HANSARD

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

SELECT COMMITTEE

ON

ESTABLISHING AN
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

COMMITTEE ROOM 1

Organizational Meeting

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services 

SELECT COMMITTEE
ON
ESTABLISHING AN
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

Hon. Ross Landry (Chairman)
Mr. Gary Ramey
Ms. Michele Raymond
Mr. Leonard Preyra
Mr. Jim Boudreau
Hon. Michel Samson
Mr. Andrew Younger
Hon. Chris d'Entremont
Mr. Keith Bain

In Attendance:

Ms. Kim Langille
Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb
Legislative Counsel

Ms. Margaret Murphy
Legislative Librarian

Mr. James MacInnes
Legislative Television and Recording Services

Mr. Robert Kinsman
Hansard Reporting Services

Ms. Carla Burns
Communications Nova Scotia

â??

SELECT COMMITTEE
ON
ESTABLISHING AN ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011

CHAIRMAN
Hon. Ross Landry

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much everyone for coming and I'm glad to be the chairman of this Select Committee on Establishing an Electoral Boundaries Commission. Maybe we'll just start by doing some introductions, if everyone is here.

 [The committee members and guests introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm kind of working off the direction of Kim and she was nice enough to prepare this little package for each of us here. I'm hoping that everything will be done on a consensus basis, rather than anything more formal and that we proceed. We are under a time crunch, I would really like to see us start today and get some decisions made on the timelines and how we're going to proceed overall in this project.

The items that are on here today are public consultation; location and meeting times; report writing for the select committee and the timelines for completion of the report; and acceptance of the confidential submissions. Any feedback from anybody in the group before we get started of what they'd like to see or not see, how you feel about this? Michel Samson.
    
HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we use the same format that was done in 2001 regarding meetings and public hearings. Last time it was held in five locales - Sydney, Port Hawkesbury, Yarmouth, Bible Hill and Halifax. I would recommend this committee hold similar meetings in those five locations and if there are others that people wish to suggest so be it, but at a minimum, meetings be held at those five locations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Do you want to add a site or change a site? One option on the table is to use the five that were there before.

MR. GARY RAMEY: I would be interested in hearing what the five were again? They went by fairly quickly.

MR. SAMSON: They're in your package. Under Tab 2, Page 3 at the very top, Meetings and Public Hearings, and there were both afternoon and evening sessions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In those communities?

MR. SAMSON: In those communities, yes.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Were these the same sites that had been used the time before?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramey.

MR. RAMEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not objecting to those by the way, but I was just wondering, I didn't see any for the entire South Shore there. I thought maybe there should be a location somewhere along the South Shore of the province which seems not to be very close to any of those other places - well Halifax, I guess is closer. There is one in Yarmouth, is there not? Yes, well maybe we don't need an intervening one then, I don't know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Raymond.

MS. RAYMOND: Mr. Chairman, certainly I understand you're using population centres, but I'm just wondering, because I haven't had a chance to review this, whether those five sites have been used from time immemorial or whether they just happen to be the most recent five sites?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: If I could just help with that. Keep in mind we're only determining what the criteria of the boundaries commission are going to be. That commission will then go out and hold much more extensive meetings in more locales, or at least it has the option of doing so. The idea back 10 years ago, or more than 10 years ago, was to be able to have it go around the province in at least five different locations, have the feedback for this committee, and then allow the commission itself to determine whether it wanted to add more communities in that.

At the same time, we all realize we have very busy schedules and it's going to be a challenge for us to be able to find locations in those communities in order to do this, in order to meet the reporting requirements of December 31, 2011, in order to establish the commission. I don't think it was meant to be a slight to any communities, I think you can point to various parts of the province and you could say that they may not be covered under this but hopefully, once the commission is in place, they will have an opportunity to hold many more hearings as they will have a much longer time frame than what we have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramey.

MR. RAMEY: I don't have a problem with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, if someone would make a motion - before we do that, we'll go to Mr. Boudreau.

MR. JIM BOUDREAU: I just had a quick question with regard to the number of submissions that took place in the various locations because that might give us an idea of the effectiveness of the locations. So is there something to that effect?

MR. LEONARD PREYRA: It's asking for a breakdown.

MR. SAMSON: I don't think it's actually broken down per location . . .

MR. BOUDREAU: No, I'm just wondering in the last report, that's all. That's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: I move, Mr. Chairman, that we accept the proposal of the member for Richmond and also the idea that when we adopt procedures similar in principle to what was done before, it might just be easier to get consensus and expedite things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were quite a few in Port Hawkesbury and Yarmouth had a few. Bible Hill had two. (Interruption) Pardon? Well, Truro/Bible Hill - six of one and half a dozen of the other.

MR. ANDREW YOUNGER: If you make it Truro/Bible Hill, it probably was just at the college is why it says Bible Hill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a consensus on that rather than to beat that issue up and we'll move it forward? (Interruptions) All right.

