MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call the meeting to order as we do have a quorum. For committee members and anybody appropriate who doesn't know, the Strait Area Chamber of Commerce contacted us this morning and indicated, through Darlene, that because of the weather they were unable to come in. As I understand it, our next committee meeting is scheduled for February 5th whereby Don Forgeron of the Insurance Bureau of Canada will come in. Darlene, that time is 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): It's 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So perhaps we could deliberate a little bit, guys, committee members, on future meetings and witnesses.
MRS. HENRY: Has everybody got the list that was sent out?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darlene has provided each committee member with a list. I should point out - perhaps we should mention this, Darlene, if I might. You know how flexible the committee is - members, yesterday I received a call from Mr. Barry Mason of Presse Mason, a barrister firm in Bedford, and they would like to have an opportunity to present opposing views regarding the insurance rates after the committee hears from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. My comment to Mr. Mason was that we would bring it to the committee for discussion. Mr. Downe.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: I think it would be very interesting to hear both sides because it seems to me, I have been doing a lot of reading about no fault insurance and high rates of insurance and why they are going up and is this a precursor to no fault insurance strategy or whatever but I think this is a very contentious issue and I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that if you're going to have one side of the coin shown, you should show both sides so that we all know what we're talking about. So I would support that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just wondering, in the interest of, I guess, time - and again, Darlene, perhaps you can comment - I don't know how often we can meet. We have been scheduling meetings every other week where the insurance issue - Mr. Dooks, do you want to speak to that?
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a very important issue and I would like to make - I don't know about an outright motion but just for debate - maybe we can schedule the gentleman who you are talking about also in the afternoon or later on on February 5th and have the industry and also the opposing side to the industry on the same day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: I have no problem with the gentleman who requested to be here to come. I don't want to presuppose that they are the opposition to the IBC because I think we have larger groups opposed to it than just a lawyers' firm or whatever. We have consumers right across this province. I think it's good that we bring someone forward and I have no real problem whether we split that day or bring someone in on another day.
Certainly it's my perspective and the perspective of my Party, in a detailed letter to the minister about this, that the more accurate body to be looking at this is the URB and certainly with that said I have no problem with having people appear in front of us and maybe at some time giving our recommendation, if that is within our mandate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I certainly don't dispute that the URB is the more appropriate body to look at this but on the same hand, this committee, for example, entertained Aliant Canada, just so Nova Scotians have another opportunity to perhaps hear why some of these companies are proposing rate increases to the public.
Darlene, just for clarification - and then I will go to you, Don - when Mr. Mason, the solicitor from Bedford, phoned, he indicated that he was representing a coalition of . . .
MRS. HENRY: He didn't give me the name . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: He's not only speaking on behalf of the law firm in Bedford, he's speaking on behalf of a coalition of concerned citizens on insurance, he indicated to me. I apologize, I don't have the exact handle.
MR. CORBETT: And that's fair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so you know, it is an organization.
MR. CORBETT: That's not the debate. I know that there were a few lawyers plus I think a city alderman from St. John's, Newfoundland who were visiting some of the caucuses regarding no fault and I don't know whether this is his firm or part of it or whatever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, did you want to speak to bringing them in the same day or something?
MR. DOWNE: I concur with both of my colleagues here. I understood that it was a coalition, this lawyer was with a coalition, so that we were dealing with not just one individual lawyer's point of view but the broader issue. In all respect, I think all caucuses have been briefed on both sides of this issue to some degree, or at least had some presentations of representatives from both groups. I think it would be appropriate to have it here and hear what they both have to say and go forward. If we can do it on the same day, it would be ideal. I won't be here so I can say that. I know my colleague . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell MacKinnon filled in for you last week.
MR. CORBETT: If I could jump into it, I have the same problem. I'll agree to anything because I'm not going to be here on February 5th either.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's good, maybe we should proceed then, Mr. Dooks.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, indeed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hendsbee has joined the fray. David, what we are discussing now is some people would like to come in to speak about insurance, insurance rates, potential increases, et cetera, and we have two groups and we're just discussing whether or not we should try to schedule, and, Darlene, you should speak to this perhaps more so than anybody. Should we try to schedule them for the same day? Is that possible? Would that be too much for the committee members to sustain?
MRS. HENRY: We have done it before. We did it when we had Mr. Collins in with the fuel increases. We had met from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. with Sonja Wood on that issue and then we had another, I think it was from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. that we scheduled the next . . .
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, to make it a little easier, maybe we could break for half an hour between one presentation to the other. I think that would be important.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just wondering about committee members' commitments and things like that.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Just on a point of order, we are aware that we already are set from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. that day, right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: So these gentlemen want to come in after? That is a problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is, yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: Unless, of course, the insurance bureau would be so kind as to agree to come in in the morning.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a point of scheduling. I think it's a very important issue - and I'm going to retract the statement earlier of the second gentleman being on the opposing side - but I want to hear both from the group and also from the industry. I think as soon as we can do that, the better. Maybe they can go back to caucus to make sure they have someone here to represent their caucus, it's a scheduling thing just now - work with whoever. I think it's important for us to move ahead on this issue as quickly as possible; Nova Scotians are waiting.
