking environmental laws in Nova Scotian history. What confidence can people have in our environmental laws when companies like Aspotogan Developments Ltd., and Aspotogan Ridge Inc., can fill in a wetland for a golf course and then just walk away from the penalties? That’s my first question. Part B is, how many other fines have been written off this year?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: In those two cases, that was investigated. Fines were levied, and looking as a regulator, this has to happen. That process needs to unfold. On the inspection and compliance side, all the protocols were followed. I know Nova Scotians expect that companies operating here will be responsible environmental citizens, and that’s where our inspection compliance division comes in.

In this case, fines were levied for those environmental infractions, but the entities went bankrupt, and the amount was deemed uncollectable. I want to assure the member that we’re always looking at ways we can improve our environmental regulations, our laws, to ensure that we hold developers accountable.

SUSAN LEBLANC: It’s unfortunate that the companies went bankrupt and then the fines couldn’t be levied. The question, though, was: How are Nova Scotians supposed to have confidence in environmental laws? The minister himself has just referenced the EGCCRA law - which is law - several times in this session, and there’s a whole bunch of stuff that we need to do in order to save the planet, without mincing words about it. What happens if those goals aren’t kept? Where is the accountability?

I know we’re talking about private companies and we’re talking about the government, but it’s sort of the same question because ultimately it’s the environment that suffers. It’s good to see that the government would be improving environmental protections, but if there’s no real penalty for companies then we would be getting - hopefully we don’t already have - a reputation for being soft on environmental polluters.

In the introduction last night, the minister said that the Coastal Protection Act regulations won’t be finished until 2023. We were here a year ago warning that another building season was upon us with no regulations in place. I’m wondering if the minister is concerned that we are now into another building season with no regulations in place.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question on the Coastal Protection Act. A lot of work has gone into that. This is about getting it right, and a lot of work is going into those regulations. We have 13,000 kilometres of diverse and beautiful coastline, and we know that that coastline is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change from erosion and coastal flooding.

I want the member to know that the department is currently developing those regulations, and it’s going to help keep future development out of flood-prone and erosion-prone areas while helping to protect coastal ecosystems. As the member is probably aware, the department conducted public consultation in 2021 and we just recently released what we heard in reports about that. We also undertook consultation with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia under the Terms of Reference process, and I want the member to know that that process is still ongoing, and we plan to continue to work on those regulations.

We’ve indicated we want to have this ready to go by 2023, but there’s still a lot of work that’s taking place. We’re going to continue to work with the municipalities, the Association of Nova Scotia Land Surveyors, Engineers Nova Scotia, Geoscientists Nova Scotia, and the Mi’kmaq. As I indicated, the goal is to have this ready to go for implementation, for it to take effect in 2023.

[5:30 p.m.]

SUSAN LEBLANC: I’ll just finish this round with this question. The Climate Change Division has increased from 19 to 28.7 full-time positions, but the budget has gone from $2.1 million to $1.8 million. Can the minister explain those changes?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Certainly, to see that growth in staffing at the Climate Change Division, this is a priority to me as minister. I have a lot of priorities, but, obviously, ensuring the growth of that division is very important to me because climate change is - it is the challenge of our times. You’re seeing that sense of urgency reflected in my behaviours, and that’s why we’ve seen an increase in staffing because there’s so much work that needs to be done.

With respect to the funding, this comes from the Green Fund, and the Green Fund is not represented in the budget. This is a special purpose fund to mitigate and adapt to the realities of climate change, to help Nova Scotia move toward a sustainable, clean future. That’s why I took time this evening to talk about the actions we’ve taken: $44.9 million worth of actions through the Green Fund to help Nova Scotians adapt to the realities of climate change.

In terms of increasing staffing at that division, in terms of spending significant amounts of money, I believe we’re on the right path, and it’s an amazing group of professionals that I get to work with each and every day.

THE CHAIR: Order. The time has elapsed for the NDP caucus’s first hour.

The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

HON. IAIN RANKIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s great to be here in Estimates to ask some questions to the minister. I want to say thank you to the staff at the Department of Environment and Climate Change. I’ve been in that position before. I know they’re all working really hard at what I’ve always said is an underrated department. It’s one of the most important departments we have, and increasingly so as we move forward in the climate crisis and try to tackle some tough issues as a regulator and dealing with things as important as solid waste.

Just so the minister knows - and I’m sure he’s not surprised - my questions are around HRM’s landfill, which is hosted in my community of Timberlea-Prospect. Regarding the Otter Lake landfill, certainly over my entire tenure as an MLA, there’s always been pressure to try to find ways to reduce the environmental protections from HRM to save some money. Even before I’d been an MLA, I’d been involved in trying to ensure that people realized how important the commitments made to the community are - the moral commitment that is with HRM and the community, which has been enshrined in the permit for so long, and the environmental commitment.

Just some context. When I was in Cabinet, I introduced a bill called the Otter Lake Landfill Act that would enshrine one of those commitments: to keep the vertical and horizontal parameters around the site where it started the commitment of seven cells and not allow the extension of cell heights to go above the treeline. That was something I knew HRM was going for - to keep the landfill open longer, which would reduce costs. Every cell that’s built is millions of dollars. I knew that we had to put a line in the sand, given that a lot of the community expected it to be a 25-year landfill. That was what most people thought it would be. It was very hard to site a landfill, and I thought it was a practical place to say we’re just going to put it in law and take that off the table.

