HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

Mr. John MacDonell (Chairman)

Hon. Barry Barnet

Hon. Karen Casey

Mr. Patrick Dunn

Mr. Sterling Belliveau

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

Mr. Wayne Gaudet

Mr. Leo Glavine

Mr. Harold Theriault

In Attendance:

Ms. Rhonda Neatt

Legislative Committee Clerk

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Mr. Gregg Cunningham

Program Network Specialist - Forestry

Mr. Leonard Boudreau

Manager - Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle Project

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. John MacDonell

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everyone. I'm John MacDonell, chairman of the committee. I apologize for the traffic, and without further ado, we will go around the table and introduce ourselves.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, gentlemen.

MR. GREGG CUNNINGHAM: I'd just like to thank the Standing Committee on Resources for having us here today to give us this opportunity to speak to you regarding the brown spruce longhorn beetle.

Back at the end of March, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources invited me to assist in their presentation on the same matter, so I don't know if we need to go through all the histories and whatnot.

Basically, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's involvement with brown spruce longhorn beetle goes back, I guess, to Spring of 2000. The Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada made the identification of Tetropium fuscum, which is the Latin name for brown spruce longhorn beetle in the Fall of 1999. This was identified as an exotic pest, of course not native to our environment here in Canada, or North America.

1

[9:15 a.m.]

Between 1999 and the Spring of 2000, information was gathered in respect to the brown spruce longhorn beetle. During the Spring, once we were notified of the finding of the brown spruce longhorn beetle and the potential for this pest to be of concern for the forests of Canada, basically we began a risk assessment process based on the scientific information that the Canadian Forest Service were both gathering themselves and gather from other organizations. In Europe, the research community there where the pest is native, the risk assessment that came out in the early summer of 2000 classified brown spruce longhorn beetle to be a pest of quarantine significance to Canada.

We began our quarantine activities in the late Spring of 2000 based on the preliminary information regarding the pest. As everybody knows, we placed a prohibition of movement on Point Pleasant Park. We had the survey going at that time outside of the park as well and basically the methodology - once we deemed this pest was of quarantine significance - was to remove trees that were found infested and to dispose of those trees. Initially in Point Pleasant Park, the methodology was to determine which trees were infested and to remove those trees.

At that time, we actually had a mill set up in Point Pleasant Park where we slabbed the outer portion of the tree, down deep enough that we would remove any life stages of the beetle. That outer portion of the tree was burned and then the square cants that were left in the middle of the white wood, they were inspected and the sale of the cants, that money went back into the refurbishing of Point Pleasant Park.

From Point Pleasant Park of course, as I say, we had the survey going initially in 2000 outside of the park as well. We were finding trees infested in Dartmouth, approximately 10 to 12 kilometres out in that first year; to the east, we were finding trees in Bedford approximately 15 kilometres out; and of course, in the periphery of Halifax, Halifax Mainland, Purcells Cove Road - other locations in that first year. So I think it's important to note that the beetle and in trees showing the characteristic signs and symptoms of infestation were found in that first year outside of the park, as well. That's something that probably was not highlighted due to a lot of the media concentration and whatnot on the Point Pleasant Park situation.

From there, 2001 and 2002, the survey of course maintained its pace systematically outside trying to limit the limits of where the brown spruce longhorn beetle was found. Of course, when trees were found infested due to either the characteristic signs and symptoms of the beetle, or if actual life stages of the beetle were found or destructive samples found that the beetle was present, trees were removed and destroyed.

Then we get into the Fall of 2003. We had Hurricane Juan - a major event to all, but also in respect to the impact on the beetle population here in Nova Scotia, it was a significant event in that a large percentage of those downed trees were spruce trees. Spruce, of course, is the major host material for brown spruce longhorn beetle, and that downed material presented itself as brewed material for the beetle. So that's in the Fall of 2003. That was late enough that the downed trees were not being infested that Fall any further.

Certainly, if you look at the maps that you have before you, or the top map, and you see the distribution of the positive finds, which are denoted by the red marks on the map, that basically shows where we found the positives in 2006, and that's also along that Hurricane Juan corridor. We don't know specifically that Hurricane Juan was necessarily the one event that really caused the finds to be where they are at the current time, however, we know that it was an event that had an impact on the beetle spread.

So Hurricane Juan did affect not only the spread of the beetle, most likely, but it also, in respect to the access for our survey crews, everything - and if anyone tried to walk through what was formally a good mature spruce stand, after Hurricane Juan came along it was basically next to impossible. I think my counterpart here, Leonard, would concur that the survey became a very difficult thing to do after the Fall of 2003, so that even that access and that inability to go in and identify stands that were further infested by the beetle, after that time, really was a factor to the overall success of a program.

Anyway, by 2005, we had seven locations outside of the current ministerial order zone area, the area that basically includes metropolitan Halifax. We had seven locations outside of the metropolitan area that we found positive for brown spruce longhorn beetle. At that point, we were starting to talk with industry and our other stakeholders as to what are the next steps in respect to containing the beetle using regulatory controls and other measures to try to contain it.

Working into the Spring of 2006, we had a task force meeting in the late Spring of that year and by that time, we had indicated that we are shifting our focus from strictly eradication to one of slow the spread - and by that, I mean we were taking out each tree that we found infested, or every time that we found a tree that had a beetle we were removing that tree and burning it. But by the Spring of 2006, it became very clear that to chase trees with a chainsaw was not going to be a very effective means of eradicating the beetle, but unfortunately a chainsaw in destruction of the trees was really the only known effective method of eliminating the beetle populations.

So in the Spring of 2006, after a lot of consideration, we indicated that we cannot eradicate the beetle using this methodology, so our focus must be on slowing the spread through other means like regulatory controls - and of course the stakeholder group as well were considering other means by which the beetle population could be controlled. When I say stakeholders, essentially I am including the provinces of Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick that have been active within our task force group, industry parties, and basically other members of our task force group that were represented, or other groups that were represented.

So that decision was made in the Spring of 2006. Then get into later in the Spring, early summer, we had quite a number of new finds that were made of the beetle outside of the ministerial order zone. Over the Summer of 2006, we had a total of 18 new locations that were found positive outside of the ministerial order zone, to bring the total to 25 locations outside of that zone. The distribution, as you can see on that top map - they are those red spots - was fairly uniform throughout that corridor that I had mentioned and also we had a find over on the western side, in the Hammonds Plains area.

So, basically, given that distribution of the new finds, our science subcommittee of the Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle Task Force - of course this is a real time thing, making their considerations - met and looked at the distribution of the new finds which basically indicated that the ministerial order zone, as a tool to prevent the spread of the brown spruce longhorn beetle, needed to expand to incorporate all the new finds of brown spruce longhorn beetle. Because of the unknowns associated with the beetle itself in respect to its ability to fly and to move throughout the forest, they recommended that we include a 10-kilometre buffer on that encapsulation of those positive areas.

So essentially, over the past number of months, looking at that expanse, we have gone from the Halifax core area, the metropolitan area where we had the ministerial order zone, we have individual quarantines on the properties where we found the beetle in those 25 locations - that's under a regulatory tool called the Prohibition on Movement in those 25 locations.

So that's the current stance. In order to go out to the recommended area, of course that takes in most of the core of Halifax County from the northeast corner of St. Margaret's Bay up to the county line, then all the way over to Lake Charlotte on the eastern side, and then up and taking in even small portions of the southwestern corner of Colchester County and the southeastern corner of Hants County. It's quite a chunk of land.

Given that magnitude of expanse, we had to do a number of things. We had to go back through and re-evaluate the science on it. We weren't just going to make a decision to expand the zone without going back through to the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada and the science committee and ask the question - is this a pest of quarantine significance to Canada?

We already had a re-evaluation of the pest risk assessment for brown spruce longhorn beetle in the Fall of 2005 but, given the magnitude of the situation, we wanted to make sure - and basically we were told in respect to brown spruce longhorn beetle - the question is if the brown spruce longhorn beetle is a primary pest to Canada, and the answer was not

extremely clear on that particular question. It is a pest of quarantine significance to Canada, but you have to combine the fact that it's not quite a typical primary pest in that it's one that will combine with other pests to kill a tree.

[9:30 a.m.]

It has been seen to kill apparently healthy trees, that's been observed again and again, but I guess I mentioned this at the last standing committee that it's a pest that maybe, in ideal conditions and you have a perfectly healthy tree, it's not going to be a primary attacker.

