HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2004
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICING
1:00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. William Dooks
MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I would like to introduce myself. Bill Dooks, MLA for Eastern Shore. I am going to be the Chairman for this committee. I apologize for our caucus being late. We had business that we had to attend to. The reason for this meeting today will be for us to maybe talk a little bit about our mandate and to maybe bring together a certain criteria or structure of this committee.
I just have a few opening comments or remarks I would like to share with you. We all know the committee is on Petroleum Product Pricing and that it is the intent, through a resolution that was in favour of the House, that we as a committee go out to ask Nova Scotians what their opinion would be on making recommendations to the House on the prices of fuel and gasoline. In saying that, there is a deadline to have a report back to the House on August 31st of this year. This being the last day of June, that doesn't give us a lot of time. It would be important for us today to determine where we should go. It would be important for us today to set up a structure of time because you know that we would have to give the public 10 days notice or whatever that would be. Maybe we can ask the solicitor or the clerk for some information on that.
We have to advertise our meetings, so today we have to select our time, and we are going to have to move along quite quickly. Then, of course, we have to actually be involved in writing the report to present to the House. As we know, in past time, this takes a number of weeks as well. So, in saying that, we have to be responsible enough to be able to go out and to inform and to listen to Nova Scotians within a certain time frame but yet be back soon enough to write a report and present it to the House.
1
So that is really all I have to say so I would like for the press and those here today in attendance to go around the table and introduce ourselves as a part of the committee and Howard, we will start with you, please.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The first topic on the agenda will be general discussion. What we will do is just open for comments.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I'm looking at the index in the binder that has been provided - General Information, Background Information, Hansard Reports, Legislation. I notice what we do not have is the legislation that was approved back in 1990 or 1991 with regard to the deregulation of the gas and oil industry in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you requesting that information?
MR. MACKINNON: Well, yes, I would like to have that provided to all members of the committee as well as the copies of Hansard surrounding that debate because I believe there are some rather positive details there that would impact.
As well, just in general discussion, I think we should give some consideration to perhaps inviting some key stakeholders to come and appear before our committee - whether that be from the consumers' association, whether it be from the Association of Petroleum Producers or any other key stakeholders that we see. They may not necessarily come voluntarily, you know, on their own, but if they are invited. I mean not mandatory but if they are invited, I think that would go a long ways to activating constructive and fruitful discussions in helping to prepare a report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Russell. Number one, I was just looking at the clerk and she is not going to have any problem finding that information from Hansard that you requested. As far as I guess you are inviting certain stakeholders, that would have to be at the approval of the committee so you would have to put out some type of request, not necessarily formal enough to have a motion but we would have to have agreement because that is a very dangerous place to get. If you forget to invite someone then you could have problems.
So at the end of the meeting, maybe you can just bring that request forth and we will gather the consensus of the committee. Yes, Gerald.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I would just like to carry it forward. I have a couple of letters here, one from a gentleman by the name of Andrew Sabean who, as a supplier of gas
and petroleum products, he's figured that he does employ - like he said, he's only a small person - but he does employ 10 people and pays his share of taxes and he feels that if something is not done with the gas prices that he is going to be out of business along with others.
When Russell was talking about inviting some people from the public, I have a letter here that was mailed to the Honourable John Hamm and it is from Leanne Hachey from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. So I think somebody along that line, where there are so many independent business operators, but I think if we went right down to the basics and if there is some way we could contact some of just the regular gas station operators because what I'm getting is Gerald, I've been selling gas now, I'm losing money. Most everybody purchases on credit cards. They lose in the vicinity of 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent. They are only making 3 cents to 4 cents per litre. Therefore the guy is pumping gas at a loss. They tell you they need a minimum of 4 cents to make a profit and right now one guy told me it was 0.7 cents per litre he was profiting. Somebody else told me it was around 1 cent per litre. They are fortunate that they have either a convenience store in there or they still have the old-fashioned bays where they can do mechanic work. So that is the only thing that is keeping them going.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You know it is certainly going to be an important part of fact-finding on this mission that we are setting out on but we have to be very careful in the approach that we take inviting certain sectors. You know there will be a public invitation for everyone to come but if we are going to say that we are going to invite all gasoline retailers or whatever the case may be, then you have to be across the board unless you are going to do it on your own, separating it from the committee. But it is in line with what Russell had requested. We just have to find out how we are going to approach it.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Maybe they would choose a representative or two when we go to the various areas but it is just something that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are open to review those.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Yes, sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard is next.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: I actually want to agree with my two colleagues who spoke. Even if the committee doesn't move to invite particular associations, we, as individual members of the committee, could certainly alert any organizations we know that might be useful witnesses for the committee. Because it is Summer, we also have to recognize that not everyone might notice the ads in the paper, including even organizations might not notice the ads. Even if they do, they may not be able to attend a public session. They might just send us some written material which would be helpful as well. I would agree that there are
probably some clearly identifiable groups, organizations or, as Gerald said, individual employers who could be invited or we could make sure that they know about the proceedings in case they have comments for us.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are okay with that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Clearly, I didn't think it was problematic. The other thing is I also think we should know a little bit about the history of how we arrived at the situation that we are in right here so it will be useful to see that debate from - I think it was 1990 or 1991 and that's easily available. What that led me to wonder, though, was whether there was anyone now on staff in the provincial government bureaucracy who might have particular expertise in what it is that we are coming to grips with here, the whole issue of petroleum pricing. If there is anyone in the bureaucracy, then it might be useful to see if they can come and brief the committee a bit on the history and what they know. Clearly we have assembled some materials here and that would be very useful and we are going to continue to do that, but if there is anyone, that would also be a useful thing.
Your first topic was a bit of a discussion about the mandate of the committee. We have a written mandate, and I just wanted to make sure that we were all thinking along the same lines, that we should regard the mandate as encompassing home-heating fuel as well. I know a lot of the discussion has been in terms of petroleum as a product for fuelling vehicles but, of course, the other main use of refined oil products is in home heating, and this has been a very important part of the public policy debate so far, and the pricing for that is just as volatile and just as difficult for people to absorb as it is for vehicles. I just want to make sure we weren't overlooking that the mandate should be seen as extending to that as well.
Another point I wanted to make is that if we are under a very tight time schedule that we might look at trying to get our public sessions accomplished as early as possible. I'm wondering if this might not suggest that we might try to schedule all or as many of our public sessions as possible for a one-week period that we might try to agree on. I haven't heard anyone else talk yet about where we might go, but if we are going to travel the province, even if we do it in only a few locations, then I'm wondering if it's possible to try to concentrate that and to do it as soon as possible. The particular kind of timing I have in mind is if we were to look as soon in July, really, as possible, although realistically, given the necessity for advertising, it may be that we may not be doing this until maybe the week of the 19th, although I would like to hear from the clerk about that. What I'm suggesting is that we try to do it in as concentrated a way as possible, rather than spreading our meetings out over a two- or three-week period. I would like to hear from other people about that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, certainly, it would be open for discussion. Is that a point, because I have other people (Interruptions) Jim, I will recognize you.
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE: On the same point, I agree with Howard on this matter, that we should attempt to do it in a short time frame and do it as early as possible, perhaps even as early as July 12th. I've heard the clerk mention - at least one of the clerks mentioned - that that's a possibility. Having travelled on a couple of these select committees in the past, I realize there's a logistical problem for staff, because they have to go ahead and set up and tear down and go to the next venue. I don't know if it would be possible to do it in that short a time frame, but perhaps over a two-week period. I would very much like to see that completed before the last week of the month of July.
