MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to bring this meeting to order, if I could. The meeting this morning is to deal with meetings down the road and potential witnesses. For recording purposes, I would ask if committee members would identify themselves. Perhaps we could begin with Howard.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does somebody want to begin? Obviously committee members have a copy of the past witness suggestions from the PC caucus, the Liberal caucus and the NDP. I'm not sure if any of those suggestions are still relevant and we also have a new list this morning from the Liberal caucus for Economic Development witness consideration. So if an honourable member would like to begin we could perhaps deliberate. Howard.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: We have another couple of suggestions to make. I'm sorry they aren't in writing but perhaps members could add them to the list that they have in front of them. One has to do with following up on the general turmoil in the stock markets following the Enron and other associated scandals. Of course we have a securities commission here and there is a professional accountants body in Nova Scotia. What we thought was that it might be useful to hear from them with respect to our general corporate and securities laws as to whether there is anything we ought to be doing as a province in order to make changes to the rules that affect how accounting information is presented to the public and potential investors. So that was one topic that we wanted to suggest.
Another has to do with the outlook on home heating fuel prices for this coming winter. That has to do with potential turmoil and ways in which the cost of fuels might rise.
1
The third we would like to bring to your attention has to do with the future of ship-building in Nova Scotia. Given their prominent place in owning and operating shipyards, we thought we might consider the possibility of inviting one of the branches of the Irving companies to come and speak with us about the future of shipbuilding. So those are a few that we have. There are a couple of others. Frank might want to speak to a couple of others but those are some that we have on our list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, Howard. Frank.
MR. FRANK CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, EnCana and the status of the Deep Panuke, I think that would be what we've seen going around the province. I won't be long on these here. Obviously, I think it's something that we've been trying to focus on and this, again, is more of a large suggestion than one that is sharp-pointed as just economic development in coastal communities. In the past we have been focusing on ports in the more rural areas and so on. I think that is an extension of maybe even what's on the books today. I don't know if Howard brought up the one of home heating, possible fuel prices this winter and the offshore opportunities for Nova Scotia companies, what we are doing to attract and maintain work for Nova Scotia companies in the offshore.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Frank. Are there any other suggestions for possible add-ons to our present list from the Liberal caucus? Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, we brought some additional suggested witnesses because I think we were asked to. One idea that we thought would be good would be, given the fact that Nova Scotia Business Inc. has been in operation for more than a year, it would be an opportunity to see how they are measuring up, their success, as per their business plan - that was our mindset there - and/or the Office of Economic Development, kind of a snapshot on that.
My colleague, the member for Richmond, suggested the Strait Area Chamber of Commerce because, as we know, the Strait area is kind of caught in the mix between industrial Cape Breton and Halifax and has its unique characteristics. That would be an opportunity to hear from those folks as to how they're fitting in the mould of this new economy and the offshore development, that was the intent there. Also, with the Greater Halifax Partnership, there seems to be a lot of promotion about that as of late, so just to hear those folks and see how they fit into the big picture.
Those were essentially ours. The other ones that are on the list, they're still in the mix if the committee sees fit. I'm a relatively new member here, as you know, so I'm at the will of the committee in how it functions and how you intend to proceed.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for some clarification about one of those. On the list I see it says the Greater Halifax Partnership, oil and gas study. I'm not sure what that means. Is the Greater Halifax Partnership doing a particular study on oil and gas? Is that what that meant?
MR. MACKINNON: No. My understanding is that they're doing some analysis as to how Halifax is benefiting because of the activity since it first started several years ago. I don't know if you've noticed, over the weekend there were a couple of documentaries on the offshore and how it has progressed. That was on, I believe, CPAC. I watched it; it was a one-hour documentary. It was quite informative, actually it was very positive towards Nova Scotia and Eastern Canada.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do we know when the partnership's study will be ready?