I guess the rhetorical question is: Who has seen a healthy forest in Nova Scotia over the last 20 to 25 years? Combine that rhetorical question with the potential impact of this pest to the forests of Canada given the resource that it impacts, spruce - and that combined with the very close definition as a primary pest - that gives you a pest that the science subcommittee very clearly recommended that it maintain as a pest of quarantine significance to Canada.

I should clarify at this time that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, our plant health division works under the Plant Protection Act - plant protection and plant protection regulations. Under that Plant Protection Act, the minister has the ability to issue or implement the ministerial order so we're working under the authority of the Plant Protection Act. If anyone is wondering why the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing this kind of work, essentially we have the plant health division working under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and we are the national plant protection authority for Canada and of course that works under the North American Plant Protection Organization.

So we're at the point now where we have consulted with stakeholder groups in respect to this situation. The science subcommittee has maintained the recommendation that we move forward with controls justified by this as a pest of quarantine significance. That's where our regulatory aspect ties in because it is a pest of quarantine significance to Canada. That's where we're tied in - if it wasn't, we wouldn't be involved basically.

Now at this point in time, the consultations have wrapped up. It's our understanding that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, who is the minister for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was to sign the second revision of the ministerial order yesterday, and I believe that's to be announced today - it's just coincidental that we're sitting here. But I just wanted to indicate that the consultations were crucial for this situation. I indicated that the magnitude of the expansion is considerable.

It takes in a considerable resource for industry, for the environment, et cetera. So because of that we had to look at not only the risks that the pests might pose, the science around it, but we also had to look at the impact on trade, on personal movement and whatnot as well. That was key in our decisions around the measures that would be associated with this

new zone. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth - and I mean in a positive way. There is quite a bit at stake in respect to industry here in Nova Scotia, and to the Maritimes as well, because a lot of wood does move into New Brunswick and other provinces. So when we made our decision, we had to also look at the next steps - this thing is on the move - we've got to look at something that's sustainable as well.

So essentially what we did was, we again looked at those risks and the impacts that were going to be involved. We focused on those materials that were truly of risk to move this pest. The old ministerial order had a number of different species of trees and whatnot. There were hardwoods, all softwoods - essentially that came from the early literature reviews from Europe. Hardwood has been ruled out. Basically those were very sketchy references, not very much to it. The softwood side, other conifers, in a laboratory situation if you have a wood bolt of pine, yes, the beetle can survive in that but it's not something that has been observed in the situation out in the forests. It's just not a likely, it's more of a forced type of situation.

So essentially what we've done is we've focused on spruce, picea species - and I'm just throwing out the Latin, but no, basically the spruce is what is of concern. So we've got spruce, round wood, logs with or without bark, we've got bark itself and we've got chips that are over a size of four centimetres in two different dimensions. Essentially the four centimetres in two different dimensions, we've had scientific studies done in respect to the survivability of brown spruce longhorn beetle in ships and whatnot after the mechanical chipping, and those chips that have a smaller size than that size essentially, the likelihood of survival is not great.

So we've got those three commodities that will be included under the ministerial order for brown spruce longhorn beetle and basically the measures in respect to the facilitation of trade. Combined with the mitigation of risk, we've come up with a set of requirements that essentially will allow for the movement of logs - which are really the highest risk commodity - through the flight period of the beetle, which is the highest risk time, but adopting an expedited type processing where mills will be required to process logs at their in-feed of their facility and to run those through within that 48- hour period.

Of course, the by-products, you have chips - the chips less than 4 centimeters and most white chips produced in the province for pulp and paper are less than 4 centimeters in size. The bark is of risk at this time - studies will be done in respect to the effect of hogging, which is a mechanical process on bark, but at this time it is a high- risk commodity that will be moved to cogeneration plants in other locations that process or burn bark in a risk- mitigated fashion, of course. Then the lumber - green lumber, there is a very low risk associated with that, but we do have mechanisms within our risk mitigation program that we are setting up with industry to address overall concerns in respect to bark grub holes and whatnot too.

Essentially that is the current package, but I did indicate that the survey is ongoing - I indicated that back at the beginning and that is something that is maintaining now, it is stronger this year after those finds outside last year. We have a new pheromone that was developed through the Canadian Forest Service, that's going to be laced into the new trap. I think the effort will double in Nova Scotia this year - we are up around 400 traps for Nova Scotia, over 650 I believe for Canada. We've been able to share our technology with the U.S., and I know that Maine intends to set at least 22 traps throughout Maine with the new, pheromone-laced trap. That is ongoing and of course the research is very important too.

We have had meetings with stakeholders and with the science group, looking at where the gap still exists. There are many gaps essentially, it is a pest that is just starting to unfold in respect to our understanding of it here in North America. I guess we would all like nothing better to be able to say at the end of the day okay, with respect to this pest being primary or not, perhaps not a pest of quarantine significance, but we're not there yet. We need more information and the science is being ramped up this year - and it will be over the next several years - to get more information on the risk elements.

Control measures - there are some promising aspects that may be coming about with respect to that pheromone that has been discovered. There are mating disruption possibilities that I shouldn't speak too fluidly about because it is still just on the horizon, but that kind of possibility is there, so it is exciting in that regard. That is about where we are right at this time. I don't know if you want to add anything, Leonard.

MR. LEONARD BOUDREAU: Not unless - if there are any questions with respect to the day- to- day operations of what we've done from the year 2000 and what we are doing presently, I'd be glad to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I think Mr. Gaudet got to the bell first and then Mr. MacKinnon is next.

MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I guess my first question is, are we doing anything else other than burning these trees that are infected with this beetle in trying to eliminate this pest?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: At this time, as of Spring 2006, unless it is for a research purpose we're not removing any trees at this present time.

MR. GAUDET: So, I'm just trying to understand - how is this beetle controlled or destroyed in other parts of the world where it is found? Do they just burn the trees?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Essentially, in other locations, it is my understanding in Europe that it has come to an outbreak type situation, but that's not a norm at all. It's normally very much an endemic type of pest that is very low level. It is more of a secondary

pest in Europe and Eurasia. That is fairly typical of exotic pests in that they don't necessarily exhibit primary pest-type characteristics in their native land because, of course, they have all the natural enemies, all the natural parasites and whatnot, at play. When they come into a new land, they may carry with them some of those parasites or natural enemies, but that is not very likely. So usually it takes a while before they are put in check in their new environment.

MR. GAUDET: Hearing that in 2006 that 25 new locations outside of the original zone were found positive, I'm just wondering, are we making any progress in trying to control this pest?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Boudreau probably could speak a little bit better than I on this, but I would say between 2000 and 2003 we were making fairly good progress in respect to the curve, in respect to the number of trees that were being found infested.

[9:45 a.m.]

It was going down once we got into 2003 but after Hurricane Juan hit, we had a couple of years where our access was not very good and, of course, that is coupled with brood material down on the ground presenting a good means for the beetle to increase in its population - I would say no. The control element, as I say, we were chasing with chainsaws, and it's not a very effective tool to chase a beetle.

MR. GAUDET: I'm looking at the map that has been circulated, looking at the areas where there have been traps pretty well located all around our province. I'm just wondering, has this beetle been found in other parts of the province?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, just in Halifax County so far, and it's more in that core area. On that lower map there, the red circles denote the traps that the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources put out in the outer areas, just for your information. That top map just shows the 2006 trap placement and results, so that core area, the white area that is the old ministerial order zone, we don't have the historical finds shown on that map.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I go to Mr. MacKinnon, I just want to welcome the observers who are here. I want to acknowledge Mr. Hendsbee, municipal councillor, former MLA for the House. Welcome.

Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a fundamental concern in relationship to the only control being regulatory control at this time.

Now I realize that it is very important to have a prohibition on the movement of wood, or at least I think it is important. There is certainly no prohibition on the movement of these beetles. I believe with 400 traps out there, we may be faced with further regulatory - do you envisage this just expanding as the beetle expands? We are not really achieving much by this, are we?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, in respect to stopping that natural spread, without an actual control such as that meeting disruption that I alluded to that might be a remote possibility. There is not a whole lot that we can do to prevent that natural spread. In respect to the artificial spread, basically to protect those areas in Canada that are not infested, in respect to the movement of logs, just jumping from one core area to say 400 miles away, we can stop that kind of spread.

As I said, there was a lot of consternation - for lack of a better word - in respect to just how severe that type of control might be. If you go back to the original requirements under the old zone that we have right now, those requirements were very restrictive. You compare those to the requirements that we outlined, basically the feedback that we've received so far is that this can work - and this is from the stakeholder groups - in respect to, well, there are no restrictions now within the zone, there are no restrictions, so we do have large mills that are within the containment area that we've defined.