MR. EPSTEIN: I would certainly agree with you on that point, but in terms of the practicalities of moving around, you're quite right. This depends, perhaps, on how many stops we're thinking of making. I haven't heard anyone else comment on this so far, but maybe we ought to start talking about that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Also, it would tie into inviting certain people or certain groups. We could make this very complicated, or we can be very careful in the manner in which we go. We'll leave this for discussion at the end of the meeting. I have a few other speakers. Brooke Taylor is next.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would say at the outset that I was under the opinion, perhaps not under the mandate of the select committee, I thought our purpose and role was primarily to entertain presentations from people, and those people would be stakeholders that have been impacted by the volatility of the petroleum product prices. Having said that, I think it's important that we, as a committee, don't take it upon ourselves to feel that we have to go out and reinvent the wheel here. The fact of the matter is that we may want to look at our sister Province of Prince Edward Island to find out - not that this would be the panacea or the be-all and end-all, but I think there may be an opportunity for us to explore what is actually in place in Prince Edward Island.
I think it would certainly be beneficial to me as a committee member to find out what mechanism is in place. We know in general terms what they have in place, they have price regulation in Prince Edward Island. Mr. Chairman, I know you feel I have a predisposition towards that particular model here in Nova Scotia, but what I'm saying is I think it may help us understand why P.E.I. motorists and truckers feel confident that the price they're paying at the pump reflects the actual price that's out there.
So my suggestion, as far as stakeholders go, is that we may be assisting our people here in Nova Scotia by looking across the Northumberland Strait to our neighbours to find out, as best we can, from somebody in a position to impart that situation to us.
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I clearly understand your intent, member. We can do that in two ways. We can certainly get in touch with the Province of Prince Edward Island and have them send over their legislation, and have a report, we can have it sent to each member on the committee, or we can have another session here before we go out on the road, bring the report in and kick it around ourselves, here. There is a way but, once again, that would have to be at the end of the meeting. That would have to be brought up and get a consensus of the committee.
I want to make it very clear that we're here speaking from one voice as we go out and address Nova Scotians on this issue. So everything that comes up that's not quite friendly to the resolution, we'll discuss and we'll get a consensus on it.
MR. TAYLOR: I understand there's general discussion and the theme is organizational, and the point I'm trying to make is that Prince Edward Island, although maybe not everybody agrees, as a consumer with the price at the pump, they do have a measure, and a good measure, of confidence that they're not being gouged. Now, as . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Newfoundland as well, I believe.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, the reason I didn't bring Newfoundland into the suggestion, so to speak, is because there are certainly big differences in transportation costs and the models, although they're somewhat similar, there's quite a bit of difference in them, actually, between the price regulation in Newfoundland and the price regulation in P.E.I.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good point you bring up.
MR. TAYLOR: And most of the product and, by the way, there is a refinery in Newfoundland and there isn't one on Prince Edward Island, and most of the product that goes to Prince Edward Island comes from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. So there's a lot of similarities. It may just be helpful - maybe other members feel we don't need that background information, but I think we owe it to ourselves to get some information, and maybe we would even consider, down the road, inviting somebody to come in so we could have a little Q & A with the appropriate P.E.I. person.
That's on potential witnesses, so to speak, and looking at other models. As well, I would agree that we should try to hold our meetings, perhaps, as quickly as we can, making sure that we don't compromise the real need to give this the very careful consideration and deliberation that it needs. Generally, my experience has been that when we go on the road, so to speak, regarding one of these all-Party committee initiatives, there are normally four or five regional sites. I'm not saying that we would have to go to those regional sites, but when committees from government go on the road, they look at four or five different regional sites, maybe six at the outside. I don't know what the thoughts are on numbers. I know some
of my venerable and seasoned colleagues would agree with the fact that we do try to hit those regional sites, be it Sydney and so on and so forth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Understand the geography of the province as well.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to follow in line. Gerald, you had your hand up for the second time, although Charlie we'll give you an opportunity after Gerald speaks.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I guess this is minority government in action, is it? I can't believe all the co-operation and all the agreements around the table, so far no disagreements. It looks good to the future. Anyway, the honourable member there just finished talking about P.E.I., and that's what I've written down here. Regulation compared to deregulation, and I'm hearing people, when I go to the pumps, say that we should be like P.E.I. - they are regulated, they're getting it cheaper. I read it in the paper not too long ago, P.E.I. has now exceeded Nova Scotia because of their regulations. Their prices were set and ours were dropping back and theirs didn't so it would be nice to get a comparison to see deregulation as compared to regulation. I'd like to see that as part of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gerald. Charlie?
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Well, I was going to mention a couple of things. The idea of what P.E.I. has may well be very good, I think we need to research that and find out. But there may well be other jurisdictions in Canada, or perhaps in the U.S. that - you know, like somebody said, not reinvent the wheel, but let's find out what other governments or jurisdictions are doing. Do we have some research backup or will the committee have any ability to have somebody research what's happening in the U.S. or in other parts of Canada?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to have a number of staff people with us. We will be prepared when we go out on the road for such things. But, also, as we go along, we'll be able to ask staff to research and keep us informed.
MR. PARKER: So, as I said, there may be other jurisdictions with some really good ideas that are working.
The other thing I was going to mention, we're getting information but it's also for Nova Scotians to have their say. I think it's important that we give enough time to advertise it and prior notice to the people in the province. Somebody mentioned July 12th and I think that's really a little early, we're nearly into July now and the 19th or the 20th, somewhere in that range, I think would be giving Nova Scotians enough time to prepare in advance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to discuss that at the end of the meeting, we're going to talk about the different things that we've brought up as well.
MR. PARKER: And the other thing I'll mention here now is the locations that we're going to. Somebody mentioned six. I know we're going to be asking for people to send in by letter or by e-mail but to me, six seems like a little much. Three locations like Halifax, Sydney and Yarmouth might encompass it, with the idea that people can send in by e-mail or letter as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Just two points, Mr. Chairman. One is - Charlie, I believe touched on part of it - looking at some of the stakeholders in the big picture. For example, federal regulators or someone from the federal level that, because we're dealing with an international issue here as much as a local issue, it might be good to get some insight from that level as well because it's nice to come back as a select committee and have recommendations and so on, but if they don't have any teeth, it's an exercise in futility, it looks nice and that sort of thing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you saying someone as a witness who's a regulator?
MR. MACKINNON: Or get some information - it could be for a witness. I'm open on that thought. (Interruptions) The point has been brought up about regulation versus deregulation. I think many of the points that Brooke was alluding to, I think the Prince Edward Island legislation is pretty much the same as what we had right up until 1990 or 1991 when deregulation kicked in. In that sense, I think we should be mindful of that.
The concern surrounding that particular issue, if I could add, I've seen this with just the recent issue with regard to insurance here in Nova Scotia. Not to be partisan, but it's my own personal feeling that sometimes in dealing with these large corporations, they're masters at purring like a kitten when they feel that the arm of the law or some regulatory body may be in action but as soon as they seem to escape that grasp, then they're off doing their own thing again. We have to be mindful of that as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Danny.
MR. DANIEL GRAHAM: I felt it necessary to chime in first by saying that this is the first chance I've had to sit with a select committee on a matter. Other members would have a better appreciation for the expectation of the work of this committee than I would. The comments that I'm about to make need to be understood in that context.
I'm not clear on whether or not there is an expectation based on the resolution from the House that we would come back with potentially a solid recommendation about a model
for potentially regulating gas prices or perhaps creating regions and zones, or, as they do in Quebec, placing a minimum price to ensure that there's not predatory pricing. All of those things require a great deal of consideration on many people's part and I think it's well within the mandate and the capacity of this committee to do it.
