[Page 67]

HALIFAX, FRIDAY, JULY 7, 2006

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

9:27 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Alfred MacLeod

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call this meeting to order. The time is now 9:28 a.m. and there are two hours and seven minutes remaining.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To start off the first round, I'm joined by a few of my colleagues who wish to ask some questions. The honourable member for Shelburne, the member for Halifax Atlantic, and the member for Queens would all like to ask some questions of the minister, so we'll start with the member for Shelburne.

The honourable member for Shelburne.

MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you are well aware, Shelburne County is very interested in economic development. First of all, I just want to point out that during the last election this government announced, days before the election was called, $65 million for Stora pulp mill, $20 million for the Mersey pulp mill in Liverpool to reduce the economic costs or help in energy bills, and overall to keep the economic well-being of those communities.

67

[Page 68]

In Shelburne County, over the past 20 years, we have seen losses such as the Shelburne military base in Sandy Point, we have seen the closure of the CF Barrington Base in Baccaro, we have also endured the downturn in the groundfishery, particularly fin fishery, and also in the last few years we have seen the closure of the boys school in Shelburne.

After this particular facility closed, the boys school in Shelburne, the five mayors and wardens of Shelburne County requested a $6 million economic development package from this previous government - or this government - and was turned down. I guess my question is, why was this turned down when we so desperately need economic growth and seed money to create some new jobs in our community? That's my first question, Mr. Chairman, why are we not eligible for some of this economic growth in our community?

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Economic Development.

HON. RICHARD HURLBURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to the honourable member for Shelburne, I can assure the member for Shelburne that the Office of Economic Development and Nova Scotia Business Inc. will be there, and are there, for any business plan that comes forth from Shelburne, the same as any other community in the province. This government has made commitments to the community of Shelburne, and we have lived up to those commitments in the past, and we will live up to the commitments in the future.

There was a request for a sum of money, I'm aware of that. What the government has said, you come forth with a business case and the government will deal with it case by case.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize again, I believe the five mayors and wardens did present a business proposal with the closure of the boys school and they requested a $6 million economic development package. My question is more directed toward this particular new budget, and it talks about a rural economic strategy or funding that is designated specifically for rural communities across Nova Scotia.

Again, I would ask the minister, what will Shelburne County be expecting, and how will this funding be directed toward much-needed areas like Shelburne County?

MR. HURLBURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can assure the member and all members that the Office of Economic Development and Nova Scotia Business Inc., when there is a case brought forth, will do our due diligence and do our analysis on the file and we will be there to support communities all across this province. If there's a business case that comes forth from Shelburne, I can assure the member - that's next to my home riding, and I will make sure that gets due diligence from my staff. My staff are very well aware of it. I spoke to members from Nova Scotia Business Inc., I think it was on Tuesday evening, and I

[Page 69]

discussed the community of Shelburne and area. They are looking now for maybe a potential client for that area for a business - I can't disclose any more, but they are working on clients right now for that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Mr. Chairman, I have only a very few questions to ask on Economic Development and, like many of my colleagues, they're quite specifically focused on the area which I represent.

As probably everybody has heard me say, the communities of Spryfield, Herring Cove, Sambro and so on, live very much in what I call the urban shadow. They're part of the large, amalgamated regional municipality - well, with the exception of Spryfield. By anyone else's definition I think they would constitute rural communities, but at the same time they're suffering some of the difficulties that do come with being very close to a city. What I'm wondering is, in a very general way, what is the department looking at in terms of infrastructure and requirements for infrastructure for rural areas which find themselves inside amalgamated municipalities? The same is true, I think, of large parts of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality.

As an example, I would indicate that there is, for instance, one road in and out of Sambro, but there is no public transit. That is, of course, a municipal responsibility, yet it is some 30 kilometres, I believe, to the nearest bank, grocery store, doctor, for the people living in Sambro. What kind of provisions and stipulations does the Economic Development Department have for community planning inside the rural areas of amalgamated municipalities?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. I can assure the honourable member I made a commitment to this committee yesterday, and I do not make commitments and not live up to them. I made a commitment that when the House rises, I'm going to start my tour around the province and I'm going to be reaching out to boards of trade, chambers of commerce, RDAs, communities, and I'm asking the MLAs and elected officials in communities to work with me and my department to see what benefits we can expand on in the communities. I think that's what we have to do, we have to work with community leaders. We will be there to offer the advice and we'll do whatever we possibly can as a department and as a government, but we're asking communities to work with us. That's where I'm focused and I can assure the member when I tour through her community, I will definitely let her know.

MS. RAYMOND: Tremendous, I would certainly welcome that and invite you to visit these areas because, as I say, they are very much in shadow.

[Page 70]

One of the other questions that I do have actually - and I guess it's a suggestion that I would make as well as anything - the community of Spryfield particularly, which is in the area, it's interesting because there's always a lot of talk about economic development in the area and there are certainly significant efforts being made at the local level, but one of the difficulties though, which goes partly with lack of transit and so on, is that there's absolutely no licensed child care, which means that there are a large number of people who, if they want to work in their own area, would in fact have to migrate into town to find care for their children and then come back out - does the Office of Economic Development look in any way at the availability of child care in a community?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. I can assure the member that's a very important question and a concern. A concern that I had in my home community is I had an individual, an entrepreneur from China who wanted to open up - and that was one of the key elements, having the workforce but having the child care system for, i.e., single parents. So it is an issue and I can assure the member that my department works very closely with Community Services on this issue and we will continue to work on that to see any way that we can expand on the programs.

I can assure the member also that I know of a company that's looking to expand in the rural part of Nova Scotia right now and they are going to have a segment for child care within the new company that's being formed. I think that's a key. I think that is a key to getting good, qualified employees, and maintaining those employees. So you are on the right track. It is an issue, and we are dealing with it, and we will work in conjunction with Community Services.

MS. RAYMOND: That's really good to hear, because I would suggest that it is certainly a part of the infrastructure that any community needs to have, and not just single parents, but there are lots of two-income families, as well. Thank you very much, I look forward to seeing you in the area.

MR. HURLBURT: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Queens.

MS. VICKI CONRAD: Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the minister for the ongoing work with Lightbridge. It's very important to our community of Queens, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the progress on that. I have every confidence that between the municipality and your department and Nova Scotia Business Inc., a partner will be found for that space.

That being said, the riding of Queens, we have a lot of serious concerns, and certainly with long-term sustainable economic development. We have an aging population in Queens. We have a serious out-migration of our youth, because we have nothing to keep our youth at home. When they graduate either from high school or go on to post-secondary, there is

[Page 71]

nothing to bring them back to their hometown because we don't have the economic development in place for them to do that.

We also have Bowater Mersey, one of our largest employers in Queens. I think over the next couple of years that we really have to start seriously addressing the concerns that may come out of that pulp and paper industry. Things are changing rapidly in the forestry industry, and as we can see with Stora Enso and the energy crisis and the labour disruption there, we will be facing similar concerns with Bowater. Certainly they are feeling the energy management pinch they are facing.

The workers at Bowater are looking at another contract in 2009, and I think that's going to be a difficult time for both Bowater and the employees. I also think that Bowater will be experiencing supply management issues. I think I noted the other day in Question Period that any one of us who have been behind any of those logging trucks and you see what size the supply is coming into the mills, I think that will be a serious issue in years to come.

So we do need to look to the future in Queens in terms of long-term sustainable economic development and, unfortunately, the reality is, call centres do not make those strong anchors of economic development in Queens.

We have a vibrant small-business community in Queens, but unfortunately the small- business climate doesn't make it really attractive for people to take that risk to get into small business. There are not a lot of incentives for small-business owners. There happens to be a lot of red tape that small-business owners get frustrated with. Sometimes - when I've heard from small-business owners - along with the red tape, there are regulations that seem to just not make sense to them. So I really think it's important that the Department of Economic Development and all of the partners around the table look at ways to really strengthen the small-business community and bring them to the table as a viable partner. I think that does happen, but I do think we need to look at strengthening those communities.

I certainly recognize there is lots of expertise around the table, our municipal economic and tourism director in our riding, there are a lot of good incentives happening, there are a lot of good businesses that are being looked at and proposals being made, and that's a good thing. Of course, we have South Shore Opportunities Inc. that offer expertise to people looking to get into business or to offer avenues of training, and, of course, the RDAs, Nova Scotia Business Inc. and ACOA. All of those systems are in place, but there still seems to be a lack of real long-term sustainable economic development.

I just want to add that I think there is tremendous potential in rural Nova Scotia, the Queens riding in particular. If we were able to tap into those opportunities and explore all of the options available to us for long-term economic development solutions, and I see light manufacturing, renewable energy and perhaps working together with other departments to look at renewable energy and perhaps working together with other departments to look at renewable energy as kind of the economic development of the future, and there are different

[Page 72]

things that I think departments can work kind of together with and explore manufacturing opportunities in that particular sector. Rural Nova Scotia, having the geographical area that we do have, it allows for that type of development.

My specific question for the minister is, what specific long-term plans does the Department of Economic Development have for rural Nova Scotia, particularly the riding of Queens, for long-term sustainable economic development in the future, given the comments I just laid out in terms of our riding?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the member that not only Queens, but all parts of this province, I am very in tune with all the communities. I live in a rural part of our province and I'm very proud of that. But I can assure the member that my department is very, very supportive of the local RDAs and I can tell you that I was a warden for the county when RDAs first came in and I was very - I reserve my thoughts for RDAs. I think RDAs are a great tool for all communities around our province and they have proven that. Their track record has proven that, but we have to expand on that.

I believe, as I mentioned earlier, working with Community Services for child care, working with the Department of Education and our community colleges are great tools for us to work with. Working with our credit unions, with the small business loans - those are tools that we have that we can work with small businesses and make sure they can sustain the jobs we have and expand jobs and find new companies that want to locate anywhere in the province, especially in rural Nova Scotia.

I made a commitment to the member that I will be in Queens whenever time will allow for both of us to go there and I will be talking to the employees of Lightbridge and community leaders. I intend to come through your community and talk to your local RDA and your mayor and the board of trade - whatever is in your community.

[9:45 a.m.]

The tools that we have to work with, I really, really believe in my heart that we have the tools in our communities, but we have to work together to find that maybe there's something in that community that we've overlooked, and let's explore every avenue to see ways that we can expand existing businesses and attract new businesses to communities in our province.

We have the workforce and that is one thing that we are blessed with in this province - a very, very dedicated workforce. There are testimonials all across the province, from one end to the other, of companies that have located in this province and the workforce is what attracts new companies from other countries here to work and open up business in this province - it is because of the dedicated workforce.

[Page 73]

To be specific, working with communities - and Mr. Conrad, our rural development officer, he works very closely with the RDAs in the communities. I intend to be doing my tour around the communities in the province as soon as possible and that's my message to councils, chambers, boards, and RDAs - let's turn over every stone to see what opportunity is in a community. I believe that's the responsibility of not just me as minister, but of all members and all community leaders - to see what opportunities exist in that community.

MS. CONRAD: I thank you and I agree that we do have a strong workforce and we do have a number of opportunities before us, and it is about exploring those opportunities and working with the partners around the table.

I guess specifically I'm asking, what plans, what long-term future plans, does the Department of Economic Development have to ensure long-term sustainable economic development? What type of businesses do we want to attract to rural Nova Scotia to make that happen? And again I'll refer back to Bowater, perhaps in the next couple of years looking at the struggles that will happen within that industry, and also the forestry industry as a whole, which will have a tremendous impact across the riding and also across the province.

So I think I'm feeling that it's a sense of urgency to really look long term at our rural communities, and in particular Queens, to ensure that we do have - and I know that we have all of the partners at the table working collectively to move those thoughts forward and to move expertise and to provide opportunity for people to come into our communities and set up business. But again, I think we certainly need to see that leadership coming loud, strong and clear from the Department of Economic Development that we are going to aggressively move forward with long-term sustainable economic development plans and whether that be through the partners that currently exist around the table, to strengthen their roles in order to see those things happen.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, as I know my honourable colleague is a new member to the Legislature, I would welcome her to have a copy of our Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity 2006. I don't know if she or any of her caucus colleagues have that document, but that document is an excellent document and it's the direction in which we want to take this province. We're working today in global markets and every community is trying to seize the opportunity and every province is trying to seize the same opportunity. We have to be more aggressive, and with Nova Scotia Business Inc. we are very, very aggressive. They are out all of the time exploring new opportunities for Nova Scotians and that's a great tool that we have at our disposal. With the Office of Economic Development, I can assure that member that we are looking to the future and we are looking for sustainable jobs for this province.

MS. CONRAD: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

[Page 74]

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, to the minister, I should remind him that at least I have the Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity 2006, I quoted from it yesterday. However, the minister does make a very good suggestion, which is probably all new members of the Legislature would be interested in seeing a copy - it would probably be a very good idea if all new members of all Parties got a copy of that. That, I think, would be very useful, it's the latest document . . .

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, all three caucuses have copies of the document.

MR. EPSTEIN: Very good idea. I wonder if we could do a couple of things - first, Mr. Minister, I wonder, can we go back and just continue a little bit of our discussion from yesterday about the investments the government has made both through NSBI and the Office of Economic Development in either job retention or job creation in Nova Scotia? You will recall that I gave you a document yesterday that set out, in tabular form, the companies that had been successful in attracting some financial support from the government over the last few years, and I'm wondering, can you tell us to what extent your department tracks the performance of the companies? I'm wondering if you can tell us anything about a comparison between the number of additional jobs that were promised or projected at the time the grants or subsidies or payroll rebates were announced, and the number of jobs that survive today - is that something the department tracks?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. Absolutely, we track these, it's performance-based, there are contracts maybe for three years, five years, what have you, for the payroll rebate, and they have to create the jobs and maintain the jobs. There's criteria for each and every company to do so.

MR. EPSTEIN: I wonder if you have the data that would compare the number of additional jobs that were announced at the beginning of the various funding arrangements and those that are in place now, and if you don't have it with you at the moment, I'm wondering, could you arrange to table it with us either during the budget estimates process or back in the House?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the honourable member could be more specific. Is there a particular file here, or a year that you're looking at?

MR. EPSTEIN: The table I gave you yesterday goes back to 2003 and covers the period of 2003, 2004 and 2005, I suppose we can leave 2006 out of it since it's brand new. I'm wondering if you could take the 2003, 2004 and 2005 and let us know the numbers. I see you have a staff member coming. I don't know if that means we have an answer right now or not.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, you're asking for 2003, 2004, and 2005 and the companies that are listed here? Absolutely, we will provide that.

[Page 75]

MR. EPSTEIN: That's great, thanks very much. If there's any problem or question, I would certainly just invite your staff to get hold of us at the caucus office, that would be fine, we'd be happy to clarify anything if there's any doubt, although I think the list is pretty clear.

MR. HURLBURT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarity, honourable member, do you want that delivered to your caucus or do you want it yourself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we'll have it tabled here at the committee and then those are all sent out to the caucus, as normal practice.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, by the time we get all this data the committee may have risen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That can be forwarded to the various caucuses, as is the habit, if that's okay, Mr. Minister. Is that okay, member?

MR. EPSTEIN: That would be just fine, thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You may continue.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, just for clarity, I think the honourable member is asking the status of the existing jobs when the contract was made with - pick any one of the companies, the jobs that were promised and the jobs we are creating. Is that what you're asking?

MR. EPSTEIN: Absolutely, and whether they continue to exist. I'll just give you an example to illustrate. If you go back to the 2003 list, there's Convergys call centre in Truro, the estimate was for 300 new jobs. The question would be, how many jobs were created, 2003, 2004 and 2005? If the number went up - did it go down? What happened to it over that time? What's the current state of play? I don't want to make it too complicated, but to just let us know what happened during the three years from then until now, or the two years from then until now, for the 2004 list.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, we will have that document as soon as possible. If we cannot get it back to the committee, it will go to the caucuses.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. If I may continue, I want to pursue the theme that emerged this morning with some of my colleagues about rural economic development. I'd like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that my Party's caucus now includes a member for Shelburne; one for Queens; we have, of course, Hants East, which we've had for a while; we have now two Pictou seats; and we have two in Cape Breton, which we've had for a while. You'll know from the questions from my colleague, the member for Halifax Atlantic that, at least in part, Halifax Atlantic, although in HRM, has a suburban or a rural dimension to it, as well. We have a very strong interest in rural economic development. That has always been the

[Page 76]

case, but now it's additionally supported by having members directly representing some of those areas.

