A call for better forest policy 

Over the years, the Department of Agriculture has supported Hutchinson Acres (HA) in growing its operations to commercial levels and with marketing its product as a part of the Nova Scotia Loyal campaign. The HA maple syrup farm has leveraged investment loans from agriculture for the following projects: soil research focused on improving soil health, maximizing crop yields, and reducing environmental harm; contracting a maple syrup farmer from Quebec to advise on operational efficiencies and sugar bush yield maximizations; and sending an HA representative, Anna Hutchinson, on trade missions, such as travelling to Dubai, United Arab Emirates as a participant in direct and group sales and pitches.

• Do you agree that the support of current investment programs and agricultural policies governed by the Department of Agriculture to farming initiatives are well suited for advancing maple syrup farming and scaling production?

• Given the past successes of commercial maple syrup production in export development, why not have the maple syrup industry governed by the Department of Agriculture? We could be competitive globally.

• Does the government think the current leases for farming are drafted in a way to support farming initiatives?

In 2014, Hutchinson Acres proposed access to an additional 2,500 acres of public land to meet their current export demands, requiring an expansion of their maple syrup production to approximately 100,000 taps. 

If this area of public land was used for maple syrup farming instead of High Production Forestry, Hutchinson Acres’ would meet their increasing overseas sales demands, assist the government in meeting their climate goals by preserving old forests, and support the Lake Paul rural economy. 

• Has the government looked into timber production contracts for the land that is currently being farmed for maple syrup by Hutchinson Acres?

• Given that the conditions needed to successfully conduct maple syrup production are dependent on forestry operations, what current strategies does the government have to ensure that growth for maple syrup farmers and for industrial foresters does not involve the two industries competing for the use of the same public land?

Nova Scotia’s own forest inventory shows that sugar maple represents approximately 13% of the province’s merchantable hardwood volume. Yet, the province’s maple industry remains dramatically smaller than New Brunswick’s. 

In 2025, New Brunswick’s maple industry produced nearly $51 million in maple products, compared with just $2.1 million in Nova Scotia. Between 2011 and 2021, the number of maple taps in New Brunswick grew by 86%, compared with just 13% in Nova Scotia. 

New Brunswick has supported the growth of its maple industry by identifying maple-rich Crown land and making thousands of hectares available through maple-specific leases. New Brunswick has about 8.4 times as many maple taps as Nova Scotia, but in 2025 produced roughly 28 times as much maple product by value. 

The scale of that difference suggests that the gap is not simply a matter of the size of the resource. It also raises questions about the scale, productivity, investment and policy support available to the industry in each province. 

• Why hasn’t the government adopted a secure, maple-specific Crown-land lease template for Nova Scotia when other provinces, such as New Brunswick, have used theirs to build an industry worth roughly 24 times more than Nova Scotia’s?

• How many Crown land applications for maple syrup production are currently waiting for decisions, and how long have applicants been waiting?

• When will this government produce a long-term maple syrup industry strategy, including secure access to Crown land, measurable growth targets and a timeline for expanding an industry that currently generates just $2.1 million in Nova Scotia compared with nearly $51 million in New Brunswick?

• Given that New Brunswick (and Quebec) have thriving maple syrup industries spurred by government support, why has Nova Scotia not done something similar?

• Premier Houston stated that he wanted the land that was being farmed by Hutchinson Acres to continue to be used for maple syrup production. Can he confirm that the government is committing that land to maple syrup production?

In New Brunswick and Quebec, the maple syrup industry is governed through a combination of agriculture and natural resources departments, alongside specialized industry bodies. For example, the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provide agriculture policy and industry oversight, working with natural resources to allocate land. During the Natural Resources and Economic Development Committee Proceedings on May 26, 2026, representatives of both natural resources and agriculture departments were asked how the two departments are cooperating on maple syrup production via Crown land leasing and export development through marketing.

 While one department cancelled the leases for Hutchinson Acres, the other was promoting the product on retail shelves as a part of Nova Scotia Loyal marketing initiative.

• How do the Department of Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources plan to cooperate on Crown land leasing and sectoral growth for maple syrup production in Nova Scotia?

The Forestry Innovation Transition Trust was established with $50 million to support the transition of Nova Scotia’s forestry sector, including new products, business models, ecological services, and sustainable forestry practices. Since its launch, the Trust has committed more than $50 million. 

• The province committed $50 million to transforming Nova Scotia’s forestry sector. What measurable economic and ecological results has that investment produced so far, and when will the government publicly report on whether the transition is delivering those results?

• When will this government make the economic potential of the entire forest – including recreation, tourism, maple, woodlot management, and other nature-based businesses – part of its forestry investment strategy, rather than continuing to focus investment primarily on the industrial forestry sector?

A significant share of Nova Scotia’s forest is privately owned, meaning the province’s forestry policy cannot achieve its ecological, economic and social objectives through Crown-land management alone. 

Community-based models such as the Medway Community Forest Cooperative offer an alternative approach to forest management that considers local economic development alongside ecological and community values. The province established Medway as a community-forest pilot, and the model now encompasses more than 15,000 hectares of Crown land. 

At the same time, many private woodlot owners are managing forests for multiple purposes – including timber, carbon, recreation, biodiversity, conservation and products such as maple syrup. Government policy therefore has a direct influence on whether private landowners can pursue these different economic and ecological opportunities. 

Bill 198, the Financial Measure (2026) Act, raises questions about whether provincial policy is adequately supporting those multiple uses. Among other changes, the legislation changed provisions concerning forest-property taxation and community. Concerns were raised that landowners managing forests for purposes such as carbon sequestration, conservation or other non-timber values could face different tax treatment.