I would have put the other commitment in law, in legislation, which is the front-end processor/waste stabilization facility. I didn’t feel the need to put that in law because we had all parties in the Legislature commit, and it was the PC Party that actually put the resolution forward to be voted on to commit to keeping those safeguards. People can have different opinions on whether they value those systems or not, but the reality is that was put forward by that caucus at the time. There were other commitments about having extra cell liners to ensure that we keep leachate out, and stuff like that.

So you can imagine my surprise when the Province approved the operation of those facilities - in layman’s terms, the “sorting line” - the facility that dries out organics, that prevents it from becoming a second-generation landfill like you find in rural areas.

To start off, does the minister accept that Otter Lake is an urban-sited landfill, which is the only one in the province immediately adjacent to an urban zone - commercial, and residential development - and that the decision to site in an urban area would substantially reduce the yearly transportation costs?

This is relative to the budget since we are in Estimates. This significantly reduces cost to bring waste to a landfill as it relates to the different distances that you see trucking across the province, being brought to rural landfills, and that cost saving far outweighs the $2 million that HRM is trying to save by dismantling these environmental safeguards.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: First off, I want to thank the member for their service to Nova Scotia, not only as a minister in various portfolios, but certainly serving as Premier of Nova Scotia.

Under the new Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, we’re committed to growing the circular economy. Anyone that’s read EGCCRA knows that we’re moving to expand extended producer responsibility and we’re committed to supporting the green economy. The local administrator’s decision is in line with those goals, and as I indicated in the House a few weeks ago, that decision was based on science and best practices.

The performance targets were put into that decision, and those targets indicate that the equipment must continue to operate until HRM submits a compliance plan for how it will meet those targets, as well as household hazardous waste and special waste management plans. That has to be deemed acceptable to the department.

As I indicated, the community has the opportunity to appeal that decision. As a regulator, I will ensure a strong stewardship of that process, if the community so chooses to do so.

IAIN RANKIN: The challenge is when we hear words about the minister defending the administrator’s decision is - the next phase is for a potential appeal to that, minister, but already you’re defending that it’s part of some environmental climate change Act that you passed that reiterates a solid waste goal from the original EGSPA Act from 2007, as far as I can tell. The 300 kg is a goal, but you’re defending something that you’re saying staff made. The question community is asking me is: Is there any real reason to appeal if the minister has already made up his mind?

I want you to comment on that, genuinely - I think that’s something that a lot of people want to know. I also want to ask if the minister is aware that there’s normally a required environmental assessment when citing a landfill, and that there was never an environmental assessment conducted at this site.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: I want to express that as minister, I will keep an open mind. As a steward of the process, my job is to ensure the process is followed. As a regulator, I take those duties and responsibilities very seriously, and if the community so chooses to do that, I will most certainly keep an open mind.

Referencing EGCCRA and the circular economy goal was just to provide context, background information, and certainly, throughout many of my answers this evening to members, I’ve talked about the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. I want to assure community that as a steward of the process, if there’s any appeal that comes to the minister, I look at that with an open mind.

To the question related to environmental assessments, my staff has advised me that landfills do not trigger an environmental assessment.

IAIN RANKIN: My understanding is that, at least in the 1990s and before, that normally an environmental assessment would be required, and that it was exempted because of significant public consultation that occurred which led to a citizen stakeholder-led committee. Once that committee was put together, they decided upon community protections that are now being considered for removal, some of them under this application.

I expect more from HRM. I know colleagues in the room who used to sit on council, and they were in the room when there was a long list of cost-saving recommendations that were presented in terms of having the cell heights go above the tree line, having exported waste to rural communities, reducing the cell liner requirements and so on down the line.

[5:45 p.m.]

Since the minister assured good stewardship of any potential subsequent appeal, I want to ask if he’s ever seen an applicant - after being approved for an application - look at dismantling any community organization’s ability to operate in terms of seeking legal advice for funding positions within the community, and if he believes that that is a move that would be considered good faith given that communities do need access to legal opinions from time to time?

Has he ever seen - or since his department staff are there, in the midst of a potential appeal, has a community group, have they ever been restricted on their ability to seek legal advice?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: My focus is always on my role as regulator. I reiterate that this was a decision made by the local administrator and there is an appeal process. As I indicated to the member, if an appeal comes forward, I keep an open mind and be a strong steward of the process.

IAIN RANKIN: We do have a legal opinion. I think this is the fear of HRM because this is a very clear opinion, and I want the assurance from the minister that should an appeal come forward - this is from Patterson Law, which I tabled in the House and I’m not sure if you had the opportunity to read it. HRM’s overriding obligation under the agreement is to ensure that only acceptable waste as defined in the agreement is disposed of at the Otter Lake Landfill. This is the key part of it.

Maybe I could just ask this question first. Does the minister understand what acceptable waste is, before I go any further, as defined in the agreement? I’m sure staff would be able to inform him.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: I can’t speak to a contract that the Province isn’t a part of. As the regulator, it’s my job to ensure that the process is followed. Again, this was a decision of the local administrator. In my capacity as minister, as the regulator, I’ll continue to steward the process.