I wanted to see if we could have a bit of a discussion about where it is the Office of Economic Development thinks we might be able to go with economic development outside of HRM - I suppose outside of the CBRM, as well, as another urban node - and I want to point out what I think are some of the problems with rural economic development at the moment. I guess, firstly, whether the minister thinks we're understanding the problem correctly and, if so, whether he can make any suggestions as to where he thinks things might be going.

Here are the general difficulties. It seems to me that most of the rural areas of the province have a number of economic development problems that are broadly quite common. One is that there's an out-migration of the population. There are simply dwindling numbers of people and, largely, that means young folks, or folks in their prime working years. So that creates a second problem, which is another aspect of the demographics. It means there's an aging population in many of the rural areas. On top of that, it seems to me that a lot of the economic activity in those areas is very tied to natural resources and that there are some potential weaknesses or, in fact, real actual weaknesses in the different sectors in natural resources, and I would like to illustrate some of them.

I am moved to draw this to the minister's attention because of his comment yesterday about fish processing. He pointed, in passing, to the difficulty of making sure that fish that's caught in our waters is actually processed here. I agree with him, I think that is a real problem. I want to get to that in a minute, because it's not obvious to me why it is that we as a province, and his government in particular, might not be able to do a bit more about it.

Let's look at some of the natural resources activities. Let's start with mining. Mining has never really been a huge economic activity in Nova Scotia. I mean, we've had our time in the past, and there may be a little more underground coal mining perhaps if Donkin ever happens. We have a little open-pit coal mining. We have some low-level mining.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. HURLBURT: It's not if, it's when it happens at Donkin.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'm interested to hear the minister say that it's when. My understanding was that the company that ended up with the rights essentially committed themselves to exploring the possibility and seeing whether it's economically viable, but I'll take that as an expression of the minister's optimism. We have never really been a powerhouse in mining, and we're certainly not now. There is low-level activity going on around the province.

In agriculture, although we have a fair bit of activity, we hear on a regular basis from producers in different parts of agriculture about the difficulties that they're facing, whether

[Page 77]

it's hog producers or beef producers or, indeed, vegetable producers, and they complain about their costs, they complain about retailers and, indeed, looking, as the minister emphasized yesterday, at the global picture, one of the things that's happening in agriculture, of course, is that there are now World Trade Organization negotiations going on that are moving in the direction of hitting at supply-managed systems. So dairy, for example, may well find itself with not much of a niche. Opportunities for government subsidies to agriculture may disappear or be phased out either completely or in a severe way as a result of international negotiations over the coming decade, who knows, but the prospect is not necessarily all that good.

In forestry, we had some discussion yesterday about difficulties. We know that there is some serious degradation of our forest resources that we're highly oriented towards pulp and paper, that pulp and paper is a highly competitive commodity worldwide. We see the problems now with Stora Enso. The other two major pulp and paper plants may have difficulties. I know we're not directly affected by the softwood lumber agreement, but if there are problems with the U.S. economy, we can see that.

So all of these are difficulties in natural resource areas, and that gets us down to fish, and at that point Nova Scotia is certainly blessed because we have enormous fishing resources here. We have done very well in terms of the volume and dollar value of the commodity that comes with fishing, but the part of it that puzzles me enormously in the fishing industry is the processing side - precisely the point the minister pointed to yesterday.

Basic economics shows us that we are going to do better as a province if we are processing the product here rather than shipping the raw product, or a semi-processed product, somewhere else, yet we have seen difficulties in Canso and in Cape Breton over fish processing plants. It's not that the fish, finfish or shellfish, are not there - we are certainly bringing them in from our waters - it's a separate question as to whether there might be some weaknesses there, but we have tended to do quite well in terms of volume and dollar value there. What I find odd is that there's not the value added, and I'm wondering why it is that Nova Scotia is not requiring the processing of fish here - is it because the province sees a legal barrier, or is it just unwilling to regulate in that area? I'm wondering if the minister can help me understand this.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. There are trade barriers here, interprovincial, the United States. In my home community they are bringing fish in from Iceland to be salted and packaged and shipped back out. So there are trade barriers here that we have to deal with, with other jurisdictions, like the crab fisheries up the eastern end, with P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. Those are issues that I guess would be flagged through the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture - but not to make light of it, we have many tools at our disposal and we have to work with those tools, and we have lots of resources in this province and I think that those are key elements.

[Page 78]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member. You're right on, we do have lots of resources in this province and I think that we have to expand on them. That's what I've been saying from day one, when I came into this department - I want to explore every opportunity there is in every part of this province to see if there are opportunities that we can expand for sustainable jobs, using our own resources that we have.

MR. EPSTEIN: This helps a little bit to clarify the situation, but many of us in Nova Scotia look at Newfoundland and Labrador, which indeed has protected its fish processing sector, and it has managed to do that through domestic legislation in the province. It has managed to do that and allow itself to do it through exemptions in internal and international trade agreements.

I'm wondering, is the minister telling us that he thinks Nova Scotia would not prevail if it attempted to achieve exemptions, or it thinks we're simply better off economically without particular protections for our processing industry?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, that's a very slippery road to go down. What I'm saying is that we have interprovincial trade and until I have an opportunity to examine all those and talk to my colleague from Fisheries and Aquaculture, I think we want to keep our relation building with the United States, Iceland, P.E.I., New Brunswick, all areas. But I really don't want to go down that road right now until I've had more time to think about it and have had more dialogue with my department and my colleagues who sit around the table with me.

MR. EPSTEIN: I can well appreciate that and it's a considered position. I would certainly encourage the minister to consult with his colleagues in Fisheries and Agriculture, but certainly in Fisheries, because if there is going to be any hope for rural economic development in our province, it seems to me that at least part of the answer has to be in processing our own product as much as we possibly can. It just seems a glaring problem, when we consider the potential in the rural areas, that this has not been addressed and that it continues to be an aggravating problem.

We know that some small communities are so dependent on their fish processing plants that it really means the end of their existence as a community if those plants go. We are seeing that in some communities in Nova Scotia, the willingness of Clearwater, for example, to process its product - even product that comes from Nova Scotia waters - in Newfoundland and Labrador is causing great difficulties in some communities, and this becomes just highly problematic.

That gets me to the next aspect of the natural resource sector in the rural areas, and that's energy. It seems to me that this also has huge potential in the rural areas, and I wonder if the minister has any comments for us about this. I know, of course, there's a separate Department of Energy and I know that's at least in part a little bit outside his bailiwick, but inevitably all departments come together a little bit, and if there is going to be any chance for

[Page 79]

new industries to develop in the rural areas it also looks as if energy is perhaps one of those areas where we have an enormous potential - so I'm wondering, has the minister any general comments about this?

I ask because I don't think it was really featured in his introductory statement yesterday, and then I have some follow-ups. I'm really asking about the potential, does the minister see potential and, if so, what is it?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you, I don't want to steal the thunder of the Department of Energy, but I can tell the honourable member that my department works with all departments across government to see ways in which we can expand and create renewable energy here within our province. We're very proud of the fact that we have one of the largest wind farms in Yarmouth County, in the Pubnico area. I think there's great potential there.

Also, being a former Minister of Natural Resources, I know there were entrepreneurs in talking to me and they're talking to Energy right now about tidal power. We have great tides here in our province and there are opportunities there, but we have to make sure there are safeguards for our fish habitat, for our environment, but I think there is great potential in the future in this province for renewable power.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I agree. I think that it's the renewable aspects of energy that are of the greatest potential here. I visited the Pubnico wind farm in August 2005, and I was very impressed with the operation there. It's good to see so many windmills actually up and running.

Here's the problem I see. It is, when it comes to the regulation of the electricity market, the studies that have been done for your government over the last few years have not tended in any helpful way to open up the market, at least domestically, for renewable energy. Really what that amounts to here is a program to phase out the existing coal- and oil-fired generating plants and bring on renewables as much as we can. Even when this is looked at, the studies have tended, for whatever reason, to recommend such a small phasing in of a guaranteed proportion of the market for renewables that there has not been much useful economic spinoff there.

When we see the government talking in terms of sustainable prosperity, or the idea of renewable energy, wind as an example, tide as another example, for many of us that would seem to fit, ideally, with that model. Yet, the language of economic development that appears in that document doesn't seem to be reflected in some of the documents and studies that have been done for the electricity marketplace. I have in mind the Fournier task force from a couple of years ago, where they're recommending such a small percentage of the domestic Nova Scotia marketplace for renewables that it has allowed Nova Scotia Power to move extremely slowly on this.

[Page 80]

[10:15 a.m.]

What I'm wondering is whether this is something that is still the policy of the government or whether the government is interested in opening up the domestic Nova Scotia marketplace more rapidly than I think the 2.5 per cent target figure that was mentioned in the Fournier task force a couple of years ago? Are we on a more aggressive track now?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I can assure the member that my department works very closely with the Department of Energy. That file was, naturally, under the Department of Energy, but we have worked with them very closely. The URB sets the rates here in the province.

I'd like to expand just a bit more. I've been involved with Clare Energy, they are in motion right now, they hired their consultant - as I was reading my e-mails last evening - last week to advance the Clare Energy Project that they have. They have the Université Sainte-Anne, the councils, the RDAs, our department, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Natural Resources. They're all sitting around a table exploring new ideas for renewable energy and that little pocket of our province, which I think is a great stepping stone for this province.

I congratulate him for having the foresight and moving that project ahead. That has been on the burner now for a fair amount of time, but they are advancing it. Maybe the honourable member could get updated with the Clare Energy, where they are on that. I'm sure that when they do estimates with the Department of Energy that they can bring him up to speed on that file also. They're advancing it very well.

If I may, just in closing, on that note, it's community-driven. That is what intrigues me the most, it's community-driven, it is the councils, it is the business community, it is the sawmill operators, the university, it's very diverse. The hog farm in the Clare area is involved very heavily in renewable energy for that community. I think that we're on the right road here, but we have to keep working through it, and that community is determined to work through it.So I think it's good news for the province and for the Clare area.

MR. EPSTEIN: Thank you. That's helpful and I would just like to suggest that perhaps one of the major advances in planning for economic development, particularly in rural areas, would be some revamping of our energy strategy in a coherent form that tended to nudge the opening up of the domestic marketplace for renewables. I think it would be a very good idea and extremely helpful because I think it's one of the few sectors where the rural areas stand a very good chance of doing something that has economic benefits, that has environmental benefits, and that is likely to be ongoing and sustainable. I think it's really a crucial activity.

Can the minister bring us up to date with respect to any tidal energy projects, and just tell us the current state of play with respect to tidal energy then?

[Page 81]

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you, again that file is with the Department of Energy, but I just brought it to the table as the previous Minister of Natural Resources - it was flagged with me at that department and there are issues there that had to be dealt with before we could advance it any further. There had to be policies within the province, but DFO had to be involved in the process, naturally - we have to be very protective of our species and make sure that there was no danger to them - and numerous other issues had to be dealt with. But it is advancing and I'm sure that the Department of Energy could bring the honourable member more up to speed on that file.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'll make sure I follow-up there.

I think my colleague, the member for Pictou East, has questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Pictou East, and you have eight minutes.

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: I want to raise a couple of issues which may be a little parochial. The Office of Economic Development has set a priority geared to business retention and expansion, does the mandate also include re-establishment? What I'm talking about here is that Lismore, in Pictou East, was caught in a complex sale to Polar Foods in P.E.I., where local landings ended up being processed in Prince Edward Island. This was followed by the receivership of Polar, with no reflection whatsoever on Lismore's viability, and really what I want to know today is whether the Economic Development Department has Lismore on the radar in any way, with the new initiatives that are outlined.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. If there are opportunities there our department would definitely look at it, and if the member has additional information or if he wants to talk to me later, I would dearly love to hear from him. If there's a chance for us to have jobs in this province, our department is there to look at it.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, the situation is that former management is still available, and there is a trained workforce that is still there. The local resource is going to Prince Edward Island, at least part of it for processing. The operation has been down for two years and, unless we do something very quickly, we will lose some of the things that are in place that should be fairly easy to pick up on. Part of the outline in the budget information is working with business to develop value-added products and adopt innovative new procedures and technologies, and what a place to do that. I mean, we have so much to offer there. I came in here to make sure that the issue was in fact on record and that your department is looking at this area, and this opportunity, really.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, I thought the workers at the plant in question had taken up opportunities at other plants, but if there are opportunities there, if there's something there, if the member wants to speak to me after estimates or anytime, I would be more than willing to listen to see if there are opportunities.

[Page 82]

MR. MACKINNON: Some of the opportunities, including former management, some of the opportunities are many, many miles away. Some of the opportunities are in Prince Edward Island, with our product. Some of the opportunities that supposedly exist are a few weeks of work in a herring operation, a few weeks of work over in Caribou on the other side of the county, a few weeks' work over in Cape John, which is many, many miles away. The travelling costs alone eat up most of the value of the income, and it's just a deplorable situation. It's one of the things that is the most pressing need, I believe, in Pictou East. Please make sure that it's on the radar, and there will be additional information, a lot of additional information, because we're working with that community, and the community is becoming quite united to do something.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I'll take that under advisement. If I'm reading this correctly, the honourable member will talk to me after.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The time for the NDP caucus has expired. With the Liberal caucus having no questions, and I assume the government having no questions, we shall go back to the member for Queens.

The honourable member for Queens.

MS. VICKI CONRAD: I just wanted to follow up on some of the examples and questions and points that my colleague, the member for Halifax Chebucto, made earlier. In regard to the Department of Economic Development working closely with the Department of Energy and looking toward some economic development in the areas of renewable energy, and I do understand that Pubnico is one of the largest, but the only wind field that we do have here. (Interruption) The largest.

MR. HURLBURT: Yes.

MS. CONRAD: Yes, pretty much the only - I know there are a few others under development.

MR. HURLBURT: Yes.

MS. CONRAD: I am familiar with the Clare Energy Project, and I understand that's more of a pilot project. It is community-driven, and I think it's a wonderful model for other communities to look to and also develop their own pilot project. I think there is a distinct role for aggressive leadership from the province in terms of spearheading the larger projects that could come to Nova Scotia. I'm thinking more about manufacturing for renewable energy projects. I understand that the queue, for example, to bring in wind turbines that are being manufactured in European countries, or in China, is somewhere up to two years for one

[Page 83]

turbine, and if a company is not able to get in the queue for some time for several turbines, then the development of wind projects across this province is really going to be slow.

I think we have opportunity here in the province to look at manufacturing, perhaps to start on a small scale. We have the workforce in place. We have the talent here in Nova Scotia to look at attracting industry that would like to come to Nova Scotia and look at manufacturing parts, whether they be for wind turbines or whether they be in tidal projects. I think we do need to grow that industry and manufacturing sector back up again in Nova Scotia - we seem to have lost a lot of our major industries over the years through downsizing and through changes in global markets. I think that's more of a province leadership role than a community-based one. Certainly the Clare Energy Project does demonstrate that community initiative getting on board, modelling themselves on projects from our European neighbours, but again I do think the leadership role is for more aggressive economic development in the manufacturing and industry sector.

In Queens, for example, we lost another major employer, Stenpro, and we have a lot of talented workers from Stenpro who are welders, who are machinists, and some of them are unfortunately relocating outside of the province - they are moving to Alberta, they are moving elsewhere to find work in their trade. We have the ability here in the province to really strengthen our tradespeople and to have this workforce in place to attract industry here to Nova Scotia to look at manufacturing. Even solar panels, just most recently there was a news release in the business section of the paper - and I forget what country but they have one of the largest manufacturing facilities for solar panels globally, and I think we need to really step up to the plate and take on those sorts of challenges - not that we can be playing on that world scale, but certainly to look after our own energy needs.