So the location of meetings and times, why don't we just get those details worked out similar to what the pattern was before. Are there any particular days - I prefer to have a Monday and Friday, looking at the way the House is, if we can start ASAP, or does someone else have a preference? Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we should set an end date and then work backwards. I'm sure people have plans for Christmas? It might work better if we go backwards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments or perspectives on that issue?

MS. RAYMOND: I definitely say we should back cast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.Younger.

MR. YOUNGER: I agree with that. You might want to put the Halifax one last because I think that then it can collect - it's semi-central, and I know it's hard for a lot of people, but it collects anybody who has been missed at that point.

MR. PREYRA: I was thinking of the report-writing dates, and I agree with that too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bain.

MR. KEITH BAIN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. One of the problems that presents itself is if we go on Monday and Friday, a lot of us are gone from our constituency Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. If we could allow at least one day that we could spend a day in our constituency, whether it's a Monday this week and then . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in the House the whole time. (Interruptions) All right, so I hear that point. Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: I guess it's going to come down to the sooner we can have the clerk's office here, the Committees Office, looking at the availability of space. Last time, if you look at the dates, we tried to get it done as quickly as possible. It pretty much ran almost a week and we got it all done. 

I would strongly recommend that in light of the time sensitivities involved here that we may have to possibly look at a Monday to Friday - do five days in one week - and then it's over with as far as having to leave our constituencies. Then we'll have the opportunity to meet and collect the information we've had. I would strongly recommend that we look at getting it done as soon as possible and as quickly as possible.

MR. CHIARMAN: Okay, and then we have to look for bad weather as well - not that it seems that way here in Nova Scotia anymore, but the potential is there. All right, so then are we talking roughly - what are we saying here? Be done by November 25th, or December 1st? Kim?

MS. KIM LANGILLE: We have to allow for advertising time, so we have to keep that in mind as well. Yes, it has to get out ahead of the meetings.

MR. YOUNGER: December 1st?

MR. SAMSON: What was the standard for advertising? A week? Two weeks?

MS. LANGILLE: Well, I think it depends on where you're advertising. I think before last time there were ads done in provincial newspapers and then whatever locale you were going to, there would be an ad run in that paper as well. So what the cut-off would be is going to be different for local papers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Younger said December 1st. Ms. Raymond?

MS. RAYMOND: You would probably know how long the report preparation - the writing and preparation - actually took last time.

MS. LANGILLE: I wasn't here last time, so no, I don't know. I know they had four deliberation meetings and then the report was done.

MS. RAYMOND: All right, fair enough.

MS. LANGILLE: And that's not the public meetings.

MS. RAYMOND: The first week of December might do.

MR. PREYRA: Are you suggesting we finish hearings by December 1st and report by December 15th?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to have the report before December 15th - a couple of days, anyway - because there's a rumour. I've just talked to some people today, and they're hoping for the House to be finished around that time, but who knows? We might be here until Christmas.

MR. PREYRA: The report by December 12th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: It's irrelevant whether the House is seating is sitting or not. We can just table it with the Clerk and that meets its requirements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hebb.
    
MR. GORDON HEBB: You're not reporting back to the House. This committee is mandated to set the terms of reference. I think that was the distinction from 10 years ago, that the committee may have reported to the House, but you're not reporting back to the House. You're making the decision as to the terms of reference. 

MR. YOUNGER: So December 31st?

MR. PREYRA: December 12th?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear December 31st and I hear December 12th.

MR. SAMSON: Oh no, it would be earlier than December 31st.

MR. PREYRA: December 12th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, December 12th. Going once, going twice. Do we have a consensus agreement on that? All in favour?

MR. SAMSON: I just want to point out that that's a Monday. You might want to pick a date a little later in the week in case, for some reason, there's something last minute that comes up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go with - December 14th was mentioned before. December 13th and 14th.

MR. SAMSON: December 14th is a Wednesday. That should be fine. May I suggest that our public hearings be completed by December 2nd, which is a Friday?
    
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any other opinions or feelings on that? All right, so what we have agreed upon, if I'm hearing things correctly, is that the hearings be done by December 2nd and the report be completed by December 14th. Clear?

MR. PREYRA: And how much time to be allowed for advertising?

MS. LANGILLE: As I said, that depends on where you're advertising. I spoke to Communications Nova Scotia and I think they can turn around an ad fairly fast, but it's the little local papers, I think - they would have certain cut-offs, and it would depend.

MS. RAYMOND: What would happen if we go to Sydney and Port Hawkesbury at the beginning of a week, Halifax when we can get it, and Yarmouth and Truro in the same bracket? So all in a week.

MR. PREYRA: The 25th would be the earliest available date.

MS. RAYMOND: The 25th.

MR. BOUDREAU: It would allow a week, which is probably the minimum, right?

MS. RAYMOND: I'm suggesting clumping the hearings in a week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it wouldn't be this Monday, then, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's good.

MS. RAYMOND: The week of November 28th to December 2nd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's too tight.

MS. RAYMOND: Twelve days to look at it.

MR. BAIN: Five days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got to have a bad day of weather in there.

MR. BAIN: When you take in Sydney to Yarmouth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So why don't we look at the end of next week to be in Sydney? Can we do Sydney and/or Yarmouth - one of them or two of them. We can split them up from one week to the other if we get - not that I don't mind going to either place, but . . . 

