MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to welcome our guests this afternoon. They are representing Lafarge Canada Inc. and perhaps, Jim, you could introduce your colleagues and then we will introduce ourselves, please.
MR. JIM CROSS: My name is Jim Cross. I am the Plant Manger of the Brookfield Cement Plant. On my left I have Ted Hounslow. Ted works for Lafarge out of the Moncton Sales Office. He is in charge of sales. On my right is Bill Dooley. Bill represents the Cement Association of Canada.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Perhaps we could ask members of the committee to identify themselves. We will start with the honourable member for Cape Breton West, representing the Liberal caucus.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could begin. Some of these gentlemen have travelled a considerable distance. Jim, if you would like to begin on behalf of Lafarge Canada Inc., please go ahead.
MR. CROSS: First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come here and speak on behalf of Lafarge today. Very briefly, the presentation will take about 18 minutes to 20 minutes. We have quite a few pictures, slides. I think you will find that interesting. The topics, I will speak very briefly on Lafarge group, Lafarge North America. Ted will speak on the Lafarge Atlantic Provinces, the local market place and maybe a bit of a wish list and then we will move down to the Brookfield plant and a summary.
First of all, we are part of the world-wide Lafarge group, a world leader in construction materials: U.S. sales of over $11 billion in 1999, over 71,000 employees world-wide, active in 70 countries. Lafarge occupies leading positions in its product lines: cement, number two world-wide, concrete, number two and so on and so forth. Kind of fairly late-breaking news, Lafarge is involved with a friendly takeover of a company called Blue Circle, which is the sixth largest cement producer in the world. With that acquisition, when that is completed, that would make Lafarge certainly the largest producer in the world.
Canadian cement operations. What we have is seven cement plants from coast to coast. We are the largest cement producer in Canada and the only one that operates plants from coast to coast, Brookfield on the East Coast right across to Richmond, British Columbia, head office in Montreal.
The Atlantic Provinces market place, I will ask Ted to speak a little bit about that.
MR. TED HOUNSLOW: Jim has given you sort of a broad brush on the Lafarge family. Bringing it closer to home, here in the Atlantic Provinces, again Lafarge Brookfield is the only operating cement plant in Atlantic Canada, in the middle of the province. We have a couple of terminals in New Brunswick and one on Newfoundland. Our competition is essentially three companies: St. Lawrence out of Simon, Quebec, out of St. Basile, Quebec and Dragon Products in Maine. Not that much impact any longer from Maine. Probably the most pressing issue right now is the St. Lawrence plant being built in New York. It will be up and running a 1 million ton plant in about three years.
The markets in Atlantic are somewhat stable but you will notice that the numbers are in somewhat of a decline at the same time. Over the last three years, in 1999 we had a total market of 507,000 tons. There were two producers in Atlantic and four people selling into Atlantic. In 2000, the market declined to 495,000 total market but the St. Lawrence takeover of the North Star Newfoundland operation and a subsequent closing of that operation reduced it to two producers, three competitors. This year, 2001, again, a declined market once more, down to about 443,000 total market.
We have a number of products that we make at Brookfield. We have to be very flexible there. We have to be responsive to the market so we have taken on oil-well cement for the offshore of Newfoundland, offshore Nova Scotia. This is a particular gain for us in that we are the only producer in the area. I have brochures which indicate our complete product line and I would be happy to pass those out later. High performance concrete on the Confederation Bridge, we have to respond to the market. So whatever is required in the market, the plant is able to make.
We depend on projects, for the most part, to put us over our budget hump, if you will. Some notable projects over the years: again, Confederation Bridge; the gas and oil industry in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia has been a very strong market for us in the last few years.
We continue to develop that and likewise the Irving refinery which is a $1 billion expansion in Saint John was a huge issue. I only mention the Halifax Casino because you are probably aware of it here in Halifax. We consumed a good deal of silica fume cement in the salt-water exposed portions of that structure. The projects are in decline. We have a couple of pictures here of the Confederation Bridge in construction, just for your interest.
The main item, our bread and butter, if you will, is general construction, housing, commercial, institutional, industrial-type construction. The projects, again, give us sort of a bump at the end of the year but these are the things that keep us going daily. Generally speaking, the infrastructure, which is probably more so what you are concerned with in terms of economic development - paving, sewers, bridges, water treatment plants and the like - are probably more considered projects by us at the end of the day but again these three areas are the ones that carry it for us.
Generally speaking, again, these are handled by small to large independent businesses throughout the province. There are over 40 ready mix plants in the province employing over 600 people. That is the ready mix concrete side of the business, a huge economic impact.
As a cement marketer, someone who is responsible for total cement sales in the area, in the Atlantic Provinces, there are three things that I would like you to consider, on my wish list, if you will. ICF housing; ICF stands for insulated concrete forming systems. This is a new form of construction, not eliminating frame altogether but taking concrete from the foundation right to the rafter level; energy savings, comforts, all kinds of things to consider as benefits. We can discuss that later, if you wish.
We would like you gentlemen, and lady, to consider the acceptance of cement-based paving solutions for roads, intersections, mainline highway paving. We have the economic solution. We have the life cycle and durability solutions to these sorts of problems that I know you are fully aware of. Also, infrastructure, we have to maintain our infrastructure to be safe and to be competitive and again I think that falls within your realm. We encourage you to give that due consideration.
MR. CROSS: As Brooke would say, moving to beautiful Colchester County, there is the Lafarge Brookfield Cement Plant. For those of you who may have never been there, we are actually located in Pleasant Valley on Route 289 and you will notice that the plant is actually operating. You will notice our stack and our stack emissions. We are very proud of that. It is a very clean-operating facility and, in fact, if you were to drive by when the plant is operating, judging by the stack, in many cases you would not know the plant is operating.
Another view gives you a bit of an idea of the size of the facility with Shortts Lake in the background. We are located on probably about 1,400 hectares of property. The plant is located where it is because of the source of limestone that we quarry at the plant. That is a picture of the limestone quarry itself with the kilns in the foreground. You can see we have
been mining limestone at that location for approximately 35 years. Of course, once again, that is why the plant is located where it is; limestone is the key ingredient to make cement.
These are our kilns. You can see the main one in the foreground and there is another one behind that. These kilns are approximately 400 feet long and about 12 feet in diameter. You will get the feeling that this is a very capital-intensive business. It costs multimillions of dollars to build a cement plant. To give you an idea of what happens inside those kilns, in case you have ever wondered, this is an artist's rendering of what happens inside those kilns. You will notice at the discharge end, there is a very large flame. The raw material is powdered and comes down the kiln toward the flame. We achieve material temperatures of approximately 1,500 C. It is because of the very high temperatures that cement plants are able to generate and the residence time that makes cement kilns an ideal source for incinerating waste products, waste fuels, things like that.
Another idea, just a picture of some of our plant equipment. That is a cement ball mill. It has several hundred tons of steel balls in it that are used to grind our product into the finished product. It is a huge piece of equipment. The electric motor that runs that mill is 4,800 horsepower. Once again, you will get a feel for the magnitude of the equipment and once again, it is a very capital-intensive business and very complex.
Cement silos. Our finished product, the products that Ted spoke about, go into our silos. We have 10 silos and the total capacity is about 40,000 tons. We are presently making about six products into those 10 silos. Underneath those silos, we load our trucks and rail cars. Typically, the product is distributed throughout the Atlantic Provinces by truck. You will see the large bulk trucks going throughout the Atlantic Provinces, actually. A fairly small percentage of our movement goes by rail.
Some facts about the Brookfield plant. We are the only remaining operating cement plant in Atlantic Canada. I think that is an important point. As Ted mentioned, since St. Lawrence purchased the North Star plant in Corner Brook and shut that down last summer, we are the only remaining operating cement plant. Originally built in 1965, at that time the capacity was approximately 200,000 tons. Expanded in 1978; a second kiln line was added in 1978 and the capacity increased to approximately 450,000 tons. We have operated below full capacity throughout the 1990's. Picking up on what Ted said, the market has declined somewhat over the years and we are operating at below full capacity. In response to the market, we are ISO 9002 certified and API certified - API means American Petroleum Institute - and that means we are able to sell oil-well cements to the oil-well industry.
Some key cost drivers I thought you would be interested in on operating a cement plant, certainly ours in Brookfield, to give you an idea, labour, fuel and power represent about 70 per cent of all costs. These are budgeted costs for 2001. So I thought I would just speak briefly on these. A little bit about the workforce. We have 56 permanent unionized employees. It is the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. We have 24 permanent staff
employees, so a total of about 80. We also hire temporary employees from time to time to supplement. If we have a project, for example during the fixed link, Confederation Bridge, building that, we brought on some temporary people to help run the second line, or if we have some additional stripping to do.
We pay high wage rates. That is a function of the industry. As I said, it is very expensive machinery, very complex. We have a very skilled workforce and we pay them well. Our jobs for permanent unionized employees are in the low $20 an hour range. In fact, we have no permanent, unionized employees who would make less than $20 an hour. So, once again, these are high wage rates and it speaks well of the workforce.