[1:15 p.m.]
MRS. HENRY: We also meet the next week too, if you wanted to, or we can do it all in one day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Brian raised a good point. We've scheduled Mr. Forgeron and we've told different people, including our constituents, if they requested it, that the schedule is set for February 5th in the afternoon. Should we maybe consider it the following week for those with an opposing view? What do you think, Bill?
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, once again scheduling is the issue here and I think we all agree that we should hear and I would leave that up to you, Mr. Chairman, to schedule the proper time as soon as possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Frank.
MR. CORBETT: Is it their position that they want to rebut with the insurance companies or do they just merely want to put their position forward? They may be able to meet in the morning. I'm speaking as someone who just declared they weren't available on February 5th but what I'm saying is, not having seen the message or whatever, but do they want to be heard or do they want to rebut? If they just want to be heard it can be a matter of - if time is available - to bring them in in the morning, have a lunch break and then come back. I'm just doing that by way of a suggestion, if other people have schedules that don't permit that, that's fine, but I'm just asking that. Have we got a clear indication?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Their request is to have an opportunity to present opposing views regarding insurance rates after the committee hears from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which is a little unusual to make a request in that fashion. It sounds almost like their views may predicate on . . .
MR. CORBETT: Certainly, if I was here on February 5th, my views would be similar to those other people who are (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what we should do - to bring this to a conclusion - we will leave the hearing date and time as scheduled with Mr. Forgeron on February 5th. If it is feasible, we will meet on the following Tuesday with those of opposing views. Let's do it in that fashion, I think it's fair.
MR. CORBETT: That following week we have caucus retreat.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going on February 11th? Brian.
MR. BOUDREAU: What about February 6th? We could meet with the second group on the morning of February 6th.
MRS. HENRY: The morning of February 6th, I don't know how many of you are on the Public Accounts Committee which meets from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
MR. DOOKS: The same day would be best.
MR. BOUDREAU: We could meet from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If they have opposing views, will they be strengthened somewhat and protracted perhaps if they hear the presentation? What is the feeling of contacting Mr. Mason and his group to come in in the morning for 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and if that's not acceptable then we will have to reschedule.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, in principle I agree with what we are trying to do here but I would certainly like to know about Mr. Mason's group. I don't want to inhibit anyone's access to this committee but I also want to make sure it is a legitimate access. Do we agree and say that these people constitute - heaven forbid, call it a lobby group but with some kind of parameters around them. After we agree to Mr. Mason does the Frank Corbett/David Hendsbee coalition against insurance rate increases want to appear before us a week later? I know that's unlikely, but nonetheless.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the committee would be more comfortable with a written request, I think that's where you're going, Frank.
MR. CORBETT: Yes and I don't want to be picky here, I'm not trying to impede anything.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then that's what we'll do. When we get the written request we will deal with it but until that time our next meeting will be February 5th in the afternoon with Mr. Forgeron, the Insurance Bureau of Canada. I think that is the best way to go. Frank.
MR. CORBETT: I will certainly give my word that when I go back I will canvass the
people representing caucus here on February 5th on how their calendars are that day, just in case Darlene wants to call around. I will certainly tell them what may be coming down the pike.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's great. Would anyone like to make a motion regarding other potential meetings, dates, and possible witnesses? You have in front of you the witness list. Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, has there ever been representation made by the farm winery of this province? Has that been done here before?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we had the grape growers in and they went to the Resources Committee in addition.
MR. HENDSBEE: Fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Richard Hurlburt, I guess now a former committee member, seemed quite interested in bringing Black Bull Resources in, if you recall, during the last meeting. I don't know if we can put that in the form of a motion for general discussion. What's the committee's feeling on bringing Black Bull Resources in?
MR. HENDSBEE: I also know that Mr. O'Donnell for Shelburne is interested and also Mr. Morash for Queens.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. CORBETT: If you look at the three caucuses the one common denominator is we all want something to do with the ports. I wonder if that is something we can pursue. I know the NDP caucus talks about Sydney, the Liberal caucus talks about Halifax and the Tory caucus put forward Yarmouth. If we recall our discussions last time about that it was twofold - the ports as economic drivers, plus any costs that may have to be borne by those ports from the federal government. If I recall, I think that was Mr. Hurlburt's position, as it related to the Yarmouth Port and how that was cost-effective. I think he talked about the Yarmouth airport that there was a cost and they weren't aware of it. I don't know whether we want to look at the ports, maybe in their entirety?