I do have some reservations about doing it well in the time frame that we have. August 31st is, under normal circumstances I think, an achievable time frame, but it is the Summertime. I don't know - I'm saying all this with no obvious resolution in mind except that I think it's important that we state the obvious. Interest will be lower than usual, the availability of parties who might assist in this may also be limited. I'm not just talking about people who might be in Nova Scotia, but I think there's a large number of people who might have a contribution to make from other jurisdictions who would be relatively inaccessible for us during this period of time.
Staff and other issues I'm sure are going to be a challenge. I don't know specifically what they are, but everyone has their schedules and if our objective is potentially to come back with a recommendation to the House about an entirely new model, I am a little bit skittish about whether we will have the kind of information that would put us in a position to say something confidently. This is a complex area when we really begin to understand it and to really analyze and understand what the various challenges are, it will be challenging.
If we don't have an ambitious mandate for ourselves, then we risk coming back to the House with a report that isn't strong enough to have teeth for others. It's a motherhood statement that other people won't endorse and it becomes a one-day wonder and Nova Scotians become increasingly cynical that they were consulted for no particular purpose. I think it's really important that we find out what's happening in other jurisdictions. I know that Mr. Parker had signalled to that priority, others have as well. In the time frame that we have, reinventing the wheel is not something that we are going to have open to us.
I think it is important as well to give Nova Scotians their say. That's a critical element of all of this. If we are to do that, however, I think having people coming to the table with information will be important and so everything we can possibly do to ensure that the people who are coming to the table come with a maximum of information. It will help us at the end of the day.
What I'm imagining, just as a suggestion, I haven't fleshed this out in my own mind, I've been thinking about it as we're going through this, if we were in advance of the 19th to make available on a Web site or in some other fashion, material available to Nova Scotians that would give them a sense of the kinds of options and issues and what's been done in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Quebec, then people will be arriving at our doorstep and not just saying I'm angry and I'm mad and I feel manipulated and frustrated because while that's real, it's not going to bring us anywhere if those people around the table
don't understand that broader market forces, what the countering arguments are to what's being put forward.
[1:45 p.m.]
So, that's a meandering comment, the summary of which is that if we are looking for a substantive original piece of work that is to be taken seriously by the Legislature, I'm concerned that the August 31st deadline is unrealistic. If, however, we are looking to make general comments to the House and give Nova Scotians an opportunity to say their piece, then this is all doable.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Danny. As far as picking the time of year, Summer is sort of a difficult time but, on the other hand, if we had started the committee in March it's Spring break, and if you do it in November it's hunting season, and then Christmas rolls along. So is there ever an appropriate time? I don't know. We'll certainly do our best to make sure that people are aware. The government, I believe, already has a Web site that is available for us to put information on, so that would help people to be informed and, as we said earlier, we're going to just talk about it a little bit, should we get information or get a witness from the federal level or the provincial government here.
Nova Scotians should understand that the members who are sitting on this select committee are very knowledgeable and very seasoned politicians at both municipal and provincial levels. Most of us are not strangers to this type of committee. We'll make sure that every opportunity is afforded to collect the appropriate information, and to come back and to give us substantial time to put a report together. Brooke.
MR. TAYLOR: I just want to be clear, as a committee member, in two sentences, what our mandate is. I know there's a divergence of opinion around this table, and there's a divergence of opinion among consumers as to why they are paying those high fuel prices. With all respect to Mr. Epstein, I'm focusing on the price at the pumps for gasoline and diesel fuel. The motorists out there, not every one of them gets out and looks at that little decal that happens to be placed on a pump about crude and refinery prices and retail prices and fixed taxes and things like that. What they're interested in, at least I believe, and this isn't to simplify it, is that they're not being ripped off at the pump.
If they have to pay 99.9 cents per litre, then I think, as a committee, it has to be in our mandate that we try to come back - there will perhaps be many recommendations, I don't know how many, and this isn't about time frames, this is about giving the consumers some confidence that whatever this committee does, one recommendation will reflect the concern that they have about that darn price, that damn price that's at the fuel pump and at the station.
Right now in my riding, for the most part, self-serve is 89.9 cents per litre. It may be cheaper somewhere else, but that's the price at the pump for self-serve. It's 95.9 cents in another jurisdiction in my constituency, and in another jurisdiction it's 92 cents. So it does vary, and that's fine that it does vary, but I really thought that it was in our mandate to try to find out if, in fact, our consumers are paying the price that's at the pump - does that price
reflect what motorists have to pay? I don't know. I don't know the answers. I'm not casting aspersions, but I'm saying if we're going to go on a mission that doesn't include trying to find out . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, my interpretation of the resolution or our intent is to go out and to listen to Nova Scotians and to report back to the House the rationale for gas prices. Is that clear, in so many words?
MR. MACKINNON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Item (c) is quite explicit, on the second page: "The select committee is to make recommendations related to what it deems are just and reasonable product prices at the consumer level and in terms of retail and wholesale margins, and any other actions it determines may be required to correct imbalances in the distribution and sales of these products to consumers . . ."
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's pretty clear.
MR. MACKINNON: As well, Item (d) is quite explicit. We have to have our report tabled by August 31, 2004. That's a resolution of the House.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just a couple of points of information. One gentleman took me aside recently, when I arrived home, and showed me the receipt where he had just put $20 worth of fuel in his van and I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, $8.27 of the $20 worth of fuel he put in his vehicle was taxes. A relative showed me a bill where they filled up their oil tank and it was $127 in taxes. When people look at that, this is where their frustration comes from. They think, well, you're going to have a committee on gas, what the "h" can you do about that, and these things.
I'm hoping that if we come back with some solid recommendations, as Brooke was just saying there, is it our intent to be result-oriented, so that we can actually then, when the House convenes, maybe if this committee decided that, yes, we need something in legislation to protect consumers or to control or whatever, is that our intent, or are we going to go out and do a wonderful job and come back, and that's it forevermore, thank you, and this one sits on a shelf with the rest of them kind of thing? I would like to know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Clearly with the folks sitting around this table this afternoon and knowing the members, when the recommendations are made from this committee they will be serious recommendations. We are certainly not going out, as one would say, to enjoy the Summer with Nova Scotians. We're going out, collectively, to listen to Nova Scotians and to try to give a fair understanding of why they are paying the gas prices they are paying. We all know it's hurting the economy, we all share the grief of Nova Scotia over this fuel pricing, gas pricing.
I will say to you as the chairman of this committee, when we come back and make the recommendations I will stand strong on the recommendations of this committee, because that's why we are here. We are here to represent the people of Nova Scotia.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I'm hearing the phrase, what can you do about it? That's why I'm focusing on the end result.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The great thing about this, Gerald, and it's somewhat different, we're giving a report back to the House, not to a minister, not to Planning and Policy - we're giving it back to the House. Gerald, you'll be able to have a copy of the report, the NDP will be able to have a copy of the report, and I know there are many people in the Progressive Conservative caucus who are concerned about the price of gas in Nova Scotia.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I just want an active result.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm very clear on that. You remember.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So long as there's an active result, I'm fine with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Danny's next, and then Russell.
MR. GRAHAM: I think we're all keenly aware that the precipitating factor for us convening this select committee is the extraordinarily high price of gas, the quick rise of it in particular. In terms of our mandate, however, I think it's important to recognize that there is a body of people, a substantial body of people, in Nova Scotia who would want to use this as an opportunity to comment on whether or not high prices are a positive thing or a negative thing with respect to environmental issues. I think it's important for us to ensure that those people feel that at least the door is open for them to comment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The door will be open for everyone. Russell, you're next.