We have a low turnover. We haven't had a layoff since the early 1990's. We have very good labour relations. We have had something called self-directed work teams since 1994 and we have had different companies come to see us about that. If you were to visit the facility on nights or on the weekend, there would be three men operating that facility. It is a very automated plant, very modern systems in that plant and there is no supervisor, per se, on shift. So the self-managed work teams run the facility. During the week we have maintenance people, quarry administrative staff, myself, people like that.
Good safety record. We achieved over 1,000 man days without a lost-time accident. That ended about two years ago after 1,100 days and presently we are around 260 days. Obviously we are committed to training in order to stay abreast of high technology in a business like this; we do a lot of training.
On the fuel side, I thought you would find this interesting. You notice that big flame in the kiln, coal is our primary process fuel and traditionally we have received our coal from Devco. That was historical and it was always a good quality product. Of course it came down by rail so it was good business for the Cape Breton railway as well. Since Devco has ceased operations, we have been purchasing coal offshore. We have brought in boats from Venezuela. We have brought coal that came from Venezuela and loaded them from Baltimore and up that way. Unfortunately, we are unable to source any coal locally because of our quality specifications, ash and sulphur, although we look locally to see if anyone can meet those specs. We bring one to two boatloads per year, self-unloaders and they are unloaded at Pier 9 in Halifax, which is close to the Halifax side of the MacKay Bridge.
In case you were wondering, natural gas is not competitive with coal. If we were to - our people estimate that natural gas prices, based on an energy unit, would be two to three times what the cost of coal would be.
Coal is supplemented with used oil. In fact, we are a collector, a user of used oil, waste oils. So we have an arrangement with a company in Debert and another company in Newfoundland that they can bring waste oil to us. They collect the waste oil and then, for example, let's just say it has a high percentage of water, up to maybe 25 per cent or 30 per
cent water, or if there are a lot of solids in it, we can take that oil that wouldn't be able to be used for maybe refining it into a better fuel source or an alternative fuel, we can take that and utilize it in our process. So we offer a service to utilize these high-water used oils.
Tires. You are probably aware that in Nova Scotia, under the present legislation, it is illegal to incinerate tires. However, in Nova Scotia tires are presently being shipped to Quebec cement producers - one of them is our competitor - to burn those tires and, of course, that supplier competes in this region. I can talk a little bit more about that, but we would have the capability to be able to incinerate tires.
Just a shot of Pier 9, you can see the Tufts Cove generating plant in the background. When a self-unloader comes in with about 30,000 tons of coal, it will put it on Pier 9. You can see it is not dusty. We put a little berm around the coal to make sure nothing will run off and then we truck it with tarp trucks to Brookfield. It is very important that we are able to bring in the coal since we can't get it locally; it is important for us to be able to bring coal into Halifax and bring it to our plant. Certainly with the demise of Devco though, that has increased our fuel costs, no question about that.
This is a shot of our waste oil tanks, three 25,000 gallon tanks. A truck comes in, offloads into those tanks and we do analyse - we meet all used-oil regulations in the province - and then that is injected into the kiln. This shot was taken yesterday, it is not hard to tell, the snow.
Just to give you an idea on tires, we have a sister plant, a Lafarge plant in Montreal that utilizes tires. That is actually a shot of the kiln and whole tires are injected mid-kiln. You need to install a handling system, but that is how it is done. The actual tires go in. The rubber part of the tires is used for fuel and, in fact, the steel portion - the iron out of the steel - is actually a component of cement. We actually need iron in making cement. Interestingly, pound for pound, there is more energy value in tires than there is in coal.
On the environmental side, just a few points. Blasting, certainly as we expand the quarry, can be a concern for neighbours. We are installing permanent blast monitors at three locations so that we can download the information and know exactly what is happening so that we can modify our blasts.
Fugitive dust. Let's face it, we are in the dust business and we sample the air at four locations around the property. We also sample water, stack emissions; I spoke a little bit about that. We have continuous opacity monitoring. Although it is not required under regulations, we report that to the local DOE.
Environmental audits. We are audited internally from Lafarge, so people from other Lafarge locations throughout North America come to our plant and go through it with a fine-tooth comb. That happens every year and we do external audits about every three years.
Some other plant issues, limestone quarry reserves. We have been mining for 35 years. Certainly, reserves are a big issue in order to maximize the life of this facility. We have brook relocation that will be happening in the future and we are working closely with the associated government agencies regarding that and putting together final reclamation plans and brook relocation plants.
Cement kiln dust. You may not be aware that that is a by-product of our process and it is kind of a high line dust. We were approached by the federal Department of Fisheries to use this kiln dust which is quite basic. It can neutralize - if you have an acidic stream or lake, if you add some of this kiln dust it will actually raise the pH. In fact, there are some ongoing tests with the Salmon River Salmon Association, that putting a small amount of CKD in the water actually helps the salmon. The federal Department of Agriculture has done somewhat of a study on the use of cement kiln dust as an agricultural lime source. Apparently, there is one jurisdiction where sewage sludge and cement kiln dust are utilized to make a soil.
We are also actively searching for local high line sources to help make our - when we make our special cements, we need a higher grade limestone than we have at the plant. We look around, if there is something local that we could use as a high line source. We have been looking for quite a few years without much success.
So, second last slide. Just in summary, as far as Brookfield Cement Plant, it has been a major economic contributor for over 35 years. Future viability is key, certainly important, we believe. The increasing costs of fuel have a major impact on the plant's manufacturing costs and the competitive position of the plant. Once again, I am referring to things like the fuel, natural gas, tires, things like that.
As Ted mentioned, the Atlantic market for cement is currently in decline. The plant operates below capacity. Quite frankly, our fixed costs are fairly high so if our volumes decline, then our unit costs go up which makes it more difficult to compete than larger plants from Quebec that are running at higher capacity with lower unit costs can competitively ship into our region. It is important for us to try to maintain our volumes.
The last point, as far as Brookfield plant - and the ready mix industry wants to be part of the solution - things like Ted mentioned, concrete roads and houses. We believe it is part of the solution, improved infrastructure, things like, can we help with processing of waste fuels, uses of CKD, ideas like that.
That's it. Thank you for your attention. I hope you enjoyed that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That was very interesting, Jim.
Mr. Hendsbee, representing Preston, would like to start with a round of questions.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: I have a series of questions; some of them related to the information you have given us. In regard to kiln operation, I know several years ago, when we had the local discussions in metro about our waste problems, and talking about incineration as an option, I noticed that the rotary kiln technology was the best inferno for high heats and burning all the types of waste.
You are saying that your crumb rubber or tires - I know, presently, the legislation is not permitted in this province but we have a situation where some of our tires are being exported from the province. What quantity of tires do you think you would be able to burn in a year at that particular plant?
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. CROSS: As an estimate, approximately 750,000.
MR. HENDSBEE: A quarter of a million.
MR. CROSS: No, 750,000.
MR. HENDSBEE: Three quarters of a million, all right.
MR. CROSS: Which, I think is close to what this province would generate. What the province generates on tires is probably close to - any studies we have done, it is fairly compatible, I guess.
MR. HENDSBEE: Okay, you talk about industrial waste oils and stuff like that. Do you think there is a possibility that research can be done with the tar ponds sludge and stuff, and see if that stuff can be burnable, or perhaps eradicate it through the kiln?
MR. CROSS: Well, certainly, there is a heat value in the tar ponds. Now, the issues like transportation and processing, could it be done? I can't say for sure.
MR. HENDSBEE: All right. Just recently, the federal government, through Dalhousie University and one of the Cape Breton fibre companies, tied up with some fibre research in making concrete and more stronger building material, be it for buildings, roads and everything else. What participation do you have in that work?
MR. HOUNSLOW: I'm sorry, was that the fibres, did you say?
MR. HENDSBEE: Yes, synthetic fibres as an additive to concrete and . . .
MR. HOUNSLOW: Yes, that is a typical and common practice in ready mix concrete use. For instance, our sister company, Lafarge Construction Materials, employs fibre- reinforced concrete in their daily business.
MR. HENDSBEE: Are they having any participation with the Dalhousie University research in regard to that aspect?
MR. HOUNSLOW: That I'm not aware of.
MR. HENDSBEE: All right. My last question this time - or it would be two questions. Your coal, has it ever been explored of possibly importing it through the Sheet Harbour port and then bringing it up through Route 224 instead of through Halifax Harbour?
MR. CROSS: Yes, we, in fact, did that back in - we brought one boatload in at Sheet Harbour and that would have been in 1995. We transported it up through that way, yes. Now, as far as the economics went, there was probably not a lot in it for us as far as the economic side, but it went fairly well. I am not sure whether that port is still available with the chips. You may be able to answer that better than I would.
MR. HENDSBEE: That's a good question. There is a big pile of woodchips there anyway. My last question is with regard to C & D, construction demolition and renovation debris, you know, concrete being a major component of that. Do you find that there may be industry pressure for Lafarge to participate in the re-use of concrete aggregate as being recrushed and reused in construction material?