I know in Cape Breton, the port situation is a fairly timely topic because of the involvement of the municipality and now a company that's partnering with the provincial government, plus Emera's stake in it. That's what I put forward, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HENDSBEE: To follow up on that, it would be an interesting topic but I wonder if there would also be an opportunity to talk about the divestitures that the federal government is doing on the wharves and ports across the province and what impacts that has on the smaller communities. I think that will be a significant burden on the province, municipalities, or local groups that are going to be transferred, in regard to how they are going to deal with these realities of taking over these wharves and ports where there is no longer federal participation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don.
MR. DOWNE: Actually, on the whole issue of ports - and I do appreciate my colleague from Cape Breton - I don't think any one Party has only one particular port in mind. I think we are concerned because I worked with your caucus on the Port of Halifax as a post-Panamax issue; Sheet Harbour has a huge port opportunity and what are we doing there; Sydney, Cape Breton has a huge opportunity; Shelburne has a tremendous economic opportunity with their port; Halifax and Dartmouth; and the list goes on.
What I see, when we talk about the Port Corporation and what's going on here but also in the broader context of port opportunities in Nova Scotia, what is unique to the Port of Halifax might very well also have an opportunity for some other areas. Maybe what we should be looking at, as an economic development arm here, or committee, is strategy with regard to the development of ports. I see ports, I see the airport and transportation overall as being very key for tourism, very key for export, very key for our primary resource industries, and very key for economic development and the manufacturing sector. All of those are important to us.
Coupled with that, I guess, the divestiture issue can be a bar within that issue, not only on the issue of ports but on the whole issue of river bottoms and everything else that they're talking about now; I can't understand why they would ever want to go that far. I see there is an opportunity for us to look at from a development point of view and a positive point of view about what we can do with these areas for economic growth because budgets are being put together now and there is probably all sorts of squeezing, but if you don't grow the economy it isn't going to happen, it's going to be cut - or grow the economy or a combination thereof.
We have a great opportunity down in Sheet Harbour for economic development in a port. What are we doing strategically and where does that fit strategically for that community? Or in Shelburne? I am being very sincere. And Sydney. There are a number of them. We need to take a look at, I think, the broad issue of ports. What do we need to do to make it work? You have Bay Ferries that do business with them, you have other carriers that do things with them, and we could really focus on the development side. Sheet Harbour will not be a port like Halifax, but it could very well be a port of some value, creating wealth and opportunity for the people in that area. That's what we need to take a look at and what programs or what issues we can bring forward to help that.
I don't have the answers to all those questions, but I do think that there is not a strategy in place that looks at the broad issue of the economic opportunity of port development in Nova Scotia. I think there should be.
MR. HENDSBEE: To follow up on the honourable member's comments, which organization would you bring in? Would you bring in DFO, Ports and Harbours Authority that used to have this? Is there a federal government department that had this responsibility? We have the Department of Transportation becoming more involved because of the divestiture. (Interruption) We have the private sector groups. Who do we bring in to talk about all this? It's an over-cumbersome issue, but the problem is, is there a group to represent them all, or is there (Interruptions)
MR. DOWNE: The reason I'm saying it is because it is so complicated. The first group you would have in is the Port Corporation. They have a fairly sophisticated understanding of what's going on, especially with their port but for other ports they have a general idea. That gives you the view for here. Then I think at that point we would start looking at who we need to bring in to build this strategy. For example, you have RDAs in each one of the areas that have ports. They might have recommendations with regard to what is required to develop that port. I think it kind of grows a little bit from there. You have unions that talk about, dock workers, what do we need?
Until you have some people coming in that have some expertise about how we develop the ports and not just one, we're never going to do it, it's going to be an ad hoc, small thing and one port will get all the attention, and others should be getting it. I think we
have to have a strategy on ports, and I don't think it's impossible. I think we need to bring the people in to do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I almost think - and I say this with all respect - that Yarmouth and maybe even Sheet Harbour may have some difficulty with the Halifax Port Authority speaking . . .
MR. DOWNE: Oh no, I'm not saying (Interruptions) I'm just saying that we have to start somewhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could, just hear me out. We have to start somewhere, but as I understood, during the last meeting, the member for Yarmouth was talking specifically about the Yarmouth Harbour Port Authority. They have some concerns that are very unique, and he mentioned them, Don. I guess Russell was in, subbing for you. He mentioned concerns that were unique to Yarmouth. Sheet Harbour has concerns. I know you're talking about the overall economic strategy for all these ports, is there any strategy in place? I think you almost have to, perhaps, consider bringing some witness in, like from the Yarmouth area or from the Sheet Harbour area, to get a sense and a flavour of the concerns that they're facing. I know you don't mean this, but the Halifax Port Corp . . .
MR. DOWNE: I just want to make it clear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, make it clear, Don.
MR. DOWNE: I have no problem inviting Yarmouth but I think we need to invite Shelburne, I think we need to invite Sheet Harbour, and I think we need to invite Halifax, and I think we need to invite Sydney. If there is some other port that I'm not aware, that's important . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: Strait of Canso.
MR. DOWNE: Strait of Canso.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Port Joli.
