HALIFAX, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2003
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. John MacDonell
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning and welcome. I want to welcome Mr. Hines. I can't remember the name of your constituency.
MR. GARY HINES: Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a little list here. Welcome to the Resources Committee. I know where the idea of meeting more often is going to go, absolutely nowhere. I do see some overlap in the caucuses and, in particular, well even one for the Tory caucus is woodlot owners in light of Hurricane Juan, and I see we have raised that as well and I see the Liberals have raised it. (Interruption) Good morning. We started, actually. Kind of got to the point of giving up on the Liberal caucus but nice to see you.
MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: John, you can be nicer than that, we're just getting started.
MR. MACDONELL: You will probably find that I'll get nicer as time goes on. This time next year, you'll be wanting to go NDP.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I saw "no soliciting" on the door down there.
MR. MACDONELL: Anyway, one issue that has been raised already was the issue of whether we wanted to meet more often than once a month. I don't know what the proper protocol is, whether we will have a vote for that or a general consensus.
MR. WILLIAM LANGILLE: I would like to speak on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go right ahead.
1
MR. LANGILLE: Once a month and you usually have your committees when the Legislature is sitting, you meet, and maybe a couple of other times too but if you start meeting more often than once a month, I mean there are other committees, you are overlapping and I know that it puts a strain on Mora and the committee staff here. I think it is sufficient. I think most of us are on - I know I'm on four committees, so it is going to be difficult. That's my opinion. We are talking about once a month, we are not talking about the summertime either.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you may as well say that's three months anyway, where you can't meet.
MR. LANGILLE: We never did meet in the summertime on committees. (Interruptions)
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): July, August and December, usually.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: If an issue arises that requires us to meet, we could always meet but, other than that, once a month would be fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, can we have a show of hands of those who would not like to meet more than once a month. Okay. I think that's pretty clear that we won't meet more often than once a month. The reason I asked it that way is because I kind of had a good idea of the direction that was going.
[9:15 a.m.]
The other point I would like to raise is I would like to see some type of process around how various organizations submitted by the caucuses get to the committee and I would like to see a rotation - someone from the Tory list, someone from the Liberal list, someone from the NDP list - so that each caucus actually gets to know that someone they suggested actually made it before the committee. In places where there is overlap, like if all three caucuses have suggested someone, well those would be obvious ones, I think, we would like to take care of. For me, I'll put my personal bias, for two years I've tried to get Northern Lumber before this committee and it hasn't happened so that's one I would like to see . . .
MR. LANGILLE: Well, to me, John, I don't know why you want Northern Lumber on there, I mean Northern Lumber was a company in Brule, my area, that went bankrupt.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. LANGILLE: Now I know the background of the family, I know they are of your stripe . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. LANGILLE: They are non-existent as a company and to bring them in here, I just don't see where you are coming from on that. I'm aware of their background and everything else, and the problems they had but to bring a family in here that ran a company that's gone bankrupt, it just doesn't seem that that's the agenda that this Resources Committee should be following.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let me give you some background and if you want to say, well I know all that, then you can let me know. This is a company that had a little flooring mill, for hardwood flooring. There is another company and I don't know if it would be in Pictou West or which one of the Pictous it's in, it was named Savoie/Dickson. I think maybe Savoie is the name. They actually had gotten some money from the province, were looking for money to set up that mill or buy out an existing mill at that time to get set up.
MR. LANGILLE: They were a Quebec firm.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. What they did was, Northern Lumber was one of the companies they went to and said if we set up, would you buy from us? Would you buy hardwood from us for your flooring plant? They said yes. So these letters of support actually were letters that the government used to say, okay, you have designed or established a market for your product. They got taxpayers' money and when they got established, Northern Lumber couldn't get any hardwood for their mill and they went broke. So there are some issues around taxpayers' dollars, some issues around the whole allocation of hardwood, I think, from Crown lands and why most of it, even from other mills who access Crown land, pretty well all of it went to this mill and not to smaller mills that could have made use of it. That's the reason I would like to see it because it includes taxpayer resources, which is wood off of Crown land, and also taxpayers' dollars. If we are going to give money to a company from away that really puts a local company out of business, I think that is something that should come before the Resources Committee.
MR. LANGILLE: Personally, I think you are going about it the wrong way, John, and the reason I'm saying that is that if you wanted to see that, why don't you bring in Savoie? They are the company that got the money. They are the company that is still operating. Why bring in Northern Lumber? If you are saying Savoie is responsible for them going out of business, why don't you recommend bringing Savoie in?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if you want to put Savoie on the list and we bring them both in, fine, but this is a Nova Scotia company I'm talking about, Nova Scotia people, your constituents.
MR LANGILLE: I know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They would like to be able to make a presentation.
MR. LANGILLE: I've got a hardwood company in Economy that made flooring and they had the same problem. They are just about out of business.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a good reason, I think, to have this company come.
