HALIFAX, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Russell MacKinnon
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our first Economic Development Committee meeting in this new mandate of this government. Perhaps to start off, we will have each member of the committee introduce themselves, just for the record, for Hansard. We will start with Mr. Parker.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Our clerk for the committee is Darlene Henry. I think most folks know Darlene, our very able organizer and clerk for the committee.
Does everyone have the agenda before them? The first item of business is setting the agenda. Does everyone have a copy of the lists of witnesses that were submitted by all three caucuses? I do, on behalf of our caucus, apologize for the committee members getting our list a little late. It was e-mailed over to the Committees Office on October 22nd, so there is a little bit of a glitch there and certainly that is no reflection on Darlene because she was unaware of it, too.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Just a question of verification, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: There is an e-mail here from Mr. Paul Black. Is that like an addendum that is to be added to the - it said NDP caucus and I didn't know for sure if it was a . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is a late item. That just came in.
1
MR. TAYLOR: Okay, great, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, shall we do them individually or do you want to do them collectively?
The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: In setting our agenda, we might be a little constrained, I guess, by the number of meetings we are planning on having. It seems pretty clear that the Legislature itself will finish sitting this week. I'm wondering if members have turned their minds yet to the number of meetings and the frequency of meetings in the coming months.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an excellent point. Perhaps we will draw on Darlene's resources here on what the past experience has been and then we will use that as a benchmark to move forward. Is that okay?
MR. EPSTEIN: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darlene.
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): The previous committee met biweekly. When the House was in session we met mornings and when it was out of session we went to the afternoons only because we had a lot of rural members, just to give them time to get in. So the frequency of the meetings, of course, is at the will of the committee, how often you want to meet. So you can put that on the floor and decide how often you want to go.
MR. MARK PARENT: So the practice was biweekly. I was under the impression it was monthly.
MRS. HENRY: No, this committee is biweekly, every two weeks.
MR. PARENT: Wow, I would have asked for another committee. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Parker.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Mr. Chairman, that frequency then was biweekly when the House was in session, but monthly otherwise? Is that what I heard? (Interruptions) Biweekly year-round?
MRS. HENRY: Well, except for the summer months.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault.
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Wouldn't it be according to how busy of an agenda we have?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I just think Mr. Theriault hit the nail on the head. This past year - of course, Mr. Chairman, you were a member of that committee - Darlene, with all respect, I think we did meet biweekly but perhaps more often than not it was once a month. I think what we should probably consider is setting our agenda, and looking at the issues to see how time sensitive they are. I don't think we should just meet for the sake of meeting, and I don't think anybody around this table wants to do that. I think we should, perhaps as you indicated, deal with our witness list, and then we could rationalize or reconcile what frequency we want to meet. That would just be my opinion on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: My druthers would be monthly, and then if we need extra, to add on the meetings, biweekly sessions, depending on how full the agenda looks and how time-sensitive it is. Maybe Brooke's suggestion is a good one - let's start looking at the agenda items, but we sort of keep in mind monthly, and then if we need to speed it up, we could speed it up a bit.
MR. WAYNE GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I like the suggestion that we basically look or set out to meet once a month, and if the need arises that additional meetings are added to our agenda. (Interruptions)
MR. EPSTEIN: I didn't mean that we actually had to take a firm decision about our schedule. Some flexibility might make sense, and it's always a balance between our availability and the availability of witnesses and how pressing we think matters are, and whether the House is sitting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So the general consensus is follow the general format of the previous committee, biweekly, but it would generally lean more towards a monthly meeting, depending on the urgency of the matter, the witnesses and the availability of witnesses. Is that the general consensus? (Interruptions)
MR. GAUDET: I understood that we were planning to sit once a month, not biweekly, once a month, and if the need does arise for extra meetings, those extra meetings would be added to the agenda.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment further.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: We did, at this committee, maybe at your request, by times, build in a lot of flexibility to deal with issues. Mr. Epstein, you will recall as well that we're perhaps more contemporary than others. We always had that flexibility. If something came up, we were very accommodating to the concern of the day. I think we should continue on the premise that if something comes up, for example (Interruptions) Another hurricane, I hope not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving along to the next item, well, we might as well set the agenda. We will look at the three - which caucus do we want to start with first? The government caucus.
MR. PARENT: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? It seems like on all three caucus lists, the NSBI was listed as an item that people wanted to look at. I'm just wondering if the way to do it is to lay them all out together and try to work them that way, to see which are the most popular items. No. 2 on the NDP caucus, No. 3 on ours and No. 6 on yours was to bring in Mr. Lund to talk about the NSBI. I'm just suggesting that as one item that we would want to look at since it appeared on all three lists.
[9:15 a.m.]
I just think if we go at them one at a time, Mr. Chairman, we might end up favouring one caucus over another. If we lay them all out and try to accommodate all three caucuses we can come to some consensus. So I just picked out that as one item that every caucus wanted to talk about.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we put NSBI in the mix?
MR. EPSTEIN: It's a good idea, I don't think there is any problem with that. That's right. I don't know if we have put them in a hierarchy yet but that certainly does emerge from all the lists.
I want to make another suggestion of ways in which to think about the lists that we have seen, and that would be geographically. We see suggestions for looking at problems, sometimes very particular problems from different parts of the province, one that does have common agreement, at least on most of the lists, is some focus on Cape Breton. I want to suggest that we think seriously about some kind of focus on Cape Breton. The economic problems there, I think, this committee has grappled with before and it's appropriate.
