MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee members, I'd like to bring the Standing Committee on Economic Development to order, if I could. I'd like to introduce our guests this morning. Our witnesses are Mr. Stephen Dempsey - Stephen is the President and CEO of the Greater Halifax Partnership and Stephen would be to my left. Good morning, Stephen. He's accompanied by the Director of Community Relations, no stranger to the provincial government, Mr. Bill Adams. Bill formerly worked with Communications Nova Scotia. Good morning.
If I could, I would like to begin with Mr. Chipman and committee members would introduce themselves, please.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. To the Greater Halifax Partnership members, I understand you would like to make a presentation this morning and we would ask, if you could, to try to keep that presentation to approximately 20 minutes, or less if you can, whatever works out. I know it is quite detailed and we will respect that. So if you would like to begin, thank you.
MR. STEPHEN DEMPSEY: Mr. Chairman, this is a standing committee so I will stand and report to the committee. It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to come here to talk about some of the things that we've been doing at the Greater Halifax Partnership as it relates to growth in our city and also growth in our province. There are three things we wanted to cover for you today - the partnership model itself, because I think there are some interesting things that we've learned that we would like to share with you. The second is to talk about economic growth because that's what we are charged to do. That's what we get paid for, to help facilitate and induce growth.
1
We are going to talk about that in several ways. We are going to look at what we have accomplished and what we are forecasting will be happening. I think that's important information for the committee. Finally, regional cooperation is another subject we will cover. It is not on that outline slide. Finally, there are some issues that we should be aware of and dealing with to get to these levels of growth and we want the committee to be aware of those as well.
Very quickly, partnership model, I'm sure most of you are familiar. Certainly Mr. Dooks is familiar with the model. We are an economic growth group. We call ourselves an economic growth group. We are a private enterprise which has an exclusive mandate for marketing and growing our community. Our city has given up control of economic development and what they have gained in exchange for that loss of control, because the mayor, one councillor and the CAO sit on our board of 20 directors, three, they have huge leverage and we are going to show you some of that leverage in a moment. That's the bargain that was had here. The final message is that everything we do we partner with a business or another partner. I'm going to show you some examples of that. We do not spend any money on our own.
A simple mandate, that growth retention and acquisition mandate that any company would have, so we have adopted that and that's been a good focus. Most of our activities focused on the local market, on growth from within as opposed to going out and trying to fly around the world looking for that next best company to come to town. So we focus on a growth-from-within strategy.
Our vision statement, I thought we would share that with you because it's pretty aggressive and we make no apologies to anybody anywhere we go. We believe we are the best economic development organization in North America. We know we are in Canada. We benchmarked and we know that as a fact. We believe that we have that same status in North America and we are doing the benchmarking right now. That's the kind of vision we have for our organization and that's the level of confidence we operate at.
Sectors. If you are going to be doing economic growth, you have to have a way to organize yourself. We don't have an unlimited budget so we looked at the economy and we picked these four sectors as having the greatest prospect for economic growth in our future. We organized ourselves around those to build capacity and expertise. Bill Adams, in addition to his functional responsibilities as Director of Community Relations, is our lead relationship manager for the energy sector. So Bill certainly has a great deal of knowledge around the energy sector and he's built up that expertise in a very disciplined way. So those are the sectors that we focus our growth on.
I'm just going to put up four slides. They are going to look all the same but they are all different and they are slides that no other economic development in the country can put up. Those are the logos of the 115 companies, both local companies, regional companies,
national companies and international companies that are supporting economic growth in our community. In the past, before this model was created, we would put one logo up there. It would have been HRM's logo, proud and alone. This is great company to be in and this is the reason we are able to make the statement that we have no parallel, certainly in our country, in terms of economic growth. I'm going to talk about the money in a moment. It's not just the money that we get from working with these companies, it's the leverage that we get and the knowledge that they share with us around development opportunities. That's the power.
Let's look at the numbers for a moment. You will see in green our forecast for the end of this year. We are taking it out to December. It's a nine-month year. We are going to exceed $5.5 million in collective private sector support for economic development. That's an ongoing, consistent level of support from the private sector in the growth of our community.
Looking at it in another way, where do we get our money? This year, it was a nine-month year, we had a $2.2 million budget. You can see that the municipality accounted for 30 per cent of that. We have a services contract with our municipality, so they have contracted out for economic development services. We have a formal, legal contract. That covers 30 per cent of our expenses. We have, through the province, a $100,000 investment, a partnership, and the federal government an equal amount, $100,000. The rest of the money comes from projects that we do and from investments from the private sector. That gives us huge leverage in terms of our ability to operate financially.
Another way to look at it is where we spend the money. You will see from this slide that we are allocating our money and our activities against the sectors that we have identified that have the greatest priority for us and the greatest promise for growth. So we are spending in a consistent fashion. If you look at energy, which is the one that has the highest and most immediate growth potential, we are spending about 25 per cent of our budget there. But in an area like life sciences, which is an emerging sector, we are allocating 11 per cent of those resources to try to move that ahead as well. So that is where we spend the money.
I just wanted to share this with you because we survey our investors to see how they feel we are doing. We have a retention rate, you see there, 96 per cent of the investors, on the bottom, indicate they are going to be renewing their investment. We are not aware of another organization that has a retention rate anywhere approaching that level. That's not to brag or boast, that's just to make a statement of reality, that the model that we have, by being inclusive and involving our investors, leads us to have that level of success. It isn't because of what we can do on our own, it's because of what we do working with those companies. We are really proud of that.
I want to move now to - and I apologize we are going fast but there is more detail there for you and we can certainly get into some questions. We want to know how well we are doing economically overall, so how we do that is we look at various measures in the economy that suggest that we are achieving our mandate, which is to grow the economy of greater Halifax. Then we benchmark that growth against other cities that we are comparing ourselves to, to determine how well that growth stacks up in the country. So it's not good enough to say we are growing, we have to know how well we are doing against our contemporaries because we compete for investment with every other community in this country and really in every other community in North America. If you don't know how well you are doing, then you are nowhere. These are some selected indices that we have measured and we have more detail for you, if you'd like, on these measures.
If you look at building permits, why do we track that? Well, because building permits generate tax revenue. That's a leading indicator of the economic viability of our community. Ultimately, that leads to construction. Ultimately, that leads to businesses paying taxes which gives our community the ability to pay for the services that we all need to live. We have strong growth in building permits. In fact, we are leading our contemporaries on a year-over-year basis on that measure.
Another measure is housing starts. Housing starts have a huge multiplication impact in terms of economic benefits across the entire economy. In fact, we are leading the benchmark cities for the second straight year on a per capita basis. Greater Halifax is leading the country on housing starts. I don't have to tell you, if you look around the community, you can see the level of growth that we are enjoying here. So from that measure, we have done very well.
Here's one that we are not doing so well on. If you look at the unemployment rate, it sits at about 7.7 per cent today which is about the national average. We have a target that we always want to be below the national average rate for unemployment and we are at it. So we aren't doing good enough on that score right now and we need to improve that. We think there are a couple of factors at play. One is that there has been growth in the HRM market, which means people are coming here to look for work. Another factor we think is influencing the increase in that rate is that more people are coming back into the labour market and that's a sign of competence and optimism in the labour markets when people come back and re-engage in it. So as long as that doesn't stay there and it starts to move down, that shows that the economy is performing well, but we are concerned about our unemployment level. It's not good enough for us.
[11:45 a.m.]
Now I want to shift to talk a little bit about the future. We conducted a study which was done by the Conference Board of Canada to look at the potential that came from investments in the offshore. What I would like the committee to understand, Mr. Chairman,
is that we weren't just looking at the energy sector, per se, itself, we were looking at the economy overall, and our viewpoint was that the early stage of the benefits for investments in the energy sector would come in the general economy rather than directly by measure of the number of contracts or number of jobs in the energy sector itself. We took a broader view.
The second point I would make is that this is a partnership. The province, the Department of Economic Development partnered with us on this study. Guysborough and Richmond Counties partnered with us on the funding and the scope for this study. Emera, EnCana partnered with us on the funding of this study, and El Paso. We had a broad spectrum of viewpoints around the development of the sector at the table, developing the terms of reference. We had the benefit of their financial support, and everybody gained from that. As a result we think we have a superior product, and that's a demonstration of the power of this partnership.
Let's look at the study just quickly. We talked about three development scenarios which would generate economic benefits. What you see there, to make sense out of, if I could just ask you to look at the column to the right, under 20/30, what we've said is, basically, scenario one would be the existing level of development, taken out over a period of time, to 20/30, which would see 14.4 trillion cubic feet of gas developed in the marketplace. Scenario two, which is the one we were commenting on, the moderate scenario, sees 27 tcf. The most optimistic scenario was 40 tcf.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the committee's attention that in fact the recent findings of the CNSOBP have confirmed that they now believe the recoverable reserves that are out there are 41 billion tcf. So our most optimistic viewpoint is what they now believe is reality. Therefore we expect that the potential is much greater. We also looked at a base case, which was the existing level of development with no additional investments, in other words Sable as it exists now and no additional investments in infrastructure.
