MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we could bring this meeting to order, it is a few minutes after 9:00 a.m. and I know everybody has a pretty heavy schedule, no doubt. First on the agenda is future witnesses to appear before our committee. You will see in your package that Darlene has provided you that the NDP and the Liberal caucuses have provided us with a list. As Chairman, I am certainly open to a motion relative to the potential witnesses. Mr. Chipman.
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, would it be too late to submit a couple of potential witnesses?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see any problem with it.
MR. CHIPMAN: Well, it is just something I thought of this morning, the Nova Scotia Christmas Tree Growers Association and the Christmas Tree Council of Nova Scotia, and possibly the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is that okay with committee members? We could add that to the list.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think it has always been the practice that, especially if things of a timely nature come up, it is not unusual to add . . .
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: So they were? Could I just hear that again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The Christmas Tree Council of Nova Scotia, would it be?
MR. CHIPMAN: Or the Nova Scotia Christmas Tree Growers Association . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: And the Federation of Agriculture.
MR. CHIPMAN: . . . and the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. I thought there was a third one.
MR. CHIPMAN: Well, there is the Christmas Tree Council of Nova Scotia, and there are also several associations that I think fall under one umbrella. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the Christmas Tree Council is the umbrella for them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it is.
MR. CHIPMAN: You have the Northeastern Christmas Tree Association, you have the Lunenburg County Christmas Tree Producers Association.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, so that would be the Christmas Tree Council of Nova Scotia, and the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. Just for information purposes, I know that the Resources Committee also entertained the agriculture committee, but it certainly would be within our purview to bring them in. Mr. Hurlburt.
MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I brought it up last year, the local RDAs, and they have an association formed now. I thought it would be nice for them to come in and give us an update, all across the province not one region over the other, but their association to come in and give us an overview of what is going on throughout the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know the name of that body, Richard?
MR. HURLBURT: I know there are nine RDAs in the Province of Nova Scotia, and I think there are three structures. There is one from Halifax down both shores, there is the metro and area, and I think there is one up the eastern shore . . .
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: Western Valley . . .
MR. HURLBURT: Yes, but that is part of the association. There are three boards and they all meet. I can't tell you, but I can find that, Darlene.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, we will put that on, too. So, that would be from the PC caucus by way of verbal communication this morning, the Christmas Tree Council of Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, and the RDA umbrella group, the association that speaks for the RDAs. Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: On the RDA issue, I noticed on our list, the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority. I certainly don't want to second guess my colleague from Cape Breton The Lakes because he is a permanent member and better attuned to what is going on here on a regular basis than I am. We had the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority before the Public Accounts Committee a year or so ago. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you sat on that committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: I was quite concerned about the fact that they actually filibustered that particular committee, I was quite disappointed at the presentation. They were given notice at the outset of that particular meeting what the rules of engagement were, a 5 to 10 minutes presentation, and they went, I think, in excess of 45 minutes; the Chairman at that point had to reel them in, because it was obvious they weren't there to answer questions. I would just put that on notice, that you certainly wouldn't want that to happen to your committee here. The whole idea is for thought-probing, detailed analysis of the successes and the failures and the possible benefits of any organization or company coming before the committee. I wanted to raise that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that point is well taken, Russell, because I recall that PAC session, they certainly did take their time answering questions and made a very lengthy presentation. You may have accurately analyzed it as a filibuster. The point is well taken, so we will have to keep our guard up, I guess, is what you are telling us.
MR. MACKINNON: I understand, during the municipal deliberations, the budgetary deliberations, they are still debating as to whether they will continue to fund that particular organization. It is cost-shared the same as all RDAs. The principle and the concept, I find, is excellent, but certain anomalies do occur.
MR. CORBETT: One of the few times Russell and I agree.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You did begin your remarks, Russell, by pointing out that your honourable colleague had submitted the witness list, and I just wonder, before we recognize Howard, if he had any thoughts on that.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, yes, I do have thoughts on that. I recognize the difficulty that the previous committee had with this particular group. I think, in all fairness to both this committee and this group, it would provide an opportunity to really see what this group is capable of or not capable of. It would be a different type of presentation, of course, but the committee would, perhaps - I don't know if investigating is the proper word - ensure that the taxpayers of Nova Scotia are getting clear value for their dollar. I think it is important that we, as committee members, are aware of actually what this group does and if it has positives or negatives, perhaps we could have some input into
correcting if there is a problem in that particular area. I think it may be an opportunity to sort of clear the air, if I may, and really see what this group does.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Brian. Howard, did you have something?