In respect to movement outside of the zone, as I indicated, logs can move. It is in a risk-mitigated fashion, as I say, there's a need to process in an expedited fashion. Is there a risk associated with that? Yes, there is. Will it reduce the risk of the beetle spreading? Yes, it will, but it is a balance, and we had to find that balance.

There will be parties impacted. There are a number of ways to be impacted by this, obviously, but it is a decision that was made in close consultation with the stakeholder groups, and I think a lot of you are probably familiar with this stakeholder plan that was presented to us in late February. We adopted many of the ideas that came through that stakeholder plan. Of course, there were other parties, too, that were providing us with suggestions, information, as well.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. I have a series of questions, and I know the chairman will cut me off, so maybe I'll get around that by combining a couple of them. Have we learned any lessons from the pine beetle in B.C.? Just as an add-on to that, there are many people who maintain that the brown spruce longhorn beetle has been with us for a long time before 1999. Can you answer both of those, if you would?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe Mr. Cunningham can combine his answers.

MR. MACKINNON: He never allows me to get all my questions in, so that's why I'm doing that.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, I can try. The pine beetle is teaching us a number of lessons. Essentially you have a pest that kind of remains at a low, endemic level and then weather conditions basically bring out the best in the pest. That's the kind of fear, not to be a fear-mongerer, but that's the kind of fear that you have with the brown spruce longhorn beetle, that if the forest underwent stress, it could take off in a similar fashion.

Now, in respect to the length of time that the brown spruce longhorn beetle has been here, actually Stephanie Robertson, who is with us today, carried out a study in 1990 . . .

MS. STEPHANIE ROBERTSON: It was 1989.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: In 1989, and 17 specimens were found at that time of Tetropium fuscum, which is the brown spruce longhorn beetle but, unfortunately, at that time, the insect was misidentified as another species. It was identified as Tetropium fuscum in 2000 by the Canadian Forest Service. But basically, yes, it could have been here in 1962 - for all we know, given the fact that there were quite a number of trees that had been infested with Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle, most likely. There were a lot of dead, standing trees when we came along in 2000. I couldn't say for sure that they were all infested due to Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle, but one might surmise that a lot of them may have been. So it was here before we ever started and I guess when I said about it being found in Bedford, Dartmouth and other locations in that first summer of our survey, it gives you the indication that it had the jump on us a little bit.

MR. MACKINNON: One very quick one. You maintained in your preliminary comments that it does, in fact, attack healthy trees. There's a tremendous debate on that, as well.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: The reason why I always use that adjective - I guess it's not an adjective. My grammar is going to be coming out here - apparently, healthy trees. Basically, the study by Canadian Forest Service, as I understand it, was done in respect to forest health indices where basically, they looked at trees that were verified as being infested with Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle, looking at the crown health against a national standard for stand health basically, by using the crown condition of the tree. That was used to indicate that it was an apparently healthy type of tree that was being infested. Now, in respect to other studies that may have been done, or other observations, that would probably be better for Natural Resources Canada to respond to. I'm not the scientist.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Alright. Mr. Belliveau.

MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the members for the opportunity to ask a few questions. I'll ask a combined question, to make sure I get my questions in. Hopefully I'll get another chance.

In your presentation, one of the areas you did not touch on is - I know that there is personal use of firewood, for instance, and people have woodlots. I'm just curious of what the landowner who may want to have access to firewood, if there are restrictions and what the status of that particular situation is? I was intrigued by your description of establishing a buffer zone, around this restricted area and you suggested a 10-kilometre buffer. Am I correct in that? And I was looking at the map and I suppose you have also made this acknowledgment that since 1999, the beetle basically, has moved from the peninsula of Halifax, in the northeast direction? If you look closely at the map, you'll see very little settlement toward the southwest but yet, your guidelines have established a 10-kilometre buffer, in all directions. I'm just curious to how you can - if you recognize the fact that they are moving to the northeast, is it because of the prevailing winds, the times that these may be moving or can you just give me some insight in that?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: To start with, the firewood. Spruce firewood is basically prohibited. In respect to the 10-kilometre buffer, it's really a best estimate, in respect to the potential of the insect to move and it also combines that with the unknowns associated. These traps were host-volatile traps that were set last year, and to actually find a beetle in one of those traps, that's not to say that the beetle arose from that particular spot. So there are some unknowns involved. That's a factor.

Then, in respect to that corridor that I alluded to for the hurricane, there is a corridor for the hurricane obviously in respect to its path, but with respect to the movement of the beetle, we don't know specifically. I mean, despite the data, we don't have enough data to indicate that there's a direct association with its presence out in a given area with the hurricane, but you can get a pretty good idea that it had an affect.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just a follow up, if I can, in regard to the firewood and people having access, you're saying that that's prohibited as of now?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I need to be clear on this. You alluded to - your assistants were basically chasing this beetle with chainsaws and disposing of the trees and burning them.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

MR. BELLIVEAU: For people who have this particular wood for personal use, what's the difference?

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Because it's not controlled. When somebody moves a personal trailer-load of spruce to their cottage, a lot of that material is going to sit for a long period of time. Whereas with the industry or any participant - not just industry, but any participant who participates under the BSOB Risk Mitigation Program - by law, they're bound to processing and eliminating the material at risk within 48 hours of time, and that wouldn't occur in a personal movement type of situation. It might sometimes, but the risk is too great to just say it's okay. You just can't do it. So not very many people use spruce - well, some people use spruce for firewood, but it's not as commonly used as hardwood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault.

MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't be long. Here, a month ago, I guess, you were in for a committee and a lot of these questions were asked then.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

MR. THERIAULT: Anyway, I don't know if it was asked where this predator, or the beetles, come from - did you say what their predator was in Europe?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: I didn't say. There are a number of parasitoid wasps, and there's a fungus that we know of, it is called Beauveria bassiana, and there are a number of other Beauveria fungi as well. I don't have an extensive knowledge of the parasitoids or the natural enemies. Dr. Jon Sweeney, with the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada, has done a fair bit of work looking into the different parasitoids that actually exist here in Canada that have been found in the larvae, and the different life stages of the brown spruce longhorn beetle here in Canada - there are natural enemies but, so far, we haven't found one that is extremely specific, and that's a goal to see if there are any classical bio-control opportunities, taking bio-control from Europe and seeing whether or not it would take off here in Canada. Anyway, I can't even really get into that because it's not my field of expertise.

MR. THERIAULT: I believe that is something that should be looked at. You know, if they do have a natural predator in Europe and that could be brought here without starting something else....

MR. CUNNINGHAM: As I indicated, a lot of the research that was undertaken in the early years, a lot of it was very practical, how can we best trap, how can we do this, how can we do that, looking at the dollars that were at hand. It has been identified that there are a number of research gaps that have to be closed and that would be one area, like the bio-control type of area.

MR. THERIAULT: I mean, there has to be a way to stop this. For every problem there is a solution. I see last week, out West in the prairies, they have a gopher problem. They are going to mix up a concoction form to get rid of 80 per cent of them, no problem. This quarantined area, if this is not stopped, can you see this quarantined area expanding and by how much?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, actually the criteria by which we might expand the containment area, that hasn't been fully defined. It's normal and I use the word normal in a relative sense. Normally, if we had the distribution that we had this past year, we would have a containment area that would look like the whole County of Halifax because it's just standard practice for normal bounds of a quarantine zone to go county-wide. We were, of course, looking at an additional area of Hants and Colchester Counties as well. We basically looked at the science very closely and heard the concerns in respect to the impact on trades. That's why we are going to have an area that is smaller than that. As far as the next step out, well, I expect that we will have finds outside of this area this coming year. It's just the way that it's going, basically. How far that goes, I couldn't say if it's just going to be Halifax, Hants, Colchester.

A lot of that will be affected by trade as well. Wood movement is not a simple thing. You have the pulp and paper facilities. You have co-generation plants, you have the sawmills in a quite an intricate movement of wood. So it could even be the Province of Nova Scotia. I can't tell you that.

MR. THERIAULT: What is this going to do to the local forest industry? Has the government looked at putting any kind of plan in place for compensation to help these people if this is going to happen?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's mandate, we don't have a compensation plan in place for sawmills or any stakeholder at this time.

MR. THERIAULT: You don't know if the government - they have never asked you any questions about this and the possibility of this happening and what they could do for the local industry?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: This question has been asked but we don't have that mechanism under our mandate, at least not at this time.

MR. THERIAULT: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunn, before I ask any questions, you are the member of the committee who hasn't asked any. I just wondered if you wanted to go before I - okay, go ahead.