So what do we see? We see jobs. We forecast 57,000 new jobs for Nova Scotians based upon our scenario two level, the moderate investment level. Another point I wanted to bring to the committee's attention is the fact that to get to that level of development, to get that benefit on the table will require a $50 billion investment over that period of time by the energy industry, not by governments, to develop the resources that would generate those benefits. While we're forecasting a very positive level of jobs, the reality is that the fiscal environment that we have here in Nova Scotia has to compete with every other environment in the world, so that we can attract that level of investment which will generate the benefits we're looking at here. Jobs, there are lots of them, most of them for Nova Scotians.
We looked at income - is that the next one, Bill? If you look at GDP growth and take it out to 20/20, Alberta would be the only province in the country which would have a better GDP growth rate than Nova Scotia at that point in time. That's phenomenal growth, and that's in our scenario two level, not the most optimistic one. Income, this goes to everybody's
pocketbook. Nova Scotians would have an 81 per cent increase in their personal disposable income, in their pockets, based upon the level two scenario. That's broad and far-reaching. That means you don't have to have a job on an oil rig to have the benefits that come from developing that sector. The benefits will be filtered through the entire economy.
Then we looked at population. Out-migration has been a challenge for us for too long. We're seeing that, in fact, while the population of our province has been declining, by 2006 that trend starts to reverse and we start to have positive population growth. That's what we want here. We want every Nova Scotian to have an opportunity to work here, and we want every Nova Scotian who has left because of a lack of opportunity to have a chance to come back. That's what this suggests, that the investments in that sector would be able to do that.
MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: That's in the memo you just had on there. Basically, in the year 2020, we would be just over 1 million, would we?
MR. DEMPSEY: That's correct. That's the forecast.
MR. CHATAWAY: What's our present population?
MR. DEMPSEY: We're now 940,000. So it's a modest growth but what it suggests is we turn around our out-migration and we achieve positive growth, which is a significant turnaround for us in the province. The other good-news story, with respect to that population growth, is that the income that we talked about and the economic benefits are shared among a not-much-larger base, so that this is a story about income and opportunity not a story about massive growth in population that's going to present other challenges for us to manage as a society.
We also then extracted out of that the story for Halifax, and so these numbers relate to the jobs that would be felt in the metro area. In this case, there are almost 23,000 new jobs in the Halifax area as the result of that level of growth. There have been discussions around the fact that Halifax's population is going to double in 10 years. That's obviously a naive statement, but we are growing. That suggests that we would be a city of almost 450,000 people at the end of that forecast period of time. That's positive growth.
If that's what we forecast, and we were criticized at the time by the media for being overly optimistic, being Pollyanna in our attitude, you guys are out there, way out there - you guys never get criticized by the media, right? - but we had that rare occasion where the media did criticize us, and that was what they accused us of, being overly optimistic. Well, here's where we are one year later.
One year later, and you will recall again that we looked at scenario two, the moderate scenario for growth and results, on Gross Domestic Product we're tracking above scenario three, the most optimistic level that we had; population above scenario three; employment at scenario two; housing starts beyond scenario two; retail sales at scenario three, beyond the most optimistic; and Consumer Price Index, however, above that, and that's something we have to watch. But for all those indices we're at or significantly beyond the most optimistic scenario. Now this is only early days in an 18-year forecast. If you're not on track in year one, you're probably going to have difficulty in year three, four and five. So, it's a pretty good sign, where we are already.
When you look at it from the provincial standpoint, the numbers are equally impressive. The only one that we're off-track on, from the provincial point of view, is population. We have said for some time that we in Halifax have no interest in seeing Halifax grow and our province shrink, because that's a recipe for going nowhere. I will get to some of those strategies, Mr. Chairman, in a moment, about what we're doing to try to address that issue because I think that's an important one. We have to watch that. But if you look at all the other economic indications province-wide, very positive, strong numbers already, at this early stage.
We mentioned what we're doing on the regional growth initiatives, and there are four issues I would like to bring to the committee's attention. The first is what we're calling Atlantica. That's a group of 17 cities in Atlantic Canada that have come together to agree on a common agenda for economic growth and development. We came together in the Spring, and we had an unanimous endorsement of an economic growth strategy by all of the mayors of those 17 different communities. In fact, next month we're going back to the Atlantic Mayors' Conference in St. John's, New Brunswick and reporting our progress to date. What we're trying to do is to find strategies where we can combine our collective interests to drive growth and prosperity in our region. We recognize that if we can't do it here in our own little region, it's going to be hard for us to do it as individuals on a global basis. So that's really critical.
The second is the Halifax-Moncton growth corridor. We took two of the stronger growth centres in the region and, as a part of what we've agreed under Atlantica, we said we needed to create corridors because we have sparse populations. If we can create these corridors, there is a chance that we'll have clusters emerge. Clusters in life sciences can emerge or technology-based industries can emerge as a result of that level of co-operation.
We have been active and out there working on building that corridor. We see enormous potential. We have got all the communities together working on this. In fact, what we found is that we now have a lot of rural, smaller communities who are eager to participate with the urban communities because they understand that it is a significant way for them to accelerate their growth.
Communities like Oxford and Springhill are eagerly participating with us because they see this as an opportunity to accelerate growth by being on that corridor. We are partnering Sydney and Halifax. We are looking at how we partner together to attract investment in the IT sector. We are doing competitive cost analysis to determine how competitive we are, compare that to the New England market and then we will do joint calls together to attract investment to the province. The companies that would fit in the Sydney market will go there and the ones that fit in Halifax will come here, but we are committed to work together, Mr. Chairman, to see that benefit drive growth in our entire province.
World Energy Cities. Halifax, last year, became a world energy city. In that respect, it brought us into a group of 13 cities world-wide, cities like Houston, Stavanger in Norway, Aberdeen in Britain, all with a predominant feature of the economy being the energy sector. We are working collaboratively with them to develop and grow our industry here. That is beneficial and what we want to do is bring that organization and its benefits to the entire province. We have to partner with our contemporaries in other parts of the province.
Let's use Halifax, because it can become a member of these organizations, to get us into the club and to do that. We are actively engaged and we will be coming back to you to talk more about that in detail. In fact, in 2003, in the fall, the annual general meeting for World Energy Cities Partnership, bringing all those cities from around the world, is in Halifax. We have a unique opportunity to demonstrate our capabilities here.
Two slides on issues, challenges and opportunities, and then we will turn it over to questions. Confidence and attitude continue to be a challenge for us. We see it in our dealings on an everyday basis. Sometimes we don't want to admit it but when we survey - and we do surveys around consumer confidence, we do surveys around business investment intentions and confidence - and the levels that we see in Halifax and Nova Scotia are the lowest in Atlantic Canada. Let me say that again. The levels of confidence, about consumers' confidence and business confidence, are the lowest of the four Atlantic Provinces. If we don't fix that problem, Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue to have a challenge in attracting that investment. That is a huge challenge for us and we are still working on that.
The second is regulatory environment. We talked about the benefits that can come from the energy sector, $50 billion of investment needs to be attracted from the private sector. We need to make certain that we have an efficient regulatory environment that gets the benefits to the province and to the people who live here, that should be here, and also allows industry to invest in an efficient way, recognizing competition. That has been a challenge but we need to recognize that if a regulatory environment is a key competitive feature for us. We need to always keep our eye on that.
Halifax is a growth centre. For too long we have looked at Halifax as, they get it all. Well, they get it all, what does that mean? What we are trying to do is to show our partners that it is not a zero sum game. If there is a company that locates in Halifax, there probably is
an opportunity for somebody else in another part of the province. Or if there is an opportunity that can develop in another part of the province that we can help, then it is our responsibility as a capital city to work to make that happen. So we are focused on driving that as a benefit for our province.
The final comment is the urban-rural economy. I will just leave it at that but what we are really trying to do is to find economic solutions around collaboration, around building corridors that will see the benefits of the assets that Halifax has extend to other parts of our province. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Dempsey. Okay, we will open up the meeting to question and answers. Darlene informs me - I guess I haven't been paying attention - that Mr. Epstein has indicated he would like to ask a question. I would ask committee members to be considerate of other committee members. If you aren't, I might remind you. Mr. Epstein, please begin.
[12:00 noon]
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Dempsey, I have to tell you, as interesting as this presentation is, I start off being hugely skeptical about the projections that you have presented to us with respect to the potential for growth, particularly in the energy sector. I want to get to that in a moment.
I just want to remind you of something that is part of the history of your organization. I'm not sure if you know it, being relatively recent, but my colleague, Mr. Dooks, and I were present at the start of the partnership because we were both members of the HRM Council at the time that it was created. We both voted in favour of it. It was a unanimous vote. I think it was a time in which we all decided to put a certain amount of money into it because the private sector partners had not yet come on board as extensively as they now have in later years. We were the prime funder of it at the beginning. We were all prepared to see that happen on an experimental basis to see what the potential for the partnership was over the years.
Now, before I left HRM Council, we had a briefing from some of the partnership people about the potential for job creation of the port and associated transportation facilities here. They were telling us - and this would be maybe five years ago, I guess - that there was a potential for creation over, I think, a 10- or 15-year period of some 22,000 jobs in growth in the port in metro. They saw a kind of integrated goods transportation node in which rail, shipping and air, and to a certain extent trucking, would all be working together and that this was, in fact, going to be a wonderful boom for metro, it was really the way forward and that we really ought to consider this as the key area in which money ought to be invested in infrastructure, particularly, and in our planning, and that we should look at how we are going
to integrate our container terminals with airports and we should look over at Shearwater. In a way, some of it was sensible.