MR. EPSTEIN: A couple of things. I want to endorse the suggestion that actually appears on the list of the Liberal Party for the Department of Economic Development. It seems to me that that wouldn't be a bad place to start. I guess I am saying two things, one is that it is not only a good idea to talk with them, but we might think about getting them in at a fairly early date, the point being that it would be nice to have a broad overview following estimates of what it is that the department is doing and what its plans are and how it is getting on, particularly with setting up the new Nova Scotia Business Inc. So there is a lot, I think, there that would give us a good overview as to what it is that the department thinks it's about and what its plans are for this year. So that is the first thing, I would say. To add to that, I guess just to continue being friendly to my colleagues here, I think the Sable Offshore Energy is also a good suggestion because it has been clear that there is enormous economic impact from what has been going on in the offshore, and anything we can continue to learn about it or to push for would be appropriate.
That said, I would just remind members that pretty well anything to do with Cape Breton continues to be urgent because of the needs in Cape Breton and the fact that the economy there is clearly under transformation and whether we are going to go there is, I think, very much up in the air, but at the very least we ought to take some focus on some of the Cape Breton entities that have been suggested.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Howard. Thank you. Would somebody like to perhaps put a motion on the floor that we invite a particular witness to attend our next meeting?
MR. CORBETT: Ron L'Esperance from the Department of Economic Development.
MR. HURLBURT: Just a point, if we are going to have Ron in, and I have no problem with that, but I think we should have the RDAs in immediately following Ron to see what they are doing across our province and maybe there is an RDA in southwest that will help in the east or in the centre. That is just my view.
MR. CORBETT: I move that Ron L'Esperance be our next witness and, immediately following him, the RDA associations.
MR. CHIPMAN: I second the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
How about another potential, we should have probably four or five, and we have enough flexibility built into this committee that if something comes up that is more timely and contemporary, we can, and have in fact adjusted our agenda to suit the will of the members of the committee.
MR. CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a lot of interest in the Sable Offshore Energy and in the offshore and all that is going on with the Laurentian Shelf, that sort of thing. I recommend they come in as soon as possible and maybe be followed by the Maritime Lumber Bureau or whoever. Variations, so we won't get bored. That is a motion.
MR. MACKINNON: I second the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, nay.
The motion is carried.
So we have four potential witnesses lined up. Do you feel that is enough for now and we can discuss other witnesses at other meetings? We have some committee business here to attend to. It has been a tradition on this committee to have a vice-chairman from one of the Opposition Parties, or at least it has been since this government took office. I can't speak about before that, so I would like to carry on as chairman with that particular practice. So I am open to entertain comment.
MR. MACKINNON: I am never one for beating around the bush, I like to get right to the chase. I would like to move Mr. Brian Boudreau, the MLA for Cape Breton The Lakes as vice-chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brian Boudreau. Is there any discussion on the motion?
MR. EPSTEIN: Just to clarify something from the last time we discussed this. When it came up before, I was under the impression at the time that there was a tradition of vice-chairmen always going to the Official Opposition. I have since had the opportunity to check on what the tradition is and it seems there is no tradition. So there is certainly no rule, as, indeed, the Speaker's letter says and I undertook at the last meeting to go have a quick look, as well. So, there is no rule and so far as I can tell from asking around, there is no tradition and it doesn't seem to matter one way or the other so far as I can tell. I am happy with anyone as vice-chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the motion?
Would all those in favour of the motion, please say Aye. Contrary, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Congratulations Brian.
Now, we do have some unfinished business, and that has to do with probable summer adjournment. What is committee members' thoughts? Howard?
