HALIFAX, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2025

 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

11:32 A.M.

 

CHAIR

John White

 

 

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The Committee of the Whole on Supply will now come to order.

 

It is now 11:32 a.m. The committee must rise and report to the House before the hour of adjournment, which is 5:00 p.m. today.

 

The honourable Deputy Government House Leader.

 

MELISSA SHEEHY-RICHARD: Chair, would you please call Resolution E17.

 

Resolution E17 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $112,138,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

THE CHAIR: I would now like to invite the minister to make opening comments, up to an hour.

 

The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: Before I start, I'd like to recognize the staff who are here with me today in the gallery and thank them for their support. With me on the floor here are Deputy Minister Karen Gatien and; from Department of Finance and Treasury Board, Mike O'Brien. Also in the crowd today are my ministerial assistant and the member for Inverness. Thank you for being here and for your support today.

 

Good morning. I'm happy to be here to give an overview of our priorities in the Department of Natural Resources.

 

We have had some tremendous opportunities in the resource sector. The world is demanding critical minerals from reliable, responsible sources. Nova Scotia can be that source, and our forestry sector is driving innovation to maintain healthy forests and create new products. These industries provide thousands of good-paying jobs around the province, mostly in rural communities.

 

Our government wants to see them grow and thrive because economic activity is how we raise everyone up. It's how we pay for roads, hospitals, and schools. It's how we make sure Nova Scotians can put food on the table, pay the mortgage or rent, and get the prosperous future they all deserve.

 

I'm pleased to continue as Minister of Natural Resources during this critical time for our province, when it has never been more important to develop our natural resources to unlock Nova Scotia's potential. The economic threat is real. Thankfully, Nova Scotia has the ability to navigate through these choppy waters. As much as there are things outside our control, there are many within our control.

 

We must become more self-reliant and mitigate the risks of outsized forces throwing us into an economic turmoil. Fortunately, we can be blessed with countless opportunities. These opportunities exist today as untapped opportunities, primarily because governments before us lacked the courage to act on them.

 

The changing world demands that we must now convert the possibility into reality. In doing so, we can ensure that Nova Scotia is a generational economic success story. This, of course, starts with our traditional industries like mining and forestry. They will always be a critical part of our provincial economy. As the Department of Natural Resources, we must support them and help to grow them. As it becomes more and more obvious that Canada as a country has to be more in the energy and critical minerals sector, other jurisdictions would long for these opportunities. We are blessed with the demand of resources.

 

The potential to grow our resources and resource economy and create a more sustainable Nova Scotia is remarkable. We must send the message that we can do resource projects and get shovels in the ground. If we capitalize on these opportunities, they will have generational impacts and could ultimately alleviate our reliance on the federal transfer payments.

 

The jobs that come with these opportunities are the best solution to poverty. They will change lives for those who work on these projects and the communities that surround them.

 

Moving forward requires a new mindset. We must take the “no” out of Nova Scotia. Special interest groups have captured too many parts of our economy and have an outsized voice in policy creation. That must end. Unleashing our full potential will require a government-wide focus, and our team here at Natural Resources will be leaders in taking hold of those opportunities.

 

With Budget 2025-26, we're setting our natural resources sector up for success. As you know, on December 12^th, this department was restructured. The new Department of Energy was created to focus on making Nova Scotia a clean energy powerhouse, and my department returned to being the Department of Natural Resources. That gives me and my staff the opportunity to focus more deeply on the best ways to use these resources, like timber and critical minerals, to our advantage.

 

Our estimated budget for Natural Resources, as it has been read, is just over $112 million. The estimates reflect a fairly clean shift of staff and budget from the former Department of Natural Resources and Renewables. Two full branches that focus on electricity and other energy development moved over to form the bulk of the new Energy Department. We kept forestry and wildlife, geosciences and mines, land services, and regional services at Natural Resources.

 

The two departments share a deputy minister, and her FTE salary and budget are split 50-50 between the two departments. We also share policy and corporate services and communications staff with Energy. Those FTE salaries and budget mostly show up in the Natural Resources estimates. I want to thank Deputy Minister Gatien and all the staff for taking the restructuring in stride and completing it here so we could be at this budget session today. They are true professionals serving the best interests of Nova Scotians, and I am glad to keep working with them.

 

This team is in place to support growth in our resource sector safely and responsibly. Success in our resource sectors means success for our whole province. That's why we're lifting blanket bans and looking for ways to help the resource sector reach their full potential. We can do the mining and development and harvesting right here in Nova Scotia safely and responsibly and keep all the economic value here for Nova Scotians.

 

Other parts of the world don't have robust environmental protections like we do here in Nova Scotia. Why would we ship good jobs away to other places when we can keep them right here? If we use our resources for made-in-Nova Scotia solutions, then we create a pathway to prosperity. That's the path we're choosing.

 

We're at a moment in time when we have a chance to transform this future for our children and grandchildren. We can create generational wealth for them. We can raise everyone up. We need to move on these opportunities now, before we lose more people. It's the right thing to do for our friends and family, for our communities. It's the right thing to do for our economy and our province of Nova Scotia. Ultimately, we need a province where the future is brighter and more prosperous. That's what we owe to each other.

 

We have tremendous assets under our feet: critical minerals that are important for clean energy, food production, health care, and more. You need lithium and graphite to make EV batteries. You need indium to make solar panels. I'll mess up some of these minerals' pronunciations, don't worry. You need copper for electricity transmission. You need uranium for medical isotopes and clean energy. We have those critical minerals right here in Nova Scotia.

 

We have so much potential that Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Ford Motor Company, and Volkswagen Group Canada have shown interest to invest right here in our province. They want a long-term lithium supply for manufacturing electric vehicles, and they want it from a place where we'll do it sustainably and ethically. By tapping into our vast resource of critical minerals through our Critical Minerals Strategy, Nova Scotia can play a central role in the global transition to a net-zero 2050.

 

At the same time, we'll create more jobs and grow our economy with opportunities for people who want to stay in Nova Scotia, opportunities for our rural communities, opportunities for the Mi'kmaq. I know this industry is committed to a pathway forward. It is an incredibly important employer around the province, especially in rural Nova Scotia. This industry accounts for at least 2,500 jobs in the province, and they're very good-paying jobs - most at $100,000 or more. We want to see that grow.

 

There are many exciting things happening in this space, like battery materials from Nova Scotia minerals and critical minerals from mine waste. This sector is one of our province's strongest connections to massive global markets. It will put us on the international stage. We want all the economic activity and benefits from exploration to final projects that happen right here in Nova Scotia. We're continuing our annual investments through the Mineral Resources Development Fund. It provides about $1.5 million to help the sector with exploration, research, and more.

 

We're also dedicating $500,000 in Budget 2025-26 to critical minerals. We'll use that money for geoscience to learn more about our critical minerals potential and inform development. It will support further work on critical minerals value chain opportunities and linkages. It will help us work collaboratively to support the development of projects, and it will help us produce materials to improve publicly available information on critical minerals. All of this work will help us advance our strategy and seize global opportunities, all for the benefit of Nova Scotia.

 

We have a tremendous asset above the ground, as well. Our government values our traditional industries: farming, fishing, and forestry. They've long been the backbone of our rural and coastal communities, and as much as the world changes, they are still vitally important to us. In fact, you could argue that they're more important than ever. This sector brings nearly $2 billion a year into our economy all around the province. It employs people around this province. Thousands of people spend their money in rural communities, boosting a rural economy, and there's lots of potential for new good-paying jobs in this sector.

 

There are challenges, to be sure, including the threat of the U.S. tariffs. That's why we have heightened focus on using our own natural resources to our advantage. We've also added forest products to Nova Scotia Loyal. That will help Nova Scotians choose local products supporting our local sector. We'll continue to assess options to support Nova Scotian businesses.

 

This sector has shown determination and grit over the years. I have confidence that it will seize every opportunity. While traditional forestry continues, opportunities in biofuels and mass timber are real. And when forestry thrives, Nova Scotia thrives.

 

[11:45 p.m.]

 

We also have a couple of very exciting possibilities for the sector and for the province. One of them is the potential for a new mill. That process is ongoing. Domtar Corporation should have news about that shortly. We know a new mill would be a modern facility able to meet today's environmental standards. It could provide tremendous economic benefit, and it would bring construction jobs and good-paying export-focused jobs for an ongoing operation. It would create a market for our low-grade wood fibre and chips, and the company would be paying for the fibre and paying taxes here in the province. A new pulp mill could be a reality, and we are waiting keenly for report back from Domtar.

 

It's not the only new opportunity. Simply Blue Group is also interested in making use of our low-quality wood and chips. They've seen the opportunity in our promising green hydrogen industries. There's more at play than just green hydrogen itself. It's also the derivatives, and that's where Simply Blue is investing. They're working on clean fuel for aviation and the marine sector. Those are some of the tougher sectors to make a transition to clean energy. The company is aiming to make good use of low-grade wood fibre. This is a great step in the right direction for clean energy, for green jobs, and for a green economy. Those are just a couple of the opportunities facing Nova Scotia.

 

Another aiming to make good use of low-grade wood fibre is Vyterra Renewables. This project is co-located with Ledwidge Lumber in Enfield, one of Nova Scotia's larger sawmills. They're planning to use the by-products of the sawmill to make biofuel for heat. There's potential for both domestic and export markets for this fuel. Again, that means good green jobs in rural communities.

 

All of those are great examples of innovation in our modern and sophisticated forestry industry. We do it safely and responsibly, providing products that Nova Scotians use every day, along with good jobs and an economic benefit for communities all around the province. Our aim is to set the forestry industry up for success. That's why we set aside 10 per cent of Crown land for high-production forestry.

 

This is the same idea as agriculture: You plant a crop of seedlings, let them grow, harvest them, then reset. We approved the first harvest proposals for high-production sites last year, and more will be coming soon. The combination of high-production sites plus the mixed-use zone, where lighter-touch practices are used, give the industry access to enough timber for success, while still prioritizing biodiversity on 90 per cent of our Crown land.

 

The industry needs support to adjust to this approach, so we added $1.75 million in 2023-24, and we plan to stay at that level this year and next, and then shift to a little over $800,000 in 2027-28. That's more than $6 million for this industry over four years. This money will fund research that supports a healthy forest and wildlife, as well as our work on species at risk. It will help with tree improvement and it will help with adaptive management. All of this support helps our forest industry continue its role as a supplier of quality timber products that we use every day, and also as a key contributor to our provincial economy, providing good jobs in rural communities all around the province.

 

We've also invested heavily in the Hurricane Fiona cleanup. We want to get the merchantable wood out of the forest and into the market. We also want to avoid a wildfire risk. We invested in satellite and aerial imaging to pinpoint blowdown and we provided $12.5 million to help with our cleanup on the ground. That made a good dent in it, and we're looking for more ways to do more.

 

The sector did some of that cleanup work for private landowners as well, and I'm grateful for that. We were lucky to have a quiet wildfire season this past year. We certainly had hot, dry conditions. There could easily have been a lot bigger fires, but Nova Scotians have seen the devastation first-hand. They are far more aware of the risks now, and we believe they're being more careful. From campfires to industrial operations like forestry, people are checking and following the daily restrictions, because nobody wants a repeat of 2023. We appreciate everyone's co-operation on this.

 

We're not sitting idle. We're investing in more equipment and training, including replacing our four helicopter water bombers. You'll see about $14.2 million in the capital plan for that. We will get half of that money back from the agreement with Natural Resources Canada.

 

We're doing more work on prevention and we're ready for the upcoming fire season. I know we'll have your continued co-operation and diligence, because you have a lot at stake and because it's the right thing to do.

 

I am pleased that some communities affected by the wildfires are among the first to receive seedlings from the 2 Billion Trees initiative. We've committed to planting 21 million trees for Nova Scotia as part of this national effort. In 2024-25, we invested $5.4 million in this work. It supports a healthy forest and green jobs to boost our rural economy. It also supports biodiversity and carbon capture. It adds to the quality of life in the communities, with many of these trees going into parks and community-beautification projects. The projects continue to roll out, and I look forward to seeing all of these seedlings grow.

 

Some of those seedlings are being planted in our provincial parks. Since coming into office in 2021, we've added nearly 1,660 hectares to our provincial park system. That's 19 parks designated and two others expanded. Designation protects these sites for Nova Scotians to enjoy for generations to come.

 

We're also pleased to be making some significant capital investments in our parks. We received $10.2 million through the capital plan in 2023-24 and $11.8 million in 2024-25. For this upcoming fiscal year, we have $9.2 million for our parks. This is in addition to our annual capital budget of $2 million. We are investing those funds in a variety of projects. A couple of examples include the first mobility access cabin in Cape Chignecto Provincial Park. We're investing $300,000 this year for the project and other upgrades. Eventually we'll build a road to it for further accessibility.