MR. BAIN: I think it makes sense that we space them because of travel.

MR. SAMSON: The other point, Mr. Chairman, if it does help, I know back in 2011 other members of the caucuses would sit in - in case of foul weather, if something happened that someone could not travel. It's been the practice that other members can sit in. As for all of our committees, they can substitute members if necessary. I think we should keep that in mind as well, in case of either weather or other commitments that the named members might have on specific dates or evenings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So, can we target anywhere from the 22nd on? December 2nd, I have - well I don't necessarily need to be there, I have another commitment on that afternoon. 

MR. SAMSON: I could chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It couldn't be a better person. I think you're glad to recommend yourself. It would be a charm. (Laughter)

MR. PREYRA: So, December 2nd in Halifax?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to make sure we have clarity before we leave - we're going to try to attempt to either do Port Hawkesbury and Sydney around the 22nd and 23rd, in that neighbourhood or vice versa, Yarmouth. One end of the province done right up front and get that done, okay? Are we all in agreement? All clear on that.

What's the next thing we have on there? The communications person.

MS. LANGILLE: Just one other item with regard to the meetings. I think they held afternoon and evening meetings - are we doing the same, or just in the evening?

MR. SAMSON: I would recommend that we do the same - that there's an afternoon session that's permitted and then an evening session as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How long are the meetings - one hour or . . .

MS. LANGILLE: I think they were two.
    
MR. CHAIRMAN: Two hours, okay.
    
HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Sometimes you may have a lot of presenters and some nights you may have very few, so give enough time. 

MR. SAMSON: I think it was 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

MS. LANGILLE: I guess that's another issue then, how long you want the meetings to be?
    
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not so sure - looking at the list of people who are there and the issues at hand, if you look at the numbers it would be easy to do it in the time frame of an hour and a half each, with the potential of extending it a half hour if we want.

MR. PREYRA: Legislative Counsel is volunteering to keep a list of interveners and stay until they've all . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: What's the feeling there on that? If we put two hours, then we have to stay two hours. If we put an hour and a half and we have to stay two hours, that's okay, and if we have to stay two and a half, that's fine as well. If we advertise two hours, then we're forced - if no one shows in an area or there is no one else there after an hour and a half, why hang around?

MR. SAMSON: I'm trying to see what the ad said last time, if it required people to advise as to whether they're going to make - yes, if you look under Tab 2 it shows the ad that went out, and it said that individuals and organizations wishing to present views to the committee are invited to attend a public meeting, to please advise the committee in advance by calling toll free before. 

So, if I'm not mistaken, we had a sense of who was coming to present beforehand. I think we can be reasonable if there's no one lined up to show, I don't think the committee has to stay there for two hours knowing no one is going to show. At the same time, if we have to go a bit overtime because of the presentations, I think we're all flexible enough to be able to do that as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Younger.

MR. YOUNGER: I'm just wondering, the way that ad is worded, I agree to stay longer, it doesn't matter if there are people there who want to talk, we can hear them, we're already there. If in the event that nobody signs up at a location to speak, say, at an afternoon session, are we all going up to a session that nobody signed up for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If we advertise, then we have to show. 

MR. YOUNGER: No, but the advertisement said you need to register in advance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are going to be some people say that they didn't have time to register and you said you were going to be there. So we're going to be there.

MR. YOUNGER: That's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is good, though. It's a fair point. Mr. Bain?

MR. BAIN: I would think, Michel, maybe you could comment on this too. When the D250 Committee went around, I think we allowed them an hour and a half at each venue and if it went beyond that, that's what we did. 

MR. SAMSON: Yes, I don't think it makes too much difference whether it's an hour and a half or two hours. Again, if you start at 6:00 p.m. and no one is there, only one presenter and that presenter's done, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect you're going to wrap up for the evening at that point and not just wait around until 8:00 p.m. I think that just sets some time frame, but I don't think we have to worry too much about that.

MR CHAIRMAN: So are we setting an hour and a half time frame or two hours? Any comments on that?

MR. PREYRA: An hour and a half, and prepare for two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, an hour and a half. Go ahead, Kim.

MS. LANGILLE: Just on the fact that people call in and if they want to make a submission, I think how that has worked in the past is that if you have people who sign up, that's fine, they are to be heard first and then if there are others who show up, they sort of go in a queue and be heard from after the people who have actually taken the time to sign up are heard - just for your information.

MR. BAIN: Yes, I thought that because it is still a public meeting and, although they may not put a submission in, if they're there they have every right to present.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we done with that issue, then? An hour and a half . . .

MR. PREYRA: Can I just confirm, are there overnight meetings contemplated in here - or how many of them are we expected to . . . 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I suspect you go either to Sydney on the first night and back to Port Hawkesbury, stay one night and drive up the next day to Port Hawkesbury and then continue back. 

MR. PREYRA: So that would be the 22nd and 23rd?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That depends - or it may be Yarmouth.