MR. DOWNE: Port Joli. (Laughter) Seriously, the Strait is a huge economic opportunity with Statia Terminals. Bring those people in to make a presentation specifically about what the port is doing and what is required to make that port a more economically viable operation in the Province of Nova Scotia, asking them those questions.
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you making a motion, David?
MR. HENDSBEE: I agree with the member. The question is, where do we start? I personally would like to think that we should probably start at the top and bring in the federal departments who divested themselves, look at the history of it, perhaps, and then go down from there, because they're passing it down to the province and communities. I don't know if you want to start from the ground up, they are going to complain about what happened, or should we get a rationale on why they were divested in the first place.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize Frank, it's more difficult to bring federal witnesses in to our hearings. Obviously they are under no obligation. However, my experience has been, and I'll take my direction from the committee here, that with federal witnesses and with their views, sometimes we lose sight of the municipal and the provincial levels of government. However, it's important, of course, to look at all the various levels and what they're doing or what they're not doing. Anyway, Frank, what's your take on this?
MR. CORBETT: I think, just by how this discussion is going, it says a lot about the importance of the ports within this province. All the Parties here have a strong position on it. One of the reasons we put forward the Port of Sydney was that at the time the provincial government was partnering on the Sysco wharves with AMCI and they have now come up with a company called, I think it's, Provincial Energy Ventures, PEV. We're not just looking at the one side of this, this was a federal wharf and now we're selling it to the local fishermen or whatever.
One of the aspects of this is how we use them, I'm not excluding the fishery as an economic provider, because I understand that completely, but when we use port facilities as overall cargo it's a little bit different, when the local fish group took over the wharf in Lingan, compared to the Sysco wharves or the Devco wharves or the what was considered the federal wharf in Sydney. I don't think we can take all these players in and ask them the same questions because they are different. My colleague, Mr. Downe, when he talks about the Port of Halifax or the stuff that can go on in Sheet Harbour, I think it's a different aspect because we are looking at cargo, I believe, and export and so on. Then there is the whole other aspect of the smaller wharves through divestiture, how that affects those communities.
Maybe we should kind of separate them out, if they can be separated. My reaction would be that we would certainly look at one set of wharves a little bit differently than others.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm at the beck and call of the committee. Does anybody have a witness they might put forward?
MR. DOWNE: We all have witnesses that we've said here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Make a motion, somebody.
MR. DOWNE: But I just want to go back to the issue of divestiture, it is like after the horse is out of the barn, you go back and you talk about why the horse got out of the barn. Well, the horse is out of the barn. The issue really is, what do we do with regard to the larger ones? I can take you to a wharf in Dublin Shore, well the divestiture of that wharf is for fishermen. That's at one level, and it's not more important or less important. It's very important to the fishermen down in Dublin Shore.
I'm talking about a strategy of ports that are at a broader level. We can eventually work down through that, but I'm talking about, with the offshore and other things, what can be done with Sheet Harbour? That's originally why that was built, the port here, on cargo. I think we have to take a look at the larger ports to begin with, Sheet Harbour is a large port, the Port of Halifax is a large port, the Sydney, Cape Breton Port and the Yarmouth Port, and you have one in Shelburne that does a lot of export through Bowater Mersey. I would think those would be the range to start off with, invite them, whoever can come first or second, and talk about a strategy on wharves.
The other one is that the chamber of commerce has a strategy on wharves but it is more parochial to maybe HRM kind of a thing but that would be my thinking and I should stop and let my colleague speak.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, just food for thought, I guess, Enterprise Cape Breton is the body, I believe, that is responsible to provide program funding and programs to various port authorities throughout the province. Perhaps we want to bring them in here to learn more about what programs are available to the ports. If we feel that there are not enough programs and money allowed toward this development, perhaps this is the body that we should acknowledge first. That is just food for thought. I know Enterprise Cape Breton aggressively, a few years ago, promoted the development of ports through tourism and federal tourism and they sort of combined it.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, talking about the Sheet Harbour Port and Mr. Downe is quite right, it is a different flavour than most in Nova Scotia. There is an agreement between Cerescorp and the province, which you are well aware of, and I believe there was a strategy at that time to pick up and increase the port traffic but that hasn't happened. I have worked with Cerescorp, the government, especially over the last five years. So that would provide an opportunity for this committee to search out, seek, inform what is taking place in Sheet Harbour. I think it would be good to have Cerescorp come in as a witness and call them with the understanding of other members giving them ideas. I believe it is similar to the agreement that the Port Authority has with the province in the federal government but we are not seeing any increase in traffic there.
There would be a lot interesting issues surrounding the Sheet Harbour Port. We have the deep water, it is ice free, it is close to metro, it is in between Canso and Halifax. There are just some good, solid questions and some dialogue that we could have with that group.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you making that a motion?