IAIN RANKIN: Just to help the minister out, it is when it’s inert materials, stable materials, and residual materials. That means everything must be either free of protrusible materials upon their arrival or must undergo bio-stabilization. That’s the legal agreement that I’ll table again, which I already have, but I want the minister to know that that is very clear. I know there are very capable lawyers in the department that I hope he’s seeking advice from.

Nobody’s saying we need to keep these machineries unless we have something that’s alternative. They’ve been there for a long time, so maybe there’s something better, but this is clearly a step back. I think that we owe to the community an explanation.

Just to provide some background, there was good faith on the community. There was a proposal put forth by the Halifax Waste Resource Society - the signatory to the agreement in 1999 - that was sent a year ago to Mayor Savage to collaborate. To seek less expensive ways as the present front-end processor and waste stabilization to achieve that acceptable waste - no recognizable raw, organic received at our lake going into the landfill without processing to become inert.

The position of the committee always has been not to dismantle those systems until we can find that a satisfactory achievement. That was the number one concern raised in the public survey, that no amount of reactive measures proposed by HRM would assuage the large percentage of residents within the defined effected communities.

I wonder if the minister has taken a look and considered that proposal that was put forward a year ago in good faith to the mayor, if that was provided, if he was able to review that?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As I previously indicated, as the member knows, if an application is made and that decision on the application was made by the local administrator, there is an appeal process. As I previously indicated, if community chooses to appeal, I will most certainly keep an open mind.

IAIN RANKIN: If there is an appeal, I hope that the minister will be well versed in Section 52.2 of the Environment Act that “When deciding, pursuant to subsection (1), whether a proposed activity should proceed, the Minister shall take into consideration such matters . . . whether adverse effects from the proposed activity are unacceptable.” In this case, I would submit that those adverse activities could be odour, could be more vermin, could be more litter. These were pointed out by Department of Environment and Climate Change staff before.

In the regulations under the Approval and Notification Procedure, which is the other component too very important in any approval process, it says: “Unless specified otherwise on the application form for the class of approval sought or by the Minister under subsection (2), an application must be accompanied by all of the following information . . .” That includes, “a description of any public consultation undertaken or proposed by the applicant.”

The minister has to take into account any required public consultation. I want to get an acknowledgement from the minister that he will abide by this very important statutory obligation that he has.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As I previously indicated, if it’s known that an application was made, process was followed, the local administrator made this decision - there is, as the member knows, an appeal process if a community so chooses to use that appeal process.

IAIN RANKIN: I want to make sure that the minister is aware of these obligations, given some scrutiny that is documented in the public consultation and who conducted it. Dillon Consulting conducted this public survey, the very company that recommended these changes, and that was scrutinized by Mr. Don Mills’ report. Has the minister reviewed this public survey as part of the application?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As I previously indicated, as we all know, an application was made. That application followed due process. The decision was made by the local administrator. The next phase of the process is an appeal if the community so chooses to do that.

IAIN RANKIN: Has the minister reviewed the Don Mills review sent to his department on February 4^th, where he called the survey convenient and self-serving? This is a person that I’m sure the member knows has had more than 40 years of experience in public opinion research. He’s also noted the problem of not having an arms-length, third party, professional independent conducting the public consultation process. He has a number of concerns here that I could list.

The study found, despite all that, an extremely high overall level of concern in relation to the proposed deactivation of the FEP/WSF, such as 97 per cent of respondents living within five kilometres of the facility expressed reservations about it.

Does the minister share the concern that a consulting company that was involved in recommending these changes was also the company that did the survey? Does he share those concerns that a qualified expert reviewed in this case?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As I’ve stated, an application was made. That decision on that application was made by the local administrator. There is an appeal process, and if the community so chooses to make an appeal, as I previously indicated, as minister I will keep an open mind.

IAIN RANKIN: I hope, if nothing else, that I’m providing some real documentation on what his obligations are in the Act and what experts have pointed out, even though I get the same answer on every question. Clearly, it’s very problematic to have Dillon Consulting, the same company that prepared the closure review report, be the company seeking feedback on this report and then interpreting the results of that feedback.

I perceive a conflict of interest. It harms credibility of the public consultation report they have been preparing. I can go on and on and on. Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of a notable person whom I’ve already referenced in the letter from February 4^th that the minister was copied on, which I’ll table. I would hope that that’s considered in any review of this application on the second round.

[6:00 p.m.]

I think I’m going to continue to get the same answers, but I’ll try to ask some general questions around solid waste that would be helpful. What does the minister believe the black bag contents consist of that end up in Otter Lake and are no longer going to be sorted at the sorting line? Does he believe that there is source separation, or does he have any audit information of what’s in the black bag?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As I have indicated and previously stated, as a regulator my role is to ensure strong stewardship of the process. This was a decision of the local administrator. There is an appeal process and, as I’ve previously indicated, if an appeal comes to the department, I will keep an open mind.

IAIN RANKIN: I think the minister knows that there’s a lot of mixed waste going into those black bags - certainly not the same as what’s in the clear bags. We all know advancement has been made with source separation in the province, but clearly organics are going into that black bag, and I think the member knows that. Maybe he has audit information on what’s going into the institutional, commercial, and industrial waste stream which is now going to other landfills in the province. I think that’s a concern.