MR. MACKINNON: No. I'm a little naive on that information, Howard. I suppose in concert with the fact that I've reviewed the annual report from the previous year's work, and to be honest I was quite impressed with how much work the committee did do and the depth of it, but I felt there was a lot of emphasis on the resource industry and perhaps, maybe, we could move over into some other areas as well, some of the traditional resource areas.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that the proposal from the Liberal caucus, of course, would include similar issues that the NDP caucus is proposing, for instance, when we look at the offshore opportunities or let's look at the rural opportunities in economic development. Nova Scotia Business Inc. should really bring us up to speed on what the plans are for rural Nova Scotia and what they intend to do to enhance job opportunities in rural areas. Shipbuilding may fall under the Greater Halifax Partnership, it's possible. Economic Development actually has a good reputation. I think they're good proposals to bring, to seek out information about these issues, such as the NDP have brought up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly what we're doing, we're looking at potential suggestions and add-ons. Mary Ann.
MS. MARY ANN MCGRATH: I just wanted to follow up on the Greater Halifax Partnership. I will wait until Russell is finished. It's mostly for your information, Russell. I've met with the Greater Halifax Partnership. I think the study you're speaking of is complete, but it's not a study of, so much, how we've benefited to date as a projection 20 years out, depending on the level of gas found and marketed, where would we be in scenario a, b or c, what would the market look like, what would the economic spin-off be, the change in population, metro versus the rest of the province, where would the benefits lie, the infrastructure requirements, all of that kind of thing.
MR. MACKINNON: That would be a good one to hear from.
MS. MCGRATH: Actually that's only one of several. They're also the authors of the report on the Halifax-Moncton business corridor, which is gaining some popularity. They've done a number of different studies in different areas of economic growth that have to do not just with metro but with key business sites, if you want to call them, around the Atlantic Provinces.
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: That sounds like it would be interesting.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, if I may, my understanding is the good member from across the table . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Halifax Bedford Basin.
MR. BOUDREAU: It's important for the committee and the government and other areas of Nova Scotia to know what's planned, providing we have an impact from the offshore. The Greater Halifax Partnership, I would suggest, is very important.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just throw this out, there's quite a bit of discussion about the Kyoto Protocol these days. I know that the oil and gas industry has presented a pretty strong case regarding Kyoto, but a lot of our resource-based industries really don't know what the potential impacts will be. I'm talking about farming, forestry, fishing and mining. According to different information sources, whether it's on the Internet or reading some publication from Alberta, they believe, in that province at least, that farming could be somewhat impacted. I'm just throwing this out, where it seems to be pretty topical, but according to polls at least 80 per cent of Canadians are, I say with all respect, in the dark about what Kyoto means. I would suggest probably a lot of politicians are; I know I am.
MR. MACKINNON: It's a city in Japan.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's a city in Japan, yes. I'm wondering, I think Nova Scotia would be interested in knowing what the potential impacts are. There is great talk that the Prime Minister is going to implement or at least ratify - this year he's going to put it before Parliament. I've talked to members in the farming community, some sawmill owners, and they're not saying a whole lot about it but they probably don't know any more than that 80 per cent out there that is uninformed.
I'm just wondering if you feel that it might be of some value to this committee. Now, maybe committee members would have some suggestions - Mary Ann - as to who we might consider bringing in to, perhaps, impart some information to us.
MS. MCGRATH: There is staff, wherever they fall now - they were with Environment and Economic Development but they may now be in the Energy Department - but we do have staff, I've been to conferences with them, who are extremely knowledgeable across the industrial base on the effects of Kyoto in our own province. It's their job to know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, I'm trying to zero in specifically on the old traditional resource-based industries.
MR. CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, I think we have a fairly comprehensive witness list and there are many on the old witness list and some of the new ones that a lot of the Parties have put forward. Obviously Nova Scotia Power is one from the government's list, and I think that's certainly one because their major fuel is coal. They certainly would have some opinion on Kyoto. I think we have Nova Scotia Business Inc., EnCana and the home heating fuel association, if they are witnesses. I think we may have enough witnesses on the list that would maybe give us a more rounded version than if we just brought in the people from the Department of Energy who said, here's our gospel. I think if we went out to the wide range of witnesses that we have here, it could probably give us a better picture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might, whereas I brought it up, what I was hoping, Frank, was that we could bring in that independent, impartial body before this committee to impart some general information about the possible impacts. If you're going to bring in Nova Scotia Power, I would suggest you're going to receive, possibly, probably, a pro-business perspective of what the impacts of Kyoto are. I was hoping that as a committee - and we don't have to do it today but it is quite topical and maybe even timely - we could bring somebody in who we all agreed was perhaps quite knowledgeable on the subject and could bring us all up to speed on the pros and cons of Kyoto. I'm at the beck and call of the committee.