I see that there are specifics like: the gas distribution plan for the Strait Richmond region; Cape Breton Rail; and then there's CBRM, they are all identified as well, of course, as the Whitney Pier and Area Development Association, those are all Cape Breton focused items. I guess one point I want to flag is we should focus in some way on economic development problems in Cape Breton, whether we pick one or two of those very focused specifics, or whether we want to take a more general look and if so, how, I think is open. I want to speak strongly in favour of having Cape Breton as the focus of this committee at actually a fairly early date, if possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with Mr. Epstein. I think it would be interesting perhaps to hear what the Mayor of CBRM might have to say. The Island, like a lot of Nova Scotia, has some concerns that are quite unique in their own right, irrespective of the geography. I would be particularly interested and I know we have always extended invitations in the past and the mayor hasn't been in before a standing committee for some time so, just as a possible suggestion to entertain the mayor, I would support.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I would agree with that in the sense that's a more general picture and if out of that suggestion emerges some more specifics then we can follow those up. Maybe we should start generally and look at that in the general picture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could speak outside, not as Chairman but as a member for Cape Breton, on a previous day we have had both before the Economic Development Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. We have had the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority; we have had before this committee representatives from CBRM, their Chief Development Officer, Mr. Whalley; and I believe we also had a number of other representatives, it escapes me their names right at present. In the last session we had CBRM's representatives before this committee.
I'm just wondering, is there anything new that we are looking at, aside from the study from the two professors in Newfoundland? I have had an opportunity to review some of the material and it seems there are some good points there but they are much of the same points that have been made before.
MR. EPSTEIN: It was the new study that I was interested in having the committee look at a little bit more but it's the overall picture that I think we want to get at. It may be that there are different witnesses than those suggested here that we might look to. I remember John Whalley being a very good witness but, of course, he's focused on the CBRM part of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: He's their development officer.
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, indeed, but he wouldn't necessarily have anything to say about the Strait, for example, and so maybe there are other witnesses, I'm not sure. This is your territory, so it may be that there are people you know who have had recent looks at the Island as a whole or, based on their commutative knowledge, may be in a position to talk with us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are certainly the officials, the CBRM officials, and I believe you would certainly want to have a representative from ACOA, from the provincial Department of Economic Development, you know, put a balanced view in there because there seems to be a considerable public debate and polarization, but I'm starting to wonder where the whole thing is going.
MR. EPSTEIN: Are there different views among those different agencies - ACOA, the provincial department and CBRM?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, considerable.
MR. EPSTEIN: If that's the case then, would that be an appropriate focus for a session of this committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will certainly leave it for the will of the committee, but I would suggest in light of the Supreme Court decision in Prince Edward Island . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: I'm sorry, which one is this?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's referred to as the potato plight, the Supreme Court decision that ordered, in the view that provincial responsibilities and the impact from a provincial economy of scales, that federal witnesses can be secured to appear before committees. It's certainly within the provincial mandate to invite witnesses and, if need be, go to the next step. So that's why I mentioned ACOA, ECBC or, indeed, the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority which we all know we've had before at the Public Accounts Committee and a considerable presentation and debate.
MR. PARENT: Mr. Chairman, just a question, we will set the agenda items, but can we not have some flexibility on the witnesses as we move along or are we setting the witnesses right now as well?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, I think it's just a general debate. I guess from being an MLA from Cape Breton, I would think that if you invite one group in, you should look at the entire picture because, somehow, I wouldn't want the members of the committee just to get a single perspective on things.
MR. PARENT: No, and I think that's valuable.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: One of the reasons I was supporting CBRM and the mayor is because the perspective usually that local government - I recognize and appreciate the fact you're an MLA for a part of Cape Breton, Cape Breton West to be specific, but usually, you know, you're talking about the second biggest municipality in this province and I don't really think we would require a huge delegation with Mr. Morgan. It could be left to his discretion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There could be future witnesses.
MR. TAYLOR: There could be meetings subsequently. That's the same with any presentation we receive, but right now I really think we owe it to the CBRM to extend an invitation to come in. I would be really interested to hear what the mayor and those appropriate with him have to say before this committee. As well, I would like to have a copy, a snapshot of this P.E.I. potato - was it blight or plight? - whatever it is. I know we have in the past sent invitations off to federal people and perhaps, well, 10 times out of 10 they usually decline. So are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that we can, if need be, subpoena them?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If we can show that there's a cause and effect relationship provincially with that issue, which I believe we can, you know, where you have issues of joint investment . . .
MR. TAYLOR: Absolutely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . then certainly the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island has ruled in favour. As well, just an additional note, at our national Public Accounts conference in Winnipeg this year, Nova Scotia introduced a resolution supporting that initiative and that received unanimous support with all 10 provinces, three territories, and the federal representatives at the table. So it's breaking new ground and what I will do is I will ask Darlene to perhaps get a copy of that from our Public Accounts Committee representatives and pass that along because it has far-reaching implications.
MR. EPSTEIN: That would include the court decision?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and if not, I have a copy because I introduced the motion at the national level.
MR. GAUDET: I'm just looking for clarification, Mr. Chairman, from previous members of this committee, I think before setting our agenda, was it the mandate of the previous committee to look at province-wide issues or regional issues?