Part of the reason why there is less mixed waste going into Otter Lake is because of the export decision. I’ll get to why people are very worried about that, but as a baseline I’d like to know from the department - I think they have an idea - how much mixed waste is being exported out. What can the minister tell me about what’s known as ICI - what is in that waste stream?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: That’s not information I have at my fingertips, but I certainly want to reiterate that the decision that was made was made by the local administrator, process was followed. As a steward of the process, I’ll continue strong stewardship of the process, and the next phase of the process is an appeal if the community so chooses.

IAIN RANKIN: I hope the minister can table the information in the House whenever he’s able to get that for me. It’s very important because I think what most people in the community are concerned about is the extent that we’ve made some achievements with residential waste with clear bags, and going further back with green bins. That’s the case that has been made of why we no longer need a sorting line and why we don’t need to treat organics. I don’t accept that because there still is the black bag. I think it’s a better argument if you had all clear bags and everything was source separating.

Having said that, I think everyone knows that apartment buildings with large bins, and institutions like hospitals and schools aren’t seeing that same level of source separation, and that has been exported out to rural landfills. The next stage in this if you look at history and the cost savings being the only objective of HRM Council - certainly not the environment - they will look to bring that waste back because it costs money to export out.

Now that they’ve gotten something that they weren’t able to achieve in eight years of Liberal government - no sorting line - they will start to look at more cost savings. They’re not going to be able to go higher with the cell heights because of my bill. They’re not going to be able to build more than seven cells because of my bill, otherwise they’d want to keep that landfill there forever when we should be looking at the circular economy, as the minister has said in the House before.

The other part, which was a recommendation, was looking at how they can bring back all of that mixed waste. I want a commitment from the minister that he won’t allow ICI waste to come back, all that mixed waste. That’s the real concern, that he will not allow that egregious tearing up of an agreement with the community to take away a sorting line and say, now we’re going to allow all this commercial waste that is nowhere near source separated. I would really implore the minister to give some confidence to the community that they will not allow unsorted waste to come back to the Otter Lake landfill.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the questions. That question is a good question for HRM. Certainly, in point of fact, any terms and conditions issued by our department, we expect entities to comply with those terms and conditions.

Point of fact: those conditions include the requirement to maintain the FEP/WSF in operational condition following the activation. Another condition includes developing a plan with timelines to meet our performance target for banned compostable waste and conduct routine audits to demonstrate compliance - the FEP/WSF cannot be shut down until a plan has been received and accepted by the departments. Also, prepare and implement a plan to reduce the amount of household hazardous and special waste being landfilled, and develop a procedure to remove large household appliances and other bulky materials that can be recycled from the waste stream.

As I previously indicated, again this was a decision of the local administrator. There is another phase to the process if community so chooses. That next phase is an appeal if the community chooses.

IAIN RANKIN: I’m going to accept the minister’s answers and hopefully he’ll read through some of what I’ve tabled today. I think it’s pertinent to any potential review.

I’ll pass my time to my colleague for the remainder, but it’s a very important subject that I hope that he knows is important to the communities of Beechville, Lakeside, Timberlea, and Prospect which have hosted this landfill almost the amount of time that they thought they were. They just don’t want to go back in time.

[6:15 p.m.]

I implore the minister to take his fiduciary role very seriously in this matter. I think that it’s important to consider public feedback in any environmental application, especially when you have such an overwhelming majority concerned about it.

Of course, what we’ve raised in the House around environmental racism and the fact that a Black community is within five kilometres of this site is no accident. I think the member knows that, where you see 30 per cent of African Nova Scotians living near landfills. That’s documented, and both Dalhousie’s studies and the Human Rights Commission studies have said that we should no longer be siting landfills near Black communities.

That was in 1992. Of course, a few years later, the landfill was sited in Beechville-Lakeside-Timberlea when it wasn’t even on the short list for HRM to decide where the landfill was going to go. There were many other sites that were supposed to be put forward first that had stronger political connections and potentially financial considerations, I would say, before it was sited there.

All the community wants is to not go backwards. So I hope the minister can keep that in mind. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you to the member. The time is now 6:18 p.m.

The honourable member for Annapolis.

CARMAN KERR: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the minister for being here tonight to answer my questions. The first one is on behalf of my colleague and friend for Northside-Westmount. He would like to know if the minister is willing to raise the threshold for rebates on e-bikes from 500-watt bikes to 750-watt bikes.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: From time to time, Mr. Chair, people confuse my colleague from the Department of Natural Resources and Renewables and me. I have a better haircut than that minister, in my estimation.

The question that’s been asked is a really important question, but that’s a question that’s within the scope and domain of the Department of Natural Resources and Renewables.

CARMAN KERR: Thank you to the minister. I’ll ask the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables that tomorrow when I’m up for Estimates.

I guess continuing in a similar theme with my colleague, there’s a site in Annapolis County called the Arlington Heights C&D site - it’s a private dump. Dozens and dozens of constituents have reached out to me concerning the site over the last seven months.

My first question would be: Is the minister aware of this site and is this particular site approved to accept asbestos, as far as he knows?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: I’m certainly familiar with Arlington Heights. I’ve received briefings on this. I know community groups in your area have expressed concerns relating to this facility. Overall, we know that Nova Scotians are concerned about contamination in the environment. They’re concerned about potential impacts to drinking water and to air.

Since becoming minister, I want to assure the member that I’ve been briefed on this file, and I’ve been briefed on the violations that had happened in 2020. I want to be clear: That is concerning and that’s unacceptable. As a regulator, I expect all companies to follow our environmental laws.