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, my suggestion is this. If we are able to line up the witnesses who we have just talked about here, then it seems very likely we are going to be able to carry on with an agenda for the next month or so which, depending on what goes on over in the House, should more or less correspond with the sitting of the Legislature. It is not necessary, I guess, to carry on sitting while the House is not sitting, but we could judge that at the time. What my suggestion is, that normally we might assume that we wouldn't necessarily carry on while the House wasn't sitting. On the other hand, I don't know that we need to make this an absolute decision, because if it should occur that something particularly pressing were to appear over the next month and we then wanted to turn our minds to sitting beyond the formal time in which the House was sitting, that would leave it open. So, all I am saying is we might keep in mind that we probably won't want to sit beyond the term of the House but let us be flexible in case something important turns up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darlene, do you want to speak to this a little bit, just about past practices with this committee? What has this committee usually done. I know we meet when the House isn't sitting through the fall and things like that, but usually it adjourns for the summer months, does it not?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Committee Clerk): Well, it is not a written ruling or anything of that nature, it is just the consent of all the committee members. We adjourned last summer. We stopped in either May or June, somewhere thereabouts, and resumed again right after the Labour Day weekend. We still had witnesses lined up and then went right through, so it is at the discretion of the committee whether they wish to do this again or if you care to meet straight through, it is up to you.
MR. MACKINNON: I think I am safe in speaking for our caucus in saying that we are quite content to wrap up committee business at the conclusion of the House, or there about, probably a week or so, one way or the other, and then come back, as has been noted, sometime right after the Labour Day weekend. It gives everybody a chance to regroup. There is going to be a considerable amount of work done over the summer anyway with the Select Committee on the Fire Prevention Act, there is the review of the Workers' Compensation Act, that is undergoing and I am sure members will want to partake, and a lot of their constituency work will have to be attended to. Notwithstanding the fact that if there is a dire
emergency, I am sure all committee members are fairly reasonable people. I know the government caucus is, we are quite content to go on that schedule.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess based on that, we seem to have a general agreement that we will adjourn for the summer months, or at least when the House closes, but we do have enough flexibility built in that should a committee member or caucus bring something to our attention, we would entertain examining that with an aim to holding a hearing if it is deemed appropriate.
Just speaking of - Howard that is a good point, there are timely issues and I know the Maritime Lumber Bureau, for example, with the softwood lumber agreement, speaking of very timely issues, although we have them included in the agenda, they are down the list somewhat. I should have spoken to it earlier.
What about our next committee meeting? Darlene, when would that be scheduled? We are going to put the ball in your court. Would there be another one in May?
MRS. HENRY: We can either go May 15th or May 29th.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if I may, let's have one more before the summer break and have the lumber association in. If there is any way possible, the gentleman across the way would like to hear from Ron. I heard him mention Nova Scotia Business Inc., that would give that time to get up and running, then he could answer more of your questions, after the Labour Day weekend, have him first in September or whatever, if the committee agrees to that. The lumber association is a very critical issue right now, and maybe we could have them in now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the NDP's thought?
MR. EPSTEIN: It is always dependent on who is available, I think that is always a factor.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe Diane Blenkhorn - I know Diane but I haven't spoken to her recently - would welcome an opportunity to come in. She is the spokesperson, really, for the Maritime Lumber Association. Would that be agreed that we would try to bring her in for a meeting, let's say May 15th.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: The 15th. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything further under new business, or anything? Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the committee members for showing their confidence in me, being the Vice-Chairman of the committee, and I am looking forward to working with you and all members of the committee for the betterment of all Nova Scotians.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I move that the meeting now be adjourned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we adjourn, somebody, I guess it was Howard, talked about concerns of Cape Breton, they are going through transformation and stuff relative to employment and things of that nature. We sent a letter to the Speaker, as a consequence of a motion put forward by Russell. The Speaker was unable to provide us with the $14,000 needed to take the trip.
I just received the letter back, I was just reading it this morning, I happened to go through my mail this morning. The Speaker would like to know if we would like that request referred to the Internal Economy Board. The thought behind it, for newer members on the committee - I don't know, Frank, if you were part of that discussion or not - was that we want to try to make ourselves more available and accessible to all of Nova Scotia, especially Cape Breton. The Speaker can't give us approbation, Russell, but it is going to the Internal Economy Board. I can tell Mr. Murray Scott to make a request. You might advise the Internal Economy Board members in your caucus that there is a request coming forward. I will leave it at that. Russell, you had a motion.
MR. MACKINNON: I move that we adjourn.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:23 a.m.]