HALIFAX, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2002
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call the meeting to order. Welcome everyone on this cool morning. With us today from the Department of Natural Resources are our guests: Ms. Nancy McInnis-Leek, who is not a stranger to this committee room, is the Director of the Forestry Division, Natural Resources; along with her is Mr. Jorg Beyeler, Manager of Forest Management Planning, Department of Natural Resources, out of Truro.
What we have discussed earlier is that we will commence with a presentation from Jorg and he is going to break it up, with your permission, into two sections because they are two distinct sections, one being the strategy and the other being the wood supply forecast. So he will start his presentation on the strategy at which time we will deal with any questions we have regarding that at that time and then move on to the wood supply forecast.
Before we move into that phase of our meeting, we will start out by introducing our committee and we will start with Mrs. Baillie.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: With us also at the table is Mora Stevens who is the clerk for the committee. So having dispensed with the introductions, I think we will move right along and I will ask you to commence your presentation please.
1
MR. JORG BEYELER: Good morning everyone. As Mr. Chairman has already introduced us, it is our pleasure to come before you to talk about some forestry aspects for things that are going on in the Province of Nova Scotia, some of the initiatives that our department has been undertaking over the past number of years. As Mr. Chairman has said, I would like to do this in two sections. They are linked but they are kind of two separate focuses so it would probably work a little bit better if we handle the questions after each one of these presentations.
The first one, as the screen suggests, is a topic dealing with sustainable forests and sustainable forestry. In your packages I was noticing you have a lot of information on the background of where this strategy came from. I just want to highlight a couple of things, just to go back a few years, why we got to this particular strategy.
If you will recall back in the early to mid-1990s, there was an issue of sustainability with respect to silviculture, particularly on private lands, due to the fact that the federal-provincial silviculture agreements were coming to an end. They had been very successful but there was an element of risk in where they were going to go. There were some processes that occurred back then that created some concern. At the same time, in the mid-1990s, the demand for wood, particularly from the small private sector, really started to increase. So those two key points, key factors, created a lot of discussion. The Coalition of Nova Scotia Forest Interests was established at that time to deal with those issues and we were trying to deal with them within the department.
So those two key factors really drove the need, I guess, for this particular strategy. Some aspects of it were that the wrapping up of the harvest, there was concern that we didn't have adequate information on harvest in the province. There was obviously a concern because of the increased harvest over wood supply and the levels of silviculture investment, particularly on private land. It wasn't so much of a concern on industrial and Crown, but it was on private. The harvest levels were increasing rapidly. At the same time, there was concern happening over the type of harvest that was predominant and still is in the province, and that is the clear-cut method, and concern that landowners needed to be more involved in it. So all those aspects happened to develop the need for the strategy and through a series of processes that the department took an initiative on that aspect.
At the same time, there are other national, perhaps international issues, that are going on that are really beyond the realm of just silviculture alone, things like biodiversity, protected areas, old forest policies, that type of thing, endangered species. All those aspects were also impacting aspects of forestry and forests in this province and, as this slide shows, aspects of wildlife management and ecological land classification.
I do apologize. I see you are kind of rifling through. I did take the liberty to switch things a little bit but that is only the first two or three slides. After that, everything should be in order. I apologize for that.
You will see at the top of that particular slide that the forest strategy is really just one element, one aspect of all of this. It is the aspect that our division is most involved in. It includes aspects of forest management and so on but it is really just one piece of the overall puzzle. So what does it include? The particular forest strategy includes a number of elements which lead to the concept of sustainable forest management. It includes partnerships with landowners, industry, environmental groups, whatever; it includes aspects of wildlife habitat management; a new concept of management by ecological land classification, moving in that particular direction as well, that's part of it; and of course the need for protected spaces.
Again, the three bottom blocks of this, the inventory, the research and the wood supply analysis, that will be the focus really of the second part of my presentation. I'll zero in on those types of things but just to explain that those are the key building blocks that generate the information that we use in terms of developing a strategy and working through these concerns to try to come up with a strategy for sustainability.
The key principles that are involved in this, again working towards sustainable forests in use, the co-operation principle, one aspect is that we have to focus on results. There are aspects of the strategy that you will see pointing in that direction. There are a number of different tools that are being used to move this strategy forward. We're trying to be - another principle - in a sense, more flexible and responsive. Of course, we always hope to be improving with experience and knowledge. A key one is that we're attempting to involve more stakeholders all the time.
[9:15 a.m.]
Here's what the strategy is hoping to create: a more variable and productive forest, we have the luxury, in a sense, of having quite a varied and productive forest in this province and we hope to improve on that; developing more sustainable forest management practices, and we have mechanisms in place to work on that; the co-operation aspect, we feel, as I go through this, that we're achieving that aspect; there's still a great need to maintain a strong forest sector, we make no bones about that, it's absolutely crucial to the economic viability of this province, that that strong forest sector is maintained; and an attempt to provide more information to the public and generate interest, and we have succeeded in that part as well.
The elements that I'm going to discuss very briefly and where we are with these elements are shown on this particular slide, the establishment of advisory groups. I guess if I can highlight here, the approaches that we're taking, the establishment of advisory groups is one part of the approach; the establishment of regulations is another approach. There are three sets of regulations which have occurred subsequent to amending the Forests Act in the year 2000. Monitoring enforcement is part of the regulations aspect. The education component is still there.
A key part of the puzzle or of the approach is the development of a Code of Forest Practice, which provides guidelines, technical information and so on. The information aspect is providing a State of the Forest Report on a regular basis. The last piece, and that one is still somewhat in the future, is generating harvest information by actual harvest site. Those are the elements of the strategy. There are various different approaches here that are being used.
So, where are we on this? Well, we have an advisory group established that is a non-government advisory group that has representation from the woodlot sector, the small industry sector, the large industry sector, the environmental sector, RDAs, the contractors, all types of stakeholders that have an interest in sustainable forestry. That has been established since 1999, and has been working with the department on aspects of the regulatory, the code of practice, development of processes and procedures. That has been a key aspect of the strategy and has been working very well from our perspective. Right now we're still dealing with some aspects of the regulations, particularly the Code of Forest Practice. They are now helping us design a structure for the State of the Forest Report.
The Registry of Buyers was established. I don't know if you're all familiar, but the department has been collecting wood-use information for a long period of time, literally since the 1920s. It was done on a voluntary basis. As of 1998, the Registry of Buyers, there is now a requirement by law, there's a set of regulations that requires buyers to register annually, and register in the sense that if they're a wood-using industry within the province, they have to register with the department to be allowed to buy wood within the province and to export wood outside of the province. That is now a regulatory requirement.
Along with that, they have to report, annually, their wood usage from the province and any wood that they export out of the province. That is a regulatory requirement. One key aspect of that is they have to report to us annually what wood they're using, where they get it from, by county, by tenure type, and it is the information that then generates the next set of regulations and that generates the amount of silviculture that they will have to do, and I will get into that in just a minute.
In your package is the 2001 report from the Registry of Buyers, which indicates the wood usage for the year 2001. It also has statistics in there on the silviculture programs and so on. That has been in place since 1998. I will give you some statistics in the second presentation, relative to that.
The Act and the regulations. The Forests Act was amended in 2000. The registration and statistical returns regulations were in place in 1998. They were enforced in 2000 with the Act. Actually, they're under review at the present time. The forest sustainability regulations also came into effect in the year 2000. As you are probably aware, the new wildlife habitat and watercourse protection regulations, which came into effect early this year, is the third set that has been enacted as part of this strategy.
Just a brief explanation of what the forest sustainability regulations are. The key focus, as stated here, is to match the level of silviculture with the amount of wood acquired annually. All buyers, the major buyers, and there are about 50 of them - there are about 350 buyers in the province but there are about 50 that use 95 per cent of the wood in the province - are required by law to conduct a silviculture program in relation to the amount of wood that they acquire and it's proportional, based on what tenure they acquire it from, i.e. whether it's from small-private or whether it's from industrial. They have to do a silviculture program in concert with those volumes that they acquire annually.
Now, they actually have two options. They can do the silviculture program themselves or, the second option, they can pay to a fund. If they don't want to do the silviculture or undertake a program themselves, they can pay the monies into a fund which is administered by the province. I will discuss that, it's the third bullet here. If the monies are being paid into the fund, then the department has to administer those monies and get the silviculture conducted. The key point here is that the amount of silviculture is based on the amount of wood acquired. That is the approach taken. You may say, well, it doesn't control the harvest. No, it doesn't control the harvest, but it matches silviculture to the harvest that actually occurs.
The last set of regulations, the wildlife habitat and watercourse protection regulations, as I've stated, are in effect now. The focus there is, in a harvest operation, in forest land, on modifying the practices in relation to watercourses, i.e. riparian zones, establishing wildlife habitat and coarse, woody debris in those operations. The aspect is if an owner/operator is conducting a harvest, they now have to follow a specific set of regulations on how that harvest is conducted. It doesn't limit their harvest, but it focuses on how that harvest is conducted. There have been wildlife guidelines in place since 1989. These guidelines, which are being updated at present, will become part of the overall code, as opposed to being in the regulatory framework. The regulatory framework only deals with the riparian zones, the clumps and the coarse, woody debris.