[10:30 a.m.]

Of course when we're talking about manufacturing and industry, we also have to strengthen the infrastructure, and of course that goes back to partnering with the Department of Transportation, as well, in strengthening the infrastructure to attract industry here. My question is, understanding that the Department of Economic Development is working in partnership with the Department of Energy and looking at possible projects through economic development and renewable energy, would the minister pursue those types of opportunities with the Department of Energy?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. I can assure that member, and all members, that if there are opportunities we want to seize those opportunities, and we're working in conjunction with all other departments of government. I am very proud of the track record of this government, and our departments, regarding manufacturing in rural-based areas of this province of ours. In the last year alone, if you look at the companies that have located or expanded existing businesses for manufacturing in this province, I think our track record speaks for itself.

[Page 84]

MS. CONRAD: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Mr. Chairman, having a few more minutes, I was thinking I might follow up on a little bit of what we were talking about earlier in terms of infrastructure in the broad sense. What exactly is it that the minister sees the role of economic development in other departments? The sort of thing that I'm talking about, as we mentioned child care really in many ways is an essential element in developing and retaining a workforce in any given specific area.

There's also the whole question around what areas are deemed to be suitable for economic development. As the former Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations you are well aware of the importance of the structure of a municipality or a town and the geography of that and how that is, in fact, affected by governmental decisions. What does the Department of Economic Development see as its role in ensuring that zoning is appropriate and that zoning is amenable to small-scale economic development as well as the larger and more manufacturing-based enterprises. Do you have a place at the table?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you, I believe the Department of Economic Development's role is to lead, which I believe we have shown leadership in the past and we will in the future, working with other government departments, for example the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Community Services to find the right environment for the right community, but not taking community and working community against community. That's not where I am. Where I am is if the glove fits, that's the area it should be.

If a private entrepreneur wants to set up in Pugwash, well, I'm not going to try to lure him to Yarmouth. If that's their decision, it's up to us to help him find the right tools to make it fit for that community if that's their decision.

Land use, zoning, was that your question?

MS. CONRAD: Yes, it's the question - zoning in terms of small and very, very local business and ensuring that communities are, as they say, liveable, which is also, in many ways, an element of infrastructure if you're going to retain workers in a given community, but to the degree that the placement of schools and so on is an encouragement to people to stay; the location of hospitals, so the Department of Health is involved. Even when you're looking at the location of a business, one of those essential things is waste disposal. That's a big part of many businesses. So do you have a place at the table in discussing these things in the municipal forum?

MR. HURLBURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I can assure the member that property that the Crown owns throughout the province, we stay

[Page 85]

very closely in tune with the municipality wherever that land is situated. We work with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. If there's a company that wants to locate, all parties involved have to be at the table to find the right mechanism and the right tools to make it fit for that community. We have to be very protective of our environment, land use issues, labour issues, the infrastructure, for example, as you said, schooling, hospitals, what have you. So there are always issues. Our role is to work with the company and with the communities, where they want to locate.

MS. CONRAD: Okay, I guess I realize that's a fairly broad question I'm asking. I would feel more reassured if I knew that, in fact, the Department of Economic Development was included in some ways in some of these community planning decisions to the degree that they will sometimes act to remove some of the possibilities for smaller scale economic development and necessarily involve sort of the injection . . .

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if I may, not to interrupt, but that is what we have, they are called the RDAs. They work within the communities in the area they represent. I can tell the honourable member, I know in my own home community, our RDA is very active and very involved with land zoning for areas to make sure that we have our bedroom communities, we have our industrial areas, what have you, and our retail areas. That is a great tool that we have right now, and they are called RDAs.

MS. CONRAD: Are there RDAs in all areas of the province at this point, every area?

MR. HURLBURT: We have 14 in the province right now.

MS. CONRAD: So they blanket the province, okay.

MR. HURLBURT: Re-establishing one in the western valley.

MS. CONRAD: Okay, all right. Well, that sounds like a very - that's probably . . .

MR. HURLBURT: It is a great tool.

MS. CONRAD: The Department of Economic Development has a voice there, so that's good.

MR. HURLBURT: Yes.

MS. CONRAD: Well, perhaps those other questions will get answered at the RDA level. Thank you very much. As I say again, I look forward to meeting with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.

[Page 86]

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Minister, and staff. I appreciate an opportunity to ask some questions. I'm really concerned about the sustainability of rural Nova Scotia. So I'd like to know if you have a vision for how to do that, how to keep people in rural Nova Scotia. Do you have any plan, something you're working towards, anything at all?

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if I may go back to our document, Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity. I believe, and it's my firm belief, that all of us have a very important role to play in this province and in our communities. It's for us to work with the community leaders to find opportunities, absolutely, to make sure there's an environment for our youth to stay in our communities to work. As I said yesterday here in the debates, I have three sons and one step-daughter, and I want to ensure there are opportunities for them. If they choose to stay in our province - I want them to stay in our province, naturally, but it's their decision - I think it's up to us to find every opportunity to make the environment right for those people to be able to stay in this province, to work and to raise their families.

MR. MACDONELL: What are you doing to create that environment? You talked about creating an environment for young people to stay and I'd like to know what you're doing to create that environment.

MR. HURLBURT: We have many tools at our disposal, Mr. Chairman, that are creating that environment. As I mentioned earlier, that's working with our RDAs. The RDAs are a very key element for rural economic development in our province. We have the credit union program for entrepreneurs to start and enhance existing businesses. There are community economic development investment funds. We've made a commitment that we will have broadband in every community, 100 per cent, across this province.

There are many tools for us to work with but, as I said earlier and I know I'm repeating myself, I do not believe it's up to one individual. It's up to all of us, collectively, to work within our communities. I know the honourable member is very in tune with his own community, and I know that if there's an opportunity, he will bring it to me and we will work together to see if we can make it a reality for that community. I'll do that in every community, Mr. Chairman, because I firmly believe that the opportunities are there. We have to seize the opportunities, and we can only do it working, collectively, together.

MR. MACDONELL: I guess I would be wondering, how do you determine the success? You mentioned these tools, but how do you determine whether those tools are creating that environment, whether or not out-migration is existing at a rate that you don't like, because that seems to be the pattern? Young people are still leaving Nova Scotia, and actually leaving rural Nova Scotia, coming to HRM, quite often, or just leaving the province. So how are you determining whether those tools that you've mentioned are actually doing the job? Have you set some goals to stop the out-migration? What are you using as your measure stick to find out whether you're being successful?

[Page 87]

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if I may, my role - I've been in this department a little over a week now - and my goals are, I can tell that member, to work very closely with the communities to make sure that we seize every opportunity that is in a community. I believe there are opportunities that maybe have been overlooked. Maybe it takes an outsider to tell us about that opportunity, or maybe we just have to turn that stone over and we'll find the opportunity ourselves. Working closely together, I believe we can make those opportunities, and we can create the environment for our youth to stay here in our province to work.

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think that you're in a unique position. I think your role as the Minister of Economic Development shouldn't have what I would refer to as "artificial barriers". I find that the government pretty much sticks to its silos in the sense that I don't see any vision for growth of the rural economy, whether it's through economic development, agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, whatever. It's more of a "come see us and we'll see what we can do for you" instead of the departments going out and saying, we have an idea - would you be interested?

As far as the sustainability of the rural economy, I think there are a few basic laws that work in economies - supply and demand is a big one - but in rural Nova Scotia, I think you have to work with a raw product. We have raw natural resources and some of those are sustainable and renewable, like the agriculture and forestry and the fishery. I know our relationship in the fishery is not so clear because of the jurisdiction with the federal government.

Certainly in terms of forestry and agriculture, they have resources that are renewable. If you look at other resources that can offer economic value, in terms of mining and quarries, these resources are somewhat finite - when they're gone, they're gone. But they still have an economic impact and I think the province should look at what the potential is in terms of those renewable resources as well as the ones that are non-renewable, but should have a plan because those non-renewable ones are going to be gone.

But I don't see anybody really coming up with an overall strategy because we don't seem to recognize - well, Stora Enso is a prime example - that if a town is built around a mine and the mine shuts down, the resource is gone, then that town disappears. You have a whole service sector that can be developed around people being there - you need schools, you need gas stations, insurance agents, hospitals, salaries for those people, and all this goes into the economy.

[10:45 a.m.]

If you take the mine away, the rest of that won't stay. In this province, you can probably put a university somewhere in this province that's not connected to any particular other resources as long as people can come there. If there's a transportation network that can

[Page 88]

get them there, it really can probably exist on its own. It's one of those few things that you could do that you could generate jobs in an area.

But for the rest of it, in Nova Scotia we bring in about 9,000 carcasses of beef a month and we finish about 9,000 a year in this province. So we meet about a tenth of our consumer demand, maybe a twelfth of it, and this actually would seem to me to be one place where the province might want to look at economic development in terms of keeping young people there, job creation in terms of slaughter facilities, et cetera. I think they could look at enhancing the Department of Agriculture, which would create jobs, to offer expertise in this regard and I don't see any overall plan.

The other day we talked about Shaw's leaving and their inability to get the product in this province they needed, number one, and plus, I think they had a sole market so once they lost that, it was gone. Some of those things are not so easy to control.

But I don't see any great movement in terms of the agriculture or forestry sector, especially in value added to create wealth in rural Nova Scotia, not to mention our overall forestry practices that are going to lead to the demise of the industry anyway. So I guess my rant is about the fact that I don't see any overall vision from the government in terms of an economic development strategy that, number one, makes use of renewable resources in this province and the fact that we already generate a market of 1 million people who need some of those resources in terms of food, number one.

I would think that a healthy, attractive rural Nova Scotia would have an economic benefit in terms of tourism. In my constituency, we have one of the fastest growing areas east of Montreal. The corridor area which runs from Enfield to Shubenacadie is that area by and large. Most of those people - it's a bedroom community - work in the HRM, but also in my constituency we produce 30 per cent of the milk consumed in this province.

We have the site for the world's highest tides at Burntcoat Head, part of the Glooscap Trail goes through my constituency, one of the worst roads in the province, I might say - as a matter of fact, I probably have three of the worst roads in the province, but one of them is a tourist route that we're trying to attract people to come to this province. I look at how my constituents have been used by the government - not all that favorably. I have real concerns about trying to keep young families in the rural area of my constituency, trying to keep student numbers up so we can keep a school open along with attracting a doctor. From what I see in the province is a number of departments, none of which has any particular vision and certainly no overall vision for how to make use of those primary resources that we have and convert them into something that generates more wealth that we actually could keep young people there.

All of the things you mention are fine, the credit unions, the RDAs, but I don't have any clear indication that any of that is working - people are still leaving. So I'd really like to

[Page 89]

know your opinion of my opinion, and also whether you have any clear indicators if any of those things are working for the people of Nova Scotia.

MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I could go on here for an hour now, but I can tell the member that our government has a vision for this province and I can assure the member that our department has a vision for this province. That vision is working very, very closely with communities. I can tell that member that the local RDAs have their strategy that has been approved by all three levels of government. I can tell that member that my RDA in southwest shore has dialogue, an open concept, with all the communities involved. It's a full-day seminar and people come in and have input. They put their priorities in place for the upcoming year and they put that in their document. We support that, the local government supports that, the chambers of commerce support that. I think it is the right approach.

I can tell that member that this government, since we came to office in 1999, has improved transportation links in this province, we've improved education in this province, we've improved hospitals in this province - that's infrastructure that we need for economic growth in this province. Now I can also go a little bit further, the honourable member is talking mining. I can remember the member was sort of upset with me about my stand on mining when I was the Minister of Natural Resources, but mining is a key element. It's our own resource that we have in this province and we should seize the opportunity every chance we get. The spinoff from mining is tremendous and I can tell you I lived in it. I know, when we had the tin mine in Yarmouth, our communities were just flourishing with that when that was happening. There are opportunities and we have to seize those opportunities.

There are many other natural resources in this province and I think that we have to stay tuned with that and make sure that we develop every opportunity that we have. We have to work with our communities, and our RDAs are key. I'm sorry, I know I'm repeating myself, but the RDAs are a key tool that we have. That is community driven. Our department works very closely with the local RDAs in our province and it's a great tool. If the member is not up to speed with the RDA in his local community, I suggest maybe to talk to the RDA and the CEO and see what we can do. If I can help the member, I'm definitely here to help; if there are opportunities out there let's find them.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I am up to speed with my RDA, I talk to those people on a fairly regular basis. They are very good people to work with.

I certainly know a little bit about mining. I think that one of the largest open-pit mines perhaps in North America is not in my constituency, but it's just across the river in the constituency of the honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley. A lot of my constituents work there at National Gypsum. Certainly we would like to see some kind of strategy someday where wallboard would be made, or more of it. I know there's a plant now in Nova Scotia, so I think lots of my constituents really wonder, when they see the trainload

[Page 90]

of gypsum leaving the area, day after day, why that wallboard could not be made in Nova Scotia.

It's not that I'm overtly against mining. I used mining as an example of a resource that runs out, but has the ability to create wealth around it, you know a community and paycheques and then a service community that has to service the needs of those people. So when the mine goes, all of that goes. The point I wanted to make is, we do have the possibility for resources that are renewable, that are not going to disappear if we manage them well, and that's in terms of agriculture and forestry, and I would see investments in those areas as important.

I think hanging your hat all in one area is dangerous, which we see with Stora Enso, the impact of that business in one area. So yes, I'm not saying that any of the things you have mentioned are negative things, it's just not clear to me how you measure whether or not they are working. In the agricultural sector right now, I think we could use a federally inspected facility that could take care of the cull cow issue, not to mention look at the value added side and try to take up a bigger share of the market that goes to our retail sector. I wonder if a thought like that is ever discussed around the Cabinet Table, where maybe the government would go to the cattle producers and say, would you be interested in this?

You're talking about this coming from the community up, which I think is great. I think community economic development is an important aspect of all this, but I often wonder if there's anybody at the helm of the ship looking down and saying, you know, we have something lacking here, here and here, let's go to those communities and see whether or not we can offer them something instead of it always coming from the bottom-up. I think that's really my question, does the government see things that they can be doing different from what you've indicated, that actually might offer incentives in the areas to generate economic development?

MR. HURLBURT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I can assure the member that we do have good dialogue around the Cabinet Table. I can't disclose what happens at the Cabinet Table, but I can tell the member what I do outside the Cabinet Table. I do have dialogue with all my Cabinet colleagues and we're always looking for opportunities within our province to make it a better place to live and work. Our tools are there, we're working very closely together.

But I suggest that the member still get the document and read the document. The measures for Nova Scotia are performances right there. We have opportunity and we have 12 departments that work on this document. So is there room for improvement? There always is, there is always room, but it's up to us to find that area and we will, and we will be working to enhance any area that we can in this province.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you. Maybe I'll close with this final comment. I know that last September, Pork Nova Scotia brought a plan to the province for that industry. I would see that industry as a valuable component in rural Nova Scotia, and particularly in the Valley

[Page 91]

of this province. Yet there is a group that has done all of what I would say that you have stated here today. It has come from the ground-up, it has gone through the community, they developed the proposal and nobody has addressed that proposal to this date.

I know you can say, well, I'm not the Minister of Agriculture - great, I understand that. But you are the Minister of Economic Development. I think it falls at your feet when it comes to economic development in whatever realm, and it's when things like that that I know have happened that the government has blatantly ignored, as far as I can see, and I think as far as the industry can see, and that is the type of information I think the government should really say, look, glad to have it, how can we help you, can we make this work? That did not happen.

So because of my critic areas, and for some of my personal interests, I have a real desire to see agriculture promoted. That desire is also along with the idea that I see it as a real wealth generator and an economic driver in this province. I don't see that being promoted or enhanced or used to its full potential.