MR. LANGILLE: I have a company in Debert that's thriving doing the hardwood business too. I mean you are talking about business.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. There's more to this than I'm reading because it's obvious you don't want this company to come in here and there has to be more to it. This is a Nova Scotia company that actually was put out of business, I think, with taxpayers' dollars. There is a problem there and I . . .
MR. LANGILLE: It's a Nova Scotia company that doesn't exist. It was a family-run business and they made - the biggest company that they supplied was in New Hampshire for hardwood furniture, like for behind the couches where you have third-grade hardwood. I talked to them about this, but I still don't think this Resources Committee, that we want to start bringing in people who went out of business. I still think you're hitting the wrong people.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MS. JOAN MASSEY: What are we doing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, actually we were having an argument really around one of the presenters that I've had on our list for two years to come to this committee who's never made it here. Since I'm chairman of the committee, I'm pushing this issue.
The honourable member for Dartmouth East, go ahead.
MS. MASSEY: Thanks. Maybe what I'm hearing is that because a business has gone out of business, what is the reason for seeing them? But I think it's important if there's a history of this happening then we can stop that from happening down the road if we get them to come in and hear what they have to say, and maybe we can learn from their experience how to do things better. I would make that comment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to hear from any other members on the Tory . . .
MR. LANGILLE: I wouldn't have any problem bringing in Savoie, they're still in business. They're the ones that you say have the money and everything - why not bring them in, John? If that's who you want.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Eastern Shore.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: What is the mandate of this committee? I think we should clarify that right off the bat. Should we look at that in the past or the future? Should we analyze everything? We should have a clarification - what is the mandate of the committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the mandate of the committee is . . .
MR. DOOKS: No, no, are you sure of the mandate of the committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm quite sure.
MR. DOOKS: Okay, thank you. Explain it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The mandate of the committee I think is to hear from the resource sector in Nova Scotia, and see whether or not there's something they can offer us that we can make changes in the way the government does things that actually improves opportunity in Nova Scotia. That's the mandate of the committee.
MR. LANGILLE: If I may, Mr. Chairman? The Savoie lumber, is that in your area?
MR. CHARLES PARKER: No, it's actually in Pictou East.
MR. LANGILLE: It's Pictou East is it? Okay, I didn't know if it was your area or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Annapolis.
MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: I'm filling in actually, today, for a member of our caucus. If I'm following the issue right, you're wanting Northern Lumber to come in - they're the company that has gone out of business . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MCNEIL: Savoie received the taxpayers' money? What you're saying is they've been receiving the hardwood from Nova Scotia Crown lands?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Other mills, yes.
MR. MCNEIL: I don't see the problem with bringing them in to find out if it's taxpayers' money that actually forced this company out of business, we're giving a subsidy to a company that's not a Nova Scotia company, I think that's something as a province we should be looking at, personally.
MR. LANGILLE: Who are you saying should be brought in?
MR. MCNEIL: No, I don't have any problem bringing in Northern Lumber to come in here and explain - if I'm following this right. If you're suggesting that they've gone out of business because the government is supporting Savoie with taxpayers' money and a Nova Scotia company is going under, let's hear it from the horse's mouth, and that would be Northern Lumber. Then, at that point, if we have further questions for Savoie, they should be brought forward as well.
MR. HINES: In recognition of how I understand the mandate, we may be better off looking at the bigger picture, as opposed to taking a specific case, and have somebody from government or somebody from the regulatory board come in and explain to us how they determine that they give a subsidy to a company that's perhaps competitive with private industry. Because you know the story you're going to get from Northern Lumber, you know the story you're going to get from Savoie, and there are probably other examples around of instances where that thing has happened. Maybe we should be looking at the global picture if we're going to formulate or make recommendations for the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If that's the case, we should never have anybody come here but the government who gives out money and never have any representation from the private sector or anywhere about their issues as they see them in relation to the government. That's what this committee is supposed to listen to.
MR. HINES: I hear what you're saying, but also what I'm saying is, let them come and tell us why they do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not letting this die. I'd like to have a vote on Savoie/Dickson coming to this committee. Mr. Sampson?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I always believed in an open door policy whether it's for or against, they don't scare me in that respect. Just as early as this morning, it was on the news that Crossley Carpet, I think, in Truro got $750,000 a couple of months ago and now they're laying off 30 people. Business is business. If we open up a business today, he wants to sell to this gentleman here and he doesn't want to sell to me, that's my problem - that's my business problem.