What wasn't sensible was the magnitude of it. What wasn't sensible was the rose-coloured glasses through which they were projecting the future; 22,000 jobs at that time would have been 50 per cent of the unemployed people in the whole province of Nova Scotia, just as 57,000 new jobs is, in fact, 100 per cent or more of the unemployed people in Nova Scotia.
So, you know, I start out thinking that when I see figures of this magnitude, I don't really feel that there is a lot of point in rushing in and putting a huge amount of faith in it, especially when, in the energy sector, it is so completely dependent upon projections for what are not yet known to be recoverable reserves of gas offshore. I would certainly agree with you that the energy sector is very important to Nova Scotia. I would agree with you that natural gas is going to be a very valuable commodity in the energy market in North America.
What I think isn't obvious is that we are going to get beyond what you called the base-case scenario of the SOEP project being the one and only project that ever gets developed. Now, we may get a bit beyond that but at this point, the reality is, no one else is bringing gas ashore. No one else is actually out there saying that the economics of it allows us to actually separate those gas molecules from the sand and the other things that they are attached to, and allows us, as a result of our drilling programs, to bring this in on an economic basis. There is a lot of exploration, there is a lot of talk, including pipeline, but a lot of it is talk. For something to be economically recoverable, it really has to reach an important point in which the combination of geology and economics makes it feasible to bring the gas ashore, and we're just not there yet.
So my question, really, is, let's look at your base-case scenario, or maybe one very slightly over it, in which SOEP is the only project that we have, or maybe there is something that might double that and we never get beyond that. So what happens then in your 20-year period? What's the job projection then? If I understood you correctly, you said you had actually done that kind of projection, as well.
MR. DEMPSEY: We can certainly get the numbers for the base case which is, in other words, nothing happens into the future. But I would make two comments, Mr. Epstein, in response to the question. One is that the terms of reference for the study was a collaboration between the Department of Energy, which exists today; companies like Shell Canada; Doug Gregory, who is on our Board of Directors; David Mann, who is the President of Emera; EnCana; and El Paso.
I believe there was some level of sophistication, albeit recognizing the fact that we're talking about a future state, but I do believe that the terms of reference that have generated this study are valid and that our challenge is, do we want to look at the most conservative
estimate and plan for that, or do we want to look at a more aggressive level of investment and try to plan for that. I think that's the issue that we face, not whether or not the terms of reference are appropriate. I think we can argue they are defensible; I think what we would argue is what intent we want. Our intent was, at the time, to suggest that there's a lot of opportunity and that if we plan for that, we will make the right kinds of decisions that will enable us to realize the most benefit.
I take your comment with respect, but I think that the question as to the future state will be determined in the future. I would also suggest that early on, and I acknowledge the fact that it is early on, after year one our scenario is, in fact, too conservative.
MR. EPSTEIN: Are there numbers for the base-case scenario?
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes there are.
MR. EPSTEIN: You don't remember what they are right now?
MR. DEMPSEY: I don't have them at the top of my head, but we can certainly make them available.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can I ask you a second brief question? You mentioned Smart Growth in passing. Can you just tell me what you're meaning by Smart Growth, and what initiatives you're taking? Are you using Smart Growth in the sense that land-use planners use Smart Growth, is that what we're talking about?
MR. DEMPSEY: The definition that we've used is that Smart Growth is a strategy which would see us achieve the economic prosperity that we need to sustain our communities while maintaining the quality of life that sets us apart from all other regions. In the vernacular we would use it to say, we don't want to be Calgary East, we don't want to be Toronto East, we want to be Halifax but more prosperous. I would come back to the study and say, how prosperous? As prosperous as is contained in some of those scenarios in our study while maintaining a unique, positive quality of life.
MR. EPSTEIN: Are you suggesting, when you made the comment about the possibility that Halifax will grow but the province as a whole would shrink, that you believe that that won't be the trend? Are you saying that Halifax won't be growing and the rest of the province won't continue to slightly depopulate?
MR. DEMPSEY: I believe that is the case. The study that we've done demonstrates that that will happen. The comment I made was that we believe that we need to take responsibility as a capital city for our province as well, to the extent that we can engage in strategies and work with our colleagues outside of our boundaries, then it's incumbent on us
to do that because, ultimately, we want to be living in a growing, prosperous province. That is pretty critical to our future.
MR. EPSTEIN: I would say that would be very nice. I tend to think, though, we're likely to look at something, a fairly steady state, around 1 million. It may be up or down 50,000, but that's about the kind of steady state we're likely to look at unless there's an aggressive immigration policy.
MR. DEMPSEY: Again, we presented three scenarios for forecast growth, and we're convinced that the scenario two level is one that's attainable. We're tracking on that, but I think incumbent in that is the fact that we want to make certain things we're doing are inclusive and that we're doing everything we can to make certain that growth is balanced, to the extent that we can. We think that's important.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to take a positive approach to this perspective, and I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Dempsey, and your colleague for this rather comprehensive report. It may not be exact in all detail that we would like, but I think it's certainly a collaborative effort that speaks well of your organization. I was a little concerned, though, about the issue of the level of consumer confidence in Atlantic Canada. Have you been able to identify some of the reasons why there is such a low confidence level in Atlantic Canada, and in particular in Nova Scotia?
MR. DEMPSEY: We haven't gotten into that root cause issue yet, that's obviously a very complex area. Sort of in an informal way, one of the things we track is the media. When an investor makes a decision to invest in a new facility in Nova Scotia or in Halifax, they do a media search. They go back two years to get a sense of the community. They want to understand, what are the issues, what are they faced with. If you go back and throw on your desks two years' worth of our newspapers, and if you come out of that room with a smile, I would wonder what newspapers you were reading.
This is not an indictment of our media in any way, but what we are striving for is a balanced media. I think that some of the things that are happening are very indicative of a change in our media. I can tell you that the Herald group is a strong supporter of the Greater Halifax Partnership. In fact, on Thursday they are our key sponsor for a series of economic updates that we're starting now, talking about the future. We're moving forward, looking at our future rather than looking back at our past, because that's the only thing we can change, the future. We're going to work at changing those attitudes, and we believe if we get good news out there, there's an expectation that people feel things will be better, that that will change. We think that's an important part.
MR. MACKINNON: What specific actions has the Energy Minister or anyone within his department or within government for that matter taken with regard to the conclusions of your report?
MR. DEMPSEY: As I said, they were supportive in framing the terms of reference. Our discussions with the department indicate that it's invaluable information for them to use, and that it forms a part, obviously, of the information that they have available to conduct their planning.
MR. MACKINNON: Nothing specific at this point?
MR. DEMPSEY: I can't comment on what, particularly, they're doing with that study.
MR. MACKINNON: I noticed the media reports yesterday indicated that one of the downsides of our export markets was in the energy sector, in fact we're down 3 per cent this year from previous years. They didn't seem to offer any conclusion as to whether that trend would continue or if it was just an anomaly or what have you. Have you followed that particular aspect of it and what the implications of that report would be on your projections?
MR. DEMPSEY: No, we have not. It does have an impact on our projections, but the projections that we are measuring are the broad economic impacts that arise from investments in the energy sector itself, based upon an assumed level of development. Ultimately, if that development is down and our gas exports go down because we're exporting less of those molecules, then it will have an impact, definitely, on those numbers, and we will be tracking that.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I will pass it around, so everybody will have a chance to speak.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I know enough to be skeptical or optimistic. I'm curious about a couple of things. On your slide that says the projected expenditures, you have Energy, 25 per cent and Smart Growth, 16 per cent. This would kind of lead me to believe that energy for Smart Growth, the two things would be quite a bit connected. So I'm curious as to why you don't have a projection of Smart Growth to at least 25 per cent. Assuming that energy was the only part of Smart Growth, I would think that those two numbers would be the same. I'm also assuming there has to be some other areas that you would regard as Smart Growth areas that are not necessarily related to energy.
MR. DEMPSEY: Most of that, the expenditure in Smart Growth, relates to a media campaign that we conduct locally, which deals with the issue of confidence and attitudes, as Mr. MacKinnon was raising, and that is where we're spending most of that money. We have a local media campaign on television and on radio and in print, which attempts to convey a positive businesslike environment and deal with that issue of confidence.
[12:15 p.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, so now I think I know enough to be skeptical. My constituency of Hants East is fairly significantly impacted with what happens in the HRM and if you consider Bayers Lake Industrial Park, Burnside Industrial Park and the Aerotech Park and the development of a business park at the airport, that it is a relatively short distance across the Shubenacadie River. Businesses will determine, well do I want to set up in the Municipality of East Hants or in the HRM. So what history has shown us, and whether that will continue to be the case, but certainly businesses are attracted to the Halifax area for sure. What has developed in the Enfield, Elmsdale, Lantz, Milford area is a kind of bedroom community which actually probably first was ignited by the airport when it came there.
So it has always been a challenge I think for the municipality to try to attract businesses to get a commercial tax base and still provide the infrastructure for an expanding residential base. So I kind of see Hants East when I consider the part of it that does seems to be growing compared to the parts that are not to be somewhat similar to the rest of the province where you have growth in Halifax but maybe not necessarily as much growth in Pictou.