 

We're finishing our improvements at Dollar Lake with about $1.6 million. That's for campsite and water upgrades, parking lots, a washroom, a lifeguard building, a concession area, and accessible access to the beach.

 

We also have a joint project with the federal government to replace the bridge and raise and widen the causeway to Graves Island Provincial Park. We have $1.6 million in our 2025-2026 budget for the project, with the federal government providing another million. These are important investments to give our visitors a safe, enjoyable experience. That's for both Nova Scotians and the visitors from out of province who add to our tourism industry and our provincial economy.

 

Chair, we're managing Nova Scotia's natural resources in a sustainable way and building a healthier sustainable resource economy. If a good company wants to invest in Nova Scotia, then we want to hear from you. If you're a good corporate citizen and if you're bringing good-paying jobs, then we want to work with you. We're doing our part to build our province so that all Nova Scotians can live in a vibrant, healthy, sustainable community and have the best chance to achieving their full potential.

 

Budget 2025-2026 is keeping us on the path for successful, sustainable growth. With that, I'll end my remarks and look forward to questions.

 

THE CHAIR: As we are all aware at this point, Opposition caucuses take turns asking questions for up to an hour. During the hour of time for each caucus, members of the caucus can take turns asking questions. Only the minister, however, is able to answer the question.

 

Going to the Opposition now. The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the minister and staff for being here today.

 

I want to walk through - well, I have a number of questions and some things to walk through. I guess I really wanted to state my intention up front that really what I want to do is understand truly what the economic argument is for what's being proposed, what we know now, and how long it's going to take for us to get to know more. That's the background to a lot of the questions I'm going to ask.

 

I am going to start by asking, though - we went through a provincial election. We had lots of time to raise various issues with constituents and in the media, and yet the Premier did not make natural resource development a cornerstone of the election campaign. I've been calling for economic development thinking and strategizing for Nova Scotia in this time period, since 2021 very consistently, so I'm happy to talk about economic development.

 

We really didn't hear about lifting the ban on uranium, ending the moratorium on fracking, and also the increased exploration of critical minerals. Can the minister talk about why the consultation process wasn't more public before we started discussing this, before the letter was sent out? Was it planned this way? When was the minister aware that uranium, fracking, and critical minerals would be part of the work of this government this term?

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: We announced our Critical Minerals Strategy in March 2024. Last March, it was announced, and we put our critical minerals out there. I believe, without looking in the book, 16 critical minerals were on that list. We were very open with the Critical Minerals Strategy about how conversations would take place, for example, with the Mi'kmaq. There were six pillars in that strategy that we released. When we released it, we were very clear that we were looking at this as an economic opportunity for the province, and we were going to move forward on it.

 

When we see what's going on south of our border and needing that renewable energy - we knew that we had lithium, we knew we had uranium. Uranium was one of the minerals that was on Canada's list, but it couldn't be on Nova Scotia's list, because we had a ban on it. There are many arguments as to why we should be looking at uranium in Nova Scotia. Radon is a by-product of uranium. We hear all across the province - I know every MLA in here has heard it at some point in time, concerns about radon leaking into basements or water. At the present point, if we find uranium on a project right now, things are shut down. We can't even investigate the quantity and quality of that uranium.

 

In order for us to move forward with a full contingent of the list of critical minerals, and possibly not being able to receive some of the benefits from some of those critical minerals - who knows what's going to happen with the tariffs? Who knows what's going to happen south of the border? It was an opportunity where we were moving critical minerals to put uranium on our list so we can explore and see what the realm of possibility is for Nova Scotia.

 

LISA LACHANCE: It's true, the Critical Minerals Strategy was released, and I have some more questions on that, but with regard to uranium - this was in March 2024; we were already in an election by October 2024 - in regards to uranium, the Critical Minerals Strategy stated: “The categorization of uranium as a critical mineral can be reassessed during the biennial review of the Nova Scotia Critical Minerals List.” But - and I continue to quote - “In the event of significant changes to the critical minerals landscape, the Province of Nova Scotia may increase the frequency of these reviews.”

 

I would ask the minister to clarify. I understand biennial is every other year. When is the next review? Why did we pre-empt the review? We set out a process that surely would consider all the things we need to consider environmentally, health-wise, stakeholder views, and Mi'kmaw land rights. Why did we pre-empt it, and is the categorization currently being reassessed by the department using the prescribed review process set out in the Critical Minerals Strategy?

 

[12:00 p.m.]

 

TORY RUSHTON: We've actually been looking at every mineral possible in our ground. We know that uranium exists in Nova Scotia. We've known that for decades, but with the ban - it created a real hazard for anybody to investigate what was really there. In order to investigate that - the assessment's under way right now, but in order to investigate that, you have to lift the ban to do the assessments on what is taking place. Even to have the conversations with the ban, the way the ban was written - there wasn't a clear pathway that you could even have the conversations.

 

The assessment's going on right now. We developed the Critical Minerals Strategy over the course of a few years. Uranium was obviously a conversation piece for a little bit, but it's come to the forefront with the opportunities because of what is going on worldwide and the need for renewable energy. It is recognized as one of the minerals needed for targets for 2050.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I have some more questions about the process, but I'm actually really going to hop right into some questions around uranium mining in particular. I'm wondering what the economic argument is. I don't understand there to be a shortage of uranium in the world. I can table these, but the World Nuclear Association says that there's no shortage of uranium, and explicitly states, “There is therefore no reason to anticipate any shortage of uranium that would prevent conventional nuclear power from playing an expanding role in providing the world's energy needs for decades or even centuries to come.”

 

Canada is the largest uranium supplier, but not from Nova Scotia, from Saskatchewan. Basically - and it's also a huge - well, obviously, if it's the world's largest supplier - it's a huge physical presence. Saskatchewan has that space; 12 Nova Scotias would fit into Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan mines are all located over 200 kilometres away from the nearest town or city. What we know - and I understand that the ban has limited what we know; I do understand that - but from what we know about uranium in Nova Scotia, it's like 60 kilometres from HRM and just down the road from people's houses. We are the most densely populated rural province. We're a rural province, but we're densely populated. It's not like Saskatchewan, where you can go build a huge mine 600 kilometres away from the nearest community.

 

I'm not even sure that we have - so we have Saskatchewan doing for Canada. Has the minister talked to Saskatchewan? Does Saskatchewan want uranium from Nova Scotia? Do we even have the right kind of uranium?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Quite honestly, with the politics of what's going on in the world, there is a worry worldwide about how much nuclear can be acquired from the ground. There is a concern. We're hearing it from different jurisdictions. There's no debate about that. I have had conversations with the minister out west a couple of different times. There's actually a ministers' group that started conversation - I think it was last Summer. Nothing official, just a group getting together to have some conversations about the realm of possibilities. There is a concern.

 

There is also the concern about what we don't know. You mentioned in your question - it could be, and probably likely is, 60 kilometres away from downtown Halifax. It probably could be. But in the realm of “we don't know,” there could be more risk to that, as we know, with well water, drinking water, basements, and different things.

 

What I would say is that we also have to have a Team Canada approach about everything we look at. We've talked about not being able to put our eggs in one basket with what's going on south of our border. That doesn't just mean with our exports. That's also looking at what the future holds for development. We really need to know what is in the ground to have the right conversations. The ban also - like I said earlier, if we were just doing an excavation in the woods for a development and were to run into uranium and it's reported, that is shut down, and we can't even study what's going on there.

 

There is more to this than just the idea of a mine - mining uranium. It's a safety concern about what's in our ground, as well. We need to know to help develop other things. It's an educational process that we're going through in these steps, as well. Quite frankly, it is something that I have heard from people who have come to our MLA offices and had the radon testers and put the radon testers in the basement. When is the time that we're actually going to investigate why the radon's coming and things?

 

Quite frankly, I'm hearing the questions. I'm also hearing concerns. But Nova Scotia has a great reputation on their environmental standards. We have a great reputation on our labour standards. We can do it ethically here, where other minerals are being extracted for our green energy process and our steps to 2050 that are not ethically developed. They're not environmentally friendly developed. We have great standards here. We said right from the get-go that this is a process that we will do safely and in conjunction with Nova Scotia.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I would invite the minister to table what's available. I understand you've had some informal conversations with some other people. That's great. But when I - this was on May 16, 2024, that the World Nuclear Association made it very clear that there will be no shortage for decades or centuries.

 

I'd also like to unpack. If this were being put forward as a health measure to address the high levels of radon in our province - absolutely. I have the radon testers. I think it's a huge risk. I wish everybody understood it and tested their basements. It's costing our health care system money, and it's shortening people's lives - absolutely.

 

That's not what's being told to Nova Scotians. That's not what the sell job here is. The sell job is that we're going to make money because we're going to join the global market for uranium. I have no evidence that we're going to - I understand that we have low-grade uranium that doesn't match what can be produced in Saskatchewan. We just had a recent - you can look at what's happening in Ukraine. Essentially, it's a huge deal happening in Ukraine that will also fill the global market for decades. Yes, it's an insecure source, but nonetheless, the source is there. I guess I don't see that the rationale behind this is radon.

 

Sorry, I moved some stuff around. I guess my question would be: What would we do with uranium mined in Nova Scotia? Would the intent be to develop a provincial nuclear capacity, or would the intent be to put it on the global market, commodity markets?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Part of the thing - I caught the member saying that she believes that it's low grade. Maybe it is, but quite frankly, we don't have the documentation to say that. That's why we need to do the exploration and look into that. We don't know the quality and quantity. We can speculate on what was looked at in the 1960s and 1970s and before the ban was put on it in the 1980s, but quite frankly, we don't know.

 

To the concern about the nuclear: Are we looking to develop nuclear? Nuclear development is regulated by the feds. It's not something that's regulated by the Province. If an investor were to come here, they would obviously have to go through their environment applications or local municipal applications, but it's actually regulated by the feds. It's the same for uranium mining. The feds actually regulate the mining process. What we're looking at here today is to see the quantity and quality and if there is an opportunity for it.

 

The health risks are another side of things - the radon effects - but right now, we can't even look at it and have a conversation about it. While we do have a Critical Minerals Strategy, we can't have a conversation about uranium with a ban on it, because we don't know the evidence. We don't know the quantity or quality.

 

I'm going to stop talking, because I'll get to parts and the unofficial things that are way above my pay grade, obviously. It's important for us to know what's in the ground in Nova Scotia. I'll be honest, if there's an economic opportunity and we can do it safely, then we need to investigate that for Nova Scotians, but it has to be done safely and prudently.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Just before we continue, I would just ask respectfully that the minister use my pronoun, which is “they.”

 

Okay. I certainly wasn't announcing a concern about nuclear capability. I was just wondering: If we dig it, what are we going to do with it? It sounds like we're going to put it on the global commodities market at this point.

 

I understand the concern about knowing where it is, knowing the impact of radon on our Province's health. I support understanding how to address radon in this province - 100 per cent. Six - well, not six months ago now. A year ago now, the Critical Minerals Strategy, which was under development for a too-long time, was released and didn't take that step of making the step. I mean, it could have been part of that strategy to announce that we're going to actually lift the ban on uranium so that we can look at the health impacts.

 

I understand that we don't know very much about what's in the ground, but you did refer to the fact that - the minister did refer to the fact that projects have to stop if they encounter uranium. I'm wondering if the minister can clarify, say in 2024, how many projects were - how many instances of finding uranium occurred in 2024 and were brought to the attention of the department, and how many projects were stopped because of that?

 

TORY RUSHTON: What I can say is there's a report process through it. The Department of Environment and Climate Change would take the lead on that with us.

 

Quite frankly, a concern - I'm going to be very open. I'm not suggesting that this has happened, but if a company were to find it right now, and they have to report it and shut their project down, is it being reported? That's a concern that maybe it's not getting reported. That's a deep concern. We do need to know what's going on underground. With lifting the ban, it makes it a little bit easier for that process and the conversation to take place.

 

[12:15 p.m.]

 

There also have to be measurements done and things have to take place. The limit is 100 parts per million, just to go back to my answer earlier of where things have to stop. Right now, there are none to my knowledge that were reported. It could have been reported to the Department of Environment and Climate Change. I wouldn't have that information with me today.

 

LISA LACHANCE: No instances have been reported to the Minister of Natural Resources that have resulted in a negative economic impact. I will follow up with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and ask if they had any reported in the past calendar year.

 

When we're looking at an economic analysis of any kind for any effort, we're going to look at the cost and benefits. We're going to look at the risks. I would submit that's not a real risk or cost in this current situation because none have been reported.

 

I want to go back to the minister's opening remarks. I'm going to stick with uranium. Have any investors approached the minister or the Premier to explore uranium in Nova Scotia, and can you indicate if they are domestic or international interests?