MR. EPSTEIN: Several of us have been on previous committees and we've really done all of those things. For example, we've talked with NSBI previously and had a look at their overall strategy for the province. We've looked at sometimes very narrow issues, particular industries or particular businesses, or particular sectors of the economy. It has really been all over the place.
MR. GAUDET: Okay, that's what I was looking for.
MR. TAYLOR: There is, if I could be helpful, Mr. Chairman, just by way of example I suppose, an unapproved witness list attached to the cover page of the NDP caucus' list and just to give you a taste and flavour of some of the names that did come forward in the past that never really perhaps made it to the committee although some of them have been before the committee before. So we are pretty much all over the road map in bringing witnesses in.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, are we looking at setting an agenda for the next couple months? Are we looking at setting an agenda for six months? What's the time frame?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can pretty well do it, whatever is the wish of the committee, but generally you would like to have at least anywhere from a half-dozen to a dozen witnesses in the mix because not every witness, or group of witnesses, can show up on a particular date. So it's a moving target so to speak.
MR. PARENT: I would suggest we look at six different topics. That should be more than enough, shouldn't it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps in a sense of fairness then, we will target at least two from each caucus. Would that be reasonable?
MR. EPSTEIN: So far I think the two that we focused on have been NSBI and something about Cape Breton, I think that's where we are, just to sum up so far.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We still have on the unapproved list the Strait Area Chamber of Commerce and then we also - that's from the previous committee.
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And then on the Liberal list we have No. 8 the gas distribution plant in the Strait-Richmond area. That would be interesting in view of Nova Scotia Power's recent statements with regard to reducing its commitment to coal. That would be interesting. That may be one of the target areas we could probably focus on and then put CBRM in the mix for a future day, you know, if there's an opportunity to fix them in.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can I make a suggestion on what seems to have arisen so far? NSBI seems pretty straightforward. I mean the witnesses are likely to be fairly clear. We've had Mr. Lund in before.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And we've all agreed with that.
MR. EPSTEIN: And I think there's general agreement that an update on NSBI is probably a good place either to start or to get to fairly soon. So depending on who they want to make available, or can conveniently make available, that might be a fairly easy one to arrange. So that seems to have emerged.
On the Cape Breton side, what I understood from the discussion a little while ago was that we should have some kind of focus on Cape Breton, that perhaps we should take CBRM on its own one day and perhaps some of the other players in Cape Breton on another day. What I wonder is, whether we might want to deal, if we were going to do that, with Cape Breton issues back-to-back that would seem to be desirable and, if so, how close in time would we want to do that? Would we want to do it one week or two days apart, or something like that, or would we want to do it the normal two week separation?
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Biweekly, in fairness, would be the earliest to keep with the tradition of the committee.
MR. PARENT: I would suggest then in keeping that, we do Cape Breton and then we do a biweekly on the Strait area and then we move on to something else.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine too . . .
MR. PARENT: That would be two back to back on Cape Breton. That would seem to me to be more than enough.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess I'm just stepping outside my role here as chairman, as a Cape Breton MLA because I've indicated all the different points of view - federal, provincial, all these different funding agencies, ACOA, Enterprise Cape Breton, the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority. Even after the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority was set up you've had CBRM who's a funding partner to the Cape Breton Economic Development Authority and now has set up its own Department of Economic Development within CBRM. So it's starting to compete against itself.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, you forgot the liberation army. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, but I put that on because I think it's important for the committee to be able to do justice on the issue. You wouldn't want to just kind of cherry pick - pick one point of view and then jump into another region of the province.
MR. TAYLOR: Why don't we see, Mr. Chairman, with all respect, what emerges, if we bring in CBRM, whoever appropriate, like I say, we have that built-in flexibility as a committee, if we see something there we might want to go after, why don't we perhaps instead of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed. Is that okay? Okay.
MR. EPSTEIN: Has there been something from the western part of the province that we might look at? Is that okay with you?
MR. PARKER: Britex is at the top of our list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So Britex is in?
MR. PARENT: I guess I don't mind looking at Britex, I'm just wondering if we want to take a wider look. The way we're looking at Cape Breton, we're starting off with the wide look and then as it develops we'll be focusing on individual issues. Can't we bring in the Western Development Association and then out of that, if we want to pursue Britex, do that later?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the same point I just made about the Cape Breton situation.
MR. PARENT: Yes, I'm making the same sort of point and we decided with Cape Breton we'd do the wider picture and then we'd follow up. I'm just wondering why we would do the wide picture in Cape Breton and then when we go to the west, instead of looking at the wider picture we would just centre in on one specific thing. Let's follow the same pattern. Let's do a sort of wider look at economic development in the western part of the Valley and then if we need to focus on Britex, let's focus in on Britex.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think it might be a question of perceived economic need and whether there's a sort of measure of more urgent and persistent problems, I guess. But, what area does the western RDA - is it the RDA?
MR. PARENT: It's involved in a very interesting project in terms of getting high speed Internet. I don't know if you've been following that, Wayne, which is a very interesting project. They have received six communities across the country that have received funding for that. It's the western Valley, it goes up, it includes the Britex area, it doesn't take in my area, but it goes - can you help me out Wayne?
MR. GAUDET: Annapolis and Digby.
MR. PARENT: Annapolis and Digby. It's just a little wider focus rather than the specific, I'm just trying to be consistent with what we're doing with Cape Breton, that's all.
MR. PARKER: Is it the Western Development Authority or something?
MR. PARENT: Yes, the Western Valley Development Authority.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Taylor?