MR. MACKINNON: I would like to start drawing some focus here, Mr. Chairman. At the risk of being a little off the mark, I think the first thing we should do is identify what locations we're going to travel to. I would make a suggestion - I could put it in the form of a motion or whatever, but at least to get something going here - that we have a meeting, a hearing in Sydney . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell, I just want to recognize Charlie. I have a number of things written here that we're going to address, and then we'll address the locations, if you don't mind.
MR. MACKINNON: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're quite right, we're expressing our points of view when we should be talking about the structure.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We've had lots of opportunity in the House to debate our interpretations of the mandate, and I think it's quite explicit. We have to kind of drill down and get down to work.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Charlie.
MR. PARKER: I was just going to mention that our mandate is to look at the petroleum product pricing and what's influencing it and, as was mentioned earlier, I think home heating fuel is an important component of that. While we're talking about the price at the pumps, the home heating cost is a big part of that, and we have to make sure that's included in our mandate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go back. Howard, I'm sorry. Is that not taking the glory from Russell in stating the places we should go . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: I want to raise a point, before we do this. I want to ask about the Web site.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And that's also on my list, and we'll address that after we go down the list. I'm just trying to keep some order here.
MR. EPSTEIN: So we can discuss now where we're going?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We're going to recognize Russell MacKinnon with some suggestions on where we should go. Russell, you have the floor.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend Sydney, Port Hawkesbury, Truro, Halifax . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's listen to Russell. Start again, Russell, please.
MR. MACKINNON: Sydney, Port Hawkesbury, Truro, Halifax, Kentville and Bridgewater.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's Russell's recommendation. Do we have anyone adding or taking away from any of those locations?
MR. TAYLOR: Can you repeat those again?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it was rather fast, Russell.
MR. MACKINNON: Sydney, Port Hawkesbury, Truro, Halifax, Kentville and Bridgewater.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your recommendation. Would anyone like to add or take away from Russell's list?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Is Kentville far enough south or would you want to go right down to Yarmouth?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Russell has mentioned six different places and now I'd like to recognize Howard.
MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. I think we need to hear from the clerk about what the mechanics are of organizing five or six meetings. Has it just been suggested? What I think we need to know is over what time period would it be necessary to schedule five or six meetings, as we've just heard? Is this a one-week enterprise? Is this a week-and-a-half enterprise? What is it? What are we looking at here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, clerk, you would have some experience in that. Now you're going from one end of the province to the other, should they be afternoon meetings or should they be evening meetings? That's another thing that we have to talk about because we'd get more availability if you have it in the evening. Will you be able to tear down, move ahead, set up - I guess that's what Howard's saying - within one day?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): What we've done in the past is had three meetings a week - using the furthest location, you would go to Sydney, so the crew could go down, if you're having the meeting on Monday, they could go down on Sunday night, stay and do the set-up. Then you would move toward the middle and then you would do the shorter distances. You could not drive and set up, Halifax to Sydney, and have a meeting in the afternoon. It's impossible. You need to have the time in between for set-up. If you are doing it one after the other, you would be limited to evening meetings, simply for the fact that if you get up in the morning and you have a two- or three-hour drive and then there's set-up time and checking and things like that, it would be an evening meeting.
Again, we usually do three in a week, but it could be set up, if the committee is willing to do it, one right after the other, but of course it all depends on availability of hotels. We have been checking out hotels and when they are most likely available and able to accommodate us, because we have to have the room space, it's the meeting rooms right now, and it might come to the fact that you're in one hotel but the meeting room is in a different place. We hope that doesn't happen, but it all depends. Depending on where you determine the locations are will depend on . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, are we okay on the locations? I mean I know that's not answering Howard, okay . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: Can I ask one more question about the mechanics of this before we move on? Does this mean we can do five or six locations in one week, Monday through Friday, or Monday through Saturday if we really pushed it? Is that what that would mean?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're up to pushing it . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: If it was Monday through Thursday, we could do four different locations, is that right?
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, are you finished, Howard? Jim, please.
MR. DEWOLFE: On the same topic. If we decide that we are going to go with evening sessions, I can speak for two select committees that I travelled on in the past. Sometimes the afternoons were pretty quiet when we had sessions in the afternoon, but at those meetings we also had sessions in the evening mind you; in fact, at some points we had a meeting starting at 2:00 p.m., and we'd end up shutting down about 2:30 p.m. because nobody would show up, but we'd still have one in the evening and that's when you got a few people coming in. First of all, my suggestion would be that we go with evening meetings only, and I would suggest that the possibility exists - I'll just throw it out - that if we're going to have an opportunity for the public to get their say through the electronic media and so on, that maybe we could do three sessions, like Sydney, Truro, Bridgewater. I'll throw that out for discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this particular point, what we have on the floor is Russell mentioned six different places, right? Okay, that's still on the table. Howard then asked a question, can we do it all in one week or does it take two? Then we've decided we could do all six basically in one week if we wanted to push it, and then you come along and said (Interruptions) Pardon, me?
MS. STEVENS: If available.
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: If available, yes, well we know that. Then you said that it's necessary for us to have evening meetings. Right now we have six locations with evening meetings all in one week. . .
MR. DEWOLFE: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. It would appear, first of all, to do the six scenario, then that would have to be evening meetings only in order to provide the time for staff to move from one location to another and set up. So there are two issues on the table . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We could have three one week, three the next, but . . .
MR. DEWOLFE: You could do that, but the other issue is are we going to have afternoon meetings or just evening meetings? If that's clarified first then we could go on to the next step.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me just try to suggest something to just help along. Let's be realistic about it. Let's have three meetings in one week, three in another. Evening meetings, do you see what I mean? Are you okay with that or is that tying up two full weeks?
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, one of the most recent committees - and it was a task force - was on BSE. We're talking about how many meetings we should have and where we should go and things of that nature. Again, this is just another model, like the model from P.E.I. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. If we wanted to look at what we did there - in fact, as unpopular as it is perhaps among some members, we held a meeting on Saturday because it was very topical. People want to come out, it's a chance when they're not working. I know it's Saturdays, and I know about Summer and that, I'm just throwing it out, because that's something we did.
We held two meetings in each venue because we're renting the hall, you don't get a break, or in most cases you don't get a break because you only want the hall in the evening. If you want a couple of hours in the afternoon, you hold a hearing in the afternoon, maybe from 4:00 o'clock until 6:00 o'clock and then you reconvene and go from 7:00 o' clock to 9:00 o'clock, or whatever hours you want. But I think it's important when we're talking about locations that we talk about how many meetings we're going to hold. Is it going to be one meeting? Is it going to be two meetings? Are we going to meet on Saturday? I don't know. . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: What we're doing is jumping all over the place and to please everyone is going to be quite difficult. What we have to identify is how many meetings we are going to have. Now, Russell suggested six. Is that okay with the committee - Howard's saying no. How many do you think, Howard?
MR. EPSTEIN: I would like to suggest another model. For me the main concern is to deal with the opportunity to hear from the public as soon as possible. To my mind that means try to concentrate all of our hearings within a one-week period, given the ultimate constraint we have of trying to finish this up by the end of August.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can do it in one week.
MR. EPSTEIN: That's my point, to do it within one week.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, how many meetings, Howard?
MR. EPSTEIN: I think what's easier is if we think about a four-meeting model rather than a six-meeting model. What I'm thinking about is could we do it Monday through Thursday? I have to say, I don't care if it spreads out to the . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would that be all right with you, Russell, if we drop . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm just trying to keep it on track.