 

TORY RUSHTON: The Mining Association of Nova Scotia, we all know, has advocated for this for decades. Even when the NDP was in power, it's been advocated for. To be honest, there's no investor coming to Nova Scotia with a ban there. They're not going to come and put money into the province. Quite frankly, they cannot have a conversation in the province with the ban sitting there. Until we lift the ban, have that conversation, and do the exploration of what's there, there aren't going to be local or even external investors coming to the province.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I understand the point that maybe people - because we don't know what's there, how much there is, where it is - I understand that. At the same time, the minister is having conversations with ministers out west about - it seems like you're still able to have conversations about uranium, even if we can't currently explore it.

 

I'm just wondering: The minister did refer in their opening statements to a special interest. I'm wondering if the minister can confirm if MANS is in fact a special interest group, and what other special interest groups the minister would specifically identify with regard to his files and his role as Minister of Natural Resources.

 

TORY RUSHTON: About the conversations with my counterparts, they were conversations in general from us. We don't have the evidence to back up what other jurisdictions would - or the data to show what Nova Scotia could offer to the table. They were just general conversations with colleagues around the table.

 

Special interest groups: We meet with many different groups that would come to the table, both for and against any given project. That's not just mining; that would be forestry, wildlife - it would be anything to do with the resources. It's quite a unique department we do have, where we would have two distinct, opposing opinions of how to approach natural resources. Somewhere in the middle is where we're trying to get to the common ground. The Mining Association of Nova Scotia - because of our resource-based department, we would have regular conversations with the Mining Association, as we would with the environmental groups as well. We meet with the environmental groups. My deputy minister has regular meetings with some of those groups. Obviously, I can't make every meeting - it's just impossible - but we meet with all different points of views on a regular basis.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I would still welcome the minister to answer my previous questions, but I'll add a couple. My question was: Is MANS considered a special interest group, and to name specifically who else is a special interest group for the department, who the deputy meets with?

 

The minister also talked about the outsized - and that's a direct quote - impact of special interests in this area. I would invite the minister to explain what that means. I spend a lot of time out in the world doing community engagement and community processes. It is true that when you are talking on a very controversial subject, and if you're bringing really diverse stakeholders together, you have to think about how you do that. You'd have to think about it in a way that no one outsizes the other, that you are able to get to that middle ground. The minister talked about special interests that are outsized. I'm wondering who those are and what the minister does to try to respond to that.

 

TORY RUSHTON: What I would say is, it doesn't matter what side of the discussion you're on; you're both special interest groups. You have your interest of what you want to see. Some people don't want to see any mining; some people want to see more mining than we could even handle in Nova Scotia. That is what I would mean by a common ground meeting in the middle. We have to look at it through a lens, to have the conversations with each group with their respective concerns, but at the end of the day it's my job as minister to ensure that our resources are maintained in a sustainable manner. It's my job to find a common ground in the middle that we can approach and protect the biodiversity of our province. We have a great process in the IRM team that reviews any application that comes into our department.

 

To answer the question - I think I've answered it. We meet with groups on all sides of the discussion, and at the end of the day, we have to make decisions as a government, as a department, and make recommendations to the government of that common middle ground of the realm of possibility of what we can achieve safely, environmentally, ethically, but also sustainably as well. It's an opportunity here that we have in Nova Scotia.

 

The world is looking for critical minerals. I know the member is speaking about one specific critical mineral very passionately, and I respect that. We're looking at an array of different minerals. I believe it was 44 minerals that are in the province of Nova Scotia that we can actually put out there to investigate on how to assist not just Canada, but the world in meeting the 2050 targets. Some of those minerals are going to help us achieve a green economy in rural communities.

 

Another concept of what conversations are taking place is some of those investors who are working in mineral development and extraction around the world are coming to talk to us about our abandoned mine sites. We know there's an issue. We had Question Period. Those developers are coming to talk to us in Nova Scotia: We know you have abandoned mine sites. We know you have contaminated sites. We can help you clean this up. There are still critical minerals in some of those tailings, and the new technology that's available today are conversations that are taking place.

 

It's an exciting time to be in this department. I'll be honest: I knew very little about critical minerals when I came to this department. I probably know enough to be dangerous now. That's why we have great staff behind us.

 

There is an opportunity for us here to move our economy forward in a safe and environmental manner, but also to clean up our contaminated sites. There are critical minerals that are sitting there that are low-hanging fruit, if you will - looking at that, as well. But they have to have the ability to come in and invest. That's why we need to have full conversations and have those, quite frankly, with uranium. We need to lift that ban to have those full conversations and do the investigation of what actually is there and how much of it.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I'm going to turn to the Critical Minerals Strategy. I'm wondering if the minister can outline how much was spent to support the implementation of the Critical Minerals Strategy in the past fiscal year. I know there is $500,000 planned in the current fiscal year. What are the goals? When you get to the end of this coming fiscal year, the end of 2025-26, how are you going to define success? What do you want to do under critical minerals?

 

TORY RUSHTON: The numbers there - I forgot to write it down. The numbers are actually absorbed within the Geoscience & Mines Branch. It would be a daily routine of our staff. So, 2024-25 would be $6.1 million. What's coming up this year for 2025-26 would be $7.1 million. Is it included in that - the federal money - or is it additional to that? But there was some federal funding that was also provided to look at the Critical Minerals Strategy. It's encompassed within the Geoscience & Mines Branch.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I'm going to repeat part of my question and then I'll keep going forward. For the $7.1 million that you've identified for the Critical Minerals Strategy in the Geoscience group, or perhaps within the Geoscience & Mines Branch, under the Critical Minerals Strategy, I'm wondering what specific - what are your deliverables? What are your activities in the coming fiscal year? What is the department - sorry, not you.

 

I'd also like to start turning to some of the pillars in the Critical Minerals Strategy. Pillar Four, for instance, talks about opportunities for Nova Scotians. That's what we've heard a lot about. What do we know about the workforce available in Nova Scotia for critical mineral production? There are some worries in the Critical Minerals Strategy about supporting the inclusion of a diverse workforce. I'm wondering how that is being done. How will that be measured? I felt that - there was a YWCA strategy, and I can get that to the minister, but I tabled it in the House - sorry, a YWCA report that I've tabled in the House a number of times, looking at the experience of women and gender-diverse folks in trades writ large, that definitely outlined a number of things that could be done to improve the experience of women and gender-diverse folks in the trades, likely some of it applicable in this sector.

 

[12:30 p.m.]

 

What are your deliverables, and what's the plan for Pillar Four?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I apologize to the member - just the last comment I didn't catch. I heard about the deliverables, but I couldn't hear what you were saying when you were sitting down.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I think just deliverables for this fiscal year.

 

TORY RUSHTON: Geoscience studies complete the reanalysis of the existing material that's housed in the library. Funding for undertaking a regulatory road map and funding for the study for the economic opportunities for the Mi'kmaq would be in that fiscal.

 

Just a quick comment about the diversification of trades: I came from trades before I came to the floor. I'm not sure if the member was aware of that. Any time you can diversify any group in the trades, it ensures there's a better trade coming out. I was in the electrical trade. My last apprentice was female. I'll be honest, it was sort of a joking matter in the lunchroom that our first female was coming in. When I left that trade, I went to manage a facility at the same site. It changed the demeanour of every worker in that group, in that division. I've had the conversations with the Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration about the diversification. I know that minister comes from the trades, as well.

 

Your comment about diversification for everyone - it's well noted with me. I wanted to make sure the member was aware of that. If there's anything else about the - sorry. There was one more note about the fiscal budget; the critical mineral value chain was added to that, as well, for the fiscal.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I appreciate the minister's commitment and experience working in the trades and in terms of thinking about a diverse workforce within the trades.

 

What I would invite the minister, with colleagues and perhaps with special interest groups, to do is look at some of what we know about the experience of women and gender-diverse folks working in the trades. The most recent report I've referred to identified a lot of challenges. I love the fact that the minister talked about the impact of that one person on a worksite, but I also think we can't - that's not the full story. What's the impact on that person in the worksite? How can we retain them? How can we keep them there? That sort of thing.

 

I'm wondering: Within the Critical Minerals Strategy, how are you prioritizing which minerals you're looking at? You've got a ton of them in there. How are you prioritizing?

 

THE CHAIR: Before I recognize the minister - as you folks are changing shifts over there, it is pretty loud in here. I'd please ask you to keep it down to quiet for the members speaking.

 

The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.

 

TORY RUSHTON: There are four classifications that we would look at. The geoscience potential would be the first one; the second one is needed for energy transition; the third would be the global demand; and the fourth would be strategic opportunity for Nova Scotia.

 

LISA LACHANCE: With those classifications, I'm wondering if the minister can explain how that's being used. Is the department equally working on all minerals at the same time? What do we know about the priority minerals that the department's going to be working on under the Critical Minerals Strategy in this fiscal year?

 

TORY RUSHTON: As the member knows, there are 16 minerals that we're looking at. We're always reviewing them and updating the information that we have, if people come in - stakeholders come in and have those conversations. But right now, the focus is on the battery supply chain minerals, which would be lithium and graphite, primarily.

 

The energy side of things is what we would be providing a lot of our focus on - not ignoring everything else, but that's where our primary focus would be right now.

 

LISA LACHANCE: The strategy's second pillar focuses on regulatory reform. I'm wondering: Is regulatory reform being undertaken to support the exploration of these two minerals, lithium and graphite? Can the minister describe what that work looks like?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Obviously the first step was the regulatory road map, which is the first step. I'd just like to point out and recognize my colleagues - that was done in partnership with ECC and also with Invest. What we're doing now is mapping it out, working with OSE on the efficiencies, along with Environment and Climate Change as well.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Pillar Three of the strategy focuses on working with the Mi'kmaw communities and partners across the province. I'm wondering: How is this happening? Who is the minister meeting with? I think we saw after the release of the global mandate letter for this government a response from Mi'kmaw chiefs across the province that said, kind of: Hold up. We have treaty rights. We've been part of this conversation. Surely you don't mean we're special interests.

 

My question is: Are Mi'kmaw organizations and communities considered special interests, and how does that align with the pillar that talks about working with Mi'kmaw partners?

 

TORY RUSHTON: We have a working group with KMK and work closely with our partners at the Office of L'nu Affairs in conversations. KMK provided some of the input to the strategy and was part of the working group. We're completing an economic opportunity study right now with KMK. We work closely with them. The department meets with them on a regular basis.

 

I'll be honest with you on the floor: I haven't had a chance to meet with my counterparts with the First Nations on this topic. I meet with our First Nations partners on a regular basis on other things, but I haven't had a chance to meet since the new swearing-in and the holiday, but the department does meet with them on a regular basis.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I appreciate that there's a formal relationship with KMK. I would still go back to the process that led us from an election where this wasn't talked about to a stated mandate that this was the focus and to the point where Mi'kmaw leadership across the province felt the need to publish an open letter to get their voices heard. Respectfully, I don't think that's upholding treaty rights in this province, and I don't think that's upholding our responsibilities under the commitments to the TRC, commitments to other things, and our nation-to-nation relationship.

 

My question is: When will the minister or Premier meet with the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs to discuss whether they are special interests and discuss uranium mining, fracking, and other critical mineral exploration?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I'd like to point out that the minister responsible for L'nu Affairs pointed out very quickly the other day - in recognition - that our First Nations is a nation. It's not a special interest group - in conversations.

 

I'm very honest. I meet with my counterparts at the First Nations group on a regular basis. I haven't had an opportunity to meet with the counterpart chiefs who are responsible for the mining side of their interests, but it will be taking place, the same as it does with anything else within my department. I respect the relationship we have with them. I can go to the moose hunt conversation that we had for a long period of time in 2024, when conversations got us to the right place. We were both there. There's a mutual respect that I have for the chiefs and the chiefs have back to me and the department, to the point where I went to the celebration in Cape Breton prior to what would usually be the opening of the moose season in Cape Breton.

 

Our relationship means a lot to me. This is not going to get jeopardized. There will be conversations that do take place with my counterparts.

 

[12:45 p.m.]

 

LISA LACHANCE: One more question on the open letter: Has the minister responded or the Premier responded in writing to the authors of that letter?

 

Then, under Pillar Three, it talks about Mi'kmaw communities being integrated into the work through capacity-building and that the department will facilitate participation. I'm wondering if the minister can talk about what are the deliverables this coming fiscal year that work toward that goal of integration?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I guess what I'll say is the work that we're doing with KMK, it's going to be continued and ongoing - a very fluid situation and the ongoing conversations. The economic opportunity study is also going to put some information at our desk of where things are going to go.

