[Page 603]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call this session to order. The time is 12:17 p.m.
The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Last night we were dealing with some important issues - the consultation strategy and whether or not Voluntary Planning would be involved in the process. We also spent considerable time on the Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle and at the end of the evening, I was going to clean up just a few small items. Certainly not small for the people who are involved in the process but individual concerns that have been brought forward to me, and we were just getting to those when our time was cut.
Now one issue that I raised with the minister, which has surfaced again - and it isn't just the concern of one individual, since speaking with him, others are involved - apparently at the car auctions, which take place on a weekly basis, there has been on a number of occasions a person from the Department of Natural Resources who was involved in the bidding on vehicles, and certainly the regular bidders are concerned about that.
Now, Mr. Minister, you did indicate to me that it was sort of an end-of-the-year situation and that there were some needs for vehicles within the department; there was need for replacement and that this was only a short-term situation. According to one individual - one of the regular buyers - there have in fact been quite a number of days or weeks involved here that there has been a person bidding.
[Page 604]
Certainly I have no problem with the saving of money and perhaps, in fact, ministers may have looked at this instead of the huge leases that are out there - it might have been something as well if these vehicles are that good. But what is the response of the department to this, because it has escalated from one person's concern to others?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. DAVID MORSE: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think it's appropriate to bring it up in a more public forum and indeed, as he alluded to, we are basically trying to make better use of our limited tangible capital asset dollars to make sure that we have a roadworthy fleet. The Department of Natural Resources has a lot of assets on the books, including a lot of vehicles, and this was deemed to be a more cost-effective way of replacing some of those vehicles that were no longer appropriate for use by our staff.
MR. MACKINNON: So will this, in fact, be occurring again as we go down the road into this year?
MR. MORSE: Specifically, when we spoke in private, I mentioned that I had signed an authorization that allowed this to be done, that that was the purpose for the department's presence at the auction and I did not anticipate that it was going to be a permanent presence on the part of the department - it was something that was being done at the end of the year. I've asked the deputy if he can confirm just how long we would expect to continue to this, and I'd be pleased to provide the honourable member with an answer. But, again, the member is quite right - being from Pictou County and maybe he's got some Scottish blood in him, he would appreciate that it's important to stretch a dollar in government as well as at home.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I raise that with sort of a two-prong feeling - one is that I'm glad you are, in fact, looking at savings; however there was the concern that was put to me, and it was put to me by more than one individual.
I think the minister will recognize that one of my primary concerns, being from a rural riding and witnessing out-migration on a weekly basis - particularly with TrentonWorks and the difficulties that have taken place there - that keeping even individuals, one at a time, in the province is very important. We have a situation where an individual has returned to the province, after being away for many years in positions up North, in Northern Canada with Hudson Bay Company and so on, and the person has a very good business background and is looking at getting involved in the wild boar business - and I know escapement is a real concern of the department. However this particular applicant is looking at situations that exist in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and operations are going very, very well.
There is a plan to do castration on the male boars and escapement should not be a problem - and I know there's the fear of proliferation if, in fact, there are some that do
[Page 605]
escape. I also realize that the Department of Agriculture is involved in the actual end approval - however that approval comes with the recommendation from your department, and I have had lengthy talks with this individual who is the proponent and he has provided considerable assurances to me. What I really am impressed with is some of the prices that wild hog actually comes forward with in the marketplace - like $8 a pound for wild board sausages even. And looking at some of the other amounts of money that can be made in this particular business I'm wondering, why are we not taking a closer look at this individual?
MR. MORSE: Thank you again and it's nice to have had a chance to have some discussions privately, prior to this more public process. As the member would be aware, I was very impressed with the material that came forward from this particular individual.
I do understand the department's reluctance to recommend to our sister department, the Department of Agriculture, that they allow the farming of wild boars which would be an alien species to Nova Scotia, and I do understand the reasons. I am scrutinizing all the reasons to make sure it has been absolutely airtight, but in general there is a huge concern about boars escaping into our rural areas - they would certainly be able to adapt and multiply if that were to happen. There have been assurances and elaborate mechanisms proposed with this specific project that would, hopefully, ensure that would not happen; however experience in Manitoba and Saskatchewan has not been a good one. They did escape. They have naturalized to those provinces. This is a big animal and conceivably it's a dangerous animal. It's not a natural part of our ecosystem. The suggestion that they would castrate all the young males so that if they did escape, they would not be able to reproduce, works well until you get a pregnant sow escapee and then all of a sudden, you have boars and when they grow up, you've got more babies and the next thing you know we've got an invasive species in Nova Scotia, besides the Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle.
So these are some of the concerns that were brought to me and, again, to be fair to this individual - who I think is very experienced in this area because I think he has some extensive history in working with this sort of operations in other parts of the county - if the Department of Natural Resources was to make a recommendation based on the quality of his application, it would be very difficult having set that precedent and indeed that policy, with the Department of Agriculture, to turn down the next one, who may not be as airtight and with the resources behind that application as the present one that's under consideration. I have not signed the letter, refusing consideration, I have held it back pending the answering of more questions.
[12:30 p.m.]
I wanted to just make an observation about the out-migration. The honourable member mentioned that out-migration was a concern in the province and that's absolutely true, but I think that as long as we're going to make that observation, we have to talk about in-migration. I think it was over Christmas time - with a little bit more of an opportunity to
[Page 606]
read the mounds of information that come across our desks - I read about the whole ebb and flow of migration from Nova Scotia to other parts of the country, and it may have been actually Atlantic Canada, and it's not a static number. It sounds like so many Nova Scotians picked up and left to go to other parts of the country and these days, it would be more likely to be Alberta. It's a problem that's encountered right across the country. Ontario has the same problem and they traditionally were kind of the destination point. But if I recall correctly, the out-migration, over a period of time, might have been something like 1,000, from Nova Scotia, to other parts of Canada, primarily Alberta, but 26,000 came to Nova Scotia and 27,000 left Nova Scotia. So it's very fluid and it's important, I think, that people see it in context and I appreciate the member giving me a chance to put that on the record publicly.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I certainly don't want to engage in a debate on the level of out-migration, but this is an opportunity to have someone who has had vast experience away to come home, and I think we're getting differing views on what is actually happening in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and I would like to get the information that you have within the department, to better understand the situation there. This individual talks repeatedly about the fine situation and other mechanisms that there are and I believe the first offence fine is in the order of $2,000 and he is of the belief that mechanisms are in place. However, I really appreciate the opportunities to raise these with you privately and then get them on the public record. I think we have developed a good rapport in doing that.
I want to get into - a little later on, after sharing some time - the current controversy that exists with the Trappers' Association of Nova Scotia and the trap awareness people, as well. I have four members of the NDP who want to have about 10 minutes each and in the first hour the member for Hants East is going to take about 10 minutes to raise some concerns as well.
MR. MORSE: Could I just put on the record that we would be very pleased if you wanted to discuss the wild boar project with our director of wildlife. He is actually going to be retiring, I think at the end of this month, and I would suggest time would therefore be of the essence. We certainly do appreciate his 35 years of experience and the deputy has indicated that we would make sure he was available if the member would like to contact him.
MR. MACKINNON: One final point in relation to that - the individual trying to get the boar operation going is saying that if he were the president of a big paper company, he would have face-to-face contact with the minister. He is asking for the possibility of sitting down with you for a very short period of time to make his case.
MR. MORSE: I want to make the observation that between the efforts of the member for Pictou East and the member for Cumberland South who has also approached me on this because I think the intended destination is in Cumberland County, that he has had some pretty good representation and let's try to see if we can get some answers to the last few remaining outstanding questions and then we'll deal with that one.
[Page 607]
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much. I will pass to the member for Hants East.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Hants East and the time is 12:35 p.m. and you have two minutes.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I thank my colleague for enough time for an introduction. I appreciate the staff being here as well. I guess I'll ask the question I didn't intend to ask, since my other area would take more time and I'll wait until our next hour.
If my memory is right, there was a joint project with DNR and Agriculture on - I can't think of the right term - I'm going to say wetlands, but that's not the term I'm looking for. Anyway, it was for fencing of brooks or streams to keep livestock out of them. I think it also would subsidize putting in an alternate water source. I think this was a joint between DNR and Agriculture. Do either of you have any knowledge of this?
MR. MACKINNON: You have 12 minutes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I misread my watch, I'm sorry. It's 12 minutes.
MR. MORSE: I think we've just determined that perhaps my opening comments were charged against the NDP time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I made a mistake with my calculation, minister. He had 12 minutes.
MR. MACDONELL: That's the reason he's not Finance Minister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
MR. MORSE: But, he's a good chairman.
MR. MACDONELL: Yes, he's a good chairman. Do you or your deputy have any knowledge of . . .
MR. MORSE: We have a bit of an advantage here when we go up to the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' conferences and we're talking about bio-diversity which includes many departments, including Agriculture, Fisheries, Natural Resources, Environment. The Deputy Minister of Natural Resources happens to have been the Deputy Minister of Environment, Fisheries, Agriculture and now Natural Resources. He advises me that he has a recollection of that when he was in Agriculture, but I'm not sure we can claim credit for that program.
MR. MACDONELL: That's fine, I might pursue the Acting Minister of Agriculture on that.
[Page 608]
I want to touch base on the new regs on OHV - I have some concerns. In particular, it's the shift from written permission by landowners, which was in the Act to what is now the new regulations. Section 16 is the way I would look at it, I guess - definition for an Act and its regulations 1(a) and then 2 - but it says, "the regulations are further amended by adding the following sections immediately after Section 15(a). Despite Section 14 of the Act, permission to operate an OHV on private land that is part of an established trail, is deemed to have been given unless the landowner erects a sign prohibiting the use of OHVs on their land."
First of all, what's the definition of an established trail?
MR. MORSE: The established trail would be a trail - first of all, it would have to be a legal trail. I want to make that very clear. There may have been trails that were not legal because perhaps they went through a protected wilderness area or a wetland or a barren. In no way does this take away the government's resolve to make sure that ATVs are used in the appropriate parts of the province and not on those areas where it's against the law. We are absolutely committed to protecting those areas from the use of ATVs.
When we brought in the action plan, it was a seismic shift - the term I used in Question Period - in the way we deal with the whole question of OHVs in Nova Scotia and specifically ATVs. I feel that we did not get it absolutely right and this created a very significant void in terms of giving direction to the ATV operators as to where it was appropriate to practise their sport.
We also learned afterwards, it's easy to sit back in hindsight and make these comments, that there was an apprehension on the part of private landowners, even the large ones that have the huge industrial tracts of land that are owned by the forest companies . . .
MR. MACDONELL: No offense, Mr. Minister, but I only have 12 minutes or less, so you can tell me what an established trail is? Can you define it for me, please?
MR. MORSE: Well, what we're trying to do is put them on places like logging roads and public roads that are no longer . . .
MR. MACDONELL: K-class roads?
MR. MORSE: Yes, that are no longer maintained by the Department of Transportation and Public Works. That's exactly where we want them to be, where there's a solid road base, where there are structures in place to get them over water courses and that was the purpose of the change in the regulations. I'm looking for some further guidance from the advisory committee as to how we tighten that up so everybody understands the intention of the change in the regulations.