We seem to go to call centres and whatever else, but not necessarily to the idea of making agriculture sustainable in the province. I think if governments are interested, number one, in not giving out any more money than they have to to that sector, then they should put policy and programs in place where actually the consumer dollar winds up in the hands of the producer to help pay him for what he produces. That would diminish or limit the amount of dollars that government keeps giving to shore up the industry in times of disaster. I think it would be a win-win for the government, because greater economic development in those communities means greater tax return to the province and you're sustaining those communities, keeping young people there, and much better for the economy.

So you may want to respond, but with that, I'll listen.

MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: I will take that under advisement, Madam Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, as I've been going up and down in the elevator in the Centennial Building over the last number of months, I've been accompanied on many occasions by workers who are busily renovating different floors of the building. I think maybe the fifth, sixth, maybe the fourth, I'm not sure exactly of the extent of it, but I gather that your office is one of the new tenants in the building. Is that right?

[11:00 a.m.]

MR. HURLBURT: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm wondering if you've moved in now, or you're about to?

[Page 92]

MR. HURLBURT: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: Oh, you have, okay.

MR. HURLBURT: Yes, we have moved in.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, welcome to the building.

MR. HURLBURT: Thank you.

MR. EPSTEIN: That's the first thing. Secondly, I'm wondering, is this now in addition to the previous space or a replacement for the previous space?

MR. HURLBURT: It's a replacement of the previous space. We're on floors five and six of the Centennial Building.

MR. EPSTEIN: Any idea what's happening with the Trade Centre space?

MR. HURLBURT: No.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. I wonder, as well, if you can tell us whether this represents either an increase in the rentals that the office will have to pay or whether it's a reduction or it's a wash. Do you happen to know that? In asking that, I'm wondering as well about including the cost of renovations.

MR. HURLBURT: Madam Chairman, I'm sorry, I do not have that number at my disposal right now. I can assure the member I will get it if he wants it. It was a public tendering process that our department went through.

MR. EPSTEIN: I wasn't questioning the tendering, I was just wondering whether we're paying more or less, and if that figure is available, that would be a big help.

MR. HURLBURT: I will see that the member gets that figure. I apologize for my first answer, being at the Trade Centre, Nova Scotia Business Inc. is at the Trade Centre on the seventh floor.

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, fine. Okay, thank you. I think that represents the end of the direct questioning, but I just want to make a short comment for the minister.

As will be evident from the interest shown by a number of members of my caucus, we're very concerned about economic development in Nova Scotia. It's something we're following very closely. We wish the minister, the office and NSBI well. I've said this at the Economic Development Committee on a number of occasions, we wish the office and NSBI well, but we worry. We're worried about some of the fundamentals of about the position of

[Page 93]

the Nova Scotia economy, we're worried about rural economic development, and we're worried about whether sustainability is really being taken as seriously as some of the policy documents claim. I assure the minister we're prepared to be very co-operative, but of course we will also be watching closely to look for solid implementation of the stated objectives. So thank you very much for being with us over the last few hours.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? If not, I call on the honourable Minister of Economic Development for a closing statement.

MR. HURLBURT: First of all I want to thank all the committee for their questions, and we have taken numerous notes here, and I know there are concerns of economic development in all parts of our great province. My goal is to work with members regardless of their political stripe - we are all working for the same reason here, to represent our people and do what's right for our people, and that is my ultimate goal.

I want to thank the committee for the patience and understanding today. As you can imagine, I've been very busy learning about the Office of Economic Development and the five agencies that fall under my responsibility. I want to thank my support staff who were here today, they're very, very dedicated professionals and I look forward to working with them as we get on with the business of economic development in our province.

Madam Chairman, I thank you for the time here today.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E26 stand?

Resolution E26 stands.

Resolution E21 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $34,071,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Nova Scotia Business Inc., pursuant to the Estimate and the business plan of Nova Scotia Business Inc. be approved.

Resolution E38 - Resolved, that the business plans of the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation, the Nova Scotia Innovation Corporation (InNOVAcorp), the Trade Centre Limited, and the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited be approved.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolutions E21 and E38 carry?

The resolutions are carried.

Next we have the Department of Energy, and I would ask that we give them a few minutes to get ready for their estimates.

[Page 94]

[11:07 a.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[11:08 a.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: If everyone would take their seats, we'll get started with the Department of Energy. I would like to start by welcoming everyone and ask that the minister start with opening comments and introduce the staff he has with him today.

HON. WILLIAM DOOKS: Madam Chairman, I apologize. Usually I'm chairing and that's why I started to take over, but I'm in a different role today.

Madam Chairman, I will introduce staff as I pass along my opening comments. Thank you. I am joined at the table today, or behind me, with Weldon Myers, Director of Finance for the Corporate Service Unit that supports my department; Bruce Cameron, the Department of Energy's Director of Strategic Policy and Services; and Allan Crandlemire, Director of Energy Management and Markets.

For the past year, the department has been undertaking a number of important initiatives related to renewable and non-renewable energy in Nova Scotia. We've been targeting important areas, including the following: energy efficiency and conservation, so we can help our climate and reduce energy costs for Nova Scotians; increase investment in our offshore and offshore exploration and development, so we can create new wealth and opportunities for Nova Scotia.

Currently, we are helping people better manage their energy costs through the energy efficiency programs like Smart Energy Choices. First of all, it has been helping homeowners purchase energy-efficient wood and wood pellet stoves, and is helping Nova Scotians buy solar hot water heating systems. By offering rebates on these appliances we are helping encourage more Nova Scotians to make smarter energy choices. We will continue to help Nova Scotians make more energy-efficient decisions in their household as we roll out our oil heating system incentive later this summer. We know that more than 25 per cent of Nova Scotians plan to make energy-efficient upgrades to their homes this year alone.

With the news on April 12^th that the federal government would discontinue their program in this area, the EnerGuide for Houses program, we are looking at ways to fill in this gap. When we launched Smart Energy Choices last Fall, it did include additional provincial incentives to the EnerGuide for Houses program. We also are helping to diversify the power supply in Nova Scotia. More renewable energy from sources like wind, tidal, biomass and solar also means significant reduced air emissions that lead to climate change. Our opportunity is to create the right conditions to grow this supply.

We've been working with industry stakeholders to develop strategies on how to increase the amount of renewables on our power grid. Currently we have about 10 per cent of the renewable energy. We want more renewables.

[Page 95]

To seize this opportunity, government will introduce regulations in the coming year requiring an increase in the amount of new renewable energies on our electrical grid by 5 per cent by 2010 and by 10 per cent by 2013. We also need to increase our investment in offshore and onshore exploration and development.

Most recently, the offshore industry received a shot in the arm with the news that our government has reached an OSEA with EnCana Corporation. The OSEA brings us one step closer to developing the Deep Panuke Project. Our OSEA is a win-win agreement. The agreement will create new jobs and opportunities. We have guarantees for work commitments both in terms of personal hours and in terms of the type of work to be completed.

We're looking at construction of an accommodation module, new supply boat, fire boom, subsea protection devices and pipeline coating. This binding agreement also contains benefits for research and development, education and training. This amounts to .5 per cent of gross revenues. I'm proud to say we also have negotiated new opportunities for developing our offshore energy industry. This agreement calls for EnCana to provide financial support in building of five onshore rigs.

To spur investment, we're going to build our knowledge on our offshore and then make this information available to interested investors and researchers. Our government's most recent forecast for fiscal year 2006-07 is that the Sable Offshore Energy Project will deliver $280 million in royalty payments for the Province of Nova Scotia. For the Sable project, I expect they will be pumping gas into the next decade, and our goal is to get Deep Panuke on track so that when Sable is winding down, Deep Panuke will be gearing up.

In closing, let me say that the department intends to continue working hard in all of these areas listed above, and more. I look forward to another successful year from the Department of Energy staffing - and, Madam Chairman, I must say how delighted I am to work with the staff at the Department of Energy. They're alive, they're creative, and I believe over the past few years we certainly have the incentive and also the attitude to move forward in these different areas.

So I'm open for questions.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We will go to the Official Opposition.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Centre.

MR. FRANK CORBETT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to say a few words and then I'll get to some questioning of the minister.

First of all, I appreciate the minister's direct and succinct comments. I must say I've been Energy Critic now for about three or four years, and there's the adage "familiarity breeds contempt" - well, I've got to say that's just the opposite about working with the staff, Mr.

[Page 96]

Minister, familiarity has I think brought on reassurance, not contempt, because I've got to say they're a very capable, honest and forthright staff, and I wish that you would relay that to your staff who are not here today. I will say that from a personal perspective and the perspective of our caucus staff, when we're looking for information we don't always agree on, they're always forthright, honest and very accommodating with the information. That makes things better not only for us, but for all Nova Scotians, and these women and men should be commended for that.

[11:15 a.m.]

So, Mr Minister, my first go-round today is going to be, I think, in a lot of areas, and I'll probably from time to time lose some focus because it's going to be on many things - it's going to be obviously on offshore exploration, but it's also going to talk about other areas around Nova Scotia Power, obviously Deep Panuke renewables, and stuff like that. So if I appear scattered in my questioning, I want to apologize up front, but I think we want to get in as many things as we can. I don't think we should be here - I wouldn't use the term wasting staff's time, but I think staff have very important things to do, as this is important, and I will try to be as concise as possible.

With that said, I'm not going to get into Deep Panuke right away, but it has taken us quite awhile - the bill has been reintroduced, I think it's Bill No. 18, on offshore health and safety. It has been over three years in coming and I realize that some of this delay was caused by trying to make sure that all areas reflect the same types of rules, that the Nova Scotia offshore would look the same as the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore as it relates to health and safety. I would like to hear more detail from you, Mr. Minister. You know, it took us three years - I know you weren't the minister for that whole period, and that's appreciated, but, you know, why did it take so long to get there, because I'm someone who, and you've worked in that industry too, and OH&S is just so paramount when it comes to those things, so could you fill that gap in for me?

MR. DOOKS: Yes, thank you. You know, once again to all Parties in the House and to all people in Nova Scotia and to all people in Canada, safety is very important. Offshore is a somewhat different business than onshore, so it requires different regulations. You know and we know that about three years ago, I guess, we introduced our bill here in the House - I can remember long discussions about that in caucus - and the reason why we introduced it was to clearly send a message to our partners in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the federal level of government, that we are very serious about offshore safety. As you are aware now, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board regulates safety in the offshore in regard to their plan that they put in place in the development plan.

Basically, to share more information on that, we know where we want to go and Newfoundland and Labrador at this time knows where they want to go and together, all three of us, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal government, simply have to agree on all things, and we are coming very close on that. It's just a matter of time that we

[Page 97]

feel, in the department, that Newfoundland and Labrador will introduce their bill and also the federal government, I'm hoping, will introduce theirs.

The point is that the bill is before our House now. That bill will change, you know that and I know that, and that's the process we're going to be involved in. We have put a bill there with the intent to encourage Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government to move quickly on this and to tell them how important it is, but yet at the end of the day when the bill is debated in the House, that's when your Party and the Liberal Party and our Party can amend this.

I hope I'm bringing some answers to your question. It's the intent of the government, it's the intent of the department and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to get this bill in place, but we have to rely on the other partners so that we can have a partnership with them. We do not want someone from Nova Scotia working offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador and there would be a different standard in safety regulations. So, look, we're encouraging the feds to move quickly on it - I hope that your caucus will also write a letter to the federal government to say how important this is.

MR. CORBETT: I appreciate that answer. I guess the part I'm missing here is that in discussions with your department a few years back, the idea - and it was a fairly open discussion - I guess I will paraphrase and say the idea was, look, how about just keeping your powder dry on this, we're working towards bringing a bill forward that when it's brought forward all interested parties will be onside. I took that to mean Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal government, so I'm a little bit worried that today those three aren't in sync and that this bill has to come forward as kind of a push or a shove for those other two parties.

MR. DOOKS: I think I was a little short in giving you my answer. The point is, we do agree with Newfoundland and Labrador now, and the feds, about what's going to be the guts of the bill. The point now is the feds have to draft the bill. It's to that point, and it takes a certain amount of time for these things to go through - you are aware of that, but I think we have made tremendous accomplishments dealing with Newfoundland and Labrador and the feds, and we're just waiting for the feds to draft the bill and we're in business.

So it's a timing issue now. I still want you to feel confident and believe in the mechanism that's in place now, with the offshore board having a mechanism there that's in place. Also, I will tell you, Frank - is it okay if I call you Frank in committee?

MR. CORBETT: Absolutely, Bill.

MR. DOOKS: Thank you very much - I can't let go of that chairman thing.

The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board - I haven't delivered this to the House, but I'm going to next week and I brought it along with me today in anticipation that

[Page 98]

you may have a question, and I want to pass this along. It explains more or less what has taken place in the offshore in regard to safety. It's very clear, some stats here, about what is taking place. So I'm going to give you this to read, and I think this will answer your questions until we get the drafting finished and until we move forward with this.

To be quite honest with you, it has been a real issue for the department, it has been a real issue with the industry, to get this legislation in place and passed. As I said earlier, safety is very important to this government and I know to everyone. So I will pass this along to the committee and you can look forward to having that tabled in the House, and you will be up on everybody, you will know what's coming - you heard it here first, Frank.

MR. CORBETT: There is an assumption I can read, let alone comprehend.

The reason this is a problem for me, if it can be categorized as a problem, is just that well, I have a great deal of faith in the industry and that they police it the best way they can. I'm in no way or shape casting aspersions, but there is the pre-eminent idea around workplace health and safety that the regulator can't be the police officer too, the industry can't either.

That's what makes me afraid here. I'm just a little bit worried when we're waiting on the feds to do something. I'm not saying who's in power, that makes not as much difference as we know how slow those wheels grind. The fact of the matter is that we're in place and I'd be much more comfortable if we knew a timeline - to use that old phrase "soon, very soon." - if we knew what we were dealing with, if the feds would tell our caucus, or indeed the ministry, what type of timeline they're looking at of tabling legislation and hopefully having it pass.

We're in the enviable position, I think, in some ways, of not only having this House in a minority situation, but the federal House, as well. We can also give all our own people a little kick if that was a matter of expediting that. So I would be interested if you would have any idea about timelines or if you took that under advisement and said when the timelines became somewhat clear to you that you would enter discussions with us as much as that would permit.

MR. DOOKS: Earlier on we had a discussion outside the room and I told you that I would answer the questions to the best of my ability and to the best of my knowledge. I don't have a timeline at this point, but when the day comes that there is a timeline in place, I'll share that with your caucus and you, as critic.

Both the federal government and the provincial government have to pass regulations on offshore safety. Believe me, if it were up to us, I would be moving aggressively ahead and, by this time, I would have introduced the bill to be passed in its entirety. What I'll do, once again, just keep this as a priority of the department, keep abreast of any information that would be coming from the federal level, and I will share it with you. It's very important, and

[Page 99]

we do need this bill passed. The minister before me was supportive of this, and I suggest all Nova Scotians are supportive of this.

You're quite right, I said there is a mechanism in place with the offshore board, yes, but we need a set of rules that are firm and one that we can rely on, and as the industry does take a positive approach towards safety, they need the legislation to back up what they're doing too so that certain issues cannot be disputed.

I thought I might have had news for you today, I was hoping I would have news to share with you that this was coming before - at least in the Fall, but at that time, as I said, I just don't know, but we'll certainly move forward.

MR. CORBETT: In closing that up, close the loop on it, our Party would like to be kept informed of timelines, and as this legislation goes forward in both Houses, that this can be done as expeditiously as possible. Like I said, we've been waiting three years on it. I understand what some of the holdups were. I guess I pine for the old days when people clearly defined federal responsibilities and provincial responsibilities. You used to have a Labour Standards Code, and one would be federal and one would be provincial and you knew whose responsibility it was.

We often have, now, troubles when there's a mix involved. I just hope the sooner we can do this, the better. I believe the proponents in the offshore work as safely as they can with the rules and they understand that. It is always good at the end of the day - most drivers drive as safely as they can, but there are consequences for those who don't. I think that's what we want to see here.