 

The other thing I just wanted to add is that there are members of the Mi'kmaw community who are joining us as a province at the PDAC meetings on Monday and Tuesday of next week. They've joined us the last two years, actually. They're very well aware of what is taking place. We may not always agree. That's why you need to have conversations to get to that middle ground.

 

To answer your questions, I have not responded to that open letter as of yet. I can't speak for the Premier, but there are going to be conversations. There have to be ongoing conversations, and the department's carrying that on. As minister, that's part of the conversations I'll be having, as well, in the near future.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Just more specifically related to the work under the Critical Minerals Strategy, what are the deliverables for Pillar Three in the strategy in this coming fiscal year?

 

THE CHAIR: Before I recognize the minister, the Clerk has just informed me that Leg TV sent a message that the clicking of the pens is being picked up by the mics really loudly. If we could please refrain from that - on both sides, they said it's happening. They actually said it was both sides. We're all guilty.

 

TORY RUSHTON: I am guilty. Thank you, Chair.

 

The first step is to ensure that economic opportunity study is completed. Also, there's a Regional Energy and Resource Table that we share with the federal government. The critical minerals conversation is taking place at those tables and our Mi'kmaw partners are part of that process as well.

 

THE CHAIR: With just under five minutes remaining, the honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

 

LISA LACHANCE: We might not be able to get through the full conversation about providing predictability and stability for landowners, but maybe we can start it. I also have had the chance to review some of our history in mining in the province, particularly around uranium. I was actually reading the uranium inquiry from 1984 in the section about the experiences of landowners and people's repeated experiences of feeling like they were not accorded their rights as landowners, so repeated experiences of where there was - they did not want exploration on their property and yet it was happening. That was a huge part of that inquiry and looking at concerns about the trespassing and destruction of wildlife habitat.

 

My question that I was writing at the time was: What would the province do to prevent this? However, literally at that very moment, the CBC article came across my computer about a landowner in Yarmouth County - and I can table this. I know it has already been tabled in the House, but I can table this - who had not wanted lithium exploration on their private property. The minister has made the point that person agreed to mediation. That was really the only step offered in this process, but I think they've been pretty clear that they did not want it on their property.

 

What would the minister say now? We have this recommitment to mineral exploration. What can landowners expect?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I have to re-emphasize, to that specific issue in southern Nova Scotia, there were nine or ten months of negotiations that took place. Before Section 26 can get invoked, both parties have to agree to submit to the minister to invoke Section 26 for a mediation. The mediation was decided; a mediator was selected, and the decision was put out, but before Section 26 did get invoked, it was nine or ten months of negotiations. They couldn't come to an agreement on a final determination on a couple of items. They both did approve of doing Section 26.

 

That's not something that any minister would take lightly. It's only been used twice in the history of it. It's not something I took lightly. I wanted to make sure that negotiations weren't totally separated from the part, but it was invoked. We also have a guide for landowners, and it has to be a willing partner of a landowner and with a landowner's permission before somebody goes in and does any exploration, so it does have to be a landowner agreement.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I think I'm at the end of my first hour, and I will want to come back to talking about how landowners will be protected and asking other questions about the impact of mining. With that, I will take my chair for the next hour.

 

THE CHAIR: It is now time for the Liberals' turn.

 

The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

 

HON. IAIN RANKIN: I appreciate the minister's time and that of staff, as well. Lots of things happening in the area of natural resources. The member was just talking about mining, so maybe I'll start there.

 

Over the last number of years, mineral claims, to my understanding, have been going down, and I wonder what the minister attributes that to. My understanding is that uranium is really the only ban that we're talking about lifting, so how will lifting the uranium ban reverse that trend for the industry, given that that really has been the only ban in place for that time? When does the department expect for applications to start coming in after the ban?

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: I thank the member for the question. Welcome to the conversation this morning. I know the member very well as he was previous minister of this department.

 

Quite frankly, I know the minister is aware of this but there has always been the conversation that Nova Scotia wasn't open for business for the mining sector, although we have many mines that are taking place in Nova Scotia.

 

I was hearing from a lot of stakeholders over the last three years that they didn't believe we were open for mineral exploration; we weren't open to the idea of new mines taking place. By lifting this ban we've already heard from many stakeholders - not just with uranium but looking at other minerals - that we actually understand that Nova Scotia is a willing partner. We're a willing partner for anybody who wants to come here and meet our environmental standards, be a good corporate citizen - good-paying jobs. We're open to have those conversations.

 

I don't know what the statistics are about how many applications have been through in the last number of years. We can try to get that number for you. I can tell you that since we started having this conversation, there are many other stakeholders in resource development that are calling and want to know: Is Nova Scotia open for business? The answer is yes, we are. Do you want to be a good corporate citizen? We'll have the conversation with you if you can meet our standards as well.

 

IAIN RANKIN: I was asking some of these questions to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change last evening, as they are a regulator, but often mining is regulated by the federal government.

 

I just want to understand how the government exactly is going to open us for business in this sector. What changes, from a regulatory perspective, that allow some of these companies that supposedly weren't interested in exploration licensing - what is changing? My understanding really was that market conditions were the number one thing that was driving us in the costs of whether it's lithium or gold interests, these types of things. What is the government doing that is actually going to change the attitude and start allowing this boom from critical minerals?

 

TORY RUSHTON: What I can say is, what's government doing? Our initial thing was to say we're open for business, it wasn't just for uranium. We want everybody to know that we're open for business for any resource development we have here to offer and the exploration.

 

Other things government is doing are: we're sending the team to the PDAC meeting again next week. We'll be having the ministers' breakfast. Obviously I'll be here in the House so it won't necessarily be a ministers' breakfast per se. We will be having some conversations there - the team will - with many stakeholders that the question has been for many years: Is Nova Scotia open for business? Do we have a willing partner here?

 

Notification through the staking system and the mailing list as well, from our department out to the prospectors, to let them know that we're interested to have these conversations. As the member would know when he was minister, there were stakeholders coming in and out and having those conversations - and the interest.

 

What I would say in the couple of short months since the announcement that the door is open for business, those conversations are getting a lot more. We're having a lot more interest come to Nova Scotia and phone calls to my desk, meeting requests that are taking hold.

 

[1:00 p.m.]

 

The member would also be aware that there were a lot of exploration activities taking place when he was minister and some of those activities now are coming to possible fruition, with investors coming to the table, some of those as recently as January, with the interest of Nova Scotia being a willing partner to work together.

 

One thing that I stress very much to the stakeholders who come to the table for meetings or conversations on the phone: We're willing to talk. If you're willing to come to Nova Scotia, invest in Nova Scotia, meet our environmental standards, work with our environmental capacities, work with our Mi'kmaq, work with our communities to ensure there's an economic benefit for all of Nova Scotia, we want to talk to them. We want to have those conversations to ensure that we're not leaving anything on the table that could help benefit our economy.

 

IAIN RANKIN: I'm hearing that there are more conversations but nothing really specific in terms of regulatory changes, policy changes, or anything of that nature. The previous government was always open to conversations, so it was something I believe called “one window” where proponents and active proponents could actually talk to all ministers who were related to the file, all at once.

 

I remember being in lots of meetings where issues were raised in terms of how they were abiding by regulations, especially environmental regulations. Some of them thought they were too stringent so that's why I asked some of the questions to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change last night but I'm not able to get any specifics so far.

 

I know the minister is not the regulator, but the minister does have an interest in economic development and presumably with the talk of lithium, the Premier mentioned in his letter to caucus members that one single lithium opportunity in Nova Scotia is valued at up to $6 billion. Presumably he would have gotten that figure from the Department of Natural Resources.

 

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Is he able to table how that figure of $6 billion came to be, so we can look at that opportunity? Would that be just those opportunities that are in Yarmouth and Digby Counties? Or is that the entire sector of lithium opportunity in the province?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Just a quick comment. We still have the one-window process, it's still an ongoing process. Ministers aren't at that.

 

A quick answer to the previous question - conversation, I guess, not a question - we had over 50,000 claims last year in Nova Scotia. That's up from 2023. That's a good thing.

 

There are significant opportunities for lithium projects. I don't have anything physical I could table for you today. That $6 billion was a conversation with the company that they were sharing information back with us of the expected windfall of one project. That was a company conversation.

 

IAIN RANKIN: One of the things I think the Mining Association of Nova Scotia was looking for in the past was an airborne geophysical survey to identify future mineral development. This is something that my colleague put forward. It was based on a 2008 initiative, which would have been - I think we called it the Play Fairway Analysis, on the offshore side of things - emulating something on the onshore to see what the potential is. That's one of the ways that the previous government really looked at economic development rather than picking and choosing companies to support looking at the sector development. That's how we approached economic development. I just wonder if that is an opportunity that the minister is looking at to help the sector as a whole.

 

TORY RUSHTON: There's been a lot of the geophysical work since then. What I would say is there are ongoing conversations with stakeholders coming and going.

 

I certainly get the point about picking and choosing. That's certainly not what we're trying to do. As I said a few minutes ago, there's a raft of stakeholders coming in to have conversations since the conversation about opening the door to Nova Scotia.

 

We are looking at what process we can centre the conversations around - more focused. Nothing is out of the realm of possibility to look at what happened with the offshore. Since the letter - it was quickly - we were into the Legislature, as well, and preparing the budget documents.

 

I knew there would be a flood of conversations from stakeholders. I wasn't anticipating how many, to be honest. We are looking at what the realm of possibility is so we're not picking winner choosers. It's giving a wide variety of opportunity for anybody who wants to come and invest in Nova Scotia.

 

IAIN RANKIN: Is the minister contemplating any form of subsidy to try to induce some of these corporations to come, whether that be access to any public land, Crown land, even potentially protected lands? What is going to change in terms of trying to draw some of these companies in that are obviously - I use the word “raft.” There's a raft of people calling the office to try to access our minerals. What's on the table to offer them? What's going to make them come here and all of a sudden start to increase their claims?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Not one company has asked for any of that yet. They are excited to hear the opportunity of what we have to offer in Nova Scotia for minerals. The conversations haven't come about what tax credits would be afforded.

 

There have been no requests for any finances for anything yet. I know the Nova Scotia Prospectors Association - I met with a few of them in the last couple months. They are excited about what's going on.

 

To put a financial number on any assistance for companies or stakeholders coming to the table - there has been no conversation or even request, to my knowledge, to our department. I can't speak for any others. They're just excited that there's an opportunity for them to come and invest in Nova Scotia. We're excited about that opportunity, as well.

 

IAIN RANKIN: In the budget for Geoscience & Mines Branch, the department has gone from $6 million to $7 million. Does the minister believe that's going to be adequate for the natural resources development goals that are coming out of his department? What's that increase of $1 million going to be spent on?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Very quickly, the additional funds - $500,000 for the critical minerals and strategic resources fund. Also there was about $0.5 million given to our province from the federal government, from NRCan, for the Critical Minerals Geoscience and Data Initiative. It's very much a Team Canada approach that's going on with critical minerals.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. I'm not sure if the member opposite knows Minister Wilkinson, but we have a great relationship. Minister Wilkinson, my federal counterpart, is excited with what's going on in Nova Scotia. He has visited a few times, and we'll take the opportunity to collaborate with investors who are coming, as well.

 

I know Minister Wilkinson sent a few of those stakeholders to come and look at Nova Scotia as a place to invest. Mining is investor funded. That's why we need to attract investors to come here.

 

We'll continue to look for other sources, as well. It's an exciting time to be in the mineral opportunities. Nova Scotia is - I can't remember the wording, so I don't want to quote, but Minister Wilkinson is very pleased with what Nova Scotia was tracking in the last few months. I am certainly very excited to work with him over the course of expanding on other minerals over the next little bit.

 

IAIN RANKIN: I'll switch gears a little bit to forestry. The Lahey report that came out in 2018 had recommended a progress evaluation every three years. The last one came out in November 2021. My understanding is that there should be another report on evaluating the progress on those recommendations, of course, presuming that the government still very much endorses the report and following through on all the recommendations that were outstanding.

 

I'd like to ask the minister: When will the next evaluation report be released?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Thank you to the member opposite. Also, I recognize the work that the member opposite did on the Lahey report when he was minister. We actually had reverse roles a few years ago. This is something we both agreed upon. We didn't debate this on the floor of the Legislature, the two of us. We both agreed that we had to implement it. We had to work for the forestry sector and put this into place. We're still very much 100 per cent involved.

 

To date, about 90 per cent of the Lahey report is completed. The three-year update was a three-year review that Professor Lahey did, I think it was in 2021, at the tail end of the member's government, with us taking over.

 

We have not implemented the three-year review at this point. We're focusing on getting the remaining part of the review done. As I said in my opening speech, we actually introduced the first high-production forestry grant last year. Feedback from the sector is quite positive. They are looking for more of that high-production forestry to take place.