MR. HOUNSLOW: I think that there is more movement within our company to use reclaimed aggregates as much as possible. Is there pressure? I would presume there is, yes.
MR. HENDSBEE: Thank you.
MR. BILL DOOLEY: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment on the university and the research question. The industry across Canada right now has realized the universities and the community colleges is an area, where we have to get more involved. The cement industry has struck a committee. It is being formed right now and we will be looking at things like research money for universities, bursaries, even things like getting free software into the universities for teaching aids. It is something that the industry is aware of and we are beginning to address it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Bill. Just a short snapper before I recognize Mr. MacKinnon. Jim, you indicated that natural gas didn't seem to be viable at this particular time. Is it the conversion costs, or actually the cost of the ongoing operational?
MR. CROSS: Yes, it is the cost per unit of energy of natural gas. Most cement plants throughout the world are using solid fuel. If you have a plant that is operating on oil, natural gas is competitive with oil, but versus solid fuels like coal, it is not economic.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What would the cost be just to convert the plant - I mean, would there be a considerable capital cost to convert the cement plant in Brookfield?
MR. CROSS: Well, because of our understanding of what the cost of the natural gas would be on an ongoing basis, we haven't researched what the cost of the conversion would be. However, it is interesting. In late 1997, we invested $2 million in a state-of-the-art indirect firing system to burn solid fuels such as coal more efficiently and be more environmentally sensitive. We have invested a lot of money into our burning system.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is interesting because, as I understand it, a natural gas line, where it comes off the lateral, is basically going to go very close to the community of Brookfield, on its way to, maybe, Truro.
MR. CROSS: You're right. It looked like a potential opportunity but, once again, one of our Lafarge energy consultants has come up with some estimated costs of what it would be, just fairly recently. Once again, on a per unit energy basis, two to three times what fuel costs, and that is bringing fuel in from Venezuela or Pennsylvania, places like that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wow. Thank you. Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Starting off on the environmental issue, you indicated that in Quebec they burn the tires and in Nova Scotia you're not allowed to burn tires. Are you aware of the rationale for that? What is the reason that they can burn tires in Quebec and we can't burn them in Nova Scotia? It's federal.
MR. CROSS: I don't have a lot of information on it but some information I have is on, apparently, the Ministry of the Environment Quebec. I think that there is, certainly, data that suggests the cement kiln is a very efficient incinerator and it makes a lot of sense. Also, you can probably only recycle so many tires. In other words, with the way the tires are being generated today, is there a market demand for recycled tires? In other words, for example, in Nova Scotia, how many blasting mats or things like that can you actually market?
I think what has happened in Quebec is a certain portion of the tires are recycled but there is still a tremendous excess of tires and those are processed at cement plants. Apparently, that number is growing. There is, certainly, our plant and there are two that I know of that are incinerating tires in Quebec.
MR. MACKINNON: I was just thinking in terms of the federal environmental standards. I mean, they would have to comply with the same environmental standards we would.
MR. CROSS: Yes, we don't quite understand it, personally. I mean, there are other jurisdictions, like Alberta - I don't know how many other provinces incinerate tires.
MR. MACKINNON: Have you ever made an application to the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour with a proposal to incinerate tires?
MR. CROSS: No. However, we have been approached by the Resource Recovery Fund Board.
MR. MACKINNON: For the incineration of tires?
MR. CROSS: To explore some possibilities with us, what are our capabilities, back when the problem was there with Cornwallis, with the tire fire and that kind of thing. So people are aware that we could do something like that. Certainly, that information is available. We are not quite sure why the legislation is the way it is.
MR. MACKINNON: Sure. With regard to the Department of Transportation and Public Works, i.e. highways, you indicated, I believe, in your opening remarks - well, at least, you inferred - that concrete highways were more economical than the traditional mode of highway construction, i.e. the asphalt.
MR. HOUNSLOW: I trust that I didn't leave that impression exactly, sir. What I . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You said they were very economical.
MR. HOUNSLOW: Yes, economically viable . . .
MR. MACKINNON: How does it compare to the traditional mode on a cost per kilometre, let's say?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Well, typically, there is a premium to be paid initially for a concrete road versus the same stretch of . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Could you give us an approximate round figure?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Ten per cent.
MR. MACKINNON: Ten per cent higher?
MR. DOOLEY: Yes, if I could jump in. We looked at the concrete section that was put down on Highway No. 104 near Oxford approximately five years ago. The fall that that was built and opened, there was a standard piece of highway built right beside it, the same year, opened the same day. We studied the cost of the two construction methods and to build with concrete, the cost was less than 10 per cent, it was somewhere around 9.5 per cent, capital cost.
MR. MACKINNON: Higher.
MR. DOOLEY: Higher, yes, so that's the premium that Mr. Hounslow just talked about.
MR. MACKINNON: What about the life expectancy of the road compared to the traditional?
MR. DOOLEY: The life expectancy, the work that we have done indicates that if you look at a 25 year life of the concrete highways, it is easily going to be a much more economical way to build high volume traffic highways than the standard method. I guess I would love to take this opportunity, too, to interject that with climate change and global warming becoming an issue that concrete pavements will also save a lot of CO2 going into the atmosphere over the life of a highway.
MR. MACKINNON: I am just thinking in terms of the recent federal environmental report that suggested that the calcium chloride that is being used on the highways is an environmental hazard. How does using concrete highways stack up in this equation? What method of control do you use in terms of safety in winter?
MR. DOOLEY: With de-icing? The only information we have in terms of volumes of salt used for concrete versus asphalt we have as anecdotal information and we have heard that sometimes it is more, sometimes it is less. It seems to me that it depends on the lay of the land. Some of the other safety features that concrete pavement would have to offer would be skid resistance. It has superior skid resistance and also in the evenings, at night, it has superior light reflection, because it is a lighter surface, the headlights tend to light up for a longer distance. But in terms of the salt applications, I don't know of any definitive report one way or the other.
MR. MACKINNON: Would sand be a better issue to provide under those conditions because of that resistance factor as opposed to the salt? I realize there is a melting factor and so on with the temperature but I have noticed in western provinces that essentially all they use is sand.
MR. DOOLEY: I honestly couldn't answer the question, but I would be just outright guessing.
MR. MACKINNON: On concrete highways of course.
MR. DOOLEY: Either highways.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. Mr. Estabrooks.
MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: If I may, I would like to return to the topic my colleague was just addressing. As a regular driver of that stretch of Oxford highway, I can tell you that it is a welcome addition some nights when you are rolling through there and you suddenly realize this is a different texture. I think it keeps me awake, to be truthful, when you hit that. But let's talk about some other jurisdictions. I mean, you're a world-wide company, are you in other jurisdictions in the business of concrete highways?
MR. DOOLEY: As an industry, yes. Highway No. 407 in Ontario, which was a privatized highway, it is a toll road, and you could bid it any way you wanted. The consortium that won it, built a concrete highway. Right now one of the things that the industry is doing, especially in the Quebec and Ontario markets are looking to governments for what they call a white-grey-black policy where there is very high volume corridors where you have a lot of truck traffic and it would make sense to go to a rigid pavement, thus with concrete; in areas where the truck volume and the traffic volume isn't very high, you don't need a high durable pavement, then that would be traditional asphalt; and then you have sections of road that are somewhere in the middle that could go either way, thus the grey.
The City of Halifax just recently . . .
MR. ESTABROOKS: If I may interject, the white-grey-black policy refers to colour I assume, therefore texture of what is under the wheels?
MR. DOOLEY: It is a way of saying that while the concrete is a lighter material so that highways that would be designated as a concrete-only section, those highways would be referred to as sort of the white part of the policy and then the traditional asphalt highways or the black part and then highways that because of the nature of the truck traffic, the volumes on it, they could be either a rigid pavement, a concrete base pavement or an asphalt base pavement, they are the sort of the grey areas.
MR. ESTABROOKS: If I may, I think it is of some consequence, yes, we know about the particular significant stretch there at Oxford and how it has stood up over the years and the various advantages of it but I think it would be appropriate, I know, as a member of the Opposition, I would like to have some of the appropriate long-term savings and some of the statistical results from some of these other roads. You mentioned Highway No. 407 in Ontario and some of those such things. Was that put down by your competitor, that particular stretch of road in Ontario?
MR. HOUNSLOW: I think Dufferin did Highway No. 407 and that is a St. Lawrence company but certainly there are studies done, for instance, I think in Calgary, the Deerfoot Trail in the city is a concrete road. There is an abundance of data, information that we could bring to the table for your information, I am sure.
MR. ESTABROOKS: I would much appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, if that could be noted.
MR. CROSS: A little closer to home, of course, Route 289 which leads right into that cement plant is a concrete road built in 1965. If you can imagine the tonnage that has rolled over that road, both in raw materials coming in and product going out. It is getting, let's face it, a little rough now but that is a good example of a concrete road in Nova Scotia that has been there for 35 years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Howard Epstein, Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Cross, can we go back to the issue of fuel. Can you help me a little bit on the issue of fuel again. What I am wondering about is what the plant is actually licensed now to burn as fuel?