MR. TAYLOR: Can I ask, does anybody know around this table, what's the situation with Britex today? Are they a functioning entity?
MR. PARENT: I have no idea.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think they are. They're up and running, they're being administered and are operating but under the authority of the receiver in bankruptcy at the moment, but it's still operating so it hasn't been shut down. I think tenders have been called to see if anyone wants to buy the company. I think the current state of play is that there's some worry that what might be purchased would be the assets, by some company that's in the same business, and then they would dismantle it and take the assets away. Then tossed into the mix is whether the employees, who would like to stay here, of course, and operate it as an ongoing concern, staying in Nova Scotia, are going to get the chance to buy it. I think that's the state of play at the moment. It is operating.
Mark, is it feasible to get the Western Valley Development Authority and Britex in at the same time, do you think, or would that not be enough time to kind of look at both?
MR. PARENT: I mean it's possible. I just like the wider picture. Britex certainly would be part of that, in the sense that it's the biggest employer in Annapolis. It's not that I don't want to look at Britex, I'm just trying to be consistent in looking at the areas of the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I think, with regard to looking at a development authority, why pick on the western unit? If we're going to look at theirs, let's look around the province, so we can compare how WVDA is doing compared to someone else. I would prefer Britex over WVDA. I'm not saying let's not invite WVDA, maybe at some point in time, let's find out all the wonderful things that they're involved with, but I would suggest that we don't mix Britex and WVDA, number one. If I had a choice I would certainly be
interested in hearing a lot more on what's going on with Britex at this time, and then take it from there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Britex in, is that the general consensus? (Interruptions)
MR. PARENT: I'm just dissenting a little bit, but that's okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So Britex is in.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, could I just throw a suggestion out?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You sure can.
MR. TAYLOR: Looking at the lists, including ours, there are very few that actually relate to out-and-out commuter transportation issues. I wonder if the committee has any disposition to consider hearing - it's focused, I guess, on the commuter problems or alleged problems with HRM, and I know there's been talk - it's on and off again - about a commuter rail service coming into the city. I've never had the privilege of actually hearing a presentation along those lines. I don't even know if there is such a beast out there, but I would think that it would be eye-opening for this committee to possibly sit back - for many of us, it would be new ground. Perhaps there's something that we could do as a committee, or at least we could all be better informed, if nothing else.
As I said, I was just thinking, when I saw CBRM, I was thinking HRM and the fact that I don't think, before this committee at least, we've ever extended an invitation to the chief magistrate of HRM. That's just a thought I was throwing out. I know it's a deviation from our list here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On the issue of transportation, on the Liberal caucus list, there are a number of issues there. There's one, No. 5, Pictou County truckers association. There's also No. 7, Cape Breton rail - I guess I should read the Honourable Ernest Fage, Minister of Economic Development - they could certainly be an opening salvo, an entrance point to what you're talking about, the broad issue.
MR. TAYLOR: I fail to make the correlation between the Pictou County truckers and the uni-rails.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're talking transportation.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, we're talking transportation, but (Interruptions) Transportation, I was trying to be specific to the HRM.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chataway.
MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: Certainly, I think, just amplifying what Mr. Taylor just said, basically the capital city transportation authority has been formed, and they haven't really - they're meeting, they're sitting down with HRM and they're sitting down with the provincial government, and they're trying to figure out some plans for the future. I think it would be very wise to get them to come in and just talk about where they're going, which direction they're going, because basically no one specific government level or no one specific body can take it all in, but I think the idea of that whole authority is to figure out what they can do together, and many people working on the same problem will hopefully solve the problem. Of course, it doesn't matter where we represent, anywhere in Nova Scotia.
Certainly it is very, very important that the activity, et cetera, in HRM should be - first tell what their authority is, define it and what the goals or challenges they have right off. Because it doesn't matter where you live in Nova Scotia, it is very, very important that we all - basically we only have 1 million people in Nova Scotia and we get our wealth by exporting what we have, our products, or our services, et cetera, it is very, very important, so I think it would be a very good idea.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: I am very happy that Brooke brought up about HRM. It's a really good point, and I think he is quite correct that this committee, I don't think, really has focused too much on HRM, but it is probably time we did have a little look at it.
One interesting point of access to problems in HRM right now is that it is going through a regional planning exercise. This is sort of six years on after amalgamation, they're finally deciding to do a regional plan and that includes the transportation side of it. That's a big element of it, but it's not limited to transportation - but that certainly is a big part of it.
So we could invite the mayor and the CAO - and I can't remember who's in charge of their regional planning, but they do have a staff person who is in charge of developing the regional plan. That would be a good way to look at economic development generally in HRM, their regional planning, the transportation side of it, and the provincial side of it is that, of course, HRM is a big locale for economic activity, and we might be called upon at some point to make financial contributions to some of the projects here, and also the last Throne Speech did specifically talk about a capital region authority of some kind that I think was going to have a focus on transportation. So, clearly there is a government interest and I don't think I've heard much since then about what's going on with that. So there's certainly lots of material there. That would be a good one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I agree with taking the wider sort of view and starting off as Mr. Epstein said. I really do think we need to look at the transportation strategy within HRM and how that affects the spokes of the wheel, but I am just not sure they're far enough along that we would want to start with that. I think we should start with what Howard suggests. So I am in agreement with that suggestion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we'll invite the capital transportation commission preferably, or presumably we'll have the chief development officer and whoever is in charge of their traffic authority?