I’ve asked my staff to work with the facility to ensure that they’re following our environmental laws. To reiterate, the property owners are responsible for ensuring that these sites are managed in a way that protects human health and the environment and ensures that there’s no further damage.

The recent update I received is that the new owners are co-operating with our regional office and all complaints to date have been followed up and actioned as required by the Department of Environment and Climate Change. I want the member to know please, at any time, members of your community can reach out to our regional office with any concerns.

CARMAN KERR: I want to thank the minister for that. It’s nice to know he’s aware, he’s been briefed and he’s aware of certain infractions.

Auto shredder residue or ASR - some classify it as toxic waste, others as hazardous material. Apparently, a large amount of ASR has for years been brought from sites in HRM to this facility in our backyard.

Could the minister confirm that this practice has been ongoing? Is it still ongoing? Is he aware of the amount of ASR at the site? I guess that was three-in-one, wasn’t it?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I want the member for Annapolis to know that an inspector from our Kentville office will be reaching out to his constituency office, to him tomorrow, to discuss this further.

CARMAN KERR: I appreciate that. I’m looking forward to that conversation. I won’t be there. I’ll be here but we can arrange to chat about it more. It goes back to concerns from the community and dozens of people reaching out to me.

Does the department monitor water quality surrounding a private dump or a C&D site, especially with brooks and streams sourced by the Arlington wetlands in that area? I’m just wondering if the department enforces that water quality or monitors that water quality.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: As per the approval, water quality is monitored at that site, meaning inspectors can show up at any time and request to inspect the groundwater. I think we’re going to add this to the list of things that that inspector will discuss with you or your constituent assistant when we make that call to you to discuss this issue further. I want to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

CARMAN KERR: I want to thank the minister for that. Looking forward to that conversation with whoever reaches out tomorrow.

I guess to add to the list, the same kind of questioning around soil monitoring around the site. Again, constituents are concerned about their water sources, soil on their property, and so on and so forth, so just looking for some answers around enforcement of soil content and that sort of thing.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Just to reiterate - any time, the MLA for Annapolis can reach out to the Kentville office at any time. Certainly I think that conversation that the inspector will be having with either you or someone from your constituency office, I’m going to add soil to the list.

Again thank you for raising these issues and I have a feeling that that phone call may turn into a meeting with that inspector. I’m aware of how busy the member is with the duties assigned to us through the Legislature, but most certainly will ensure that an inspector reaches out to your office tomorrow to engage in discussions.

CARMAN KERR: I won’t thank the minister, it will take too much time, but I have a last question.

Arlington experienced a major fire in 2018, and contamination exceeded Canadian guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Could my community receive information collected through this investigation? As of now we have no information. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Order. The member’s time has elapsed. I’m going to pass it on to the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m delighted to be back for a second hour of questions.

[6:30 p.m.]

I want to ask about the Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund. It’s being funded through the Green Fund for $15 million over three years. An RFP for administering the program was put out in January 2022. I’m wondering why that fund is not being administered within the department, number one, and can the minister give us an update on the RFP process and where it is right now?

TIM HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question regarding the Sustainable Community Challenge Fund. Before I answer that, I just want to answer the question very quickly for the MLA for Annapolis: Add that topic on aquatic life to the list of things that MLA will discuss with the inspector when they call tomorrow.

Now to the Sustainable Communities Challenge Fund, I’d like the member for Dartmouth North to know that we are in the final stages of that RFP and we’ll be making an announcement soon.

With respect to an external group, external groups are being analyzed because we know that they are best responsive to what is happening within communities. We need that to be nimble, we need it to be responsive to what’s happening in our communities in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Chair, I’m wondering if I could get five minutes to use the bathroom and then we can reconvene in five minutes. I’ve been drinking quite a bit of water here.

THE CHAIR: We’ll take a five-minute break, and we’ll reconvene at 6:42 p.m.

[The committee recessed at 6:37 p.m.]

[The committee reconvened at 6:42 p.m.]

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC: We know that the design of the cap-and-trade program is being revised right now and all options for meeting our obligations for carbon pricing are being considered. We heard from Mr. Hollett about that at a committee meeting some weeks ago - I can’t remember at what committee at this point.

Last night the minister said in his remarks that when a decision is made, it will be announced. I think the people would like to know more about what is at stake and what’s driving the analysis of the department right now. I’m wondering if the minister could briefly talk about what’s going into the thinking around the cap-and-trade program and where we’re at with it right now.

[6:45 p.m.]

TIMOTHY HALMAN: thank you to the member for this very important question on carbon pricing. There’s a lot of work that’s ongoing with respect to that. For now it’s business as usual; there are no changes at this time and we continue to have a cap-and- trade program. Certainly the government acknowledges carbon pricing and this is an effective tool to reduce emissions. It’s going to help us respond effectively to the climate crisis.

As I previously indicated in the Legislature, and in my opening remarks last night, the government is looking at options on the best approach for Nova Scotians that will meet the new federal requirements. I’d like the honourable member to know that we’re still conducting analyses that will inform a decision. No decision has been made and we will communicate a path forward to Nova Scotians as soon as that decision is made.