MR. EPSTEIN: If we're going to do it with the four-location model, then we could do something like Sydney, Truro, Halifax, and one location in the southwest, whether it's all the way to Yarmouth or whether it's Kentville or Bridgewater. I don't know that it matters a huge amount, but I think we should consider a four-location model and try and do it within a one-week period . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: What I'll do is gather consensus on that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. Thank you - oh, if I could, just one more point. I think I heard Brooke say we could look at four to six and maybe seven, and I think that's a very good suggestion. I think if we convene at four, that probably gives enough time for set-up and, if nobody comes, we can take a break. We're still set up and we're ready for seven.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Jim, on the same topic.
MR. DEWOLFE: Could I make a suggestion that whatever scenario we handle, that maybe the Halifax one could be, since it's home base and they're already set up essentially, if it looks like we're going to need the numbers perhaps we leave Halifax to the end and have an afternoon and evening meeting on that one, if it looks like we're going to get a lot of numbers in on the Halifax side?
MR. EPSTEIN: Sure. Of course, yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Everyone is going to be treated equally here. Number one, there's going to be a consensus taken here. Russell said that we should have six meetings, and Howard said that we should have four, and there have only been two suggestions . . .
MR. DEWOLFE: I said three.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, did you? Sorry, Jim.
MR. DEWOLFE: My suggestion was Sydney, Halifax and Bridgewater.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, here we go. Are you going to take this? (Interruptions) All those in favour - and the Chair isn't going to vote.
MR. DEWOLFE: Just a minute now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm gathering consensus, I'm going to clarify it. One of the members recommended six locations, that's clear, fair, that's not difficult to understand. One member said four and one said three. How else can we approach it other than to gather the consensus?
MR. TAYLOR: Go to five.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do I have to vote here? I do, don't I? (Interruption) Well, unless one's going to give up - three, four, six, how else are we going to do it?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think I heard unofficially from the member for Cape Breton West that he would be willing to move a little bit and perhaps if the member for Halifax Chebucto would be willing to move the other way, we could do five meetings.
MR. DEWOLFE: Okay, I agree to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Done. Five. Thank you.
MR. TAYLOR: Just trying to be helpful, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Five meetings. Now, we're going to try Sydney, okay? And are we going to jump to Halifax? Truro? Bridgewater and Yarmouth or Kentville and Yarmouth?
MR. GRAHAM: At the risk of undercutting two Pictou County members who are here, I'm conscious of the distance in those areas. Pictou County is more central than Truro is - the Truro people are close to Halifax.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, that's fine.
MR. TAYLOR: We didn't have any consensus on that, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the honourable member for Halifax sitting in his seat talking about the rural areas. He has a good point, but the fact of the matter is, people in Amherst come down to Truro no
matter what standing committee has hit the road, Truro is seen to be the hub of Nova Scotia. It's a central location. People from Pictou will drive into Truro, but it's a long drive from Amherst, which is a big town in this community, a border town, to drive down to Pictou County. So, I would say that we must keep Truro as a site in the name of accommodating those who must travel great distances.
MR. DEWOLFE: I agree with that. It's only 30 minutes from New Glasgow one way and . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sydney, Truro, Halifax. There are three. Now, will we go to Kentville? (Interruptions) Well then we're leaving quite a gap down on Yarmouth. Let's go to Yarmouth.
MR. DEWOLFE: Let's do Bridgewater and Yarmouth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine with me. Will that please everyone on the committee? Thank you. Seeing no dissatisfaction, that will be it. We've now picked our locations?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Sydney, Halifax, Truro, Yarmouth and Bridgewater.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. As far as the timing is concerned, can we not leave it up to the clerk to identify as quickly as possible the time that would be available to do this because she has to look at the advertisement, the availability of hotel rooms, convention centres and/or meeting rooms? Okay? Thank you very much. (Interruptions) Is that okay?
MR. EPSTEIN: What about the order in which we go to each location? I mean, I'm happy to leave that to the clerk . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sure, by all means.
MR. PARKER: Can we give a suggestion as to what we think would be good for timing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that's going to open up a debate. Once again, everyone will disagree.
MR. TAYLOR: What's wrong with a good, healthy debate?
MR. CHAIRMAN: What's going to take place? It's a very serious issue and it will have to do with scheduling timing or whatever. So, let's leave it in the hands of the clerk and we'll all accept that.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The dates are all going to be successive dates? We're not going to do the five meetings? We're going to do five meetings in one week, is it?
MR. MACKINNON: It depends on how quickly she can . . .
MR. PARKER: What's the earliest possible date we're looking at?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the 12th was the earliest - that week, the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th. Yes, okay?
MR. PARKER: Is that going to give enough time for Nova Scotians to be notified and be prepared?
MR. DEWOLFE: If you notify them two weeks in advance they'll forget so you have to notify them a week before.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we feel comfortable with that, so, thank you. The second . . .
MR. TAYLOR: A question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Not on the clerk having the jurisdiction to make the decisions on the locations and the timing and the coordination, I support that. Did we agree as a committee on the hours of the meetings? You're understanding, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I certainly do understand, Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay, what's your understanding?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The understanding, it would be evening meetings, but if necessary, we would have one afternoon meeting to make it within the time frame of one week. Was that not the understanding?
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let's clarify the timing. The timing then is what?
MR. DEWOLFE: Preferably the evenings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Evenings, okay. So one would be on a Monday, a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and a Friday.
MR. DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify that slight confusion, maybe, on having an afternoon meeting. It was my thought rather than if we have a lot of people wanting to present to the committee in Halifax, that rather than do it over two days, we do that one - if it looks like that's what's going to happen - that we have two meetings in one day to clean up, clear up . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you know . . .
MR. DEWOLFE: To give everyone an opportunity.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well what we're going to do, we have to make it clear here. The question is, if we have five meetings in one week, very clearly it would mean Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Unless someone is opposed to a Friday evening, then we could have that one Friday afternoon because of the nature of it being a Friday night. Would you like to have an afternoon meeting in Halifax, because Halifax would maybe be a place to have an afternoon meeting.
MR. TAYLOR: If I could speak for myself, you put it out on the table. If we're going to hold them in the evenings, we have to hold them - in my opinion - every evening irrespective of the place and location because the idea is to facilitate the consumer out there, not the members around the table.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no intent to facilitate or make it easier on the members around the table.
MR. EPSTEIN: I don't think there's any difficulty in holding a couple of evening meetings. The only question I thought was the one that Jim raised - do we add an extra evening meeting in Metro, where we're anticipating we might get more participation? I'm happy with that, I've no problem with that. (Interruptions) I understand. Is there a problem with an afternoon meeting?
MR. DEWOLFE: I only raised that from past experience. We do seem to have more presentations at any committee from the Metro area because of the concentration of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: So what time are you recommending that we have it in Halifax?
MR. DEWOLFE: I'm just recommending that in Halifax, if indications are such that we're going to have quite a few people wanting to present, that we have two meetings in one day in Halifax, rather than do it over two days.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sounds good. So, now we're going to have five days of meetings, possibly six meetings.
MR. DEWOLFE: Six, yes, possibly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So it would be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday with whatever date we visit Halifax there will be an afternoon one and possibly an evening one as well.
MR. MACKINNON: Let's not prejudge, Mr. Chairman, if I may, what the clerk is going to be able to do or not do. It's a scheduling issue as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly is and we're trying to give her as much latitude as possible.
MR. MACKINNON: Don't box her into . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Howard.
MR. EPSTEIN: Can I raise the Web site now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, just one second. Are you speaking on the locations and timing?
MR. PARKER: I am. I still think the 12th of July is too early to let Nova Scotians know that this is going to occur. I know the clerk's going to check out possible hotel rooms and meeting rooms, but I think it's important that we give consumers an opportunity to plan ahead. It won't be until next week, the 5th or whatever, before any ad could be in the paper. I think we've got to give a little advance notice to people that we're coming to their town. I think the 19th would be about the earliest we can really give enough time to people.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly the decision can be made here and made here now. All those who are in favour of starting as soon as possible, which we think could possibly be on the 12th, please say Aye. For those who would like to make it a little longer, the 12th has taken the (Interruption) no, but they didn't win it. The consensus went on the 12th. (Interruptions) Yes, we'll have a recorded vote then. Order, please.