MR. PATRICK DUNN: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned 1962, we certainly had an invasion of the other time of beetle a couple of years after that, coming in from England, McCartney, Lennon and so on. (Laughter) Maybe this group here will last perhaps just as long.

A few of the questions I was going to ask have been already asked by some of my colleagues - the impact in other areas in the data collected from that. I can understand using a chain saw and burning trees would be a pretty tedious task and so on. I guess one question dealing with the traps, up to this point, how effective do you think that method is, the use of traps? Are we looking beyond that to another method?

MR. BOUDREAU: Perhaps I can address that one. The trapping system is getting better each and every year with the better lures, better attractants. It is to the point now where last year it was deemed that trapping is more effective than what we were formerly doing and that was actual ground survey work. In areas where you have heavy infestation, such as Point Pleasant Park, many of the trees show the symptemology very easily. It is recognizable by anyone pretty well. When you start getting out further, where the infestation may not be as heavy, you are more successful with your traps than you are with your actual ground survey. That is what we have been determining, that is why we have been placing the additional emphasis this year and increasing the number of traps. As trapping technology advances, hopefully we'll be able to delineate sooner how far the beetle has spread. That remains to be seen.

MR. DUNN: I'm going to zero in on HRM just for a few seconds. If there are any positive finds of this particular beetle within various wilderness protected sites in HRM, like Whites Lake, Clattenburg Brook, Waverley, Salmon River, whatever, will there be any clear cutting going on withing a 10 kilometre area?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, basically going back to the decision to focus on slowing the spread through their regulatory measures, as the CFIA's tool for preventing the spread of the pest, we won't be cutting any trees unless it is for research purposes. When I say that, there are different elements we are trying to look at right now. I alluded to a study to test the efficacy of a hog to control the beetle through that mechanical means. For example, we have removed some infested trees that are known to be infested with the Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle and the bark from those trees is being put through the hog, kind of a simple concept but essentially that is the type of removal that we might be involved in.

Right now, we are facilitating our partners like Canadian Forest Service to carry out, so no, we won't be. With respect to the stakeholder plan, that actually was a part of the stakeholder plan, the control within the containment area, but at this time I won't speak for that group but I don't think that that is an active part of the plan right now overall.

MR. DUNN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Roman">[Page 15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess there are two or three things I would like to ask - I won't combine my questions. Number one is clarification of the original quarantine zone or Ministerial Order, that is basically lumped in with the present one. The rules that apply to this larger quarantine zone apply to the original area, it's not under a different regulation than this?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's right. The original zone will basically be just wiped out and that is the same with those individual pockets that were under quarantine outside of the old zone. So as soon as this new one, everything is announced, everything of the past basically is wiped off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not going to stop this beetle or eradicate it, are we?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: It doesn't look very good at this time with the tools that we have right now. I think that is the important distinction here in that hopefully we've been able to slow things, contain things, hopefully enough that new tools that might come on the horizon might be effective, but no, right now it doesn't look very good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think about the starling and the zebra mussel for two that don't seem to be going away, although I don't think anybody was setting traps. The stakeholders you talk about always seemed to be involved in this new quarantine zone or trying to negotiate on the Ministerial Order, but there really were no stakeholders in the original Ministerial Order. I mean, they were basically private landowners; there were no mills involved there. The industry really has gotten involved in this case mainly because it's enlarged. It includes, I think, five mills or some such thing.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, within the containment area, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, CFIA, I see a bit of a contradiction in - well, plant health division probably makes some sense, I guess. What I would see as Canadian Food Inspection Agency - I'm not sure too many people are eating that much cellulose presently, but when you combine the responsibilities of Natural Resources Canada. Mr. Theriault's question around compensation - CFIA is the lead agency regarding avian influenza, am I right?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you're also the lead agency for BSE. I think the protocol around the avian flu - correct me if I'm wrong, is that if a flock of chickens is discovered to have avian influenza and they're destroyed, the farmer is compensated. In the case of BSE, the abattoirs were compensated for their inventories, but yet for these people in Dartmouth, Lawrencetown, those areas, you say there's no compensation. I don't know if that's a mechanism of your particular division - why does this seem to be different?

[10:15 a.m.]

To me, the glitch came - I mean, the fact that you changed the regulations to be somewhat more lenient and somewhat more sensible, but the hurricane really threw a monkey wrench into harvesting in that area. The crippling effect of that hurricane was that downed wood was losing value every day so if you didn't harvest it, eventually it was going to be worthless.

I'm curious around the issue of compensation because it seems to me that we have two cases in particular where CFIA is involved in the compensation process, yet they seem to disregard it in terms of landowners there.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Actually, there are quite a number of other types of situations where we do have compensation. It was in the context that I was asked the question earlier respecting compensation, I said there was none. As you know, there is compensation for brown spruce longhorn beetle for specific trees that are removed under Notice to Dispose and there is a compensation package for that. But, as I understood the question earlier, it was more in respect to loss of income and that type of thing. Specifically, at this time anyway, there's no such compensation in place. I'm not trying to defer, but that type of thing could be handled by other departments as well.

Back to the original statement, in respect to the consultation around the earlier zone - when we are into an eradication-type mode, it was somewhat different in that there was a little more need or urgency to contain and to basically search and destroy, for lack of better words, in respect to our actions. So, no, there wasn't as much consultation at that time. We were essentially having to utilize the power we had under the Plant Protection Act in order to carry out the actions that we did.

To go into Point Pleasant Park, a park that's frequented by over 1.5 million people and start removing trees under duress, we had to be well justified, yes. But, in respect to taking that kind of action, it's a different type of situation that we find ourselves in at this present time. Yes, we are still working under the Plant Protection Act, but in respect to the type of program that we are trying to promote here, it's a "slow the spread" type of focus.

So essentially we are trying to evoke the cooperation of all. It's in no one's best interest to spread this willfully. Basically we are trying to adopt that type of mentality - ourselves, the industry, anybody who frequents, somebody might have the firewood type of situation - trying to evoke that cooperation because domestic quarantine is a real challenge. So to say to yourself, you know that tree that you are taking in your yard, you can't move that to the cottage; you have to understand and believe that is not something that you want to do. That is essentially what we are trying to get across.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess I will only ask a couple of more, in fairness to my colleagues. This is really a political problem, isn't it? I'm assuming when the Americans were here from USDA, that couldn't have gone well or couldn't have gone better. At the meeting we had with DNR, Mr. Cunningham, you kind of indicated that you might be able to have more answers for us when you came here, so I'm curious as to what the American reaction has been to this. It wasn't clear that this pest is being defined as the primary pest. That wasn't made clear to me, or it was made clear to me that it wasn't - you can straighten me out on that. So it seems that we are still holding to the notion that we have to do something, or we are trying to do something. So I'm thinking that if the Americans were to say we don't recognize this as a problem, that we would be doing something completely different, would we?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's a possibility that we may. We haven't received a distinct word from the USDA back from their visits. Actually, they were here March 1^st and actually the very end of that week that we had met there. So, no, they haven't come back to us definitively indicating they are interested in the pest, they are trapping for the pest, et cetera, but I think they have just as much of a challenge as us in going back to that primary, secondary type of thing. It's right on the cusp, but you combine that with the economic impact factor and that mountain pine beetle question, as to whether or not it could do the same kind of thing given a more stressed forest condition. I mean it's a possibility. No one is willing to take that chance so it remains as a pest of quarantine significance.

I didn't answer your question in respect to the compensation. I don't have a good answer other than to say that right at this time we don't have provisions for it under the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For this specific compensation.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: I had a couple of questions in relation to compensation but you did a very good job, Mr. Chairman, in putting those forward.

I have a question in relationship to harvesting in advance. To me - and I have said this before - the sustainable appetite of humankind is much more important than the appetite of the beetle. I had a five acre field that I had to burn and I didn't want it to get out of control so I burnt a little strip that I watched closely and when the main fire came to it, it stopped. Is there a way of harvesting areas in advance if we know the direction that this beetle is going and we take advantage of some of that resource before the beetle gets there?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: We have heard a lot of things over our consultations. As we are sitting in boardrooms discussing what could be done about expansion of a containment

area and whatnot, we are hearing about some harvesting that might be going on out of fear of quarantine measures and whatnot.

In respect to a sustainable kind of harvest that could be done, you know, prioritizing the areas that might be at a higher age class of trees, trees that might be more susceptible to the beetle and using other criteria that we know of over time, that kind of thing. That's where we may say that we have a specific role in respect to regulatory controls and whatnot, but the stakeholder group as a whole, we're all a body and that's where other players within that group can organize to do things like that, for sure. I think that's something that could be promoted in a sustainable fashion, but that's not our mandate at this time, and that's not to dissociate, it's just to say that.