As I indicated, this is because of the new federal government requirements where provinces and territories - I am sure the member knows that there are new rules, too, to price carbon pollution. Certainly, once a decision is made, we will be communicating that to Nova Scotians.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Any sort of estimate on that timeline?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: This is such an important piece of public policy. I want to assure the member that we are taking the time to get this right. The new federal rules won’t be in place until 2023 so we do have time. We are doing our due diligence, taking our time to ensure that we have a system that works in Nova Scotia.

It’s too premature at this time to give a definitive date but, as I indicated, the new rules will be in place in 2023.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Taking the time to get it right, just like old Alexander Keith, so I guess it’s a fine tradition in Nova Scotia.

I wanted to ask the minister about the mandate letter. In the mandate letter, it called for the creation of a new funding navigator within the department to help support businesses and individuals seeking to apply for federal funding programs. I’m wondering if the minister could point to where that new position is reflected in the budget.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question. To be honest, I didn’t even think I was quoting Alexander Keith, so thanks for the reminder.

We’re seven or eight months into our mandate. There’s ongoing work with that funding navigator. We still have many years of work ahead of us. Certainly, if you look at the mandates in that letter, I’m committed to advancing and working on all of them. That’s why so many of those mandates were placed into the EGCCRA.

With respect to navigators, I certainly acknowledge the important role that they play. I certainly think of an organization that I know the MLA for Dartmouth North is familiar with, the Clean Foundation. If you think of the work that they do with EVAssist, EnergyAssist, and SolarAssist. I certainly see how important the role of navigator is with these things. There is ongoing work taking place with that funding navigator.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Got it, thank you. During the election, blue ribbon panels of subject experts were promised as a solution for divisive environmental assessment issues where industry is pitted against the environment.

I’m wondering if the minister can expand on the notion of blue ribbon panels. In fact, it would be really helpful if the minister could give a couple, or even one, real-life example of where a blue ribbon panel could be used in Nova Scotia?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thanks to the member for the question on blue ribbon panels - it’s a very important question. As the member knows, the government committed to reviewing and modernizing the EA regulations by 2024. This is a goal that, no doubt the member is aware, is placed into EGCCRA.

The environmental assessment process allows for sustainable development while ensuring the environment in surrounding communities is protected. Updating that process will strengthen its ability to support the greening of traditional industries and emphasize the connection between the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the province. That review is going to consider many things. It’s going to include cumulative impacts, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change. Planning is under way on that.

When we talk about blue ribbon panels, we’re talking about modernizing the process that aligns with the vision of the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

SUSAN LEBLANC: My next question was going to be why this part of your mandate - the blue-ribbon panel - isn’t in the business plan. It sounds like that answer answered that question, too, so I’ll move on.

Nova Scotia has not had a new climate plan since 2009. The Climate Change Plan for Clean Growth is long overdue. It’s good that it will soon be released. Everyone is very excited about it. I’m wondering if the minister can give us a date for the release of the climate change plan.

[7:00 p.m.]

TIMOTHY HALMAN: I want to thank the member for the question on the climate plan. As you know, this is one of the goals for 2022 in EGCCRA to release the climate change plan. I can tell you that the actions in this plan are going to help articulate how we’re going to create the jobs of the future, how we’ll create more energy efficient homes, how we’re going to reach our 2030 targets, and give the direction on how we’re going to get to that pathway to 2050.

It’s going to outline the steps we’ll take to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It’s going to talk about equity in terms of the just transition and how we’re ensuring to mitigate climate change for vulnerable marginalized communities and, obviously, how we’re going to meet our goals in EGCCRA.

There’s a lot of ongoing work taking place on that. I’ve certainly had the opportunity over the past number of weeks to meet with my ministerial colleagues - whether it be the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - to discuss the climate plan and the contents of the climate plan. A lot of work is going into this.

The actions in this plan are just the beginning of the work I know we all have to do together. In terms of when this will be released, it’s our intention to release this later this Spring.

As I indicated in my opening remarks last night, Step 1 with this is getting the climate risk assessment released to Nova Scotians. Certainly, this is in line with one of the goals for 2022 in EGCCRA, and fulfilling the recommendations of the Auditor General. The last time we had a climate risk assessment was 2005, I believe. Then as the member for Dartmouth North indicated, we haven’t had a climate change plan since 2009.

I recognize that there are a lot of Nova Scotians who are awaiting this, rightly so. This is extremely important work that’s being undertaken. I know that the member knows that. I know staff here and staff throughout government departments are working on this.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Well, thanks to the minister for that. Yes, Nova Scotians are anxious. We hear continually that climate change is the greatest existential threat that we face. We hear continually that the time is now. We know that if we don’t move quickly then it will be too late. It almost already is too late in many respects.

There are unchangeable impacts now from climate change, as we all know. The sooner the better, obviously. I’m glad to hear that the climate change plan will do all of those things. I fully expected it to, and I’m really hoping for a robust plan that will actually show us how to reach those targets that are legislated now.

It could be a big Spring for Nova Scotians, folks. We’re going to have the climate change plan. We’re going to have the plan to fix health care. There are going to be so many plans, I don’t know what we’re going to do with ourselves.

It was our caucus’ impression that the previous government, the Liberals, had done a lot of work on this plan prior to the election, and were waiting for the results of the public consultations which were done over the summer.