 

What I would say is I believe the sector is working very hard to ensure that we're moving forward on Professor Lahey's recommendations. I know the government worked very hard on it; the previous government worked very hard on it. We're staying committed to that. We're committed 100 per cent to the ecological forestry practices in Nova Scotia.

 

What I would say is it's great work from staff in the department to also work with the private landowners now with different initiatives to ensure that private landowners have an opportunity to engage ecological forestry practices on their private land, as well.

 

[1:15 p.m.]

 

IAIN RANKIN: One of the reasons why Professor Lahey recommended the evaluation is because one of his conclusions was the paradigm, I guess you'd call it, within the department was not where he would like it to be to actually endorse the concepts of ecological forestry. I recognize that there has been some significant progress, and the matrix guide was released, I think, right before they came to power, and they implemented it. They have the high-production forestry leg delineated now. But the 90 per cent completion rate, when in 2021 the evaluation said that only 10 of the recommendations were actually in the implementation phase. . . I find it hard to believe that four years later, the other 34 recommendations are not only in implementation but somehow completed.

 

I'm going to go through some of these recommendations over the next few minutes if you want to start looking at them one by one to see where we're at with them. I'll start with the biomass one because that was talked about recently. I tabled a bill to try to push that one forward more. Obviously, it would be a benefit to industry, local communities, woodlot owners. There was a short list of public buildings where we would actually displace oil and have wood heat in them. There hasn't been any since the government has taken over.

 

I'd like to ask the minister: Is he still intent on creating more of these small wood-heat energy projects in public buildings, as it is a clear recommendation in the report?

 

I will note also that one of the things that Lahey was very clear about is that the entire report has to be implemented. He was very, I think, specific in saying that it wasn't a report that we should be picking and choosing from. So, I appreciate hearing the minister's endorsement again. I know he does believe in the report, but there were some challenges implementing different parts of the report. It's a comprehensive one - 44 recommendations. I'm not criticizing the current government for the 2021 evaluation. Certainly, we probably own most of that because it was literally months after the minister became the minister. What I'm trying to do is figure out where we're at in those years that have passed from November.

 

Actually, when that evaluation report came out, Lahey was very clear that there should be another evaluation three years after that to see where we're at. I think he was basically saying that the department shouldn't police themselves, so I don't think the public would just accept that, if the department says 90 per cent of the recommendations are done, they're actually done.

 

I'll start going through some of these recommendations to figure out where some of them are. We'll start with the biomass projects.

 

TORY RUSHTON: Right now, there are 20 public buildings with 18 different sites and two more in development. I think the member does know that that file doesn't sit with our department anymore. That is actually with the Department of Public Works in the development of public buildings.

 

What I will say to the member: This is something I believe that was brought to the table when the member was still minister. This was another thing that we certainly agreed on, that this was an opportunity mainly for our small landowners. This was an opportunity for us to create fuel in Nova Scotia with Nova Scotian byproducts of forestry activities and be able to heat buildings. It's a great success all over the place. Something that we have done is, when we come to the table with new buildings being conversed at the Cabinet level or even with colleagues, biomass is one of the very first things that we talk about. We make sure that we inform my colleagues that this is an option. I think the member knows that there is more upfront capital cost to initiate the wood-burning policy, but at the end of the day, the fuel is cheaper.

 

I don't know if the member, when he was minister, had a chance to visit the school in Sydney, but last June, I had an opportunity to visit the school in Sydney. I think it's been three or four years that school has been operating with biomass now on the wood-heat initiative. They have burnt zero - zero - Bunker C oil since they put that wood-heat initiative in. We know it works, and our government is still working toward it. I believe the member tabled a bill that Public Works is looking at right now for review. I don't know where that is, but we certainly endorse the wood heat initiative that was in the ecological report from Professor Lahey.

 

IAIN RANKIN: One of the reasons why at the time the Department of Lands and Forestry was the lead was because of the economic benefits. Being the department that really pushed this forward, I do want to credit some of the members in the past: the late Lloyd Hines, Gordon Wilson as well. They were pushing for these projects in rural Nova Scotia before the Lahey report even came out.

 

Government as a whole within the Public Service was resistant to it. I think one of the main factors was what the minister just said in terms of the upfront cost. If it's just a pure cost analysis in the short term, it's hard to stack up against especially the existing infrastructure in these buildings, whether it's oil or natural gas. In the long term, especially with the volatility of fossil fuel pricing, I just think it's such a good thing that we can push forward to support the small woodlot owners. The minister mentioned this. I'm preaching to the choir in terms of what he believes the support should be, but I wouldn't leave it to the Department of Public Works to push forward on some of these projects.

 

Recommendation No. 5 of the Lahey report was to improve the collection of data, specifically the State of the Forest Report. The last report I can find was in 2016. Is the department looking to improve the data collection and carry out a state of the forest report to meet that recommendation?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I apologize for the time. I was pretty sure of the answer, but I just wanted to verify it. It's actually in the development process to have that report finalized. We are doing that.

 

IAIN RANKIN: Recommendation No. 13 of the report calls for the government to work with interested parties to assess the work that is under way for landscape-level planning. Can the minister inform us of the work that's being done for landscape-level planning to meet that recommendation?

 

TORY RUSHTON: That's one of the fluid things that are taking place within the report. We have actually taken it - not just with the forestry aspect of Crown land. We're actually incorporating all uses of Crown land into a land planning process. It's also spread out through recommendations, including to the outcome-based forestry as well. We're taking into consideration what all Crown land asks or uses could be and incorporating it to one person who is overseeing and making sure that everything is taking place at the right times for each different part of our department but also the Energy Department as well.

 

IAIN RANKIN: That does speak to Conclusion No. 31 on Page 18 of the report, which talks to the all-three-legs-of-the-triad approach. We talked about high production, and we talked about matrix. The government has an obligation in legislation to protect 20 per cent of the land. This is the conservation side of the triad. Advocates would say that there hasn't been as much work on that. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and I had this chat last night. There has been less than 1 per cent protected in the last four years. He has an interim target he's confident he will reach, but the Department of Natural Resources has to be part of that work. I wonder if they have identified where those lands will be to meet the third leg of the triad.

 

TORY RUSHTON: Not a whole lot more to add than what the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said last night. We're still working on the (inaudible) list and we certainly still believe that we're going to meet the 2026 interim goal. The 20 per cent is still on our wish list, if you will. It's still something that's on the target for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and me. Both departments are working collaboratively on that protection list.

 

IAIN RANKIN: Recommendation No. 20 of the report calls for a legislated environmental assessment process. Has this ever been done? If not, will the department make sure there is actually the equivalent of a Class II environmental assessment that Lahey had recommended? Or are they no longer in agreement with this recommendation?

 

TORY RUSHTON: That's sort of one of the missing gaps - I don't want to say missing but it's part of the 10 per cent that's not at the completion part. Not to say we haven't done work on that. We're still finalizing what that whole spectrum will look like with the expertise input, the public input and things.

 

No, we haven't written that off, it's just to get the final process into place and what that is going to look like in the future.

 

IAIN RANKIN: Recommendation No. 25 called on the government to commission an independent study on the efficacy and adequacy of the 20-metre riparian zone currently required by the Wildlife Habitat and Watercourses Protection Regulations. The report asks whether this requirement should be changed and if so, how it should be changed to better address ecological rationale for riparian buffer zones.

 

I'd like to ask the minister if he can comment on whether this study has actually taken place and if there are any changes being planned for the riparian zones?

 

TORY RUSHTON: That report is actually supposed to be done probably while we are still sitting here, by the end of March 2025. I know I put a firm date on here and you'll probably hold me to it in Question Period maybe some day. We're looking to have that report finished, hopefully this fiscal year, maybe early in the new fiscal year.

 

IAIN RANKIN: That's good news. Recommendation Nos. 32 and 33 call on the government to work with forested landowners to establish a carbon credit system to reward sustainable forestry practices. Is the department planning to implement a carbon credit system to incent the ecological forestry practices to meet that recommendation?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Similar to when the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tabled the climate action plan and assigned our department to a whole lot of the goals and work, we counteracted that the minister is now responsible for that part of the carbon credits. So that falls under ECC.

 

I can certainly talk to the minister and get an update for you, though.

 

[1:30 p.m.]

 

IAIN RANKIN: Similar to the conversation on landscape planning and conservation, Recommendation No. 36 calls specifically for an independent western Crown land planning process. There are a lot of competing goals for land but particularly in the western part of our province. The minister would know the competing interests - the former Bowater lands. I would like to ask the minister if the department still endorses that recommendation, and will there be a new independent western planning exercise?

 

TORY RUSHTON: That planning group that I talked about around Crown lands is charged with doing this. They are looking into this recommendation and working on that western end, as well.

 

IAIN RANKIN: If we have an evaluation, I don't have to ask all these questions one by one. I would encourage the minister to look at the next evaluation, which is part of the report. It's the recommendation itself.

 

Still on forestry, I'd ask: Since it's been decades since the silviculture rate has changed - I know it's a challenging issue - but I'd like to ask if the department is considering changing the rate for silviculture of public lands, which hasn't changed in a long time?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Absolutely. Silviculture is key to achieving not just ecological but forestry practices all across Nova Scotia, and not just on Crown land. We did change the planting process last year, and we are looking at, under the review that is going on right now, other recommendations. What I would say is the ever-popular slogan here - stay tuned - but there is some work going on, and the review and the study are taking place right now.

 

IAIN RANKIN: Does the department plan on announcing any new provincial parks in this calendar year?

 

TORY RUSHTON: As part of the 2013 plan, stay tuned. There will be some announcements coming up.

 

IAIN RANKIN: I'm going to ask a couple local questions. One is broader on radon gas because I know the member was talking about radon gas with the conversation about uranium. My constituency is full of radon. I know the department was looking at some of this previously. I wonder what the discussion is now, given that the health risks are so prevalent in these homes. We're relying on education.

 

MLA offices and libraries have these kits, but I often hear from new homeowners who are building. Literally it's all granite in Timberlea, and they're building - and years after they lived there - even in my parents' place where I grew up, they didn't have a radon system in until the last few years. I think it's an issue that the department should be concerned about.

 

There are ideas that have been brought forward to me in terms of mandating that, when you sell a house, you have a certain threshold of the radon that is there. I want to get the minister's general comments, and I'm curious if the department is looking at this, and maybe it's the Department of Energy. But it's a really important issue in the Timberlea-Prospect area as the second cause of lung cancer after smoking.

 

I think it's something that governments as a whole should be looking a lot more closely at, other than having kits available. Because, especially in the area that I'm in, when people borrow the kits, I pretty much tell them that you can almost guarantee, if they're near the Timberlea area, that they're going to be exceeding the health limits and that they'd have to spend over a thousand dollars to put in a system in.

 

We all know the cost-of-living issues that are taking place. When people buy a home, they expect to have clean air. It seems like eventually we should have something in law that mandates a new home that you're moving into to actually have clean air. Different ideas on that - I've tabled bills before, tying that into weatherization and efficiency programs in homes, because we have other issues with mould in older homes and that kind of thing.

 

But this is a really big issue, and I wanted the minister's general thoughts on that.

 

TORY RUSHTON: I thank the member for the question and the opportunity to share some general comments. I know the member's area is drastically radon exposed. I believe my uncle lives right next door to the house where the member grew up. So, I'm familiar with the area.

 

Last year, we did launch another program with the Lung Association of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to collect data. We'll be at some home shows across the province starting in March, and things like that. That's only the start of the process. I think the member can appreciate that this is a cross-departmental conversation.

 

What I can say is codes and requirements of something to be installed when the house is built. I know the member knows that the building code is something very difficult to change. I come from - in my history, when you'd try to change a fire code, you're probably retired before that fire code ever gets changed. But you'll know in your retirement that you had a little hand in it.

 

This is something that is unique to Nova Scotia, quite frankly - cross-department conversations. I have had conversations with colleagues. I believe, when we had switched roles, I actually had a little bit of a conversation about radon at Estimates one time, when I believe the member had kits put out when he was minister.

 

This is an important conversation that has to happen all across Nova Scotia, as is the conversation about uranium, and the byproduct is radon. We're going to get more educated on the process. We'll certainly be working cross-departmentally on mitigation programs, but also what health effects can we mitigate before it gets to be a worse issue for the Department of Health and Wellness, as well.

 

I'd certainly be open to have further conversations offline with the member because I know it's an important issue there. It's a very important issue out in my area, as well. We have lent it out of my office, and some people are very surprised at the levels of radon in their basements. Some people are able to put the mitigation program in, and some aren't. It's a full conversation that does have to take place in the Province and across departments, for that matter. I'll certainly entertain the conversation offline, as well.