MR. DOOKS: Yes. I am just saying, talking about Sheet Harbour as we talk about the differences, we also have other government wharves that the federal government has owned and is turning over to the community. I guess dealing with both issues that I would be supportive of having independent or private sector people come in and also the federal government, provincial government. Maybe we could dedicate the next three or four meetings, once we get rolling, to different port issues. When we talk about the port, I don't think any one community or the province can lose. The more attention, the more pressure of a new strategy surrounding the ports would only be beneficial. I can't see it not being discussed. We talk about the wharves being the gateway to heaven and prosperity and we are going to have our growth, the offshore, foreign markets, let's bring it, put it on the table, put it in the committee and have some good, solid conversation and ask some questions that should possibly have been asked in the past or get some direction on where these guys are going with this stuff.
MR. DOWNE: Herein lies one of the problems, when you are in power or you are out of power, the complexity of trying to work out a strategy for port development. HRM, or the port down here, looks at whether we should be moving Halterm over to Rockingham and making that the port because it has the rail and it has everything else and the geotechnical and geothermal testing has been done. It meets all the requirements. (Interruption) There are some strategies that have been kicking around. Some research has been done but when you put the context of ports across the province in that context, very little has been done as how does this overlay and how does this work together? How can we work this together? I think the outside communities are saying this is good for Halifax and we support that but what are we going to do for the development of Sydney? What mechanisms need to be put in place to work throughout all of Nova Scotia that would make this particular province a point of entry in export and trade? Now let's face it, without a rail, there is no port and without a port there is no rail, so you have to have rail. You have to have some access . . .
MR. DOOKS: Infrastructure.
MR. DOWNE: . . . infrastructure to be able to move that cargo. ACL and everybody else have been here for 25 or 30 years and Ceres loves this port and they love our union and all that kind of stuff but price is an issue. What is required in our pricing? Are we price structuring right? There are a number of things that could be done. I think it could be extremely interesting but . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, just for my information, maybe I am misinformed, David talked about divestiture, the federal government in terms of the ports, we know what they have done with the airports. I understand that that process is nearly complete.
MR. DOWNE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so it is almost like you said, the cow being out of the barn and the door is closed.
MR. DOWNE: I was trying to quote you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but that is a moot point, right? For us to entertain feds about divestiture, it is no good to go back and hammer away at them because that is complete. (Interruption) The Halifax Port Corporation and the Greater Halifax Partnership and you are right, these different organizations within the city, seem to have a strategy that they feel should be followed but I bet you your experience has been that it is almost exclusive to the Port of Halifax. So what I am saying is, who do we bring in first to start?
MR. DOWNE: I would bring them in first because they have done the most amount of work that is there, with the understanding that we would not only find out what their views are of the future of the port but to be able to start posing these questions with regard to the other areas. They might have given some thought to this, and I am not aware of that. Then what we could do is, I think Sydney has done a great deal of research and we can determine how we want to do it from there.
It is a work in progress here but the first one is to get HRM here, the Halifax Port, the Port Commission and you have the chamber of commerce and they have done a lot of work. Then I think we need to take a look at these other ones in conjunction with that and with the idea that at the end of the day we would be looking at a strategy of what we can do.
MR. CORBETT: In essence, I agree with Mr. Downe. I don't have any real problem. I want to expand a bit because the folks around, especially the municipal unit in Cape Breton, have been really active around ports and their strategy is they see the importance of various ports in Sydney Harbour to their economic development. They are almost the opposite to what we have here in HRM. HRM has long-established clients, ACL and so on, that have been here for years. Industrial Cape Breton now, because of the situation of Devco and Sysco, those wharves are being sold off so this is becoming new to industrial Cape Breton. The regional municipality has taken over the government wharf, the Laurentian Group has purchased Sydport, PEV, as I said, has taken over the Sysco wharves, Emera has taken over the Devco wharves.
So I have no problem agreeing with my colleague, Mr. Downe, to say we will bring in the ports around HRM, I will call them for lack of a better word because they are established and then follow up with people, whether it is the Port Authority from Cape Breton, to come up here and present evidence and try to shed some light. If there is such a motion that we can get a hold of the port authorities from HRM to appear before us first, quite possibly, in my humble opinion, get Cape Breton next. I put that out to try to move the meeting along.
MR. CHAIRMAN: David.
MR. HENDSBEE: I would like to concur with the discussion that is going to date. I am kind of wondering some of the background information. I don't know if Darlene would be able to find it or whatever the case may be, but is there a directory? I know the Port of Halifax has a directory showing the berths, they show on the map, the time and show the depths of the harbour, the wharves and stuff and what the capacity of those particular outports are. Is there such a directory showing all the industrial ports of Nova Scotia? I know there is one for Sheet Harbour, I know there is one for Halifax. I am pretty sure there is something for the Strait and something for Sydport but I wasn't sure if there is one document the Department of Economic Development has, whatever, that shows the wharf at Shelburne, the wharf at Yarmouth, the wharf up there in Pictou, there used to be one up there in Windsor years ago, I don't know if it's still used or not. There should be a directory showing the tonnages, the harbour depths, the approaches, all that information with regard to what each of the ports offer in regard to capacity.