[Page 609]
MR. MACDONELL: So people who have been traditionally going over private landowner's land - who has been trying to prevent them from going over their land, that's not considered an established trail then?
MR. MORSE: That absolutely is not an established trail and now we can take our enforcement officers and try to assist those landowners who object to that process instead of this, I'm going to say, almost a void that we created by not giving, I think, appropriate direction to the ATV community as to where they should be riding their vehicles.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, so when it says permission would be deemed to be given unless the landowner erects a sign prohibiting the use of OHVs on their land, this would be actually on a road then. It wouldn't be just on woodland or fields - it would have to be on some kind of roadbed, from what you're saying?
MR. MORSE: Trail.
MR. MACDONELL: A trail. All right, you better define trail for me then. Is that a built structure?
MR. MORSE: I think that it would say it was an established route that ATVs used as of April 1, 2006.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, you were doing so well. It seems to me an established route across somebody's land who doesn't want it there would fit your definition that they can go there.
MR. MORSE: Absolutely not. Even if they allowed that access, as of April 1, 2006, just by determining that they no longer want it anymore, that would be enough to say that it is not an established trail and we would encourage those people to work with our conservation officers to help prohibit that activity across their property. I have a lot of concern for private landowners who do not want ATV activity on their properties.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, so it strikes me that in the Act that they would have had to have written permission for anybody to go across their property but now it seems that the obligation is on them to post signs saying, we don't want you on our property. Before, that wasn't necessary - if the person using the machine didn't have written permission, they couldn't go - but according to this, it says that despite Section 14 of the Act, permission to operate OHVs on private land that is part of an established trail is deemed to have been given. So permission is deemed to have been given unless the landowner erects a sign prohibiting the use.
MR. MORSE: Given as long as it meets the requirement of an established trail, April 1, 2006. This does not open up new trails. In order to open up a new trail, you're back to the
[Page 610]
written permission which basically means a sign saying that permission has been given as long as the landowner agrees that a sign can be put up on their property.
There's a grandfathering of what was an established use of those trails, but it's not open season on property other than established trails.
[12:45 p.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: Okay. Can you provide me at some point - it doesn't have to be today - the list of requirements or criteria that you're using in determining established trails? I get the impression first of all that it was a built trail but then it seems to have moved away, that it's not really. You know, private roads and K-Class roads and you say with bridges over streams and whatever. Now it seems it kind of moved away from that - it's kind of where people have been going over a period of time prior to April 1, 2006. I'm still not clear exactly what the definition of an established trail is.
MR. MORSE: I think there's going to be more clarity as we work with the OHV Minister's Advisory Committee to try to provide a sharper focus on that definition of established trail. I know it's in the regulations but, as you know, with regulations you get policies and there are other ways you can embellish the intentions of the regulations. I have asked the committee if they would assist government in better defining that so that we can provide an appropriate place for people to pursue their recreational activities on ATVs without compromising the rights of private landowners to the peaceful enjoyment of their property.
I think there's a balance there and unfortunately this whole issue has blown up here, as it has right across North America, because of people who did not exercise common sense and abused other people's rights. So here we are, because of a very small minority of ATV operators.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time for the NDP has expired. We'll turn now to the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: I'm certainly pleased to have the opportunity to speak a little bit about and certainly mostly ask questions of the minister and his staff around the more topical - and more significance being placed on - natural resources as part of our thrust to get caught up with environmental initiatives in this province. So I certainly want to applaud the minister on the purchase of lands on behalf of the province for future generations. I think it has been a good start. We all know we have a way to go and that's always the challenge with government officials and processes over time but it is a significant start and, in particular, adding to what was previously purchased at Cape Split. It is certainly one of my choice areas
[Page 611]
and I take the opportunity at least a couple of times a year to get out to the Split. As more Nova Scotians discover it and as potential for ecotourism, I think the Split has much to offer.
So in that regard, I think the minister and his department have a glorious opportunity here to develop a forest strategy for the next quarter century or even 50 years. I know it's a piece that the department wants to develop and hopefully, I guess in many ways, the door is open for the minister here to truly put his stamp on the Department of Natural Resources and plot a plan that will be an enhancement of the multi-uses that our forests provide. I think having a strategy is very, very important. If we take a look at not having in place, as other provinces do, an allowable annual cut, for example, I think is one of the areas, in providing three paper mills and a smaller amount perhaps to our pulp mill and our lumber industry, just good total use of our forests, I believe a strategy does need to be developed.
It really came to light perhaps more in the past year as I met with the Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators Association. When you have 30,000 woodlot owners and their association, and I'm sure perhaps the minister has met with them, and they are certainly sending signals that beyond the next 10 years they do worry about the state of the forests in Nova Scotia. I think they have started to make that very clear. I know there was no misinterpretation of what they presented to our caucus in that regard.
Perhaps at another time I can have this discussion with the minister about what the Woodlot Owners and Operators Association presented to us, but I just want to move along a little bit from Question Period today and perhaps in this context develop a few further questions on the forest strategy. I'm wondering really how far along in the process have we moved towards getting this out as not only a department thrust but also as a public consultation process?
MR. MORSE: I thank the member for his comments. I believe last night I suggested that when this does go through Cabinet that I would be pleased to have a meeting at the department with both critics if they'd like to have a chance to examine in greater detail what has been decided by Cabinet, which ultimately we're not going to know until Cabinet makes a decision.
I am optimistic that the approach we have taken meets all the concerns that have been brought forward and in an open and transparent fashion and one that ultimately - at the end of the strategy, when a recommendation comes forward to the Cabinet of the day - that people will look at it and say, it was due process and they will be accepting of the final recommendation. I have no way of knowing who will be Minister of Natural Resources at that time, but I am working to make sure whoever that person might be - and it could be me - will be able to be proud of the strategy and be able to defend it as having gone through due process and best practices.
[Page 612]
I would like to just say that the honourable member has been incredibly respectful of this process and very attentive. I suspect that not all critics are as attentive as he has been during the estimates. He was here last night even though he knew he was not going to have a chance to ask questions, but by being here he knew which questions were already brought forward by his counterpart in the NDP, and my opening statement. I just wanted to get it on the record that I think it's a good reflection on the process and I wish this process was still used by Ottawa because I think it's a very healthy one.
I also want to acknowledge his comments about the acquisitions at Blomidon. I would further take note that I'm a somewhat passive member of the Blomidon Naturalist Society and have been for a time - perhaps the member is also part of that organization?
MR. GLAVINE: Used to be.
MR. MORSE: Well, if the member would like to have a guided tour to Cape Split, they are having two tours led by people who know a lot more about nature than me, to help us interpret the flora and fauna. One is, I think, the end of this month and the other is in early May and I suggested to my wife that we should go. I was going to suggest to the member for Kings North that he should be aware in case he'd like to come and I am now going to suggest it to the member for Kings West. It'd be a nice way to celebrate not having to impose on the kindness of strangers to access the Split this year.
MR. GLAVINE: Just as a quick follow-up - in this process of moving forward to develop the strategy, have you consulted with any stakeholders at this stage or are the developments pretty much within the department in mapping out where you want to go, who you want to consult with? Have there been any of the stakeholders because we know there are some key players who will want to have input in making that plan for the next number of decades?
MR. MORSE: As the member is probably aware, there has been more than a considerable amount of correspondence and, indeed, interest right across the province. We have responded to the people who have written the department and there has been some discussion with some of the groups on both sides of the equation to provide balance. I'm very conscious of your concerns. I found the concerns were legitimate and I feel that what we put together takes that into consideration.
This is a discussion about agreeing on a process, but I think it's fair to say that we've had balanced discussions.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the things I did look for in the budget was maybe something very specific that would account for monies that would be required for a process going forward. So there certainly didn't seem to be that allocation there and I'm just wondering,
[Page 613]
as things get underway, are we looking at a year out, because there is nothing in the budget this year, or is there some accommodation within the total budget of the department?
MR. MORSE: That's a very appropriate question. I think before we put a price tag on this, we better agree on the process. I will tell the honourable member that clearly one of the things that is going to happen, not only for the forestry strategy but also mining, parks, biodiversity, is that a lot of information is going to have to be made available to people who want to constructively partake in the process, at least offer it up for their consideration, such as Web sites and generate other documentation. So that is something that is already a work in progress. When we confirm how we are going to go forward with the consultations, then we will be better able to put a price tag on them.
MR. GLAVINE: At this stage, are you specifically talking just about a forest strategy because if we take a look at environmental goals and the Sustainability Act, we are talking about a Natural Resources Strategy by 2010. Do you see a separate track for the forest strategy or will it be now an inclusive Natural Resources Strategy. Is that kind of discernment taking place at this stage?
MR. MORSE: I think it's fair to say that the biodiversity strategy would be an all-encompassing one and clearly it overlaps with the Department of Environment and Labour, Department of Agriculture and Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I don't think there is really a department that doesn't have some interest in the Natural Resources Strategies. So, yes, there certainly is an interface between the four strategies and indeed a departmental interface. Forestry would ultimately be under the umbrella of biodiversity.
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: At this stage, then, you haven't heard from let's say our major users - our three companies Stora, Bowater Mersey and Neenah Paper - in terms of where they will fit into this. Have they done any consulting or offered anything to the province in terms of knowing that a forest strategy is going to be developed, which could have some impacts, obviously, on them. I'm just wondering, at this stage, is there anything developing or emerging with three of the biggest players and, of course, we also have MacTara as well as lumber company.
MR. MORSE: I am advised that there has not been a specific approach to any of the three companies but there certainly have been presentations to the Forest Products Association of Nova Scotia and I am quite certain they would be members of that umbrella organization. So through that vehicle they have had a chance, I guess, to express their concerns. As the process is confirmed by Cabinet and then it is rolled out, then clearly I am sure there is a wealth of information that they would want to share along with information from many other stakeholders.
[Page 614]
I think that there is an evolution of what is deemed to be good forestry practice in Nova Scotia today that is probably a little different than what it was 10 years ago when we put the current program in place which, by the way, has been quite a success. There was a lot of concern, as you alluded to in your opening comments, about the sustainability of supply and you may recall the numbers that I gave you last year in terms of the amount of fibre that is generated each year, both softwood and hardwood. So there has been some success there and now it's a chance to take it to the next step.
MR. GLAVINE: In terms of the credit system for forest replanting, reforestation - certainly skewed toward the fibre replacement - I'm just wondering if you have taken a look at possibly reviewing that aspect perhaps even before we develop a forest strategy or a Natural Resources strategy since it is skewed pretty heavily? Right now, as we try to create greater biodiversity in our forests and work toward holding on to our Acadian forests and even trying to perhaps re-establish healthy Acadian forests, the credit system doesn't really favour that. I'm just wondering if there is any taking a hard look at that particular area.
MR. MORSE: The member is absolutely right. There is a lot of interest out there in trying to provide a greater diversity in our forests and diversity does not mean that you are excluding the application of the appropriate silviculture credits. It's just that you are growing a slightly more diversified forest or maybe a significantly more diversified forest. We have been working through the Forest Technical Advisory Committee, which is made up of very knowledgeable volunteers and chaired by Dr. Eldon Gunn from Dalhousie University. Under his direction, we have put out some draft amendments to the regulations which provide greater emphasis on its category seven which is basically what the member has talked about, an uneven-aged forest management which basically means you don't clear-cut the area and plant all the same type of tree. There is an allowance for different ages and different species of trees. So that is being put in place and there is a commitment on the part of the department to make sure that a significant amount of resources are made available for category seven.