The aspect of riparian zones, there are specific clauses in the regulations that do not restrict the harvest in the riparian zone - or it doesn't eliminate the harvest - but there are some limits as to how one can harvest in the riparian zone. That is the key aspect of that specific set of regulations.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Can you provide us with a quick definition of that word?
MR. BEYELER: The riparian zone is really a buffer along watercourses. The regulations require 20 metres on either side of a watercourse. It's the green space, it's the requirement of leaving a forest canopy along watercourses and we use the term, riparian zone.
So we have dealt with the information, that's the registry and the regulations. The other key component of this is the code of forest practice which, for all activity on Crown
land, the code will be a mandatory document. For all activity on private land, it will be a document to encourage owners to act responsibly when they are conducting forest activities on their lands. The code is composed of three aspects: the principles document, which has been developed and is now before the minister for release to conduct the final review; the guide books are being developed, I mentioned the one on wildlife, there's one on forest ecosystem management and there's one on timber management in progress and development right now; the last aspect of it is the technical references.
We have a series of technical references that are in place now, they are the more technical-based documents. It encompasses a lot of different aspects of forest management which includes, as I said, ecosystem management, harvesting, biodiversity, silviculture and so on. That is in progress with a time frame of completion by next year.
One aspect that I guess I haven't mentioned, the province presently provides, as a budgetary component, $3 million of monies for silviculture on small private lands and the mechanism for dealing with those funds - we call the forest sustainability agreements - is the department establishes agreement with each of the buyers who are conducting programs and that portion of their program that is being done on small private lands, this fund will contribute up to one-third of the funding of the activities on the small private land sector, not the industrial land sector. So that $3 million out of the silviculture budget for the department is apportioned in that manner and an agreement is required to be made with each registered buyer who has a program, on an annual basis.
I mentioned the fund. Buyers under the regulations have the option to do the silviculture themselves or again, they can pay monies into the fund if they choose not to have the silviculture done. So they have those two options. The preference from our perspective is that buyers undertake the silviculture themselves and as you can see from the last bullet, 99.9 per cent of the monies that have gone into silviculture have been done through buyer programs. Only a very small amount of money is actually coming to the department or to the fund, to administer. In other words, the registered buyers have taken the initiative, the responsibility to do the silviculture on their own behalf. Should this change and should monies start to come into the fund, then the intent is that we will look at gaps that occur regionally, we will look at gaps that occur in the sense of different types of treatments and look at those aspects in terms of conducting silviculture. An example that is happening right now, you are probably aware of the Association for Sustainable Forestry, there was $500,000 allocated from provincial monies as a pilot. The monies have been allocated to a third-party provider - in this case the Association of Sustainable Forestry - and they are focusing their activities on some of the gaps that have been created under the regulatory program up to this point.
[9:30 a.m.]
The State of the Forest Report again is in development. We are working with the Forest Technical Advisory Committee, plus our own internal committee to develop that. The plan for release is in 2003 and the overall plan is it will occur on a three-year cycle.
Along with establishing regulations, it precludes that there is a requirement for compliance in enforcement and monitoring and that goes without saying, you can't have regulations without these aspects. They are well underway. Under the forest sustainability regulations, our first monitoring compliance program is underway. Under the Registry of Buyers, that has been underway for a considerable period of time. We're still in the process of developing an audit strategy; audit in the sense that if buyers are reporting a certain amount of wood usage, through the regulations the department has the right to audit their books to make sure they are reporting accurately. The strategy overall is using different aspects of incentives, education, co-operation and lastly, enforcement, so those are underway in all the three regulatory elements that we have implemented.
I guess I've mentioned this one, the monitoring aspect of the forest sustainability regulations, we're in the second year of that now. Suffice it to say that when establishing new regulations there are always kinks to be worked out. We are using the monitoring programs specifically for that but also to work out some of the difficulties in the program.
That is a brief overview of the overall strategy. I will say, just to recap, that the strategy encompasses a number of things: information, regulations, codes of practice, dealing with stakeholders. All those different aspects are part of this overall approach to developing the strategy for sustainable forests and forestry in this province. We feel that a considerable difference has been made and we're well on the way toward moving to what we consider the concept of sustainable forestry. I will close at that as the first part of my presentation and I will entertain any questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Beyeler. Some of our members have already indicated they would like to talk with you. John MacDonell.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that it was us actually who were responsible for you being here. (Laughter) I really appreciated your presentation and you and I have talked on more than one occasion on this issue. I want to say that this has been helpful. I have been the Natural Resources Critic for three years and when my head stops spinning I will probably no longer be doing this because just about the time I think I have my feet under me, I slip. I'm curious about the targets for sustainability. You basically gave us a copy of this . . .
MR. BEYELER: I will go over that later. That is the second part of the presentation.
MR. MACDONELL: I'm going to ask a question, mainly because I know that in the spirit of time I don't usually get to ask as many as I want. I'm curious about our 1996-98 level of harvest with hardwood and softwood, which I think was around - if I can find it here - 6 million cubic metres, something like that, around 3 million cords, hardwood and softwood?
MR. BEYELER: Yes.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay. Now, back in the early 1980s, I think that there was a Royal Commission on Forestry and the Department of Lands and Forests at that time made a presentation to that commission. I was wondering if either of you two were involved in that presentation?
MR. BEYELER: No.
MR. MACDONELL: Were you with the department then, both of you?
MR. BEYELER: No, that was before our time.
MR. MACDONELL: Anyway, I guess my concern is that one of the scenarios they proposed, which was more money into silviculture - actually, scenario number three - and they, in their scenario, were looking at a projected harvest of 5.5 million cubic metres or 2.5 million cords of softwood and 2.42 million cubic metres or 1.1 million cords of hardwood. Actually, the hardwood numbers are about double what they were predicting than what we're doing now. The overall harvest is pretty close to what we are harvesting now.
They were making that prediction of a harvest in 2040 with that doubling of the silviculture dollars back in the 1980s. Now, we're in 2002 and, actually, around 1996 or 1998, whenever this was compiled - and it looks to me that we are 40 years ahead on our harvest from what the department has submitted to the Royal Commission. I really had a problem trying to put in my mind how we can be sustainable, looking to 2070, if in the year 2000 we're already 40 years ahead on the cut. Can you explain that?
MS. NANCY MCINNIS-LEEK: Mr. MacDonell, if I can explain that one because I was involved on the policy side of the implementation. The intent in the early 1980s, when the department was examining the forest structure, the economics of it and the stability of the overall industry, the doubling of the harvest to those levels you just mentioned was explained as a target for increasing the economic activity. It was projected at that time in the sense that they thought it would take that long to develop the infrastructure and the demand to actually get to that point.
I guess what has turned out is, there was a sudden change in the industry, in the early 1990s and mid-1990s, which resulted in substantial expansions and increased the level of use in the province to that long-term projected level to what it is today. If you looked at the industry on the companion side of it you will find that it is restructured a great deal to look at different types of export markets, different types of products and the demand has changed, particularly in the sawmill side.
MR. MACDONELL: Oh, I agree with everything you said in the sense that we found our market, we cut more trees and we have the technology to do that. My question is, in light of what they were predicting for us to be there by 2040, is it sustainable?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Some of those Jorg will cover when he talks about wood supply.
MR. BEYELER: If I can defer that to - and in relation to that question, maybe I should go through the second presentation. (Interruptions) Okay. We will defer that question until then, because that is what I'm going to attempt you show you in the second presentation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille.
MR. WILLIAM LANGILLE: First of all, just to clarify something. Your endangered species strategy, what woods are on the endangered species?
MR. BEYELER: The only aspect that I mentioned about the endangered species is the fact that it is a component in trying to deal with this aspect of the strategy. It is not actually part of this strategy but it is an element that this strategy has to deal with, that there are endangered species out there and the development of forest practices has to include the aspect of dealing with endangered species. It is the consideration of that aspect that this strategy has to deal with. The endangered species legislation, that sort of thing, is actually not part of the strategy.
MR. LANGILLE: But there is nothing endangered right now is there?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: There is no tree listed as endangered species.
MR. LANGILLE: Okay, that's where I'm going, right there.
MR. BEYELER: Oh, sorry. No, not trees.
MR. LANGILLE: Okay. Just a bit of background. Back in the 1950s, Natural Resources wanted to introduce and encourage people to plant red pine. Okay. Now, in the 1980s, they encourage people to plant Norway spruce. Now, these are two trees that are not
Nova Scotia trees, they are imported trees. The red pine that they wanted everybody to plant, but the only thing they are good for are telephone poles and a bit of furniture making, which was a mistake. I know because I planted 17,000 of them. I have tree farm #3 in Nova Scotia, a Canadian tree farm #3.
Now, having said that, everybody was encouraged to plant Norway spruce which is another foreign tree for Nova Scotia. With Norway spruce, of course, it is susceptible to disease. We know that. It says soft fibre, which is not compatible for the building trade. What Natural Resources wanted to do was plant fast-growing trees, or that is what they were encouraging. I believe those two ideas, just for those two species, and where we have a lot of them in Nova Scotia, was a mistake. I would like your comments on that. I have planted both, by the way.