MR. CROSS: Coal, oil.
MR. EPSTEIN: Including waste oil?
MR. CROSS: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Is there anything else? My recollection was that at one point, maybe a decade ago, there was an application by Lafarge to the Department of the Environment to expand the range of materials that could be burned in the plant or was that application just for the waste oils?
MR. CROSS: I guess that was before my time but I know there was an application for hazardous waste oil in the early 1990's. I think that was approved, however, we have never pursued that. In fact, we collect and process used oil.
MR. EPSTEIN: So that's it, it is coal and waste oil at the moment?
MR. CROSS: Of course, if we have a problem with our coal-firing system, we have the ability to switch over to bunker C and utilize bunker C but, of course, that is very expensive. We have also looked at petroleum coke as an alternative solid fuel, but because of our geographical location, it is not very economic to bring in petroleum coke.
MR. EPSTEIN: So as far as the Department of Environment and Labour is concerned, you are still on the books with approval to burn hazardous wastes, you just haven't done it, is that basically right?
MR. CROSS: That's probably correct, but we also have no intentions of pursuing that.
MR. EPSTEIN: The other thing that I wondered about in terms of what you said about fuels was your comment about domestic versus offshore coal. If I understood correctly, what you said was that you had looked at the possibility of purchasing some coal locally but its ash and sulphur content was too high for your specs, is that right?
MR. CROSS: That's correct, yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: So that must mean Pictou County coal, really, because that is the only alternative to the Devco coal, is that right?
MR. CROSS: That's correct.
MR. EPSTEIN: That is what I am puzzled about. Because my understanding about the development of Pictou County coal mines in recent years was that it really went forward on the basis that its ash and sulphur content, particularly sulphur content, was much lower than the Cape Breton coals. I guess I am a little puzzled as to what you are finding now in terms of sulphur and ash content of Pictou County coal.
MR. CROSS: To clarify it, the ash is probably more of a concern to us than the sulphur. We have looked at it for the Pictou County coals. We need a max 10 per cent ash, we prefer not to get higher than that. Typically, the companies that we have spoken to can't supply that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Wouldn't that have been a problem with the Devco coal as well?
MR. CROSS: No, in fact we were able to get a coal ash from Devco that was, at one point, up to probably about 1994, it was in fact around 4 per cent or 5 per cent ash. It was very good. Then it increased somewhat after that but still below 10 per cent.
MR. EPSTEIN: Very interesting, thank you. Moving away from fuel but on a related point, you said it didn't make sense for you to consider natural gas as one of your fuels but I noticed, of course, that one of your other main costs was power. You listed that at 14 per cent so this raises the question of power generation and how you are doing that at the moment. I take it you are just buying electricity from Nova Scotia Power. Is that right?
MR. CROSS: That is correct, yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: What about the possibility of generating your own electricity using natural gas. Is that something you have thought about?
MR. CROSS: As a major user of power, we studied somewhat the idea of co-generation. We are looking at that and we are actually talking to Nova Scotia Power about those kind of ideas, would it make sense, because we generate a lot of waste heat. In fact, from those kilns, there is a lot of waste heat and the study we have done shows that we would be able to utilize some of that waste heat to generate the power, yes. That would be a very expensive thing to do for sure and do we want to get into the power business, and there are the economics there. We are still looking at that.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do other plants in your company elsewhere do some of that, that is their own electricity generation?
MR. CROSS: Our plant in Alpina, Michigan, did. I don't think they are anymore, but they did in the past. Most don't.
MR. EPSTEIN: Are you in negotiations now with Nova Scotia Power or do you have a long-term arrangement with them on your power rates?
MR. CROSS: Well, we are a large industrial rate, for sure. It is interesting you say that. It ties into the fuel too, because as a major customer of Nova Scotia Power, of course they bring coal in offshore and sometimes we try to explore if there are any synergies there because, once again, people think that NSP is the only purchaser of coal in the province and, of course, we are a major user as well.
MR. EPSTEIN: That reminds me, I guess of one point, you actually bring in two shiploads a year, is that it?
MR. CROSS: Yes, depending on what our market is, it can be two boatloads a year, yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: That is it? That does you for the whole year?
MR. CROSS: Yes. So we are consuming 30,000 tons to 40,000 tons a year of coal.
MR. EPSTEIN: The question of waste heat is an intriguing one. I am wondering what exactly your wastes are. Heat is a big one. What are your other wastes?
MR. CROSS: Well, I mentioned that cement kiln dust is a waste product of ours and we are exploring usages of that. In many areas that product is actually sold as a binder or in agricultural utilization and things like that.
MR. EPSTEIN: What happens to it now? Do you stockpile it?
MR. CROSS: We landfill it on site.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do you have any other wastes?
MR. CROSS: No.
MR. EPSTEIN: That is it. There are relatively few by-products, I guess, eh?
MR. CROSS: That is correct, yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, fair enough. If I can ask just one other. When you mentioned before about housing - or it wasn't you - I guess the mention was made about ICF housing, what I wasn't clear about was whether the barrier was a barrier in the market place or whether it was something about the Building Code and was therefore legally related. Did I miss this?
MR. HOUNSLOW: No, there are no barriers per se. It is a market we are trying to develop and we are just trying to make sure that everybody is aware of the concepts.
MR. EPSTEIN: Right, so it is a question of education and competition and it is nothing to do with a legal issue that we might have control over.
MR. HOUNSLOW: Yes, sir. No, no.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, fair enough. I guess the last thing I was really confused about was this question about Quebec . . .
MR. DOOLEY: I was just wondering if I could jump in and comment on housing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Dooley.
MR. DOOLEY: The committee might be interested to know that this past weekend the cement industry opened up an ICF showcase home here in Halifax and we are promoting it to the public and trying to get people out to look at it. It is right here in Halifax, if any of the committee members would like to drop by to see it; we have some invitations that we will drop by in a bit. As an industry we are out there trying to create some awareness about this kind of construction.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Oh, sorry, could I ask one other?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, go ahead. Take another one. Yours are only short.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay, here we go. It had to do with the observation that there would be companies in Quebec that would be your competitors. I guess what I was puzzled about was sort of what is the feasible distance over which the concrete product can actually be transported and still be within a reasonable kind of competition area?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Well, it is not the concrete product we are concerned with, it is the powder cement. From Joliette, Quebec, into Halifax, for example, by rail, the rail rates keep the competitive pricing in place. So you could probably go from the eastern border of Ontario into Atlantic Canada somewhat economically, depending on certain conditions. There are occasions where you might even get offshore cement coming in by boat that would be a competitive-type situation.
MR. EPSTEIN: So if they can compete here, I assume you can compete there. Do you bid on jobs up there?
MR. HOUNSLOW: We do not.
MR. EPSTEIN: Why is that? Because you have other associated plants up there.
MR. HOUNSLOW: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Thanks a lot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Epstein. Mr. Hurlburt.
MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have something clarified. I hear from a committee member and I am hearing from these gentlemen about the regulation. Is that a federal or provincial regulation for burning tires. The Province of Nova Scotia, that is a provincial, well, if it is a federal regulation, I am sure that it goes across Canada. It is not just earmarked to Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is provincial.
MR. HURLBURT: It is a provincial legislation?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just provide a helpful intervention, it is in the provincial Environment Act that you can't incinerate tires and it was brought in by the government of the day, I think, was Mr. Adams, maybe, the Environment Minister.
MR. HURLBURT: Who was that? What Party? (Interruptions) That was the Liberal Party. So are you telling me and this committee that if the regulation was not in force today that you people would be looking at that as a source of energy for your plant, burning tires?
MR. CROSS: We are saying that we could be part of the solution. If that is a concern in Nova Scotia, to dispose of tires, then we could . . .
MR. HURLBURT: Well, I think it is a concern. I am pretty sure every committee member agrees to that.
MR. CROSS: We would be interested in trying to provide a solution for that, yes.
MR. HURLBURT: Right on. It would bring your costs more in line if you had the source here within the province?
MR. CROSS: Certainly it would impact our fuel costs, yes.
MR. HURLBURT: Do you have any stats on the emissions from tires versus coal?
MR. CROSS: I don't have anything with me. We can access that information from the Quebec plants.
MR. HURLBURT: I was in Quebec, right in downtown Quebec City where the incinerator was working right in the heart of the city, and there were hardly any emissions coming from it.
Mr. Chairman, I think that maybe this committee should - I don't know if we need a motion or just go back to the Department of Environment and ask them to have another look at this regulation and report back to this committee. I would like to know more about that. I think that maybe we are missing the boat here. I don't know if you want a motion or the consensus of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What does the committee think? I think perhaps maybe then, Mr. Hurlburt, you might want to put it in the form of a motion and we would certainly have to have it worded in such a way that it was comprehensive and run it by the members. So if you wanted to work something up, perhaps we could go on to the next question, or do you have some other questions before you would place a motion?