MS. LANGILLE: That's certainly what has happened in the past - if you're kind of far away from Halifax or your home sort of thing, yes, accommodations, the Committees Office looks after that sort of thing and sees that you have a place to stay.

MR. SAMSON: I think the same rules apply as what applies for us through the Speaker's Office. I think if it's beyond 50 kilometres or 100 kilometres, accommodations are provided, I think it's the same idea here. Some nights could end up being later nights.

MR. PREYRA: I was just thinking, if we're having a meeting the evening before and maybe have a meeting the next morning, if we're staying overnight en route to . . . 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The issue is that, for example, you leave Sydney you go to Port Hawkesbury, we'd have one in the afternoon, you can spend the three hours on the road and maybe make it earlier in the afternoon.

MR. PREYRA: But is the plan then to go to Truro that evening?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. SAMSON: We have an afternoon and evening session in each spot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you'd be done with it. Then you could slip Truro in or Yarmouth in, wherever is easier, and then you've got Halifax . . .

MR. SAMSON: The past experience was that it was easier to meet after the submissions had been done, rather than trying to have morning meetings after an evening. It just didn't work because of people's schedules and their commitments. It was much easier just to do it back in the city, after the public hearings had been completed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bring your runners, we'll go for a run in Sydney, a nice place there, then we'll head off to Port Hawkesbury. Ms. Langille?

MS. LANGILLE: Just on the meetings and moving around the province - Legislative TV accompanies these meetings and they need time to set up, so there has to be some time allowed from removal time, too, between meetings. They have to take their gear into the next place - and probably Hansard, too, I would imagine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, the next issue. I think we're settling it - I apologize, Ms. Raymond.

MS. RAYMOND: No, we were talking about the duration of the individual meetings. Just in reference to that, I'm wondering whether there are sort of traditional constraints on people's presentation lengths, sort of like the Law Amendments Committee? Is there any tradition around that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the 10 minutes that we normally have would be fine. I want to hear their views - I'm just throwing that out there - and allow people some freedom to expand when necessary.

MR. SAMSON: I've never seen it to be a problem because you're going to have some who will be representing organizations that may have longer presentations, whereas an individual may come up and only speak five minutes. I think flexibility there is what is in the best interest.

I would love to say that our committee is going to be flooded with Nova Scotians coming out to discuss their concerns about electoral boundaries, but I think we must be realistic in that I don't see the chairman having to use his gavel to try to fit everybody in during the presentations, unfortunately.

MR. PREYRA: Maybe for committee members.

MR. SAMSON: Quite possibly, there you might need to exact discipline. (Laughter)
    
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so we got the time. Now, to Public Consultation Process - Report Writer/Communications Person . . . 

MR. YOUNGER: Congratulations, Ross. (Laughter)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't worry about that. Assign it to me, I'll delegate it - it's pretty easy.

MR. SAMSON: That's usually done internally; that's usually something taken care of here.

MS. LANGILLE: The question is - do you want someone to be doing that end of things?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes.
    
MR. SAMSON: Oh, very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A good scribe.

MR. SAMSON: And that person would probably have to follow us to all of our meetings.

MS. RAYMOND: That's what happened in the past.

MR. PREYRA: We'll just get one of the reporters. (Laughter)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that will be just hunky-dory. Well, the reporters we've got here in this room would do an excellent job. I know you're concerned about ones who aren't here. (Laughter)
    
MR. YOUNGER: You could just blog the whole thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so I think if we could identify two people so that, just in case one person is not able to make it, to make sure that they're a team effort. How do you feel about that? What's the feeling there? If we go to one and then for some reason, we don't want them to tie us up.

MR. PREYRA: Is this person to come from CNS? Is that the plan?

MS. LANGILLE: We have a representative from CNS here if they might like to comment.

MS. CARLA BURNS: Hi, I'm Carla Burns, I'm with Communications Nova Scotia. What we will do is assess what the committee's needs are and we'll go back and determine what resources we can provide. In the event that we can't provide resources, then we would look to our standing offer list. So today I'll just take back your information and talk to our senior team and see what we can do for you as a committee and report back through Kim, if that's acceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's excellent for me. Just to get a consensus, we will put this type of information processing all through Ms. Langille? 

MR. SAMSON: I have no issues with the report writer or Communications Nova Scotia. I do notice that from 2001 we actually had counsel for the committee. Mr. Dwight Rudderham acted as counsel for the committee. Now, I'm not sure if, Mr. Hebb, with the House sitting - two things, do we require counsel for the committee and, number two, do you have someone readily available within your office to provide counsel to the committee?

MR. HEBB: We could certainly provide counsel to the committee. I don't know that it would be necessary for anybody to travel to these locations but certainly once you meet, which I'm assuming you will be meeting back in Halifax to finalize your decision, certainly we can make that available, if you do, and I suspect we could provide someone but I don't know that it would be necessary for someone to go to the hearings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would we be able to consult you directly and channel out any issues?

MR. HEBB: Certainly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And we have the Department of Justice staff as well.

MR. HEBB: But certainly someone would attend all your deliberations.