MR. BEYELER: Again, I can't speak for the red pine. I don't know what the strategy was back then. It is not an inherent policy of the department to encourage planting of Norway spruce. There has been a demand by, I guess, the industrial sector that, because it is a fast-growing species, it would make sense to plant it here. What we are trying to deal with in this particular strategy and in the code is that it is dealing with it as an exotic species.
There is not an inherent policy that the department is encouraging the planting, necessarily, of Norway spruce. But we will have to deal with that because it is being planted, there is no question about that. There is a lot of Norway spruce being planted, number one, because it is a fast-growing species and it has done very well in the province. But, again, we have to deal with those aspects in the strategy and in the code of forest practice in relation to how it is done, so that care is taken because it is an exotic species.
MR. LANGILLE: Just on that subject, the red pine - of course, you had the European shoot moth that came up and actually they came up from the nursery in the valley, you know. I believe both of those trees were grown at your Natural Resources nurseries. It appears that you were encouraging them to plant. Anyway, my personal opinion is, the red spruce is our Nova Scotia tree. The rings are tighter, it's stronger wood, it's a little slower growing, that's for sure, but it is compatible to Nova Scotia. I just wanted to make that statement
MR. BEYELER: I will concur with that, that in fact, the department does - and if there is any species that we are encouraging in the overall - it is red spruce - that is, the predominant species in this province.
MR. LANGILLE: With modern technology, I have a concern with the pulp mills now going into hardwood and making pulp out of hardwood. We have beautiful hardwood stands and the mountains are hardwood. When you drive in Nova Scotia, the scenic beauty - and to see a strip of hardwood taken right off, with these tree farmers - and they take the very best. They are not chipping in there. Quite frankly, it's a mess, as far as I am concerned. I know because there is a clear-cut right beside me, 200 acres. It would be about 400 feet from me.
I listened to them going all night long a year ago in the summer. They employed four people cutting up there. They trucked it out regularly but what they left behind, that concerns me.
[9:45 a.m.]
I want to get into silviculture. You say that the registered buyers are doing the silviculture, themselves, as there is only $500 that went into the kitty of Natural Resources. Now, that kind of raises a red flag to me; $500 is not much. So these registered buyers, are they actually doing the silviculture that they are required to under the Act, and who is doing the enforcement to ensure that they are doing the silviculture?
MR. BEYELER: Well, yes, under the Act they are required to undertake a program to get the silviculture done. Also under the regulations, they have to provide us evidence of every site that they are submitting under their silviculture program. So they have to provide us the physical evidence of the 10 acres, 10 hectares, or whatever, of every treatment. They have to provide us a mapping, a physical map, the location, what treatment they do, and in a sense, they are stating that they have met the technical standards. They have to do that.
We undertake a monitoring program that actually goes out, under a random sampling method, and checks a certain percentage of all the sites that they submit to us. We have the mechanisms in place to ensure that they are doing the silviculture that they say they are doing and that they meet the standards. So those procedures are in place and we feel are working quite effectively. We are doing a fairly high - we are attempting to do 20 per cent sample of all that work that is being submitted under their programs.
MR. LANGILLE: So you're satisfied that this program is working, then?
MR. BEYELER: We are in the third year of the program. We have had some kinks, there is no question about that. There are always growing pains in establishing a new program. But our feeling right now is that the program is working quite effectively. The buyers were getting very high compliance. In fact, in 2001, we have had 100 per cent compliance of buyers that are required to do their program, are doing it, are submitting the work and we are in the process of auditing on that.
MR. LANGILLE: I know that there is a lot of silviculture going on. In fact, I have been approached a couple of times by different people for my farm. So that is a good indication but when you say $500 put in, that is where I was coming from, if you're satisfied that work is being done and monitored correctly, because when you first look at that figure it seems pretty small.
MR. BEYELER: Well, if I can make a point, we feel, under this program, that the most effective way of conducting this type of program is in a business climate, that it is a business activity, the landowners, the contractors, the buyers who - and it is the buyers who
want and need that wood. The silviculture program is targeted at growing timber. There is no question about that. It is the overall target.
We feel that for this to work in an economic climate, as opposed to the department conducting silviculture programs, we feel that is the most effective way that this can occur. That is why we are actually quite satisfied and pleased in the way that the buyers have taken on their responsibility to do that themselves.
MR. LANGILLE: Yes.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: There is also a penalty structure associated with this if they do not comply. They are subject to legal action and in the case of monitoring, if their sites fail, those credits are deducted from them.
MR. LANGILLE: Yes. Just one more question, if I may. In regard to your 20 metre buffers for watersheds, that is a concern of mine because 20 metres, as you know, is not a very wide area. Also, the other concern of mine is that there are no buffer zones for highways.
MR. BEYELER: That's right.
MR. LANGILLE: In fact, you can cut right down to the highway, which, among other things, becomes unsightly. Are there any plans in the future - like other provinces - not to cut down to the highways?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Our mandate in the Department of Natural Resources limits us to dealing with forestry activities. There have been many discussions and issues raised regarding other land uses and such, particularly when we put in forests and wildlife habitat watercourse protection and regulations. We have no ability to address those issues along highways or in agriculture or urban areas where there is cutting or removal of vegetation down the streams. Those fall under the mandates of other departments that do that.
It varies across Canada as to how those are addressed. Some provinces have looked at highways and how to deal with vision buffers, open areas and such, but there is no right solution that seems to fit all circumstances.
MR. LANGILLE: Would it not make sense to bring that under Natural Resources?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We are restricted within our mandate to deal with forestry and forest activity. In the case of the wildlife habitat watercourse protection, it is focused on protecting the watercourse from damages where there is actual forest harvesting activity on a commercial basis. It does not apply and it is not intended to apply to land clearing for other purposes.
MR. BEYELER: Just in response to your question, we have had some discussions with the tourism industry with respect to it because that is a concern of theirs. There have been some preliminary discussions between the department and Tourism on that aspect, but at this stage, no, there is no specific action taken.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. I believe that that could be handled by your department through regulation with the co-operation of other departments?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: No, we have investigated that. We still have to restrict our activities within our mandate to forestry in this particular case. We don't have the ability to deal with other land uses. What we are doing though in that sort of area is to try to work with some of the other departments, through our minister, to see what initiatives they can take to parallel what we have done, dealing with forestry. It does create an unbalanced playing field, so to speak, where forest operations are required to follow this type of practice, whereas other land use operations are not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a clarification there on something that you said earlier. There are 50 major buyers, most of the buyers handle their own silviculture programs and you are saying that there is 100 per cent compliance? Not one out of the 50 tried to circumvent the regulations, is that what you are saying?
MR. BEYELER: For the year 2001, we have 100 per cent compliance, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is an amazing record.
MR. BEYELER: I will state that I think the reason why we are getting that is that there is a commitment. I mean, the industry realizes that it will sustain their industry. This type of activity is the cost of doing business and to sustain their industry. It is not that we are holding the whip over them, there is a belief amongst the players-that-be that this is required to sustain their future.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be difficult to monitor every cent they get, though, to ensure that they are putting it in the right place. Anyway, I guess you only can do what you can do. Okay, who is next? Russell MacKinnon.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was a little taken aback when I heard our witnesses indicate that they are going to have discussions with the other departments and they couldn't proceed on this. I must admit, I was a little disappointed. I thought the intent of government, as we know it now, is to bring down the silos of government and four years later, you're telling us that you're going to start collaborating.
That having been said, you indicated that you have $3 million in your fund. We have approximately 30,000 woodlot owners in Nova Scotia, small-private, am I correct?
MR. BEYELER: Approximately, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: The cost of silviculture on an acre, complete silviculture as I knew it when they started this program from the 1980s right through to the early 1990s, would be approximately $1,500 an acre, complete, start to finish. Am I correct? You take in the seeding and the . . .
MR. BEYELER: Well, that's. . .
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: It just depends on what treatments are required.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, for the full treatment, the full meal deal, let's say. Would that be a fair assessment? I'm speaking from my experience, so unless you have other figures.
MR. BEYELER: I would say you're a little high, but anyway.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I guess I'm just going by the figures from Public Accounts. That would mean that with your $3 million fund you would be able to accommodate 1,500 woodlot owners to the tune of one acre of silviculture per year, which would leave 28,500 out in the cold. If you want to juggle those numbers a bit, you may pick up an extra 1,000. It seems to me like your fund is woefully inadequate. Am I to conclude that there's a significant backlog for this program? Yes or no would do.
MR. BEYELER: No. The $3 million, that is the government portion of monies going into this overall silviculture program. The regulations require that $3 per cubic metre of wood coming from a small-private land base . . .
MR. MACKINNON: That's through the registered buyers though, that's a different scenario. I'm talking about the individual private woodlot owner.