MR. HURLBURT: Okay, I will work on the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On that point, Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, because it is a very important point, I would like to go back to the comments made by our witnesses that in fact they were approached by the Resource Recovery Fund Board, the RRFB or whatever title they so choose. The fact that they approached your company to explore a possibility to deal with this. Did they provide any written correspondence on this?
MR. CROSS: No.
MR. MACKINNON: It was verbal?
MR. CROSS: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: At what date was this communicated, approximately?
MR. CROSS: Last year, in 2000; I would have to go back and check.
MR. MACKINNON: In the spring, in the summer, in the fall?
MR. CROSS: Actually, I was out of town, myself. The representative from the Resource Recovery Fund Board met originally with our purchasing manager and it was probably spring or something like that.
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: Was it the chairman of the Resource Recovery Fund Board who met with your representative?
MR. CROSS: Do you have his name?
MR. MACKINNON: No.
MR. CROSS: I am not sure.
MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps you could give the committee an undertaking that you would supply that information.
MR. CROSS: Oh yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on that point, because my colleague does really have a very important point, I think it would be perhaps wise to invite representatives from the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour, senior officials overseeing such environmental controls before this committee to be able to explain the rationale and then perhaps my colleague's motion may very well be a worthy motion but rather than rush off
because of the, whether it be federal-provincial or what the mechanics of the economic benefit but I am sure something wouldn't have just been put into place regardless what level, unless there was a good reason. Perhaps an explanation from the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour senior experts within the department could give us a briefing on that.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, to go back to my point, was just to clarify to this committee exactly what the regulation is, will he come in and maybe to revisit the regulation. That is all I am stating.
MR. MACKINNON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Explaining the regulation is one thing, explaining the rationale for the regulation is quite another thing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could just maybe provide an intervention here, and I don't know how helpful it will be, one of the problems, I was just sitting back here thinking about this whole situation is that when the government of the day decided to essentially ban tires from being incinerated, they also, hand in glove, decided to establish a Nova Scotia tire recycling program. I think we all know and all would admit that that hasn't been especially the type of program perhaps we would all like to talk about in support of. As a consequence we now have another proponent building a tire recycling facility out in Kemptown.
The Department of Environment, again of the day, entered into a contract to so I think perhaps this issue is a little more complex than perhaps we all understand. I would think, as the honourable member for Yarmouth mentioned, that perhaps the Department of Environment and the honourable member for Cape Breton West agrees, could provide us with some information relative to the rationale for bringing in that particular law.
On this particular point, Mr. Chipman, and then Mr. Epstein.
MR. CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know necessarily if the point you brought up was against incineration of tires but to prohibit tires from going into landfills.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and the Act clearly states - I did a little research a few years ago in Opposition - as the presenters know well, you are not allowed to incinerate a tire in Nova Scotia. I think that law is unique to Canada. They are banned from landfills and also incineration.
Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: I understood Mr. Hurlburt's question to be a sensible one, which was to invite the department to give an explanation of what the state of play is and what the rationale was. That seems to me a very good question. We can I think easily speculate that it was a combination of factors. As I recall at the time, it partly had to do with looking at
economic opportunities to make some kind of beneficial use of used tires. I think it was seen as well as an opportunity to divert them away from landfill and therefore reduce the volume of material that was going into landfills. I think there was at least some concern about incineration of tires. I think it was a combination of all those things. Looking at the situation certainly makes sense because as you correctly say, Mr. Chairman, what has happened since then hasn't necessarily been as successful as I think was hoped at the time. Whether it would make sense to invite them as witnesses or to ask for a written explanation, I'm not sure, but certainly it is worth having a look at.
To that, I would only add a word of caution. I don't think we should rush to the conclusion that there are no environmental problems with burning them, even in a high heat incinerator that is there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I tend to agree, Mr. Epstein, but I think we can reach one conclusion and that is that it seems very unfortunate and unfair that Nova Scotians are essentially subsidizing competition in other provinces, if you looked at it in the context of the so-called environmental fee or tire tax. The fact of the matter is, the whole issue has been a spectacular failure right from day one, but anyway . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, presumably the tires are sold.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, Mr. Hurlburt, perhaps you could tell us what . . .
MR. HURLBURT: It is being drafted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will move along to Mr. Chipman.
MR. CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to appear facetious but, you know, it might be a good idea if you, in your capacity as chairman, could write a letter to the Ministry of Environment in the Province of Quebec and find out why they are allowing it and compare it to the reasons we are prohibiting it in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is no difficulty doing that but, in my mind, I think it is clear as the nose on everybody's face why it is being done and that is because we are the only province in Canada that prohibits the burning of tires. The Environment Act clearly states it. I have copies of it, but sure, if you want to get some clarification . . .
MR. CHIPMAN: I'm just saying, are we shipping excess tires out of the province to Quebec?
MR. CHAIRMAN: All our recycled tires.
MR. CHIPMAN: They are all going to Quebec. So we are actually subsidizing their industry there. I think that is a valid point Mr. Hurlburt has brought up. I would make a motion that you, as chairman, write a letter to the Ministry of Environment in the Province of Quebec, or any other province in Canada, and find the reasons why they permit it. Maybe we have an argument here why we oppose it in this province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Was that a statement or a motion? (Interruption) Okay, the motion is that I write a letter to the Ministry of Environment or the suitable body, whatever it is in that province, to find out as to why they are permitted to burn tires in incinerators, i.e. cement plants, St. Lawrence Cement, and we are not.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CROSS: Excuse me, I would just like to add, my understanding is that some of the Nova Scotia tires are also going to our competitor and some are also going to our Lafarge Saint-Constant plant outside of Montreal. That is just so you are aware of it. From my perspective, I am competing with our Lafarge plant in Montreal too. I mean, quite frankly, that plant is extremely efficient and if the economics were to work out that - that is our competitor as well, so . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just for clarification, Jim, you indicated that you felt that the Brookfield plant had the capacity to burn the recycled tires that Nova Scotia produces. I think, including all the highway trucks and cars, it is somewhere around 900,000 tires on an annual basis. I think those were the figures that we were given.
MR. CROSS: Yes, I think with the preliminary work we did - it is very preliminary and I didn't bring a lot of information today - that we would be able to handle it.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I guess that would mean a bit of a bonanza for a certain MLA that sits at this table since there are several hundred thousand stockpiled in the backyard of . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon, I would like to recognize the next member that has a question here.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm not going to mention any names. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chipman.
MR. CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, I would like to draw to the committee's attention that in Annapolis County, we are very progressive down there and we
have had a concrete section of highway there for quite some years - experimental portion actually. It is called Rices Road in Bridgetown, the Bridgetown overpass. That has held up fairly well. I just wanted the committee to know that we are progressive and forward-thinking down in that area and we are moving ahead.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they certainly know how to vote. I don't know about anything else. (Laughter)
MR. CHIPMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the member from Lafarge, Mr. Cross, if I could, or one of the other gentlemen, is there any opportunity to crush rubber and use it in asphalt, for pavement? I have heard that rumored before in the past. Is there any way tires can be utilized in asphalt or with concrete as a filler for highway construction?
MR. DOOLEY: It has been looked at, from my understanding, for both asphalt pavement and for concrete pavement. You end up with durability problems with both types of material. I'm sure there is still research going on but it has not been perfected.
MR. CHIPMAN: Is there any way that the tires - and I know it is a rubber compound - can be melted and brought into a liquid form, that you're aware of?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Not that I'm aware of. (Interruptions)
MR. CHIPMAN: I just have one other question. Basically, it has nothing to do with the concrete part of your industry, but with asphalt, are there any types of standards, quality control that goes into highway construction in the province? I guess what I am referring to is a highway in my area, the Ward Road in Annapolis County, it wasn't paved that many years ago and it has got potholes in it already.
If your company, or you are supplying the material - and, I guess, of course, it is up to the contractor that is doing the job - are you aware of any standards that require a certain amount of quality control that goes into the construction of an asphalt highway?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Well, sir, that is not my field at all. I would defer on that one, for sure.
MR. CHIPMAN: Right.
MR. DOOLEY: All the construction projects from the province are basically tendered with a set of specifications that address quality control, as well as standard thicknesses, et cetera. Those would govern the quality of the construction and the design.
MR. CHIPMAN: What would be a thickness of an asphalt highway compared to a concrete highway?
MR. DOOLEY: Again, if I could refer to the 100-Series Highways, Highway No. 104, there by Oxford, I think it was - if memory serves me correct, we are looking at about 200 mm of asphalt versus 250 mm of concrete.
MR. DOOLEY: The big difference, when you compare those two types of construction is, you have to be aware that the base required has to be much more substantial for asphalt than for concrete because concrete is a rigid pavement.
MR. CHIPMAN: You say you need more of a base for the asphalt?
MR. DOOLEY: Yes, the actual sub-grade, sub-base is constructed differently for both types.
MR. CHIPMAN: Yes, and requires more of a rigid sub-base for the. . .
MR. DOOLEY: No, the rigid pavement, the concrete pavement requires a less substantial base, if you will.
MR. CHIPMAN: Right.