MR. EPSTEIN: They have something called a traffic authority. The mayor, the CAO is what their Chief Administrative Officer is called and that's George McLellan, and they would have someone who is in charge of their regional planning exercise - I can't remember who that is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed?
It is agreed.
Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: Well, if we're done with that particular one, we're on Number 5. In talking about transportation, I guess the whole issue of our rural infrastructure - and the roads in this province are not in as good as shape as they should be, as we're all well aware and that's really economic development - if you don't have good quality infrastructure, good quality roads, then you don't have the economic development you should have, so I wonder if that's an issue we should be having a look at.
I see on the bottom of the list the one left over from the previous committee was the federal Department of Transport. Of course we, as a province, are always lobbying the feds for more infrastructure money for our secondary roads and our 100-Series Highways and so on, and I wonder if that might be an issue that this committee should be tackling.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I'm just wondering if you could focus that up a bit, a bit further, certainly we're all interested in roads.
MR. PARKER: I guess what I'm getting at is the need maybe, here's an opportunity, we talked earlier about asking the federal people to come in, the help that they can give us as a province, we try to get more and better roads in this province. Other provinces are probably outdoing us. New Brunswick for example.
MR. PARENT: Yes, we know from New Brunswick for example.
MR. PARKER: What's their game plan that they're getting more money from the feds than we are?
MR. PARENT: But are we going to make things worse for getting new money or better by focusing on that, I don't know.
MR. PARKER: Perhaps, there's something we're not aware of that other provinces are doing better than us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps as a suggestion, we could extend the invitation to the federal Department of Transport. Presumably, they're not going to readily accept, but at least we'll start the process in moving towards some deliberations with that level of government.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is this a thing where we would want both the federal and provincial departments in talking to us?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. It's open to the committee.
MR. EPSTEIN: Get them together.
MR. PARENT: Is the focus going to be on 100-Series or on secondary roads? I mean, if we want to focus on secondary roads, we could focus on the RIM Program, for example, and how it's working, but we're mixing apples and oranges and at a certain stage here we need to be very specific. Are we focusing on the 100-Series where there is a shared federal-provincial funding responsibility or are we focusing just on roads that are funded provincially? That's where I'm not clear.
MR. PARKER: They're both important issues. I would say both, at this point. They're both part of our infrastructure that creates economic development in this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: I think the RIM project is on the Public Accounts list, I am not sure if it has received deliberation yet. But I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, I know that we tried in the past at this committee level to bring in a federal representative and I don't know if Darlene recalls what area, we were going to focus on a particular area and they, I believe,
declined to come in but it says there, it's unapproved, so that may not be the case. But I would be quite surprised if - I know Mr. Collenette, for example, is a very busy man, but it would be nice to have an appropriate representative come in. However, I certainly tend to agree with Mark that it's the rural roads or from my perspective, the 200-Series, the 300-Series. We hear about, with respect, Highway 101 and Highway 103 and Highway 104 and so on and so forth and that's very important but I guess I kind of have a mixed mind about this whole particular issue, that's all. I'll support whatever consensus that may be achieved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are a number of other issues. Has anybody had a chance to look at some of the other ones on the Liberal list as well, like the aftermath of Hurricane Juan and the impact that it would have on Nova Scotia's economy? I know it would have quite an impact on the agricultural community and the forestry community and the fishing community. What are the thoughts on that?
MR. PARENT: Let me look at my Public Accounts, is it here or not, I thought it was.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe. No.
MR. EPSTEIN: Did we just agree on transportation? It seemed to me that there was a lot of interest in it. As I say, that's fine with me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is at the will of the committee. Do you want to go with the provincial focus first or do you want to have both provincial and federal or do you just want to go federal? Since we're provincial maybe we'll start with the provincial.
MR. PARENT: Well, since the provincial is being looked at through Public Accounts, maybe we should go federal.
MR. GAUDET: I would support that. But let's attempt and see how far we can go with our requests.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. CHATAWAY: A question. The federal Department of Transport, has that got anything to do with airports?
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Transport Canada.
MR. CHATAWAY: Okay, because I know that Yarmouth and Sydney were very concerned about getting some help . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We already had that issue before Economic Development on a previous day. And then there was a request, a motion of the committee, as I recall, to send a letter off to the federal minister asking for some action to be taken, vis-a-vis the Yarmouth airport.
Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I am just looking for clarification. With our request for the federal Department of Transport, are we inviting a witness to come in to try to provide us with information in terms of what federal funding is available to help roads in Nova Scotia? Is that technically what we are looking for?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that the essence?
MR. EPSTEIN: And what would be the differences in other provinces, whether there is something we are missing. In short, what the story is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
There is also the red tape task force. Sorry, Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, before we move to that, if we move to it at all, I want to pick up on one of your suggestions that I heard just a moment ago. It was the question of natural disasters and the Nova Scotia economy, I think that is on the Liberal caucus list. This seems to me to be highly topical, it makes sense to have a bit of a look at natural disasters and the impact on the economy ranging from the preparedness to the impact and insurance questions and so on. All of those seem to be real ongoing questions and I would be happy to see that looked at here fairly soon; that would be a good one, if at all possible. If there is an agreement on that, I would like to speak about energy in a moment but I want to second your suggestion first about the disasters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I'm just noticing we are running out, if we are doing six, we don't have to stay to six, we can do more.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can put them all on, as far as that goes.