I guess I’m curious to know - and I bet it’s something to do with taking the time to get it right, but I’ll let the minister answer my question. Why has there been an additional eight months required to finish the plan?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s a fair question. Certainly upon being appointed to this position the top-line item in my mandate letter was to bring in new environmental and climate change legislation. At that time, I directed staff to concentrate on that, utilizing the robust consultations that were done in the Summer through Clean Foundation.

That went into heavily informing the building of the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act because I really felt, when EGSPA was replaced by the SDGA, that legislation is far more powerful than regulation. There’s a symbolism to it, not only symbolism; it’s the law. These are legislative targets and legislation is very, very powerful. Out of EGCCRA will come the climate change plan which will provide the detailed actions we’ll take.

Putting that climate plan into EGCCRA was a top priority to me because for Nova Scotians - as the member for Dartmouth North pointed out - there’s a real sense of urgency here. It’s not lost on me just in terms of the folks that I represent in Dartmouth East, certainly my circle of friends, and certainly my children.

It’s the most common discussion we often have when we’re discussing public policy at the supper table - climate change and what steps jurisdictions are going to be taking throughout North America, countries in the world, what steps they are taking. I’ve got a bunch of policy wonks at my dinner table every night, which is fantastic.

This is certainly the issue to the next generation, and I know the member for Dartmouth North knows that. We’ve shifted our focus to get EGCCRA in place. That was a lot of work - 28 goals legislated that provide the pathway. Now it is to get the concrete steps that we’ll be taking and that will be articulated in the climate plan.

Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank staff for the work they’re doing on that climate plan. It’s extremely important work and we know that Nova Scotians want to know what concrete steps we’ll be taking. We’ll be releasing that later this Spring.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Last night, in the minister’s introduction, he spoke a bit about the opportunities in the transition to clean energy. He spoke about a Clean Foundation initiative to train Black, Indigenous, and people of colour, in energy efficient trades. This is great to hear.

I’m wondering, has the department done an analysis of its overall spending in relation to equity diversity and inclusion?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: With respect to the $4.9 million that was spent this fiscal in the Green Fund, certainly as the member knows, as everyone knows, I took some time to articulate those investments and actions that our government is taking on climate change. One-third of those investments is devoted to equity initiatives, specifically the $2 million on affordable housing retrofits, investments in affordable multi-families, Housing Nova Scotia, low-income apartments, these are significant investments following the principles of equity.

The principle of equity is built into the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. As we continue to build the climate plan as outlined, equity is a fundamental guiding principle of that. In terms of when we go to allocate spending from the Green Fund, as I indicated, only one-third in this fiscal was devoted to principles of equity.

SUSAN LEBLANC: I didn’t ask about the Green Fund, in fact. I asked about the Clean Foundation Initiative, but maybe that’s funded through the Green Fund. Anyway, no biggie.

I guess my question is really whether there’s an analysis done of legislation and of budgets in relation to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Yes, I will give the minister that doing energy efficiency and affordable housing is a matter of equity, absolutely, energy poverty and whatnot, I could talk about that a lot longer - I wish I had more time.

Anyhow, I also want to know in relation to cultural diversity and inclusion. Further, the RBC report, Powering Up: Preparing Canada’s skilled trades for a post-pandemic economy, says that women make up just 11 per cent of new registrants for apprenticeship programs in Canada, and continue to represent less than 4 per cent of the workers in most in-demand trades.

I’m wondering if there is any thought - especially given the excellent tax breaks for skilled trades workers under 30, not really applying to very many women, let’s face it. It’s a great program, but let’s see either an investment in getting women in those skilled trades so they can benefit from that tax break or offering it to women-centred trades as well. Anyway, that’s a whole other situation.

I’m wondering if the department has specific programming that it is funding for increasing women’s participation in the skilled trades?

[7:15 p.m.]

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Equity in the workforce is such an important topic. Certainly, it’s something I’ve chatted about with my daughters. I do understand how important this topic is. In terms of specific answers, that would be best directed to Labour, Skills and Immigration.

I also want to take a moment - the principles of equity and the application of equity, we see this throughout the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. Certainly, as a minister, I see the principles of equity embedded in all government departments.

Specifically, within our department this year - the lead will be the Office of Equity and Anti-Racism Initiatives - we’re going to be working with them to put together the Panel on Environmental Racism which we have to have together by this year. Of course, the principle of equity is also a part of the environmental assessment review that we need to conduct by 2024.

It’s certainly a principle that is being put into action. I certainly do acknowledge that there’s still a lot of work ahead, absolutely, but I want to ensure the member that that very important principle is being put into practice within this government, within the legislation, and within our initiatives. It is a lens by which we have to use as a unit of analysis as we make our decisions on very important matters of public policy.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

SUZY HANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was pleased last Fall that the amendment regarding the Panel on Environmental Racism passed, and I’m grateful for that, and that it is now part of EGCCRA.

Last night, the minister mentioned in his introduction that as first steps he would be looking at what’s been done in other jurisdictions. I would really, really like to encourage the minister to talk to people here in Nova Scotia. We have a long history of activism and resistance in the face of environmental racism from Shelburne to here in Halifax.

With that being said, my question to the minister is: Can the minister provide an update on the work thus far and which departments and offices, as you just mentioned the Office of Equity and Anti-Racism Initiatives was one of those offices, but which departments and offices are involved in this particular work on environmental racism?
 