MR. DEWOLFE: Our caucus agrees.
MR. CORBETT: Well, if we can find someone impartial, fill your boots, we're there with you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You just mentioned coal, like Nova Scotia Power, whereas Manitoba and Quebec generate most of their power through hydro and there is a big distinction. Anyway, I just threw it out. Mary Ann.
MS. MCGRATH: I think I know where you are headed with this, Mr. Chairman, and I would agree, specific industry players I have spoken to have their own spin on their specific industry. The department folks who I have spoken to - and if I can remember the fellow's name, I will pass it along to you - actually have, as you say, the pros and cons, what are the issues of the day, what are the possible options to deal with those issues and how far along we may be toward getting there with some of the industry players where some may be eager,
some may be reluctant, some may be looking for a lot of additional assistance in getting there. So there is quite a scope to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: It looks like we have some consensus on the Greater Halifax Partnership.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Is that generally agreed? What the priority is, it is immaterial to ourselves, so would that be acceptable to the committee? I move that as a possible witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could even do that by way of a motion, Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion that at our next committee meeting we try to bring in the Greater Halifax Partnership.
MR. MACKINNON: Well not necessarily our next meeting but if that's a priority, that's fine but at least just get it approved to start off. If you want to put it for the next meeting, that's fine, it doesn't matter.
MS. MCGRATH: It depends on their schedule.
MR. MACKINNON: That's right. That's why . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell, I think you have a good point there. Why don't we go through and perhaps . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Get it approved. I so move that we invite the Greater Halifax Partnership to the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. MACKINNON: Now the Kyoto, I think that is an excellent idea. If the PC caucus has a recommendation, we're certainly . . .
MS. MCGRATH: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is to approve Kyoto for a potential witness at the committee level.
MR. MACKINNON: The staff from the Department of Economic Development?
MR. BOUDREAU: I just have a question.
MS. MCGRATH: Wherever those particular people have landed. They may have been moved to Energy or they may still be in Environment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Brian.
MR. BOUDREAU: I'd like to know who we're going to bring in, please? It is a pretty controversial issue and I think the committee should be responsible enough to bring somebody in who really is going to provide the facts.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mary Ann and then Jim.
MS. MCGRATH: I apologize for not being able to remember, but I went to a conference two years ago specifically on global warming with this individual who at that time, I believe, was with the Department of Environment. I can't recall his name but I do have his business card in the paperwork in my office, so I know I can find out who he was. As I say, based on the movement within the departments, he may now be with Energy but at the time, he was with Economic Development and he was sent specifically to the conference on global warming.
From the conversations I had with him, both in and out of the conference, he had a broad range of knowledge on the issues facing Nova Scotia, whether we should move toward Kyoto or deal with global warming at all, inside or outside of Kyoto, and how we may do that. He had both the pros and cons, what issues were facing us and what possible solutions there were, cost implications, industry implications, he had a broad base of knowledge. I just have to find the gentleman's business card to find his name for you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jim.
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be useful to have two people in who are on both sides of the issue, two knowledgeable people who could each present their individual arguments for consideration and then as a group here, we could question them. I think you might get a better feel for it than hearing all one side of an issue. I think it would be very difficult, Mr. Chairman, to get someone who is impartial. Most people are leaning one way or the other but I'm just throwing that out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what my hope was, Jim, to bring somebody in who was, in fact, impartial, who would tell us what the implementation plan is and how it would impact, cut through the rhetoric and give us an assessment that is balanced, that may be difficult. If we bring in two people, that probably has a lot of merit. Howard.