So I am interested in the rural/urban component that you talk about. I know you can probably address that in general terms but I am also interested in the case studies of Guysborough and Richmond Counties. When I look below each of those, Disposable Income, Guysborough and the same for Richmond it says the source is Statistics Canada, the Conference Board of Canada. I am interested in how you came to the conclusions that you came to. If you knew that Statistics Canada was actually using the same criteria that you were in a study or did you take information from Statistics Canada as a major component of your study? I would like to know more about those two studies, what exactly went on there.
MR. DEMPSEY: In the interest of time, I would suggest that we have detailed discussions because the terms of reference for the study is quite a volume. We would be pleased to answer any detailed questions you have but just in a general way, the Conference Board of Canada, we chose them because of their independence and because of their ability to do economic forecasts. Some of the data that they used is sourced from Statistics Canada as the base that is then used to forecast into the future what the impacts might be. So there is some of that at play, Mr. MacDonell. But I would be pleased to answer more detailed questions, in the interest of time, later.
The other point I wanted to make is that in the case of Hants, Harold Irving, who is operating economic development strategies there, is a good partner of ours. In fact, Harold and I were yesterday in Sackville, New Brunswick helping to launch the economic corridor. Harold tells me he sees huge growth opportunities from being attached to that growth corridor.
MR.MACDONELL: I would agree.
MR. DEMPSEY: We're working very closely with the people in Hants.
MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I would agree. We've seen growth happening even before the Greater Halifax Partnership.
My question around the case studies is, did you ask the Conference Board of Canada to do those case studies or to compile the information?
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes, they did. We worked with Guysborough and Richmond Counties to frame the terms of reference as well as the energy partners and the province and then the Conference Board applied their model to extract out the data for those two particular examples.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carey.
MR. JON CAREY: I, too, had concerns about the confidence and attitude aspect but other than the politicians is there a positive attitude by investors and business people in this? Where do you feel the negative part is coming into play?
MR. DEMPSEY: It is a complex question obviously. I don't have the detailed survey data to be able to segment it beyond the absolute levels but to say that we are hearing from businesses in the energy sector, comments and concerns around the time to develop projects and the regulatory complexity of those projects which would lead them to reconsider their investments possibly, I mean we're hearing some of that kind of language. We've had challenges regionally. Our colleagues in New Brunswick, as this committee well knows, challenged Nova Scotia's right to export our gas. That creates uncertainty in the eyes of investors notwithstanding where you live because our gas, to get to market, it has got to go through New Brunswick. So that has created a level of uncertainty I think.
MR. CAREY: I always like to see anything that's good for Nova Scotia happening, whether it's Halifax or some other area, but specifically what benefits would we see in rural Nova Scotia - I represent a riding in Kings County - is there anything positive about this for the Valley area?
MR. BILL ADAMS: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to comment on individual counties other than Guysborough and Richmond because we haven't extracted, segmented the data to do that, so that's not possible. We've got some very positive news forecasting on the provincial front, but I am not able to comment on that level.
MR. CAREY: So the areas in rural Nova Scotia that really it looks positive for are Guysborough and some of Cape Breton and so on, but I mean the fact that El Paso is talking about running a line down the South Shore and so on, is that not a positive?
MR. DEMPSEY: Absolutely, and, again, at the time we launched the study that was not as well advanced so that was not included. But certainly that would have benefit in the local market areas and in other areas of the province as well.
MR. ADAMS: Perhaps I could add a little bit to that because it has come up a couple of times now - the rationale for the structure of how we measure the potential impacts was for us to look at the province, first of all to take a look at it from one end to the other and say what are going to be the impacts as an aggregate across the province in all of those areas that we outlined and then to extract what are going to be the impacts in what we saw as the two areas at that point - and this goes back to late 2001 early 2002 - what are the two areas at that point that had been most significantly impacted by offshore development? And that was the Strait area and Halifax. We recognized that Cape Breton, for example, with the development of the Laurentian sub-basin would see significant impact, but that question had not been answered at that point.
So there were just too many variables for us to extract information for that area. We recognized that El Paso, as the example pointed out, was a proponent for a gas pipeline that would land somewhere along the South Shore, but again there were too many unknowns at that point for us to develop additional models that would extract it for those areas.
MR. CAREY: So you're working - like the economic corridor leaves Halifax and goes toward New Brunswick - so at this point you really don't have any information that you can share with us about going in the other direction?
MR. DEMPSEY: I think we do, Mr. Carey, in that the Atlantic initiative that I mentioned, which is part of how we are framing the Halifax-Moncton economic corridor, would contemplate the development of many corridors. I would think that as we improve our road access into the Valley that that would have to have a significant benefit for development in that region and that would be a natural extension of a corridor from Halifax. So I would think that we are already seeing some of that growth happening and that there would be much more to come.
MR. CAREY: But it would be a little premature for us to ask about potential industries or growth that might be in that area?
MR. DEMPSEY: Again I am not in a position to comment on that because I do not have that information, so I couldn't respond intelligently.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dempsey, when you talk about the perceived, and I think it is perceived lack of confidence in attitude that Nova Scotians might have - some have said that the attitude and confidence is being fostered and fed by the federal government in certain respects - in that context, in your opinion what impact will the Kyoto Protocol have on the energy sector or perhaps any other sector that you have an interest in here in Nova Scotia? Has the Greater Halifax Partnership taken a position as of yet on the ratification of the accord?
MR. DEMPSEY: No, Mr. Chairman, and again, that's a very good question but a difficult one for the partnership to answer. Because of the nature of the partnership, in that we are supported by the private sector, by the municipal government, by the provincial government and the federal government, we are very careful that we respect those relationships. The Chamber of Commerce might have an opinion on that but the Greater Halifax Partnership would not have an opinion as to the Kyoto Protocol directly, because that would put us in a very difficult position, I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would expect that it would but on the other hand, on the projections you have made has the protocol been factored in?
MR. DEMPSEY: It's a very good question and to the extent that if we move forward with Kyoto it's anticipated that we will be coming back and reviewing the study on an annual basis. We will be coming back and looking at the forecast and what factors have changed in the environment because they do change, we could not have anticipated that at the time. We will then update the study and we will share those impacts. I think that's a very good point, Mr. Chairman, we will be coming back with the impact, as the Kyoto situation becomes more clear, as to how it will be implemented, when it will be implemented and we will attempt to measure what impacts that might have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I find that somewhat perplexing, Mr. Dempsey, whereas in Canada, in fact, all you have to do is go on the Internet and they certainly have staked out their ground. As an active participant in the partnership, I guess I would have thought that perhaps the partnership might have given it some consideration. You're certainly not oblivious to it, we certainly aren't suggesting that but to come up with the type of numbers, presentations and expectations, I guess one would have thought that possibly you would have sought that type of expertise if, in fact, it's available and some would suggest that it isn't, so we appreciate and respect that, as well. I will yield the floor to Mr. Chipman.
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you're familiar with the Places Rated Almanac but they've rated greater Halifax as providing the fifth highest rated health care service in North America and the highest in Canada. What part does that play in attracting industry and business to the area and do you believe that?
MR. DEMPSEY: The first part of the question, what role does it play, I think it plays a significant role in that the many industries - especially ones that we work on attracting from the U.S. - understand that there's a significant cost to them operating in the U.S. market to provide health care services to their workers. As a result of coming to Canada, obviously that is taken care of. As it relates to the quality of the service, that does become a factor because many of the companies who would consider relocating would want to make certain that the quality of life assets - education, safety, health - are there and available. So it will help us ultimately in attracting, so a good, high-functioning level of health care services is an integral part of a sophisticated economic development strategy.
MR. CHIPMAN: I know we are focusing a lot on energy here this morning but where do you see wellness planning in growth? Do you see any growth in that particular sector?
MR. DEMPSEY: The Chamber of Commerce has taken a role, obviously, in focusing on the issue and the cost associated with wellness and the benefits of having a healthy population. Our role has been a developmental role in the life sciences sector and we have focused on helping to facilitate the commercialization of technologies that arise from expenditures in research and development.
[12:30 p.m.]
I'm pleased to tell the committee that the work that we've done with the Medical School at Dalhousie over the last two or three years, has led to the creation of four, early stage biotech companies, we've attracted over $12 million in early stage venture capital, private sector capital to support the development of those companies. Ultimately, that leads to a more successful retention and attraction strategy on health professionals. We can't attract health professionals to our region if they don't have the ability to do research and commercialize that research, so that's an important part . . .
MR. CHIPMAN: Do you see greater Halifax becoming a national centre for the life sciences?
MR. DEMPSEY: I do. Without question, the resources that we have in our community around the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, the National Research Council's Institute for Marine Biology, the Dalhousie Medical School, InNOVAcorp, any number of resources in this community would enable us to move to that level. Again, it's a competitive marketplace and we have to recognize and bring to the committee's attention one fact. In the 30 years since the Tupper Building was built at the Medical School, which is where the
primary research is done, we've moved from $3 million in primary research to $86 million. In that same time frame we've added not one square foot of research space, so we're at a critical stage in the development of our community.
We've helped to develop a proposal, with the Life Sciences Development Association to nurture and evolve a life sciences research village centred here. If we are unable to do that, we will be in a very critical situation to be able to continue to attract and retain our key researchers. This comes down to another point which is a fiscal environment. We need to make sure that we have the ability to attract that level of investment, to attract that level of research professional and to do that, it's a competitive marketplace.