MR. BEYELER: They're connected. They're absolutely connected. The regulations require this work to be done at the rate of $3 per cubic metre, at approximately the amount of wood that's being harvested on small-private, and we're in the $3 million to $3.5 million, that generates a requirement of over $10 million to $12 million worth of silviculture to be done. In effect, what we're saying is that the $3 million is being leveraged at a rate of about four times through this program to be done, that is required to be done on the small-private land sector. We look at that as leveraged funding from the taxpayer to the woodlot owner.
MR. MACKINNON: Let's look at it slightly differently. The silviculture program, between 1984 and 1992-93, until the federal-provincial agreements died out, there was a cost analysis done - and it's on record at the Legislature - that indicated, at least one perspective, that 60 per cent of all the dollars that went into that program went into administration and only 40 per cent went in the ground, so to speak. I've noticed that one of the key principles
of your strategy is to avoid this clear-cut methodology and to encourage, not necessarily a monoculture but to get maximum use, whatever the woodlot would focus on; if it's a hardwood stand, you build on that, and if it's softwood, and so on.
That's a sharp contrast to the policy that was in place when the federal-provincial agreement was in vogue. I'm wondering if that's why the province is now pursuing a new federal-provincial agreement, because the feds gave up on the fact that the province mishandled its forestry program. Going towards a monoculture, and there was a considerable amount of concern over the aerial spraying program, vision and so on and so forth. There are, I know, across this province, considerable numbers of small-private woodlots that have been decimated because of that silviculture program and have not really fully recovered.
My question, through you, Mr. Chairman, to our witnesses is, how do you expect the general public to have any confidence in yourselves by coming in, in a backdoor approach, to what, if you will recall, this private woodlot owner strategy for small-private woodlot owners in Nova Scotia. Remember the famous draft six, draft seven. People in Nova Scotia, the 30,000 private woodlot owners, they went apoplectic, because of what the department was trying to do. This, to me, seems to be another backdoor approach to the same thing that you couldn't succeed with in the front door. How do you respond?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I guess the temptation is to go back and talk about the history of it, but I don't think that's - there is much to be said. Federal-provincial agreements died for reasons of federal budgetary restrictions which eliminated that potential to co-operate on funding silviculture in all of the provinces. They also died in most other resource sectors. The program itself, although you've quoted various numbers, I was involved in the evaluation committee for the forest federal-provincial agreement here, while you are partially correct, the balance of achieved results versus intended results is not quite the problem of administration taking up most of the money.
[10:00 a.m.]
In many cases the type of silviculture that was done was very successful in certain types of treatments, like planting, where it was not so successful in other types of treatments where we tried to expand the type of silviculture being done, as we are again through this program, to include an even-aged management, different types of stand structures, working on pre-commercial thinning, different types of treatments between planting and harvest. Those areas were not as well taken up by the sector, and it was to our disappointment that we could not encourage that.
In terms of the woodlot owners themselves, many of the woodlot owners were very pleased with that approach, and in this change to the new strategy, where we as a department are no longer administering the program directly, we've had a lot of comments asking why we aren't still doing it, because they liked it better that way. They wanted to work directly
with department staff to have the silviculture done, to have that access to expertise and guidance.
Now the bigger problem you pointed out that's far more important is the issue of how to get private woodlot owners, many of whom do not manage their own forests, interested in managing their forests and interested in working with the industry or government or any of us who are involved in forestry to do silviculture and become involved in long-term management of the forests, other than just letting it grow on their own.
That's a challenge that is recognized not only by our own strategy and our own government involvement, but it's also clearly recognized by the woodlot owner associations who have tried to engage their membership in doing these by the group venture co-operatives, who have tried to, through the agreement days and beyond, engage their members in doing silviculture, and today through the registered buyers of the industry themselves, who are trying to find private woodlot owners who are interested in doing silviculture and wanting a partnership arrangement in that.
The concept was originally looked at as responsibility being one-third the landowner, one-third the forest sector and one-third government. As Jorg has explained, we have put up our one-third of government money against the private woodlots and industry is trying to do so, but as occurred during the agreement days and today, it's difficult to engage people in putting up another part of that cost when the return on forest is a long-term investment.
It's a very complicated issue, and it's one where we are seeking any advice we can on how to engage those woodlot owners, those landowners, in participating in sustainable forest management. It's very complex, and any suggestions you have would certainly help us in moving forward in that regard.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, just a short snapper and then I will pass it on. Really, what you're saying is that you're trying to catch up with the recommendations that were made in the Royal Commission on Forestry in 1984. That's essentially the blueprint that you're trying to bring before us here today. Am I correct?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I haven't memorized that document.
MR. MACKINNON: Have you read it?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Yes, of course. It's part of my job to have read it.
MR. MACKINNON: Then you know the essence of my question.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The essence is still the same in every province dealing with private land management. It's difficult, as you pointed out, where we have 30,000 very individual landowners who own forest land.
MR. BEYELER: I would like to add that under this particular program, the issue of dollars going directly to the ground, we do feel we have a much better system in place. For example, the $3 million from taxpayers' funding goes directly to the ground, and under the regulatory process there is a cap of 10 per cent of actual requirement monies that can go to administration. Really, under the program, 90 per cent of all required dollars has to go to the ground. We do feel, on that aspect, this particular approach should be a lot more successful. I wasn't part of the aspect back in the past, but that is the approach that's being taken today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, for clarification, Mr. MacKinnon sort of indicated that he was concerned that perhaps there's not enough funding for silviculture. I've noted that while he was in power, in the MacLellan Government, silviculture levels were $1 million and then $1.5 million, and when we took over the government we raised that figure to $3 million. We're at least doing twice the job that was done before, and I think that's important to note.
MR. MACKINNON: Twice as many penny loafer farmers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Also, there was indication that there wasn't any national consultation, well, there is a National Forest Strategy in the works and I believe that was an a cross-country initiative. The results will be released next May, I believe, at the National Forest Congress in Ottawa. I think that is a very important initiative as well.
Mr. Hendsbee, you're next on the docket.
MR. HENDSBEE: Thank you. Just in regard to the penny loafer comment made by the honourable member from across the way, he knows from his occupational health and safety background that that would not be appropriate footwear. (Laughter) Anyway, I wanted to comment on that.
In regard to these amounts, you had $3 per cubic metre of softwood and 60 cents per cubic metre of hardwood. Those are the current fees that are in place. When was the last time they had been increased?
MR. BEYELER: These regulations came into being in the year 2000. That is the only set that has ever been in existence.
MR. HENDSBEE: So these came into effect in the year 2000 and have been in place for about two years now.
MR. BEYELER: That's right.
MR. HENDSBEE: Do you feel that we're getting a proper levy in regard to trying to have cost recovery for our silviculture funds and everything else? Do you think these may have to be readjusted in any way?
MR. BEYELER: At the present time, from the results that we have and the direction that harvest and growth is going, they still look to be appropriate at this time. There is a requirement in the regulations that we have to review those at minimum once every five years. It is in concert with the analysis that we do. We consider that they are still effective for this time period right now and given the way harvest is occurring, that we don't foresee any changes at this time.
MR. HENDSBEE: Now with this, could you just clarify something for me. There are some confusions in the media - not local media but national and international media. When it comes to discussions of cross-border exports and imports of timbers and stuff, they talk about stumpage fees in the news in regard to, we subsidize our stumpage fees, that the U.S. will declare and claim some of this timber coming in from Canada, it has been subsidized and not fair to the NAFTA agreement, whatever the case may be. Could you clarify the stumpage fees? Is this what our stumpage fee is or is there another fee over and above that?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The fees that are referred to here are not really fees. What this is referred to in the regulations, forest sustainability regulations, is a means of calculating how much silviculture a company has to do in proportion to the wood. So it is one way to take a volume of wood and convert it into silviculture units. It doesn't relate in any way to stumpage fees within the private or industrial land base at all.
Stumpage fees associated with Crown land or any land are set at market value and that is one of the issues that has saved Nova Scotia and the Maritimes from some of the duties that have been placed on this, that we have more of a market system for establishing stumpage prices.
MR. HENDSBEE: Now could you tell us what the current regime of stumpage prices is?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The current regime is whatever the companies will pay according to the demand for that product and the supply of that product on the private land. Nova Scotia is in a unique position in Canada in the sense that most of our wood supply comes from private land, not from Crown land. On Crown land we do have a stumpage regime that is set by process of agreements and by licence through law with various companies that have access to Crown land.
MR. HENDSBEE: Well, perhaps those questions would be clarified by the wood supply discussions coming up next. My other question is in regard to your overhead projection about our national commitments. Could I ask, when it says national commitments,
is there a contractual obligation we have with certain companies or with the industry itself, in the forestry sector, and what are the terms or length of terms of these contractual commitments?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: There are two parts to your question. On the national commitments - our form of commitments, so to speak, is to, for instance, be a signatory to the National Forest Strategy which commits us to support various principles of sustainable forest management. We also have similar types of agreements in a national context on bio-diversity, on endangered species and some other aspects such as fire, et cetera, in terms of how we co-operate and the way we reach agreement nationally and how to proceed on certain key topics.
On the other aspect of contractual agreements, the only contractual agreements the province has with any industry are associated with licences under Crown land or leases under Crown land.