MR. DOOLEY: So, actually, it is cheaper to build the base for a concrete pavement.
MR. CHIPMAN: Might I suggest that may be the problem that our highways don't keep in this province, or don't withstand because I know some of the materials that they use in the base are - I'm not saying they are substandard but I know the material in some areas is more porous than others. Asphalt has a tendency to heave moreso than concrete. Would you agree with that?
MR. DOOLEY: I am not a soils expert so I don't want to comment.
MR. CHIPMAN: Okay. Just one more point.
MR. CHAIRMAN: One more point, Mr. Chipman.
MR. CHIPMAN: I just read an article here a few months ago - it was from the Ready Mix Association of Nova Scotia. They are promoting using asphalt on highways. I can't remember the exact figures. You are saying 10 per cent premium for concrete versus asphalt but my understanding was they were saying it has 2.5 times the life, concrete does, over asphalt, so the savings would certainly . . .
MR. HOUNSLOW: The life cycle savings make up for the premium at the initial cost, yes.
MR. CHIPMAN: Right. That's all I have now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chipman. Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of other questions. How long ago did you buy the old Steed & Evans operation there in Dartmouth? How long has Lafarge been in the asphalt business there?
MR. HOUNSLOW: I'm sorry, sir, I'm only a year and one-half in the area but I do not know the history.
MR. HENDSBEE: In regard to the potential of the new infrastructure of the federal-provincial program, I guess there has been, probably, a lot of infrastructure projects that are hopefully going to be undertaken, the bulk of them are going to be water and sewer types of projects, I would assume, because of the regulations the federal government wants to have, or some of the criteria it is putting forward. Do you find that a lot of the infrastructure that is being repaired instead of replaced, do you find that it is more of a competition in there, or what participation does Lafarge have in regard to a lot of concrete pipes now being relined either by polymers, silicones or ceramic relining? Are any of those materials supplied by Lafarge for that type of rebonding of interior pipes, or is that more of a new competitive field that is going against the concrete piping?
MR. HOUNSLOW: I am somewhat familiar with some pipe relining that occurred, I believe, in Ontario but I am not fully aware of the technologies. I believe we are involved in some degree.
MR. HENDSBEE: I know that there has been some work done here locally in Halifax that they have been relining a lot of their water lines and stuff with the use of ceramic and silicone relining, instead of replacing the pipe. I was kind of wondering what type of research or work that Lafarge may be doing in regard to getting a bit of that market, also?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Well, it is an interesting point and we have a research development section in Montreal that looks at these sorts of things and we also have a pipe department that, specifically, would examine it. If you would care to, I can look and see if there is information to that end, for you?
MR. HENDSBEE: It would be nice to know.
MR. CROSS: Maybe, just to clarify something, as you saw from the presentation, Lafarge is a very big company and, in fact, we have two divisions. We have Lafarge Construction Materials, which you see on Kearney Lake Road, in doing the paving and so on, and the Cement Division. Today, Ted and myself are from the Cement Division and Bill represents the Cement Association.
We didn't bring somebody from the construction materials, maybe that is something for future discussion. So if you find we are, maybe, a little not so informed on the concrete application side, it is because our function is on the cement side.
MR. HENDSBEE: More the wholesale and retail of cement versus cement by-products?
MR. CROSS: Yes. We could bring Gary Rudolph, for example, from LCM. Maybe, once again, that is a topic for another discussion. Like I say, we may be a little weak on the construction material side of the business.
MR. HENDSBEE: Those are all the questions I have, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hendsbee. Mr. MacKinnon, do you have any other questions?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, a couple of questions. Going back to the issue on the rubber tires, I know you folks construct, or you make those concrete barriers they are using as highway dividers and so on, is that correct?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Well, again, that is a construction materials use.
MR. MACKINNON: But that is one of the facets of your industry?
MR. HOUNSLOW: Yes, correct.
MR. MACKINNON: Has there ever been any consideration to recycling the tires to construct the same type of product?
MR. HOUNSLOW: I couldn't say.
MR. MACKINNON: Have you not explored that? Has there ever been, like, a cost analysis done?
MR. CROSS: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps, over your travels, you could give some consideration to that. I have raised that issue with companies such as Michelin and so on and they just didn't see it within the scope of their industry to involve themselves with that type of reconstruction of rubber product. Given the importance of it, in terms of its weight versus the weight of concrete and the possibility of an able supply of the product - obviously, we have hundreds of thousands of tires lying around Nova Scotia that is a concern for various
entitities - would that fit within the scope of your company? I know it is something to be considered.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They're in the cement business.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I realize that but they are also . . .
MR. CROSS: I guess we feel we can offer an effective solution as we do in the Province of Quebec with tires.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, burn them.
Now, the other issue is with regard to sewage sludge and the cement kiln dust. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on that particular issue a little more because I think what you have indicated was that it creates a new soil.
MR. CROSS: Yes, what I can say to that is that the cement kiln dust is basically a by-product of our operation that is limestone that has been heated up, so it is a lime source. It is a lime source and that lime can be used to neutralize acids or sludges and it can be used as a binder for hazardous materials, things like that. That is probably the best explanation I can give you on that and apparently - and once again, I don't have any hands-on experience with it but - it has been approved and I am not sure in which location or which province it is used, combined with sewage sludge and the new product that is formed is called an enviro-soil that can be sold and marketed as a soil.
MR. MACKINNON: I was thinking in terms of the clean-up of Halifax Harbour and . . .
AN HON. MEMBER: The tar ponds.
MR. MACKINNON: . . . no, not the tar ponds but Halifax Harbour and perhaps Sydney Harbour. It is generally known that in Sydney Harbour, depending upon what part of the harbour you are in, there is anywhere from 8 feet to 12 feet of sludge. I know that because I have done the sounding surveys there several years ago, so I know what is there. Would it be at that scale?
MR. CROSS: I think you are on the right track that, once again, we have a cement plant located in Brookfield and perhaps that product could be used for something like that. That is a potential use and we do generate a significant amount.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I will recognize Mr. Epstein and then go to Mr. Hurlburt with his declaration or motion.
MR. EPSTEIN: Just to go back to the housing issue and the question of the use of concrete; I guess it was Mr. Hounslow who brought this up. I am not sure what details the plant or your company have pursued on this locally but I have a small suggestion to make. If you have not yet been in touch with either Solar Nova Scotia or builders who are concerned to design and build solar houses; you might think about getting in touch with them. There are different kinds of solar construction: there is active solar in which devices are used to generate electricity or heat hot water but there is also passive solar. Passive solar essentially means designing houses in a way that they maximize the sun's energy by design, usually orienting the houses south and west, plus having substances in the house to retain the heat and that often means building these houses on concrete pads. This is a big element of passive solar design and there is an organization in Nova Scotia called Solar Nova Scotia. A fellow named Don Roscoe, who is a house designer and builder in Dover, is one of the prime movers there and has been involved in this for a while. I am just making the suggestion that you might want to link up with people who are in the business of actually doing some of the construction along these lines.
MR. HOUNSLOW: Thank you, Mr. Epstein. Mr. Dooley has an associate whose basic sole responsibility is the ICF residential sphere. I don't know if he has talked to Solar Nova Scotia but we will make sure that Mike Daley has a peek.
MR. DOOLEY: Actually in the past we have done some work with Solar Nova Scotia and Mr. Roscoe. The other thing I would like to point out is the residential program that we do have right now. We do target R2000 builders and a fair amount of the R2000 builders tend to also go towards solar housing also. At the moment we are very much targeting the custom builder, the builders who are very concerned about health issues and energy issues and housing.
MR. HURLBURT: Before I read the motion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to Mr. Chipman's statement about using used tires in roadbeds. As a private entrepreneur, five or six years ago I looked at that aspect of it, I spent some time in Europe and that is a technique they use there, they pulverize the tires to approximately one-quarter inch pellets and they put that down as a base under their concrete or their asphalt that they use on their roadways. I sourced the equipment and everything out for this province and put a proposal forth to the Department of Environment of the day and the Department of Transportation and Public Works and they both rejected using that product for a base for the roads in the Province of Nova Scotia. I don't know if it is the same today or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you tell us what the rationale was for the rejection?
MR. HURLBURT: Environmental issues with the rubber. That is all they would give me but I have the correspondence back in Yarmouth on this issue, signed by the deputy minister of the day. I responded back asking them what the difference was in using rubber for a base for the highways, versus asphalt, what environmental issues were there. I forget
what the response was to that, I think it was just, we received your letter and it was placed on file.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Would the honourable member be kind enough to table that information with the committee?
MR. HURLBURT: I have no problem with that whatsoever.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That was not a point of order, it was more or less a question. May we now move on to your motion?
MR. HURLBURT: That the Standing Committee on Economic Development ask the provincial Department of Environment to review provincial regulations banning the incineration of tires within the province and provide this committee with relative information and explanation for the development of this policy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions on that motion?