Just turning off that, going to last week's announcement on Deep Panuke, I think anybody who lives in the province here, you may disagree about the details and so on but you have to be happy for the overall announcement. We'll always fight over the small stuff, I think, rather than the big picture around Deep Panuke, but beyond the press announcements and stuff like that, I'd really like to see some explanation around - and these are meant to maybe help you, not deter - can you explain to me about the onshore platforms, the construction, what that means and where do you see them going and so on? Also, if you could talk more about the supply vessel too.

MR. DOOKS: I'm a little confused, just repeat the question, please.

MR. CORBETT: In the announcement last week they were talking about the construction of, I think it was two or three onshore rigs . . .

MR. DOOKS: Onshore rigs - five.

MR. CORBETT: Five.

[Page 100]

MR. DOOKS: It's a part of the agreement, yes, okay, I can talk about that.

MR. CORBETT: Where would you see them use that? I like to put my oar to water and say that it will all be fabricated in Cape Breton - that's my ulterior motive.

MR. DOOKS: Cape Breton is important. I apologize, I just had to clarify the question.

Basically a part of the OSEA, in the agreement I think you understand that was for EnCana to support the building of five onshore rigs in Nova Scotia. EnCana is a very large company and it does a lot of drilling on land - I don't know if people are aware of that, but I guess the majority of its work is on land in different parts of the world - they do not own, or I would suggest that they do not own their own rigs for drilling on land, they lease them from different companies, and many companies, because of the record of EnCana, are standing in line to wait for EnCana to enter into an agreement to lease their rigs. So EnCana has a tremendous power, so to speak, in the business world to encourage people who lease to them, persuasion to where they should have their rigs built.

[11:30 a.m]

We've entered into the agreement - the OSEA was that EnCana should encourage companies to build five land-based rigs in Nova Scotia and also to contribute $1 million towards each rig, which adds up to a lot of money, $5 million. The reason for this is to create work for Nova Scotians, and it's very clear that anyone who is in fabrication or in welding, or has any knowledge through a bidding process, would be able to bid for the building of components or parts of the rigs - also which include many fabrication shops in Canso or the Strait area or down in Sydney and North Sydney and so on. The intent of this agreement was to benefit all Nova Scotians, anybody who is in the industry will in return be able to bid for one or more of five rigs.

Each rig can cost anywhere from $4 million to $8 million, so $40 million is a lot of work. So that's one small part of this OSEA, a very important part with the focus of we're going to give you something that belongs to Nova Scotians, what are you going to give to us? So many things have been in place to benefit Nova Scotians, but there have been no specifics on who in Nova Scotia or what area should get the work. We can identify the different places in Nova Scotia that do offshore work, in Canso - or the Strait area I should say, I still call it Canso - and/or Sydney, Dartmouth and Halifax, and some on the South Shore as well. Some small fabrication shop may be in Musquodoboit Harbour - we have a couple of small fabrication shops - when a bigger company gets the tender, they'll tender out small parts of this.

So, yes, people in your area, people in my area, will benefit by this, so it's very important - 30, 40, 50 million, maybe more. Not only that, the important thing is that once the companies get organized to build these onshore rigs, do you think it will stop at four or five or six? No. We have a record in Nova Scotia to be very efficient, to be on time, a good

[Page 101]

workforce, capable, intellectual type of workforce. So this is an incentive to start a brand new industry, as far as I'm concerned, on actually building land-based rigs.

In the past we've focused a lot on offshore development and we are starting to see the benefits, or we've enjoyed benefits of it, but the department has to have a vision, and our vision is to continue to push with offshore development and encourage people through whole things we can talk about later, but also, let's look at onshore drilling. The department recently has given money to universities to do a lot of research on offshore, but research is also starting onshore, and there are actually some places that have been identified now, onshore, for drilling exploration that takes place.

I see a movement in the department to advance on this and to move rapidly and try to get some gas produced onshore as well as offshore. The cost of drilling on land is much cheaper, much, much, much cheaper, so we encourage that.

MR. CORBETT: I think when we see these types of benefits coming, they are benefits when we have these rigs being built here, the question always comes back to the availability of human resources to do this work. I think, as you stated, and I concur with you that we have a very good workforce. We have a bright workforce. We have a workforce that's probably second to none, but we have also seen in the not too distant past, stories from firms from the oil patch in Alberta coming out and taking full classes from NSCC, and taking them out there. I'm always kind of two minds of that, because I wish the work was here for them at the time, but I also wish them well because we've educated them to enter the workforce, and that work happens to be in Alberta instead of here.

I always have a fear, when we see the possibilities of this type of work, do we end up with a kind of black hole here without the availability of trained human resources? I had the pleasure of meeting some folks from Shell a few weeks ago and talking about their play, and basically, they would take everybody we would send them. I would say, look, let us fill our jobs and we'll call you back when we need you, but the reality is I want people employed.

If we're committing, in Canada, to building these platforms, what are we doing to ensure that we have the available human resource to fit those capacities?

MR. DOOKS: Once again, we have recognized that there's a shortage of tradespeople in certain professions. I don't think that's a secret. You're not hearing it here first today. On the other hand, we have very good community colleges and very good universities, because some programs have to be offered in university and then traded off in community colleges. I've been to Marconi Campus in Cape Breton, in Sydney. We have a new community college opening up in Woodside, shortly. The Minister of Education understands there's a shortage of certain tradespeople in certain trades. It's an issue we talk about in Cabinet, and we're making sure certain initiatives are put in place to create seats for tradespeople.

[Page 102]

As I said, when I was down in Marconi Campus, they're to such an advanced position that they're actually bringing exchange students in from countries overseas, Angola, and all over, to train them specifically in the oil-related fields. You have to understand, I guess we've been talking about oil in the offshore for, I don't know, 25 or 30 years maybe, but still it's very new to us. We talk about all the drilling that's taking place on Sable or the offshore, a couple hundred wells, it's a very small part of what's taking place globally. Down in the Gulf of Mexico there are more wells than you could probably count; there are more people available than you probably can count, to work.

We set different standards here, as we talked about our regulations of the offshore. People have to be very talented today to work in this industry. People have to be very well educated, and I believe that we have those individuals in the province now. I believe we're moving forward to train or teach more tradespeople, but I also believe that not everyone is going to go out West or down South who is connected in this business because, traditionally, young men and women will move for awhile. It's not the fact that they're just going out to work in the oil fields, or whatever, in Alberta or wherever. Back in the 1930s and 1940s, people moved to pick apples, and they would return. So this is not something that's brand new to us in Nova Scotia, moving to find employment.

The point is that they do return. We want them to return quickly, but really I think it's government's responsibility to set a climate for people to stay, to educate and to stay and to raise their families in Nova Scotia because we have to value the way of life here. Yes, they make a few more bucks by going out, yes, the big oil companies try to encourage them, but we have a way of life here that we want to protect and most people value.

So a long answer to your question, government is aware that we need spaces and teaching and training in this specific field, and I believe that we're moving towards that by supporting the community colleges and universities.

Getting a little bit away from your question, just recently I made an announcement, as a matter of fact in this room, to major funding for universities to do research in the offshore. That means that young men and women who have finished certain degrees will actually stay in Nova Scotia because of this funding, and do research in the offshore. So I think in this department - I only can speak for the Department of Energy, actually - I think we're aware, we're alert, and we understand to promote the businesses that we're promoting that we must have the individuals to work in that industry, and constantly we're trying to promote that.

MR. CORBETT: I appreciate that, and I guess when I'm talking, I'm not talking about people leaving here on the harvest train and coming back in November, the fact is there is an argument out there around if there, indeed, is a trades shortage and a skills shortage. I would say that is a debate worth having. I think it's always done in venues where the right participants aren't always invited. I would say some of the building trades groups in this province would say to you that there is really not a skills and a trades shortage in many of the

[Page 103]

traditional trades, and one of the large ones would be welding and pipefitting, that's involved in this industry, particularly in the platform construction.

So I think that's something that at some point I would wish that - this is probably larger than your department, rather than just make the announcement that we do have a skills shortage or we do have a trades shortage, I would think we should get some people together and really pound that one out to see where they're at. I've heard broad different views on that, but the fact of the matter remains, shortage or no shortage, companies that are the largest players out in the tar sands, in particular, would basically tell you today that they will take everybody who has a red seal, they would take them out of this province and work out there tomorrow, so to speak.

So I guess I ask this question not so much to get into the debate of whether we have a shortage or we don't have a shortage, but to make sure that we talk about fabricating such things as platforms, that we have a decent timeline and if we're short, or if our people are not in the communities, that there's enough lead time around that that we can certainly either (a) educate them, or (b) hopefully, if they're gone, bring them back home. That's the stuff I would like to put on notice here today, Mr. Minister.

Another project that's going on, and it's one that has had a couple of announcements now and it is - I don't know if you could add any more clarity to it - the LNG terminal at Bear Head. There was much excitement around the groundbreaking, that we saw the possibility of this. That project seems to have more questions than answers today. The argument is not so much is there the resource out there to feed that plant if it's constructed, it's more of a give and take between the proponents that the feed is there, but it's not at the price they want. So have you been in contact with the proponents to see the status and the future of that project?

MR. DOOKS: Frank, I think I was appointed to the portfolio two days when the announcement about Bear Head landed on my desk - had a meeting in the morning and, of course, it was announced to the media. I was somewhat disappointed, as a new minister in that portfolio, that the LNG plant was postponed.

[11:45 a.m.]

I have to be very careful, I'm not permitted, or it wouldn't be appropriate for the minister to speak about their business, as you are aware, but in general terms the department keeps involved with the company, Anadarko. They assured me that this was not a done deal, that they were not finished with it. They have sold some other facilities around the globe, or in Canada - no, it wouldn't be in Canada, around the globe, but they have kept this one. They have spent millions of dollars and they actually have let some contracts out and there are some people actually doing work here in metro. I know, because I was speaking to a couple of chaps on the street and they asked me when the project is going to start up again, that they were doing some work - and that's not through the department but through some guys on the street.

[Page 104]

So they spent $100 million, they are credible. I don't think it's a secret around town that the issue is about supply and resource to the plant - I won't go any further about pricing or what that issue is, that's their business. As a minister, I like good news stories, I think you know that. I like good news stories for Nova Scotians; I like royalties brought in through the mechanism for Nova Scotia, so we can enjoy that.

We keep in touch with Anadarko, anything we can do to encourage them to get moving on this, we are there. The minister is open and readily available to speak to them or to go where they are or to have them come to where I am. So $100 million, yes. So there are commitments; they haven't backed away.

MR. CORBETT: Just to change the focus here, as I kind of warned you at the first. Let's talk about some renewables. Can you tell me how many wind farms are up and operating in the province now?

MR. DOOKS: I can tell you off the bat that we are sixth in Canada. We are leading - for a very small province, I think we're doing a great job. Nova Scotia Power has 41 megawatts of installed wind capacity. I don't see how many units - are you looking for units?

MR. CORBETT: Well, I would say with respect to wind farms, how many locations approximately?

MR. DOOKS: Frank, it's different how it's rated. Are you asking how many are up and running and actually producing energy now?

MR. CORBETT: I'm looking at, for instance, in the last six to eight months, there have been four installed between the Morien and Lingan area.

MR. DOOKS: There are seven, I think seven that are actually installed and producing. Now, there are some applications in place, there are some under construction, so we're not going to count those today. We are asking, how many are up and how many are running? There are seven different locations, approximately. Do you want me to name a couple?

MR. CORBETT: No, that's fine. Where I'm going with this is, as someone who lives just about in the shadow of the Lingan generating station, we see a property tax regime that's really different with those guys, we see where the property taxes on these wind farms are about 14 times the rate of that in Ontario. How do you see dealing with that? We almost go with a grant system for the generating stations that Nova Scotia Power has such as Lingan coal generating station, so isn't this a cost problem?

MR. DOOKS: It's a daily issue for owners of windmills. It's a very real issue. The Department of Energy is dealing with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and with industry, and with municipalities to come up with a plan that's suitable for all. It becomes very complex. You know how Nova Scotia Power pays tax and grants in lieu of taxes. Some

[Page 105]

municipalities think that's fair, some do not believe it's fair. There's that whole utility review forum. I hope you're not going to get on that road today.

What we are doing right now, we have to bring closure to this issue and we have to satisfy a number of people. We have to make sure we gain revenue of them, we have to make sure the municipalities are happy, and we also have to make sure the people in the industry are happy. So we're working with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations at this particular time; as we speak, we're in negotiations.

I suppose you're going to want a timeline on this. I think by Fall we'll certainly have this figured out.

MR. CORBETT: Mr. Minister, the problem is not so much the timeline, it's the money and how it's done. I kind of led into my question talking about living basically in the shadow of the generating station. The infrastructure that gets harmed by having that there, if time permits we'll talk about the delay of the scrubbers, but the fact that the infrastructure - where I see, the road I live on gets constantly beaten up with large trucks and the traffic, yet they have a different taxation scheme than these people who are doing renewables. It seems to be counterproductive. That's my worry.

If you could give me a timeline and a rate I would be through the moon. Maybe I wouldn't like the timeline, maybe I wouldn't like the rate, but it would give us something more accurate to argue about. That's the problem. It's almost where you give with one hand and take with the other, and that's the frustration around this. I suppose the best I could say about it today is, I wouldn't mind putting you on notice about that, for the purposes of time.

Now, the WPPI program, the Wind Power Production Incentive, the federal program expires next Spring. Has your department discussed the possibility with the feds to extend this program?

MR. DOOKS: Yes, we've been in touch, and have been lobbying the federal government - is a better word - to continue with this program. That's the only answer I have for you. Of course, it's important. Understanding that it's a new federal government, there have been some issues that they're having, that they're dealing with. We're being very aggressive to make sure the incentives will continue. We feel confident and comfortable that they will. It's about some of the programs, EnerGuide, for instance, getting back to that just a little bit, that they've stopped promoting. Some type of plan will come in place, but in anticipation of nothing happening we have gone on to develop plans ourselves.

You have to be very careful - the department is moving ahead with our plans and we certainly wish to have the support of the federal government, and some of the plans that they partner with us are huge dollar amounts and, if we're short that, we have to try to work around that. With that particular program that you're speaking of, we believe that the federal

[Page 106]

government is going to continue with renewables. I can't see how they couldn't, Frank, I mean that's where we are today.

MR. CORBETT: How do you see us meeting our targets - wind energy that's going to be brought online through the Green Energy Framework, are you happy where we're going?

MR. DOOKS: Are we happy? Yes, at this point we're happy. There are certain requirements that are being put in place, certain requirements are being met. Because we're happy, does this mean we're going to stop with incentives and/or with certain targets? No, we're going to encourage Nova Scotia Power who must, by 2013, have 20 per cent of their energy supply to the grid through renewables. At this point I would hope to think - and Howard may know - they're producing approximately 10 per cent; by certainly 2013 we require 10 per cent more. This has come around by series of talks of stakeholders, it's not the government saying you must have this by that, they're on target to have the stuff. Do we want more? Yes. Are we moving towards better incentives, new incentives, to enhance our old programs? Yes, sure.

MR. CORBETT: I guess we all want more . . .

MR. DOOKS: Yes.

MR. CORBETT: . . . when it comes to green renewables. I guess the question is, how aggressive are we being in pursuing that?

MR. DOOKS: As I said, I do believe that we are moving ahead and we have a budget to work with. Would the department like more money to work with? I guess I can answer this question guys - yes, remembering that Nova Scotia is a small province with not a very big population and we have a certain tax base, but our government has been generous, been responsive in giving monies last year and monies this year for certain programs for our Green Plan. We want to discourage gas emissions, we want to reduce - I should say we're on par, yes we want more, we want more money to work with, we want more employees to do it, but being in government a long time, being a taxpayer, being a family man, you know that there has to be guidelines, and as long as we're meeting certain targets I think we're doing our job.

Education is so very important when we talk about energy and the Green Plan, whichever term you may want to put on it. It comes from the very smallest part of your life to the very large producers of energy. Simply by turning your light off when you leave the washroom in the morning - 960,000 individuals do that in the province - that's a big saving, and simply shutting your computer screen off at night saves. These are targets that we're encouraging. The Department of Energy has two different sides of it: we're trying to encourage the production of the usage of certain fossil fuels - you know that - but, on the other hand, the other side of the department is very aware in providing education and incentives for people to use energy efficiently.