MR. EPSTEIN: This is an interesting subject and I'm glad it was raised. By the time we manage to schedule something it may well be the case that the federal government has made a decision and it seems, given what the Prime Minister has had to say, the likely decision will be to ratify the agreement. In which case it seems the reasonable approach - and I think I heard this from Mary Ann - is to ask questions on what we're going to do about it, what are the practical steps that will have to be taken in Nova Scotia. To a certain extent, this has already been engaged in the energy strategy that came out last year, there was some movement in that direction. If that's the basis on which we're going to be approaching it, that certainly seems sensible.
A lot of the debate that's going on right now is along the lines of, should Canada ratify, should Canada not ratify. If it's being proposed that we engage in that debate, that doesn't seem all that productive. I think the safe assumption is that it is going to be accepted by the federal government and then the question really becomes, how do we then move after that in order to deal with it? Even if it's not ratified, it seems clear that we have to take steps in order to move in the direction of dealing with global climate change regardless.
Even the United States, which is saying it doesn't want to ratify Kyoto, isn't denying that it has to do something about global climate change. They're saying okay, we have certain problems with this treaty but we certainly have to do things about global climate change. If that's the focus, then certainly that's a useful approach. I just don't see that it's all that productive for us necessarily to get involved in the questions ought we to ratify or ought we to just leave the situation as it is. Leaving the situation as it is, fairly clearly just isn't an option, that is we can't ignore the reality of global climate change. If that's the case, then there certainly are a number of knowledgeable people out there about what it is that could usefully be done. People in Nova Scotia have looked at this, not just inside government, there are think-tanks that have looked at it. GPI has looked at it . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard, if I could just intervene for a minute whereas I did bring it up. I guess the thrust behind the suggestion was that as committee members we could become more informed on this whole issue and how it would impact the traditional resource-based industries across Nova Scotia. I think it's a quantum leap to say, quite frankly and with all respect, Howard, that the committee is of the opinion that because we're bringing somebody in it's a closed deal. Saying he's going to ratify it, that's going before Parliament. I would like to be more informed on the pros and cons. At this point I feel I am quite objective on Kyoto but I'm uninformed, like most of that 80 per cent out there. That was the intention so I don't think, why I intervened, Howard, I don't feel it's safe to assume that everybody around the table is of the opinion, look, it's going through come "h" or high water.
I think we want to become better informed and by bringing in some impartial people who are knowledgeable on it, we could better understand it.
MR. EPSTEIN: If you still want to approach it with the assumption that it may not be ratified, then that's fine, we had better move on that fairly quickly though. The other is, we shouldn't ignore other aspects of the energy consumption problem and that includes transportation. It's not just the resource or even the industrial sectors because transportation is a big user and so is the electricity sector, these are big generators. We couldn't just look at agriculture or forestry, I mean it's a wide problem that affects all aspects.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine but I guess in the back of my mind, I recall seeing statistics at least that indicate that Canada, as a nation, a big country, only creates 2 per cent of the greenhouse gases globally. What I wanted to do was zero in on the traditional resource-based industries and you want to broaden that. Russell, you had your hand up, and then Brian.
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the points Howard has raised, but we have to start somewhere. It doesn't preclude the committee from inviting other witnesses on a future day, because something may come out of it if we invite staff, let's say, from Economic Development, or whatever department they come from, to come in and speak on Kyoto. That may generate some interest in some other issue, for example agriculture. I notice in your annual report you dealt with farming and the fact that the debt of farms in the province has increased by 49 per cent since 1995. The greatest percentage of this is directly attributed to weather-related problems. So Kyoto is very important.
That doesn't preclude us from, perhaps, looking at individual departments at a future day, after that, if the committee is open-minded and not hard and fast. On another committee we serve on, the Public Accounts Committee, we're not that rigid that we just close our minds and say, we're just going to hear one point of view and move on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell, do you think it would be of some value - you've been around quite a little while - if we left this with Darlene, she can consult perhaps with Mary Ann? Before we agree to bring anybody in, possibly at our next meeting, we might have a suggestion as to who comes in. Go ahead, Brian.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, if I may, Mary Ann indicates that she knows this individual who works with the provincial government and is very well-versed. I think it's an important topic for Nova Scotians. I don't disagree with Howard. But in all fairness, as you indicated, 80 per cent of Canadians don't know anything about this issue. I think it would be a major step for this committee to take the initiative on behalf of Nova Scotians to find out how this is going to affect our province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm glad you agree with me, Brian.