You have provinces like Quebec who have absolutely stated that they want to own the biotech sector in North America and they're prepared to pay the price. If we want to be in that game, there are costs and we need to consider that. We cannot assume that based upon the existing resources we have that the status quo is a viable option, I do not believe it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Boudreau.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Adams, thank you for coming in. I have been a fan of your organization for quite some time. Actually, I am a former municipal politician in Cape Breton and my honourable colleagues were a help setting up this organization where we would be reviewing this with much enthusiasm in Cape Breton. I want to congratulate you because your organization is certainly second to none and I agree with that. Having said that, I do have a couple of tough questions so I don't mean to embarrass you or anything else, I really do support both you and your organization.
My first question is in regard to this consumer confidence. When did you first identify this issue?
MR. DEMPSEY: It was identified at the beginning of the partnership, Mr. Boudreau. I think that was early on, probably five or six years ago.
MR. BOUDREAU: So you really haven't done anything to address the issue to date? Could you indicate some of things that you've done.
MR. DEMPSEY: I would like to report to you, Mr. Boudreau, that we've had enormous success and that we've beaten that monster back. The reality is we have not and we need to continue to work on that as hard as we can and we're not there, we are not there. So you are correct, we have not moved that monster off of our back.
MR. BOUDREAU: It's disappointing to hear that, but I personally have a lot of confidence in your ability and your organization's ability, hopefully, that you will get some support somehow and this can be dealt with because that's scary, actually, in my opinion at least.
Now moving on, I guess the first question I would like to ask is, do you believe a viable industry market can be created here for natural gas not only in Halifax but throughout Nova Scotia? Can this be achieved?
MR. DEMPSEY: I believe it can. We got a bit stalled on our gas distribution system, in terms of the development of that and bringing that available to industry development here.
I believe with the current new environment that is going to encourage that development to happen more quickly. The things that have happened in the Strait area around development of that resource are very positive. I think that's demonstrated that Nova Scotians can compete and can deliver a benefit in that sector.
MR. BOUDREAU: Just recently, Sempra gas left the province. Has this had an impact on your organization and your agenda?
MR. DEMPSEY: That's a very astute point, Mr. Boudreau. In terms of investor confidence, when Sempra leaves what the investor world sees - they don't see the details as to why they left - is a large multinational successful gas distribution company left Nova Scotia because they were unable to work out a deal with the government. That's the challenge for investment. The reality is what we deal with here as Nova Scotians, however the perception is quite something else, and that does cause concern.
MR. BOUDREAU: I just have one issue that I want to make sure I understand. You did indicate that you believe Halifax will continue to grow while the rest of the province shrinks, I guess . . .
MR. DEMPSEY: No, that's not correct. What our forecast suggests - what my comment was that we have no interest in operating strategies in isolation to the benefit of greater Halifax if our province is not growing. For Halifax to grow, we need our province to grow. We can't have one without the either; we do not believe so. We are committed at the Greater Halifax Partnership to finding ways to partner with other organizations in this province so that that growth is achieved province-wide, because that is just a fundamental to our beliefs, that we must do that. In fact, the forecast in the energy strategy shows that the province will grow, and it will grow dramatically.
MR. BOUDREAU: I'm going to move on a little bit. Actually, I've just been appointed the Transportation Critic for my caucus. Halifax is really busting at the seams. All this development hasn't been planned very well and I'm not saying that negatively because
maybe it wasn't foreseen. What is the plan? Does your organization have any plan to deal with the road infrastructure in this city?
MR. DEMPSEY: No, Mr. Boudreau, we do not, because that's not our mandate. So we cannot deal with that, although we do have a stake in it. If we see the growth continue to happen in what appears to be an inconsistent fashion, that's going to hurt all of us. The Smart Growth strategy that we mentioned earlier is something that we would like all of our colleagues in the economic growth and urban planning initiative to get involved in, because it has to happen in a way that's efficient and that allows for the movement of goods and resources. We are definitely concerned with that situation.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you for that answer. In reviewing your study, it does indicate in the study that goods and services are going to be required, insurance and this sort of thing. Why hasn't your study provided attention to such issues as road infrastructure? If that is part and parcel of the overall project, why is that not included in your study?
MR. DEMPSEY: I think that's a very valid point. That is not included, along with many other facets of what is required to manage our growth. The study is a start; it's not the end in that we will continue to monitor our performance and look at where we go in terms of its development. Mr. Adams has also pointed out that in the detailed study, in Chapter 6, we have a transportation infrastructure impact, so we could share that with you. That's not in your summary section.
MR. BOUDREAU: If I may, Mr. Dempsey, are you in consultation with the Ministers of Transportation and Energy or the department personnel? Is there any communication link whatsoever set up between your organization and government to become the engine that drives this whole project?
MR. DEMPSEY: The connection that we have on an official level is that Deputy Minister Bob MacKay sits on the board of the Greater Halifax Partnership, and through Mr. MacKay's office, we work to make sure that the information is available for him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chataway.
MR. CHATAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity for a few questions to Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Adams. I very much appreciate the slides, et cetera, that you gave us, because I think, overall, you should be complimented for basically working on the positive, not the negative, not the confront, and the why couldn't it be this, why shouldn't you be this. You accent the positive, and I think that comes through in what you have presented. In fact, we very much appreciate this.
These four slides of very famous companies, partly in Nova Scotia, partly across Canada, partly around the world, are very good. Basically, I got the impression - correct me if I'm wrong - that this is rather unique. Not many groups, like the Greater Halifax Partnership, could ever say here are some of the people supporting us, and putting on those very worthwhile things.
I would just like to know, what have you done that other people in other parts of Canada or anywhere else have not realized? What makes you successful in this regard? I think the other thing that should possibly be mentioned as well is that, indeed, when you go to revenue sources, it's a wonderful thing. Here we have the three governments of Nova Scotia, and add it all together, it's 37 per cent. Guess what? It's a miracle. We have private sector investment, 41 per cent. Private industry is supporting you more than governments putting you ahead to do this. Also, you get 20 per cent of your income from projects. What makes you very successful? Why do you feel that you've been very successful in this field?
MR. DEMPSEY: Good question, Mr. Chataway. There's no simple answer, because if it were just a formula we would print it out on a piece of paper and sell it and it would be very easy to do. Part of it is structure and governance around the city having the vision to let the private sector have a role and a say in economic growth and development. The city had great vision, I believe, to see that happen. Part of it is the business community here. We have a very special business community. If you look at our chamber of commerce, our chamber of commerce has a level of support that is unparalleled for any city its size in North America. Notwithstanding our earlier comments on confidence, we have a very strong and supportive business community, so we have the building blocks to move this forward.
We have consulted with cities across the country. Calgary Inc. came to Halifax to build their partnership model. They came here. Alberta came to Nova Scotia to figure out how to privatize economic development. Ottawa restructured their economic development model based upon our model here. I could cite examples of cities right across the country that have taken that approach. We think it's a unique combination of the structure that we've employed and the business community that exists here that makes that work. I will give you an example. Toronto has been successful in creating a partnership, and so far they've raised just over $1 million. Congratulations, Toronto. Try to catch up to us.
MR. CHATAWAY: It's competitive, you can be sure they will try.
MR. DEMPSEY: Well, we will be ahead of them because we will be at the next place where they're not going.
MR. CHATAWAY: I would like to think that in Nova Scotia we are just as good as anybody else in the business world, across Canada and across the world.
MR. DEMPSEY: No question.
MR. CHATAWAY: We're not necessarily any better than anybody else, but we're just as good. We have to have that attitude and carry it forward to just do that. My goodness, you talk about Halifax, and of course I have the honour of representing Chester-St. Margaret's, and I think everybody who represents a riding in Nova Scotia realizes that basically - I know for example, one is GN Plastics. That's a company that was founded in the 1970s, pretty well. They deal with 50 countries around the world. They're competitive. Of course another part of that was Chester Plastics, now sold to an international plastics company in the States. That's just because somebody who sat down there was competitive, was smart enough to do it, then just did it.
[12:45 p.m.]
Of course, the other thing I think we all realize, is that Nova Scotia is only 1 million or just less than 1 million. We have to talk about that. But the main thing is, of course, the great wealth of our province is going to make something here and export it because that's where we have to go.
For example, another thing - and I know we are very proud in Lunenburg County, and I have the honour of representing some of Lunenburg County - is Christmas trees. We are competitive. Out of all the exports of Christmas trees across Canada, half comes from Nova Scotia, half of that comes from Lunenburg County and half of that comes from New Ross and area. It wasn't because the people out in New Ross and area are just so self-esteemed and everything. They are dedicated and they are just competitive enough. I think everybody who has the honour to represent a riding in Nova Scotia, I'm sure you could analyze your riding about the same way. You just have to think of the positive. My goodness.
Basically, my last question, if it's okay, your memo was projected expenditures. Okay, you are going to spend $2.234 million and maybe one penny over, who knows. Basically, could you explain some of the projects that are going to come out of your expenditure there? I mean, what do you mean by, say, energy, that 25 per cent of your expenditures will be on energy? What does that really mean or just a couple of things that you have been . . .
MR. DEMPSEY: Examples?
MR. CHATAWAY: Yes, examples.