From what I understand, you're going back a couple of years and kind of pointing fingers. If it will clarify a situation that's making it difficult for you, fine and dandy. But, at the same time, business is business. I was in business and I'm out of it now for different reasons, but competition is competition. If you're better at getting your product out - there is a flooring company, down in Middle River, this guy and this gal. They've been sweating that out for over 20 years, Finewood Flooring, and finally they're doing tremendous business now but it was a long hard haul. Anybody else would have caved in years ago. So whatever reason somebody wants to pull out of business, that's their own personal reason.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The only point I would add to what you've said, which is to a large degree, correct, but if it turned out that the government gave your competitor money that gave them an edge over you and they put you out of business, then would you deem that as fair?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I have people who support me politically and people say, those people over there, they get everything, always get everything. But, do you know what? They apply for everything and these people sit and complain about everything, those people apply. If you put in 50 applications and one gets approved, and one gets approved next year and so on, people say they're always getting grants - but, they're working at applying for it using the system that's available for everybody. The other guys . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: All the more reason for them to come and explain to you whether or not that was ever the case for them. You're making some assumptions here about Northern Lumber . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: No, I'm just saying, using the example from back home. I've got an open door policy. I'm not afraid to bring them in or let them stay. Whatever the committee decides, that's fine with me. I keep an open door policy.
MR. LANGILLE: I'm just going to read . . .
MS. MASSEY: Can I make a motion? Is there a motion on the floor?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not yet.
MR. LANGILLE: I'm just going to read the mandate of this committee. "The Resources Committee is established for the purpose of considering matters normally assigned to or within the purview of the Departments and Ministers of Agriculture and Marketing, of the Environment, of Fisheries and of Natural Resources. That's the mandate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Natural Resources.
MR. LANGILLE: Now, if I can for a minute. We're talking about two different things here - Savoie is a sawmill operation. Northern Lumber was a small manufacturing plant of different types of rough hardwood and that's what gets supplied not only by Savoie, but other places also and that's what we're talking about here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're talking about hardwood, natural resources which comes under this committee as you just read.
MR. LANGILLE: Okay. That's the mandate, that's what I'm just saying. If everybody's clear on the mandate of this committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dartmouth East wants to make a motion.
MS. MASSEY: I'd like to make a motion that this committee bring this forward, Northern Lumber and the appropriate government officials so that we can hear both sides of the story on this issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they'll have to come one before the other. Better vote on the motion I think. (Interruption) You didn't hear it? Do you want to read your motion again?
MS. MASSEY: I didn't write the whole thing down. Can somebody read it back?
MS. STEVENS: That this committee bring forth Northern Lumber and the appropriate government officials to hear, and that's all I got, sorry.
MS. MASSEY: To hear both sides . . .
MS. STEVENS: To hear both sides of the issue.
MR. PARKER: I second it.
MS. STEVENS: Don't need it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
I guess the Ayes have it.
The motion is carried.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, I think we went away a little bit from our agenda. I think it would have been necessary to appoint a vice-chairman. In my opinion, I bring that point, you should have taken a seat and a vice-chairman should have come up. (Interruption) Well, because you're the chairman, you're not supposed to push your agenda from the Chair, but from your seat. I say that respectfully. We have an agenda and we have moved away from it. I would just ask that we follow it, please.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear you and I agree, actually, that your point is a good one and we can go back to the agenda. I do not agree with the idea that the chairman can't raise issues the same as any other member of the committee.
MR. DOOKS: Very much, very much, but the tradition of this committee has been that the chairman would leave the Chair, sit in his seat.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have never seen that. I have been on the committee since 1998, but I have never seen that.
MR. DOOKS: I've filled in a number of times when Russell MacKinnon had at one time, I don't know if he was chairman or not but he was there and asked me to fill in for him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: When the chairman isn't here then the vice-chairman would sit in for sure.
MR. DOOKS: But that's not necessary to go down that road today. I think the appropriate way . . .
MR. HINES: Do we operate under Robert's Rules of Order? What Rules of Order do we operate under? Because under Robert's Rules of Order and the other one the . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be the House Rules we would operate under. It is not Robert's Rules that we operate under.
MR. DOOKS: It is not necessary to go any further with it, here. I am just saying that I think it would be appropriate for the chairman, if they had a particular point they would make, to take their seat and have someone else - because it gives you the advantage, I believe. That's all.
MR. LANGILLE: I'm just going to say something here and probably not say too much more. I think what you are doing John, is taking over the whole meeting. Your position is to chair the meeting, not to take it over.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I thought we had a vote.
MR. LANGILLE: No, no, prior to that though. You have two members from your caucus sitting there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what I did was that I raised it as an issue and then the honourable member for Colchester North wanted to make comment on that issue. We could have cut it off just as soon as I mentioned it and said, let's go back to the agenda, not raise it, anything could have happened, but that's not what happened from the members of the committee.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, it is sort of an informal committee and we've had that for the last number of years, and the thing is, I think today is to talk about structure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is an agenda setting meeting.
MR. DOOKS: Yes, and that's what we're here for. This is why I brought this up. When you have an agenda, usually you follow the items listed on the agenda. That just brings a little structure, so we'll take it from there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I might be out of the order for committee business, but setting agenda items is one of them. So I am at fault for raising it as number one instead of number four, I apologize, but we can go back to the election of a vice-chairman. Does this require nominations for such a thing?