MR. GLAVINE: Is the responsibility or the opportunity, I guess, placed on companies - whether it is the large paper-making companies or whether it's the mills that are spread out across Nova Scotia - to do replanting? Or is it upon - for example, let's say in my area certainly it used to be very strong, maybe not as strong today, but the North Mountain woodlot association. Is it placed, for example, back into the hands of the lumber company to do the reforesting or is the Department of Natural Resources the decision maker here as to replanting?
MR. MORSE: The regulations require the licensed buyer to see that it's done and that may be contracted back through private companies to provide the silviculture treatments. It's quite a complex industry and there are a lot of different components all making their contribution and of course silviculture is a very important part of our forestry industry and that's why we're confident that we're able to keep up with the demand for fibre; without that
[Page 615]
dramatic shift in the investment in silviculture some 10 years ago we would not be where we are today.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the controversial areas, certainly since I arrived at the House here, one of the management practices of course is the use of Vision in our forests. I'm wondering where the minister stands on that program, or is there greater opportunity for mechanical thinning? Where is that program and if there is spraying on private or Crown lands, are both well advertised in advance? And is there a planned program for 2007?
MR. MORSE: There's a syndication of responsibility when it comes to the application of pesticides. I think an herbicide is actually classified as a subclass of pesticide, which is something I remember from being in the Department of Environment, which sort of intrigued me. We'll use herbicide because I think the average Nova Scotian would better understand that concept.
The approval process is shared out between the federal and the provincial government. The pest management, I think it's a regulatory agency, makes the decision as to which herbicides and pesticides are deemed to be safe for use in Canada. Once they have approved a product - Vision being one of them - it then falls to the provincial Department of Environment and Labour, in the case of Nova Scotia, to put the application regulations in place as to the amount of notice and the distance from watercourses and neighbours and wind speed and all of those other considerations that are necessary before the application.
That comes from our provincial sister department, the Department of Environment and Labour. In terms of a spray program for 2007, we would anticipate having a recommendation from staff probably in about a month's time in terms of whether there are areas they feel need an application.
It is contentious. I know that there are a lot of different opinions on the application division. I do know it is widely accepted around the globe. I think the World Health Organization has also approved the use of the product. Its sister product, Round-up, is heavily used in agriculture - far more so than in forestry. It does raise some controversy when there are applications.
MR. GLAVINE: In terms of mechanical thinning, are there any subsidies provided to companies - woodlot owners and so on - to use that process? Or is it pretty well a decision that would be made by the woodlot owner?
As a private woodlot owner, I can put out a contract to have my replanted area sprayed, obviously, but in terms of mechanical thinning, is there some assistance for those who still want to engage in that practice?
[Page 616]
MR. MORSE: I just want to make sure that I'm careful with my answer. Certainly there are some forms of mechanical pre-commercial trimming that would be considered to be an eligible application for silviculture. Our Executive Director of Renewable Resources was committed to an interview process today, which unfortunately coincides with the estimates, and he probably could have provided a good deal more information. But it is contemplated within the scope of silviculture that it would be one possible application.
MR. GLAVINE: In terms of current natural pests, and so forth, in terms of forest management, outside of the brown spruce longhorn beetle, are there any other pests that are currently being monitored by the department which again, you know, could have implications for harvest?
MR. MORSE: Regrettably, Mother Nature is always generating new challenges and I guess it depends on your point of view. If you happened to be that insect, you would probably see that as an opportunity. If you're the Minister of Natural Resources, or the Critic for the Department of Natural Resources, you see that as competition but, yes, the pale wing grey has been devouring the hemlock stands down in southwestern Nova Scotia. It has been a real plague and, in fact, Kejimkujik National Park has even done some selective cutting because of the damage done from this moth. The black-headed budworm was erupting in parts of Cape Breton. There was a program carried out with BTK, which is a natural insecticide, or through a federal agency, the Canadian Forest Service and it had, we felt, good success and are happy to say that the forests of Cape Breton are not devastated again like they were not too many years ago with the spruce budworm.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: Has the Department of Natural Resources been asked or consulted with on cogeneration of power using biomass, using forest materials especially after a clear-cutting operation? Is there anything developing in that area at the current time?
MR. MORSE: The member basically puts his finger on an opportunity for the forestry industry. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the use of wood for energy purposes. The burning of wood is considered to be CO2 neutral and I think the rationale behind this is that when it breaks down naturally through decay, it releases CO2 but if you cut down a tree and you plant a tree, what is released from the decay of the old tree or the burning of the old tree is absorbed by the growth of the new forest. So that's an exciting opportunity to help deal with greenhouse gas emissions.
Using fossil fuels, you're basically taking CO2 that has been locked away in a form that will stay locked away unless you disturb it, in other words mine it, such as the case with coal, or drill for it, such as the case with oil and natural gas, and then burn it and it releases CO2 - or in the case of natural gas, methane is an example. It's a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. I think it's about 12 times.
[Page 617]
Anyway, there is an opportunity there and if the member would allow me to just embellish on this a little bit more, one of the challenges we have in harvesting our forest, about two-sevenths of the amount of wood fibre that is grown every year is hardwood. There is a shortage of good, hardwood sawlogs, and that's the one area where we do not make full use of all that is grown. The reason for that is that just because it's hardwood does not mean that it is of sawlog quality. As much as 80 per cent, effectively, is firewood or there is no market for that other 80 per cent. So in addition to the slash from harvesting operations, which could be either hardwood or softwood, there is a real opportunity there to address a need in the marketplace and help with greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.
The wood pellets, I would suggest, are going to be a huge growth market in Nova Scotia, actually right across North America. The demand for these in Europe is almost insatiable. They are having trouble meeting the demand and it's an exciting opportunity and it's one that I feel makes better use of what previously would have been perhaps considered waste product in the Nova Scotia forest.
The member may have more questions and there is a lot that can be said about cogeneration but I think the short answer is yes, we are certainly working with proponents that are bringing forward suggestions.
MR. GLAVINE: I will leave my questions for now and pass it over to my colleague, the member for Digby-Annapolis, since I have to return to the Chamber for a few questions there. So I'll be back a bit later and I thank the minister and his staff so far.
MR. MORSE: I appreciate the member's questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Minister and staff, for being here today. The time is getting shorter for us but I have a few questions I would like to run by you. They are questions I hear all the time from people.
MR. MORSE: Seals?
MR. THERIAULT: No, nothing about seals today. I'll leave that one for later. They are questions I get from people. I hear them and I guess I'm the messenger here.
I want to talk about quarries. As you know, there are quarries in this province and quite a few quarries. I don't know just the number but there are lots of them and I know we have a few in the Digby-Annapolis area. It's beautiful rock, the basalt rock. It makes wonderful roads. I have it in my own driveway. Do you know, after a rainstorm, after you put it down, the dust is gone. It's gone forever. It's nearly light gold to us down there. There are other big mines like the Porcupine Mine and quarry. People don't mind a bit about quarries,
[Page 618]
they're useful to build their homes. They build a lot of cement work floors, they build our roads, driveways. I believe they built this fabulous House we're in, and it's great to have quarries in that way.
There are concerns of foreign interests coming in to our coastal waters and getting this rock, because it's a very valuable rock to them and they will come from other countries to get it. I believe we have one quarry now - maybe more, I'm not sure - that's probably shipping out of the country, but down in the Digby area there's potential for that basalt rock to leave that area to go to another country. The concern is that we don't mind sharing, I guess, but when you start giving your land away for possibly just some jobs involved, and then maybe not, do you see the industry of offshore quarries growing in this province? Is that something that could happen?
MR. MORSE: It would be an application-driven process. It actually falls under the Department of Environment and Labour. I know that the minister really enjoys having an embellished mandate. I can tell you that there are some who feel that it perhaps should reside within the Department of Natural Resources but that was a decision that was made by a government in the past and today the regulations, as they pertain to pits and quarries, fall under, in essence, the Department of Environment and Labour.
Aggregate is a fundamental building block, as the member has alluded to, of our economy. It was interesting to learn about the attributes of basalt in your driveway. Perhaps that explains, in part, why there's such an interest in the North Mountain for basalt.
Of course the Porcupine Quarry at the Strait has been operating for a long time. I think it has been a good corporate citizen in that part of the province, and I believe the people in that part of the province are happy with the operation.
I would like to speak to the regulatory question, which should drive any mining policy in the province. You have to have the checks and balances and one of the things I talked about in my opening comments, and it was good to hear it echoed by your caucus colleague, the Liberal critic, the member for Kings West, is the concept of balance in the Department of Natural Resources. This is no longer the department that just encourages people to come in and make use of our natural resources. There are expectations that come with this and we want to have a balanced use of our natural resources, whether it's forests or mines, along with all of the appropriate remediation, in the case of mines, as they actually extract the minerals so that at the end of the day there's not a gaping hole, as has been the case historically if you think about the minefields up in Cape Breton.
You have all of these bootleg mines there where basically families were trying to take care of the necessities for their homes and found a cheap way of getting energy. Now I don't think it was legal for them to go and mine the coal, but they did it anyway, and they left these holes which today are a health and safety hazard. It's one of the department's goals to try to
[Page 619]
remediate a certain number of these abandoned mines across the province every year, where we actually set targets and try to address this scar on the province.
Where I'm going with this is that the operation of pits and quarries today, or mines - whether it's an underground or an open-pit mine - is far different than what it was not too long ago and the expectations on the company, the proponent, to remediate the site are laid out right at the beginning. It should be an ongoing process - if they finish with one section, they are supposed to remediate it as they go. I have seen some good work from Fundy Gypsum. I've had a tour of their Miller's Creek site and I'm very impressed with some of the areas that have been remediated and have now got ponds; here is vegetation and wildlife back, a good sign.
To the member's question about an interest in expanding pits and quarries in the province, we are an open economy, it's not driven by government. There are natural resources in Nova Scotia and if somebody wants to go through the checks and balances that we have in place for the responsible use of those natural resources, they have a right to apply. We are very pleased that Xstrata has showed an interest in the Donkin coal block and working co-operatively with the federal government to allow that to happen to overcome the jurisdictional challenges. It's a company that's predominately a foreign company, although we do recognize that Erdene Resources brings more of a local component to that consortium; they have 25 per cent.
We are pleased that Xstrata is here and we want them to bring their resources, including their expertise in the mining of coal and their great record for health and safety, to that part of Cape Breton. We are hopeful that when the mine opens up that it will actually double the value of our mining sector here in Nova Scotia.
[1:30 p.m.]
I'm not sure that you can just pick and choose who gets to apply to make an application based on their residency of the proponent, and that's the challenge. Having said that, I recognize that it's a very controversial issue with regard to Whites Cove in the member's constituency, and he is trying to represent his constituents.
MR. THERIAULT: There are two issues here. The one issue is environment and the other issue is resource. I'm talking about the resource side today, the resource issue. We have a wonderful resource there on that North Mountain and that resource is valuable or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing to get access to it. So we have a resource there.