MR. PREYRA: We have three lawyers on the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The role of the lawyer is to be independent of what we're doing, to give that direct advice and the last thing you want is someone internal here giving advice, we certainly take opinions and perspectives.

MR. YOUNGER: Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with you. We probably don't need a lawyer travelling with us because we're just listening.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: No, just for the meetings when we get back here.

MR. YOUNGER: Yes, when we get back here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some other channel and have that objective and deal with it, okay. Mr. Hebb, are you comfortable with that?

MR. HEBB: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The advertisement, just to come back to the advertisement, there's just a standard formula for that anyway so there are no issues for us sitting here on this regard, or does anyone have a question? Ms. Raymond.

MS. RAYMOND: It seems me that it is important to frame this properly for the public who are being invited to participate in this. Now, if this is a completely standard form of advertisement, I understand that but I think that this whole process is probably pretty darned abstruse and given that this is a committee to listen to people establishing a committee that's going to do something else on process, I think it's important that people understand first of all that they're not actually contributing to an Electoral Boundaries Commission and, strangely enough, people sometimes do get that kind of thing confused.

I would hope that it would be possible to put some sort of a paragraph indicating that this is step one of a multi-step process which actually terminates the day you cast a ballot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So if I'm hearing you correctly, the communication should be outlining in a summary form the process overall. Does anybody else have an opinion on that?

MR. SAMSON: If you can put that in writing, good luck, you know. (Interruptions) At the end of the day, you have an ad like this going into the paper. So there's only so much information you can provide in that kind of ad. In fact, I'm not sure if we actually need the list of the members who are on it. That might give you more space but there's not much opportunity other than through the communications made, whether it's through the radio or the papers would do a write-up there possibly but as far as the ad itself, you've got limited space there to put information on a good day, but that can certainly be clarified through the communications that come from the commission.

MS. RAYMOND: And it could be as simple as layout.

MS. LANGILLE: The committee that went around in 1991. In your package is a copy of that ad, and in there they had a little paragraph which says that it is not the select committee's function to determine the constituency boundaries for an electoral redistribution, and that will be the task of the electoral boundaries commission, which will hold public hearings. So that kind of sums it up.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, that's pretty clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.    

MS. LANGILLE: So you'd like something like that included in the ad if at all possible.

MS. RAYMOND: I would. I don't know how everyone else feels.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: Just another question on that - and I know we don't want to do all of this in a big group like this, but the committee should invite submissions. There should be something at the top that says, "This is inviting submissions and this is what the committee is about" - not what the committee is not about, but this committee is seeking views on - it's a more positive way of putting it.

MR. BAIN: I think if you look at the ad that we see here, it pretty much tells of an all-party select committee of the Nova Scotia Legislature that is seeking public input on the terms of reference for a commission. Then it goes on and says: The select committee does not determine the redistribution of electoral - it's all there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So on that, what's different today from yesterday is that we have different communication, different methods. We should be accepting information from people through Twitter or whatever types of lines, or Facebook. Is there something we should be setting up there?

MS. BURNS: Do you want me to speak to it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe our communications person would like to speak again, please?

MS. BURNS: Whoever is providing your communication support will develop a communication strategy. In addition to the ads last time, we also issued news releases and we have the government Web site where we can post a feature on that main page which will direct people to the government Web site. In addition, we can look at social media and a number of other options for getting the message out to the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So before it comes to par, Mr. Younger, you're saying that the communications person getting on this by tomorrow will work up a strategy for us? Would that be a fair time, within the next 24 to 48 hours?

MS. BURNS: I have to go back and discuss with our team as to who that person will be, but we will look to put something in place fairly soon in order to meet your deadlines, yes.

MR. YOUNGER: You'd be good at answering questions here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then is it fair for me as the chairman to ask that, as today is Tuesday, we have a reply back on this outline and where we're going with that by Thursday? Would that be fair?

MS. BURNS: That would be fair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It is agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra and then Mr. Younger.

MR. PREYRA: Just a quick comment. I know it's probably implied in here, but individuals should probably know that by appearing at the committee or sending a submission by e-mail they will be identified in a list of people making submissions, that they will be public submissions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's deal with that point now, and then we'll come to Mr. Younger. I think the issue is, should we accept reports from people who aren't identified? What is the general consensus here?

MR. D'ENTREMONT: They need to be identified as a group.

MR. SAMSON: I've never seen anyone else do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And from where I sit, I think that's a positive step.

MR. PREYRA: But they should also know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, they should know that upfront. Mr. Younger.

MR. YOUNGER: I was just going to say, I think your comment - Facebook, Twitter, whatever else is out there by the time this is done - makes sense. The most recent ad from the last one gives direction for comments by e-mail and also the government Web site for it. If that is done - I think it's probably covered in that last ad that was done, and obviously the links for all those options could be there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Twitter and Facebook weren't there in the last one.

MR. YOUNGER: No, but there's a link, and I don't think you need to put Twitter and Facebook and everything in the ad. I think you could just have that link available on whatever that Web site is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so . . .

MS. LANGILLE: What about the deadline for submissions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking deadlines from the public?