MS. STEVENS: Not really, it usually is just a general discussion that takes place. If someone wants to nominate someone, that's certainly appropriate.
MS. MASSEY: Do you usually, on this type of committee, have the chairman from one Party and the vice-chairman from another Party, is that the appropriate way to do it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you do.
MR. HINES: I nominate Bill Dooks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I noticed that on some of the other committees that it was usually an Opposition member. So, does that make a difference, does anybody know? (Interruption)
MR. DOOKS : The vice-chairman would either come from the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party in this manner.
MS. STEVENS: It wouldn't matter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we have one nomination for Mr. Dooks. Any other nominations?
MR. MCNEIL: Am I allowed to put forward a member who I am filling in for today, Mr. Wayne Gaudet, from Clare.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we have two. I guess we'll put this to a vote.
Would all those in favour of Mr. Dooks please say Aye.
Would all those in favour of Mr. Gaudet please say Aye.
MS. MASSEY: I'm abstaining.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks has it as vice-chairman.
MR. DOOKS: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The overview of briefing material, Mora, do you want to go through that, please?
MR. MCNEIL: I would like to add our voice in on this issue of - whoever is in the Chair, I think it is important that they not drive the agenda in a sense that if it is an issue pertaining to their list or their area, I think it would be an idea to step down and let someone else chair it.
MR. DOOKS: So just to straighten that up, if John was going to have an issue, then he would ask me to take the Chair, he would take his seat until that issue was resolved and I would come back.
MS. MASSEY: No, not necessarily, I believe what would really happen is that John would leave his Chair and then put his point of view forward and if that was all he had to say, he can go back into the Chair while that's still being discussed. He wouldn't be discussing the issue while he was sitting in the Chair, he would just be chairing the meeting. He would come down here, say his piece, go back in the Chair. He doesn't have to stay out for the whole discussion.
MR. DOOKS: He may have a closing statement on the topic and then would have to - I think we're getting a little too deep in this. I have been here for many, many years and it rarely happens.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Let's keep an open door, keep it friendly and relaxed.
MR. DOOKS: Let's keep it informal. If someone has a problem with it, bring it to the chairman's attention. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think something we should keep in mind is the fact that if any of these issues that come to a vote, I think it's only in the case of a tie that the chairman has a vote.
MS. STEVENS: The chairman has a normal vote and then if there is a tie, you have another vote to break the tie.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: From what I understand, there is no abstaining anymore. Either you're in or you're out. If you abstain, it's taken in the negative, that you voted against.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we move on to Overview of Briefing Material?
MS. STEVENS: What members received a week and a half ago or so, is a package that just sort of gives you the background of the committee. In the terms of reference section, and I am just going to go through this very quickly, is your mandate. There is also a copy of where you can find the Web page for the committee. You will notice that has the mandate there, the committee meetings, a Hansard of meetings that have happened in the past, in the electronic form, also copies of reports and things like that. I also put in a list of the past meetings, that's from the Hansard section, just so you can go down and see and that's available in electronic form if you want to read up on any of the past issues.
Also in this is a list of the meetings that this committee has had since 1987 - that's back when we started this office - just to give you an idea of who has come before the committee and if you want any of those transcripts that aren't on-line, you can always ask us if you're looking for background information or history. So there is that section there.
Also, the witness lists that we have had come before us, plus there were outstanding issues that weren't dealt with. But, of course, those died as soon as the election happened. So if there is anything on those lists that has not come forward . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: What died?
MS. STEVENS: Anything. Like, we had approved going on a wine tour and we were going to do that last Spring but it never happened so that issue is dead now because that committee no longer exists.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The wine tour is dead?
MS. STEVENS: But you can bring it back. There are no issues - except for Northern Lumber which has now been approved - that were outstanding under the last committee because that was under the last General Assembly. So that was an issue, we were going to do a tour of the various vineyards, which would probably be better in the Fall, so it is probably now past its time for this year. But usually we try to end with a tour. Like we have gone to the entomology centre out in Shubenacadie and it's just a nice way to sort of end off the year in June, and sort of encapsulate. We were trying to do that with the wine tour, but of course election issues came up and we didn't get to do that this year. So it's an idea to keep in mind.
You will see on those lists - and if you want to know why they didn't come forward, you can always ask me and I can let you know.
The next section is committee reports. Inside there is a draft synopsis of the activities in 2002-03. There is no annual report because an election took place for last year, so that died on the table. But there is just a draft synopsis of what happened and it is for committee members only. That's not a published document, because it was from a past committee. There is also a copy of the last annual report for the committee, which is 2001-02, so you can get an idea of the various issues that came before the committee.
The next section is the rules and procedures. Those are the rules that committee members follow, not only our House Rules but from Beauchesne as well, and those are the various things about the committee system and how committees work. There is also a witness privileges' section. All standing committees are considered to be courts of law and they have all the privileges of when someone is testifying before you, and we try to keep it on a very informal basis on Resources, Community Services, Economic Development, but this still is a court. It is like appearing before the House of Assembly. So there are legal issues.