 

IAIN RANKIN: I appreciate that. With the reversal on the ban on uranium development, the Mining Association of Nova Scotia has pointed to this as part of an opportunity to look at radon gas.

 

I'd like to ask the minister, how exactly does that help us understand radon gas and mitigation of radon gas in homes? Reversing the ban, what is the connection there?

 

TORY RUSHTON: As we study where the uranium deposits are and the exploration, it'll better help us know where it's seeping into areas and be able to pinpoint and help homeowners make educated decisions on things that are taking place and building in certain areas versus other areas or some of the mitigation elements that can be put into homes, where we know radon is available - or at high levels - from deposits that would be in that area.

 

As we learn throughout the whole province where deposits of uranium may be, we can better map out where potential radon issues could be. It's an educational process. I know universities are interested in taking part in this step forward, as well, and assisting in the educational piece to homeowners. It's not just homeowners. It's developers, as well, putting up infrastructure and things. We know we need more homes in Nova Scotia. We're committed to building more homes. Every little bit of more education that we can put on the table for developers and private builders is an asset that we can share with Nova Scotians. That's the other side of the uranium; we can use it for an educational health benefit, as well. I know the member knows that.

 

IAIN RANKIN: The other local issue I have a lot that has to do with the minister's department is access to provincial parks. I've written the minister on this before. I know it's a province-wide issue. When the park closes down and the gate shuts, especially at the park that I'm going to reference here - it's Jerry Lawrence Park - a number of people who have limited mobility can't get in. It's also a popular fishing area. Right now, the fishing season starts April 1^st, but they can't access it until May 17^th.

 

I ask that question because - I did get the response that the policy is the policy, and we're going to keep it shut until May 17^th, but I want to ask on the record, because of the mobility issues and because of the season and fishing, if there is any flexibility or thought to changing that in the future so at least the gate could be open. Maybe it's not maintained to the same degree, but at least if the gate's open, some of these people who are seniors and limited mobility can go to the park and fish.

 

TORY RUSHTON: I think I pestered the member, too, when he was minister about opening parks early. I know the member knows that it's also a staffing issue about being able to maintain the parks and such - garbage removal. Vandalism's an issue in some parks. I'm not suggesting that's the issue there.

 

What I would say is: If there's a certain resident, please have them reach out to the local regional office. We're willing to have a conversation, but unfortunately, right now the gates are still going to be locked during the start of the fishing season. It's to do with the seasonal workers and when they come in and are able to maintain the parks.

 

The other thing is, with Winter there and with people coming back in the forest, as the member would know, how can you go in and inspect the parks to make sure there's no damage or liability with somebody possibly getting injured?

 

This is a conversation that I think is going to be ongoing for a bit more. I wish I had a better answer for all the parks in Nova Scotia that would be available. Until we have an abundance of funding to ensure seasonal will become year-round - which I don't think is going to happen with any government right now - there are other priorities and things, but let's have that conversation, because there was some mitigation on some other parks that was able to take place. Let's have that conversation or have the resident reach out to the regional office and have that conversation. I understand, too, that it's an accessibility issue there, as well, with maybe a resident or a constituent.

 

IAIN RANKIN: I appreciate the appetite to look at it. It's on the highway, basically - the St. Margarets Bay Road - so often what happens is people still access the park, and there are cars that are parked along the shoulder of the road. It's not very safe. I know residents would like to see a parking lot for the heavily used park, but I think something that doesn't cost a lot of money is just changing the May 17^th date. Even if it's a week, you're giving people who have these issues an extra week to access parks early.

 

[1:45 p.m.]

 

The Jerry Lawrence Park, of course the member knows, is named after my predecessor. I talk a lot about Bill Estabrooks. I don't have a chance much to talk about Jerry Lawrence, but obviously he has mobility issues, and that's what's pointed out to me a lot because it was named after him, and Jerry being in a wheelchair. I would appreciate any flexibility on that issue. I'll take that up with the minister offline as he recommended to the regional office.

 

I just want to thank the minister for his time and all the staff for providing answers. I'll pass my time - just a slight bit of my time - back to the NDP, or if you want to take a break.

 

THE CHAIR: Before we move to the NDP, would the minister like a break? A five-minute recess?

 

I declare we're in recess.

 

[1:46 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[1:56 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

THE CHAIR: Order. The committee will come to order.

 

The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

 

ROD WILSON: Good afternoon, Minister. A couple of questions. First of all, I am enjoying this. I'm learning a lot. I've done some reading on uranium mining but certainly at a very high level. If Nova Scotia was to proceed with uranium extraction and mining, can you basically educate me on what's the best practice now for uranium extraction and mining, at a very high level obviously.

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: I apologize for my technicalities, I wanted to verify some things. It would be solution mining, where the solution would go down in the ground and bring the contents up - very much controlled, actually.

 

We have a mine in Nova Scotia similar to that. Sifto Canada in Amherst actually sends a chemical down and brings up the brine and takes the salt away. I would assume it would be a similar situation to that.

 

ROD WILSON: Great, thank you. I won't hold you to it but that's helpful to know.

 

A bigger question is in terms of occupational health. Certainly Nova Scotia has lots of experience and standards on physical plant mine safety. Moving into new territory of uranium/lithium, has the government started or is it planning any consultation process on occupational risk of that to miners, other staff? Who might be at that table to help us with that expertise?

 

[2:00 p.m.]

 

TORY RUSHTON: Obviously, LSI, the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration, would actually look into that. We would assist them in collaborating with the partners out west, if you will, or other mining. There's mining that takes place in Nova Scotia right now. There's a safety standard that is already set in Nova Scotia. We would expect nothing less. We would expect nothing less for any mine, for that matter. That would be much more of a Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration question than it would be for the resource-based department.

 

ROD WILSON: This maybe a Labour, Skills and Immigration question too, but I am just wondering, obviously uranium or lithium would be new to Nova Scotia. Do you anticipate through government's pathway that there would be some consultation on best practices for reduction of occupational exposure?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Yes, probably more specific to the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration again. I just want to make sure there's an emphasis on the two different minerals. Lithium would be very different from uranium in Occupational Health and Safety. Uranium is very heavily regulated by the feds, not necessarily at a provincial level. There would be strict rules and regulations that would have to be followed, I would assume. Probably pose the question - a better question to the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration would be better suited, I guess.

 

ROD WILSON: The reason I ask is lithium is known to have major renal disease problems. Uranium has its own associations.

 

My next question probably is for the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration. They would maintain the oversight of employee health and safety in the mining industry?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Very quickly, yes. It would be the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

 

ROD WILSON: My very last question, and again, it may be for another minister. Just like this House way before I came here made adjustments to the WCB to include diseases related to firefighters, do we anticipate any adjustments to occupational diseases in the WCB Act?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I don't know what would be on their agenda or in their thought process. Obviously very proud - I know the whole House was proud about the firefighter bonuses. In my previous life, I was a firefighter. The member probably wasn't aware. It's something I advocated for very hard. I know the Chair advocated very hard as did every member in this House. That more specific mining question would be for the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

 

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Definitely recognizing that the responsibility for ensuring safe and productive natural resources development actually does spread across many departments, I'm wondering if the minister can share with us who they are consulting with in terms of the potential health effects. Maybe I'll ask about lithium and graphite if those are the two target minerals under the current strategy.

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: Very quickly, that would still fall under the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration. I'll give you an example, whether I can speak educated to it. For me to enter into an electrical panel at a certain standard of voltage, the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration sets a standard of what we can and cannot do as an electrician. It's the same as this - different chemicals, different minerals, dust, particles; those standards would be set by the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration and Occupational Health and Safety. Not to say we would not assist in the department on the specifics and the technicalities of what a specific mineral or dust component could contain. We'd certainly be collaborative on that, but to set the standard, that would be in Occupational Health and Safety through the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I'm wondering if the minister received a copy through the Premier's office from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. They wrote the Premier raising concerns about health effects of the changes around uranium and in particular around fracking. I'll just read a couple bits of this, and then I'll table the letter for the record.

 

CAPE is a nonpartisan, physician-led organization with over 36,000 supporters across the country. While they note the economic challenges facing Nova Scotia, they also just really wanted to outline the clear and growing evidence of the health impacts of fracking: preterm births, higher levels of child asthma and leukemia, increased hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and higher overall mortality rates and reduced life expectancy. They quote a particular couple of articles from JAMA Pediatrics published by the American Medical Association about the findings.

 

They go on to talk about uranium and historical evidence from uranium mining regions, so dramatically increased rates of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases amongst miners and nearby residences. The long-term environmental impacts of uranium mining are equally concerning. It leaves a legacy of toxic radioactive waste with a half-life of tens of thousands of years. Eighty-five per cent of the radioactivity in the uranium ore is left behind as tailings.

 

Then they talk about the disproportionate impact on African Nova Scotian communities and on Indigenous communities of environmental impacts of natural resource development that's been - it's part of our legacy; it's part of the legacy of Canada. They are suggesting that - well, they are calling on the government not to reverse the ban on uranium and not to undertake fracking. I'll table that for the record.

 

I guess what I would say is for the minister, understanding that the Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration would have a role in this, understanding that WCB is not under the purview of this minister, but I think more broadly, when the department is putting together the economic argument that says that this is the time right now for this province to lift the ban on uranium or to start fracking, this should be part of the economic analysis. The analysis should include not only how much money is there out there to be made, how many deposits do we have, but it also needs to talk about what are the environmental impacts? Can we mitigate them adequately? What are the health impacts? Can we mitigate them adequately? I think to do anything less is to do a disservice to Nova Scotians, so I'm wondering how the minister intends to assure for themselves and for the department that they clearly understand the potential health impacts of what's being discussed.

 

TORY RUSHTON: Yes, we've been very clear. We want to do this safe and environmentally friendly. To answer the question, I have seen the letter. Thank you. What I can say is we're talking about the exploration in the realm of what is possible, and then under the realm of what is possible, we have to rely heavily on the scientific agency from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which sets standards of what can and cannot happen in and around the idea of uranium. We're taking this into consideration absolutely. We've been clear. I've been very clear.

 

We are interested in talking with people who want to come to Nova Scotia to invest in Nova Scotia, but they have to do it responsibly. They have to meet our standards. They have to meet the federal standards. They have to be willing to work with us as a government and as a province, and that includes communities as well. Safety is first and foremost for our government. There's no question about it. As we're talking about uranium and then lifting the ban, there are many reasons as to why we want to have that conversation.

 

We've talked about health reasons; we've talked about the possibilities of the quantity and quality that may or may not be in the ground, but also the effects of the radon seeping into houses, and things.

 

There are many reasons why we have to have this conversation, but we have to rely heavily on the federal government to set the standard on safety requirements and regulations.

 

LISA LACHANCE: As I said at the beginning, I really want to understand what we know about the potential economic benefit of this as a priority area: what it looks like; what we need to do to realize that potential benefit; what the harms are; how we are going to mitigate them.

 

Maybe I'll take a mineral that is already being explored. I'd like to take lithium, for instance. What do we know about the deposits of lithium in Nova Scotia? How many applications do we currently have on the docket for folks who want to be here to do lithium exploration? I'm curious what the plan is for Nova Scotian lithium, because I don't think we process lithium in this province. Is it being traded? Sold? What do we know about what the economic value could be to Nova Scotia?

 

TORY RUSHTON: There are three main projects of lithium deposits that are being explored. There are others, but three main ones that are being explored right now.

 

Just for context, one of those explorations is expected to be about a $6 billion deposit just for one project in Nova Scotia. Now obviously that project - as the member has recognized, we don't have a finished product facility in Nova Scotia right now to develop the batteries. As I said in my opening statement, we do have companies - Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, for example - that are looking at Nova Scotia to come and invest, where we can get the finished product, we can get the economic benefit of taking the mineral out of the ground to a finished battery product that we can put on the shelves for Canadians and wherever we're looking for exports, as well.

 

That would be a prime example, lithium. It can help us meet our energy targets, our 2050 targets. We have the mineral resource here; we have interest in it. Right now, there's exploration going on in it, but also the conversations of putting a facility here where we can use that raw material to make a finished product for Nova Scotia. Those are conversations we're interested in having. It's a full economic cycle of the product coming out of the ground to a finished product that would go into an EV, for example.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I have a question for clarification because I'm not sure if I heard correctly. Did the minister say $6 billion or $6 million? Billion, okay. I'm good; got my answer.

 

We have three main deposits. We think they're worth $6 billion on the global market - one project. We think one of those projects is worth $6 billion on the global market. Again, I want to delve into that. I want to really understand that. What are we talking about? Over how many years? Is that the market price that we anticipate? That's not all coming to Nova Scotia. What do we think would actually come to Nova Scotia in terms of mining rights or royalties? Over what time period? I think we really need to understand what the real possibilities are and what Nova Scotians are really being told about what the potential is.