MR. DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I want clarification on this - how long will it take? When can we get this advertised? How soon can we get this advertised?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously, we've already covered that ground, but I'll make it clear once again. We had said that we would possibly like to go out on the 12th if the clerk can accommodate provisions. That would mean appropriate advertisement, availability of rooms and convention centres. So that would cover that. Then we decided clearly that there would be five meeting days with a possibility of six meetings. I don't know how much clearer I can make it to the committee.
Then, Mr. Parker said, he didn't really agree with that.
MR. PARKER: I agreed with all that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he said, he didn't know if that all should take place on the 12th. He would like to go on the 19th. Well, Mr. Parker's a member of the committee, same as everyone else, so I would have to listen to his suggestion. Then I said, if we have a conflict of meeting dates, then there's only one way to resolve it and that is to ask for the consensus. So I asked for the consensus, that it didn't simply seem to be a fair consensus taking method, so then I asked for a recorded vote. So as it stands now, we're starting on July 12th, but the member has asked if we could take it a little later. So that's all I simply need to know, to go around the table and ask, yes or no, should we have the meeting starting on July 12th?
[2:15 p.m.]
MR. DEWOLFE: Providing that the people of Nova Scotia can be notified in an appropriate time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We understand. Mr. DeWolfe, how do you feel about that?
MR. DEWOLFE: I agree.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: I agree.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: I think July 19th is giving enough time for people.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, I just don't think we can get the ads out in time for July 12th, so I vote for July 19th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham?
MR. GRAHAM: July 19th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I will say July 12th is fine. So July 12th it is. Thank you very much.
MR. DEWOLFE: Only providing the advertising.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if everything goes all right. If not, then we'll take the alternative date of as soon as possible or July 19th.
MR. DEWOLFE: As soon as possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next thing we were going to talk about is to, I guess, bring information here to the committee or to us personally either through e-mailing the regulations of P.E.I.'s regulatory body that's dealing with this or asking for someone from Prince Edward Island to come over as a witness so that we can have a meeting before we go out on the road to get familiar with the P.E.I. regulation and also, in saying that, probably bring a federal regulator down for some insight as well.
So gathering consensus on this, should we ask for regulations from P.E.I. to be brought? Okay.
Now, in which manner? Would you like to encourage a witness to come so we can review it with the witness? Does that have consensus? And if we can possibly bring a federal regulator to that meeting as well, would you like that person to be here?
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have anybody speaking against that? Okay, the clerk then will do that. Thank you very kindly.
The next thing is we talked about the Web site. Now, we already have a Web site that's in place but, obviously, there's not much information on that Web site. So I would ask members of the committee to express their point of view here and the clerk could possibly find out the information, place it on the Web site as they see fit. Mr. Graham, you brought that up, you and Mr. Epstein. What would you like to have on that Web site?
MR. GRAHAM: I think that, first, it would be valuable in the notices that we put out to encourage people explicitly to review the Web sites before they come to the meeting. I think that it improves the quality of the discussion if they're answering questions and as a result we'll all benefit. It's just a few extra words in our notice that we would receive. I think the stuff on the Web site needs to be, and I know that there have been studies done by a number of provinces, as long as we clearly indicate that these are from other jurisdictions, that we're studying it and setting out some of the models, I suspect that some of this material, and it appears that some of it is already available in our binders, we just sort of frame the discussion for them and we make sure a lot has been written about the forces that have led to increased prices.
The reality is that the whole world is facing this challenge and little Nova Scotia is not even the tail that could wag the dog on this one, in some respects. So we need to make
sure or at least we need to ensure that we do all that we can to inform Nova Scotians of the limits to our ability because if they come in with broad expectations that the price of home fuel and gasoline as a result of our work is suddenly going to go from 89 cents down to 69 cents, we're going to have a bunch of angry people on our hands at the end of the day when it doesn't happen.
So whatever we can do to drive people to some informed stuff and I think, Mr. Chairman, that's a role that you can play as witnesses are here where we make sure that the discussion, you know, people will have their different levels of knowledge, but we may be setting ourselves up for more frustration on the part of Nova Scotians if their expectations are higher than they should be.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, can I just jump in on that theme.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: It may be a philosophical difference, Mr. Graham, that I have more than anything else, but I give motorists and truckers and consumers out there a lot more credit than that. This is why when we look at our mandate, and it is in writing, we are supposed to come back with recommendations or a report that leads the motorists out there to understand why they're being charged what they're being charged. I agree, we don't want them to be under any false impression that we somehow can magically bring down the price. I don't think they're really under that illusion at all.
I think what they really want is confidence that the price in whatever model, if there is a model, whatever that is, I think that's what we have to do, is make the people in Victoria and everywhere else in between, we have to make those folks feel that what they're being charged is justified. That's the only mission that I feel that I'm on. I don't think we have to go fill the Web site full of volumes and volumes and volumes of material. I think that there's a lot of information out there now that's very confusing to motorists.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Resolution No. 1676 clarifies our mandate very clearly. I think that's very clear. I think, you know, we have a Web site and the reason for a Web site is to inform people usually or for them to check in to find out information. So as we meet with our witness, maybe at that time we can certainly decide the amount and we have our Communications people here. I won't ask you to speak. You're from Communications?
MS. MIRIAM MURRAY: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I won't ask you to speak to that or maybe you should. Would it be for the committee to ask Communications what (Interruptions) Yes, well, maybe if you wouldn't mind just having a seat and kind of explain to us what your purpose would be and
the intent of informing people through the Web site, please, and you can state your name for the record.
MS. MURRAY: Miriam Murray from Communications Nova Scotia and Angela Campbell. We are basically here today to listen to what the committee's go-forward plan was to determine what resources you would need, but it's clear that you're already past resources and looking at the tactics. We could set up something right from the Government home page, I think is what I'm hearing, is that you have to reach people on the Web and reach them. You want to give them a vehicle quickly so there is an opportunity to do that and what we could look at is, if that's on the Government home page, gas prices or the name of the select committee, or whatever, I'm not sure, if anything has been done Web-wise to date.
MS. MARGARET MURPHY: The Library has put up a Web place to put the mandate and the transcripts of the Hansard as they go around the province. So it's right on the committee's Web.
MR. TAYLOR: Can I just right on that point, like to get into that, you're going to have to go on the Government page then?
MS. STEVENS: No, you can go into the Legislature home page.
MR. TAYLOR: What's the address on that?
MS. STEVENS: You just go to the Government home page and add /Legislature and it's down at the bottom of the home page.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, you do go to the Government page then?
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: I think that if it was something that the committee wanted, that it could go right on the Government home page with a link to this so that there is no searching for it, and then we could also, in response to Mr. Graham's concerns, check to see if we could link to the other sites in other jurisdictions that have information regarding gasoline pricing and what has been done in other jurisdictions. We would have to check that. I'm not the Web expert, we would have to check that with the people who look after Web policy, but it seems like it's something we could do, set up links to other jurisdictions and what they've done and that allows Nova Scotians to get to that quickly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Epstein, you have your finger up. Is it a question for me or to the Communications people?