I have been sitting in this House here for a solid month and I have listened to every question that I could and I listened to every comment that I could and it's all about - and you will hear all the ministers say - and you will say it too, Mr. Minister - that every problem we have in this province is a lack of money but yet we'll let these companies maybe come in
[Page 620]
here and shovel our rock aboard their boat and take it home with not a penny put in our pocket other than a promise of a few jobs maybe. Maybe they'll bring people from Mexico here to shovel that aboard the boats. Under free trade, I believe that can happen. So we're going to sit around out of work here, out of money, no health care, no schools, no nothing else, while they shovel our province aboard boats and take it to another country, with nothing in our pockets, nothing back from it.
The Minister of Environment and Labour said the other day - I brought this up, and he said - I can't see why a precious rock like that can't be brought into the Mineral Act. There's something wrong if we can't bring that into the Mineral Resources Act of this province. I think we had better shut the province down right now and study why we can't bring this into that Act. If we can't, in 200 years Nova Scotia may be gone if industry builds big enough, if it's that precious.
That's the issue here today, it's a natural resource that may be leaving this province free of charge, maybe not even a job out of it. That's a possibility. Yet we say there's nothing we can do about it if they write out an application for a permit and pass it in and they pass an environmental test - shovel her aboard, take her away, that's what we're saying.
I believe we receive $1 on coal, which is a mineral of some sort, and this basalt rock is not far from coal - I believe with enough heat on it you could burn it. It's a forest rock - I believe it's a Digby Neck coal. There has to be a way that we can put this under the Mineral Resources Act. This basalt rock is a very special rock, it's not everywhere. They have it in Maine, which is untouchable, you can't even walk on it unless you wipe your feet. But over here, we let them shovel that aboard boats and take it away, free of charge.
I'm asking the minister, as Minister of Natural Resources, if we can work towards putting this in the Mineral Resources Act so that we can prosper if this rock has to go.
MR. MORSE: Mr. Chairman, I want to get it on the record that the honourable member has a wonderful way of making his case. I think the late night debate he gave on the exploding seal populations was, first of all, very informative because he clearly knows his subject and was talking about how the Scandinavian countries had gone through this problem and ultimately reached the conclusion that perhaps there had better be a seal cull if they want to have a fishery. In the same way, he's applying those same attributes to the way he's delivering his case to change the way we handle pits and quarries in Nova Scotia.
I have some constructive comments. The strategy review we are about to launch in the department is not just confined to forestry, although that's the area that has garnered the most attention. It also includes biodiversity, forestry, mining and parks.
Under mining, the whole regulatory regime, whether it should be under the Mineral Resources Act or whether it should remain under the Department of Environment and Labour
[Page 621]
is fair ball for public discussion. At the end of the day I'm hoping that a recommendation will come forward that will be supported by government. I know there certainly are some that would like to see it under the Mineral Resources Act and with that would come part of the regulatory regime, although we'd not want to compromise the arm's-length arrangement with the Department of Environment and Labour, because it's important the department not be seen as regulating something it's also trying to encourage, and that being the responsible use of our natural resources.
You need to have that separation between the two departments so there will always be a role to play for the Department of Environment and Labour. The member's points are, I think, very reasonable.
Of course, the royalty regime would be something that could be considered under that scenario. So it may well be that the member is taking a little peek into the future and maybe in a few years' time that will be the way we handle pits and quarries in Nova Scotia, and perhaps there will be a royalty regime for Digby Neck gold - excuse me, I think that was the member's term - perhaps a geologist would call it basalt.
If the member would allow me, I had the honour of being the Minister of Environment and Labour at the time this first came forward provincially. I tried to listen to the concerns of both sides and one of the things that struck me was the passion that the community had about this. As minister, I was able to recommend that the greatest scrutiny allowed under the law be applied to the application and that's the panel review, the joint federal/provincial panel review. After meeting with a community group, I responded back to them - which would have then become the position of the Department of Environment and Labour of the day - that we were in favour of a joint panel review with the federal government. I suspect that was the first documentation that was produced in what eventually became the panel that's in place today, which is led by Dr. Robert Fournier, and I think he's very well-respected in the community.
From the point of view of a minister, I felt that's what I could do to recognize the concerns of the community. Now the process has to take its course.
MR. THERIAULT: That's right and that is Plan A. Plan A is to protect that area. It's beautiful - Digby Neck is a mile wide. I've worked with a lot of American people in that area over the years and other Europeans and they call it the Florida Keys of Nova Scotia. So it's a beautiful little area. But we know it's out of our hands. It's in the three-person panel. Whatever they recommend, I suppose the federal and provincial Environment Ministers may have to go along with it. We're hoping that they'll turn it down for that area, but there are lots of other rocks in other areas that are going to leave here. If they can't get hold of that rock in the United States, with the appetite that they have for roads, they're going to find rock here somewhere in Atlantic Canada, possibly Nova Scotia. So we need a Plan B. You always
[Page 622]
need a Plan B. Never go with one plan, because there's always "what if". I never leave a wharf in a boat without Plan B, because you may not come back.
That's what I'm getting at. There's a group that wants to save that area and there's a group saying, at least if something happens and we can't save it, God forbid, then I hope the government is responsible enough to at least charge them a fee so we can pack up and move out of here somehow. You can't just keep giving it away. You talked about responsibility. You just can't keep giving away, giving away, without something in return. If you take, take, take, it ends after a while. We saw it in the ground fishery of a natural resource, and then we had a lobster fishery along with it, for 400 years, where we gave back to it. We gave and took, gave and took. It's the only fishery that survived in Atlantic Canada. It's the one that had given back to it.
So by giving back for this rock, for whoever wants to take it away, we may be able to survive longer. But you can't keep taking land away and survive, if you keep taking, taking. It's kind of like burning down your house to keep warm, board by board. You have to come to an end someday. (Interruptions)
You spoke about buying land. I did a resolution in the House - and it passed - about if somebody wanted to sell land down in that area, because there are people down there getting older and they're selling off to whoever comes along. So I think there's a little movement down there, maybe we could somehow get the government to buy some of this land for protection, that was the idea of the resolution. What is the process there to make that happen if somebody in the area wanted to buy the wood? Would they just contact the department - who would they contact, and how would that process be started?
MR. MORSE: I think the first thing I would do, if I was a landowner and wanted to sell a piece of my property or my entire property, would be to write the department to make them aware that I had the property, what is special about the property that would perhaps make it attractive to add to the Crown land base, send it into the department and it will get to Land Services.
I don't want to leave the member with the idea that you're likely to see another year like we had in 2006-07 where we bought almost $35 million worth of land. That was a case where the sun, the moon and the stars fell into alignment because we had such a good year in 2004-05, which put the province well ahead of our debt management plan targets and instead of just applying the entire surplus to the provincial debt, the case was made by the department through me that it was a chance to, first of all, honour the commitment that was made to Bowater Mersey to buy those 10,000-plus hectares of beautiful land for conservation purposes in one year, but we also bought some other properties such as the lands that were required to have access to our Cape Split property and some islands on the South Shore, an island up in the Bras d'Or Lakes which is home for a heron colony. It was a great year to be in Land Services in the department.
[Page 623]
I do remember the member bringing forward the resolution and you may have even brought a resolution forward twice and we may not have accepted the first one, but we did accept the second one. I listened very carefully to the "Therefore be it resolved" and you made reference to the department giving consideration to land purchases down in the Digby Neck area and absolutely that's fair ball, and I'm sure that there are properties down there that we would love to have as part of the provincial Crown base.
[1:45 p.m.]
So, anyway, I would encourage anybody who has property to at least make us aware so that we can evaluate what they have to offer the province and as the monies become available, then it can be given consideration. Again, we're not going to see a year like 2006-07, in my opinion, anytime soon where we actually bought close to $35 million worth of land. I'm not sure if that ever happened in the history of the province before. So it was a great year for Land Services and for the province.
MR. THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The minister is very popular because the first hour I tried to get some of the questions in from a policy perspective and also some individual concerns that have come forward. We, in fact, in our caucus have five members who want to have 10 minutes each with the minister, and one of the five already had 12 minutes instead of 10 minutes and he wants to come back for another question. So I'm hoping that the minister will, in fact, be able to give me a couple of yes or no answers. I know he doesn't have to do that, but he has been so polite to me in the past and has thanked me in the House for the same question nine times.
Having said that, a yes or no answer to this one I think is important. In relationship to Voluntary Planning - and we hope that Voluntary Planning will be used in the open and inclusive process - there are a number of policies and strategic initiatives that have been announced by the government that are, in fact, touching on the natural resources end of things, or natural environment, during this session. One of them is the development of a new water resources management strategy, and $200,000 was earmarked in this budget for that and $400,000 in 2008-09. Of course, there's the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act and so on.
Anyhow, I have quite a bit of preamble and I'm asking you for a quick response - I'd better not go on at any length. My question is, will you include a line item in DNR's budget to provide a central research and support for the overall process of consultation in light of the strategies and initiatives and so on?
[Page 624]
MR. MORSE: The first step is to get Cabinet approval of the process by which we conduct the strategy. Once Cabinet has confirmed the process, then it would be incumbent on the department to make sure that the resources are made available to make it happen.
MR. MACKINNON: You touched on hardwoods before and I believe the province has placed little or no value on growing hardwoods. Perhaps that's unfair, but that is what seems to be apparent. Although some small changes have been put in place to encourage private landowners to carry out uneven-aged silviculture on their lands, but Crown licences and volume utilization agreements continue, only rarely requiring the promotion of tolerant hardwoods. Cut plans are routinely approved which promote even-aged management. Is that fair to say?
MR. MORSE: I think there is a shift in the perspective of the department in terms of where we want to invest our silviculture resources or the province's silviculture resources - I say province's as more inclusive because it's about the whole forestry industry and there are many components to that industry, of which the Department of Natural Resources is just one.
We have made a significant shift in the emphasis we place in Category 7 silviculture treatments. There are resources we anticipate investing in uneven-aged management treatments, and that would provide also for a more diversified forest. Just because it's a diversified forest does not mean that silviculture does not enhance the growth of wood fibre. It's just a different way of accomplishing the same and one that many people are encouraging them to give greater consideration to.
On the hardwood - I'll try to be quick on this - there is an apparent opportunity there because we grow about two million cubic metres of hardwood a year, hardwood fibre, as opposed to five million cubic metres of softwood. We pretty much are in balance with the softwood harvest. That's about what is harvested by the industry. In the case of hardwood, as much as 80 per cent of that is not of sawlog quality, so now we're into firewood. I was also making reference earlier to the prospect of making use of wood pellets, which is an environmentally friendly way of meeting our Kyoto commitments and basically making better use of the forests. That is an exciting area that I think we'll be making better use of in the future, as a province. I'm not sure if that answers the member's question.
MR. MACKINNON: I think perhaps a yes or no question would be, will the minister put in place restrictions and requirements for Crown agreement holders which tie stumpage charges to the use of uneven-aged management techniques and ensure that silviculture support is there for tolerant hardwoods? I think that's probably it, if I can summarize what I was trying to get at there.
[Page 625]
MR. MORSE: I'm going to answer one of the questions in there, the last one about tolerant hardwoods, the answer is yes. It was a rather complex question and I wouldn't want the answer to be applied to every interpretation of every part of the question.