MR. HENDSBEE: Okay. Now in regard to - we talked about the sustainability funds for silviculture and stuff, and the right charge for that, and the different stumpage fees on a market basis for auction, basically. When it comes to cost recovery of other forestry protection efforts that we have, infestation control, we have forest fires, we have everything from Dutch elm disease to spruce budworm to gypsy moths, and now the invasion of the beetles. Now we have the forest fires, problems like that. Do we have any cost recovery programs that we get from the forestry sector or is that just something from the bottom line that the government has to provide, regardless?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: To clarify on the $3, it's not a cost recovery and it's not associated with departmental activities, it's completely unrelated to that. That money does not come to us. The money that goes into the sustainable forestry fund does not come to the department but it is an option, as you already explained, for someone who is not in a position to do silviculture on their own. They can put the money in the fund and we will administer it on their behalf.
In the case of the question about, do we cost recover associated with fires, pests and things of this sort, we have options under the Forests Act to cost recover certain aspects of those things. Not complete and not in all circumstances but we do have certain options that allow us a small portion of cost recovery. We do not recover close to what the costs are of operating those programs.
MR. HENDSBEE: Well, since we do have a vested interest in the private sector for our forestry fibre out there and also from the private sector, of those who have private woodlot owners, do you think there will ever be any discussion, perhaps, of some cost-sharing arrangements? I know that, for instance, there is a marginal tax rate on forest resource properties. I was just wondering if that's from the private wood owners that provide that in
tax dollars, but mainly pay the municipalities. But are there any other recoveries we could possibly have?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We do not at this time have any fees or taxation process that comes to our budgets to cover anything dealing with forest protection.
MR. HENDSBEE: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Epstein.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: In the list of results expected from the forest strategy, there are five items that are listed, things like a strong forest sector; an interested, informed public; a varied and productive forest; and there are two others. These are clearly at a very high level of generality. I'm wondering whether there are more specific results that are expected. Could we start with some indicators like jobs; is there a job target or job results that are expected from the strategy?
MR. BEYELER: There is not a specific jobs target, other than that the strategy encompasses that all the actions that need to be taken still sustain the forest sector industry that's out there and provides opportunities for it to flourish.
MR. EPSTEIN: If the target is sustainability, does that mean that at least there is an implied assumption that the same number of jobs will be there, or is there no commitment with respect to jobs at all?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: One of the issues on the economic side of looking at sustainability is not just the number of jobs but the quality and value of those jobs to an individual.
MR. EPSTEIN: All right. Is there a target about number and quality of jobs, or not?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The target is to maintain the industry in a healthy position, to reinvest in the forests to create jobs, to reinvest in their own industry to keep them stable and, therefore, maintain employment to whatever degree they can without creating number targets that will lead you, perhaps, in the wrong direction in terms of programs.
MR. EPSTEIN: So that would also imply that there are no jobs per cubic metre of wood harvested target as well?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: No.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. What about a mix of types of woods in the forest? For example, I think you referred to red spruce as the dominant or predominant - I forget which
word you used - species that we have. That is certainly the case. But, of course, what we have is a mixed forest here and that was the original state. I wonder, does the department have any target under its forest strategy for a result as to the mixture of woods?
MR. BEYELER: Yes, there is a general target there and it is based on the ecological classification system that has been established within the province. That indicates the mix of forest that should occur by ecological unit and the general target or guidelines that will be established within the code and is respective to maintaining that mix of species on an ecological basis, which includes mixed wood forests, hardwood forests, softwood forests. We have general information that says a certain percentage of the forest should be in those mixed species and that is part of the overall strategy, yes.
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: So, starting at a higher level of generality, are you saying that the department has in mind a certain percentage that ought to be softwood and a certain percentage that ought to be hardwood?
MR. BEYELER: More or less.
MR. EPSTEIN: What are the percentages?
MR. BEYELER: I haven't got that figure on the top of my head but the general percentage would be at least, I believe, 25 to 30 per cent hardwood, around 30 per cent mixed wood, somewhere in that neighbourhood.
MR. EPSTEIN: Does the concept of sustainability extend to the existence of wildlife corridors?
MR. BEYELER: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: And do you have specifics of where you would like to see those established?
MR. BEYELER: Again, that is part of the overall design but the actual specific area, spatially located, is not established.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. Is it fair to say that's in the process of being worked out? Is that being studied?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I would think you would have to say that in terms of wildlife management, there are various strategies to maintain populations and habitat. Corridors are a very small part of it but in terms of looking at harvesting practices, layouts, types of
philosophies about - corridors are not necessarily just a straight line, corridors are many different things. Those are a part of the strategies for maintaining a biodiversity in our forests.
MR. EPSTEIN: I understand. I focused on corridors because they seem to be one of the missing pieces. Can I ask about the percentage target for protected areas? Is that part of the idea of sustainability as well?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We do not have a mandate for protected areas but we do incorporate them as part of our overall consideration of forest sustainability. They are managed, as you know, by another department but they are considered part of the overall strategy as you would have noted in the presentation.
MR. EPSTEIN: What about targets for total volume of chemical use in commercial forestry in Nova Scotia. Is that part of the idea of sustainability?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We do not at this point address anything to deal with the chemical use as part of the forest strategy, no.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is there a reason why not?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: It's at a level of detail that we do not get into in the strategy. It's like what type of saw or what type of harvesting equipment you use. There are other mechanisms for dealing with chemical practices, other than a forest management strategy, at the level of which we have explained here today.
MR. EPSTEIN: I may be wrong but as I read the province's Environment Act, which is one of the indicators of public policy, there is a whole section, Part VII of that Act, that talks about it being public policy to reduce chemical and pesticide use in the province and to work toward strategies for integrated pest management. That seems to me to be fairly clearly a public policy that I would have thought would extend across all departments, to try to reduce chemical uses. Given that forestry is one of the main users of herbicides, why wouldn't that be part of your mandate?
MR. BEYELER: Well the integrated pest management aspect of forest activities is definitely part of our mandate, no question about that.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We do work with the Department of Environment and Labour with regard to those issues. They are the lead on that. What you've asked is whether it's a formal and explicit part of the strategy. It is part of our overall mandate as a department to work on various aspects of forest management but that's a separate part about sustainable forestry that you're seeing here today. It is one of the building blocks of forest management practices and various other things we get involved in, in co-operation with a lead department such as Environment and Labour.
MR. BEYELER: And part of the strategy is the safe and judicious use of those types of tools within forest management. That is part of the strategy, absolutely.
MR. EPSTEIN: I'm glad to hear that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt for one minute, please. I think you noted that there was some conversation going around the table and that conversation is directed to this meeting, in particular, with regard to the Nova Scotia wood supply forecast. Now we're dealing with a huge issue here and most of us come from a rural background and have resource-based industries in our constituencies and so on, so it's a huge and important issue to all of us. I think you can note that from the questions that are coming.
There are several people yet who want to speak and I was wondering if you would agree to come back next month to do the second part. There seems to be an agreement around the table already that we, the three Parties, would agree to that if you would agree to do so.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Certainly.
MR. BEYELER: Certainly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could work that into your agenda we will leave that up to the clerk to contact you with a date and so on. We would appreciate that very much so we can continue down this road because at the end of this meeting we have to allow 10 minutes or so because we do have some agenda-setting to do. Thank you very much, that gives us an opportunity to relax a little bit and we can continue with our questioning.
MR. EPSTEIN: There's one other small indicator I wanted to ask about. You talked about the public, government and industry working together and I heard no mention about the Aboriginal communities in the presentation today. Does the idea of the public also extend to including Aboriginal communities and if so, could you just tell us how they fit into the idea of the forest strategy?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Aboriginal communities are part of the public. We have a number of registered buyers who represent Aboriginal communities so they're involved in that way. We do not differentiate in terms of our initiatives among any of the public. As you may also be aware, of course, the government has its own initiatives dealing with Aboriginal peoples and land titles and initiatives dealing with forestry have been considered part of those.
MR. EPSTEIN: Given the constitutional status of bands and given the treaties we have in place, I would have thought that regarding Aboriginals as simply some generally undifferentiated segment of the public may not exactly represent a reflection of reality on the ground or in the courts. Anyway, thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill Dooks.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, I represent the Eastern Shore. I have so many questions to ask today. Forest resource, we certainly understand that and a resource in which I think the intent is for us to harvest the resource. I don't believe anyone disagrees about harvesting the resources, it is in which manner we harvest the resource, not unlike the fishery.
When we talk about the fishery we wonder do seals eat fish? Do draggers overfish and have the foreign draggers had an impact on our fishery? We know a lot of these questions haven't been answered but one thing that has happened, they have led to the demise of the Atlantic fishery. When I talk about the forestry I have a great concern and interest, especially on the Eastern Shore, and some people may accuse me of being a little parochial when I talk about the Eastern Shore.
I deal with many people. I deal with the department people, they tell me that they think this initiative that has been put in place will cure and be successful in the future. I have talked to the tourism industry and they have great concern about the clear-cutting, that it's going to deter tourists from coming into our area and in relation to that, it's going to hurt the small businesses. I talk to the people who are in the industry. We have big sawmill owners and we have small sawmill owners and the small sawmill owners would tell me that the big owners are putting them out of business and certain programs the government has put in place are not equal and fair because of the resources available; this is what they tell me. I talk to certain activist groups from time to time and they tell me most everyone is wrong, so we have conflicting views coming from all different points.