MS. LANGILLE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that's a good point. The issue with a deadline for submissions to the committee is, if we're looking to cut off the consultation on December 2nd, is that a fair time to say that submissions would be done at the same time so that we have a consistency of pattern and timelines?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed?

MS. LANGILLE: End of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: End of the day, so that means when the clock strikes 11:59 p.m., they've got one minute. Okay, acceptance of the confidential submissions?

MR. HEBB: It's up to the committee.

MR. YOUNGER: No, I thought we just decided that was . . .

MR.HEBB: I thought you just decided against that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to make sure I tick it off here. All right, we're clear on that.

MS. LANGILLE: So all information that is received - in a public forum, submissions, via written communication, e-mail, whatever - is deemed to be public.

MR. HEBB: And the question is, I guess, how public do you want to make it? For example, the Law Amendments Committee now, not only is it public, not just available in the Library, but the Library puts it on their Web site, which makes it much more public than if it was just somewhere where you could go and find it. So I don't know to what extent the committee is going to want to make it public.

MR. SAMSON: I can't remember last time if the submissions we received were actually attached to the report or if they were just listed. If they're not, I don't see a reason to include them this time. We can simply list who made presentations and I'm sure their submissions will be all part of our deliberations in the final report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. d'Entremont.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: I'm just wondering, is it acceptable, especially with e-mail communication, to have "joeblow@hotmail.com"? That could be anybody, anywhere, so is there going to be a little more of a requirement to actually have a name and address attached to that e-mail as well?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to identify the person, yes. As we're talking about this, accepting things by e-mail, should we define that they have to have a Nova Scotia address and be a Nova Scotia citizen?

MR. YOUNGER: Anybody can make a submission but we can decide the relative weight based on where they live.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we all comfortable with that? Ms. Langille.

MS. LANGILLE: I just have a question. What if someone sends something and they have confidential on it? How will that be dealt with? Will it just be returned?

MR. YOUNGER: Maybe they should have read the ad.

MR. PREYRA: Send it back to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some discussion a little bit on the issue of confidentiality, what that means here? Mr. Ramey.

MR. RAMEY: I agree with what Mr. Younger said - I don't know if his mike was on or not. We're telling people that this is a public process and when they submit something it's public, and they have to know that. If we get it in the ad, that covers it as far as I'm concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: If we do receive something that's marked as that, I think this committee can have a look at it in camera and make a determination as to whether it's something that, for whatever reason, should be treated as confidential or whether we just advise the individual organization that we're not going to accept it on a confidential basis. I think the committee can deal with that as we move forward, I don't think we need to set too many parameters on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess there are two stages, now that you've framed that point that way. The confidentiality of someone submitting something and us having accepting it, looking at it and then determining its weight rather than letting the public see it at that point. Where do we stand on that?

MR. SAMSON: If necessary, if we have to have an in camera meeting to deal with an issue, then so be it. If it's something of that nature, you have three Parties represented here so we'll police ourselves as to what should be made public and what shouldn't. I have no fears that we're going to spend an extended period of time in camera dealing with these matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Younger.

MR. YOUNGER: Not to belabour this, but I would just add that it is important for people to understand we're just establishing the terms of reference for a committee. I can't for the life of me imagine what kind of submission somebody would have that would need to be confidential, just in terms of setting the rationale for a committee. Maybe in the next phase that future committee may have reasons to set confidential items but . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may be absolutely right, just from where we're at here tonight, trying to feel out as to us getting an understanding of where we're going so we have some kind of a direct focus together, collectively, so it's good to discuss those points.

MR. BAIN: Just what Andrew said - that's why it's very important that we spell out clearly what the mandate of this committee is so that we're not receiving suggested boundaries.

MS. RAYMOND: Actual submissions of boundaries - I think that's what I'm trying to say. I think it's really going to save everybody a great deal of grief.

MR. HEBB: You are not just determining the terms of reference; you're determining who's going to be on the commission. You conceivably could get an e-mail from somebody wanting to remain anonymous or whatever saying whatever you do, don't appoint John Brown or Mary Smith to the commission. They may not want that to be public. 

MS. RAYMOND: I quite honestly wouldn't want to encourage anonymous submissions of that sort. (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hebb.

MR. HEBB: One way you could deal with that would be to direct Ms. Langille that if anything was marked "confidential" she was to send it back and say that it wouldn't be considered by the committee. She wouldn't pass it on to you. That's one way to deal with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions so far? Ms. Langille.

MS. LANGILLE: Do we have agreement on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. RAYMOND: Do we need a motion on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think - I assume, as stated here, that we're working on a consensus model. If we have to go to a vote on something we'll do that when that time comes, but if we can make as much on a consensus basis, I think we're better off at this time. Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: One of the outstanding matters to be dealt with is that in the past we've had presentations made to us in French, and it was an issue as to the fact that only certain members were able to understand the presenters. It raises the question, which I think has been raised here, as to whether we will have translation services made available.