MR. EPSTEIN: You just used the word review and that word could imply that a position has been taken on encouraging a change. I had rather thought from what I heard said before that the intention was somewhat more neutral, to seek information. I am not sure in what sense review is being used. I am sorry to pick at it too much but (Interruption) No, I understand.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the mover of the motion wish to clarify his usage of the word review in the motion?
MR. HURLBURT: Well it is telling them to review the policy and submit the information to this committee, that is what I am asking for. If I offended anybody with the word review then . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is fine, Mr. Hurlburt, that is clarified.
MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps a friendly amendment on that, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps better put would be to ask for the Department of Environment officials to provide a detailed explanation as to the rationale for this particular by-law or policy that is in place with regard to the issue that you draw at hand.
I will be honest, just listening to the presentation here today I am rather curious as to why the Resource Recovery Fund Board would approach the private sector in the manner that it did on this particular issue, re the burning of tires, when there didn't seem to be any formal representation through the Nova Scotia Department of Environment when, in fact,
environmental laws were put in place. I am not suggesting anything one way or the other but I am rather curious as to why that approach was taken.
Just in a sense of fairness, in all likelihood if the honourable member's concern in genuine, then I think he knows full well that I would have no problem supporting any opportunity to revise the environmental laws of this province to maximize economic benefits. I wasn't here when the environmental laws were put in place. I believe if you check the records you will find his own Conservative caucus at that point supported such an initiative. I would be more inclined to see what the rationale was, more so than asking to review something.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification here. I am not asking to change the law, all I am asking is to have the information so I and every member here in this panel can review it themselves. I am not asking to change the law or for us to change the law. All I am asking is to get the information and ask the department their rationale behind it.
MR. MACKINNON: So it is not necessarily to review their own policy but to provide a detailed explanation.
MR. HURLBURT: Absolutely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions on the motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
With that, I believe we will conclude our hearing today with our guests, Lafarge Canada. On behalf of the committee I want to thank you gentlemen for coming in today. I am sure I can speak for everyone again, we found the presentation very interesting, the question and answer session was also very helpful. Maybe we could welcome you back on a future date and if you did want to make any closing comments you are certainly welcome to take five minutes or so.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. CROSS: I would echo what Ted said, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I would like to thank Darlene Henry; I talked to her several times on the telephone and she helped out a lot in how this was going to go on today and gave us access to the room. I know Bill was talking to Darlene and we appreciate that very much.
There was a question about finding out more information on the meeting of the Resource Recovery Fund Board, who would be submit that information to?
MR. CHAIRMAN: To Darlene.
MR. HOUNSLOW: And the data that was requested by Mr. Estabrooks and Mr. Hendsbee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Through Darlene. I apologize, I should have introduced Darlene earlier on and we also were joined by Howard Epstein. Anyway, we thank you very much and maybe we will take a couple of minutes to break and then come back to talk about our future agenda and things of that nature.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
[2:31 p.m. The committee recessed.]
[2:36 p.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wonder if we could reconvene, committee members. Our next meeting date is February 13th and BCA Holdings Limited is scheduled to come in. I believe that company witness name was submitted by the Liberal caucus. Mr. MacKinnon, is that correct?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, that is Father Greg MacLeod.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On February 27th, as a potential witness, Darlene has pencilled in the ready mix industry. Is there any discussion on that? I know this committee was requested by the ready mix industry to come in and make a presentation. I am not sure just where we are with potential names to go on our list. Does anybody have any comment on that?
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I realize I am only a substitute here today . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: A very effective one, I might add.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. Tenacious, if nothing else. Since we are talking economic development here, I know in my own constituency of Cape Breton West, in and around the Town of Louisbourg, there are a considerable number of success stories that have taken place through community economic development since the downturn of the fishing industry. As many know, the fishing industry over a four to five year period was quite negative toward a lot of fishing communities such as Canso, in my backyard and indeed, down through the South Shore. But in and around the Town of Louisbourg, because of the way the community has come together, a number of industries have cropped up: A & L
Fisheries; J & K Marine and Fisheries; Scattery Fisheries, where they are processing the smoked salmon for sale on the export market; and I can go on and on about a number of success stories taking place in and around that area.
It would be nice to focus on some good-news stories in terms of the aftermath of the downturn in the fishing industry. I realize the eastern part of the province represents a considerably small percentage of the big picture in the fishing industry - about 15 per cent versus 85 per cent on the southwest - but there are some real good-news stories there. There are talks about offshore gas and oil opportunities because of the ice-free harbour that is there and so on. If you are looking for a good opportunity to explore some success stories, I would certainly invite the committee.
Obviously, I would be suggesting the committee consider travelling the province a bit and becoming a little more sensitized. I don't know if the committee would be prone to that or not. There is the former Town Hall in Louisbourg on Main Street that has the council chambers that would certainly accommodate you. It is a similar-type form to what is right here before you for accommodations.
I know people would be more than willing to entertain and ensure that the committee members see the full beauty and the potential economic and social success stories that are in that area, notwithstanding that the Fortress of Louisbourg is a major economic generator there. So I throw that out as a possibility. It would certainly change the routine of being here in the committee chamber all the time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if it would be okay to comment on that, Mr. MacKinnon, that is an interesting point of view. I am speaking for myself, obviously, we haven't had a chance to caucus this, I don't think any caucus has but it is a major undertaking, I think, for some of our individuals and organizations to come to Halifax - those who live outside. Are you suggesting that the committee would possibly consider playing host to a hearing in the morning, a hearing in the afternoon and maybe over the course of two days, four hearings? I don't know but I guess Darlene would have to investigate whether we have a budget or not to even consider that sort of thing.
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): We don't have one now. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think there is some merit in that. I wouldn't want to go on the road all over Nova Scotia but I honestly recognize that some potential witnesses would have some financial difficulties, transportation and related, in coming to Halifax.
I live in rural Nova Scotia myself, as you may understand, and am much handier than many of the presenters we have. What does the committee think? I would like to take feedback on this before we make any motion.
MR. CHIPMAN: I think it is a great idea but I don't know if budget restrictions would allow it. I wouldn't say it is any easier for the witnesses to come here to go before the committee, but for us to travel around the province would be a considerable expense to the provincial coffers.
MRS. HENRY: At present, if I may, it is going to be about $1,500 right now for one day and that is for the minimum, just the members; it has to be recorded, these guys will have to come with us, rental cars and all that other stuff just to get down there. It would be about $1,500.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the committee agree to ask Darlene to investigate the possibility of us going to Cape Breton only? I would think it would make more sense, rather than go down just for the one hearing or one day to try to . . .
MR. MACKINNON: You could include a series of presentations in the morning in Louisbourg, there are community representative groups there who would speak very amply for the economic and social issues. I really believe there are a lot of good success stories there that I think committee members could learn from. Then perhaps in the afternoon take in BCA Holdings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morash, you had a comment.
MR. KERRY MORASH: I think it is a great idea to get out and around to hear from people in their communities but with regard to the budgets, that is sort of the restraining factor. We should check to see if that is a possibility, because I think we could learn a lot by going out and listening to some of these groups.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Darlene, from your recollection has this committee ever gone on the road, so to speak?
MRS. HENRY: Not during the time I was here. I can check back to see about the 1980's and whatnot, how far back it was that they did travel.
MR. HURLBURT: It is immaterial what happened in the past. Committee members brought it up today and I think we should investigate it and make a decision.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess my concern is . . .
MR. MACKINNON: There is tremendous potential there and I have studied this issue for quite some time and as you know, Mr. Chairman, I am quite the Scotsman when it comes to spending money, whether it be the taxpayers or my own. I think this would be a good investment, particularly with the downturn in the traditional economies in Cape Breton. Let's face facts, the industrial revolution is over in Cape Breton and we have to move on. It is an
opportunity to help not only the people of industrial Cape Breton, but indeed the legislators, to better understand this transformation of not only their thinking and how they approach community economic development, but how they are going to prepare themselves for the 21st Century. Right at our fingertips there are a number of success stories that could be very easily examined and given some thorough critique and sensitivity so as to be able to better know whether it is a good opportunity for the government to invest in direction a, b or c.
The government has stated that with the gas and oil industry being a great potential for Cape Breton in the future and given some of the finds that were made even as far back as the 1970's, - 1972 when they were drilling for the Donkin coal mine, they hit natural gas. In 1974 when they were doing another test drill for the Donkin coal mine, they hit natural gas. So there are a lot of good things. I could point out at least another three or four other success stories in and around Louisbourg.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Not to cut you off, honourable member, your point is well taken. Mr. Estabrooks.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Well, I think respective caucuses, we have the opportunity to bring to the chairman a list of potential witnesses. I look forward to the particular members representing the Liberal caucus today to bring those forward in the regular manner that we bring them forward to Darlene so that if it is possible we can set that up. One of the things about being on the Economic Development Committee, we bring in a group and then there is no consistency. Like, for example - I think it was Richard's idea - let's find out whether this is possible and go ahead, okay? And Darlene will report back to us, okay? Then we will look at a particular group.