 

[2:15 p.m.]

 

TORY RUSHTON: Some of the specifics would be specific to companies doing their estimates. I wouldn't be able to have some of that information right at hand for us. The $6 billion would be an estimate that would be over the life of the mine. That would depend on the quality, quantity - the amount. During their exploration to date, this is what they're anticipating.

 

There are also the spin-off jobs, royalties, and taxes. Rural economic development benefits in the local communities, as well. Also, there are conversations with our Mi'kmaw partners and what benefit it would be to them. I know some of the projects have already had conversations with the Mi'kmaq to have partnerships with them, as well, and their nation.

 

That's the deposit value of the mineral, and it's over the life of the mine. We can't estimate how long it would be, give or take, but there's a huge spin-off effect, as well, within any development or jobs. I'm being told now, 10 to 20 years.

 

LISA LACHANCE: We think over 10 to 20 years, but of course we are at this point very much reliant on the global market that exists - the global commodities market - which has been fickle and has been very fickle to Nova Scotians over hundreds of years. I have a couple questions about that.

 

One of the other things we're telling Nova Scotians - actually, I'm not telling Nova Scotians. The government is telling Nova Scotians over and over again, in writing and verbally, that there are going to be all these $100,000-a-year jobs coming to the province. That would be amazing, but what do we actually know? How many jobs could the minister identify are coming this year that are going to pay $100,000 from natural resource development?

 

TORY RUSHTON: A couple numbers I can share to date: Currently there are approximately 2,500 people who are employed in the mining sector. It's anticipated that our province could grow that sector by about 1,500 to another 2,000 jobs. We know from the data that's collected that those jobs are on average higher than $100,000 jobs. I guess those are the numbers I can share right now.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I will ask the minister for a point of clarification on that. The 1,500 to 2,000 jobs - again, just wondering: Is that the entire mining sector, not just lithium and not just other things, and over what time period?

 

Then I was wondering if the minister can quantify the interest that's been reported from Mitsubishi and other companies to be able to process within Nova Scotia. Is this to the point where folks have been here on site visits to receive proposals? What does interest mean?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Just to clarify, the jobs are an average estimate of what is going to take place in the critical minerals as a whole, so that would account for every mineral. If we were to develop the 1,500 to 2,000 jobs - I think that's what you were - it would be for all the Critical Minerals Strategy. If we put - it's an estimate of what we can grow our sector by with our critical minerals' availability.

 

To answer the other sort of question that was in there: Are companies actually addressing Nova Scotia? Mitsubishi was here, and I met with them. I think it was about two years ago that I met with Mitsubishi. There is a huge interest in their coming here. To put the answer to the question if it's a realm of possibility, it's a reality that the whole circle could be completed here in Nova Scotia. There is a strong possibility that we could. As we work on the deposits together with the investors there, with Invest Nova Scotia we'll be working with the manufacturers on the other side so we can do full circle.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Again, I want to clarify a couple things. The 1,500 to 2,000 jobs are from the Critical Minerals Strategy, and I am wondering about the time period. Is that in the next five years that this is possible? Is that in the next 10 years or within this generation? What's the time period on that?

 

The minister talked about meeting with Mitsubishi a couple years ago. Since the release of the Critical Minerals Strategy, has there been any follow-up led by this minister or otherwise in terms of having that conversation some more?

 

TORY RUSHTON: There really is no time frame - that's if all the developments were to come together - the estimates. There's really no time frame on the jobs. I personally have not yet met with Mitsubishi again. Our team is very involved with Invest Nova Scotia. That would feed into those meetings that are still taking place with Invest and the other departments. We would be having those conversations to bring those companies here. I haven't had a direct follow-up meeting, but our department would be feeding into those meetings that do take place.

 

LISA LACHANCE: So we can direct our questions to the correct minister - again, I'm so sorry that I seem to not be hearing well across the aisle today. Did the minister say there are ongoing meetings currently with Invest Nova Scotia and Mitsubishi?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Yes, with companies in general - I was using Mitsubishi for my example, but I know there are other companies that would be having the conversations about utilizing this product as a full circle realm in Nova Scotia.

 

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Armdale.

 

ROD WILSON: The question I have is about labour force. In this sector, in my last couple years of working in Northern Ontario - as you're probably aware, there's that Ring of Fire development happening in Northern Ontario, which is similar, from what I understand, to this.

 

The question I have is: Are we going to be competing for a labour force, and are we going to be competing, if all of this is successful, on the international market? Because the Ring of Fire and the concept and theory of that development north of Thunder Bay has got huge projections.

 

Having worked in a mine as a physician, I know it's a very skilled labour force; it needs to be developed. Do you have any concerns that, if we were to move forward and be successful, we are going to be competing for skilled labour, besides the competition for the product?

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: I'm actually very enthusiastic about this. As I said earlier, I'm a tradesperson. I'm an electrician. I'll just share a little bit of my story. I graduated with 19 other students in my electrical trade. I was the only one who was able to find work in Nova Scotia in 2012, or '13, whenever I finally did graduate. It took me a little longer to get the ticket, but I did graduate.

 

But my point is, I was the only one who stayed in Nova Scotia. I was the only one who was able to complete all of my training and all of my blocks in Nova Scotia. Out of the 19 that graduated, everyone went west. Whether that was to the oil sands or to a mine, up north to a diamond mine, all 19 left and left their families behind. Slowly a few of them actually did drive west, and we lost those families.

 

Over the last three or four years, I've actually heard from some of those families and some of those tradespeople who have come back to Nova Scotia because there are opportunities here, because of the MOST program, because of what we are doing to enhance the trades in Nova Scotia, because of the building boom that we are doing with more housing development, with more hospitals being built, with schools being built. There's an array of things. I'm not trying to do a government line here. I'm just being realistic as to what the building sector is doing.

 

Those tradespeople are coming back home. But I know wholeheartedly the Minister of Labour, Skills and Immigration and the Minister of Advanced Education and the apprenticeships are wholeheartedly putting their hearts and souls into the trades and ensuring that the trades are being developed through our educational system at NSCC. I'm a proud graduate of NSCC.

 

We have a fantastic system here. They're doing what they can. And this all started before a letter even went out to talk about uranium and other mining developments. This started because we started talking about something: green hydrogen, offshore wind, onshore wind. We knew that we had to create the pathway for our residents, our students who are in our high-school system. We had to create a pathway, not just to get educated here in Nova Scotia, but for them to stay here in Nova Scotia.

 

Yes, we're going to be competing on the market for some of the labourers, but we've already started, as a government, to create a pathway for success for those students who are coming out of high school right now, giving them the opportunity, not just to go to university, because let's face it, university is not for everyone. There are a lot of different opportunities that are out there.

 

I can give you a personal example. My son finished his high-school exams three weeks ago. He's already started his youth apprenticeship in the electrical division. He'll be going to school in September. He'll be coming out of school with enough hours. He'll do his second block right away. So, we're setting up pathways with the youth apprenticeships, with the trades into schools.

 

I appreciate the recognition of that. We are on a pathway for success for many different trades, many different professions. Quite frankly, we've been training people on many aspects of mine engineering right here in Nova Scotia. They've been exporting. Now they have an opportunity to say, Hey, Nova Scotia is actually an opportunity for me to go back home with my family, put my roots back down in my home province, and become successful on the ground that I grew myself on, I educated myself on. There's great opportunity for this.

 

There will be challenges; there's no question. But we're recognizing the challenges as what Nova Scotians have asked of us right now. We're putting in the pathways; the educational system is in progress. The greatest feeling, though, is that the students are taking advantage of it.

 

When I graduated in 1997, my guidance counsellor told me - I wanted to be an electrician; and I was going to - the privatized ambulance system was still there. I was going to be a paramedic and an electrician. My guidance counsellor - no word of a lie - my guidance counsellor looked at me and said, There's no path for success for you being an electrician. And you're not going to make enough to be on the ambulance at the time. You're not going to make enough as an EMT. We were EMTs then.

 

I met my guidance counsellor on a regular basis - still know her, great individual. She saw me just after I was elected in 2018, and she remembered that conversation. She said, Boy, was I wrong. You graduated as an electrician. You moved yourself up within the company. Now you're an elected representative in the province.

 

[2:30 p.m.]

 

My point to say that is there's recognition that university was - university and computers is what was being pushed in 1997 for myself. It was laughed about that trades were even an option for me, but we're recognizing that. There's room to grow. There's room for everyone here. I appreciate the recognition. We are going to be competing, but we're putting successful pathways up for students to achieve what they want to do, live here, and grow their family here in Nova Scotia.

 

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island.

 

LISA LACHANCE: So like I said - really trying to understand what we know. What's the economic analysis? What do we know that we're telling Nova Scotians?

 

I would really encourage this minister and the rest of government to be clear. Those $100,000 jobs - we're probably not talking about them happening in the next five years. We've had historic population growth in the last few years, and people have been - I know the minister talked about not losing more people. I think largely that a lot of that trend seems to be reversed.

 

One of my concerns too that I'm asking about - we don't process it here, so it goes on the global commodities market. My stepfather and his family - generations of foresters in Queens County, three generations at the mill. The last few years at that mill, essentially the town was held hostage to global commodity markets. I've never met more people who understood what was happening with paper on the global market and who was producing it and how much it cost and when Brazil lowered their prices. Everybody understood that the mill was opening or closing depending on what was happening.

 

They were good jobs. They were stable jobs until all of that really started, and then the mill was constantly on closedown. People were in and out of the doors. So my concern is: What are we signing Nova Scotians up for?

 

I want to turn to the potential new mill in Liverpool. You were saying that there's news coming out. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us if they've had a look at the feasibility study. Does it show that a new mill in Liverpool is believed to be financially viable?

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: I just want to be very clear. There is an excitement about the mill, yes. We need a market for low-grade wood fibre. We know that. We know that from the Lahey review.

 

This report that's coming out is very much a company report. We have helped put information to the company so they can make their educated response or decision of what's going to take place. I believe the deadline is March - I don't want to put the date out. Okay. The deadlines are in March for the company to provide the information.

 

I have not seen a report or even a draft report of what is going to take place. We have fed information, as I said, to the company of what they need to make their final report. We haven't seen it. We're optimistic, but at the end of the day, this is going to be a company report and a company decision if it's feasibly possible for them to put the new mill in. We're hopeful and we'll work with the company, but this is very much a company decision.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I mean, it's a company decision, but there are obviously environmental regulations and guidelines that they're going to meet that are within the purview of the government.

 

A condition on a new paper (inaudible) in Liverpool is that the company would need to decommission the existing Northern Pulp Nova Scotia mill and its timberland to pay off creditors. We know that that's not going to be enough money to clean up. Does the minister know how much today it's estimated that the Province will have to pay for the Northern Pulp cleanup?

 

TORY RUSHTON: I don't like doing this answer, but quite honestly, it's not our department that does the finances with that. That would be IGA that would have done the negotiations back and forth. For the environmental assessments, it's actually the Department of Environment and Climate Change. The negotiations of what the whole model of a new mill, decommissioning the old mill - that was actually IGA that did the negotiations. It wasn't our department. Our department would be involved because of the wood fibre analysis that the company would need to do in anticipation of what the new mill could look like in the Queens area - or any area, for that matter. The company selected Queens for that anticipation.

 

I don't want to drag it on too long. It's not our department that was involved with those in-depth conversations. It was more IGA than us.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I definitely respect the division of labour amongst provincial departments, but the minister is here talking about being excited about a new mill but doesn't know how much cleaning up the old mill is going to cost. I just find it interesting. It seems like that would be information that one might want to get from their IGA colleagues.

 

In Halifax - actually, in my constituency - we have heard that the Halifax grain elevator's lease is up for renewal at the end of 2026 and that there's no guarantee of renewal due to planned infilling. Without access to that berth in question, export of wood pellets in particular would become a major challenge. Can the minister speak to how this would impact the forestry industry and what actions he's taking on this front?

 

TORY RUSHTON: This is not just forestry. It's going to impact agriculture. I know the member knows that. I was made aware of this - I believe it was on February 3^rd at the Forest Nova Scotia meetings, when the lady who manages that site came and told me about the issues that she was facing with the possible infilling. It was the very next day that we brought this to the forefront. I talked with my colleague at the Department of Agriculture, and actually, there have been some meetings set up.