Now, usually witnesses who are appearing before Economic Development or Resources, you know, are not going to come in with their lawyers. It's a more friendly atmosphere, but it is like testifying before a court. So they have all the privileges that members have. The things that they say in this room cannot be used against them unless they step outside and they talk to the press and then if they say slanderous things, just like any members, then they would be held accountable, so just to keep that sort of in mind, that they have all the same privileges as the members when they're in this room. Then there's just a little note section if you wanted to make notes, but if there are any questions, you can always ask me as the clerk, or John, or any of the members who have been on committees before. It's standard procedures for all standing committees, those last two sections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, Discussion of Meeting Days and Times. I guess we've had that discussion, that we're certainly going to be no more than once a month and that will be excluding the summer months and December, I think.
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. PARKER: Is there a day of the week though or a time of the month that is more convenient?
MS. STEVENS: We have been on Tuesdays before, but we sort of organized this meeting just because it was a short time on Thursday that worked best, but it could be Tuesdays or Thursdays. Usually you would pick a time of the month, like the second Tuesday of every month, or second Thursday, or the third, so you know and then you can always block that on your calendar.
MR. DOOKS: I think it was working well the way we established it, that was Tuesday. It was once a month, was it not?
MS. STEVENS: It was.
MR. DOOKS: It allows time for other committees. That's my opinion.
MR. PARKER: The second Tuesday, was it?
MS. STEVENS: It was the last Tuesday in the month.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So do you want to stick with that?
MR. DOOKS: I'm fine with it, and our caucus.
MR. PARKER: So that would be November 25th then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's time enough to get someone . . .
MS. STEVENS: Oh, yes, definitely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we will go with that, the last Tuesday of every month.
MR. PARKER: Does that work? Most of us have a caucus meeting some time through the week.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wednesday usually for us.
MR. DOOKS: That's why I said maintain what we had because it seemed to work fine the old way.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So write it in for Tuesday, November 25th, the same time, 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., is that okay?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MS. STEVENS: Actually it's usually 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. when we have witnesses. (Interruptions)
Yes, and if the House is not sitting, sometimes the committee has gone to the afternoon, if the members so desire, and sometimes it's also a matter of the availability of witnesses. They might not be able to come in on a morning whereas an afternoon would be better, depending on where they're coming from. Like, you know, if you're bringing someone in from Cape Breton, the expense of bringing them down the night before and putting them in a hotel would be - you know, it's better to have an afternoon meeting and then they could come in the morning.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: It's also better, the wine tour would be here right on time.
MS. STEVENS: Well, that would be us going actually to the vineyards, we would be on time.
MR. PARKER: For outside members, it's more convenient, I think maybe, if it's in the afternoon when the House is not sitting, you know, for members travelling from out-of-town.
MR. LANGILLE: We could come down and stay overnight for caucus.
MR. PARKER: Stay over, right, that's what I'm thinking.
MR. LANGILLE: That's something to be discussed.
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. PARKER: If you have a caucus meeting Wednesday, then Tuesday afternoon would work pretty well. (Interruptions)
MS. STEVENS: It could be 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m., or 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. (Interruptions)
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: That would work out for you, to come in the afternoon and stay overnight, the same as for the rest of you.
MS. STEVENS: So 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m., or 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. if the House is in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just thinking we always seem to be travelling through lunchtime.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. PARKER: Or 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m., I don't know, 1:30 p.m. (Interruptions)
MR. DOOKS: Actually 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. is a good time I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that's fine.
MR. DOOKS: And if we have a problem with it, we can change it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Setting Agenda Items. I guess we have one. I'm just wondering if you have a preference. All three caucuses had indicated something around the disaster by Hurricane Juan and I'm wondering if you would like to make that the next one after, you know, I guess Northern Lumber and government officials would be one and two by the looks of things.
MS. STEVENS: Since we wouldn't meet in December, it would be a matter of whether you want those back to back, say in January and February.
MS. MASSEY: Could they come in on the same day?
MR. PARKER: Couldn't they be consecutively, like one after the other?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we don't meet in December.
MR. PARKER: No, I meant in November, one for an hour and then the next one for an hour.
MS. STEVENS: An hour would not be nearly long enough because by the time they give their presentation, you know, that's at least 15 to 20 minutes and then by the time you do questioning, an hour just wouldn't do it.
MR. HINES: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.
MR. HINES: All three caucuses have the Nova Scotia private woodlot owners regarding Hurricane Juan damage.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. HINES: Wouldn't we be better, because it's timely, to have that looked at in November and then move on to the other, perhaps in follow-up meetings, and make that our number one?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't have a problem with that if Northern Lumber could be January and government officials in February.