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for Halifax Needham. This is a very, very important question; thank you for raising it.

Absolutely, community voices are critical. I want to assure the honourable member that those conversations will be taking place. Often jurisdictional scans, as the member probably knows, are common practice in the development of public policy.

That being said, the unique experience of African Nova Scotians here in Nova Scotia and the history of environmental racism in this province - those conversations need to take place. As minister in this government, I will most certainly be reminding my colleagues in the civil service to ensure that that outreach is taking place, absolutely.

With respect in terms of all of the moving parts within government, I guess - African Nova Scotian Affairs, Office of Equity and Anti-Racism Initiatives, Environment and Climate Change, L’nu Affairs - I know there have been discussions at the deputy levels about this, so there is ongoing work. I’d like the member to know that what you indicated in terms of how important it is to outreach with community, that is a key takeaway from Budget Estimates here. I’d like to thank you for reminding me of that.

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last question of the night, maybe - who knows? Maybe I shouldn’t say that.

A couple of nights ago, the Minister of Economic Development in Estimates mentioned a just transition. Last night, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change spoke about the IPCC report and the urgency required to address our rapidly changing climate. We’ve talked a lot about that tonight, but it leaves me confused because every time we ask about ending all new bids for offshore oil and gas the government deflects the question.

I’m wondering, from the minister, what is stopping the department, the minister, the government, from closing that chapter and stopping all new bids for offshore oil and gas?

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question. That’s a question for Natural Resources and Renewables.

With respect to what we’ve done in the last seven or eight months through the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act, you see our commitment to net zero by 2050; you see the strongest greenhouse gas reductions target in Canada; 20 per cent of land and water to be preserved by 2030; and of course we see our commitment to renewables, 80 per cent renewables by 2030 - lots of objectives to be met over the next number of years.

I would reiterate that the question that has been posed is appropriate for Natural Resources and Renewables.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Listen, in as far as oil and gas are in the ground, natural resources as it were, I guess that is true. However, the minister is the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and we cannot attack climate change or address climate change if we continue to invest in fossil fuel exploration.

It seems to me that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change needs to be the leader in this. The Province is looking to him to set us on a path where we can actually meet those very robust targets. That is why I asked the question. We will ask the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables if we get there, I suppose.

I would like to ask what I think is actually my last question. Earlier we were talking about protected land, and the minister mentioned spending a million dollars on 400 hectares of land. In order to protect 6 per cent of the province, which is what we need to get to in order to accomplish our goal of 20 per cent protected land, that would come out to about 33,000 hectares of land. If you take the million dollars per 400 - algebra was a strong point of mine in high school, but I will admit that I did not do this calculation myself - for 33,000 hectares, it comes out to $82.5 million.

Listen, we’ve got to spend money where we’ve got to spend money. I acknowledge that not all of that land is land that we need to purchase, but even if we said that perhaps 25 per cent of it was land that we had to purchase, we need to do that. I’m wondering when we’re going to see any amount of money in the budget, or how we’re going to see the money in the next couple of years in the budget, to make sure that we are able to protect that land.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Thank you to the member for the question on land protection - a very important topic.

With respect to the Target 1 Challenge Fund, a big portion of that fund that’s been utilized is going to be able to secure 6,000 hectares of land. Certainly, as we move forward into 2023, as we develop that strategy to move towards 20 per cent, that’s going to guide us. We know that the portfolio of land protection is going to require a lot of different aspects, whether it’s the IPCAs, private land, Crown land, and so forth.

Also I want to assure the member that there are discussions taking place with the federal government. We know, and no doubt the member knows, that they have a great interest in land protection, so there are ongoing discussions with the feds in terms of how they can support our province in achieving that 20 per cent goal.

I have to say that I’ve met with the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, on three occasions and had very good conversations with the minister. Certainly having that strong relationship with Ottawa is critical in achieving these goals, as I’ve often highlighted here . . .

[7:30 p.m.]

THE CHAIR: Order, please. I invite the minister to offer closing remarks.

TIMOTHY HALMAN: Mr. Chair, just a few closing remarks. First of all, I am extremely proud of the professionalism and hard work of the 323 colleagues that I have at the Department of Environment and Climate Change. What a talented and amazing group of professionals. I want to thank them for all the support they provided me this evening.

Unbelievable work is taking place at this department, unbelievable work on climate change and sustainable development policies throughout 12 government departments. I want to thank all those in our civil service who are devoted to advancing these very important policies as outlined in the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

I am optimistic for the future, because I believe we’ve set a very strong foundation, and moving into this year we will start to get into specifics of how we will achieve that cleaner and greener Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia of our dreams. The Nova Scotia that our children and grandchildren will inherit.

I know the burden of responsibility is not lost on us as policy makers, as those who work in government. We have responsibility to ensure that the next generation has it better.

THE CHAIR: Shall Resolution E7 stand?

The resolution stands.

That concludes the subcommittee’s consideration of Estimates for today. The subcommittee will resume consideration when the House again resolves into Committee of the Whole on Subsupply.

Please return to your seats in the Legislative Chamber. The Committee of the Whole on Subsupply must rise and report before the House concludes its business for the day. They will be concluding next door around 8:02 p.m.

I adjourn the Subcommittee on Supply. Thank you everyone.

[The subcommittee rose at 7:33 p.m.]