[1:45 p.m.]
MR. DOOKS: Just once again talking about the Sheet Harbour Port, we must remember that the Sheet Harbour Port is in the HRM. When we talk about the Halifax Port Authority, I would like to have them here, quite right, first off to discuss what relationship they have with Cerescorp and/or the province, what their philosophy is surrounding the lack of rail to the Sheet Harbour Port, because we do believe that when you talk port you must talk rail, but that's not quite true because the Sheet Harbour Port could be used for loading rebar or open-hull shipping or, I don't know, gravel. There would be some things that may not - let's not be silly about this, we understand that Sheet Harbour is not geared to take containers, this sort of thing.
But the Port Authority must understand that we could pick up the traffic that maybe is not favourable to them and redirect. They have to understand, do they want to monopolize all the traffic in Nova Scotia, or are they willing to allow some to go to different ports? It's important for me to be able to sit here and tell Nova Scotians in the shipping world market that in Sheet Harbour we do have a different rate. The union there has signed different agreements for a set hourly rate. We have cheaper tie-up fees at the port. There is a whole bunch of things that maybe the world market does not understand about the Port of Sheet
Harbour, that's there and available. Where we're falling short is on a strategy to sell the port and entertain traffic from foreign ports or whatever.
We don't want the moon there, but we do want some traffic in the Sheet Harbour Port to help the economy, that's quite true. Mr. Downe, I think you would agree, ever since you have known me I have been talking about the Sheet Harbour Port, the Sheet Harbour Port, or the No. 7 Highway, you can't take that from me. I believe that Sheet Harbour has great potential, if only we could address the issues that are surrounding the port and get moving on that instead of saying well, someday something is going to come to Sheet Harbour, well the people - honestly, Mr. Chairman - can't wait any longer.
Through this committee, if we have to make recommendations to this government that infrastructure has to be put in place to the Sheet Harbour Port, then we must do that as a committee. Remember, this committee serves all Nova Scotians.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Bill, if I could, with all respect, there is a considerable wood chip development and operation by Mitsubishi, I'm sure you are aware of that. It is appreciated by folks in the Musquodoboit Valley and of course along the Eastern Shore that that, I won't call it an anchor tenant, but I think that there is great potential, and nobody disputes that. In fact yesterday a constituent phoned me and said, where do you fill the applications out? I said, what applications are you talking about? She said, I heard that Tusket Mining is going to start - apparently they purchased some land, I don't know where it's from, Cerescorp or from the province, adjacent to the port. You can enlighten us there. They are going to start shipping. Again, speaking of rail, it would be nice if there was a rail in place, there isn't, but they are going to start shipping gypsum to points abroad from the Sheet Harbour dock facility, but again I don't know the details on that one.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I am certainly aware of all potential business for the port. When the business comes, we'll certainly appreciate that, but that does not stifle my, I guess, aggression to continue to lobby for the port and to ask the government to provide infrastructure. That is somewhat separate from the Sheet Harbour Port but adjacent to it, and we certainly entertain the hope that that will be beneficial to our area. Northern Fibre, yes, does ship chip, and we appreciate that as well, but there is so much more potential for the Sheet Harbour Port.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to get some of them for Long Lake.
MR. DOOKS: We have hundreds of acres of area that's willing to be developed to promote traffic and we can go on forever. The point is, the Sheet Harbour Port is important to me, it's important to the people of the Eastern Shore, it's important to Nova Scotia, and I would like to be able to bring the Port Authority in and Cerescorp in. If we are going to start talking about developing the rural areas of Nova Scotia, let's start doing it, and this is the way to do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The chairman is still waiting for a motion. Don.
MR. DOWNE: I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we undertake the review and potential strategy for port development in Nova Scotia and start the hearings off with the Halifax Port Corporation in conjunction with who they feel would be appropriate to be here, that would tie into meeting my colleague's concern with the whole area of the HRM. Subsequent to that, contact the Sydney Port Authority and to meet the following week with Sydney and then with Yarmouth and Shelburne. They could probably do a joint one maybe, making sure, we might want to check that out. I don't understand if there is a problem between the two or not.
MR. HENDSBEE: A little bit of competitiveness there.
MR. DOWNE: A little competitive there but maybe you might want to check with Mr. Hurlburt to see if that would be a problem. If it is a problem, I wouldn't want to bring them in here.
MR. HENDSBEE: I think there is a local RDA down there who could probably handle that question.
MR. DOWNE: From that point, that will lock us in for the next period of time but during this period of meetings, we can continue to develop what else we need to do within that strategy to take a look at it. For example, I do think that we could take a look at what other infrastructure requirements would be there and that might broaden this out, and we will hear from the port people. I would move that far at this point, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does your motion, Don, include provision to address, like Bill is concerns regarding Sheet Harbour?