MR. MACKINNON: In the summer of 2006, 25 locations were identified; we are almost in the summer of 2007, we have 400 traps out there. I guess the series of very quick questions -we know that this - or I think that we know that this pest does fly at some point in its stage?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Do we know any distances of these - I know they're so tiny, but do we have any idea of the advancement with those? I mean that's old information when we're talking summer of 2006, with all those traps out there. How often are they checked? How often do we visit those? Is there a difference between the CFIA traps and the DNR traps? There is a series of questions there and maybe I'll stop.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Basically we have a survey committee, it's a multi-disciplinary type of committee, or multi-agency type of committee and it is the same trap that's utilized. Now, of course, we have the pheromone but in respect to the flight of the beetle, not all that much information is known and surprisingly, as long as the beetle has existed in Europe, it hasn't been a real shining star. So right at this, time Dr. John Sweeney has a flight mill rigged up to see how far the beetle will fly.

As I was indicating, there are some gaps in the information base that are being filled at this time in that regard. It is a beetle that can fly, but it is not a strong flyer and that's about all we can say. There is anecdotal information about it flying over a hill and into a lake, in Europe. That's a joke, for the record, but that's about it.

MR. MACKINNON: But with a pest that has existed in Europe for so long, here we are knowing very little about it but making decisions that have tremendous impacts on Point Pleasant Park and beyond, for God knows how many kilometres.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, there definitely are impacts in our decisions and the base of science is thorough. I've indicated there are gaps like the exact flight of the beetle, things

like that, but the science - I'll let it speak for itself, perhaps, through the Canadian Forest Service and the others that are collaborators there.

In respect to the - I just lost my train of thought, sorry.

MR. MACKINNON: I do that quite often. I do it with questions sometimes, too.

Just going on, because I did get a partial answer there, thank you. I don't understand the science in relationship to - you talked about the pheromone-laced traps and so on, what does this substance do and what is this about?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's a male aggregation pheromone. My understanding is, it's not a pheromone that's extremely powerful but it's one that will give us some additional pull, if you will, to the traps. If you look at some of the moths that you've probably heard of - like the gypsy moth we trap for - for that, there's a female sex pheromone where the male is pulled in from miles away. But this one, from our understanding, is it's one that may pull in from tens of metres away but it adds to the specificity of the trap itself.

MR. MACKINNON: Not to take too much time but we keep hearing - some people still talk about a quarantine area and other people talk about containment area. What's the fundamental difference between a containment area and a quarantine area?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: They both mark a zone. I think the thing there is that a ministerial order is a piece of legislation that's very specific. It's one that basically can be placed onto an area and taken away and there are no traces left of that measure, whereas my understanding - and I could be wrong, but this is just my understanding - is that a quarantine area is more associated with our normal type of events, where you have a pest that's definitely defined as a quarantine pest, it's written into the regulations as such, and you would have quarantine measures that are similar, that are enacted. I would have to get a lawyer to explain that better, but I think that's my understanding.

[10:30 a.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: So you'll share some flight mill information with us soon, will you?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I hope we have something by the end of the season.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gaudet.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple quick questions. My first one is, Greg, from all your monitoring around the province, have you found any beetles outside of Halifax County?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, none.

MR. GAUDET: Looking at CFIA's responsibility - I'm just trying to get a better understanding - the lumber and logs that are being shipped out of this province, or outside the country, does the agency have any responsibility in terms of inspecting whatever wood leaves this province?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. As I indicated, green lumber, the risks of conveying brown spruce longhorn beetle is very low. Under the new order, there's a notwithstanding clause that will exempt green lumber from requiring a movement certificate. That's based on the low-risk status. So it can freely move if it arises from a Canadian Lumber Standards Accreditation Board, a grading agency accredited facility. I might have that terminology wrong, but basically one that produces lumber in a registered status. Most lumber coming out of the province, or out of Canada for that matter, 95 per cent of it is heat treated - 56 degrees core temperature for 30 minutes. It's becoming more of an industry type standard, and basically for anything going offshore, for example, there are programs, certification programs, through us, for that movement.

MR. GAUDET: I'm just looking for clarification - what do you mean by green lumber?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Green is one that hasn't - well, for our purposes, it's lumber that hasn't undergone a treatment, basically.

MR. GAUDET: Are we looking at logs or are we looking at lumber?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: In that case we are looking at squared lumber.

MR. THERIAULT: Milled.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Milled, that's right. We're saying in the legislation that to meet the exemption, it has to come from a CLSAB/grading agency, registered facility.

MR. GAUDET: So you indicated that most of the lumber leaving this province is treated.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's correct.

MR. GAUDET: I'm just curious, is there a cost to businesses in Nova Scotia that are shipping lumber or logs outside the province?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Is there a cost?

MR. GAUDET: A cost for inspection.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: To ship out of the province, no, but if they're participating in our Canadian Wood Packaging Certification Program for movement of wood packaging offshore or for the movement of lumber offshore through our Canadian Heat Treated Wood Products Certification Program, there is a cost for participation in those programs. It is important to note that for the Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle Program - activities at this time, even though that activity could be subject to a fee, we're not imposing a fee. I don't want to speak for those who make that ultimate decision, but I think it has more to do with not creating a disincentive.

MR. GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, any takers? I'm going to jump into action, then. I'm curious about what is the assessment risk now?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Basically, as I have indicated, it is medium for mobility - that's the lowest factor, but it's basically still high risk. That is based on that economic impact combined with that close to primary, if not primary status. It is very high to nail that particular aspect for this pest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm curious about the economic impact because it would seem to me that the majority of the stakeholders are exporters, am I right?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's very difficult to say because you have landowners, woodlot owners, you have co-generational facilities, there are quite a number of exporters but not all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It seems to me - well I'm away from my critic area as far as when I used to be Natural Resources, but I thought we were in the range of 3 million board feet or some such thing. No, MacTara does 180 million, so it is more than that. I thought everything practically cut here was exported.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: A good percentage of the sawmill produced material, but I just don't want to characterize the stakeholders as being all sawmills because there are a lot of individual landowners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm thinking the stakeholder involvement that happened recently around this ministerial order is slightly different than what happened with the original ministerial order. I thought most of those stakeholders were landowners who didn't really seem to have as much say as what the industry has had to say on this one, so I'm looking more to the industry as a stakeholder in this regard.

When you talk about the economic impact as a factor and yet the Americans have made no comment to us and a large proportion of the lumber is exported, then I am wondering how we came up with an economic impact, how that was determined?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: It is the resource that could be impacted that was assessed basically. The spruce resource in eastern Canada is very substantive and it is more in respect to the threat of that resource, I guess that factor is probably the overwhelming one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Who do you see bringing forward the threat to the resource? I mean, who is going to say we don't want it?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That you don't want the beetle in that resource?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Who is going to say we don't want your spruce because of the beetle? Where is that threat going to come from?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, perhaps it's just that I have a difficulty thinking through that, but I think it is just from the standpoint of looking at all stakeholders. As I say, it's not just the industrial stakeholders. Landholders, we also have a responsibility to protect the environment and essentially, given that resource that is threatened, that's basically where that impact element came from.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm curious. I'm glad to hear that the environment is a priority. I just think the way we harvest in this province would indicate we have a big environmental problem there that CFIA certainly isn't attacking.

You made a comment about who has seen a healthy forest in Nova Scotia. I put a star beside it and I'm curious about what you meant by that.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: It is just that there are different risk factors to the forest at any given time. I think most people who are traveling in from out of the city can basically look at any hillside of any stand as they come into the city and they see the spruce beetle damage throughout Nova Scotia. That is the kind of impact that I'm referring to there. You have three or four years of drought that we have had in and around the time that we have known the beetle to be present. Certainly, drought can be a condition that can exacerbate the beetle situation.

I guess what I am trying to say there is that you always have risk factors at play in the spruce forest and we definitely know that the beetle isn't one that will hold back in a weakened forest situation. I guess that is what I am trying to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You mentioned a prohibition of movement on the 25 locations. Can you explain what that means, because the only species that is a problem right now is the spruce, that has been identified. But it sounds as though that can be moved under specific conditions.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, the locations that are under the prohibition of movement at this time, the materials can move under a movement certificate based on conditions similar to what I have outlined for the new containment area. I'm not quite sure where you are heading with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just reacting to the statement about a prohibition of movements. So there really isn't a prohibition as long as you meet certain conditions. The wood can move as long as . . .

MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's right. It is prohibited unless a movement certificate is issued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just thinking that for the people who were in the Lawrencetown ministerial order, Neenah Paper was the only mill that was approved to take- is it still the only pulp mill that can store?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: At this time, Neenah is the only facility, but under this new arrangement, of course, we are coming out with a BSOB Risk Mitigation Program under a whole new set of requirements. We have quite a number of facilities that are coming on stream for that, but under that program, we had quite a number of different facilities that expressed interest. Again, you can't really speak for the parties that were looking at it but I think it's fair to say that the threat of liability in respect to what would happen if a beetle became established outside of my facility, what would my neighbours do to me and all those kinds of considerations, because of that consternation - again, we didn't have a lot of participation. Neenah was the only facility that was signed on to that program.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So the mills that are presently in the new ministerial order zone, they don't really have to meet any quality assurance standards, it is the fact that they're in the zone . . .

MR. CUNNINGHAM: For movement outside of the zone of any regulated article - the logs, the bark, the oversized chips - they have to comply with the requirements for that kind of movement. Basically the way we would indicate those who are under that risk mitigation program, it's almost like a quality plan type of program so we issue a Movement

Certificate to provide them the authority to work all their operations under that quality plan. So there will be some facilities, within the containment area, that will go under the risk mitigation program even if, by law, they may not absolutely have to for their operations. It just provides more flexibility. There's a bit of a due diligence thing there even with respect to green lumber - that they will be looking for grub holes, bark, as part of their site plan a little bit more.

[10:45 a.m.]

Anyway, that plan will be applicable within and outside of the zone. If a particular mill within the zone, for example, was processing logs, they'd have bark as a by-product, green lumber, perhaps, as a by-product. The green lumber can move under their seal SAB registration, up the road without any Movement Certificate necessarily, but the bark requires that Movement Certificate authority to move to another CFIA-approved facility, like a co-generation plant, to actually move that bark through their system in an expedited fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I hand over to my colleague, I want to be clear - you didn't find any beetles in Hants or Colchester Counties?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No. No. That buffer zone . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Extended...

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, basically.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I remember correctly, we had a concentration of positive catchment, and then we had one that was a considerable distance down the Eastern Shore.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Sheet Harbour, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Was the buffer zone - how did that play in relationship to that one beetle that was found?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: We looked at that one find as an outlier, in that we will be controlling that site from a regulatory perspective under our Prohibition on Movement mechanisms.

MR. MACKINNON: So, of course, it wasn't a factor in the current buffer?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, we kind of looked at that contiguous area with a number of positives, and treated that separately from that.

MR. MACKINNON: I commend you for that. In relationship to the number of various types of beetles and so on, I think somebody mentioned there were 26 different types of pests out there, is that a correct figure? It doesn't matter if it is or not, but there are a very large, large number of critters out there that we don't want around, right?

MR. CUNNINGHAM: There probably would be more than that, actually. I don't know specifically, but, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Certainly from an MLA who represents a rural area, I am very, very concerned about the forestry in my constituency which does quite a bit for stemming some outward migration. I certainly hope that we will not overreact to a single beetle here or there along the way, because I envisage this thing actually causing more problem in the future.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. As I indicated, the actual mechanism for potential expansion of the containment area, that hasn't been defined, but it will be as a result of consultation. As far as how radical that expansion might be, it might be a reflection as much on the impact on trade, and sometimes a further expansion may have less impact than a narrow expansion, but that won't be a decision I would make unilaterally, or Mr. Boudreau here with me.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No more questions from the committee? Well, we have some agenda items I want to save some time for. So, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Boudreau, if either one of you or both of you want to make some summary comments, we would be glad to hear them now.

MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think we've gone through basically what we would like to share with the group here today, I guess. It will be, for lack of better words, interesting over the next six months to see what the results will be with the new trap. I think it's going to be of utmost importance as we work with the Province of Nova Scotia and the other stakeholders, coming up with criteria for the next steps if we do have an expansion of the finds. In respect to the measures that are in place, as much as we spent quite a long time consulting with the different stakeholders, you know, we're all human here and I think there will be a need to reassess what the measures actually are. We will have to look at the impacts, that they are being played out upon different stakeholders. That's basically it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I want to say thanks for your presentation today, from the committee. I appreciate that you made it here. I'm not clear as to what happened that it took

this long but, anyway, the information has been valuable, I think, to us. So we appreciate it very much, thank you.

[ The witnesses left the room. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Standing Committee on Resources Subcommittee regarding the forum on the new federal Fisheries Act - we have two motions here. So Mr. Theriault, you're the chairman, do you want to go through these, and Rhonda is going to see if she can get us a copy of Clause 30. I think if you're referring to Clause 30 in motion two, that we probably should have a look at it. Anyway, you can start with motion one.

MR. THERIAULT: I think I'll let Sterling go through them. He made those motions, and we seconded them. We did have a five-hour meeting with five different groups from around the province, right from the fish packers to the small fishermen. So it was a good meeting and everyone agreed that we need a new Act, there is nothing wrong with a new Act. But all agreed, also, that everything needed better clarification, and people need to get all these clauses spelled out and what company is what. I will let Sterling go through these, he made these motions.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think both of those motions are pretty straightforward, but I asked our clerk if we could have just included in there Clause 30.(1) which basically identifies the wording of what we are trying to do here. The motion is to clarify that. You can see down at the bottom - and since September 13, 2006, the minister, on a number of occasions, has sent out clarification. If we can get our clerk to bring in the two-paragraph sentence, which I am referring to in Clause 30, it basically says that under the new Fisheries Act, which has not changed in 139 years, that licenses can not be transferred. This is a simple two-line statement and it's causing a lot of discomfort and irritation right across Canada, that particular sentence.

It was unanimous, Mr. Chairman. If you went through the hearings, it would be shown that the people who made the presentations want this particular section clarified. The minister has tried to do this over the last number of months, and if you read the clarification "Under C-45, licensing regulations will continue to authorize a 'request for transfer'. This involves the relinquishment of an existing licence and the issuance of a new licence to another fisher recommended by the licence holder."

[11:00 a.m.]

That is very clear, it is very straightforward and it contradicts Clause 30 very clearly. So I'm hoping that we can have that here. I strongly recommend that the Standing Committee on Resources supports these recommendations and put some support behind it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I need clarification. Are you saying that the quote that we are looking at, at the bottom under Bill C-45, is in the Act, plus Clause 30, and they are contradictory, so you are asking for clarification?

MR. BELLIVEAU: What I'm saying here, if I could, in the present Bill C-45 - and I have the clause in front of me here now - it says "Nature of licences, 30.(1), licence confers privileges and not any right of property, and may not be transferred." I am directly quoting that from the existing new Fisheries Bill. The minister has sent out clarification. If you read the clarification and you read the clause that I just quoted, they contradict one another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. This is the clarification.

MR. BELLIEVEAU: That is correct, and that is what I am recommending to the Resource Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want clarification of the clarification, then.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, we want that enshrined. The recommendation is for that to be enshrined in the present Bill C-45. I think it needs to be a recommendation from this committee. That is echoing the concerns of right across Nova Scotia, and I'm confident that it is echoing the request across Canada. If you take the time to read that . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, "Under C-45, licensing regulations will continue to authorize a 'request for transfer'". So that doesn't happen now, is what you are saying?

MR. BELLIVEAU: It does happen now, and the minister has sent out clarification, because there have been so many inquiries, and so many people have raised this as a concern. What we have heard from all the presenters, all the people who have made these presentations, the phone calls to our office - and I can show you literally piles of them - if you look at the wording of that Clause 30 and then you look at the wording in the clarification, they contradict each other. This is what the people are saying - they want to feel comfortable with that regulation, with this new bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would it be better to have the bill amended to say a license confers privileges and not any right of property and cannot be transferred, under Clause 30, say it may not be transferred?

MR. THERIAULT: No, he's stated in his letter back to us that it is transferrable. So we're saying, why in the hell isn't it saying it in the Act? It says in the Act it's not, but in his handwriting it is coming back saying, well, it is transferrable, nothing's going to change. So, we're saying why isn't it stating this in the Act? It's not, it's saying it's not transferrable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, here it says it may not be transferred. It doesn't say it cannot be transferred, it says may not be transferred. To me, that indicates it's transferrable.

MR. GAUDET: My take is just the opposite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It seems under the right conditions they may not transfer it.

MR. THERIAULT: It should say it may be transferred, that would be better than may not be; it may be transferred.

MR. GAUDET: Sterling, I'm just looking for clarification. Whose clarification is it, the subcommittee, or is it from Ottawa?

MR. THERIAULT: Oh, it's from Ottawa, from his office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is from the minister.