[Page 107]

What we're trying to do is that we have to have energy to live. I mean, every day we have to have energy - industry would not be able to move without energy, and from industry comes a whole lot of good things, but there's a shift here in saying how can we reduce the cost, how can we be more efficient, how can we be less dependable on fossil fuels, how can we promote renewable energy sources? Isn't it the move of society now, almost through osmosis, or because of the education that's being put forward for people to become more aware of saving energy? This is coming through programs in our schools, coming from programs in our communities, and coming from certain programs from in the department, so on and so forth.

MR. CORBETT: When you talk about your department as being a promoter from both sides of the equation, I think what most Nova Scotians are coming to, the idea of conservation is always - it's something that, I think, when we deal exclusively with fossil fuels, we know there's a limited resource there and the harm it does to our overall environment.

Talk about Smart Energy Choices, that's a $10 million line item. The cancellation of the energy-wide federal program, I think it must be $6 million or so left in the balance, what do you see doing with that, promoting interest-free loans?

MR. DOOKS: First of all, as I said in my opening comments, to not to have the support of the government at this particular time, I'm still hoping, if that's an appropriate term, that by Fall they will come with a program to assist this. Smart Energy Choices, it's an umbrella in which part of the government EnerGuide was a part of that, underneath that. Also, there's an education proponent to that, as well. So there's sort of this Smart Energy Choices, and it breaks all down in different ways, to the fact of some of the money we've given universities for research comes from that dollar figure.

[12:00 noon]

We have had many discussions on the department, and I always, I guess, speak to timelines, as much as I don't share some of them with you. The cancellation of the feds on the EnerGuide was two days, I think, before the provincial election, or a day, it was right there within the timing of that. So I can remember that quite clearly, on the doorsteps, being the Minister of Energy, you know - we put in applications, where are you going? Energy today, in at least the area I campaigned, was up front as much as some other issues that I won't speak of here today.

So what we're doing, that $10 million figure, we're putting our departmental provincial EnerGuide program in place. It's not finalized yet, but we know that 25 per cent of Nova Scotians are planning energy-efficient upgrades over the next 12 months. So people are sitting in their homes and saying, well, how can I cut down on my light bill? How can I cut down on my fuel bill? Well, this program from the feds is not there anymore, what are we going to do? So we're going to try to put a program in place.

[Page 108]

Our funding in that program was up to $1,000 in partnerships with the feds. Now, that federal portion is not there. I guess the question is, how are we going to replace that federal portion if it doesn't come?

So these are things that we're working on. I can tell you that whenever it is put together, Frank, as a critic, of course I'll inform you. I had made that comment to you. So under Smart Energy Choices, it's still the belief of the department that this money is worth it, that it's productive money well spent on education and certain other programs that make homes more efficient and more adaptable to the will of society today.

MR. CORBETT: This is a vision not just with your department, but your government often talks about - and the type of housing stock that would benefit most from these programs are obviously the older homes, and it's part of keeping seniors in their own homes so, you know, you don't have to stretch the bow that long to realize that there's a serious connection there. I'm a firm believer in that this has a real circular economic effect and it does a lot of good, it keeps seniors in their own homes. It allows those homes to be more energy efficient, less reliant, less dependent on fossil fuels, plus it allows our trade sectors, in particular small job contractors, to be employed. I think that should be an area that's looked at in a very serious light because it does have a circle effect in a lot of areas in which your government has talked about in its Throne Speech, not just dependent from your department.

MR. DOOKS: Yes.

MR. CORBETT: Mr. Chairman, how much time left?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time is 12:01 p.m.

MR. CORBETT: It's 12:01 p.m., and I have how much time left?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Until 12:12 p.m.

MR. CORBETT: I want to talk to you about one of my favourite neighbours and that's the Lingan generating station. There was much fanfare last year when they announced that they would be building precipitators at the station and it was similar to your statement just a few moments ago, Mr. Minister, the announcement that they would be delaying the installation of those precipitators happened late, I believe, in the last election campaign. It's primarily I think, in discussions with Nova Scotia Power that there was a disagreement by some about the technology. There was a disagreement by some of the larger users about the overall cost and, therefore, the benefit and who would be absorbing those costs.

I guess the question I want to ask you today is, how involved is your department with making sure that these precipitators are installed, that they're done in a timely fashion, because I'm going to tell you, it's something that, you know, besides the road infrastructure that I think has always been a problem with the amount of traffic especially as it relates to

[Page 109]

heavy equipment in and out of the Lingan generating station, the large problem with the lack of those precipitators is the fly ash and so on coming out of those stacks. As much as the neighbours want to be good neighbours, it's really frustrating when this happens, so can you bring us up to speed in your discussions with Nova Scotia Power and where you sit now with your . . .

MR. DOOKS: Yes. I guess I'm going to try to be very clear on this. I know you're very aware of what's going on. The department was in discussions. It's our responsibility to make sure that the reductions in emissions are completed by 2010, or something like that - and is it our business to dictate the method which they use to do that? I don't think it is. There are stakeholders involved here. They have a warrant, so to speak, to reduce the emissions by 2010.

I think the mechanisms they use are scrubbers. I think they cost $170 million, something like that - don't quote these figures because these are just some numbers. That's a lot of money. It's very necessary they reduce their emissions and they have to do it by 2010. Nova Scotia Power, I believe, is with the Utility and Review Board and that board has been set up, an independent board, to determine the argument. The bottom line, I guess what you're asking is, what is our position? We believe by 2010 they should reduce their emissions as stakeholders should and that the Utility and Review Board has to do their job, and we encourage them to do their job and do it in a timely fashion.

As you know, the Utility and Review Board, we can't dictate on this issue, wind power, or any of the other issues - independent boards, set up by government that have certain timelines. The Utility and Review Board may seem to move slowly sometimes, and we sometimes criticize it, but the reason why, there are certain mechanisms put in place that they hear from certain people that they are able to gather all information to make an informed decision.

So I guess the answer is that it's important to us. We keep abreast of it, we follow the progress; 2010 is still almost four years away.

MR. CORBETT: I guess my worry about that, Mr. Minister, is that Nova Scotia Power, it's not so much that it's in the process over at the Utility and Review Board, the fact that Nova Scotia Power has basically called a time out and said look, we have - what we want to do now is go back to the drawing board and we want to try to resolve these issues before they are in front of the board, rather than argue with the opponents at the board level.

I guess my question to you is, if that's moving forward - are they coming to your department and seeking if not guidance, at least some direction of where to go with this?

I appreciate that you - once it moves into the realm of URB, that kind of leaves everybody's ballpark, as it should. I want to know if Nova Scotia Power came back to you and

[Page 110]

said look, we're kind of on this time out and here's what we're looking at and here's now going to be our timeline.

MR. DOOKS: Have I had a personal discussion with Nova Scotia Power on the advancement of this, no, I have not. Departmental people, of course, are involved in this. I have had discussions with the department on this - $170 million, should I be quoting that figure? I mean that's a lot of money, and I'm just trying to recall what the cost of it is.

Now who's going to pay the $170 million? Of course the consumer will pay, or the shareholder, or however you want - ultimately, Nova Scotians will pay for this remodelling. The stakeholders, I believe, are the ones who really want to move slowly to make sure that everything is in place and on line. I don't think in this one it's Nova Scotia Power that's moving slowly, I think they need to address it, I think it's the whole mechanism that's in place.

When the $170 million bill comes to focus, there will be issues surrounding this. So your question is, have I been speaking with him? No, departmental people have. I will copy this one down and if there's a more up-to-date evaluation or status report of what I'm saying to you today, or that $170 million is off, or whatever, I will send that to you personally.

MR. CORBETT: The debate out there now, Mr. Minister, is they've been told by some other people to go and look at different forms of precipitators. One is a salt-water based, and another group is saying, look, you go out on the market and buy a more energy-efficient level of coal. Don't buy petroleum coke, don't buy this, and buy coal that's lower in ash content and so on, and has more BTUs. The fact of the matter is, as much as I may not be a fan of Nova Scotia Power, I don't think they can reliably say that there's any real way you can project in the future what the price of the best grade of coal is going to be over the next number of years. So you can go out in the marketplace, I think, and buy a 10-year supply of coal at a certain level of BTUs. I think everybody would be more happy if we could do that, and that doesn't seem to be the . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has elapsed, honourable members, for the NDP caucus. Certainly, Mr. Minister, you can respond to the question, if you would like, before we move to the Liberal caucus.

MR. DOOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to, before we move to the Liberal caucus. I would like to thank the member for his questions. I believe they are very important questions and I hope I have given you some level of comfort in answering his questions. I would say to the member that if he has further questions and would like to have a meeting with me, I am prepared to meet with the critic of the caucus, and also EnCana. I don't know if I maybe have neglected to say to your caucus members that if you wish to have a briefing by departmental people on EnCana, where you are very interested about the land components and all those things, and about that OSEA, we are very proud of that OSEA, but if you would like to have a briefing yourself or your caucus, please correspond with me and

[Page 111]

I will make sure the departmental people respect you in doing that. So thank you very much for your time, I appreciate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, honourable minister. The time is 12:13 p.m. We will now begin questions from the Liberal caucus.

The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, congratulations. I believe these are your first estimates, so you seem to be holding up all right at this point, so we'll see after about another 14 hours how you're doing as we go through your estimates.

Interesting, as I walked in, you were talking about the URB. Let me start off with that. You understand that Stora, the situation that's being faced in the Strait area, first of all, they indicated to the government quite some time ago - your department, I'm sure, was made well aware of some of the challenges facing that facility, number one, being the need for a new labour agreement, number two being the need for a new agreement on taxation for the municipality. Both of the first two have been achieved. The one outstanding is for predictability and stability in power rates.

[12:15 p.m.]

This is not a new issue, this is an issue which I remember meeting with Stora .We had been invited in, all the area MLAs and municipal officials, back in, I would say 2001, 2002; it was before the last election, so it was before 2003. Back then, we were given those concerns. So your government has had a significant amount of time to be able to address some of those concerns. Now, as we all know, there have been a number of increases awarded by the URB to Nova Scotia Power during those years. We have raised concerns each time as to what impact this was going to have not only on Nova Scotians, but on the business community and on our competitiveness as a province. The former Premier and the current Premier both chose not to take any sort of action in addressing these continued increases. Now we find ourselves in the possible situation of one of the largest employers in our province not resuming their operations either this year or possibly not into the future.

One of the final stages is a new request for electricity rates that has been presented to the URB. Our caucus has requested that the URB hear this matter prior to September. Your government's response, to date, has been a refusal to make any sort of overtures toward the URB to hear it at an earlier time. My question to you, as Minister of Energy, is it your position that you have no intentions of asking the URB to hear this matter before the scheduled September hearing?

[Page 112]

MR. DOOKS: Thank you, member. First of all I should congratulate you on your new position in your Party. I wish you success and wish you well.

As Minister of Energy, of course, I'm aware of Stora's issue. I would like to say that the department is supportive of Stora getting back on track, getting back to work employing people of the community and the benefits that Nova Scotia gained on a whole.

Member, there are certain processes in place in which governments have to respect. My answer to your question, as much as I want this issue put to bed and as much as I want compromise put forward by all parties involved, all stakeholders, as Minister of Energy, I must say that the Utility and Review Board must abide by its own policy.

September is the date on which they sit, and a decision would be made or come before the board in September. There's a mechanism in place, and there's a reason why that date is there. You're aware of that. The date is for all partners, all stakeholders for that process to take place. As much as I would want for this issue to be resolved, and resolved quickly, I must honour the position of the Utility and Review Board, to make my position clear.

MR. SAMSON: I always find it interesting when I hear you or other members of government talk about the importance of respecting the URB process. I often am reflective of the situation over the Chester decision, which we all recall. The URB went through the process that you just identified, and the importance of respecting the process and the importance of respecting their procedures. They did that. They rendered a decision. Your government did not like the decision. The member for the area, who was a Progressive Conservative member, did not like the decision. So your government went through the process of overturning a URB decision, which had never been done in the past. So with all due respect, sir, when it was politically convenient for the Tory caucus to overturn a URB decision, you did so. That's the first point.

The second point is, if this was a matter that the URB had never heard before, that the interveners had never heard before, I would agree with you that there are timelines in place that have to be respected. With all due respect, if there's one thing the URB has experience in hearing, it is power rates. Let me tell you, from what I have seen, there is nothing new in the applications that have been submitted that is suddenly going to require all of the interveners who are there for every rate application to have to spend weeks or months reviewing. The interveners in place have been intervening for quite some time. They are extremely competent. They do a good job raising the concerns they raise. They have the data. It's not a matter of them having to go and start the research all over again because of this application.

With all due respect, there is very little new information in this. So I can't see why the URB could not have asked the interveners, under the request of the government, to see if it would be possible that they would be able to have their presentations prepared at an earlier

[Page 113]

date, recognizing that most of these interveners have been doing this for years, and they have the information at their fingertips that they require for these hearings.

Why did your government not at least request the URB check with the interveners to see if there is any way we can speed up this process in light of the fact we've been dealing with power rates for the last number of years? In fact, we've had three increases in the last two and a half years. Why would you not have at least requested the URB to poll the interveners to see if they would agree to an earlier hearing date than September under the circumstances that I've listed, and let me add, 600 jobs, and one of the largest employers of this province, the future is on the line? Why wouldn't at least that have been done?

MR. DOOKS: I certainly respect the position of Stora on this, but understanding, member, that Stora has just presented their proposal or argument to the Utility and Review Board just within the past week. When we talk about September 5^th, that's two months from now. Nova Scotia Power put in their proposal some time ago. The Utility and Review Board, I would think, have a position, or working on that file, but Stora itself - and you can correct me if I'm wrong - I believe Stora just put in their proposal here last week, if I can recall. That's a brand new proposal. There would have to be consultation, a stakeholders' process.

The whole issue, as I said, speaking on behalf of the department, I would like to have this issue resolved, and I would like to have all 600 people you mentioned back to work. I'm confident that there's a process, I'm confident that the process will take place, and we'll have to

abide by the process of the Utility and Review Board.

MR. SAMSON: You're being specifically told the process isn't working?

MR. DOOKS: Pardon me?

MR. SAMSON: Your government has been told the process is not working, and the process, as proposed, with the timelines, will not allow that facility to reopen this calendar year. So you've been told that. So rather than take any sort of action, instead you're sitting back and saying, well, there's a process to be followed and we're not going to deviate from the process, whereas you've done so in the past. In fact, you've trampled all over a decision of the URB in the past when it was politically convenient to do so.

As for your timelines, yes, Nova Scotia Power filed their application last week, Stora Enso filed their reply this week, so within two weeks that was able to be done. Now we have to wait two months before we even get the hearings started, and I would submit to you that I can't think of one intervener - and I'd welcome them to tell me if I'm incorrect - that's going to spend the next two months researching and getting data on the application file by Nova Scotia Power and Stora Enso.

[Page 114]

These people are very competent. They're professionals at what they do, and they have that information already. It's the same information they've been using for rate hearings, and I'm sure they're updating them, but I can't think of anyone who would need two months to prepare for what Stora Enso has filed, or what Nova Scotia Power has filed. So unfortunately, Mr. Minister, I just can't accept the reasoning that you're using. I just don't understand why your government wouldn't have at least made the request to URB to poll the interveners and see if they would be willing to have that hearing take place at an earlier date.

Let the URB say no, or let an intervener say no, it can't be done, but why at the minimum would you not commit to making that request of the URB, because at the end of the day, the interveners may say we're ready to go in two weeks, and we can start this hearing in two weeks' time, not two months' time. Why would you not at least make that request?

MR. DOOKS: I thank the member for his comments. The position of the Department of Energy, and I am the minister of that department, is we believe in the process. We're concerned about the issue. We recognize the different partners that are involved in this, and the Utility and Review Board has given a date of September 5^th. In saying that, they made a commitment to pass their comments, or judgment, if you will, of the outcome of the process quickly, and I have to trust that they will.