MR. MACKINNON: I wish we had more time with you, Mr. Minister, because I do have a tremendous volume of questions and I have quite a few constituency concerns of my own that I'm going to address with you in private later on. At this point, I'll turn it over to the member for Halifax Citadel for 10 minutes or less.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel.
MR. LEONARD PREYRA: I do have a couple of fairly quick questions. I know people might be surprised to see the member for Halifax Citadel asking questions . . .
MR. MORSE: Not at all. (Interruptions)
MR. PREYRA: I always have good questions. The Minister of Health is more used to getting questions from me, but I do have two questions that are actually pretty important to constituents in Halifax Citadel, one of which you've heard before but I would like to ask you directly, it relates to the brown spruce longhorn beetle.
As you know, we have a very active group in Halifax Citadel, the Friends of Point Pleasant Park, who have been in existence since the creation, since the beginning of this issue. At the time, they had pretty serious concerns about the scientific evidence that supported the cutting down of trees in Point Pleasant Park, and subsequent to that the expansion of the quarantine zone beyond Point Pleasant Park.
Notwithstanding the fact that Hurricane Juan knocked down what was left, there's not much left of a forestry issue in Point Pleasant Park, but they're still very much concerned about the scientific evidence that underpinned the decision to cut down the trees and expand the quarantine zone. I'm wondering, has the department moved to reassess its position in the light of experience to see whether or not that scientific evidence needs to be reconsidered and to test the effectiveness of the policy itself?
MR. MORSE: The member is referring to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's quarantine zone as a means of trying to curtail the spread of the brown spruce longhorn beetle or, more optimistically, the elimination of this invasive alien insect species.
The department's position, which we have documented by way of support to the stakeholder group that has been negotiating with the CFIA, there are better ways of controlling the outbreak of this insect. We feel the quarantine zone has not been the success that I think the CFIA felt it would be and that there are better ways of engaging the whole industry in curbing the spread of the insect.
[Page 626]
I don't want to be here criticizing the science used by the CFIA because I'm not a scientist and even if I were, I'm not an entomologist, although we do have an entomologist on staff. Generally, we've been working with the stakeholder group, particularly Diana Blenkhorn of the Maritime Lumber Bureau, trying to come up with a better plan to curb the spread of the beetle and still allow the operation of a forestry industry in HRM.
MR. PREYRA: The Maritime Lumber Bureau is on record, as well, questioning the scientific evidence and the expansion of the quarantine zone. I guess my question is, Chris Majka - I think I can name him - who is on the Friends of Point Pleasant Park board and has been very active, is also a distinguished entomologist in his own right. In fact, you might recognize that he has discovered three or four beetles in the last few years alone, so he is a scientist in his own right.
When people like that - especially when there are three or four scientists in the Friends of Point Pleasant Park - say that the scientific evidence is flawed and needs reconsideration, it would certainly give me pause for concern. I hear the minister saying that he has pause for concern, as well, and I'm wondering whether the department would consider embarking on a review of its own or of getting a second opinion, because this is so important to Halifax and to Nova Scotians and to the forestry industry itself.
MR. MORSE: As part of the proposal that has been put forward by the stakeholder group as an alternative to the CFIA's initial quarantine zone approach, we want to develop that better science. Recently I was at the Atlantic Theatre Festival where I think it was actually the Irving family that invited in an entomologist who was talking about pheromones and ways of . . .
MR. PREYRA: Controlling.
MR. MORSE: Yes, controlling insects in a more environmentally friendly manner and using these scents or synthesized scents to confuse them at mating season and to encourage them to come to traps, it was a fascinating presentation. I have forgotten the gentleman's name but he was a very distinguished expert in the area. In essence, that is part of the approach in the stakeholders' plan and we support that plan. We are on record as supporting the plan. As a politician, the member would appreciate that . . .
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. PREYRA: Not that long. I'm still a political scientist. I would like to see hard evidence.
MR. MORSE: . . . there are constructive ways of trying to encourage colleagues to take a different course of action. We have tried to employ that respectfully with the CFIA and my federal colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Honourable Chuck Strahl. I found him to
[Page 627]
be receptive and I am cautiously optimistic that in the very near future there should be an announcement that I'm hoping will be more pleasing to Nova Scotians.
MR. PREYRA: I thank the minister for his answer. I know the member for Pictou East wants me to take as little time as possible, so I won't belabour this question, but the question was whether or not the Department of Natural Resources will undertake its own review, an independent investigation, regardless of what the Canadian Food Inspection Agency recommends. It's just due diligence on the part of the Province of Nova Scotia because this is a vital resource to us.
I do want to pass on to question number two if the member for Pictou East will give me another two minutes.
MR. MORSE: I'll give you a one-sentence answer. We are doing that collaboratively with all the stakeholders, including the CFIA, because we feel that there is a better approach to curbing the spread of this beetle.
MR. PREYRA: The second question I have relates to submerged lands in the Northwest Arm. It's a question that in my other life I raised quite regularly with the Northwest Arm Coalition. It's an issue not just in the Northwest Arm but right across in coastal communities. It seems to me there are these conflicting jurisdictions that prevent anything from being done there, and most of my requests for information and support go back to the Department of Natural Resources. The province's position seems to be that anything below the high-water mark can't be the responsibility of the province, so you have to go somewhere else.
These submerged lands are being infilled and developed and most municipalities are just not capable of dealing with the applications that come in. They are an environmental threat and there are also issues of access, there are implications for the fishery. These conflicting jurisdictions seem to prevent each other from doing anything and as a result a lot falls between the cracks. I'm wondering if the department is willing to take a leadership role in that to protect the shoreline, to protect these resources.
MR. MORSE: The honourable member makes reference to the very complex division of responsibility between the federal and the provincial government. Halifax Harbour, which includes the Northwest Arm, is federal jurisdiction. There are many parts of Nova Scotia's coast that we would say we do own below the high-water mark, and that is provincial Crown land - at least out for a distance - but harbours are a special case. The Halifax Harbour is one harbour that the federal government has indicated it wants to continue to own. So it does complicate the issue and I can certainly appreciate why the honourable member might be frustrated at times, because it seems like there's a different law for different circumstances and it's not a uniform application right across the province as it pertains to our Crown land under the high-water mark.
[Page 628]
MR. PREYRA: A quick question, as the member says, the federal government has conceded that this is a shared jurisdiction, this is a shared issue, when they created the interagency working group on the harbour that included the Northwest Arm and said we're going to bring all of the stakeholders together to see if we can come up with a coastal zone management plan. So they have conceded it's not something they are unilaterally responsible for. What I hear from that interagency group is that it's the province saying we're not responsible for this, it's not the federal government saying we're not responsible. I'd just conclude by asking the minister to reconsider that position and to see whether or not the Department of Natural Resources can take more responsibility for what's happening in the whole issue of submerged lands, but particularly in the harbour and the Northwest Arm.
MR. MORSE: I have a suggestion that I think would be more constructive than just giving a verbal undertaking here in the estimates. I am aware that the member has spent a considerable amount of time researching this issue. It's important to him and it's important to his constituency, and indeed it's important across the province. Would it be appropriate if he was to articulate this in a letter so that we would document it, and then we can give it to our legal people and see if there's some way of accommodating the member's suggestion? That way we have a paper trail and we have a more concrete answer, hopefully an answer that would be more pleasing to the member.
MR. PREYRA: I'd like an outcome that's more pleasing as well, but thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East. You have approximately 40 minutes.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Often, as the Natural Resources Critic for the Official Opposition, concerns are raised that have to be put on the record somewhere, and sometimes we agree with the concerns that come forward and sometimes we don't have all of the information. One concern that has been raised, and I just mentioned it to you in passing, was a concern that some people have in relationship to the price of uranium going from something like $10 a pound to $85 a pound. Of course, we have a moratorium in relationship to uranium. Is that something that we should visit at this time or is it something we should discuss later? It's on the record nowhere and I have been approached by some concerns and I just want to put it forward.
MR. MORSE: I know there is a lot of interest on the part of the mining industry to address the moratorium. The member would probably be aware that we're the only province in the country that has a moratorium and it has certainly not helped the growth of the mining industry in Nova Scotia, but I think there has to be an understanding by all the stakeholders of the reasons for the moratorium being put in place. I think in 1981 it was a de facto decision by way of a ministerial statement that there was going to be a moratorium and it subsequently morphed from there into something that was permanent. So it's an appropriate question. I mean, you will determine what's an appropriate question, but I would tell you that
[Page 629]
it is very significant and it still certainly impacts the amount of money in exploration in Nova Scotia, the moratorium, as compared to other parts of Atlantic Canada in particular.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and I think this is something like the situation involving the private landowners and the Trappers Association of Nova Scotia. I think it's something that I personally need more information on and I would hope that when I visit your department to get some more information on the various trapping regulations, and so on, that you might designate a person to talk to me regarding the uranium issue, as well, so that I have knowledge of both sides of this issue.
I do want to include short periods for some of my colleagues, and at this time I will call on the member for Pictou West to have 10 minutes, or less.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, Mr. Minister and staff. It's good to have a chance to look at the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. I have a couple of issues I want to bring forward at this time.
I had asked you several months ago about the situation with Ligni Bel in Scotsburn, Pictou County. They have a working relationship with Stora Enso, as you would know, and their plans are to build a working sawmill in Scotsburn in conjunction with Stora Enso, and rather than building the mill in Port Hawkesbury it would be located in Scotsburn. There is, I guess, a good business case why they want to do that. Basically, it's easier to own and operate one mill rather than two at separate locations. At any rate, their business plan certainly pointed to having it all consolidated in Scotsburn, which they now presently use a lot of wood from Stora lands and from private lands as well. But the idea is to expand it about, I think, three times the size it presently is.
Like I said, it has been several months since this project first came forward and I know the companies, they're both anxious to see it move forward. I just wondered if you can give us any update on where things are in the department with that project.
MR. MORSE: There have been discussions with both Ligni Bel and Stora Enso. The concern here is not to damage an already stressed industry in the central part of the province, which is well supplied with sawmills and other consumers of wood fibre. The fear is that if we create another super mill in that area, they might then be out competing for an already tight wood supply and inadvertently cause other businesses to perhaps have to shut down. So that's the landscape.
The proposal that has come forward is assurances that the additional wood supply that would go into feeding this mill would be just the wood supply that would be coming off the Stora lands and those private contractors who would have fed the mill in Port Hawkesbury.
[Page 630]
We are generally in agreement with that concept. We are still trying to work out a couple of other issues with Stora as it pertains to - we'll just say - allocation, and we want to make sure that we get it right, but I'm cautiously optimistic that we've reached a compromise.
MR. PARKER: I guess that sounds encouraging and I know part of the dilemma, or whatever, is the allocation of the Crown land resources. Stora has that lease long term and, you know, they use the wood at Point Tupper and they're already, of course, shipping some wood to Scotsburn at this time. Is that allocation of Crown land to a different mill, so-called, even though it's a working relationship for Stora Enso, is that a factor in the decision here or negotiations, whichever, to allow this operation to be in Scotsburn?
MR. MORSE: Could you just clarify the question?