MR. DEMPSEY: One example, Mr. Chataway, is the work that we are doing in energy with Houston. Houston is a world energy city and that gives us a relationship. Houston has a partnership called the Greater Houston Partnership, the GHP, south of the border, our contemporaries. We have negotiated an agreement, which we hope to sign before the end of the year, with Houston's partnership, which gives us access to a city of 5 million people with strengths in the health care sector, the aerospace and defence sector, the IT sector and the energy sector that we want to bring back to our province.
What we want to do - and we are spending money to develop that relationship - is to form a partnership because we are like entities, the Greater Halifax Partnership, the Greater Houston Partnership. They will provide services for our investors who want to find business in Houston and when their companies come here to expand in the offshore, we will do the same for them and we will open that up to our province. Our challenge is to get that benefit province-wide and we are going to need the support of our colleagues in Economic Development and other departments to make that happen. We do believe that that has a benefit that can be seen across the entire province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: Howard stated earlier that he and his colleagues in the regional municipality voted in favour of setting up the greater partnership structure. I did vote for that at that time but later on, if you can remember, I felt a great difficulty with that structure because at that particular time, it was focused on promoting the urban core. We talk about Halifax here today, we talk about downtown Halifax, maybe parts of Dartmouth, but indeed it is a region, not a city, and it goes as far as Ecum Secum on the Eastern Shore.
There were many arguments back and forth under the then leadership of Dr. Mike MacDonald, it was stated clearly to me that it was the mandate and the focus of the greater partnership to focus on the development of the downtown core, even though the whole of the municipality helped fund that. Then, later on, we talked about RDAs and I think the distinction became that the greater partnership would be for downtown and the RDAs for rural development.
The truth of the matter is, you showed us some stats and stuff, and claim that Halifax is booming and all these great assets are coming from the partnership, or whatever, and rightfully so. But I really can't see any difference in growth or any difference in the economy of the Eastern Shore for the past couple of years. Maybe some people from the bedroom communities, Porter's Lake and Lawrencetown, work in the core, there's no doubt about that. But as we travel further down the shore, I don't really see any benefit or any change. Could you explain to me your relationship with the RDA, remembering that Sheet Harbour Port, the gateway to the world, the offshore industry? Bottom line, why haven't we pooled our resources together? Why is nothing happening in Sheet Harbour? If you are promoting, and so on and so forth - like, where are we with you and the RDA on working with the government around the Sheet Harbour port or growth, specifically on the Eastern Shore, as we are a partnership for the whole regional municipality?
MR. DEMPSEY: It's a very good question, Mr. Dooks. I will answer it in two parts. The first part is, the partnership with the RDA. The Regional Development Authority has, as its focus - and we have agreed on council, subsequent to your time there - that we would work together, they would focus on community economic development initiatives based in the communities and the Greater Halifax Partnership would focus on more broad-based strategies around general economic development, and then work together.
So, for example, on energy, on Houston, every company in the Eastern Shore, right from one boundary of HRM to the other, is able to participate in all of our events, in all of our trade access strategies. In fact, everyone in the province - because the more they use it, the stronger it becomes. So we are opening up, we are developing these initiatives and opening them up to all of our partners.
I would like to say that we have done more with the RDA. Sometimes it is difficult to combine community economic development with the general economic development but I think we are trying to do that. Ultimately, I think the benefits will be there but it is not an exclusive strategy in any way whatsoever and we are not attempting to do that.
The second part of my response would be that we take a very facilitative role for development. We don't put anything anywhere. So when a client comes in to look at an investment opportunity, they look at the entire spectrum of opportunities and make a decision based upon sound economics.
If something makes sense in Sheet Harbour because of the facilities there, then we make certain that that client has access to that information so that they can make that right decision and go where it is going to benefit them the most. But we do not have the capacity to influence where they go because we don't have incentive money. We have no money to do anything that would attempt to manipulate where a company might go. We just do not.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, and I understand that. I was making the point that the partnership should work, indeed, with the RDA and I am not doubting that.
The problem with businesses on the Eastern Shore - you say any small business on the Eastern Shore has an opportunity to be a part of the offshore, or whatever the case may be. Yes, they do if they have the resources, if they have the time or the money made available to take part in different incentives or programs. You must understand, in an economically oppressed area, usually the businesses are family-run, mom and pop operations, both people are working, for heaven's sakes. They find it hard to have their paper work done for the remittance at the end of the day.
As far as the RDA is concerned, yes, they are active on the Eastern Shore but they are trying to promote from within and if there is nothing from within to promote, what are they achieving? I am certainly not saying that in a derogatory manner. What I'm saying, sometimes
you stand in your driveway all night and shovel snow. If it keeps snowing, you're not going to get your driveway clear.
The point is, and talking about the Department of Economic Development - and I speak of the Eastern Shore - we are missing the whole issue here, we're missing the whole problem why we are an economically oppressed area.
I guess I would like to tell you that, yes, I am happy that Halifax is busting at the seams and there is growth, and the housing starts are up. Well, housing starts are not up in the rural parts of our region. They are up in Metro, in the suburban areas. So when we talk of these stats, maybe we should make it clear that it is the urban part of Halifax and not necessarily the whole region. I just thank you for that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dooks. Mr. Dempsey, did you want to respond?
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes, just one comment. I think that - again, the impacts are broadly felt. Hants East- which I would not call the urban area - if you look at the housing starts, I think, are probably, if you look at a per capita basis, at an extremely high level. In fact, as Bill has pointed out to me, last year we looked at the CMHC census data on housing starts, province-wide. Our province, last year, had the highest level of growth in value of housing stock of any province.
MR. DOOKS: Is there a housing boom in Cape Breton?
MR. DEMPSEY: I can't point that out to you.
MR. DOOKS: I don't know. We see housing starts as a flourishing economy. I am just making that basis. . .
MR. BOUDREAU: In Cape Breton The Lakes there is.
MR. DOOKS: If there is, good, I'm happy. I'm just saying that it is my knowledge that the growth is around the core of Halifax, which is exciting. I am not saying this in a negative way but I am concerned about the rest of Nova Scotia, the rural part of Nova Scotia.
Are they really, truly benefiting by the prosperity of Halifax? I don't know. I certainly hope they are, but I don't have any proof of that. I know that I represent very rural people, and I know people on the Eastern Shore are struggling, struggling to find employment, their children are being educated, then moving away and not returning home. So when I look at the figures that say they're going to return home in 18 years, I will be able to tell their moms and dads that next Friday night at the union meeting. That's it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now start on the second round of questions, with your indulgence. Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued to hear Mr. Dempsey indicate that Deputy Minister Mr. MacKay was a member or a representative of the Greater Halifax Partnership. How long has the provincial government had representation on that?
MR. DEMPSEY: Since the inception of the partnership to my knowledge.
MR. MACKINNON: It's a continuous flow.
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: And certainly at the commencement of this study.
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: You've indicated that one of the problems with consumer confidence and businesses establishing is with regard to the cumbersome regulatory process. Is that correct?
MR. DEMPSEY: That is one facet.
MR. MACKINNON: Are you familiar with the red tape task force of the government?
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Have you reviewed the final report?
MR. DEMPSEY: I have not reviewed the detailed report, no.
MR. MACKINNON: Are you familiar with the fact that the government didn't even prepare a final report of the red tape task force?
MR. DEMPSEY: No.
MR. MACKINNON: Has Mr. MacKay ever given any explanation as to why this four-year study has never been completed?
MR. DEMPSEY: It was not (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please.
MR. MACKINNON: I do apologize, Mr. Chairman. Government members are saying it's three years and six months, so I do apologize for rounding off.
MR. DEMPSEY: Again, it's difficult for me to answer the question because it has not, to my knowledge, been a point of discussion at the board of the Greater Halifax Partnership.
MR. MACKINNON: I didn't draw that out just to be facetious, but it goes to a very important point. One of the interim study reports indicated that one of the issues that was dealt with was a sewage disposal system, which is not a major issue when you're in the inner core but as you get out to the outlying areas, like the Eastern Shore or Sackville and so on, it is. The government indicated that it was quite proud of the fact that it reduced the turnover time on inspections and installations from 33 days down to about 13 days. What they forgot to mention is that the cost to the individual consumer, to the private sector, has increased anywhere from $1,000 to $1,500 per unit. With 4,000 units province-wide, that's anywhere from $4 million to $6 million more of a hit. As a consumer, that would be a very negative factor. That's just one of the conclusive things.
I wanted to ask you, with regard to, vis-à-vis, taxation. The government says no increased taxation, but there have been a phenomenal number of user fees implemented. Has your organization examined any of the impacts of all these increased user fees in the last two years?
MR. DEMPSEY: No, we have not.
MR. MACKINNON: Do you have any sense of the magnitude of the impact? Do businesses talk about this? I could draw a whole list of things. I think we would be talking in the hundreds of millions. I think there was an estimate by the government's own figures that they would be raising well over $100 million in their "user fees", which is essentially another form of tax, depending on who's point of view you would like to take, but it is a cost to business as well as to the consumer. Your organization hasn't examined that, despite the fact that Mr. MacKay sits on your committee?
MR. DEMPSEY: No. That is correct. Certainly it does impact our ability to attract investment, the extent to which we have an attractive fiscal environment enables us to attract investment, so certainly we are concerned that we maintain our competitive position. The chamber of commerce assumes that role within the community, here in metro. I would suggest that the chamber would be in a better position to answer that question.