I think most of us - not all of us - would agree that in the past we have had many foul forest practices in Nova Scotia. I think it started primarily post-war, when the horse was put in the barn and the chainsaw and the harvester replaced the bucksaw and the pulp saw and the demand on the forest grew stronger and stronger.
What is important, I think, to all representatives in this room is, where are we going? What guarantee do we have from this point on? It's not much use to talk about the foul practices of the past. What guarantee do we have as we meet the future that in 20 years we won't look back and say, well that initiative was wrong. I'm not saying it is but I just want to tell you how strongly I feel about the importance of saving our forests while maintaining a balance to harvest that resource.
When we talk about silviculture, you certainly have an understanding, most people understand that, putting all the jargon aside. My question is, silviculture and the millions we're spending, is it going to be successful? What about the natural regeneration, will that overtake the silviculture program? And in understanding that, could we spend the money that we put in silviculture in different ways? These are topics that come up. I have been with
people in the forestry industry and they've shown me, well this has been the silviculture program. We can see this natural species has overtaken the silviculture program, and it's better. These are people's opinions.
How do we substantiate that the initiative that we're taking will be successful in the future? The first thing I would like to talk about is silviculture. How do you know that's the right direction? I'm just asking that question.
MR. BEYELER: Let's deal with the aspect of the types of what you consider silviculture. The first aspect, silviculture isn't just planting and pre-commercial thinning. In fact, we stress that natural regeneration is part of the silviculture aspect. Natural regeneration, planting, all the treatments that we do under the concept of silviculture are what we call restocking the forest, creating an environment for trees to grow faster, more effectively and improve quality. It includes natural regeneration, it includes competition control, planting, pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, selection management, crop tree, pruning, all those activities. That's the umbrella of silviculture.
The key to what we're trying to achieve under that concept is, again, that areas are restocked to viable species, a mix of viable species, and they're encouraged to grow. How do we measure that we're successful? What we try to do is measure the change in growth over time, over the forest. If the forest is growing faster to some degree, that's a measure that we are succeeding. If the stocking levels of the forest increase from say, there was an old report that said our forests were stocked, 40 per cent of forest contained trees. In other words, any given area was what we consider 40 per cent occupied. Those levels of occupancy have been going up through these types of programs. That's how we measure whether we're succeeding or not. Again, the big answer to that is, what is the overall increase in growth on an annual basis on our forest. That's our measure.
MR. DOOKS: You wouldn't know the figure on how much we are actually planting, the seedlings, in relation to the other types of work we're doing? Do you know that?
MR. BEYELER: For example, in 2001, approximately 16 million trees were planted, but it's the area planted. The area planted is approximately 15 per cent of the total area that is considered harvest. So, 85 per cent of the forest has, to some measure, natural regeneration occurring. Given the different types of harvest that occur, even under the clear-cut harvest, in our environment, we are lucky in a sense that we get that type of natural regeneration. Silviculture programs in this province are designed - everybody talks about planting, but the real big thrust of silviculture in this province is managing natural regeneration.
MR. DOOKS: Spraying of young hardwood, up to a 15-year stand, is the philosophy behind that to spray to kill the hardwood to make room for the red spruce or another species?
MR. BEYELER: Yes, the general thrust to competition control using herbicides is on, number one, softwood plantations, if plantations have been established of softwood and that is the prime focus of the species. But all sites that do regenerate, hardwoods, raspberries, all kinds of shrub competition, the purpose and intent is to release the softwood trees in a softwood area, absolutely.
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. DOOKS: Where are we going with the spraying program? Are we continuing to fund that? How much money did we put in that in the spring?
MR. BEYELER: I'm not sure about that.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The department only gets involved in spray programs to a minor extent on Crown land. We do not, of course, get involved in that. The amount has been declining substantially over time. A lot of the work, in terms of weeding or stand management, is done by our licensees, the two licensees we have on their own land, and on the land that we actually manage, we have reduced it substantially while looking at other methods of controlling or creating an opportunity for the crop trees, so to speak, to grow. Part of it is we try to apply it more effectively to areas that are required to ensure that the trees are able to grow, rather than just using it as a standard policy in all applications.
MR. DOOKS: When we started a new initiative to create buffer zones around waterways or greenbelts, the 60 foot path that's left - I shouldn't say path - growth that's left around the lakes, how long is it going to take to monitor that to see if that's been successful, because when we talk 60 feet, it's twice the length of this room. We know that probably on the windward side of the lake, the forest, because of the mat and the root, the connection will stay strong, but if we cut up to that on the other side, of course the wind coming down is going to blow the trees down, which will create rot in the lakes. What kind of a monitoring system, what happens if 60 feet is not enough and we create a blowout around our lakes and watersheds?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: That has always been a standard question, and the regulation is an absolute minimum. We don't feel that less than that is at all effective. The question of blowdowns and success of that stand or that vegetation remaining to do the job it's intended to do is an important question, so we have been trying to do research on that. We have been monitoring projects that are looking at those particular questions you mentioned. We're trying to identify the factors that make an area more susceptible to blowdown or create instability, so that we can actually incorporate those in management practices of those zones.
One of our research projects is in the Head of St. Margaret's Bay area, where the rocks are more soil than the actual soil. The trees have very difficult rooting circumstances, they blow over easily. What we have been doing in that area is trying to figure out, well, what
is it that's going to cause these to blow over, when do they blow over, what can we do to minimize it, should we take out the taller trees, should we space them a bit, should we create a more smooth edge on that 20 metre buffer aspect, should we increase it, should we reduce it? There are many questions, and we're working on that.
MR. DOOKS: There are many questions around the whole issue of forestry, that's for sure.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: And there's never one answer that you can put on every piece of land.
MR. DOOKS: Especially when we talk about tourism. I think the reason for the buffer on the highways is to make it look pretty for the tourists that arrive in Nova Scotia, but that doesn't solve the problems that we have in forestry in Nova Scotia. I would think that in a few years we could possibly blow out and have a worse circumstance than leaving the buffer zones up.
I do appreciate the direction in which the government is going to try to handle these many concerns. As I said, when you're dealing with your own department, and maybe the Departments of Environment and Tourism and industry itself and certain activist groups, it's certainly a challenge. The main thing I would say here today is I would not want to look back in 20 years and say that this initiative wasn't effective. I certainly hope everyone is working together to make a better Nova Scotia and to save the forestry for future generations.
I guess I will ask the big question, do you folks feel comfortable in the direction we're going, that we are replacing what we're harvesting and that in the 20-year period we will look back in a very favourable light on the initiative that this government is taking?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: I think one of the things that you pointed out about hindsight being 20/20 is that there's always a risk involved that you're going to be wrong. In forestry, because of the length of time that you're planning for, the risk increases. What we've tried to do in the forest strategy includes sort of a precautionary approach. We've tried to use the best information available, base things on science, sound results, not sort of eyeballing things but actually sound information. We've tried to use or involve those who know better than ourselves how to manage forests, that's why the industry is involved, landowners are involved.
We have tried to also not put all our eggs in one basket. Our management strategies, even on the sustainable forestry side and the silviculture side, are focused on creating a forest which is healthy and viable, and vital, and has the diversity to function in whatever form it is going to have to function in 50, 60 years, which none of us can anticipate.
If you look back, the chief foresters of our time, in the past, have always written a book at the end of their 25 years in government. Each one reads similarly. It reads such as, we are running out of wood, there are bad practices, the industry is going to collapse, we have to find a way to do things better.
What we found is, the industry adapts, people adapt and things change. We hope that we are not ever walking down a path that is going to lead us to the fisheries issue. It is easier to see the trees, it is easier to manage the trees.
MR. DOOKS: The fishing industry is coming around because of the new initiatives and the industry, the fishermen themselves, monitoring and taking a part in the resource.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: And the ability to adapt and the ability to recognize mistakes, correct those and move to better ways of doing things is an important part of minimizing that future risk. There is no guarantee but we are taking that approach and we hope that that will get us to a better place than not doing anything.
MR. DOOKS: Yes. I said earlier that they had many foul practices in the past and I shouldn't have said that. I should have said there were some foul practices in the past. What about selective cut? I can't think if it was in the 1950s or 1960s, a program was put in place where we would only cut a tree that stumped out 8 inches. Are you familiar with that?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Yes.
MR. DOOKS: Was that successful at that time? What was the downfall of that? Economics?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: It's a one shoe fits all. There is no one rule you can put in with regard to trees that applies to all species, all conditions, all circumstances and give you the right answer.
MR. BEYELER: The general trend that that caused was that the term selective, to some degree, translated into taking the best and leaving the rest. In a sense, what happened, it did to a considerable degree degrade the quality and some of the species composition. For example, the pines, the red spruce, those types of species, in a sense were degraded and created part of the problem that has happened over that period of time.