MR. DOWNE: Exactly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With the Halifax Port Authority?
MR. DOWNE: The Halifax Port Corporation is the body that oversees them and the ports. They are responsible, as I understand, Bill, correct me if I am wrong . . .
MR. HENDSBEE: For the promotion of Sheet Harbour?
MR. DOWNE: Exactly, or the lack of it and why.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, well that would be good then.
MR. DOWNE: That would start us off with knowing where we go and we might find from that that we are on the right track or maybe we might have to fine-tune it a little bit but we will know what the heck is going on and then we can start drilling down deeper. I think at this point that would be the first. Then we would go up to Cape Breton and then we will go down there. This is a huge issue but if an Economic Development Committee is to do something, to bring someone forth, it should do its homework to come up with some sort of general strategy because I don't think any government has ever had a long-term, general port strategy from a provincial perspective other than one or two specific ports. I move that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HENDSBEE: I will second that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Seconded by David. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
If we can arrange it, through Darlene, we would have the Halifax Port Corporation attend our meeting on February 19th, keeping February 12th open for those with opposing views to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
MR. HENDSBEE: Plus the NDP caucus are out of town that week for a meeting, aren't you?
MR. CORBETT: Yes, week long.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank, would it be possible if we held that hearing in the morning with that barrister firm representing this coalition or whatever, would the morning be more facilitating for the NDP or would that be out as well?
MR. CORBETT: I think it would be out. I will tell you what. Can we just leave that in abeyance?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. CORBETT: We have caucus tomorrow. I will bring it to caucus and I will instruct them to contact you later on in the day, Darlene.
MRS. HENRY: Sure, that will be great.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That sounds fair. So the motion was for the Halifax Port Corporation, the Sydney Port and the Yarmouth Port people, appropriate organizations, in that order. Now, that is going to take us well into February, towards the end of February, if something should come up, should we not - again, perhaps I should reiterate that we are flexible at this committee. If there is something that is timely, we will contact Darlene, who has, in the past, helped us to communicate with the various caucuses about a potential witness or something that may come up.
MR. DOWNE: There is another issue I would like to bring up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I had one here regarding the Black Bull Resources. I know it is important to Yarmouth and Shelburne Counties. Should we defer that to obviously a future date?
MR. HENDSBEE: My only comment to that would be how they are going to be exporting their stuff out, by rail or by truck? It is quite important. I am sure the port . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is an issue but also an issue is the actual development, exploratory has been completed but Mr. Hurlburt seemed to indicate that the developmental stage of that mining project is sort of - I don't know whether it is in abeyance but the community doesn't know what the heck is happening. Do you know anything about it, Don?
MR. DOWNE: No.
MR. CORBETT: Is Mr. Hurlburt not part of this committee anymore?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry.
MR. CORBETT: Oh, I thought I might have heard you wrong - that he was no longer part of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you heard me correctly. He is no longer part of the committee. MLA Bill Langille, Colchester North, is replacing Richard. Richard is going to the Public Accounts Committee, as I understand it.
MR. CORBETT: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe he can bring them into the Public Accounts Committee. Is that what your implication is?
MR. CORBETT: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, did you have something further?
MR. DOWNE: Yes, a follow-up on that all-Party committee on agriculture. You know I talked to the minister about it. I brought it up in the House and, Mr. Chairman, he mentioned that he had had dialogue with you and that things were underway. I am not disputing the minister not being forthcoming in the House but maybe you can inform us as to where we are on that issue and what I understood he told you but I would like to know what you heard and where we are going.
I felt this committee was very sincere about trying to do something on that agriculture issue. I thought all three Parties were saying we want to work with the department and the industry. I felt a little foolish after I was coming to that conclusion. It has been an issue that has been kicked around in all the caucuses and then you go to the House and then the minister says, well, I have already presented it to the chairman. It was just awkward. Maybe we could find out what we are doing and where we are going.
It sets a precedent. It establishes a precedent. If that is the case, then you are going to wonder, well why make a motion for an all-Party committee to work on something if they are never going to be listened to. The Premier asked us to be part of an all-Party committee on dealing with the trade negotiations and we agreed, and so did the New Democratic Party agree. We are working on that but we, as a committee, made the motion. It was unanimously passed. It was not restricted whatsoever, so I would like you to maybe brief us on where we are and what the situation is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, member, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries did tell me while the House was in session, toward the end of the sitting, that he would be announcing the all-Party committee. Now I realize, because of some health problems, I haven't been in Halifax perhaps as often as I would like but I don't recall seeing any correspondence from the minister regarding that all-Party committee. I would add, too, that Laurence Nason, Executive Director of the Federation of Agriculture, phoned me, I believe it was last week, around the middle of the week, and asked me the same question that you are asking. So perhaps in the interest of bringing this to a conclusion, we should go back and . . .