I am not the Chairman of the Utility and Review Board, and I don't mean to speak on their behalf, but if you're a Nova Scotian today, if you're a Maritimer today, an Atlantic Canadian today, you understand the importance of this. I would bet that they want to allow a certain process to take place, a fair process to take place, and they want to be quick in their response for the good of all Nova Scotians, and I have to stand behind the process of the Utility and Review Board.

MR. SAMSON: Would the minister, in light of the arguments I've just made, be prepared to request the Chairman of the Utility and Review Board, or through the minister, that they poll the interveners to see if they would be prepared to hear this matter prior to the September date that has been proposed?

MR. DOOKS: Honourable member, I'm not going to agree to your request. I have to believe in process. I have to believe that they are very aware and very sensitive of this, and I don't think it's government's business. That's my position on this as minister, it's not government's business to dictate to the - I know where you're going to come with this, but I'll say it clear, it's not my position as minister to dictate to the Utility and Review Board their process to change the rules midstream with an independent board member. You know that. You know the guidelines they work under, the mandate they have. As a matter of fact, it would be somewhat out of character for a minister of a department to request that. If that should go and be a request of the House, then that's a different issue. You're asking me, am I going to request it? My answer to you is no, but I do hope that this is resolved in a timely fashion.

[Page 115]

MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, Mr. Minister, that's a cop-out on your behalf. It's a cop-out by the Premier. When the issue was raised with him, he turned it around and said it's not the role of elected officials to be intervening in the URB decision. No one has asked anyone to intervene in the URB decision; the request has been made to ask the URB to speed up the process, not the outcome. So with all due respect, that was a cop-out by the Premier when he said it - it's a cop-out today when you repeat it, with all due respect.

I'm just curious - and I note your remarks about the importance of the integrity of the URB decision - that being the case, can you explain to us why your government would have overturned the URB decision on the Chester decision? Based on the comments you have made about protecting the integrity of the URB process, why didn't you protect it in that case?

MR. DOOKS: I don't have an answer for that question. We are here in estimates in regard to Energy, although I do recognize and respect your right to ask other questions. The member who, I believe, introduced that bill at that particular time is not a member of this House. I believe that was a process that was introduced through a bill in the House - am I correct in that? I believe it was passed through that process, a somewhat different process than what we are dealing with here today.

I understand the importance of this issue to you, I understand your position and you have a right, as a member, to state your position on this, but today this minister stands behind the process of the Utility and Review Board as an independent board with a mandate that's not dictated by government. As I said, and I will repeatedly say, I wish we weren't facing this issue with Stora, but it's upon us; I wish that energy costs weren't as high as they are in Canada or across the world; and I wish we had more renewables - all these good things I wish, but we have to deal with certain things in certain ways.

[12:30 p.m.]

You very well know that there's a process to deal with the Stora issue. I feel comfortable that the process is ongoing and that certain applications have been made to that process and, when we talk about September, I know that it's two months away, which is a long time away for people who are out of work, and I realize that, but I hope it works out in a positive way that all stakeholders are satisfied.

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious - and I just need a yes or no answer to this before moving on - did you support the legislation to overturn the Chester decision?

MR. DOOKS: Yes, I did.

MR. SAMSON: Okay. As Minister of Energy are you prepared to support legislation that would overturn the URB decision - should the upcoming decision be unfavourable to Stora and based on any arguments they may make which shows that the URB did not make a favourable decision, would you then be prepared to either introduce or support legislation

[Page 116]

that might possibly reverse their decision if it has a negative impact on the future not only of Stora, but so many other large employers in our province?

MR. DOOKS: Member, are you asking if there was a bill introduced in the House to reverse the decision of the Utility and Review Board, would I support that bill?

MR. SAMSON: Yes.

MR. DOOKS: I would have to say that you know the process as I do in the House - the bill is introduced and there are certain avenues which a bill must go through and certain arguments have to be made, all three Parties have an opportunity to debate that bill and I think it would be premature of me, as an experienced member of this House, to make a decision here today, what my decision would be before I heard the arguments of the bill.

MR. SAMSON: You would be prepared to consider it?

MR. DOOKS: I'm prepared to consider any decision, whether I vote for or against the bill that's before the House, not specifically only this one, but any one. That's not saying that I suggest there should be a bill or that I promote there should be a bill. My answer to your question would be clear - if there's a vote in the House on any bill, I take my seat and vote on it.

MR. SAMSON: Thank you. In the fiscal year 2004-05 it was estimated that the province would receive only $30 million in offshore royalties; by the end of the year that number had grown by $100 million to $128 million. Could you indicate to us why that number grew by such a large amount and, more importantly, how you were off so much in your projections?

MR. DOOKS: Yes. Well, there's a mechanism in place in which industry deals with the department to project certain revenues of royalties, and because of the markets - just give me a second. Well, basically, there's a mechanism in place that we determine how much royalties come in. As I repeat again, we have talks with industry, the department, and with people in the Department of Finance to set that. It's a good thing for Nova Scotians that more money has come in through royalties. Basically, the quick answer is because of gas prices. They have hit an all-time high and, of course, with monies coming in off royalties, it goes to the Department of Finance into the coffers for the budget.

MR. SAMSON: Did the extra $100 million get placed against the debt of the province?

MR. DOOKS: Pardon me?

MR. SAMSON: Did the extra $100 million get placed against the debt of the province?

[Page 117]

MR. DOOKS: The $830 million went directly to it, but the $100 million, I believe, goes to the coffers of the province.

MR. SAMSON: It went into general revenue?

MR. DOOKS: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: For the fiscal year 2006-07, you budgeted an estimate of $288 million for offshore royalties in the May budget. Now, that's more than double from the previous year, yet our offshore industry has seen little or no growth, with the exception of Deep Panuke. Why are you predicting such large royalties for this fiscal year?

MR. DOOKS: Two answers. The figure that has been adjusted is $280 million projected at this time. We had first thought it was $288 million, but revisited, it's $280 million. There is a royalty regime, it's a revenue royalty regime, and we are moving through that with the Sable Offshore, and also because of the high cost of gas, the price of gas. So we are benefiting, in one sense, because of gas prices in the United States and we are stepping up in the regime, or the regime of Sable.

MR. SAMSON: In May you said $288 million, two months later in this new budget you have decreased it by $8 million, so in two months you went down $8 million. Number one, why? Number two, can we expect more decreases as we continue to go along?

MR. DOOKS: The projections, as I said earlier in my remarks, we meet with industry, the Department of Finance and the Department of Energy people all the time keep an eye on the revenues coming in off the royalties. The difference in gas prices has made a difference in monies that will be collected. The good thing is that we pointed that out, we have been upfront with that and said hey, we've lost some revenue here and we will deal with that.

Our aim as a government is to gain as much money as possible off the royalties. That's good for Nova Scotians and it's good for the economy, the work that's related to that. So that's not necessarily a bad story, it's a good story when you're up from the low, one-time of $30 million to $280 million, whichever way you cut that, that's good business.

MR. SAMSON: Good business and good luck, to our benefit, I guess. Over the years our province has received, unfortunately, a significant amount of revenue from offshore licence forfeitures. Last year you received $43 million, and the year before it was $61 million. I'm wondering if you could tell me, what was done with that revenue?

MR. DOOKS: Once again, it goes into, as I will say here today, the coffers of the province. This is the bank of the province, it goes into, for expenditures to be taken away from.

[Page 118]

Lease holdings is what we can say, there is a mechanism in which we go out and encourage people to lease certain parts of the offshore for exploration. There is a mechanism in place in which they have to pay so much money. If they don't do the work that's required on that lease within a sufficient amount of time, then they have to forfeit their monies. It's sort of like no different than putting a down payment on a piece of real estate on land - if they don't buy it, if they don't work it, then they have to return it to the owner.

We own assets in the offshore. The companies come in, they decide they are going to do some exploration there. They put their money up and, if they don't, they have to give it back. This is not something that's different from any other place, I think, on the globe, it's a process that takes place. We do gain revenue.

MR. SAMSON: Could you tell me, of that over $100 million that you received in licence forfeitures in the last couple of years, how much of that money was used to reinvest in helping spawn the growth of our offshore industry?

MR. DOOKS: It all goes to general revenues, but you have one, the Department of Finance, holding this money and through different programs within the Department of Energy, such as Smart Energy Choices or whatever, we can draw on, through budget, those monies. I know recently I made an announcement of funding to universities, in which the University of Cape Breton received money, a certain portion, and that money would have come indirectly, through the coffers of the province, from the offshore industry.

MR. SAMSON: How much was that?

MR. DOOKS: Well, $5.2 million went out to two different research associations - one had to do with environmental issues, and one was more technical, to do with the geology of the offshore, and scientific. Universities of Nova Scotia would partner with these two organizations to suggest to them what they can contribute and what programs they would be involved in, so we have given the money to organizations and then they're dealing with the universities to continue that work.

MR. SAMSON: I'm aware of that. I guess, Mr. Minister, what it comes down to is that basically you've taken those licence forfeitures, which as far as I'm concerned would have been a golden opportunity to reinvest money back into our offshore and in the understanding of the industry and the geology, and you're telling me that of that over $100 million you pretty much reinvested 5 per cent back into our offshore - do you not think that we should take the opportunity to put more investment into understanding our offshore than a mere 5 per cent?

MR. DOOKS: Well, I don't want to, you know it's not just about the money that we spent in announcing and giving money to universities, but we have the whole Department of Energy, and the work of that department is to promote our offshore. We have very capable staff who are there; we have scientists within the department; and we have the core lab that's over in Dartmouth - we fund it $1 million.

[Page 119]

Look, at this particular time, remembering that this department is relatively new too, I believe we have some very capable people. There are different announcements that it has made. So we can't confine monies from forfeitures going to only investment in universities, we have to look at the department. We have to look at all the workings of that department; we have to understand the commitment of the people within the department wanting to promote the offshore - and the employees and staff of the department, since I've been there for a few months, have taken ownership of creating prosperity in the offshore. These guys in that department are very capable, very intelligent people, and they have a background in the industry. They know the industry and they promote it; they go on trade shows and they speak one-on-one with industry people. So, member, that all comes out of cost, and that cost comes from the coffers.

MR. SAMSON: Could you tell me what the total budget is for your department?

MR. DOOKS: It's $20 million.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, $20 million. Only 20 per cent of that over $100 million of forfeitures is going back into Energy, so even if we look at that, Mr. Minister, your entire budget, the 5 per cent you send to universities, you're up to about 25 per cent. Let's be generous and give you another 5 per cent and say 30 per cent, or if your staff wants to add a few more percentages, you're still well over half of the money from those forfeitures that could have been reinvested into a better understanding of our offshore industry - you chose instead to put it into general revenue instead of fighting to have that put into your department.

Now, I understand you haven't been there very long, so obviously somebody else was making these decisions prior to you arriving there. But I'm just curious, if we are going to receive more monies for forfeitures from the offshore, is it your intention as minister to finally start asking that that money be directed towards better investments in our offshore industry rather than just maintaining the status quo with the department that you have, with all due respect, with probably one of the smallest budgets, at $20 million?

MR. DOOKS: It's not the intent of this minister to state a status quo position, but to advance the development of the offshore. When we talk about monies in budgets and the coffers, we said we would put so much money into running the department, so much into promotion. We also have to understand that from the money of the coffers in which some of these forfeitures went in, we have the Department of Education that is responsible for paying for the teaching and training of tradespeople who work in the offshore. So that's a contribution. We also have to make sure that the Department of Health has certain amounts of money to make sure people are healthy, and that would come from the coffers.

So, you know, is this not all a part about promotion of the offshore, to have trained, healthy, capable people in the offshore promoting it? So if you take the monies from the royalties, if you take monies from the forfeitures, you put them in the coffers and we all benefit.

[Page 120]

As you've said, I've been a new minister for only a few months, but I'll tell you I've been here a long time, and I've never read anything that we do not share the benefits of the coffers of Nova Scotia. We all contribute, taxpayers contribute, workers contribute, youth contribute, seniors contribute, and then we have a certain amount of money that we draw from to provide certain services. I would say, my message to you today is that I enjoy being Minister of the Department of Energy. I have capable staff. We've had some good-news stories, and I'm going to continue with good-news stories, but status quo is not in my vocabulary, honourable member.

MR. SAMSON: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Minister, you had me with education, about the importance of offshore money going for education to promote the offshore, but I have to tell you that's the first time I've heard anyone saying that promoting healthy living is what's going to promote our offshore industry. So that's a first, I have to say.

MR. DOOKS: Well, you heard it here first.

MR. SAMSON: I've seen how many Ministers of Energy now?

MR. DOOKS: You've heard it here first, member.

[12:45 p.m.]

MR. SAMSON: I think we've had five or six Ministers of Energy and I've heard interesting things from each one, but promoting healthy living is going to help our offshore, that's a first, I have say. I have to tell you, I think that wins you an award for the stretch of the year on that one.

Mr. Minister, the point is, if you're not speaking up for it, who else is going to be? That's the point I'm trying to make to you. You have one of the smallest departments. Our offshore industry, with all due respect, has been abysmal. We're a one-trick pony.

We can talk about EnCana, we're looking at 2010, that's another four years and that's assuming everything goes as planned. Our experience with that project in the past shows us that everything didn't go as planned before. We can only hope they're on a better track right now. Sable is still the only project that we have here in this province. We continue to have gas come ashore. We don't have enough supply yet to justify a fractionation plant. That's still waiting. The attempts to bring LNG are encountering difficulties, unfortunately, at the same time. So you've had one good-news announcement, with all due respect, but things have not been good in your department and they haven't been good for the past seven years.

If you're not going to push to get changes made, the status quo, with all due respect, hasn't been working. I don't question the competency of your staff or their dedication, I've seen it for myself, but the industry is clearly saying there is not enough information about the geology of our offshore before they're prepared to make those investments. That's not a knock

[Page 121]

against any of your staff or against you, that's an indication we have more work to do. More work means more money. It means more investments. It means if we're going to have this industry be significant, we need to be able to make the investments necessary.

Having one of the smallest budgets of any government department is not a good sign of that, and seeing that your one department has been the beneficiary of over $100 million, unfortunately based on people abandoning our offshore, rather than turn that around and make significant investments back in our offshore, your government has instead allowed it to go into general revenue. So unless you speak up for it, I don't know who else is going to, because your Cabinet colleagues, based on their previous decisions, have apparently not invested the amount of monies required based on what the offshore sector is telling us for here in Nova Scotia. Again, not a knock against your department, but if you're not asking for more money, I'm not sure who else is going to be.

Let me ask you this. Are there any offshore leases left that we might be seeing forfeited in the foreseeable future, or have we used them all up?

MR. DOOKS: You've certainly said a lot. Just before I answer that question, making reference to the head of a department with the smallest budget, I don't think it really has to do with how much money that department has as much as how that department spends the money, and I would like to say that our department spends our money wisely.

You criticized us for not having enough information for investors to be friendly with the province, well, as I had just said earlier in my comments, we've put $5 million into universities for research, and the reason we did that was to - and also I must say I've ramped up $1 million for the core lab to supply data on the Internet for investors across the globe, we have a mechanism in place that in a short time investors will be able to look at the geology, core samples and data to determine if they'd be interested in making an investment in the offshore. I think that is not a status quo movement, I think that's money that has been well spent . . .

MR. SAMSON: If I could you ask you this, Mr. Minister, why did that take seven years? I don't disagree with what you've done, the problem is we're seven years too late. We've lost seven years of industry being able to obtain that information, so I guess my question to you is, why would we have waited seven years for something which we needed seven years ago and we've needed every year since for industry to be able to do exactly what you've suggested will be done with that information - why seven years?

With all due respect, $1 million when you received over $101 million in the last two years - again, the big picture.

MR. DOOKS: We just contributed $1 million - that core lab has been there for a long time.