MR. EPSTEIN: I will direct it to you and we'll see where we get on this. As I understand it, it's clear there's going to be a Web site. In fact, it's already established. I heard the suggestion that the existence of the Web site be featured in our advertising and I would like to endorse that suggestion that in any written advertising there be a mention that a Web site exists. So if that's the case, then I think we're down to a question of what actually goes on the Web site and I've heard it said so far that the mandate of the committee is up there and that as Hansard transcripts of the public sessions are produced, they will also go on the Web site. That seems to me fine.
I just wanted to make another suggestion which is I wonder if it's possible that some of the background information, or as much of it as possible, that we're given in our binders could also be posted to help people with their understanding of what we're thinking and where we're going. It may even be that if we get written submissions from people who don't come and, therefore, their submissions are not part of the Hansard record, they could also go on the site, just to help promote dialogue. So those are requests I have. If they're feasible, I would have thought it would be fairly easy to do that, but I would like to know the technical answer to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will give you an answer to that, just not now. We'll check that and get back to you on that. Gerald.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just for clarity, for people who are not used to Web sites or whatever, we can put the official name of the committee as the Petroleum Product Pricing, but in brackets could we have gas pricing or gas committee, the word gas in there somewhere to make it simple for when people look in and they're looking for gas pricing and they see Petroleum Product Pricing, they may just skip over it. If gas pricing was in there somewhere or gas prices or something . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like an opportunity to speak?
MS. MURPHY: That's an idea, but I think we would probably want to stick with the official name of the committee, unless the committee agrees to . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I mean stick with the official name, but in brackets, at the end of it, put gas prices or something, just to keep it simple for people who are not Web masters. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Are there any further speakers? Do you have anything else you would like to say? Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Just a question. My understanding is that people could make submissions through the site.
MS. STEVENS: It would not actually be through the site. One time we did have a form you could fill out on a site, but that's very expensive to do. So what we do is we have our fax, phone numbers, toll-free phone numbers. When we receive them by fax, we make sure all the members get them. We write them down, and we have a form to fill out.
MR. TAYLOR: On a point of order, I'm aware of what we have in place. What I'm saying is can we not, electronically, somehow, without breaking the piggy bank - we have to in this day and age. We have a Web site set up, and you can't send in electronic submissions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard brought that up.
MS. STEVENS: They can e-mail, yes. (Interruptions)
MR. TAYLOR: I would like somebody to speak to it. (Interruptions)
MS. MURPHY: There's a way you can e-mail back. It's very simple to set up. (Interruptions) We could do that.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just one final thing, Mr. Chairman. When we put the advertisements out, whether it's on radio or whether we put it in the printed media, can we put the Web site there, put any and all information, and the dates and the places of the meetings, so we make one advertisement . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, by all means.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: . . . and we stick with that one advertisement when everything is confirmed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: By all means.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: That way there, we would have continuous, and everything is locked up instead of jumping all over the place, looking for different dates.
MS. STEVENS: What we have is a bulk ad. It has the mandate of the committee, the committee members' names, the locations they're going to, and the ways in which they can contact us.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: All in one.
MS. STEVENS: Exactly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have any further discussions on that issue? (Interruptions)
We have the staff of select committees and we're going to have a writer, we know that, that's important, it comes along with it, Legislative Counsel and Communications persons. I believe you folks are going to travel with us, is that the intent? Have you been notified?
MS. MURRAY: We're here to listen to what you have to say to determine who has to be assigned to either travel with you or handle other logistical things, like your press release or a feature story, something like that, from Communications Nova Scotia office. There's a writer and then there's another Communications person to handle some other technical or tactical things for you. It's whatever your determination is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, then, I guess we'll open for discussion on that. Do you have any suggestions about who should come along on the show with us? We certainly need someone to write a report, so that person would have to tag along, there's no doubt about that. (Interruptions) Anyway, we would recommend that we have someone to . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: . . . would we have one writer for the committee or would we have one from each of our caucuses . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. It would be a House report, so there would be one writer from the committee, but we work along with that writer. At the end of the day, we will sit down and have meetings with that person to make sure that everything is okay. Now, when we talk about Communications, certainly we need someone who's going to report and to keep us abreast of what's going on. Is it fair to say we need a Communications person as well? I'm just throwing this out.
Then how about someone from the departmental level, the Department of Energy? We should have someone from these departments to be able to take back to the departmental heads what they're hearing as well. I don't know how you feel about that. Usually that's the way that goes, as well.
[2:30 p.m.]
MS. MURRAY: I think we can assign a Communications advisor to work with the committee and to do some of the things, to assist with the advertising, to assist with the news release to let people know what's going on, to deal with media, as you're travelling out around the province, any media requests you may have, to make sure that they're directed to the right people, if that's the type of service you're looking for, and then they can also link in back to departments, if that's your wish as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that's a writer and a Communications person.
MS. MURRAY: Communications staff will be internal. We'll assign that to you. The writer will probably be hired externally.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Charlie, do you have input?
MR. PARKER: I guess that was my question, about the writer, is it somebody from Communications Nova Scotia or is it external?
MS. MURRAY: I'm concerned with the time frame of finding somebody right now to handle both. Generally, in the past when it's been a select committee, we have sometimes gone internally but quite often it's done externally, as well. I can look at internal resources to see if there's somebody we can draw on, but if not we would assist in hiring an outside writer.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Brooke, you had input on that?
MR. TAYLOR: I just want to throw out there that there certainly is a lot of departmental expertise. We've found, with ease, that the Communications person who was assigned to the BSE task force did a very bang-up job in a most nonpartisan manner, but had the expertise to write that report and gave us suggestions on how to produce that report. I know, while the NDP didn't go on that committee, the Liberal member and myself felt that it really did reflect, in fact, what the consumers at that time, the farmers and others, had told us. There was no difficulty with the report. I just wanted to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, as you know, that there are some Communications people who have been with various departments for a number of years and are very well-qualified to do the job that you might require them to do in this case.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard.
MR. EPSTEIN: I'm not concerned about the writer, I'm sure we'll find someone. If any of us disagree, I guess we can all write dissenting reports. That isn't the issue. I did hear you make a suggestion about the possibility of someone coming from one of the other government departments. Did I hear you mention Energy, was it you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I threw that out.
MR. EPSTEIN: I would be happy to hear from any of the relevant departments. I think Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is the department that actually has direct jurisdiction over something like this, Energy, of course, should be knowledgeable about it, Finance should have staff who are knowledgeable about it. I think the committee really should hear from any of the departments that are knowledgeable and want to help us out with our thinking or information. But if the point was that we should invite people from one or
more of those departments to come along with the committee, at that point I think we might be having a little more expensive and fancier an enterprise than might be necessary.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they can be invited to come on their own accord, and it could come out of their own departmental budgets.
MR. EPSTEIN: Even if it's out of their own departmental budgets, I'm wondering if it's too elaborate. That's my concern. (Interruptions)
MR. DEWOLFE: I would just suggest, along Howard's line, that perhaps we should send a message out to the departments that if they would like to brief us - maybe we should have a day of briefing before we go on the road, so we have sort of some broad thoughts on . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can do that the day we ask our witness in from P.E.I.
MR. DEWOLFE: We could do that, but we could schedule one day for briefings because the more knowledge we have when we hit the road, the better, because we're going to be asked questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good, supporting staff. We will have a communicator and a writer with us. So that's it. Is there any further discussion on that topic?
MS. STEVENS: There was no talk about Legislative Counsel. Depending on if a piece of legislation comes out of this process, the last time for fire safety for workers' compensation there was a Legislative Counsel assigned to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so maybe we'll ask Gordon if that's necessary? Gordon would you be able to comment on that?