MR. BELLIVEAU: The clarification is from the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He sent this out a number of times, and I can tell you this has created some very strong opposition or confusion among the industry from coast to coast. People want that clause in there, I'm very confident - I suggest to this committee that we would be wise to make that recommendation to the fisheries standing committee and to the minister himself, to enshrine that particular new Fisheries Act.

MR. THERIAULT: There is going to be many more requests for change, but this is one of them, and that's what we got out of that at the meeting that day. This was certainly one of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that you need to go to the fisheries standing committee if you're going to write the minister. The committee's report is going to go to the minister. He's going to make a decision as to what this is going to look like.

MR. DUNN: I agree 100 per cent with what you're saying. I'm just wondering, we've received word back that it is changing, it's the draft I'm looking at here - will the final draft have the change, I wonder?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This isn't going to be in writing. This is an interpretation of what it means, right? This is not going to be written in the Act. This is an explanation of what's written in the Act.

MR. BELLIVEAU: If I could, Mr. Chairman, this is a point that - actually, my colleagues and I went to Ottawa, and this present Act is 139 years old. I was very frank. I said, Mr. Minister, in 20, 25 or 50 years time when we're all basically not around anymore,

some smart lawyer, some smart judge is going to look at the interpretation of the wording, and if we do not do due process here now and have that corrected, that lawyer or that judge is going to look at that wording under Clause 30, and I strongly suggest we need to get the clarification in there and remove the present wording. This is what this whole exercise is about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I think that's what the letter should be, that you're asking for an amendment to the wording.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes.

MR. THERIAULT: In the Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the Act.

MR. THERIAULT: There are going to be a lot more requests . . .

MR. BELLIVEAU: There are going to be a lot more, but this is the major one, I can assure you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So, in looking at your motions one and two, it would seem that instead of requesting a clarification, and if you look at motion one, to review concerns raised - which I don't see any other concerns raised, I'm assuming you guys have a list or whatever - one of those being an amendment to Clause 30 to state what? What do you want to see there? How do you want that - I interpret Clause 30 to allow for transferring. You guys say you don't.

MR. GAUDET: Right.

MR. THERIAULT: Most fishermen are seeing that it's not transferable. That's the problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I don't have a problem. So what wording would you like to see - and "may be" transferred instead of "may not be"? Let's take the "not" out?

MR. DUNN: Take that negative word out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You see, "may" doesn't necessarily guarantee - I think it should be can . . .

MR. THERIAULT: Can be transferred. . .

MR. GAUDET: But aren't they all transferrable? If you want to sell you licence to whoever, it's your choice. Well, I don't know. I'm looking at the experts here.

MR. THERIAULT: Right now DFO has put a halt to transferring licenses, as of two days ago.

MR. GAUDET: Maybe the easiest thing to do, Mr. Chairman, is to write directly to the boys in the big city looking to amend Clause 30 so that it's very clear, whether it's 20 or 50 years down the road, whomever picks up this Act, Clause 30 says that a licence can be transferred - amen.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, there's another problem here as well, and that is that one little sentence also says "and not any right of property". We are trying to have it recognized repeatedly as property so that the loan board and banks and others will, in fact, look at it as property so there can be some intergenerational transfer of licenses. We want to be able to see a son or daughter, or a crew member, or whomever, be able to take over a licence and be able to go to a lending institution and have that property recognized, because this is the fundamental flaw with the whole thing - without any adjective.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that have to be in the Act. I mean, in legal terms of banks using that as collateral, basically, does writing that in the Act make any difference?

MR. GAUDET: Do you think Ottawa will allow that? I don't think so.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, if I could try again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To me, if you can confer the privilege of the licence, right? I mean, you're telling someone they can fish with that licence, aren't you? So wouldn't they have to have a licence?

MR. THERIAULT: Common sense. The banks are already accepting them really, until here a few days ago they put a freeze on transferring licenses, DFO has . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: DFO has.

MR. THERIAULT: . . . put a freeze on. We don't know why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sterling.

MR. BELLIVEAU: If I could, Mr. Chairman, right now, if you look at the motion to the clarification that the federal minister has sent out, that is the present policy, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As he interprets it.

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's the way that he has interpreted it and that's the way the direction has been given out to DFO in the last 25 years. It contradicts the present Clause 30, and this is the comfort zone that people want. They want to have enshrined in legislation the present policy, that "Under C- 45 licensing regulations will continue to authorize a 'request for transfer'. This involves the relinquishment of the existing licence and the issuance of a new licence to another fisher recommended by the licence holder".

So presently, the fisherman comes in and the person meets the criteria as your core fisherman, there's a request for a transfer, and it's done. We need to clear up that wording that's in the Act now. I can assure you that every group has identified that clause, and the minister, the chairperson of the fisheries standing committee, presently, has spent some time in clarifying that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, then, what wording would you like to see Clause 30 changed to reflect the minister's interpretation?

MR. THERIAULT: Why not just add that in there?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just remove it and add that. That's a policy. We need to have legislation. The point I keep going back to is in 30-years time, if some judge is looking, what's he going to interpret? Is he going to interpret a policy that he may not even have, or is he going to interpret the present Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think you can do that. To me, if I was looking at this Act and it had an explanatory note across from each clause, that's what I would be expecting to see, that as an explanatory note. I wouldn't be expecting that to be the actual clause that implements that explanatory note, and I don't think any lawyer would allow it.

So a licence confers privileges, and you're saying "can be transferred", and you want to take out " and not any right of property"?

MR. MACKINNON: You could actually - it would solve it if it just read that a licence confers privileges, period - however under Section C-45 licence regulations will continue to authorize requests for transfers, et cetera. And you wouldn't say under C-45, because this is C-45, you would say a licence confers privilege . . .

MR. GAUDET: . . . will continue to authorize a request for transfer.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes. Regulations will continue to authorize that they request for transfer.

MR. GAUDET: Sterling, I'm just curious - when you guys met with the federal minister, I suspect you raised Clause 30?

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes, yes we did.

MR. GAUDET: What was his take on it?

MR. BELLIVEAU: He alluded to . . .

MR. THERIAULT: ...he would put it in policy.

MR. BELLIVEAU: That he would put it in the policy, or he alluded to the fact that we pressed him to make a verbal or written commitment, and he acknowledged that this is a major concern and it has to be addressed, but we are still waiting for that - and we keep all of the responses, and he continues sending out clarification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this the regulation or the Act?

MR MACKINNON: This is the Act.

MR. GAUDET: Which prevails? You know, interpretations are a dime a dozen. I think obviously what needs to be done is, again, another letter to the minister on your behalf - you are looking for some action to be taken on this, on Clause 30.

[11:15 a.m.]

MR. THERIAULT: I think what we're doing here is doing what should be done in the Law Amendments Committee. But I think this is satisfying - we had the fish processors in the other day, Denny Morrow; we had the Alliance; had LFA 34; we had a Guysborough group - and who else was there? - this is one thing that we all agreed on that needed changing. There were many other things in there. There are things in there that you may not even be able to pump your boat out under pollution, You may not even be able to pump your boat out, you might have to let your boat sink because you can't pump it out. This is stuff that was picked out, I mean . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: How about coming back to Clause 30? How about the wording - if you just say a licence confers privileges and can be transferred.

MR. THERIAULT: Yes, I think as long as "can be transferred" is in there - just one word changed is all it takes.

MR. GAUDET: I think what I would suggest is that Sterling and Junior meet with the minister. The minister has some legal people available to him to basically sit down with our provincial minister and try to come up with a legal - whatever it is called. I don't think we have the capabilities of doing it ourselves, leave it to lawyers and . . .

MR. THERIAULT: They have asked us. The Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries has asked us to help in any way we could to get this as far as we can with the fishermen. That is all we are trying to do, really, so certainly they should work with us.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just a point, Mr. Chairman. I understand my colleagues' concern, but I think the importance of this - my understanding of the process here is that this subcommittee is trying to make a recommendation back to the Resources Committee hopefully, and I understand that possibly we could make a recommendation to the House and that is going to have a lot more clout than an individual MLA, or one or two of us. With all due respect, I think it would have a lot more clout, a lot more importance in drafting a recommendation to the minister in trying to achieve what we just talked about in the last five minutes.