MR. HINES: I would move that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be fine.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I was wanting to get to the mussel farm in St. Anns Bay which is coming up reasonably soon for a decision and I was hoping that before the snow flies too badly, we could get that on the agenda to be discussed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just thinking, and I will throw this in and you will say, well, you're the chairman, you can't move this agenda, but Northern Lumber has been on for two years and it hasn't gotten here. So what do you think?
MR. LANGILLE: We're talking about Hurricane Juan and we're still in the process with that. I'm thinking it might be too early to be bringing that in and maybe we should wait until after the first of the year. What will we accomplish by bringing them in during . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: If people haven't been able to access assistance or they're still going through the application process because I see on those applications for woodlot owners, they can receive assistance up until March 31, 2005, I think is what the eligibility is.
MR. LANGILLE: And the other thing is, I know the former member, Ken MacAskill, this was a very moving subject for him, the mussel farm, and it was important. Now, I don't have a problem bringing Northern Lumber in and then the mussel farm, but I think we should look at . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't have a problem with the mussel farm in November and Northern Lumber in January if that's fine with the committee and then think about impacts of Hurricane Juan after.
MR. LANGILLE: Because there is a decision coming up, I understand, and I'm not privy to everything, but if that's the wish.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What does the committee think, that's what we need to know?
MR. HINES: I don't have a problem with it. To try to make things timely in the committee to recognize difficult circumstances, I think we should have some flexibility there, and certainly this is a decision that's timely.
MS. MASSEY: Just a question, when you bring in witnesses in regard to Hurricane Juan, which particular witnesses would you be looking at - Nova Scotia Power, for example?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The ones that are listed.
MS. MASSEY: Just ones on all of our lists?
MR. CHAIRMAN: On all of our lists, yes.
MR. PARKER: Farmers and fishermen.
MS. MASSEY: Because there are a lot there, that's what I'm just asking, it might take more than one meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, it's going to be more than one. There will probably be a meeting for woodlot owners and maybe a meeting for farmers, a meeting for fishermen.
MS. MASSEY: It's going to take up a few months, then.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So is it agreed then that November will be for the mussel farm? Is that agreed?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we need a motion, could we just have a show of hands? Would all those in agreement for the mussel farm to come . . .
MR. PARKER: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask - I see on the Liberal agenda in No. 6, there is the company representatives and there is a community liaison committee. Are both of them being invited to come in at the same time or one after the other, or how are we doing this?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sampson better give us a little . . .
MR. PARKER: There are two sides to every issue and . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: With the community, the liaison committee can give the community side of it and the proponents can give their side of it. However, do you want the community liaison committee to speak first and then the proponents to speak second? However the committee does things but I figured rather than having just the proponents come in to speak, we should have the community liaison committee come in and speak also, to show both sides of the point. Both should have a fair chance at presenting their case to the committee and whomever speaks first, it doesn't make any difference in my respect, so long as both sides of the story are heard and both have the opportunity to come before the committee.
MR. PARKER: Would an hour each be enough?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: That I don't know, I just heard the lady there say that sometimes it goes on longer than that.
MS. STEVENS: Depending on what you do, if they can sit next to each other, one can do an opening 10-minute statement, another an opening 10-minute statement, and then the committee can talk about the whole issue. If you're looking at dividing the meeting, if they won't sit next to each other and it's not feasible to do that, then I would say . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are these groups slightly opposing . . .
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Yes, but at the same time when you bring opposite sides together in the room, as you just said there, if you keep them divided then they stay divided. I think they should sit at the table and what I'm saying is the opponents should hear and what the opponents are saying, the proponents should hear. That way nobody is behind the back door, each has a fair presentation, and each knows what the other is saying rather than, when I was in I said this but when he was in he must have said that. Do you know what I mean? Let's have an open discussion on the thing and let them lay their cards on the table in front of the whole committee, be upfront.
MR. PARKER: I agree with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dartmouth East.
MS. MASSEY: Just a question on the way you do business here. That may be what we want but can we legally - I'm not sure, but you're saying this is like a court - force these people into the same room at the same time? We don't want people not showing up because they are afraid to speak in front of somebody they are opposing. So would it not be something you should put forward to the committee to ask them if they are open to that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Langille.
MR. LANGILLE: First of all, I don't think we can force them to come.
MS. STEVENS: Yes we can, we have the power of subpoena but this committee has never used it.
MR. LANGILLE: That's what I'm saying, to force them coming, you don't use that. When was it last used?
MS. STEVENS: This committee has never used it.