MR. PARKER: The allocation of Crown land, Stora has that right to use the wood for a long-term, 99-year lease, or whatever it was, and I believe they had to use it in Port Hawkesbury. I understand they had permission to put up this lumber mill, this project, in Port Hawkesbury but now, of course, the location is different. It's still going to be the same parties, the same company, it has just moved 100 miles westward. Is that a stumbling block in any respect, or is that not a problem?
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: Well, the source of the wood supply to feed the increased production at the Ligni Bel Scotsburn plant is the concern, and we want to make sure that we're not bringing another competitor for an already tight wood supply in central Nova Scotia at the expense of some other long-established sawmill. So, yes, that's what the question is about and we have had constructive dialogue with Stora Enso on behalf of Ligni Bell, and there has been an exchange of letters. I think we have the essence of an agreement that would allow it to happen, subject to rounding out a few rough edges.
MR. PARKER: Well, it's not encouraging and so it sounds like the issue is less over Crown land allocation, it's more over wood fibre availability?
MR. MORSE: Yes.
MR. PARKER: Well, I would encourage you and your department to work with the parties here and hopefully there can be a solution so that no one is harmed but we can add value to our natural resource and move forward with this important industry.
The second issue then, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to your attention, I have a group in my constituency, and I've mentioned this to the Minister of Environment in past days in his estimates, it's called the Redtail Nature Awareness Centre, and they are a group of interested citizens who want to conserve property and maintain it forever and ever. I guess
[Page 631]
their initiative was over a piece of woodland that was going to be clear-cut by Wagner or on behalf of Neenah, next to their nature awareness camp that they've had for many years, and offer educational programs to children and adults both. So they stood up and said we don't want to see this happen next to our nature camp, so they're trying to work out an arrangement with Wagner at this time to purchase or to save the property for all time.
They're a registered society and they have some goals, and I'll just read it quickly: Their objectives are to protect and conserve forest land for the purpose of education, and the exploration and practice of new land ethic which supports biodiversity and sensitive, sustainable land use; and secondly, to promote community engagement in the health and well-being of its bio region.
They're interested in knowing if there's any assistance, financial or otherwise, in obtaining lands that can be kept in the public domain and for use. I know the Crown has bought a lot of acres over the years, most recently with Bowater, lands that were purchased for conservation use and to be held by the province, working towards the 12 per cent goal of conserving land in this province. I know perhaps there were some additional funds that were available that weren't all spent on the Bowater lands, so is it possible that a group like this either get some advice, or if there are any sources of financing to help purchase land to be held for conservation use, or is it at least something you perhaps would even be willing to talk to them as a first step to see what might be possible?
MR. MORSE: We would certainly encourage any such group to come forward and have discussions with the department. We have also suggested to other conservation-minded community groups that they talk to some of the people in MICA, the Mahone Islands Conservation Association. They were responsible for cost sharing on the acquisition of three islands, Andrews Island, Backmans Island and Coveys Island in the Mahone Bay area. They are just an excellent group of people, they came with a chequebook and as things came to pass in 2006-07, we had a window of opportunity in terms of being able to acquire additional tangible capital assets for the acquisition of additional Crown lands.
I think the member has probably heard me in the House before saying how pleased I am with what we were able to do from 2006-07. I'm not anticipating that level of activity in the acquisition of Crown lands in the near future, but there will be some activity. We very much value these community partnerships and, yes, I would encourage them to come forward and we'll try to assist as much as we can. I mention MICA again, Mahone Islands Conservation Association, as a model of how to work with government and conserve some of their valuable lands.
MR. PARKER: Perhaps I'll go back to them and suggest that at least your door is open to talk to them and perhaps they can contact you or your staff and see where next they can go with this project.
[Page 632]
MR. MORSE: Absolutely.
MR. PARKER: Thank you very much.
MR. MORSE: That doesn't necessarily come with a cheque for 2007-08, but at least let's have that discussion, hear why they want to protect that parcel of land and be aware, so when the monies do become available we'll be there and be able to act with them.
MR. PARKER: Could I ask, then, if they were to make contact with the department, who is it they should speak to?
MR. MORSE: That would be Jo-Anne can just send it with a forwarding letter to me and we'll respond appropriately. They can go directly to Land Services, but they have a number of options, including just simply formalizing it to their local member.
MR. PARKER: Okay, we'll follow up and I thank you for your interest.
MR. MORSE: My pleasure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll go back now to the member for Pictou East. The time is 2:22 p.m.
The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: With relation to all these 10-minute allocations, I've been able to pull off a minor coup here with the member for Queens. She was willing to give up her 10 minutes if I asked one question.
Could the minister give an update on the status of the Sperry's Beach committee and the land dispute for access to the beach?
MR. MORSE: I believe we offered it to the municipality with the understanding that they would work it out with the community and the owner of the land in question.
MR. MACKINNON: The member for Queens has stated that this committee and community have been working towards securing their rightful access to Sperry's Beach, an access and beach they have enjoyed for well over 100 years. She wanted to make this point in a very strong fashion and so your response is that it has been offered to the municipality.
MR. MORSE: Such as we were able to assist them, we're doing it through the municipality and want to be co-operative. We cannot override the property rights of the private-land owner. I think that's one of the complications here and I think there have been many legal opinions, but from our perspective we're trying to be co-operative and if the
[Page 633]
Municipality of Queens can bring about an agreement, and our offer is able to help them conclude one, then we've certainly been pleased to do so.
MR. MACKINNON: Nova Scotia has one of the worst track records in the country in relationship to value added and economic diversity. It seems that we are dependent on a pulp and paper industry, or pulp and paper prices that have been vulnerable to global boom and bust cycles. Some years ago there was, in fact, a comparison done and we were looking at a value added of $82 a cubic metre, compared to Ontario's $273 - $273 as opposed to $82; even adjacent New Brunswick at that time was $123 a cubic metre. What steps are we taking in Nova Scotia to encourage more value added and also in doing so, the diverse wood products production to get involved?
I was pleased to hear that you mentioned pellets because I indicated to you that I would be dealing with you on some of the matters from my own constituency, away from this table. The Groupe Savoie in my hometown, in part of my constituency, employs 30 people directly and is looking at an expansion into value added. I believe that operations like that should be encouraged in any way that can be conceivably done.
We talk about some hardwood groups only using a couple of major species, like the sugar maple, or whatever. But Savoie actually uses even poplar and so on. They have a whole diversification of less valuable that they are involved with. So getting to the question, what is the government doing to encourage value added?
MR. MORSE: I think that your observation may have come from some material provided through GPI Atlantic and possibly Minga O'Brien of the Ecology Action Centre. I've seen some of her work and it intrigued me, and it's one of the questions that I would want to have answered as we go through the strategy. Am I correct that GPI Atlantic is the source of those numbers for value added?
MR. MACKINNON: I think it could, in fact, be. It's old information that was supplied to me some time ago and I used it before.
MR. MORSE: Minga O'Brien?
MR. MACKINNON: I will check the source. It's some notes that I had from a previous occasion.
MR. MORSE: I read a letter to the editor, shortly after being sworn in as minister, from Minga O'Brien of the Ecology Action Centre and she was, I think, quoting some of these numbers, I believe that was the source. I did ask the department where they came from and that's what was suggested to me, and I would like to have those answers. Maybe it was an editorial by Ralph Surette, or perhaps it came from both sources. But anyway, it is something that should be flushed out, I think, as we go through the forestry strategy. Clearly
[Page 634]
we want to make sure that we make the best use of our scarce natural resources and that would be the appropriate forum to do it in.
On the pellets, you made mention of poplar and that's right, some of the marginal species can actually make very good sources of wood pellets and I think the trick is, you just get the water component down to an acceptable percentage and they're just as good as many of the other hardwoods and, in fact, in some cases, they're better.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. The former Critic for Natural Resources, the Official Opposition Critic, the honourable member for Hants East - in fact, I probably got the information from him initially - says that it was GPI Atlantic. That was, in fact, the source of that.
At this time, I would like to turn just a couple of quick questions over to member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. MORSE: The very patient member for Timberlea-Prospect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: I have prepared notes so look out. Thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you to your staff for a few moments. First of all, let me acknowledge again, publicly, your quick response to a suggestion from my community to have the name of the Lewis Lake Provincial Park changed to the Jerry Lawrence Provincial Park. The other day in the House, when I had the opportunity to speak, as you realized with the voice and the health lately, I was going to make comments about "Jer Bear" and banning bears from the park, but that was all lost in translation.
I'd like to talk about Lewis Lake Park at this stage. Mr. Minister, Lewis Lake Park is adjacent to the St. Margaret's Bay Rails to Trails. If I use my geography, I'll be able to probably express it very poorly, but at the back end of the park, where basically, after you go by the two accessible fishing wharves and a nice wheelchair-accessible trail, back into a quiet cove, there is a space there of about - I could be wrong - 200 or 250 metres, which leads to the Rails to Trails. That path is a disaster, it's in very poor shape. In fact, it is not actually anything that your department would allow to be used as a connector, from the park on to the trail. I would like it if your staff could look at that matter, because there are lots of other places where people, walkers - in fact, I met a horse on the trail about two weeks ago, my dog was spooked by this horse. It's a multi-purpose trail.
The problem, of course, the access for people who come into the park and they want to then go from the provincial park on to the trail and there is this meandering up-and-down,
[Page 635]
all-over-the-place, really unofficial path that's really beating down a portion of that wonderful park. I bring it to the staff's attention. It's been a topic in the past but it's becoming a bit of a problem. I would be remiss to say that I would like to compliment your staff for the attention they pay to that particular park and the cleanup and the attention to the very necessities that make it so important.
They have been in there in the winter, a couple of times, to make sure that things are in order. They have policed it - if that is correct terminology - I understand. The ATV users are very aware of the fact that your staff have been attentive to it. I think they must be attentive to the fact the MLA takes an occasional once-a-day walk in there too, because they stay out of our park. They have lots of other places to use.
I'm on the topic of trails and how much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the caucus goes to 2:47 p.m. and it's now 2:33 p.m.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Okay. I just have this one problem. Part of the BLT Rails to Trails, the Beechville-Lakeside-Timberlea Rails to Trails, it's really our sidewalk in that community because, of course, there are no - well, there are in certain places - sidewalks along through that suburban part of my constituency. On that part of the trail you don't run into horses, you run into people with their baby strollers, you run into people who are jogging, you run into people who, in the winter, are out cross-country skiing. So it's really a very popular recreational trail.
We have a problem, however, with vandalism. I was the chairman last night at the AGM for BLT Rails to Trails. The concern is, of course, there's a section of the trail that's very close to a - if I can use the term appropriately - local hangout and, as in every community, the teenagers need a place to hang. Unfortunately, they are hanging out on the trail, of all places. They don't like our benches, they've moved sofas in. These kids are ready to have a party - they've moved sofas in. You know, the responsibility of the trails organization is to maintain the trails and keep them up to scratch and do all kinds of other wonderful things but we have a concern, the community has a concern, about the fact that this portion of the trail is really causing some serious problems when it comes to vandalism and other recurring problems that perhaps other members hear about where if you have teenagers and you don't keep them busy, you can't keep them out of trouble.
In the community of Beechville-Lakeside-Timberlea, the newest and best hangout is the Rails to Trails. We have concerns about fires and various other things. I'm wondering if you can give me some direction on where to refer our Rails to Trails. Are we talking the RCMP? Are we talking some of your folks from DNR who have done such a great job at Lewis Lake Park? Can we call upon them to assist us with the "policing"? I know it's right out of left field. If you don't have any advice for me at this time, I said today I would have the opportunity to bring it to your attention.