MR. PARENT: I have nothing against looking at the EMO but one I don't want to lose sight of, which probably isn't very big on people's minds but I would like to argue for it, is the Nova Scotia Nominee Program. That is the program to attract immigration into the
province and I think it is incredibly important, if we are going to grow economically as a province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we will deal with this one first and then we will move on to your . . .
MR. PARENT: I figured most people wouldn't know what that was and I just wanted to argue that is a very important thing we need to look at. I have had some problems with immigration, with people being supported through this, and I think it is a timely one. If you want me to leave that, Mr. Chairman, I'm just worried that we're filling up our list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will deal with the EMO one and then we will turn to yours, how is that?
MR. PARENT: Okay, and seven is a good biblical number, Mr. Chairman. The number of perfection, actually.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is usually a lucky number for some. So is it agreed, EMO?
It is agreed.
Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: Mr. Chairman, sorry to speak out of order but, the Nova Scotia Nominee Program is a program to try to attract immigration to the province, in light of the latest statistics showing a declining population within Nova Scotia. I know it is a controversial sort of thing, it is in my riding, immigration, because people say, well it is stealing jobs from Nova Scotians. I think it is a very important topic, in terms of economic growth for this province, so we need to look at it and see if it is working well, to see if it has potential. Most immigrants seem to want to go to Central Canada or to the larger urban centres. Maybe it is impossible to do something in that regard, but I do think it is an important program that we should be looking at and a topic we should be focusing on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I want to support Mark's request. I have a couple on individuals from my area basically trying to get approval for this nominee program. I think just to understand the program, let alone trying to bring some extra individuals to Nova Scotia, I think just that, in itself, would be educational. I want to support that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed? The nominee program?
MR. TAYLOR: Just a question. Mr. Chairman, would that not require a federal perspective?
MR. PARENT: I think the program is a provincial one through the Economic Development Department.
MR. TAYLOR: I would think there is some partnership with the federal Department of Immigration somewhere along the line.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Similar to the Cape Breton situation, why don't we take it one step at a time. We will have the provincial ones in and see if there's a need to go to the next level.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ. I think if we are going to deal with this issue, and obviously there are some concerns with it, we need to get to the root of the problem, if there is a problem. If it is slow and if the province - we run into this with highways, that is why we are bringing in the feds to see what is available. If we want clarity as a committee, I thing we should try, in one fell swoop, to bring them in. We have two hours, surely to goodness we can speak to appropriate federal representatives and provincial representatives to find out what's going on. Provincially, we should be able to get answers, but we're not, perhaps, at this point, or at least Mr. Gaudet doesn't seem to.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we were going with the intent of Mr. Parent's presentation, because it is a PC caucus witness that was brought forth. I'm not sure - we seem to have two different points of view in the same caucus.
MR. TAYLOR: I don't think we do, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been bypassing Mr. Chataway. Is this on the same topic or a different topic?
MR. CHATAWAY: A different topic.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A different topic, okay, so then we will go to Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: I wanted to agree on the topic of immigration. I think it's very important to Nova Scotia. I'm glad to hear this suggestion brought forward. I suspect that we could probably invite all the informed people at once, because I suspect they will all say more or less the same thing. That would probably be federal representatives, there is some small provincial involvement, and there is an NGO involvement as well. In metro, the main organization is called MISA, Metro Immigrant Settlement Association. MISA is heavily involved in settling, integrating, educating new immigrants and refugees into Nova Scotia.
They're a very well informed and professional organization. I would strongly suggest we invite one of their representatives as well.
The stats are very clear, which is that Nova Scotia, instead of getting 3 per cent of the immigrants and refugees, which would reflect our percentage of population across Canada, we get about 1 per cent. The real question is, what's the need, what can we do to increase this, what can we do to increase retention, and what has been the economic picture? I suspect everyone is going to tell us more or less the same things, but it's a real problem. It's a very good thing for this committee to look at this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's generally agreed we invite provincial reps, federal reps and MISA. We will try to capture them as best we can. Mr. Chataway.
MR. CHATAWAY: Just going back to the point made by Howard, about the natural disasters in Nova Scotia economy. The Liberals have mentioned that as their number one topic. Then I noticed that on the unapproved witness list - some people who have been on the committee could answer this - Nova Scotia Power Inc. basically, right now is in front of URB to discuss, specifically, their reaction and what reaction it had on them. Of course, I'm sure that everybody is aware of what happened, what's the best thing we did, how can we improve. We might get Nova Scotia Power to come in and just discuss their reaction to the hurricane and things like this. Basically, they're certainly going to have to, at some time, I'm sure, sit down and discuss their reaction and how they could improve and things like this. I think it might be very wise for the committee to have a presentation on what Nova Scotia Power did think of the hurricane, their reaction to it and how they could improve, et cetera.
MR. PARENT: We've agreed to put that on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is number six.
MR. PARENT: Yes, we've already agreed to that.
MR. CHATAWAY: Okay, but here it just says Mike Lester and Peter Power. Here you should have Nova Scotia Power specifically, and discuss that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Could I make a suggestion about this?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Chataway pointed out quite correctly that Nova Scotia Power is being asked by the URB to review its particular performance around the hurricane, and so it should. Our focus, I think, is related but slightly different. I think Nova Scotia Power should certainly be told that we're going to have a look at disasters and the Nova Scotia economy. Whether they ought to be witnesses, I think, might be a different question. What I'm thinking
is that if we're going to look at EMO and what the impact is, we're taking, I would have thought, a slightly different tack than what Nova Scotia Power's interest is; their interest is more on the technical side of making sure that there's a service up and running.