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Two short snappers, then . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon, I'm trying to limit this round to two minutes. If we have time, we will certainly come back to you. Mr. MacDonell.
MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I will get or back or not, I will say thanks for the presentation. I think that certainly with the proximity of Hants East to HRM, anything good that's happening here has the potential for a positive effect in my community, at least in part of it. I really just have one question. I'm curious about what you perceive to be included in the information and communication technology expenditure that you have here, 11 per cent? What do you see coming under that heading?
MR. DEMPSEY: Things like the cost location analysis study that we're doing in partnership with Sydney to identify the cost of operating a technology-based company in Halifax in a detailed fashion, the cost of labour, the cost of land, the taxation issues would be identified in that, and in Sydney, the available labour in those markets, and then comparing that to the cost of a similar facility in the northeast of the U.S. The study is being developed now, and our expectation is that we will see Sydney come out as number one, Halifax will be - my guess - number two. Then we will use that to rank cities like Boston and Nashua, New Hampshire and others, that will be much more expensive. That will be a tool we can use to attract investment, based upon that level of analysis.
MR. MACDONELL: There's a couple of questions from that then. Can you give me an example of what you would call a technology-based industry? What is your perception as to why Sydney would be cheaper than Halifax?
MR. DEMPSEY: Last question first, with respect to the KPMG studies that have been done looking at the cost competitiveness of locations in Canada, typically Sydney would be a cheaper location than us, largely because land costs are typically less expensive. When that's factored into the mix, they tend to be a much more attractive location from a cost point of view.
The companies that we would consider in the sector are companies that would use technology in a way to generate their products. We wouldn't just say that every company is a knowledge company, we would limit it to companies that are going to do some level of application of that technology to develop a product or a service.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dempsey, I understand the majority of the partnership's funding comes from the private sector, and I think that's commendable. How many investors are there in total in the Greater Halifax Partnership, and how many are outside of the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. DEMPSEY: There are 115 individual private sector investors in the Greater Halifax Partnership, and all of those investors would have a facility or a corporate office in Halifax, likely. In some cases it's their head office, in other cases it may be a branch office.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How many are in New Brunswick?
MR. DEMPSEY: Again, a company may have an operation in New Brunswick, 29 of our 115 investors that we currently have, we identify as having operations in Moncton as an example.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Halifax to Moncton economic growth corridor, I understand, will give the partnership, or at least the business within the corridor, access to some 600,000 people, I believe, or is it . . .
MR. DEMPSEY: It's 600,000.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I certainly commend that concept, but does the partnership itself see the organization as the facilitator? I understand Halifax Regional Council, I shouldn't say to the chagrin of my colleague, Bill Dooks, has given their blessing, so to speak, to the concept. When in fact municipalities and RDAs, et cetera, buy into the concept, which at least at first blush seems appropriate, does the partnership see itself as the facilitator of that economic corridor and the growth throughout it?
MR. DEMPSEY: We obviously need to play a catalytic role in getting it started. It will only work if the private sector is there, so we work to identify the companies that have a strategic interest in being a part of that economic corridor; they are the ones that will make it live or not. We will make sure that we do everything we can to bring those private partners to the table, those that have a strategic interest in seeing that level of cooperation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe I'm not being clear. I guess perhaps you could give the committee, if you would, an example of how you envision this working. The concept, in theory at least - I'm not sure about practice - depending on who you're talking to, seems somewhat supportable, but I guess I'm having difficulty understanding how a business, whether it's expansion or a new business wishing to relocate or expand, looks at the economic indicators in this province, how does the partnership promote, enhance and start the process of building that corridor? Give me an example of how that may happen.
MR. DEMPSEY: We're in the process right now of conducting a study which will tell us the kinds of things that are possible for us to do to facilitate and encourage growth along the corridor. Something we might anticipate would be something as simple as - if you ask anybody in this room how many industrial parks are located between here and Moncton, could we answer that question? Then refine that question further and say what are those parks doing, what is their vacancy rate, what are their costs? Those are questions that investors ask, and we would be stumped if asked that question.
I can tell you know we have at least counted the parks, we know there are 27. Do we need 27 along the corridor? Probably not, if we look at the vacancy rates. We're going to do the analysis which will determine how we can optimize resources, and then we will do simple things: we will share the costs. It costs $25,000 U.S. to do an ad in one of the key site
selection magazines, to get our awareness out there - $25,000. If we all partner together, maybe it's feasible for us to do some advertising, but individually it's not possible, we can't do it.
We're going to try to gain leverage by working together, increase the awareness of this corridor. If you think about it, they exist everywhere. If look in Canada at the Guelph-Kitchener-Waterloo area, they work together, the research triangle there. They work together to attract investment, and what we're suggesting is that we do the same thing here.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of short questions in reference to the pamphlet that you passed out. Two hundred people a year are going to be leaving the province. One question is, what's Plan B? What happens if all of this that you put together in the energy sector just collapses and all the gas is going to the States, to the power plants - that's all the oil companies want - or perhaps it doesn't get developed in the manner that you foresee, what then? What's Plan B?
MR. DEMPSEY: That's a really difficult question to answer, because we're working on implementing strategies to see that growth happen. We have every reason to believe that it will. Based upon our analysis, year one, against that forecast, we're tracking above where we should be, therefore we think our strategies around growth are the right strategies to deploy.
MR. BOUDREAU: Referring to your housing starts, I'm astounded, realizing that perhaps 78,500 homes could be built here which, I believe, if you look at two cars per household - and I believe the norm today is three - places approximately 157,000 additional cars on Halifax highways. What is the plan for highway infrastructure? I learned today that there isn't any, so that is a major concern.
I come up here from Cape Breton now, and there is a traffic volume here that warrants attention to the road infrastructure. I think someone better recognize - very soon I would suggest - that we require road infrastructure if we really want this city to grow to the potential we believe it can. Someone, and I would suggest it should start with this committee today by writing a letter to the Minister, Honourable Ron Russell, to initiate some study and action on the roads in this city, before it's too late.
MR. DEMPSEY: Mr. Boudreau, I think you've raised a very valid point. If we don't have the right infrastructure, we can't grow. There is some work, I can tell you, happening. When I said there's no plan, the Greater Halifax Partnership does not assume that role so we do not have a plan. The HRM has a capital growth plan that's being developed that we are aware of. I think work has been done on that which would involve the consultation of the province, but again I'm not in a position to comment on that because I have not been directly involved. I do take your comments; it's a very important issue for us to consider.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: How do you get to work, Mr. Dempsey?
MR. DEMPSEY: Kayak.
MR. EPSTEIN: That's the right answer. From Bedford to downtown Halifax, every day. Well done, Mr. Dempsey. I think my colleague, Mr. Boudreau, had in mind commuter rail, that's what he meant, not more highways. (Laughter)
I want to clarify something. Earlier we were all using terms like Halifax and I know when I used it in particular that I had in mind, when I talked about Halifax as the area for potential growth, something within an hour - unfortunately an hour - drive between the downtown. Clearly that's where it's happening, from downtown Halifax to Truro, and downtown Halifax to Middle Musquodoboit, and downtown Halifax to Kentville, and downtown Halifax out to Bridgewater. That's clearly where the growth is likely to be. It's a big area, it's not just Halifax, it's not just HRM, it's those surrounding counties.
What I would like to ask you about is your table that lists tax environment as one of the attractions of HRM as a place to locate. On your website, under that, you point out that there are no provincial payroll taxes, you point out that there's the lowest provincial income tax in Atlantic Canada, you point out that the small business corporate rate is among Canada's lowest, and you point out that the lowest top marginal rate in Atlantic Canada is here. These are clearly being put out there as draws to attract potential businesses to locate here. What I'm wondering, especially given the comment about the lowest provincial income tax in Atlantic Canada, is whether there is agitation among your members, given that you referred specifically to an attractive fiscal environment here as being one of our strengths, is there agitation among your members for a tax cut?
MR. DEMPSEY: You're referring to a personal tax cut?
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, personal tax cut. The lowest provincial income tax in Atlantic Canada, it says right there, is one of the draws.
MR. DEMPSEY: Mr. Epstein, again, the issue of taxation is a sensitive one for the Greater Halifax Partnership, given our relationship with our province. The chamber of commerce is the organization that, I have to say with respect, would deal with that issue. I do not want to venture further on that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do I take it that the page we have in our materials is up to date? This is still on your website as an attraction for businesses to locate in metro?
MR. DEMPSEY: I believe so. I don't have that page in front of me, but we can certainly check to make sure.
MR. EPSTEIN: You're not backing away from us as having an attractive fiscal environment - I think we just heard you say that 10 minutes ago.
MR. DEMPSEY: The issue with respect to the fiscal environment is that it is an important element for economic growth. The question of attractiveness is a relative one. Are we more or less attractive than some other jurisdictions? I think it's a question that needs to be asked in the context of a comparison.
MR. CAREY: Just to maybe simplify it and maybe I'm the only one who doesn't really understand as well as I should, but from your information that was provided to us, the team of Greater Halifax Partnership is about 13 people on staff and then you have a tremendous number of excellent people on the governance board . . .
MR. DEMPSEY: Yes.
[1:15 p.m.]