MR. MACKINNON: Further to what Sterling is saying - I think we have to give support from this committee. However I think Wayne hit the nail on the head in relation to this supercedes anything else, right? For the minister to give us this in a clarification is not what we are looking for at all, and we need some legalese to come up with the right Clause 30. Having said that, we still have to give support, as a committee, to coming up with the legalese.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't have a whole lot of options there, and I'm only speaking as a member of the committee. To me, we either approach our provincial minister and his staff and try to come up with a wording that you guys want to bring back to the committee, and then we can write either the provincial minister and ask him to carry this forward to the federal minister, or you can write the federal minister from this committee. We have to make a decision - either you write the provincial minister or the federal minister around the change in the wording that you would prefer, or you go and have a little negotiation with the provincial staff there and come up with wording that works and then the committee can write the provincial minister or the federal minister. I think at some point you have to determine what it is you want written, then the committee can endorse whichever minister you guys think is the best place to go.

MR. THERIAULT: Well, I know what we want written - "can" be transferred. Not "may not" be transferred or "may" be transferred, "can" be transferred.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So do you want to write our provincial minister and have him take that to Ottawa?

MR. GAUDET: I'm not exactly sure on the right course of action for our colleagues here to take. It's possible that if, option one, we want to go through this committee to write back to our provincial minister, this needs to be addressed. How? I don't know. Either he invites the committee members on our subcommittee to sit down with him and his legal minds to try to come up with a draft of something that we may submit to the federal minister,

or provide you with a draft that you may take back to this committee and then the chairman, if the committee agrees, can forward that off to the federal government, that's another possibility, to the federal minister.

So I'm just looking for direction from either one of you. Do you want to do this on your own, go directly to the provincial department, try to sit down with the minister and raise these concerns and try to come up with a draft to bring it back over here, or do you want...

MR. THERIAULT: We can do that right now. I mean, this subcommittee, myself as chairman, I can write that letter right now in the next five minutes and tell them what we want in this and what has been recommended by the five groups we met in Nova Scotia and dah dah dah. As long as you support it, we will send it off from ourselves. It's as simple as that.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I think we are making this more complicated than it has to be. I think we have three Parties represented here today. We have a time factor that we want to meet - we don't want to come back to another meeting in a month's time with this. I think we can combine what we are thinking, and if they want to change the legal expression of what we are thinking, all well and good. I think what we are looking at is something like, although a licence confers privilege, it may be transferred. That's basically what we are saying, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, when you say it "may" be or it "may not" be, is this the...

MR. MACKINNON: It 'can" be transferred, then; it "can" be transferred.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know, is the glass half full or half empty?

MR. THERIAULT: Do you know what we are doing here? Do you know what this is? This is a test. This is a test for the federal government, because the federal government pretty much asked us to come to Ottawa. Loyola Hearn said there is not one thing in that bill that cannot be changed.

MR. MACKINNON: Good.

MR. THERIAULT: So we are just testing him out. This is just one, because I know there are going to be a dozen of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not arguing with...

MR. THERIAULT: So we are saying - we are sending this into him - Mr. Hearn, can this Clause 30 be changed? Two words there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Changed to what?

MR. THERIAULT: From "may not" to "can" be transferred. Can that be done? If he writes back and says no, well he lied to me. The hell with it. I think that's what we are doing here. This one exercise in working on this 140-year-old Act. Right now, today, that's what we want, we want a letter to Loyola Hearn stating that we want Clause 30 changed. We have met with groups of people here in this province and we are asking to change two words to one, "may not" to "can", can that be done?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't ask Rhonda that.

MR. THERIAULT: That's in the letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: She'll do it if we tell her to do it. (Laughter)

MR. THERIAULT: Is that what we want or not?

MR. GAUDET: We are going to send these guys back to Ottawa.

MR. THERIAULT: Again, I guarantee you we'll be there.

MR. GAUDET: I don't see any problem with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I don't see anything wrong with that.

MR. THERIAULT: That's what we're after, right here and right now.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I think we're trying to complicate things, but to me it's very simplistic. I think if we can work with the provincial staff - and I'll ask their co-chair of the subcommittee to do that today, actually. To me, it is just redrafting the present policy, which we had clarification on here - just a matter of the present regulations. People from coast to coast are comfortable in removing the wording that exists in Clause 30 now, and that just needs to be endorsed by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: But it can't be policy, it can't be regulation. Is it the Act? It's it's the wording in the Act because what comes out of policy and regulation after this...

MR. THERIAULT: If he writes us back and says yes, this can be done and will be done, we're on a good start here to getting this situated for the people who want a change to this Act after 139 years. But if he writes back and says no, I'm not changing one word...

MR. DUNN: Then you're going to Ottawa.(Laughter)

MR. THERIAULT: I will go back to Ottawa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. That's fine as far as motion 2. It's motion 1, around "to review concerns raised", we have no notion of what the concerns raised are - so do you have a list? Do you have a . . .

MR. THERIAULT: Yes, there were five different things to that that were brought up. As I said, one was pollution - this was the biggest one, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so I guess what I want to know is do we ignore motion 1 and just go with motion 2, around the - taking out "may not" to "can", and then draft a letter to the federal minister to that effect?

MR. THERIAULT: Because there's going to be a lot more input - if he'll change this one, we'll try another one later.

MR. MACKINNON: Do we have to delete that " not any right of property" as well? That not any right of property has to be - that flies in the face of everything we've talked about for several years.

MR. GAUDET: I'm just thinking here, do the feds consider a licence as property?

MR. MACKINNON: They do under the table, since 1970-something- or- other, with herring - it started first under the table. Cliffie Hood has made a life's fortune with under-the-table deals. It's been property for years and years, and years and years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right then, what about this, "a licence confers privileges and can be transferred"?

MR. MACKINNON: No, although licence confers privilege, it can be transferred.

MR. THERIAULT: Under the Constitution, you'll never - unless you change the Constitution - make a licence issued from the federal government a right of property. I don't think it could ever be done - I mean it is just like drivers' licences really, you got a right to keep it as long as you don't break the law.

MR. GAUDET: We need a legal mind to advise us. So I think the appropriate channel is to go through our provincial department. How you want to set that up or go through that or....

MR. THERIAULT: Let's do that....

MR. GAUDET: ....and bring something back....

MR. THERIAULT: ....get Greg in there and get their legal beagles and tell them this is the approach we're taking after that. Greg was there and he knows exactly - Greg Roach was at that meeting, I forgot to mention.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I think we're trying to complicate things here. The minister has sent out clarification on this point, and this is a very sticky wicket with everybody. To me, it is simplistic - you incorporate the present policy, which I made reference to, that needs to amend the present Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's the problem we're having - I mean we can't seem to come to what the wording is going to be around "any right of property". So should this committee actually make the request to the provincial minister that the subcommittee sit down with some of their staff to come up with the wording for the clause?

MR. BELLIVEAU: The clause is there; the clause is in the clarification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an interpretation.

MR. DUNN: Go back to what Wayne said - go to the provincial counterparts, get the wording that you are very comfortable with and that there's no other interpretation around it and then....

MR. GAUDET: Bring it back here and then the committee can either approve or reject and then, if we all agree, direct the Chairman to write a letter to the minister or the Prime Minister or whomever?

MR. DUNN: We all agree it has to change, so it's just a matter of getting the correct grammatical expression so that it is very clear that it can be transferred.

MR. MACKINNON: So this committee strongly endorses a fundamental change in Clause 30 and we authorize the respective chairman to advance that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to write the provincial minister and ask that the members of the subcommittee could meet with the minister's staff to come up with the proper wording to change Clause 30, indicate the change you want to see.

MR. GAUDET: We can only propose to the federal Fisheries Minister to amend Clause 30. But just to make sure that the proper wording reflects what you've heard and what we....

MR. THERIAULT: You need to see his reaction to that challenge because he said this can be done. So if he writes us back and says this can be done, this can be changed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we'll draft that letter to the minister....

MS. RHONDA NEATT: To the Minister of Natural Resources?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The Minister of Fisheries.

MS. NEATT: Oh, Fisheries. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm still on the brown spruce longhorn beetle.

MR. THERIAULT: Well, we're never going to come to a resolution here because no one really knows how to word it - I mean, you and I got a good idea, let's go sit down with Greg Roach and pick his brain for 10 minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's going to put the squeeze on us as far as - our next meeting is next Tuesday, oh well, maybe....

MR. THERIAULT: The subcommittee meeting?

MS. NEATT: It's the subcommittee, yes.

MR. THERIAULT: With the Digby Neck quarry, and I think we're going to get requests in from that company too, of Bilcon....

MR. CHAIRMAN: So June 5^th is the next Resources Committee meeting. I wonder if we can have this resolved by June 5^th so that we could actually take the next step of whatever - we'll get the letter drafted to the minister, get that off right away, so maybe you guys can meet with them before June 5^th so that we could have whatever wording you guys come back with from meeting with them on Clause 30.

Thank you very much.

[ The committee adjourned at 11:30 a.m.]