[10:00 a.m.]
Of course, we all know that if the service isn't up and running, there are negative impacts and it's the negative impacts that we want to look at and how exposed we are, rather than the technical side of talking about transmission lines and distribution systems and how many - and I guess we could look at how many repair people they have on their crews, but surely that's what the URB is looking at in detail, I thought.
MR. PARENT: I just want to agree with my colleague here. It's not so much the technical side we're looking at, but the economic impacts. For example, my colleague has raised the issue with all the lumber down, woodlot owners have to harvest that now. They have to harvest it, and it will be a bump in their income - is there a way of deferring tax over some years so that they don't get hit with that? Those are the sorts of economic implications of the disaster I think that we're really more interested in - aren't we? - as a Committee on Economic Development.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So what's your final analysis on this? NSBI? Nova Scotia Power Inc.?
MR. GAUDET: At some point I will probably be getting a reading from Nova Scotia Power. I think at that time this committee can certainly review Mr. Chataway's request and if need be, consider inviting them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. There's one other issue that's common to apparently the NDP, the Liberal, and the unapproved witness list. On the Liberal list it says, Red Tape Reduction Task Force witnesses, the Chair. On the NDP it says marketplace deregulation committee, update on activities. The unapproved witness list previous has a wide-ranging number of issues, from the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, HRM Business Parks, Securities Commission, that sort of thing, and they all seem to have one common thread and that is the issue of government regulation, red tape. Is there anything there worth looking at?
MR. EPSTEIN: I want to clarify the item on our list. The full name, actually, of that committee is the Electricity Marketplace Deregulation Committee. The committee that Professor Fournier chaired was quite focused on the electricity marketplace. In fact, its final report I think just came out the other day; it was tabled in the House and it really had to do with the possibility of allowing some kind of competitive electric marketplace instead of the essential monopoly that Nova Scotia Power has to develop in Nova Scotia. They made lots of recommendations - and it's quite important to all consumers, industrial, commercial, and residential consumers. That was why we had it on the list. It wasn't so much a focus on red
tape. I apologize for the full and proper name of the committee not being listed there. It was the Electricity Marketplace Deregulation Committee, that was the title.
I would still speak in favour of that. I see that what does show up on the lists is a lot of energy topics - OTANS is on the list, Nova Scotia Power is on the list, gas distribution, jobs in the offshore, those are all there, they're all energy related issues, as is the Electricity Marketplace Deregulation Committee. I think if we're looking for a common theme, it's something to do with the energy industry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would perhaps fit, like OTANS and the Strait area, the gas distribution.
MR. EPSTEIN: Those are all - absolutely, the Strait area, gas distribution in the Strait is another example.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll hear from a few others.
Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to be somewhat helpful, I think. Looking at the list that we have, the current agenda items, doing the - I suppose you'd call it math - we're well up to, probably, April and I think what we should do is really now go back and review our agenda in terms of priorities. I think it's time we focused on, we talked about six, we're on seven, now we're going to eight, I'm just wondering if we shouldn't go look at our list to see which ones we want to bring in and when. I don't mean to throw water on this discussion, but I really think it might be time to start focusing because this agenda is a moving target, believe you me, and I know you know that, Mr. Chairman, so I would just suggest maybe now, because we've spent over an hour getting seven nominees for consideration, that's just a thought I had.
MR. PARENT: Yes, we agreed on six and now we're at seven. I do think that something on energy would be important to keep in mind, but I would just like to finalize this before we start moving too far.
MR. GAUDET: So are you moving the number eight topic?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be fair then, since we have the other end of Cape Breton, probably in the Strait area on the gas distribution, something to that effect, and they would just cap it off at that?
MR. GAUDET: Let's add the energy topic as number eight to the list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Strait-Richmond gas distribution plant.
MR. PARENT: And we can focus that as we get closer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Parker.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Talking about we have eight topics here, I sort of felt as we were going along that perhaps this was our priority list and we had NSBI as number one, CBRM as number two, and I thought we had sort of prioritized them already.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's all a question of availability, with that being true, you know.
MR. PARKER: That's the possible order if they're available, or that was my understanding as we were going along here.
MR. PARENT: That was mine as well, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have to allow for some flexibility there. I understand the general thrust, you know. We will go down the list and if we can get them in as they come along, fine, if not, then maybe for a future day, and then come back to them until we capture them all. Is that generally agreed? Agreed. So that looks like a pretty good start. Is that okay on that topic?
Agreed.
The next item on the agenda is the nomination of vice-chairman. Shall we call for the Chief Electoral Officer to do an enumeration. (Interruptions)
MR. PARENT: I would like to nominate the MLA for the beautiful Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley as vice-chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other nominations? There being none, we now recognize Mr. Brooke Taylor, the member for the beautiful Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley as the Vice-Chairman of Economic Development which, I tend to add, will bring considerable expertise to this committee, having served as chairman in the past and I will certainly be looking for his guidance as others do. Congratulations.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I readily accept the nomination and support of the committee, thanks very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that your acceptance speech? Now, the next issue on the agenda is electronic briefing packages. I believe I will have to defer this particular aspect of the meeting to our Clerk, Darlene Henry.