MR. DOWNE: I would like to move that we write another letter to the minister indicating that we are still interested to hear the official response unless the committee has changed their mind. If the minister said he was going to do it at the end of the session, he might have forgotten. We will give him the benefit of the doubt but I think we should put another letter together from our committee, and I move that we do, requesting the all-Party committee to deal with these very important, pressing issues in agriculture that are supported by the Federation of Agriculture and an all-Party committee of this House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don, what do you remember? Did you not ask the minister a question about this in Question Period?
MR. DOWNE: Twice I did.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What was his response the last time just from recall? (Interruptions) Well, you asked me what he told me so I am asking you what he told you.
MR. DOWNE: Absolutely nothing is what I got back. I understand what he had said (Interruption) No, no. I retract that. What the minister had said was that he had been in dialogue - and I paraphrase this - that he had been in discussions with you, as chairman, and that something would be forthcoming. That is all I basically was able to get out of him.
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, well, he did indicate that to me. Perhaps in our letter we could go back and reference the date when the motion was passed, and in the interest of co-operation and fairness, rather than me signing a letter as chairman solely, we could have it from all committee members - we could have it drafted up. We are very sincere about it and I know my colleagues are sincere about it, so perhaps to get some official documentation, we should send a letter off from this committee to that minister. Would that . . .
MR. DOWNE: We could cc it off to the Federation of Agriculture so that they know . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I would like you to have the same response that I'm getting and the same reply.
MR. DOWNE: Yes, great.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that fair? (Interruptions) We are joined now by Mora Stevens.
MR. BOUDREAU: I'll second the motion Mr. Downe made.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that a letter go off to the minister regarding the all-Party committee to deal with agriculture concerns. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
An hour has expired. Do we want to deal with any other potential witnesses, or any other comments? We do have a request from the Town of Canso, Mayor Frank Fraser. Mr. Fraser did call me as well, he would like to come in and . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: I'll move a motion that we accept his invitation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . the witness make a presentation to the committee. Is it agreed? It is agreed.
Now I understand, too from some folks in Canso, actually to be honest, one family, that it would be very timely and appropriate to bring Mr. Fraser in again, ASAP.
MR. BOUDREAU: That's fine with me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the disposition of the rest of the committee?
MR. HENDSBEE: Could I ask what his issues might be, is there a letter (Interruption) The fish plant and what else?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The letter is attached. I think his concerns primarily focus on the fish plant, Seafreez.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, I think it is around Seafreez, plus we sometimes talk in generalities about Guysborough County and the benefits they've received, being that that's the point where natural gas comes ashore, but I think there's a real discrepancy in certain areas of Guysborough; some have gained economically and others have not. I think that may be another facet of Mayor Fraser's intervention with us. Certainly, again, I agree too that one of the larger points he has right now is the trawler fleet and how that's been affected with the temporary or periodic closure of the Seafreez plant. I think he has a couple of major issues that are certainly worth having a look at.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm a bit negligent, because Frank Fraser did contact me some time ago. Is there any interest in trying to bring Mr. Fraser in next Tuesday, January 29th? I apologize because he did contact me quite some time ago, and I know he contacted Darlene.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would agree that January 29th would be acceptable to us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe there's a Standing Committee on Human Resources that day. Mora . . .
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): And Resources in the morning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Resources in the morning. Are they both in the morning?
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we not meet in the afternoon? We caucus the next day, our caucus does at least. Would that be agreeable to the Liberal caucus?
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes it is.
MR. CORBETT: I would have to check it out, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll wait to hear back, if you would let them know here. We're okay with it, if it can be arranged. If not, we'll have to schedule after. Perhaps we should bring him in anyway before we start with the Port Authority.
MR. BOUDREAU: I agree, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CORBETT: Pencil January 29th in . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are flexible.
MS. STEVENS: If you do hold it, it would be from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and if January 29th isn't appropriate or can't be accommodated, then we'll have to try for after the February 5th date.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, if I may, as a former municipal councillor I think it's important for us to recognize that the mayor has requested this meeting, and that we as elected provincial representatives should do the utmost to ensure that his request is dealt with as quickly as possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. HENDSBEE: The three of us who have been municipal councillors have to agree.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you, Mr. Hendsbee. At least we agree on something.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He's including me on that side. I'm really a very impartial chairman, as you know. (Interruptions)
I guess what we're saying is we'll have the Insurance Bureau of Canada in February 5th. If Mr. Fraser can't come in on January 29th, if it can't be accommodated here, then we will try to schedule it for the next meeting of the committee. Then we'll go into the Port Authority subsequent to that. I apologize, he maybe contacted you, too, about coming in. He seems quite . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: He must be a Tory.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he ran for the orange flavour.
MR. BOUDREAU: That's okay, it doesn't matter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't understand, he's an awful nice guy.
MR. BOUDREAU: It's obvious he has concerns and we should really deal with them as quickly as possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, on a serious note? Does anyone want to move adjournment?
MR. CORBETT: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Adjournment moved by Frank Corbett.
The meeting is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 2:07 p.m.]