MR. CAREY: To give me a snapshot of exactly how this works, what would be a normal day? I guess the question is, what do you do? (Laughter)
MR. DEMPSEY: This is my evaluation committee, is it?
MR. CAREY: Maybe that's not a fair question.
MR. DEMPSEY: I think the question is a good one, Mr. Carey. We are proud that we've been able to accomplish a lot with a relatively small staff. For example, if we get involved in a project in the energy sector, we would retain expertise either from our board level or on a contract basis who could allow us to develop a project that has that level of detail in it. In the life sciences sector, as we move forward in developing that, we would bring experts on who could help us develop those projects. Then when they're completed, the resource is no longer a burden to our organization. In fact, its cost is covered in the structure of the project. It gives us a great deal of flexibility. It allows us to have as good a level of expertise as exists in the marketplace and doesn't burden us in any way with the incumbent overhead to carry that. That's a strategic structural decision for the model that we operate.
MR. CAREY: You were asked a question about the red tape commission. I would like clarification. There are three of us on that committee here. (Interruptions) Alive and doing well. There is a final report coming in. You will see it.
MR. MACKINNON: Before the election?
MR. CAREY: Well, I hope so.
MR. DOOKS: Very positive.
MR. CAREY: I'm sure it will be. The other issue is that the red tape commission was done differently than in the past where they took in many topics, and it was studied and put on the shelf. In this case we had specific areas, and of the 11 or 12 major ones that we looked at, 11 of them have been implemented. I think although maybe not overly impressive to some people, we've made some progress which others in the past had never done. I think you will see in the report that it has accomplished some good things.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What we'll try to do, with your indulgence, perhaps, is take five more minutes and then we will give you an opportunity, gracious presenters, to kind of summarize, if you would like. We have some other committee business we must attend to, like appointing a vice-chair. I think Mr. Chataway had his hand up earlier on. I'm informed, yes, you did, but maybe Mr. Carey answered the question about the red tape commission.
MR. CHATAWAY: If Mr. Dooks has a question, that's fine with me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks.
MR. DOOKS: Just getting back to Mr. Carey's question on the daily routine of your operation, when you said that you would get a project, does some investor or someone from outside the province or from wherever call up the partnership and say we have a project, we want you to do some work on it and give us the findings? Is that what you mean? I'm still confused about what exactly your operation does? Seriously, someone from outside would ask for information and then you would retain certain services to provide that information? You're an information-type generator? Does it cost that person anything to have that done? Do you do free service?
MR. DEMPSEY: I will answer the question first by stating that we have identified four key sectors where we believe have the greatest prospect for growth, so that's what focuses our effort and enables us to create the greatest impact; life sciences, energy, ICT and the Smart Growth sector. We have strategies that we develop in consultation with our directors, who are representatives from leading companies in their sectors, as well as companies and governments in the sector. Those strategies are on our Web site. We are actively engaged in operating to achieve certain objectives that we have identified in those strategies. In some cases it would involve us doing a project to add information.
An example in the energy sector is that we identified that in order - right now a project we're working on - for us to go to the next step and realize the benefit that comes from that sector, we need to understand what kinds of technologies are likely able to develop here. We're partnering with EnCana and with our city and Emera to do that study, and Industry Canada has matched our money. We've said that we will spend $150,000 to do this study and Industry Canada said they will match our money.
We've leveraged our money by partnering with those companies. We now have $300,000, which we're conducting a study, doing a technology assessment of the industry, which we will then use to identify how we attract investment through partnerships, through technology transfer and through licensing. We're out there now operating with our partners to do that, which is consistent with our strategies that have been developed by our board which are focused on the four key sectors for growth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dempsey, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee, both you and Mr. Adams, for coming in today. If you would like to make some closing comments, you're certainly more than welcome to do that.
MR. DEMPSEY: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee on behalf of the Greater Halifax Partnership for the opportunity to share with you some of the issues that we're facing. It's a difficult situation that we're in. On the one hand we have to be optimistic and positive, but we don't want to be irresponsible. We have to recognize that there are enormous challenges out there, but they are really opportunities if we look at it in a very constructive way.
We are committed to driving the growth of our region; we are committed to partnering with our colleagues in this province to drive growth in the province; and we are committed to seeing this region that we live in grow and prosper as well. We will do what we can to have that happen. We really do appreciate the support that we get from all the members and from our business community. That is really important for us to drive that growth agenda, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee members, we do have some other business that we must attend to. Perhaps we could just break for a couple of minutes. Please don't run away, come back and we will deal with a couple of important matters on the agenda.
[1:22 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[1:25 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee members, just a few things on the agenda here, committee business. Darlene has provided us with the annual report, 2001-02. Committee members are encouraged and welcome to sign the report off, if they're so inclined. It's not
obligatory, I've been informed, but would be appreciated. Is there any discussion on the report? We did bring it up at the last meeting.
Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for that, actually. I have some technical points, just some grammatical things and so on. For the ease of the committee, what I will do is I will sit down with our clerk, Darlene, and raise them with her. If she thinks that we should come back . . . but essentially, I thought it was a good report. There are three or four technical things that I thought should be corrected.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell.
MR. MACDONELL: I will just assume that my colleague, who I'm standing in for today, will want to sign instead of me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be agreed then that we might just defer? Mr. MacKinnon has some grammatical points. Darlene, would there be anything inappropriate with us waiting to deal with it at the next committee meeting?
Mr. Chataway.
MR. CHATAWAY: This is my first meeting of the Economic Development Committee. Am I to sign it, or should the person who sat in my place before me sign?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You would be welcome to sign it. I had an opportunity to review it as chair, but again I would encourage members, individually, to look at it. Darlene does an excellent job. I'm sure Mr. MacKinnon would agree, being a veteran of the legislative process. We will, if it's agreed, defer that.
We have some new business here, that new business is appointing a new vice-chair. Mr. Boudreau, our very capable past vice-chair, did an excellent job. Thank you, Brian. All members agreed.
Do we have nominations? I will say that normally in this committee the vice-chair would come from one of the Opposition Parties, I guess that's a rule of thumb we will maintain.
Mr. Carey.
MR. CAREY: I move to nominate Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that you're nominating Russell MacKinnon as vice-chair of the Economic Development Committee.
MR. DOOKS: I second that. I would support Russell 100 per cent for this job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacDonell.
MR. MACDONELL: If discussion is allowed, I would have nominated my colleague here. It would just seem that if the previous one was from the Liberal caucus and the New Democrats are the Official Opposition, maybe it would be appropriate to have one from our caucus. It seems like a sensible thing to do, to me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sometimes in politics things aren't as sensible, perhaps, as they should be, Mr. MacDonell. I do have a motion on the floor. At this point the way to nominate your colleague would be to see the motion defeated. I have to deal with the motion before us.
MR. MACDONELL: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a further question on the motion? Hearing none, I will have to call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Comments from our new vice-chairman.
MR. MACKINNON: Actually, I'd like to thank my colleagues for that vote of confidence, although having been nominated and voted in with an overwhelming majority from the Tory caucus, I think maybe there's a method to their madness - get me out of questions and put me in the chair and that will kind of mute me.
That's my usual political paranoia. On a serious note, I do want to thank my colleagues for that vote of confidence.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. We look forward to working with you and, of course, with our colleagues from the NDP caucus, as per always.
Now, honourable members, the next issue we must deal with is our next meeting and I guess perhaps I could ask our very able clerk to speak to the next meeting date and potential witness.
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): During the last meeting it was asked to bring the names forward of potential people who would speak to the Kyoto issue. The name of Creighton Brisco was brought before me. I have called him and he said Allan Parker now has the Kyoto file in the Department of Energy, so he would be one of the best to speak to you, to give you an overview of the Kyoto issue. However, he did mention that if he can't do it, George Foote would be the next best choice. We talked about a date, November 19th, which was really good for him, so we have that set for 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., if that's okay with the committee. Now that can be changed if you are not in agreement with it.
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might just add, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m, I just wonder, would that interfere with the House?
MRS. HENRY: Well, when the House is in session we go in the afternoon because . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's the morning.
MRS. HENRY: Oh, sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's quite all right.
MRS. HENRY: All right, we can change it to 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would he be all right with that? Are members fine with that?
Notices, of course, will be coming out.
MRS. HENRY: Of course.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Both on e-mail and in hard copy. Darlene always does that.
Now, Darlene, do we have a witness schedule for a subsequent meeting to November 19th? I shouldn't forget that, it's my son's birthday. Do we have another witness?
MRS. HENRY: Well, December, I was going to suggest we bring in EnCana for December 3rd but that's up to you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: For a follow-up meeting . . .
MRS. HENRY: Well, it was on the list of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's very difficult . . .
MRS. HENRY: It was on the list of witnesses to bring in EnCana. I was going to suggest December 3rd for that meeting date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If it was agreed by the committee at a previous meeting, is that . . .
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By all means.
MR. CHAIRMAN: December 3rd.
MRS. HENRY: December 3rd, if that's okay with the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other business before we adjourn, and we are right on - according to that clock at least - schedule.
MR. DOOKS: What a chairman. I'd like to thank you for the past year, the work and dedication and commitment to this committee, Mr. Chairman. No one said anything about you today, but I'd like to congratulate you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn?
The committee is adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 1:33 p.m.]