MR. BOUDREAU: It's a starting point, and I believe that if we could get somebody in here from the Department of Energy, to begin with, then other witnesses could be called as the committee wishes, with the intelligence of the committee . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank, bring this to some closure. I know you . . .
MR. CORBETT: Hopefully I will, usually I don't but hopefully I will. I think we've all agreed that we want witnesses here around Kyoto. We've talked about bringing in some departments, so if we're going to look at it, maybe rather than dump it all on Darlene's lap each one of the caucuses could be responsible for giving Darlene some information about who they would like to see as witnesses around the Kyoto issue. We can discuss them at our next meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed? Agreed. We approve it in principle, subject to witnesses. Are there any other witnesses that caucuses would like to bring up? (Interruptions)
Frank, I don't mean to forget you, go ahead.
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: I was going to comment, but I've forgotten what I was going to say now. Anyway I did have a request from the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association to appear. I've had contact with Mr. Larry Lutz at Scotian Gold Co-Operative of Kentville.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Nova Scotia Fruit Growers' Association, is it agreed that they be on our list? Okay, to call for a future meeting.
MR. CORBETT: I don't know if we need to do this or not, Mr. Chairman, but just as a formal way of putting the list of five that the NDP caucus has put forward, do you want that as a motion that they be considered? Is it necessary or do you think . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we will try to get half a dozen that are approved by the committee, then perhaps we can bring some other names in. We've approved three in principle here this morning.
MR. CORBETT: If that's the case, I would like to put forward - because the winter months are coming - the home heating group. I would like to have them in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Who do you envision there, Frank?
MR. CORBETT: There is a lobby group out there that represents the home heating section. There is a group. Even someone like Wilson Fuels or someone within the industry. We hear that if anything happens in Iraq, some people are saying, there will be a 25 per cent
increase in prices and so on. We just want to see if we can bring some certainty to that. The Irvings and the shipbuilding is another one I would like to put forward. If we were going to prioritize them, I'm putting those two forward as priorities from our caucus. I will make that as a motion, that the Economic Development Committee look at counting as witnesses, the Irvings, around the future shipbuilding in Nova Scotia, and representatives of the home heating fuel industry, regarding prices for the upcoming winter and beyond.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any question on the motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That gives us four or five. Are we trying for the Greater Halifax Partnership? (Interruptions) No, for our next meeting. I'm just wondering, Darlene, our next most likely date for a meeting would be October 29th? Is that agreed that we would try to bring them in for our next meeting? (Interruptions)
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): Yes, in the afternoon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the afternoon. There are some committee meetings that morning, I understand.
MRS. HENRY: Yes, there is.
MR. MACKINNON: Does the Tory caucus have a new list of any witnesses they would like to have approved today?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We threw Kyoto out, Russell. I'm wondering if we could, in principle, approve (Interruptions) If I could, Frank. Some time ago we did approve Titanium Corporation Inc out of Hants County, Colchester and Toronto. We had approved bringing them in just to tell us what plans they have regarding that potential development. Is that agreed, in principle? I will just throw it out as a motion then.
Is it agreed? Agreed.
MR. MACKINNON: I see you have Black Bull Resources in there. Is that approved, too?
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we're trying for the Greater Halifax Partnership on October 29th, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
MR. DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question regarding Kimberly-Clark? What was the issue there that you wanted to pursue with Kimberly-Clark? Do you recall? It's probably an item that was on there for a long time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks, did you put that on the agenda?
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: No, I did not. It's not necessary for me to have them come in. I pretty well know the issue. It wasn't me, I don't think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think these were just suggestions, Jim. I don't know if anybody had a real particular . . .
MR. MACKINNON: I know the PC caucus had lots of choices, and reading the annual report it seemed to be a pretty important item for the Yarmouth Industrial Park.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell, that may have been when the member for Yarmouth sat on this committee. He probably did bring that forward.