MR. GORDON HEBB: You may want someone from my office when you do your deliberations afterwards, but I don't think you'd need anybody on the road with you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, fine. So the discussion is closed on that one. I think our communication strategy, that would be involved in the person that's coming along with us, I would think. I don't know if we need to have further discussion on that or do we feel that we've handled that here today? Okay, good stuff.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just a comment. If a radio station or something locally were to give me a call and say, Gerald, what's going on with your committee, am I free to talk about what we did here today, or do I tell him to contact Communications Nova Scotia?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say it's an open meeting today Gerald, but thank you for asking that, yes, it would be your right to speak, as you understand the facts, yes.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, as committee members, is it out of our realm as far as the length of presentations? I know that some people are much more long-winded than others. I think we would want to entertain as (Interruptions) Well, I think you're going to have to put some parameters in place and stick to them, and you can do that in the interest of the following presenter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Usually, looking at Law Amendments or any of the other committees of the House, we usually have 10 minutes to a presenter and the groups or organizations 20 minutes, maybe that's a good point that we could talk about either today or when we get back to be briefed, but I think maybe that should be put on the Web site, 10 or 20 minutes or whatever you feel.
MR. TAYLOR: I think 10 minutes . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Anything after 10 minutes is going to be . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want any special, as far as groups are concerned, or just have a 10-minute limit and that's it? Then that's what we'll have for presentation. Yes, Danny.
MR. GRAHAM: For what it's worth and there appears to be a consensus going in the other direction, I don't think that 10 minutes allows us the amount of time to examine the issue, 15 minutes, I think, gets us there and I think that we should leave at least 15 minutes for questions for each of the Parties. I've appeared before committees of the federal Parliament and it's very frustrating as a witness to show up and just give your comments. You just don't feel like you're listened to if it's . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Also, are we going to open committee members for questioning as we do as well?
MR. DEWOLFE: I surely hope so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we want to clarify these things, so make sure. With the questioning aspect of it, 10 minutes certainly does seem a bit limited, but what we're going to do, unless somebody wants to meet in the middle here and say 12 minutes, I'm going to say is it 10 minutes or is it 15 minutes?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Let's go 15 minutes and what we could do in the essence of - if we have 15 minutes for the maximum presentation of anybody, are you including your questions in that also?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that would include them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I was going to suggest 15 minutes for a presentation maximum, and then add five minutes on the end for questions, or whatever . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is what we're here today to determine, so, yes, Brooke.
MR. TAYLOR: I think, Mr. Chairman, what you'll have to do at each meeting, depending on what we agree to here as committee members, is impart to the presenters at the start, at the get-go of each hearing, what the parameters are. We have some friendly rules in place and these rules are that, you have up to a maximum of x number of minutes to make your presentation and then members will have an opportunity to ask a few questions. It's really hard to give one person 25 minutes and then somebody else 10 minutes, so you have to have those parameters in place, you have to establish them and what's fundamentally important and fair to everybody else is you have to stick to them. Some people can go on at great lengths.
MR. DEWOLFE: Mr. Chairman, on that, I agree with my colleague that a 10-minute presentation is probably long enough, as far as the presentation portion goes, but depending, I think the chairman has control over the meeting and if there's not a bunch of people lined up and the members want to ask questions for 20 minutes, then you allow them that leeway, but if there's 20 people lined up at the post wanting to present, then stick with the 10 minutes and then try to limit the questions to the three Parties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be wrong for the chairman to cut off debate as far as a member of the committee asking a question, I mean that's why we're going out there.
MR. DEWOLFE: I'm talking only in terms of the presenter, and sort of use your own judgment on the length of time that we have for questions from members because that's the important part.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, 10 or 15 minutes for the presentation, in my understanding, then allow time as the chairman sees appropriate for members to ask questions, it's a little bit dangerous to do it that way because it could go on for a long time.
MR. DEWOLFE: As Howard said, we trust you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Howard. Let's say there are 25 people or 30 people wanting to present that night, it's going to be a long evening. Anyway, that's why we're
going out. The question here is, 10 minutes or 15 minutes? All in favour of 10 minute presentations, please say Aye. All in favour for 15 minutes.
AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen.
MR. TAYLOR: All I'm saying is try, Bill, if you can, as chairman, if you're going to have 15 minutes, I don't see anything wrong with telling the presenter, look, you have 15 minutes, we'd like to have an opportunity for questions and answers. You can't have this open-ended, you definitely can't because it's unfair to presenters, and I will tell you that's fine, by and large, most of the presentations will probably be at max, 10 minutes. You will find a few that will digress and go on up to 15 minutes, but if you could try to keep the presentations to 15 minutes and including our questions, you'll find it will run pretty smooth.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's up to the committee because what takes place, the committee starts asking questions and then the answers become so very long and then the committee member goes back with a longer question, so really we have to gauge that as a body, that's a responsibility of ours.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Wouldn't it be proper that when we put our ad in electronic media and in the printed media that the presentation time be presented with an additional five minutes for a question period, and you can take up to your 10 minutes, or 15 minutes to do your presentation, but the maximum is 20 minutes or something? Are you going to get flak about that or what, because if you allow me 25 or 30 minutes and then you allow him 10 minutes, you know what I mean?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to allow the presenter to present a certain amount of time, right. Then we're going to allow for questions. Then it would up to the chairperson to decide if those questions are starting to become repetitive, if this is not going anywhere then I would say, gentlemen your time for questioning is, or give you some type of wink or something there. I can gauge that because I'm there concentrating on your questions, but what we have to know is the time permitted for the presentation because that's when it becomes unfair if I was to give someone 25 minutes because they were a member of some other place and some other poor person only 10 minutes. The point is, the rules will be set out, they'll be set out in a friendly manner, but if it's 15 minutes, then it's 15 minutes.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: What I want clarification on is if somebody is going to come with a binder like this, with the intentions of making an hour presentation to the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Doesn't get it.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Should they be notified up front that presentations are 15 minutes maximum and then they'll know before they come and thereafter cutting out all the gibberish.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That'll be on the Web site. Just to clarify this once again, those in favour of 15 minutes - one, two, three, four - 15 minutes it is, thank you. Any further discussion? That was an important topic, there's no doubt about it. Okay, so I'm not seeing any other. Thank you, ladies for joining us. Yes.
MS. STEVENS: The date of the briefing session that the committee wants to have?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That was going to be in my final comment.
MS. STEVENS: Sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this particular time, we have to now determine a date for our briefing and/or witness, but that would be up to you once again to schedule because you have to contact the witness from either the federal regulator or from the Province of Prince Edward Island, and any departmental person who wanted to come in to contribute on that, we would appreciate, so we're going to leave that up as you would schedule an ordinary committee meeting in this room.
MS. STEVENS: Okay. Are there any dates that are impossible for committee members within the next week?
MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I do have some scheduling challenges, but I'll deal with those . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you can speak directly.
MS. STEVENS: Okay.
MR. TAYLOR: Are you talking about next week?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would almost have to be.
MS. STEVENS: It would have to be if we're planning to be out on the 12th.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I think as members we have to decide what day we would like, we have to do it here. Monday and Tuesday is a bad day for us, for me too. You might have a bad day, but we have to stay in control of this. We have to have a meeting next week because we're hitting the road the following week. Thursday's good on this end, I'll have to adjust or get an alternate to take my place. (Interruptions)
[2:45 p.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: What about Wednesday? Let's try Wednesday, that's a good day. (Interruptions) As we said, everybody will have a meeting on every day. (Interruptions) The 8th is fine with me. Any further business?
MS. STEVENS: Time to be determined. How about that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the morning is nice.
MR. TAYLOR: After we get the cows milked, 5:30 a.m.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 10:00 a.m. is nice.
MR. TAYLOR: Sounds great.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?
MR. TAYLOR: The first one is organizational?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much for attending today.
[The committee adjourned at 2:46 p.m.]