If Nova Scotia wants healthy forests to support rural economies, biodiversity, carbon storage, recreation and other public benefits in addition to timber production, private woodlot owners and community forestry organizations need policies that recognize and support those multiple values. 

• How can this government say it supports multiple ecological and economic benefits from Nova Scotia’s forests, when its policies can make it less attractive for private woodlot owners to pursue conservation, carbon, and other non-timber values?

• What government practices enable private woodlot owners to adopt lot management practices that enact conservation, carbon, and other non-timber values?

• Will the government put forward a more pragmatic policy supporting private woodlot owners who want to manage their forest for more than timber, including conservation, carbon storage, recreation, and emerging forest based businesses?

• How does the government measure whether its policies are increasing the ecological, social, and economic value generated by Nova Scotia’s privately owned forests? Can we have access to the reports, if in existence?

Nova Scotia has approximately four million hectares of forest, covering close to 75% of the province’s land area. The province maintains a network of permanent forest inventory plots that are revisited on a five-year cycle to monitor changes in forest growth, mortality, volume, biomass and carbon. However, the province’s most recent comprehensive State of the Forest report dates to 2016, with most data from 2015 or even earlier. 

That report therefore predates some of the most consequential changes to Nova Scotia’s forests, including Hurricane Fiona, the record-breaking 2023 wildfire season, the continuing spread of hemlock woolly adelgid and emerald ash borer, rising spruce budworm populations, and major changes in harvesting following the closure of Northern Pulp. 

Nova Scotia’s forests are public assets that support forestry, tourism, recreation, rural employment, drinking-water protection, biodiversity, and protection from floods and fires. An assessment of forest condition should therefore account not only for timber volume, but also for the ecological, social and economic benefits our forests provide.

• If the government cannot tell Nova Scotians, under clear ecological, social, and economic headings, what conditions our forests are in, how many jobs they support, what revenue they generate by subsector, or which public benefits are being gained or lost, how can it demonstrate that it is managing public land in the public interest?

• Why has this government gone a decade without publishing a comprehensive State of the Forest report, despite maintaining permanent forest inventory plots, and when will the minister publish a new, comprehensive State of the Forest report using current data?

• Will the government commit to producing a State of the Forest report using current data to assess forest conditions under clear ecological, social and economic headings – including biodiversity, forest health, carbon, water, wildfire and flood protection, employment, economic activity, and other public benefits?

• How is the government incorporating recent major disturbances and pressure (Hurricane Fiona, the 2023 wildfires, Northern Pulp’s closure, and invasive species) into its assessment of current and future forest condition and policy?

Nova Scotia has adopted ecological forestry as the framework for managing Crown forests. Much of the public discussion has focused on harvesting methods, conservation, and forest composition. 

For rural communities, and forest-dependent businesses, however, the larger question is what this transition means for the broader forest economy. 

If ecological forestry is intended to manage forests for multiple values, then the economic opportunities created by those forests should extend beyond industrial timber production – including tourism, recreation, maple syrup, carbon, local wood products, and other nature-based businesses. 

• The government has called ecological forestry a fundamental shift of Nova Scotia’s forestry sector. Does the government have a clear plan to include in this shift the new rural businesses and economic opportunities that rely on healthier, more diverse forests for their businesses to thrive?

• What is the government doing to ensure the transition to ecological forestry creates new economic opportunities for rural Nova Scotians, rather than treating ecological forestry primarily as a change in harvesting practices?

• What new forest-based businesses or economic opportunities does the government expect to emerge from the transition to ecological forestry, and how will it measure whether they actually emerge?

• When will the government publish a long-term economic strategy for Nova Scotia’s forests that accounts for the full range of businesses and public benefits that healthy forests can support?

Nova Scotia has committed to protecting 20% of the province’s land and water by 2030, with an interim target of 15% by the end of 2026. 

This commitment is also an economic opportunity. Protected and conserved areas are a foundation for outdoor recreation and tourism businesses – businesses that all depend on access to healthy, attractive and increasingly protected landscapes. 

A long-term network of protected landscapes can provide the foundation for both tourism and recreation, as well as rural businesses, biodiversity, clean water, carbon storage and other parts of the province’s nature-based economy.

• How is this government incorporating its 20% protection commitment into its long-term strategy for growing Nova Scotia’s rural tourism and recreation economy? Is there departmental cooperation on governance?

• What is this government doing to ensure the lands protected under the 20% commitment are connected to the infrastructure, access, and long-term planning needed for tourism and recreation businesses to benefit from them?

• When will the government publish a long-term strategy showing how Nova Scotia can turn its growing network of protected areas into an economic opportunity for rural communities, while maintaining their ecological values?

Nova Scotia’s forest subsector accounted for about $1.8 billion in economic impact in 2022 (Forest Nova Scotia), while tourism generated $2.9 billion in revenue in 2022. Rural businesses in tourism, recreation, and other forest-dependent activities may therefore derive economic value from forests that are not currently measured or valued in the same way as the forestry sector in provincial statistics and investment decisions. 

• The government claims to understand the economic value of Nova Scotia’s forests. Do you think this understanding is complete? Are you interested in measuring employment and economic activities in subsector and tertiary sectors that depend on healthy forests, such as tourism, recreation and maple syrup production?

• When will this government compare the economic value of different uses of Crown forests, including timber, tourism, recreation, carbon and other nature-based businesses, so decisions about public land can be made on the basis of the full public return?