The opportunity is we have a member here from the Liberal caucus today who is bringing up all these names of these groups. I would like to take that back to my caucus. The member for Cape Breton Centre, I am sure, would like to have that too.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just on a point of clarification, Mr. Estabrooks, I think what we are doing is deliberating as to whether or not we feel there is some value in going to Cape Breton. One of the difficulties, or another concern, is that our next scheduled witness is a company from Cape Breton, BCA Holdings and if, in fact, Darlene finds out that we - I am not sure who we have to get authority from but I would think that the Department of Economic Development and our government is involved somewhere along the line. I think what we should do is perhaps keep BCA Holdings on our list for February 13th, as scheduled, and if we get some information back in a reasonable time, and I mean before February 13th, then we could possibly look at scheduling BCA Holdings for Cape Breton also and bring in another witness.
We would have to obviously have feedback from the different caucuses, Mr. Estabrooks, but I guess that is part of the problem, that we have a Cape Breton company coming in to make a presentation on February 13th and if we were going, let's say, down to Cape Breton in March sometime, for example, then perhaps we could make it easier and less costly for the company.
Mr. Hurlburt and then Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I just thought we were going to investigate to see if we can travel and then the committee can make a decision where it wants to go. If it wants to be in Cape Breton or southwestern Nova Scotia, or wherever, I can tell you success stories in southwestern Nova Scotia. I think that maybe Darlene could report back to the committee, keep the agenda as submitted and report back at our next meeting and then we make a decision, if that is agreeable to the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sounds great. Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, my only suggestion would be that while in the process of seeking out financial implications of going on the road and with the possibility of Cape Breton representation, I would have thought it logical, perhaps, to hold the BCA in abeyance until we have that information. If we go to Cape Breton we will save ourselves and himself time and effort in preparation and travel. I thought with today's discussion with Lafarge Canada Inc., it would be an easy follow-up to have the Ready Mix Industry as the next meeting because it will be fresh in your mind from this meeting today and then the next meeting would be the Ready Mix. From that meeting on February 13th, perhaps you would have at that time some information on a possible road trip and at that time, if possible, do the Cape Breton presentation perhaps on their own turf instead of trying to mix things up and around. I think that would just flow logically that way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a good point, too, but we also have the South West Fishermen's Association in at our last hearing and we, I guess by consensus, agreed to some subsequent meetings relative to that concern. The NDP caucus has provided us with a quite lengthy list of potential witnesses to come in. I had thought myself that we had an agreement ourselves, as a committee, to bring in the DFO, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as a body. I guess right now the chairman is open to a motion as to our next hearing on February 13th as to who the witness will be. That is why we are talking this over right now.
MR. MACKINNON: Just as point of observation, Mr. Chairman. Point four out of the witness listings by the NDP caucus include potential witnesses that could very easily be encompassed within the Cape Breton issue that I suggest, particularly the Coastal Communities Network; Clearwater fisheries, which is a major economic driver in and about the Town of Louisbourg and the Town of Glace Bay; the Assembly of First Nations, which
is obviously an issue by implication; Big Bras d'Or Fishermen's Association; the Northside Fishermen's Association. That is five.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I just make a helpful suggestion? Because we are investigating whether or not to perhaps take a trip to Cape Breton or whether or not we are permitted to take a trip to Cape Breton, more importantly, I think it has a lot of merit, maybe Darlene - and I know you did some work already with BCA Holdings - we could contact, with agreement of this committee, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, an appropriate representative to come in as a follow up to our hearing with Mr. Sears, as a follow-up. Would there be agreement to do that? Does the NDP caucus - I know you have a list of potential witnesses here related to that but perhaps as a starting point and maybe even a finishing point on that particular issue and for some consistency and continuity, we could try to bring in the DFO. Would it be agreed?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I have just a small problem with inviting all these groups in. There are groups that you are going to miss and this is a federal jurisdiction. Why are we not just talking to DFO?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what we are talking, just bringing in DFO.
MR. HURLBURT: And eliminating all the . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I am not sure that we have come to that conclusion but . . .
MR. HURLBURT: There are numerous groups out there and I can bring you in a book from southwestern Nova Scotia. I just think it might show favouritism or somebody would be offended.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If it makes it easier, I have a copy of our Hansard regarding our last meeting and Mr. Downe pointed out in response to concerns raised by Mr. Estabrooks. If I could, with your indulgence, just quickly read this.
"MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, the motion Mr. Downe brought forward was that we were going to - I understood it this way - take this to my caucus to say to them that we, as a result of this presentation today, want to bring forward the names . . .
MR. DOWNE: Yes and to start the ball off, we all agree that DFO is a body we want to have at the table, so we can bring them in but that is the essence of it."
We have a number of witnesses. I would think, with agreement and consensus, we could go for the DFO maybe on February 13th, our next scheduled hearing date.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, also bear in mind the fact that the federal agencies have not been very cooperative in appearing before committees of the Legislature so I think there should be a back-up plan and I can certainly speak from my experience on the Public Accounts Committee. Numerous time we have invited federal . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't subpoena them.
MR. MACKINNON: That is correct. Well, we could subpoena them but the subpoena is not of any value.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that there were going to be other lists here. I know Mr. Hurlburt knows that this is not in any way reflective of other areas of the province but we decided, as a result of the presentation that Mr. Sears had, that we had an obligation that we should have a follow-up and the follow-up should revolve around the fact that there is another side to the story yet the fingers that were pointed that day - it was a pretty emotional meeting, if you remember. It was confrontational and there were times there some very high emotions expressed. I would say, in order of priority, the DFO is at the top of the list. If they're not available, I think we should have a representative from Clearwater fisheries available if there is going to be some continuity in coming to Economic Development Committee, that was one of the follow-ups that came out of that meeting. Mr. Downe put it to us, very clearly, in his motion that we had an obligation to get back to the group with who else we would like to have here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if I might, Mr. Estabrooks, we made a commitment - this committee made a pledge, in fact, to Mr. Sears when he was attached to the mast of the Bluenose, to bring him in.
MR. ESTABROOKS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That was, as far as I am concerned, a promise we made and that we collectively kept. Now, as far as I am concerned - and I am speaking as chairman of this committee - I believe we kept our pledge to the South West Fishermen's Association. Yes, I know there were several requests. In fact, we asked them to formulate their own motion and they said, no, I will leave it with you folks around the table.
I firmly believe that we gave them a hearing; we gave them an audience and we should make an effort to bring the DFO in. If they don't come in, we can certainly make sure Mr. Sears and his group is communicated with and point that out to him.
I don't know what the feeling of the committee is but there are so many different issues out there. We are talking about Cape Breton and some of the concerns down there. What is the thought of the committee regarding an alternate witness if we don't have the DFO?
MR. MACKINNON: Do we have any others approved to date?
MRS. HENRY: Well, if I can just interject.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Darlene.
MRS. HENRY: BCA Holdings is booked, they are confirmed, so I would have to cancel them right now, just to let you know.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, if I may, what is the possibility of having that information provided within the next week or so as to the feasibility of such an out-of-town trip?
MRS. HENRY: I could have a budget put before you early next week, if that's fine, of how much it would cost.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. MACKINNON: As far as the individual members, that is all covered within their annual expenses anyway so there are no additional expenses for any of the members. It is only for the cost of the committee and Hansard, and their stay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MRS. HENRY: Also the venue, if we have to pay for the area.
MR. MACKINNON: I would be very doubtful if there would be a cost for the venue because it is owned by the regional municipality and they would only be too happy - not that I am speaking for them but I know they have done it for other groups and I think they would be only too happy to see members of the Legislature visit and examine some of the success stories. We have a lot of good success stories there. It is not always bad news that comes out of Cape Breton.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, BCA Holdings, I think, shouldn't be notified until we discern whether or not we can take a trip outside. Then, if we receive the green light, so to speak, we will try and include them in our agenda. Possibly, we can look at bringing the DFO in, subject to that budget approval. If the DFO can't come in for some reason, won't come
in for some reason, then I would suggest for the sake of this conversation that we may want to consider cancelling that particular date.
Just in closing, I think what we need - the NDP have been kind enough to furnish us with a list of witnesses and that is relative to the inshore fishing industry. I think what we should do, maybe, on February 13th if we don't have a hearing scheduled, maybe we should meet and set up our future agenda. Is it agreed that the caucuses could bring in a list and we could go from there, relative to the future agenda? If we don't get approval, BCA Holdings is on the docket.
[3:00 p.m.]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. You have been a very patient group today. I apologize.
MR. MACKINNON: Just on that, I believe the overseeing body that generally would be considered - and we will submit a more formal list - would be the District One Economic Development Authority that includes all of Louisbourg - all that coastal community that encompasses some of these - and some of the stakeholders that are referred to in the five I mentioned from the NDP listing are encompassed in this group. It is like an umbrella group. You can touch on a lot of issues of concern.
I really believe there are a lot of good success stories. We have weathered some pretty tough times over a five, six year period and there is a lot of good news there. I think I would like to be very proud of some of those success stories. Everybody can share in that, not just one caucus.
MR. HENDSBEE: Motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 3:02 p.m.]