MR. LANGILLE: That's what I'm saying. The other thing is, where does this stand? Is it the federal government that's holding this up right now?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: There are several issues with the province and the feds with regard to that. Some people challenged that the mussel farm shouldn't even go ahead and the study that was done, from what I understand, by a Mr. Smith, there was only 5 per cent against the mussel farm. Both sides, I think, should be heard and in regard to whether you can force them or not, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, but if you're testifying in court and I'm sitting there waiting to be called as a witness, I'm there also and I hear what you say, you hear what I say and we take our turns on the stand. I don't want to get into the logistics of the thing but let's leave the decision up to them, if they want to come and be conjoined while they are here making their presentation, so be it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we better leave this in two ways, I think, that if they will both come, we can put that to them and tell them the constraints of the committee, it will be two hours and that's with questions. The other thing would be if it turns out that they don't want to do that, we should make a decision about which one is for November 25th. My thought is probably the community group might be the best one to come first. What do you think?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Personally, I would think the business people would come first, the people who are trying to create 45 to 50 jobs. I totally disagree with the fact why somebody should not be allowed to create jobs in an area that really needs them. I don't want to get involved too much in it but I know I . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that fine with the committee?
MR. PARKER: I think invite both groups to come. I think they will.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I think they will and I think they should. Give the invitation to both to come and, if not, the business comes first as far as . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I need to know.
MR. LANGILLE: Actually the Dockendorffs are very nice people.
MR. PARKER: They will both be here, they will both come.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So can I make a motion - so it will be legal on the books - that we invite the proponents of the St. Anns Bay mussel farm to come before the committee and also extend an invitation to a representative of the community liaison committee. Just on that motion, Mr. Chairman, how many from each? Two, three, do we limit that?
MR. DOOKS: I think four is the usual.
MS. STEVENS: Altogether, three or four, but that would be about two from each, I would say.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Okay, so we will have two from each then. Let's say two from each so each has an equal voice to support each other. I make that in the motion that there will be two representatives from each.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, very good. I think, for now, we have covered every item.
MR. PARKER: Do you want to vote on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Is there any other issue that any members of the committee would like to raise?
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So everything that is presented here, is it going to move forward? I'm looking at AgraPoint. Do we have to make a motion that they come before the committee or are they automatically in?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's never happened that way in my memory. Usually the agenda, we got that a week or two, sometimes, ahead at a previous meeting, who was coming next. The process of getting them here seemed to have gone through Mora's office.
MS. STEVENS: What usually happens is we will have an agenda-setting meeting and issues are approved. So if I have a list of six or seven issues, unless the committee specifically says we want this first, this second, this third, I would go through and call the witnesses to find out what is convenient. We factor in things like, you don't want to bring in somebody from Cape Breton in February because the weather is just too uncertain. You would like to
have officials who are closer to Halifax in those times. We do that for all committees. Also, it depends on their calendar and their schedule because sometimes they just can't come for one reason or another.
Usually the clerk is given a little manoeuverability, because with a committee such as this, you have enough time. I have over a month to get these people in from St. Anns Bay. Now, I would also be given a little flexibility if November 25th didn't work for them, because, for some reason, they might have a conflict. So even though you like to meet at the end of the month, maybe that meeting would have to be the third Tuesday of the month or something like that, just to make sure that they have the flexibility because, as I said, sometimes they just can't come.
Usually issues are discussed and approved and I get a big list from the committee. Now other committees have said, whoever presents these issues, you just pick one and go from that but it gets very difficult then. If the committee discusses it, then I know exactly what the issue is, who they would like to have in, you get names. That way, it gives everybody a better idea of what to expect from the meeting. So that's the process.
MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I just didn't know if we are going to lay out the schedule now for all the next topics.
MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, in realization that we are down the road a considerable number of meetings, I would just like to go on record as suggesting that at some time in the future to be considered, perhaps when we do future considerations, that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board come in and give us an update.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. PARKER: I just want to throw in my 2 cents worth also, to hear from the Department of Transportation and Public Works around bridges and roads. I think that's an important rural issue that we should get on our agenda before too long.
MS. MASSEY: I'm just not sure on the way business is done here as far as we have these lists of proposed witnesses from the various Parties. Can this list be added at any time throughout the process?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MS. MASSEY: So what we are saying now is we have enough business to keep us busy for a while, so we will just leave it at that for now and then come back to these lists at a later date, when we finish doing this amount of business.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. LANGILLE: The two recommendations, are we going ahead with those - bridges and . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding would be that the mussel farm, Northern Lumber, government officials, and then these items that have been raised by the committee would be the ones that would fall in place after that.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that. Just so that I'm clear on this, have we settled on November and January meetings with the mussel farm and Northern Lumber?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. MCNEIL: Are we going to have another meeting to set the rest of the agenda? For example, we put six topics in here, two which are related to agriculture, AgraPoint and the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, both of whom need to come before somebody.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. MCNEIL: There's a crisis in agriculture, and these guys are not being heard, and there are questions to be asked. For those who are in rural ridings, this is a major issue and it should be brought before the Resources Committee at some point.
MS. STEVENS: Just so the members are aware, AgraPoint did appear before us on January 28, 2003, and the Federation of Agriculture on March 25, 2003. So they have been here within the last year.