If I can put in my two cents, I would recommend that the ad should say that, where requested, they should advise the Committees Office that they intend to make a presentation in a different language, and therefore the Committees Office can prepare for that - that being that we don't have to bring in translation services everywhere if they are not being requested. It would cut down on costs, and I would suspect that you would probably see only one or two of the meeting areas that will request presentations made in French - possibly Yarmouth, if I had to guess, and possibly Halifax.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?

MR. YOUNGER: Are you suggesting that we make a note to say that if you are going to require translation services, let us know so we can arrange them?

MR. SAMSON: Yes.

MR. YOUNGER: So that should be in the ad.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramey.

MR. RAMEY: That was done the last time, was it, Mr. Samson?

MR. SAMSON: I'm trying to remember what was done, and I think we'd have to go back. I think we actually were in a situation where they made the presentations in French and there were only one or two members on the committee who understood, because there was no translation. That was 10 years ago, so we've come a long way in 10 years. 

At the time I think it wasn't practical to even be able to pull it off, whereas we've already done it in the Red Room now with the Law Amendments Committees, so it's much more realistic to do it now. But again, it would be a requirement that they have to serve notice beforehand. There's no use hauling translation everywhere if we don't need it.

MR. RAMEY: I wasn't asking because I was opposed. I was just wondering if they had done it before, and that sounds like a reasonable approach to it.

MR. SAMSON: That's something that I'm sure that Mr. MacInnes from Legislative TV can probably assist as we do our deliberations here. I don't think we have to make a decision on that tonight, but that might be something that can be discussed with the Chair. If we need to have another meeting to discuss that issue, if there's something outstanding there that needs to be dealt with, then so be it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Langille.

MS. LANGILLE: On the translation thing, I don't think it has been done in the past, to my understanding. I think the most recent select committee was maybe back in 2008 or 2009. I don't think it was done.

I think if they have a written presentation that's in French, it can be translated, or vice versa, here. The other thing that Kim mentioned was if people are contacting us and saying "I'd like to present in French" or whatever language, we need advance notice of that if we are to put the services there to be able to translate it. That becomes an issue as well.

MR. SAMSON: I'm almost prepared to guarantee that you are going to receive presentations in French, due to the fact that we have protected ridings in this province for Acadians. I have no doubt it is going to happen, so it's not a question of "if." It will, and unlike other select committees, this one specifically deals with an issue that's quite close to the Acadian community, so that's why I believe it would be appropriate for us in this day and age to have that service available, once it is indicated that that is going to be requested.

MS. RAYMOND: I assume this is something that would be placed in the advertisement, that translation services are available on request. But of course, this presents the question of how many French speakers are going to respond to an ad in English, so who will be translating the ad?

MR. SAMSON: CNS will run the ad in our French dailies and French weeklies and the radios and everything else.

MS. RAYMOND: Great, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have a question on this? Were you looking to say something?
 
MR. JAMES MACINNES: I'm Jim MacInnes from Legislative Television. My concern would be if we were to travel from Sydney to Port Hawkesbury, I believe it's about two hours travel time. Depending on weather conditions, to arrive and be set up - and I believe you're talking about a 2:00 p.m. meeting - I don't think it would be possible to have a set-up any earlier than 2:00 p.m. 

We'd have to have an interpretation booth set up on site at that location, for example in Port Hawkesbury, and have interpreters available in that area. The only interpreters that I'm aware of are in New Brunswick. There are some on standing offer but I have not worked with those people. There are significant costs associated with that as well, but that's the primary concern.

MS. RAYMOND: There are no interpreters in Nova Scotia?

MR. MACINNES: The only interpreters that we've worked with that were in Nova Scotia have moved to New Brunswick. There are some on the standing offer but from my understanding they are not accredited as part of the interpreters association.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, on this issue then, if we could allow Communications Nova Scotia and Ms. Langille to follow up on the logistics and the possibilities of that and what the barriers might be. We are under a tight timeline but the issue is not quite a simple one of yes or no. I think we need to do some exploration there. We can talk further here on the issue but we won't really resolve it. Any other points that we want to raise tonight? Mr. Bain.  

MR. BAIN: Thank Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering about the newspaper ads that we are taking out. Are we going with every newspaper that serves a particular community or do we go with the major - I'll use Cape Breton as an example - do we go with the Cape Breton Post and the ChronicleHerald or do we go with those two and include the Victoria Standard, The Inverness Oran? So I guess we should decide that as to how far we go. 

MS. BURNS: Placement of ads will depend on what your budget is, what you have to spend. Our adverting team would look at all of the meeting locations and look at where is the best placement for the ads based on what your budget is. So typically, in Cape Breton for example, it would be in the Cape Breton Post and radio. Usually it has been in the smaller papers but again, it depends on what your budget is for advertising and we'll work around that.  

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Langille, who do we get to establish the budget, does that go through the Speaker's Office? 

MS. LANGILLE: Essentially yes. I've got some numbers that have been pulled together based on what happened in the past and that kind of stuff, but yes, we kind of figure a number and then it has to be approved. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay and how long will that take to develop that? 