If I can just go back to your original question, you know, do we think this is going to be successful. Well, we certainly hope so but I think the one key response I would like to make to that is that I feel that by transferring the stakeholders involved in this work, the landowners, the contractors, the industry - 75 per cent of this land base is privately owned. I think by the initiative that we are taking here, it is really that sector, the ones that really have the most at stake, to look into the future, that what they are doing will be sustainable
in the future. I mean, there is a large percentage, and we believe that the approach we are taking enforces that. Now will it be successful? We hope so. I'm not going to stake my life on it but we hope it will.
MR. DOOKS: It is a very hard question I asked but what I wanted to do was get the emotion, I guess, of the process.
MR. BEYELER: Yes.
MR. DOOKS: We look at the resource and we look at natural disaster, forest fires. Do you have any stats on forest fires? I don't know if this question - are we losing more of the resource due to fire than we did or - where are we there? I'm not going to go too far down that road.
MR. BEYELER: The average loss to forest fire in the past 10 years is 663 hectares per year which, compared to virtually all others, it is a very minuscule amount of area actually lost to forest fire. Nova Scotia has probably the most enviable record of all provinces in terms of minimizing the loss to forest fire.
MR. DOOKS: And disease? Where are we with stats on disease?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We are also very low on disease. We lose very little to disease, very little to fire in comparison to any other jurisdiction. Part of that is because we have people living almost everywhere, we can detect these things rapidly and then respond.
MR. DOOKS: Good stuff. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. Mrs. Baillie.
MRS. MURIEL BAILLIE: I am just following up on what Bill was saying. I guess I, too, want assurance for the future. (Laughter) I have to ask this question just for my own good. I have read, of course, where. . .
MR. DOOKS: She is not going to campaign on that. (Laughter)
MRS. BAILLIE: I have read where the forest industry gives about $1.5 million into our economy and that it creates about 22,000 jobs directly and indirectly, okay. The forest sustainability regulations came in about two or three years ago. I guess I just wanted to make sure, am I correct in thinking or saying that this program is going to ensure healthy Nova Scotia forests for the long term? I know you said that but . . .
MR. BEYELER: We believe so. In fact, when I come back in a month's time, I will try to present the evidence as to why we believe so. That is the evidence that I will try to show in this second presentation.
The forecasting process that we use and the information that we have, and the results of this forecast, are based on the implementation of these regulations. So my answer to that is, yes, with the qualification that I am not going to - you know, we forecast out a number of years and, of course, we redo this type of forecast every five years. So the answer is, definitely good for five years, I will stake my life on that. Again, the reason and the intent of this particular program was specifically to ensure that sustainability.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: If you look at the building blocks in that one that looks like a wall being built, you will see that there are some very key components in there that support that. The forest inventory work is not just counting trees but looks at the growth, the health, the distribution, the undergrowth, all kinds of aspects about forests that we used to determine how the forest is performing in terms of health, vitality and all of those important indicators.
Also, in terms of our approach to the longer term in the economic sector, it is very important for the survival of the sector that they have wood they can acquire that meets their specifications. That is also being changed. For them to do that, we also have to work on - on the science side - forest management practices that allow them to harvest that wood in a way that still meets our bigger goals about ecologically-based management, environmental sensitivity, quality characteristics, all of those things. So all of those are bits and pieces that help us get there and we are hoping that we have all the important bits and pieces.
If you look at one of the bottom lines, we are also very open - as we learn new information, gather new understanding - to adapting our forest strategy and the things we do to focus on what we have learned, problems we identify. We seek solutions from a broader spectrum than just the department staff or even someone from the industry. We go as far as we can to try to get the right answers to the right problems or the right initiatives.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Baillie. We have time for a few short snappers. Mr. MacKinnon, you're first.
MR. MACKINNON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, my question on the long-term forest strategy would centre around Kyoto. Do you have any sense of the impact of global warming on the forests in Nova Scotia? I know it is quite a concern for the farmers in the Valley, where they're saying the crop yields, even with irrigation, are down 20 per cent. Have you done any analysis on Nova Scotia's forests and, if so, what is it?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: We do work in terms of keeping track of forest growth and forest health, as I mentioned. In terms of determining climate change impacts, there are lots of initiatives that we are trying to determine exactly how the climate would change and in
what time frame, and all of those aspects, which makes it very difficult to look at 100 years or 50 years.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have any specific data . . .
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: There is no data that you can apply directly to Nova Scotia that says this is the exact change that will occur and, therefore, we have to respond. But in the bigger picture there are things we are keeping in mind. Because we are a Canadian forest, we have to be sensitive.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm just doing a comparative analysis, 20 years ago, today, 40 years ago.
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: Oh, there is lots of historic data about climate. However, climate does vary within a 100-year, 150-year cycle frequently and we live within that.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have any analysis of that vis-à-vis, the forest growth, the impact?
MR. BEYELER: There is one specific connection that as forests grow, they use carbon, so they create a carbon sink. I guess, probably, the closest we can come is to say, as we increase the rate of growth, increase the growth of the forest in Nova Scotia, the uptake of carbon increases, so there is a direct link in that sense. So you could say that if we're growing at a rate of 5 million cubic metres per year and we expand that to 8 or 10 million cubic metres per year, the uptake of carbon increases proportionately as well. There is a link there but beyond that we don't have any specific data.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very quickly.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, one final. With regard to the infestation that came in through Point Pleasant Park, how widespread is it throughout Nova Scotia at this point and is it to the point where it is now a provincial responsibility or is it still federal?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: It is not widespread. It is still within a circle of control identified through the CFIA. I think we're working within - I'm not very good at remembering numbers, specifically - it's about a 20-kilometre circle. There are some points outside our circle of primary infestation, I guess, that we have spotted some individual trees. It is still a responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. We are still a participant in that process.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: David Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: Two quick questions. The registry of mills and firewood businesses, do you have all of them listed as members or registered with the province?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: There are four types of businesses that have to register under the Registry of Buyers. One is anyone with a wood-processing facility, sawmill, portable or fixed; another is anyone who is involved in pulp and paper production, which are three companies; any company that is involved in energy production as a business, and there is really only one major one in that regard; and commercial firewood dealers. Those are the four categories of registered buyers.
MR. HENDSBEE: When you say commercial firewood, does that mean for residential sales or just . . .
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: The way we define that is any firewood dealer that processes more than 1,000 cubic metres or about 454 cords of wood a year for sale as firewood.
MR. HENDSBEE: So, for instance, if I was looking at the Yellow Pages and I see one of the nine listed, listed in the information provided to us, I was wondering if those other eight are below that quota or have not been approached for registration.
My last question is in regard to access to the forests. We now have ecotourism, we have the walking trails, we have ATV and snowmobile associations, we also have problems of the logging roads in giving greater access to off-road dumping. Do you see these things as sometimes a threat or an enhancement to the forest strategy in regard to the forests, you know, that people are in more contact with it? Is there a greater appreciation for our forests in regards to what we have to do or ought to do, or should be doing?
MS. MCINNIS-LEEK: One of the things that has changed in forest management over the past 40, 50 years is recognition of multiple users of the forests and multiple facets of a resource - you know, the recreation, the environmental side - and those are incorporated, as Jorg had mentioned, within our Code of Forest Practice. We recognize the multiple uses that a forest has and try to remember that in terms of forest management - it is not a timber management strategy, it is a forest management strategy, recognizing multiple users, multiple characteristics that forest people enjoy, not just those that are extractive.
In that way we try to recognize those and incorporate them. They are neither threats nor opportunities, they are just the way we deal with resources these days as a public. We incorporate them, recognizing their important values. They are managed in different ways by those that have control over them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: John MacDonell.
MR. MACDONELL: I have part of a report; actually, the rest of it is coming to me someday, I'm told. Forest Health in Canada, an Overview in 1998, Forest Health Network, Canadian Forestry Service, Natural Resources Canada is who put this out. Atlantic Maritime Ecozone, Over-Harvesting of Private Woodlots. The national Round Table on the Environment and the Economy concluded the current harvesting activity in Maritime woodlots is unsustainable. Then they go on to mention New Brunswick over-harvesting by one and a half times.
I will keep these numbers fairly simple and almost too simple, Jorg, because I know you will tell me you can't do that. But, certainly, in terms of the operable forests, which I have figured to be 2.6 million hectares, whatever you told me was about 6 million acres, I have taken the number of 30 cords to the acre as an average across the province of wood supply. Am I too much off base to say that?
MR. BEYELER: That is the neighbourhood, yes.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, good. So at our present harvest of about 6 million cubic metres, 3 million cords, we are cutting about 100,000 acres a year, which has been documented to be 98 per cent clear-cutting.
MR. BEYELER: It's 40,000 hectares, yes, roughly.
MR. MACDONELL: Now, this is where you say I'm a little too simplistic. But if Europeans came to Nova Scotia with that operable forest - the forest was a bigger forest, obviously, when they got here, but at our present operable forest, and assuming volumes to be roughly the same - which they wouldn't be because they had a much bigger forest in the sense of volume in a tree - it would take us 60 years to cut that operable forest, assuming none of it had been cut.