MR. MACKINNON: Both Yarmouth and Shelburne would seem to be the beneficiaries of this.
MR. BOUDREAU: That would be a good topic, Mr. Chairman, because of the economic issues in rural areas.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm just looking at the fact that in the report it made reference to the tenuous situation with the docking facilities and so on, revenues versus expenses, and that would seem to be a pretty important one for that area. It would be nice to hear from them.
MR. DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps some of these items should be considered at a later date. If we haven't discussed them for some time, you might want to talk among yourselves, sort of thing, to make a priority list. Obviously the PC caucus hasn't made a priority list out of the agenda items they have here. I see Stanfield's there, that would be interesting too. (Interruptions)
MR. MACKINNON: Before we move on, will we approve this or just cancel it or put it in the mix or what?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have five or six approved now and I think we have lots to keep us occupied but you know, there seems to be a divergence of opinion on that right now, Russell.
MR. DOOKS: We could visit it later on.
MR. MACKINNON: It seemed like we were getting all of our witnesses and I wanted to make sure . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you know we try to be as helpful as we can to the other caucuses, I'm a very impartial chairman, you know.
MR. MACKINNON: The only other one that would be a high priority to us would be Nova Scotia Business Inc. or the Office of Economic Development. It's been more than a year since the new structure has been in place and it would be nice to see how it is functioning, that's all. I would move that as a potential witness and whoever you want to bring in, it doesn't matter to us. Just so we get a sense of what it's all about.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jim.
MR. DEWOLFE: Am I to understand that number one would be Nova Scotia Business Inc as a priority for you?
MR. MACKINNON: Either Nova Scotia Business Inc. or the Office of Economic Development. If somebody could just come in to tell us how they're doing because they've been there for more than a year and it seems pretty innovative. It would be nice to have one of the two.
MR. DEWOLFE: That seems a reasonable request.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is to bring in somebody from Nova Scotia Business Inc. or the Office of Economic Development.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Just a little bit of committee business and I probably should have done this earlier. I would like to welcome new committee members, Mr. Russell MacKinnon, Cape Breton West. Also, unfortunately, our vice-chairman, Brian Boudreau, the member for Cape Breton The Lakes is leaving us and Michel Samson, MLA for Richmond is coming on board. On this committee we do have to appoint a new vice-chairman and possibly, we could carry on with this now or we could wait until our new committee member, Mr. Samson, is here, if you feel it would be more appropriate. There are some other members here substituting as well and if the committee wanted to give that some consideration between now and October 29th.
I will point out that it has been a tradition with this committee . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Are you getting nervous, Mr. Chairman, because of the certain auxiliary equipment you're carrying today, that you may not be here on a future day?
MR. CHAIRMAN: There have been occasions when I haven't been able to make committee meetings and the duties of the chairman have been carried out by your colleague very satisfactorily.
MR. DOOKS: With great regret he's leaving us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is with great regret. Brian, we are going to miss you. You have been a good committee member and a good vice-chairman. If I could just conclude, the vice-chairman position traditionally comes from one of the Opposition Parties. So if you feel so inclined you could talk to your colleagues in the caucuses in advance. Jim.
MR. DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, before you wrap up I just wanted to reflect on the meeting we had here this morning and harmony comes to mind. I don't recall being at a committee meeting where there was so much co-operation across Party lines.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's a reflection on Darlene. She keeps us in line.
MR. DEWOLFE: It really is second only to my committee, Public Accounts Committee, that I feel very strongly about. (Interruptions)
MS. MCGRATH: I object. We have a great deal of harmony at my committee, too.
MR. DOOKS: I think the same people sit on both committees.
MR. CORBETT: For the record, Mr. Chairman, we agree with you to delay the appointment of a vice-chairman until the new member is here. I think maybe some of the seats may be changing from our Party too, so there may or may not . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, sure, keep us apprised. For the record, would somebody make a motion for adjournment.
MR. MACKINNON: I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.
[The committee adjourned at 10:40 a.m.]