MS. LANGILLE: I guess it depends on, you have to decide on the adverting then. Do you want it in all the papers? It all depends on the kinds of information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well with the electronic information that we have today, will it be necessary to put it in every single newspaper? At the same time, let's have some discussion on that, I just throw that out not as a position but just as a starting point. Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: In light of the fact that you're only meeting in five locations, I think you really have no choice but to hit all of the dailies and weeklies that are available in Nova Scotia. The last thing we want is people to say that they had no means of knowing in their community and plus the fact we're only meeting at five locations, which could pose a challenge in itself. 

I think in this case, just for all of our interests, the more avenues that we use to get the message out, I think, is in our best interest and hopefully any Nova Scotian who is interested will have their regular means of communication touched through the advertising. So I would certainly recommend we go larger than smaller on this just because of the importance of the issue and the fact that we're only meeting in five locations. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Mr. Preyra.
    
MR. PREYRA: I'm just thinking one start may be to issue a press release based on this discussion tonight outlining dates so that the media can give people an advanced warning that we will be meeting this week and we'll be reporting at this time, so there will be a general expectation to look for meetings.

MR. BAIN: Coming soon to a town near you. (Laughter)

MR. PREYRA: Yes, at least there will be a little bit of a heads-up, but I agree completely with the member for Richmond that we do need to advertise as broadly as we can.

MR. SAMSON: It's a bit of a challenge because we have to give the Committee's Office time to actually identify locations, identify their availability. I think to try to put out dates now would be premature; although I'm sure they'll do their best to get us something as quickly as possible. I would suggest that to avoid confusion, let's make sure we have the dates and the locations settled before we put any communication on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: From a communication perspective are you comfortable with where we are?

MS. BURNS: I would agree with that, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, there's a consensus at the table. I don't know what else to discuss with regard to that because we're starting to go in circles then. Are there any other issues we need to bring to the table tonight? Mr. Bain and then Mr. Younger.

MR. BAIN: I wanted to bring up one more thing, Mr. Chairman. We just talked budget and Kim made reference to depending on what we want. Will the committee participate in the budget process or is it just going to be through the Committee's Office that it's done? Again, I'm going to reference the democratic process committee that we had - the committee determined the budget. I don't think it matters, but as long as we're clear on what we're going to do with it, I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On that point, does someone else want to engage in that particular point before I move to Mr. Younger? Mr. Samson.

MR. SAMSON: If I can make a suggestion. What we did in that case is we created a subcommittee which was just the chairman and a representative from the two other caucuses that basically dealt with some of these internal matters, rather than having to bring all the committee together in light of the scheduling issues, especially now with the House sitting. 

May I suggest the chairman may want to look at establishing a subcommittee of three members - himself and a representative from the other two caucuses - who would be able to make decisions on this, non-binding if there are concerns about votes being taken, but could on a consensus basis agree to some of these matters without needing the entire committee to meet on that, and the budget certainly could be one of those matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments with regard to that issue?

MR. PREYRA: I think there is a model in Public Accounts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't really see this as a complex matter anyway because the Speaker's Office will come up with a tentative figure and if we're not satisfied with it, we can go back to them and just ask for . . .

MS. LANGILLE: That's certainly what has happened before, sort of numbers were pulled together and a draft budget was prepared - like, this is what we think we're going to spend and . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as we have an upper and a lower number, then we probably have some leeway in there. The best we can come in with the most efficient cost, of course, we all agree on that part. 

Mr. Younger, you have your point.

MR. YOUNGER: This is very brief, but we're doing an afternoon and an evening. Just looking at last time it was 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and I assume 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., I guess, but it started at 7:00 p.m. I only raise it because the gentlemen from Leg. TV had mentioned two o'clock. Are we going to set preferred times? I think we said an hour and a half was what we were going to advertise, so 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and even 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. would probably make a lot of sense. If we were doing Bible Hill or Truro, we could choose to come back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The real question, I'm thinking, with the second time at night, the client we're trying to serve is a family trying to get through lunch hour and then get the kids ready for school and things like that, so that's why the 7:00 p.m. comes in versus the 6:30 p.m.

MR. YOUNGER: That's fine, you can do 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., but the afternoon going from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. allows people to do it on their way home from work too.

MR. SAMSON: It makes it easier for Leg. TV.

MR. YOUNGER: Well, Leg. TV, as well, but it also allows people with a kid - in my case if I was coming, I'd go on my way home from work as opposed to evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else have a comment on that particular point? Do we have a consensus on that? Excellent, we can move forward.

I don't really see anything else that we need to capture tonight. I'm open to anything else that someone wants to raise.

MR. SAMSON: Do you want to establish a subcommittee in case you need to deal with some . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's do that right now. The Liberal representative will be Mr. Samson and from the Progressive Conservatives that will be Mr. Bain. I have difficulty with those two selections. (Laughter) You have two Cape Bretoners and that dominates (Interruptions) That's fine - excellent.

All right, is there a tentative time we want to have another meeting?

MS. LANGILLE: Are we going to have another meeting before we go on the road?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of course, we should.

MS. LANGILLE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we'll organize that and get back to you. (Interruptions)
    
The meeting is adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 5:25 p.m.]