 

IGA, I believe has taken the lead on this file with some of our staff taking part in those meetings to see what we can do. There will be an impact. There's no question about it. There will be an impact to forestry, and there will be an impact to agriculture. We need to see what the realm of possibility is to alleviate any of that pressure or what the realm of possibility is to ensure that the equipment moves to a site that is utilized or that the infilling doesn't take place. There are a lot of conversations that are taking place, but I actioned it the very next morning, as soon as I did find out. This is another blow to the forestry sector that just does not fit into the realm right now, that we don't need to see. A lot of that product is the by-product of ecological forestry. It needs a home. This was a good avenue to get a final product made in Nova Scotia to be exported to other parts of the world, mostly European markets.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I'm going to hop around a little bit because my time is passing. I wanted to ask about hemlocks. If we think about our beautiful forests and the role that hemlocks play in that, we know that we are basically on track - I think, if I understand correctly - to lose all the hemlocks in Nova Scotia. There is some work being done that's showing some promise in terms of being able to inoculate hemlocks against the virus, but at the same time, I think that it's relying currently on small groups of volunteers and that sort of thing. The Ecology Action Centre has estimated that the department should create a provincial emergency fund of at least $10 million to save hemlocks, to match with what federal funding has come through. Is the department looking at how it can help save the hemlocks? When can we expect action on this? If the department is not investing in saving hemlocks, why not?

 

TORY RUSHTON: So, yes, to date we have covered over 25,000 hemlock, and we share this partnership with the Department of Environment and Climate Change, some external non-government groups that are partnered with us on this, also some university - I believe it's Acadia University. Yeah, my deputy is saying yes. Yeah, there it is. So, there was also a partnership with Acadia.

 

This is serious. This is very serious. The Department of Environment and Climate Change and our department responded as soon as we had the availability to do it also with, I believe - NRCan was part of the conversations as well, but we are responding. I also know there are volunteer groups that are out there responding, and it is going to be an all-hands-on-deck approach, but we're not stopping. We're going to do everything we can do to put a stop to this. There's also some biocontrol research that's taking place as well, that's not the inoculation, that we're very excited about that could be an even better combat than the inoculation to the trees. This is something that is at the top of mind of our department, and we are trying to combat that as much as we can.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Earlier in our conversation, the minister referenced biomass as another important part of the natural resource sector in Nova Scotia. I'm wondering how much biomass did our province produce last year, and the minister had sort of framed it as a goal to increase it, so is that true? Are we increasing production, and what's the target?

 

TORY RUSHTON: We don't have an actual number of what's produced in biomass, but I know the member knows that it's about 30 per cent of the tree that is harvested is biomass, plus the residuals from the mill. What I can say is what I classify as biomass is the product of ecological forestry. I think the member has probably heard me say many times that I am not one for going out and slashing trees down just for the sake of biomass. That's not what some of these initiatives are about, and that's not what Professor Lahey's report was about on ecological forestry.

 

It's about 30 per cent of every tree is biomass, and if you look at the way that the ecological forestry practices do take place with going in and doing thinnings and precommercial thinnings and prepping the high production forestry, there will be more biomass produced because of that - whether it's biomass or pulp fibre.

 

There will be other products that we're looking at, and that's why we're looking and investigating these investors that are coming - Vyterra Renewables, Simply Blue Group - because they can utilize that product for a renewable energy source when they develop biofuels, bio-aviation fuels, fuels for home heating and domestic heating. These are opportunities, and there will be more biomass, or pulp product if you will, because of the ecological forestry practices on high production forestry, but we're not going out to look to say we need to cut more trees for biomass. I don't want that narrative to be out there. I know the member doesn't want that narrative to be out there. This is just not what this is about. It's just a nature of the beast that there is biomass produced from ecological forestry practices.

 

[2:45 p.m.]

 

LISA LACHANCE: I appreciate the minister's commitment to that. I think the concerns come from the fact that, again, we're talking about commodities, we're talking about a market, and sometimes the market distorts decisions, right? I think that's the concern. The concern is that it will become potentially profitable for a small number of people for a short amount of time, and that will drive it past the realm of ecological forestry.

 

I'm wondering what protections are in place so that doesn't happen. In Australia, biomass is not considered renewable energy. I'm wondering if the minister could share if they consider biomass renewable energy.

 

TORY RUSHTON: We complete the wood supply analysis to ensure the biomass is produced from ecological forestry practices. The Department of Environment and Climate Change has made this statement; I've made this statement. If it's coming from an ecological forestry practice then yes, it's considered renewable energy. There are many jurisdictions that recognize that it's renewable energy. If you are going out to just cut down round trees to create biomass then no, I would argue that's not renewable energy. There are many things we can agree and disagree on. It's in many other reports that I've read - more reports that I've read than not - that if it's from ecological practice, it is considered renewable energy.

 

LISA LACHANCE: Is Nova Scotia Power continuing to use biomass in our domestic provincial electricity generation? Do we know how much - what the percentage is?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Last year, I would have been able to stand here and answer the question. I don't want to step on any toes. The conversation with Nova Scotia Power and their burners are with the Department of Energy now, not Natural Resources.

 

I don't want to step on my colleagues' toes. I don't know what conversations have taken place over the last couple months. That may be a question for the Department of Energy.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I was looking back through some of the questions I prepared and realized one of the things I wanted to ask about, in terms of querying this use of the term “special interests” but recognizing there need to be community consultations. We need social licence for successful research developments, specifically successful mining projects.

 

We have a long history and a current reality of environmental racism in this province. It has been recognized by this government under EGCCRA and the Environmental Racism Panel that's been established. Government has a tool that it's created to make sure we move on from being a province that perpetuates environmental racism.

 

I'm wondering if the minister can comment on how he and the department will engage with that panel as they are looking at lifting the uranium ban and as they're looking at the Critical Minerals Strategy.

 

TORY RUSHTON: It's no different than any other development. Departments would have conversations across departments. For example, the Critical Minerals Strategy: The director for my department would have engaged in conversations with the Department of Environment and Climate Change to let them know where we're at with things and get feedback. It would be no different with ensuring that we have conversations with the Office of L'nu Affairs to see if there needs to be a conversation with our Mi'kmaw partners. That's exactly why Pillar Three exists: to ensure that we're crossing the t's and dotting the i's there, to make sure that we're not missing any groups who we need to have conversations with about development.

 

This is actually happening during the whole conversation and the flow-through of conversations from department to department. When the deputy ministers meet, they're also updating each deputy minister in what's going on with their departments versus other departments. There's feedback coming in and out on different levels, as well as the political level, where colleagues would talk back and forth about what is going on with a file within our department, with a file that's going on at the Department of Agriculture, if you will, for an example. Conversations are going on at a few different levels to make sure that we're not missing any of those groups who do need to be at the table to have conversations at different points of the progress.

 

LISA LACHANCE: As the minister is aware, I've had the pleasure of being contacted by folks working with Save Our Old Forests Association in different chapters across Nova Scotia. When I was approached to see if I would table their petitions, there were a couple of things that really attracted me to that. One of those was that these are people in local communities who know what's happening around them. I hear from government that there's a lot of trust in landowners to do what's right and people know what's happening in their own communities in rural areas. I'm sure that sentiment is agreed upon.

 

They're calling for old-growth stands that are older than 80 years to be protected until we meet our 20 per cent legislative target. Our law says we have to protect 20 per cent of our lands. Until we get there, they're asking simply that our old-growth forests, of which Nova Scotia doesn't have a ton, are left alone.

 

Is the minister willing to commit to this? Is this part of the discussion?

 

TORY RUSHTON: We do have the old-growth policy, and it has dictated how we went about that because of the Lahey report. We do follow that. It depends on the forest type and such, what the age is. It's very hard to put an age category on saying that we're going to save any old growth that's 80 years old. It depends on the forest type and forest growth, and we rely on the experts in the field who are seeing things, experts within the department to do this classification.

 

The policy of old-growth area also counts toward the 20 per cent. We as a department are looking at saving those old growths. We're not in the habit of wanting to go take that out, because it actually counts toward our 20 per cent target. If there's old growth out there, we want to know it. We want to go out and inspect it and review it. It's not to say that it's going to get protected because it may not meet that 80-year criterion that one group would want, but the growth of the stand may meet different criteria. We're very wiling to work with them and go investigate anything that does come to our department for investigation. Our professionals will be out there looking at it.

 

THE CHAIR: The honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, with about a minute and 40 seconds in your round of questioning.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I just want to ask: Do we have commitments in the coming fiscal year around EV infrastructure in the province - charging stations, what have you? I'm wondering about e-bikes and e-scooters. Is the government going to incentivize that?

 

TORY RUSHTON: That was switched over to Energy as well, the EV stuff. I still get confused every day going to the office with what's on my desk and what's not on my desk, but that one has switched over to Energy as well.

 

LISA LACHANCE: I don't really have time for another question and so I would like to thank the minister and staff for being here today and answering questions. I think we remain concerned that this is being launched without fully understanding the economic benefit. Make evident - we need to understand what the information is about, how this benefits, and the risks and how they're going to be mitigated in terms of increased - the Critical Minerals Strategy is one piece of it, but people are very concerned and felt like they were not given a chance to know that this government was going to backtrack on commitments to not have uranium exploration, and to not have fracking in this province.

 

THE CHAIR: Order. That now concludes the NDP round of questions. Just before we begin with the PC caucus questions, I'd like to ask the minister how long he needs for his final wrap-up and when that comes, to finish your . . .

 

TORY RUSHTON: A minute and a half, two minutes.

 

THE CHAIR: Okay. The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

 

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I'm kind of excited. It's been a while since I grilled a Tory and so this is going to be fun. It's going to be fun. I've got a couple of questions. Obviously, over the last few years, we've been hit with a lot of tragic events in this province. I think of Cape Breton with the snow and flooding, and obviously the wildfires, and I just want to ask quickly about the wildfires: What actions is your government taking to respond and improve our wildfire response?

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: We had a devastating 2023, there's no question about that. We saw a lot of devastation, a lot of home loss, and since then we've had an after-action report done. I believe by the end of next month we'll actually have all those action items completed in response to the wildfire season of 2023.

 

We've invested with our federal partners on new equipment. We are doing an allocation to replace our four helicopter water bombers, and we're working on the FireSmart program with any community that is interested to work with us on that. What I would say is, we have a very highly trained fire crew response within our department that I am very, very proud of.

 

Previous to being in government, I got to work alongside some of these firefighters when I was a municipal firefighter. The professionalism and the dedication that they have to our province is second to none. It gives me an opportunity to also recognize their dedication to that. When we saw the wildfires in 2023, it wasn't just our wildfire fighters who stepped up. It was actually our department and many other departments that stepped up to the challenge, and we'll be working very closely with that department - with the newly installed Minister of Emergency Management - when the Nova Scotia Guard would have to be enacted for anything.

 

There is a lot of good news that has come out of a drastic situation, where I think we have a stronger crew, a stronger response, and with fire season coming up on March 15^th, we're only a couple of weeks away. It gives me an opportunity to say, Hey, Nova Scotia - it's time to get prepared. When the snow cover starts coming off, things get dried up pretty quick, so be cognizant of what the ground can put forward to us in the next couple of weeks.

 

[3:00 p.m.]

 

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I will say I think the new department, EMO, is going to be a great addition for DNR. I think it's going to have a huge impact on Nova Scotians. I'll just ask one quick question. It's a local question. Minister, do you have any updates on the land in Sambro for a community centre?

 

TORY RUSHTON: Even now that he's on our side of the House, he's still a thorn in the side. I think the member knows that there's been a lot of work put into moving this along in the last couple of years. I know it's something that's very important to his community, for many reasons. What I would say is stay tuned. In the very near future I think the member will be pleased with what's coming his way. I hope it satisfies the requests of what's been put on the floor for the few years.

 

BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I'm on this side, and I still can't get a timeline. No, I'm just joking. I appreciate it. I know the minister knows and the department knows how important this is. I do want to close this out, to say to the department, I know it's a sometimes thankless job, but you all do an incredible job. Minister, thank you for everything.

 

With that, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to deem the four hours elapsed.

 

THE CHAIR: We're looking for unanimous consent to deem the four hours concluded, except for enough time for the minister to read his resolution. Do we have unanimous consent?

 

Minister, we can proceed with your closing remarks.

 

HON. TORY RUSHTON: I would like to thank the staff who were here to support the deputy minister, Michael, and myself through the day. Thank you to the members of the Opposition for the thoughtful questions. Maybe a little thank you to the Government House Leader for a couple of questions. We'll see what happens in the near future.

 

THE CHAIR: Shall resolution E17 stand?

 

The resolution stands.

 

That concludes our four hours allotted for the day. I will now call on the Government House Leader.

 

HON. BRENDAN MAGUIRE: Chair, I move that you do now leave the chair and report progress back to the House.

 

THE CHAIR: The motion is carried. The committee will now rise and report its business to the House. We will have a brief recess.

 

[The committee adjourned at 3:04 p.m.]