[Page 636]
It's a wonderful recreation facility, exceptionally well received, but we have a problem with the teenagers using portions of our trail as hangouts. I wish they would use it for other recreational facilities, but they aren't. Anyway, sorry for the long-winded preamble, but any advice for me, Mr. Minister?
MR. MORSE: It's the same advice that I gave earlier to another one of your colleagues. I think that something like this really demands a more official response than what could be given here and I would like to have a chance to run it by John Mombourquette, who is Director of the Enforcement Division, and get his advice. If you could send me a quick e-mail or letter, and perhaps through Mr. Mombourquette we can research what avenues might be available to solve this problem. It's a wonderful story up to the point that it has turned into a hangout for the wrong reasons, but it sounds like prior to that it was the model - I'm going to say - multi-use trail, assuming it doesn't have motorized vehicles sharing the community sidewalk.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Certain portions of it, but that's another topic. Anyway, I thank my friend, the member for Pictou East, for allowing me to use some of your time. Thank you for your patience.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: There are a number of things I wanted to address and time is limited and we will have to find another forum for doing that. I wanted to spend quite a little bit of time talking about the real need for moving away from clear-cutting as the primary practice. There are forests where stands are in poor shape in both quality and quantity of wood. The correct prescription is, of course, clear-cutting there.
There are other cases for clear-cutting, but I wanted to make a case here today for more selective cutting. I know I've tried to do that before and I hope the department will look more in that direction. Improved inventory practices was another thing I wanted to have time to raise today - renegotiation of wood volume agreements to strengthen forest restoration efforts.
There are such a host of things that we could be looking at in relation to forestry - even amending the tax policies to foster long-term management and so on. I'm not going to put questions forward on any of those right now, I do want to address biomass and bio-energy, but before doing that, the member for Hants East wanted - he has already had 12 minutes - but since he's the former critic, I believe that I have to give him another question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I want to thank my colleague, this was a pleasant surprise. I wasn't expecting that.
[Page 637]
One thing I would like to have, which you'll say that's not related to your previous question, but I think our office had made a request for the volume agreement for Mac Tara Ltd. in Upper Musquodoboit. So we'd like to have a copy of that, if that's possible. We put the request in, I think it has been a couple of weeks now, we haven't received it, so is that okay?
MR. MORSE: I'm not sure whether that went through my office.
MR. MACDONELL: I don't think so.
MR. MORSE: Okay, just through the department because I can tell the honourable member that you're probably looking at least three weeks for a turnaround through my office. By the time the originating letter gets sent to the appropriate person, they have a chance to give it proper consideration, draft a response - I don't know if that would be as detailed in this case, but the deputy says he will follow up on your request and hopefully we will provide you with a prompt response.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you very much. I think it's in the works, but I just wanted to see if it was possible to expedite it through this route. Otherwise, we'll wait until we can get it.
I'll move off the established trails business that I asked the minister about previously. I would like to get something in writing at some point that will tell me what your criteria are for determining established trails, I'd like to see that.
I guess I'm curious as to why you went down the road of so little testing for ATV drivers. I think presently if you're 16 and have a driver's licence, what is the government's position?
MR. MORSE: I'm glad that the member brought that up and I was indicating that is not the case. I am not a lawyer and it was the government's concern that there be some age criteria in place before we would consider grandfathering somebody from not having to take the safety training course. We went to more than one lawyer and we got more than one opinion. The problem here, as they advised me, is that there's the possibility of a Charter challenge about discriminating based on age, so if you're going to do it you've got to really be able to justify that decision. You might be faced with a court challenge down the road, so you get it right in the first case.
So after conflicting advice we have gone with the age of majority being 19 as of April 1, 2006, which effectively means that you had to have been 19 at that time, own an ATV - which now means you're in your 20s - you've got to register the ATV, and you have to have a current valid driver's licence. The three pieces we're looking for is we needed to have some sort of track record that you were experienced in using the machine, so that's the first one.
[Page 638]
The second one is we want to encourage law-abiding citizens, and that's the registration. The final one is we want to know that they're responsible, and that's the current valid driver's licence. However, if at any point in time one of those three falls by the wayside, they've just signed up for a safety training course. So if they go out and perhaps have a drinking and driving infraction, as just maybe a more extreme example, they just also lost the right to drive their ATV.
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I'll hand back to my colleague. I appreciate it very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.
MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Very quickly, the biomass and bioenergy, this is something that I'm very excited about but also concerned about. I have met with some entities in relationship to biofuels and bioenergy, and certainly we're looking at agriculture products, fish waste, and it seems that the forests are the primary source of fuels that almost everyone is talking about. I think it's too early to know if this harvest will be incorporated into wood supply calculations or if it will be treated as a by-product of the traditional harvesting operations or whatever. This is another situation that I'm not being negative on in any way, it's just that it's the plus and the minus side of things. So my question that I have jotted here is, what resources are included in this budget for DNR doing an evaluation and to research the potential effects of burning forest biomass to generate energy here in Nova Scotia? Is there money there, yes or no? In 30 seconds, I guess.
MR. MORSE: The question I think is whether there's a specific line item attached to this, and the answer is that would be encompassed in the general ongoing operation of the department. So the resources are there but they have not been separated out as a separate line. Just before the minute's up, we've got both of the Opposition critics present and I wonder whether it would be appropriate to just get it on the record while both are here that perhaps after the House rises - and assuming that we're not knocking on doors which I understand is not going to be the case - that it might be appropriate to meet in the department and if you want to have an opportunity to further explore some areas that are in the area of your critic responsibilities, either collectively or individually, we would certainly entertain that sort of request.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and we will be following up on a number of these concerns with your department and appreciate the way you have responded to all of these questions and on the biomass issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time has expired.
[Page 639]
The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the invitation that the minister just extended to the critics, although I may get a chance to get most of my questions in because the Official Opposition has spent a lot of time introducing each other. It's almost like you've been facing a panel, Mr. Minister. So, anyway, I'll proceed. One of the areas that I had heard about this week for the first time listening to a CBC program - and I had to check out the source of the study, whether it was an independent, one-person kind of study or where it came from - that was a study done particularly in Ontario with regard to the boreal forest because the boreal forest, of course, is a phenomenal area, in fact one of the world's great areas of sequestering carbon dioxide.
So the program was talking more about the practice of logging, and when the practice of logging is specifically clear-cutting, the amount of carbon dioxide that is released is, in fact, a phenomenal amount. In fact, two-thirds of what's released is coming from the soil as opposed to only one-third from the tree that is cut down. So I was fascinated a bit by this and also when we take a look at burning forest biomass, which we had a question just a moment ago and you said does present certainly some opportunities and, in fact, there may be some there but in doing a little bit of research and relating it to the program, you implied that it was sustainable.
Well, a 2006 Environment Canada report concluded that logging in Canada releases an average of 33 megatons of carbon into the atmosphere each year, and this is equivalent to 16 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, in 1998 a New Brunswick study concluded that a landscape managed for plantations on a 60-year rotation would store only 22 per cent as much above-ground carbon as a landscape covered in old-growth natural forests and this is because carbon is stored in the soils, dead wood and the living biomass. Numerous other scientific studies support these results. So I was just wondering then, what would be your evidence to suggest that bioenergy would be carbon neutral?
MR. MORSE: I believe that the scientists who put together the Kyoto Accord had determined that they see that as being CO2 neutral. That's not to suggest that CO2 is not released when you cut down a tree, but it's going to release the carbon dioxide that has been sequestered in the tree by natural decay or by incineration; in other words, as a source of energy. The argument, as I understand it, is that as you replace that tree, the new tree will be sequestering the equivalent amount of CO2 that's released by way of burning the residue, you know, such as the case of pellets or firewood. That's why Europe is so keen to expand the use of pellets, it helps them meet their Kyoto target.
So while the member is right in pointing out that it continues to produce emissions, I think the assumption has been made that if you cut a tree down, you're going to plant a new one, and I think by and large that's probably a fair assumption in Canada.
[Page 640]
MR. GLAVINE: I guess when we take a look at this area, certainly in Nova Scotia there's no question that where we produce 80-plus per cent from fossil fuels that certainly bioenergy could be one of the parts of the equation for the future and one that could receive a fair amount of attention. We could even, in fact, have especially some of our pulp and paper mills that would look at this as a source of producing electricity and a source of energy which, of course, is going to put further pressures on our forest resource.
So I'm wondering at this point - I know we haven't seen a lot in the public domain - whether or not the Department of Natural Resources has sought an independent assessment to see whether current harvesting practices are sustainable. This is why I'm suggesting and why we're hearing more and more of the need for a forest strategy in the province. At this point, has there been any assessment to say that we are on a correct path, and especially if we were to go to increased harvesting for bioenergy?
MR. MORSE: The current forest strategy was initiated about 10 years ago and it was as a result of concerns about the sustainability of the wood harvest. There were two ways to inventory our forests. It's interesting that the member asked me this question, because I think we may have had this discussion last year in this forum - maybe perhaps not with the member, but somebody else asked me this question - because it was something that did concern me and the comparison with the cod fishery, it always sort of resonated with me. In fact, I think it was the member for Hants East who may have asked me that question.
We do track our inventory of forests through our Truro branch and we do it in two ways. One, through satellite pictures of the forests, they're analyzed by technicians and they're able to convert that into, I guess, a number that tracks where we are in terms of our forests. The other way is that there are a lot of - I'm going to call them - test plots, where periodically staff go out and measure the girth of the trees and convert that to - I guess through an equation to wood fibre, and then they reconcile the two. I was quite comforted by the depth of the analysis. I mean there's a whole model in place that tries to track what the fibre production will be if you make certain changes to the strategy, and silviculture has been the one that has had an enormous impact over the health of our forests, and it's through that process that we're able to estimate roughly what has grown in terms of wood fibre on an annual basis and what is out there in terms of inventory of forests.
Also, the two numbers that were, I think, perhaps mentioned earlier, I believe it's something like five million cubic metres of softwood is grown every year and about two million cubic metres of hardwood - it's a lot of that hardwood - and of course the slash and the bark and the other waste products from the softwood operations, but as much as 80 per cent of that hardwood is not suitable for sawlogs.
There's an enormous opportunity there and if you're going to go in and harvest a property, you have to find something to do with all of the wood fibre. If you're leaving some on the ground, you're possibly creating other problems. There's an appropriate amount to
[Page 641]
leave on the ground, just from the point of view of composting to sustain the fertility of the soil, but you want to make sure it's the right amount because it can also be a source for another type of fire, which we do not want to see; that, of course, is forest fires.
MR. GLAVINE: Just to extend this a little bit, what percentage of our logging or our wood material is harvested? What percentage would leave the province as whole logs?
MR. MORSE: You have to get special permission to send a sawlog that's been harvested off of Crown land out of the province. We're very conscious of the value added and want to protect those jobs. If it's harvested off of a private woodlot, then there are more options for the one that's bought the logs, and we'll get the honourable member that information.
MR. GLAVINE: While permission is required, is there a percentage that comes off of Crown land that does leave the province in a whole-log state?