MRS. HENRY: What that is, is there's another committee doing electronic briefing packages and what that means is each committee member will be e-mailed, sort of like a table of contents with URL links to various documents that are on the Internet pertaining to a particular topic or subject. There will be a large paper copy, as was available in the previous times, one going to the library, one to each of your caucuses, and one remaining here, so that you can actually see them and I believe a few of you around here are familiar with it. So it's in the pilot project stages right now, but I'm just going to get your consensus as to . . .
MR. PARENT: Are we saving money?
MRS. HENRY: Well, it's just to make things a little easier, I suspect, and a way to try to bring things up to speed, I guess. So I was just wondering how you feel about it, if that's something you want to try, just to see how the other committee is going with it, if it's something that you may be interested in? I don't know. I thought I would put it out just to see if it would work.
MR. EPSTEIN: It's hard to do this over at the Public Accounts Committee. I hate it and here's why, it's because there's generally so much briefing material for any topic of substance that reading that amount of material off a computer screen, I find a real pain, you know, and I may just be the wrong generation and beyond the appropriate degree of computer literacy for the modern folks, but I find it much easier to have paper that I can carry around with me and study and think about and make notes on. Putting white-out on my computer screen, I'm told, is not a good idea. I don't like it. (Interruptions)
Well, see, this is what it amounts it. What's the alternative? The alternative is - what am I going to do, print all this stuff off. If I'm going to print all this stuff off, it might as well come here. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I agree with Mr. Epstein, but I do think that some of the briefing material we get, I wonder how many trees are chopped down. There has to be (Interruptions) Destruction of the environment, Brooke, clear cutting on the north . . . So, I wonder if there's some happy medium here.
MRS. HENRY: You can tell me what you like in the packages. I can put certain things in, take certain things out. I don't know - you try to stick with the topic and you try to get some background information so that it leads up to . . .
MR. PARENT: I'm just wondering if the essential stuff could be in print, and then the background material might be . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let's put it this way, it appears each member has an opinion on this. Why doesn't each member who has a genuine interest in this issue forward a little memo to Darlene, capturing their thoughts, so that she would be able to, hopefully, come to an analysis. (Interruptions) You can e-mail or you can send a written memo.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would make it a lot easier for Darlene to know, point specific, what we're looking for. Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, why don't we go around the committee table, just to advise Darlene if we're interested in having a hard copy or an electronic copy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker, you're first.
MR. PARKER: Certainly, hard copy. Paper. Hard copy. Book.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gaudet.
MR. GAUDET: Hard copy as well, please.
MR. TAYLOR: Hard copy.
MR. THERIAULT: Hard copy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chataway.
MR. CHATAWAY: I'm not here permanently. If I were here, it would be a hard copy.
MR. PARENT: I would like a brief hard copy with links.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): I would have to say electronically. Just being a new member, there's so much reading material, I think, for me, the way I work, I think it would be better if it's at my office on my computer. I can see I'm not (Interruptions)
MR. EPSTEIN: It clearly is a generational split. (Interruptions) I want a hard copy, please. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the next meeting, we have two possible dates here, November 18th and November 25th. Which would you prefer? November 18th?
MR. PARKER: I think there's a Resources Committee on then.
MRS. HENRY: The Human Resources Committee meets that morning but . . .
MR. PARKER: No, Resources. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We could also go in the afternoon. If there's a cross there, we could move it to the afternoon or have them move it to the afternoon.
MR. PARKER: November 25th, on the Tuesday afternoon, I think we're meeting. Isn't it?
MR. TAYLOR: Is Human Resources in the morning, Darlene?
MRS. HENRY: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Generally. (Interruptions) Mr. Parent.
MR. PARENT: I'm a bearer of very little brain, and it just helps if it's a specific Tuesday, the third Tuesday of the month or the second Tuesday of the month. I know we have to have flexibility, but generally. So that's all I'm arguing for, whatever we pick - what are we right now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right now we're looking for the next meeting date.
MR. PARENT: Yes, I know, but we're the fourth Tuesday right now.
MRS. HENRY: Yes.
MR. PARENT: If that works, let's just stick on the fourth Tuesday, but you're telling me it conflicts with Human Resources? (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's the Resources Committee.
MR. TAYLOR: They will work together, a.m. and p.m. Mr. Chairman, is it thought that we're going to meet in the p.m. when the House is out, here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the will of the committee. If that's fine, we can meet at 1:00 o'clock.
MR. TAYLOR: Because Mark and I are on . . .
MR. PARENT: We're on Resources.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so we will meet p.m. then, 1:00 o'clock on the . . .
MR. PARKER: I think that's the same date for Natural Resources. (Interruptions) In the afternoon, at 1:00 o'clock. I believe, isn't it? (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we could go in the other room. There are two rooms.
MR. PARKER: It's just that they're both meeting at the same time. Some members are on both committees.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, what about a.m.?
MR. TAYLOR: We have Human Resources in the morning.
MR. PARENT: Human Resources.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That usually goes from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. We could go from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon because, generally, Human Resources breaks up within an hour.
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. TAYLOR: Good point, Mr. Chairman. Why don't we try that for November 25th?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll try it. As the Minister of Justice would say, it's a work in progress.
MR. CHATAWAY: What time is that? November 25th, at what hour?
MR. CHAIRMAN: At 10:00 a.m. Okay, any other issues before we adjourn?
MR. TAYLOR: I just want to make sure we still get our notices electronically.
MRS. HENRY: Yes, you'll be getting them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, a motion to adjourn?
MR. GAUDET: So moved.
[The committee adjourned at 10:16 a.m.]