Now, we know that Nova Scotia's forest has been cut and a lot of it is cut now. I have taken your numbers on total forest change to age class structure - this diagram right here. I have looked at the 61 to 80 year old class which is about 30 per cent of the area. I know you will say, well, not everybody harvests in that class, they vary. At that 30 per cent of the operable forest, which is basically the oldest part because there is almost no 100-plus forest left and maybe 3 per cent is 80 to 100, that it would take us about 18 years to cut that.
Now, to me, your projections here to 2070, or until the next five years - you know, if you do this every five years - then it would seem that with no limit on the cut, if you can't say you can only cut this much, then it is pretty hard to predict. I notice that one of the diagrams - and you and I have talked about this one - Nova Scotia projected inventory of operable forests, 1996 to 2070, proposed silviculture - indicates that the inventory decreases. So that must mean that our cut will increase if our inventory decreases. I am assuming it would have to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is an area that we will be dealing with the next meeting.
MR. BEYELER: That's about five questions. (Laughter)
MR. MACDONELL: I asked two questions and I have to wait a month.
MR. BEYELER: Let me go with one concept. You have so much inventory out there now and you have so much inventory that is available for harvest in a given period of time. Your harvest picture - yes, you say 60 to 80. Well, really, the harvest occurs between ages 40 and 100.
MR. MACDONELL: Right.
MR. BEYELER: So if you look at the age class structure of the forest today, that is over 70 per cent of our forest that is in that age class structure, in what we consider a harvestable condition.
Now, at the rate of harvest that is occurring today, within 61 to 80, okay, yes, you would use that up. But don't forget that during that period of time - let's say you're harvesting 6 million cubic metres a year, but we are actually growing approximately 8 million cubic metres a year over the total forest in this province today.
So you're harvesting this timber. Some of the younger timber keeps coming into a harvestable condition. So it constantly changes over time. That is why it is not static. The age class structure changes but you really have, in our forests today between 40 and 80 years - and these are merchantable forests - you have over 70 per cent of today's forests in a harvestable condition. So it is not just 30 per cent.
MR. MACDONELL: No.
MR. BEYELER: We can sustain a level of harvest at the same time growth is coming in, which 40 years down the road, we will be getting into some of those stands. So it progresses along. That is the dynamic part of it and that is why our predictions are that, yes, we can sustain that harvest level.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully we will have a better understanding of that after the second presentation.(Laughter) Bill Langille, you had a quick question, you're the last one on the list and I would like to fulfil this commitment here. Go ahead.
MR. LANGILLE: Okay. Just a quick statement. I just want you to realize how important the forestry industry is to us. I know that my colleague for Pictou West, along with being a school principal, she and her husband operated a sawmill. I have a tree farm, I have done clear-cutting. I know that I have had protestors on my property or adjacent to my
property wearing gas masks, hauling coffins and everything else, activist groups. I'm a conservationist, but anyway. I'm still torn between natural growth and actual planting. I've seen beautiful stands of natural growth, and some terrible stands of planting and some good stands of planting, so I am torn. Which is the right way to go? I've got a lot more to say but I will just close it down with that.
MR. BEYELER: Under the overall strategy, the number one policy or approach is to work with natural regeneration first and only plant those areas that really need it and do not come back naturally. I will give you one classic example of areas that don't regenerate back naturally, and a lot of them are in your area, and those are the old field white spruce stands. Those stands, historically, once you harvest them, are very slow to regenerate naturally, and a lot of planting has occurred on those stands. Under the overall strategy, and if you look at our policies, it is to encourage natural regeneration, work with natural regeneration, and only plant where necessary.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beyeler and Ms. McInnis-Leek, thank you for not only taking time out of your busy schedule but agreeing to do that again next time. It sure beats working, coming here, you have to admit. (Interruptions) Certainly we hope you continue moving forward with the necessary initiatives to ensure proper management and sustainability of our forest.
We will take a short recess, then we will come back for agenda-setting. It will only take about two minutes.
[10:55 a.m. The committee recessed.]
[10:57 a.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the wish of the clerk, first of all, to make a note that Mora will be passing on to everyone today, by mail or sending to your office, the first draft of the annual report for your perusal and comment. The other thing I want to mention is that we would like to give her some direction on some agenda items to set up for the future. We already have one for next month and we have another one scheduled, so we are two ahead. We want to give her some more direction.
You know the witnesses that were put forward by the PC committee members, the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers Association, the Nova Scotia Turkey Producers.
MR. MACKINNON: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. HENDSBEE: In relation to that, there was also an item forwarded from the Public Accounts Committee, the wine strategy. Would that tie in with the fruit growers, or would you want to have that as a separate item or perhaps a combined item?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if we should combine them.
MR. HENDSBEE: You have the Grape Growers Association, which ties in to the wine strategy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We also have the apple producers. I think it is a little big. We will let the clerk work on that and come back to report to us. (Interruptions)
MR. MACDONELL: We are putting together a list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The item that you wanted to bring up, do you want to . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: Just for clarification, are we going to approve the Public Accounts Committee forwarding of the wine strategy as an agenda item?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will get to that. Mr. MacDonell asked for clarification on the item, and he's been very patient, on Northern Lumber. That was on the books. Is everyone in agreement on going forward with Northern Lumber. (Interruptions) We will just hold off.
The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, state of family farms. Is everyone in agreement with that one? Agreed.
MR. HENDSBEE: Could that follow shortly after our ADI discussions, come November. I think they're kind of related.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to be tied up for November now. Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, parks policy, abandonment of Parks Act and policy. Thoughts on that?
MR. MACKINNON: I have to confess I'm a little naive on this, because this was put in before I came on the committee. If you want to just put that on hold for now . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will put that on hold. (Interruptions) Northern Lumber.
The Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environment, state of mining industry, new projects, environmental approvals process. Is everyone in agreement with that one?
MR. HENDSBEE: Does that just pertain to new projects, not old?
MR. CHAIRMAN: New projects, environmental approvals process. That's what it says there. Is it agreed? Agreed. (Interruptions)
MR. DOOKS: We didn't discuss it but we can just leave it to the next meeting.
MR. MACDONELL: It's been put off every meeting. (Interruptions) Why would it be a problem to have this . . .
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, through you, I'm not saying it's a problem, it's just the member for the area is not here, that's all. I just thought it would be appropriate for him to vote on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He may have some thoughts on it. (Interruptions)
MR. MACDONELL: If he chose to leave while we're doing this, then that's up to him. I think I've been patient enough on this issue. I can't see anything earth-shattering about having this company come before the committee. I think we've been in agreement with anything that either of the other caucuses have put forward.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, could I ask, if this is to be an item to be discussed before the committee, are they compelled to come to this committee, or is this voluntary? Could Northern Lumber decline the request to come forward? What authority do we have to tell this company to come forward?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): We would naturally ask them to come with a letter. Then, if they did refuse, usually witnesses do not but if they did refuse, then I would come back with the committee and tell them about that. It would be up to the committee to then decide if they wanted to subpoena them or what further steps the committee would like to take. Usually an invitation is sent out, and companies and witnesses respond to that.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, when is our next meeting?
MS. STEVENS: It would be November 26th, if I can arrange that date with the wood supply part of the forest sustainability. Then, the ADI would be moved to January because that's our meeting after that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell, you've been so patient up until now. Can you be patient for another four weeks?
MR. MACDONELL: I would just like to have an answer. It doesn't matter to me when they come, but I want a decision today that they're going to come. That's what I would
like. (Interruptions) That they're going to be asked anyway, that they're on the list to be asked.
MRS. BAILLIE: I'm with Bill Dooks. Bill Langille is not here right now. I feel he should be here. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I will rule that we will just deal with it now and get it off our plate. Is everyone in agreement with Northern Lumber?
MR. MACKINNON: Put it in.
MR. DOOKS: No, I'm not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're not? Okay.
MR. DOOKS: It's just for the courtesy of a member of the committee. That's all it is, nothing deeper than that. I just stated it and I will carry it through. Believe me, member, I'm not doing it for any reason other than the member is not here. We're going too far down the road with it, it's been okayed by the chairman. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we have the wine strategy and I know we're running a little late. I hope we're not holding people up.
MR. HENDSBEE: The wine strategy. Would that be the Nova Scotia Grape Growers Association or would it be the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation?
MS. STEVENS: The strategy was just forwarded because it was on the list for the Public Accounts Committee but it would be up to the committee to determine what they would like to do, if they would like to do the strategy as a whole or who they would like to have in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As Chairman, of course, I just saw this letter today and I haven't really given it any thought. How would the committee like to handle this? Mr. Hendsbee, did you have some thoughts on it?
MR. HENDSBEE: If the strategy was to come forward we would probably have to get a briefing and information from the department or the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation of what the strategy actually entails, what it is and what they are trying to do to encourage the industry in the province. Then, if there could be a follow-up with the Grape Growers Association with regard to how they have been responding to the strategy or how there might be some failings in the strategy, if there are any.
MR. MACKINNON: Fine with us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay then, we agree to that and Mr. MacDonell, you're happy?
MR. MACDONELL: Fine.
MR. MACKINNON: Move to adjourn.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 11:08 a.m.]