MR. MORSE: The export of sawlogs cut off of Crown land would be on an exception basis. It's something we prefer not to see in the province. I guess implicitly the answer I'm suggesting is that it would be close to zero.
[3:00 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: I guess that's probably why one of the earlier questions that I did ask was some of the concerns the woodlot owners association voice - I think there are 31,000 privately owned woodlots in the province. It does pose a very unique problem and challenge for us in that the province doesn't have some of the controls there that may be necessary for the long-term viability, sustainability, creating value added. I mean, 13,000 jobs provided by forestry certainly are highly valued jobs and ones we want to keep, so this is why the private woodlot and its impact and proper silviculture and practices there are really critical.
The province does have, and can have, control on the Crown lands. In my view those should be the ones that are exemplary practices, for sure, that we can use as the demonstration of best practices in forestry.
With that, I'm wondering, again, are we getting the full value added from our forestry? Are the private woodlots getting the attention that they need?
MR. MORSE: The question is a very appropriate one. I understand that when decisions were made in and about 2002 to bring in the new regulations that all of a sudden directed private woodlot owners that they were not to harvest up to the edge of a watercourse and that there was an expectation they would be investing back into silviculture to regenerate the forest after a cut, I think broke new ground in Nova Scotia. I think the tradition has been
[Page 642]
that the landowner pretty much had carte blanche with their property and if it was their forest and they wanted to harvest it before the new regulations, then they did so.
All of a sudden government - it would have been the Department of Natural Resources - was coming in and putting conditions on how they could harvest and if they were to harvest that there had to be money paid into the Forest Sustainability Fund, $3 every cubic metre. So this was a rather brave step on the part of the minister and the government of the day. It was the right decision. I think what the member is saying is that he is probably supportive of a movement in that direction and that perhaps forests or something that go beyond private ownership.
MR. GLAVINE: That's the area that I was at least alluding to here, that when we look at the fact they produce 13,000 jobs for Nova Scotians and that's why their health and sustainability is a very huge question. That's why I think government has to be the ultimate caretaker and be responsible for the future of forestry practices. Again, that's why I certainly hope to welcome a full Voluntary Planning-type of process to look at the forest strategy and the natural resources strategy that will be mapped out probably for the next generation or two of Nova Scotians. So hopefully that will be an area that can be strengthened. I think individual Nova Scotians want to see that. We are hearing more about those kinds of protective measures and hopefully the department will embrace some of those in the future and, of course, in the strategy that will be developed.
With that, I will move on to what was, again, a great piece of work from Voluntary Planning which was the Nova Scotia Heritage Strategy. In that, of course, natural heritage was presented. In the protected areas, it has mapped out - ones that most people or many people who track this area, and that is 80 natural landscapes that exist in our province. The province did add to the protected areas with a couple of announcements just a few years ago, but still we are only protecting about 28 of the natural landscapes. I know the minister has certainly started his tenure with adding to protected areas and I'm wondering if there's a long-term plan to be able to embrace many of these natural landscapes. Some, I know, are under pressures for development and alternative uses, and protecting them now, of course, is a critical piece. I just would like a comment from the minister on that.
MR. MORSE: There is a process currently going on under the name of the Colin Stewart forum, and the member may have heard of this before but it's basically a working group between the environmental sector and the forestry sector to try to come to terms with how they can complete obtaining the 12 per cent protected areas target that was set for the province as they came out of Rio. I think actually it was the federal Minister of Environment of the day, Jean Charest - now Premier of Quebec - who suggested that number.
A more difficult challenge for Nova Scotia because of a relative scarcity of Crown land compared to some of the newer members of Confederation - not newer members of Confederation but other provinces that were settled well after the Maritimes. They have a
[Page 643]
much larger Crown land base. There is a commitment to work toward the 12 per cent, to achieve the 12 per cent and those debates are happening, I think, where they should happen, where you have people who have a vested interest in protecting the forestry industry and to make sure that it continues as a major employer in this province. As the member pointed out, thousands of jobs depend on the forestry sector. On the other hand, we have some very committed environmental groups that are interested in protecting the future well-being of all Nova Scotians by way of the environment.
So they are having those discussions. The intensive forest management is one way that you can get more wood fibre production out of a smaller land mass and there has been some movement there. I think, on the other side, there has been some movement in terms of recognizing that there are certain pieces of land that are needed to complete that system of protected wilderness areas. We are supportive of the process and we are letting them come forward with their vision of how we think we can accomplish it before we take it out to a wider audience. It is an exciting process and it's good to see the two sides working together collaboratively. It may not always be harmoniously but, ultimately, I think both sides would say that it was collaboratively. Colin Stewart, a noted environmentalist who passed away recently, understood that there needed to be a balance between the forestry sector and the environment; a very well-respected gentleman and he has left a great legacy.
MR. GLAVINE: I'm just going to finish up with a few quick-type questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Quick snappers like Reach For The Top.
MR. GLAVINE: I still have some time left, I think. One of the areas that I did ask you about last year, Mr. Minister, and I guess my concern for this still exists maybe even a little bit deeper because Clearmont Park - and I had a little bit of monitoring last year - is a well-used park. However, without water it poses limitations. I guess it was really acutely brought to my attention last summer in July when the Ostomy Society had their annual strawberry picnic hosted by Hazel Dauphinee and Joel Jacobson and there was no water on that occasion, especially for those kind of patients to have available for cleanup and so forth, much less drinking water. I'm wondering if the minister is starting to take a look and do an inventory of large and small parks that do have a need for water and keeping this as one of the services offered in our parks.
MR. MORSE: I do remember the discussion that we had in 2006 and I remember the member sending me a letter. I remember making sure that the letter in response recognized the best-efforts commitment that I made through the estimates.
In essence, the queue follows the camping parks as being the priority. So such as resources are available, we've got to provide potable drinking water to the camping parks. We've got about 130 parks in the province, but 20 have camping facilities and when we get that right, then we can move on to day parks, and what the member is describing is a day
[Page 644]
park in Kings West. Because of his intervention and writing me, it has now been recorded that when we get to that happy state that we can go beyond the camping parks, it is my expectation that West Mount (Interruption) Clairmont Park will be the next one. I do not pretend to know every one of the 130 parks in the province but the honourable member will make sure and, in fact, has made sure by virtue of writing me and documenting this that his is in the queue when we're in that position.
MR. GLAVINE: I thank you for that, Mr. Minister. Just to finish off on an area that I've spoken on, especially during the great ATV debate that we had approximately, I guess, now just a little over two years ago, and then the development of the Act. First of all, just a quick question. I know that getting an Act completely right sometimes has its challenges and we all know that inside legislation and its interpretation and the regulations can lead to some ongoing complications. I'm just wondering if perhaps - and it is a hindsight, retrospective question - whether or not we should have had a stand-alone ATV Act which we do see in a couple of provinces in Canada, whether or not we would have had a better chance at getting it right as opposed to putting regulations that are more generic for OHVs.
[3:15 p.m.]
MR. MORSE: The honourable member is acknowledging the huge presence of the ATV industry within the off-highway vehicle industry. I'm sure it makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the owners, the participants. The Act is really an enabling piece of legislation and where the rubber often meets the road, if you would allow me to use that term, comes from the regulations which are passed in Cabinet that are supposed to carry out the intentions of the Act and only within the parameters that are defined in the Act. I'm not telling the member anything he didn't know before but we do have regulations, of course, that are specific to ATVs and that is, in essence, what makes up the law of the province.
MR. GLAVINE: I appreciate that. I was wondering if there was kind of any second thought about whether or not taking a look at, you know, a stand-alone piece of legislation, I know there are regulations that separate but I'm sure it will be an ongoing process as well.
One last area to comment on and ask the minister his view, and perhaps the department's as well - and I do have a little pang in my stomach over the safety area. I hope we haven't opened a gate too wide here for maybe the whole herd of animals escaping, as opposed to one or two, because the ATV association was not present when they had the recent march and there is certainly some consternation around that. Also, the dedication of the 25, 30 people, many who embarked on a real mission to make ATV-ing in this province safer, in light of the tragedies that we have had.
I know there is a lot to be said for experience and some grandfathering, but I'm wondering if now there will be a void from this point forward, around safety, by
[Page 645]
relinquishing the requirement for all ATVers to have some safety training. I'm just wondering, is the minister prepared to meet with the instructors and look at some alternate ways of putting on workshops that people can come and, for a minimal fee, participate in those and certainly be much safer?
I know, as somebody who has had an ATV for 20 years, there's still a lot to be said for the expert telling people, telling me, telling us that there are certain practices which are very high risk. I worry now that some of that safety may not be presented and available to ATVers. I would hate to see us move back through a rash of injuries and, God forbid, death. I just wonder whether or not we've stepped back a little bit too far from where we were heading.
MR. MORSE: There are a number of reasons why we chose to change the regulations in this one area but as I understand it, the majority, and a significant majority, of the accidents involving ATVs, involve drivers under the age of 25. We want to look at just what it is we were accomplishing by making an ATV operator take a safety training course. What we're looking for is the chance to educate and possibly train, where there is a need to change the way that they operate the machines. It was clear that the greatest need was with the younger drivers, the new drivers, because if I was to buy an ATV today I would be a new driver; I might not be a young driver but I would be a new driver and I would be in need of that safety training program.
So the three criteria that we put in place involved - we wanted to have proof of experience driving the machines, which is why they have to be at least 19 years of age, and owned an ATV as of April 1, 2006, which basically means that in order to be considered for grandfathering from the safety training course, they would have to be at least in their early 20s, and most likely for many of them they would be older. We might have set the bar even higher but for the concerns of the possibility of a Charter challenge, we wanted to make sure that the regulations would be able to withstand a court case, a court challenge. So, one, they have to prove that they were an experienced driver; two, we want law-abiding ATV drivers; and three, those who participate in it are expected to register their machines. There has been a problem in that area prior to the action plan.
Now we've had quite a surge, as I understand it, of people who are registering these machines. There are a lot of the machines out there and I'm not sure what's the right number but I know that a couple of years ago the majority of them, for sure, were not registered with Access Nova Scotia. So they have to show that they are an experienced driver, they have to be a law-abiding citizen and they have to show that they were responsible, by way of having a current, valid driver's licence.
On that last one, if they slip and they've chosen not to take the safety training course and they lose their licence, let's say they have a drinking and driving conviction, then they've just signed up for an ATV training course when they're able to take one.
[Page 646]
You're never going to get it 100 per cent perfect but I think it is a move in the right direction and for the safety instructors, everybody else who does not fit into there, and a lot of these people didn't have to take the course until 2012; if you were 35 or over, you didn't have to take it until 2012. So these instructors are going to be plenty busy and as new generations of ATV drivers come forward, they're all going to be required to take the safety training course.
MR. GLAVINE: How many have registered in this current year? Since they were all sent out in January, to be registered, I'm just wondering . . .
MR. MORSE: Machines?
MR. GLAVINE: Yes. I'm just wondering how many machines are currently registered in the province.
MR. MORSE: We can get that information through Service Nova Scotia.
MR. GLAVINE: Also, I was wondering when registration information is sent out, or through the dealers where people come to buy a new one or have their ATV serviced, is there anything in terms of pamphlets available for ATVers t