MR. MCNEIL: There are many questions around them, and no one seems to have an answer, and the people in the agricultural community don't have any answers, and no one in government has an answer. So there are questions surrounding AgraPoint that are still an irritant in the community.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to agree, I do agree with you. Even if you look at our list, I have Pork Nova Scotia and pork producers right now - if it turns out that they're going to be on the list in the Spring, well they're in serious shape right now. I don't think there's any way to facilitate - that's why I wanted to have more meetings. I wanted to have two meetings a month, but the committee wasn't interested in that. That would have gotten us more people faster, which was my concern originally.
MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chairman, I guess what I'm concerned about is we voted on two, we tossed around another couple of names, so why did we give a list? Once we've finished with these two, we should revert back to these lists.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. Maybe you weren't here when we originally started, but one of the things that I raised was - at least I had no problem with the notion - that we could go through all the caucus lists. Not everything was going to come off the New Democrat list, not everything was going to come off the Tory list, that we could alternate, list by list, and we could also take the things that were in common on the lists. Those are the things that we saw as priority, and maybe those would be the things that we could bump up a little faster.
MR. LANGILLE: The whole thing is that we've always submitted lists of what we would like, and then you take so many from each list. That's what you do. You don't take everything.
MR. DOOKS: As the process worked today, we discuss different issues and we make choices. But everyone is important, I understand that, to someone or some . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dartmouth East.
MS. MASSEY: Maybe a good idea would be to go back with these lists and prioritize them with each of our caucuses, so that the next time we came to a meeting we would know, this is our priority on our list, and then the ones that are in common, we might be able to match to the others.
MR. DOOKS: I think we basically went down that road before and it always comes to this point here. It's a part of working together. (Interruptions) This is not really a political committee, the point is looking at what's important and trying to prioritize that now and bring it to light.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there's any problem, if any of the individual caucuses want to prioritize their list, that's fine.
MR. DOOKS: You can do it. It always comes to this . . .
MS. MASSEY: I'm just making it as a suggestion to make this go faster.
MR. DOOKS: A lot of the things are duplicated.
MR. MCNEIL: The only reason I raised the issue was we could sit here all day and discuss it. We voted on two, and there were a couple more brought forward that we put on the agenda. I just didn't want those to become a priority over the list, while the rest of us are sitting here. I raised it and I understand the process. The first two are November, January, and we will then review who is going to come in after that. That's fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do I need a motion to adjourn?
MS. STEVENS: No, but I just want to say one thing. The more issues you give me, the better, that are approved. You've discussed and voted on a couple, so I have St. Anns Bay and then Northern Lumber and then the Economic Development officials. So that's November, January, and February. The more I have, it gives more lead time for research. It gives all of these things. Some people can't come on certain months, so as a clerk, I would love to see five or six approved today because it gives me flexibility. What you usually do is if you don't decide on it in this meeting, you can add on 10 minutes at the end of another meeting and discuss it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.
MR. HINES: Mr. Chairman, on all three lists you'll find issues regarding agriculture, forestry and fisheries and Hurricane Juan and Nova Scotia Power - Hurricane Juan - did we not have that on our list to come after these two contentious issues? Agriculture can be the first if you want and that is one aspect of your issue on agriculture, but I think we have to get to Hurricane Juan fairly timely.
MS. STEVENS: You'd be looking at that, say, in March? You mentioned that it was still in process and that you were delaying that a little?
MR. LANGILLE: I thought we were going with petroleum and the bridges for transportation, which are very important. You have to remember, like you said, this is 2003. We had agriculture in here this year and you know, you can't have them in all the time. There are other issues out there. It is important, but we have a task force that just went around, we realize there are problems, but they have to bring in their report.
MR. MCNEIL: That's why I brought up the issue because we talked about two other issues outside of what we voted on. I just need to know the protocol of what we're doing here. I like your suggestion of every caucus puts forward and the member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank talked about Hurricane Juan as an issue and it goes through all of them. It hits every list, so perhaps that's what we should do - look at all the lists and what . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Dartmouth East.
MS. MASSEY: This will be my last comment, but maybe in an attempt to make things easier for Mora to schedule upcoming things, if she could take these lists that we've brought in and look through them and see where the commonalities occur and maybe come back with a list like that for our next meeting. At the same time, I think we need time to go through this and see who has been here. Certainly, myself, I don't know who's been in here. You have a jump on me on that. So, to see who's been in here and maybe look at that as a way, as you suggested, if they've been in here let's look at bringing another department in.
MR. LANGILLE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, for example, we had the pork producers in here. We recognized there was a problem, and the government recognized it, they knew it anyway of course, but through this meeting in here and discussions and so on, they were able to get a bit of relief anyway. I think a lot of it was as a result of bringing it up at this meeting. In fact, I'm convinced of it. In fact, I think it was you that recommended that they be brought in, didn't you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think so.
Any other issues other members want to raise? Do we need a motion to adjourn?
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. DOOKS: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.
[The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.]