[Page 122]

I'll tell you, you raise good points, and my reason to be here is to answer your questions. The industry, unlike other industries, is changing. It was common for industry to do their own research, to do their own investment in research and development. I don't think they really wanted research that was supplied by someone else, for different reasons.

Times change, and the industry is changing rapidly. Seven years ago we were in the initial stages of using the Internet to find out data, seismic testing has changed, technology has changed. The message that we're sending from the department and this government is we have an offshore that has something to offer. You should ask, what do you have to offer? Well, we have stability; we have a government, a department, and a people that do not change the rules of the industry halfway through. We have a stable government in our country, unlike some countries, they know they can invest their money and that they're going to gain a reward back on their investment. I'm very proud in saying that.

As a matter of fact, you talked about seven years, and I think I only have to answer back to three years in this process - I don't know, to lighten it up a little bit, I guess. But anyway, the point is, why hasn't it been done? Well, it's a new day, it's a new focus, this is where we're moving.

Forfeitures? Yes, we still have leases out there. Can someone forfeit? Yes, there's a process in place that . . .

MR. SAMSON: Are you expecting any of . . .

MR. DOOKS: Not to my knowledge, I'm not expecting - just give me one second - okay, as far as I'm concerned I haven't been in any talks with anyone that would forecast that they're going to have a foreclosure. There's a process in place when it nears it, that they can get an extension, but I have no knowledge of forfeiture coming soon.

MR. SAMSON: I appreciate your answer and I hope you'll understand our frustration with this - we've had to watch for the last two years the Minister of Finance, in giving his quarterly updates, brag about a surplus and balanced budget based on people abandoning our offshore industry.

I don't know how someone can put a silver lining on that, but somehow he managed to do it two years in a row. To us, it was sad to see that we were being able to balance our books based on people abandoning our province, abandoning our offshore, and that's why I was curious to see if that was going to take place again. As I mentioned before, what a golden opportunity to make more investments in our offshore, instead it went to balance the books.

Before I move on to something else, and I don't want to be argumentative with the minister, I know he's sincere, but let me tell you this from what industry is saying that I've heard. I believe you are the fifth or sixth Minister of Energy. That department was created back in 2000-01.

[Page 123]

MR. DOOKS: In 2002.

MR. SAMSON: In 2002. So if you're the fifth, you're averaging a minister less than a year. That is not a message of stability. With all due respect, you made the comment that government doesn't change the rules midstream. You might want to check out what Cabinet was doing last week on Sunday shopping rules about changing rules midstream and what message your government was sending to all industry in doing that. Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your statement that your government, the Department of Energy has been showing stability in ministers, stability in the way you've acted, your most recent actions just don't show that. It shows the exact opposite of stability, it shows the government changing the rules midstream, affecting business. With all due respect, I can only hope you remain in your portfolio for more than a year, because that way you'll probably have the distinction of the longest-serving Minister of Energy since that department has been created.

As I move on, let me just say that the actions (Interruption) Time will tell that. But let's just say the Department of Energy, your argument that it's a department of stability, your government's actions send the exact different message. Industry continues to say the minute we get comfortable with one minister and we figure that minister understands where we're coming from we got another one. Not a criticism of who your predecessors are, unfortunately I don't think anyone has been left in that ministry long enough to have a true understanding and could send a true signal to industry that we're open for business, we're here to work with you and we're here for the best interests of Nova Scotians. That's just a reality to the fact that you're number five in less than four years.

MR. DOOKS: May I?

MR. SAMSON: Sure.

MR. DOOKS: I don't want to take your time but I'd like to get into a little - I know I'm the fourth minister. You're sort of leading me a little bit in saying - when I talk about stability, I'm talking stability in regard to policy. Industry likes to understand and acknowledge that policy is strong, and stability is, politically, in a country that is strong financially, and so on and so forth. I don't think I was saying, when I talk about an industry, people from Europe or Texas or wherever, I don't think I was focusing on how many ministers the department had, but I was focusing on that we have some good strong policies. I talk about our agreements. We have a Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I think that's a reputable board that has gained fame in the industry. I speak, and travel somewhat, honourable member, as you know, and meet with industry people. They seem to like the regime there, they seem to like the process there.

I thank you for the comment about you wanting me to be Cabinet Minister in the portfolio of Energy for a long, long time, I appreciate that. On the other hand, I would like to apologize if I have given you the wrong message when I talk about stability. I talk about stability in regard to industry, in regard to policy, the technique, and also the direction and the

[Page 124]

process we put in place to deal with forfeitures, to deal with licensing, the production of gas, all of those things. A regulatory system, honourable member, I think is what I was suggesting to you. I apologize if you thought I was talking about political appointments, I wasn't.

MR. SAMSON: No, I think the minister sees where I'm coming from, and the industry is indicating its frustration not that they're not happy to see new faces, but the fact that you're at least number four just on my list here. I think of four, there may have been someone interim in there, but you're at least number four. So you're averaging one minister per year. I'm glad, at least, I've given you an objective to try to beat the year mark, if you can.

The EnCana decision you announced last Friday, the royalty agreement, can you tell us approximately how long it took from the time EnCana started this process to when you were able to reach a royalty agreement with them?

MR. DOOKS: The quick answer to that was that we started last Fall, signed an agreement here for the OSEA here last week.

MR. SAMSON: That took approximately eight months?

MR. DOOKS: Yes, but in between that - remember, I wasn't the minister. There was a time when EnCana and the department weren't really progressing on the file. It sort of was a bit of a break there, I believe that's correct. There was some information we were waiting on, so there was a lag time there.

MR. SAMSON: My understanding is that it's Mr. Jim Gogan who represented the province in those negotiations. How much was he paid for that?

MR. DOOKS: Yes. In total, $70,000 plus there's another $20,000 that's not paid that will be paid. This gentleman is an expert in the field that has followed negotiations through the past government, I believe, as well as this one.

MR. SAMSON: Could you indicate what other royalty agreements Mr. Gogan negotiated?

MR. DOOKS: I believe he was involved on Sable, he was brought in under the Savage Government, I believe, and had to do with negotiating a deal - somewhat different - but a deal on Sable.

Are you familiar with him? You must know him, do you? He is known to be - sources tell me that he is an expert in the field. Mr. Chairman, would I be able to request a break for a minute? Would that be all right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have a quick break. The time is now 1:00 p.m.

[Page 125]

[1:00 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[1:03 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will return to the debate. The time is 1:03 p.m. and we'll go for another 14 minutes.

The honourable Leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: The next topic I want to talk about is one that affects us all. We know there are a number of companies and organizations and businesses that are interested in wind energy. One of the long-standing complaints they have had is the amount of compensation they receive from Nova Scotia Power to get on the grid.

They've been here before the Committee on Law Amendments and everything else to indicate for example, both Quebec and Ontario have much more favourable compensation rates in their provinces for wind energy than we have here in the province. I'm wondering if there has been any discussion by yourself as minister or by your department, with Nova Scotia Power, to try to achieve better compensation rates for wind energy, which one would hope would result in more interest in establishing wind turbines in our province.

MR. DOOKS: This is an issue and it certainly captures the attention of the media and people in Nova Scotia and the department as well. The thing that I find funny about this is that Nova Scotia Power has a commitment to have renewables, we'll just take the high at 20 per cent by 2013, so they have to be aggressive on purchasing renewable wind energy.

They've negotiated with these people and industry has signed contracts for 15 years at 6.5 and 7 cents per kilowatt hour and locked themselves in. So what's happened is Nova Scotia Power has gone out and called for interest and bids; industry has answered and they have negotiated this 6 to 7 per cent kilowatt hour for a long, long term and signed the agreement, which is telling industry they're going to pay them this amount for this long term, like interest on money, they're tying themselves in.

Then, after a bit, you hear that they're not happy, yet industry is developing and moving forward with renewable wind energy, signing an agreement is part of their bidding process. Why is that mechanism determining the price at the bargaining table rather than after the deal is signed? That is an issue that I just can't get around. People may say, Nova Scotia Power is forcing them with the price because there's no other utility to buy from, then I suggest there's something wrong with this whole equation.

MR. SAMSON: I'm pleased to say that you recognize there's something wrong with this whole equation, because that is the problem. The fact is, Nova Scotia Power is the only game in town so, yes, there's bargaining, but when you're bargaining with a monopoly,

[Page 126]

there's no other option. You're going to have to take what the monopoly is offering or take nothing at all.

I think there has been an interest in Nova Scotia, like so many other provinces, where people are wanting to do whatever they can to find alternate ways of producing energy and to make wind energy a success. Many of them have been willing to do this sometimes, probably at a loss, in the hope that things were going to get better.

Unfortunately, the price doesn't seem to be changing and unless there's some pressure being applied by your government, for example, to encourage Nova Scotia Power to increase those rates, look at what other provinces are doing and determine what's a fair price, this issue is not going to go away.

While we've had some success in wind energy, if Nova Scotia Power was paying a better rate, your department needs to ask itself how much more success could we be achieving if a better rate was being paid as compared to what other provinces are receiving.

MR. DOOKS: Well, a couple of comments on that. As government, we're encouraging or forcing Nova Scotia Power to make sure that they have certain targets of renewable energy, so industry could look at them having to meet a certain target and be able to be stronger negotiators.

The other thing on this, if they're losing money, why do they continue to move along with this? Wind energy, somewhat different than some business, once they put up the tower, that's a fixed cost other than maintenance and they can project their maintenance too. They must feel, and I'm certainly not speaking against industry, that by taking this 6 or 7 per cent negotiation over 15 years, that it must be sufficient enough for them to pay for their costs with a small investment coming back to them, knowing their cost. It's somewhat different than a trucking company because you don't understand the cost of fuel back and forth, how could you sign a contract to somebody for 15 years?

This wind industry thing is a little different and you know, of course I want industry to make a reasonable return. We're encouraging - and I'm being gentle when I'm saying - we're encouraging Nova Scotia Power by that magic date to have 20 per cent renewable energy in the grid. Also, speaking a little bit prematurely here because there has to be a process put in place, but eventually these guys will be able to sell their power to municipal units. That's going to be a plus to them and I would suggest that they start building the business plan possibly around that.

Member, your concerns are valid. I certainly understand them, but once again we have to understand that wind energy is relatively new here. Also, you have to understand that we're supporting wind energy because we're dealing, or in talks at this particular time to deal with, the assessment of municipal taxes to help wind farm business people. We're encouraging Nova Scotia Power to reach a certain target which is good for wind farmers, we're also

[Page 127]

dealing with municipal units on the taxation and we're dealing with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and industry to get a feel of where we're going on the municipal tax issue.

I think we're certainly supporting wind farms in Nova Scotia, as I said we're the sixth leading wind farm province in Canada. We expect more, we expect more renewable tidal power, so many good things to come, once again I say we're sixth in Canada in wind energy and we plan to be better rated than that in a couple of years. With tidal power, after we get that up and going, I doubt there's going to be anybody that's going to beat us in Canada on tidal power because you know the information in regards to tidal power that we hit on.

We feel for our province that as far as renewables are concerned, we are moving in the right direction and helping industry, helping other than government survive in that very, very new industry.

MR. SAMSON: I hear what you're saying, minister, and there's certainly a number of initiatives taking place on that, but it always seems to be the approach on these issues. The government says well, we're less worse than others and that's how we take comfort because there's people worse than us so we can't be that bad. Rather than being leaders, we content ourselves with being in sixth place. I almost look back at the Finance Minister when he says our credit ratings have been approved, it's a great thing and the media buys it, but when you look at the numbers our credit rating is eighth out of 10 provinces. When you look at the big picture, we're not that good, but we're less worse than the other two. It's the same thing with this, unfortunately that's the approach your government has been taking. We can talk about being leaders, but in reality we're not, we're sixth so we're not leading, there's five more that are ahead of us that are leading. We have a lot more work to do.

One of the issues again on the fact that we're less worse than others, I look at some of the statistics; 60 per cent of Nova Scotians are still dependent on oil for home heating energy, the national average is 12.5 per cent. We're way too dependent on fossil fuels and we continue to be. Nova Scotia Power continues to be way too dependent on coal. The question becomes, what efforts is your government undertaking to make them less dependent on coal? Let me give you an example - and I have a lot of respect for Nova Scotia Power, but they too seem to think that we're less worse off than others so we can't be that bad. Having gone to two of the Point Tupper generating stations, for example, where the manager boasted of the fact that they had a 78 per cent efficiency rate. He said 78 per cent, we're leaders, we're better than all the other plants of our size and category.

The gentleman that was with me said well, what are you going to do to improve that? He said what do you mean? We're number one. He said okay but how long have you been number one? We've been number one for five years. Okay, so you've been at 78 per cent? Yes. Are you not trying to achieve better efficiency? He didn't have an answer. Unfortunately that's where we seem to be, by convincing ourselves we're less worse than others, then we are happy where we're at.

[Page 128]

The problem is that we can't continue to burn coal, everybody realizes it except Nova Scotia Power and the government doesn't seem to be moving quickly enough on forcing their hand to look at other forms of energy. Twenty per cent is a start but it's not the solution. We need to have a much higher rate than that and the 60 per cent figure of dependency on oil is way too high and there doesn't seem to be much movement on that either. I guess my question to you is, we can talk about being leaders but the fact is we're not leaders, not in energy, so what is the government doing to try to encourage Nova Scotia Power, our largest supplier of energy in this province, to try to diversify itself away from fossil fuels to provide energy to Nova Scotians?

MR. DOOKS: Number one, Nova Scotia Power employs a lot of people, it's a major producer of energy and it also has a mechanism in place in which there are shareholders. At the end of the day they have to answer to a board and to shareholders and I would suggest to you that in their department they would realize that the day of dependency on fossil fuels is coming to an end and they would have to take new direction in finding renewable energy sources. I think that would be working within their own department and at least I'm informed they are sensitive to that.

[1:15 p.m.]

As a government, we have to set achievable goals, goals that can be achieved by industry and in doing that we have to look at the cost of energy that is being produced. As a department, we set a climate for renewables, as I talk about assisting wind energy, as I talk about our discussions now with Natural Resources and the Bay of Fundy and the tidal pilot projects, and as I talk about our suggestions to Nova Scotia Power that they meet certain targets of renewable sources. I think the department has to work with industry, has to make sure that the targets that we set out are achievable but also in doing that, we have to set a climate for renewables in our province and I think we're doing that.

We're close now to our last hour. If you recall, we've talked about government giving certain monies to universities, government not standing at a status quo position, government wanting to advance. I guess your question is what are we doing? I think number one the most important thing we've done is that we've recognized that we cannot be dependent on fossil fuels any longer. I had said in a debate not too long ago that I would love to have the answer to turn a switch on and off and to make a bad situation good but I don't have that authority and I don't think anyone else in this room has that. The point is, as a lead in the department, as part of a government that recognizes that we must forge ahead in renewables, we're doing that. Is it at a pace that everyone agrees? No. Is our time up?

CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. DOOKS: I'm sorry member I was just trying to express my feelings in relation to renewables. Thank you member for your time. I would say respectfully to you and your caucus that I've listened to what you have said today. I know that this department that I head

[Page 129]

up may have the smallest budget, but it does bring in a major return to the provincial coffers. Status quo is not my position, and I suggest that, being critic of this department, if you have any suggestions that you might want to give to me to help better our position, not only in Nova Scotia and in Atlantic Canada but all over the world, I would be willing to meet with you at your call and convenient time. I believe it's important for all caucuses to work together to advance our position in renewables, and suggest that we'll be successful if we do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't mind a few minutes of the minister's time. I won't trouble you very long. Mr. Minister, I have in front me the document, Smart Choices for Cleaner Energy. This is a publication of your department. I'm wondering if you can tell me when this document was published? The reason I have to ask is that the date is not on it. I think it's important that we know when these documents are published. I've noticed a number of documents published by not just your department but other government departments over the last year, which just don't have the date on them. This is problematic for the historical record, I have to say. I can't imagine it's useful to you either as a government.

MR. DOOKS: All documents should be authored and dated, I agree with you. October is the date of that publication. I don't have a copy of that with me, but October is what staff has told me. We'll listen to you on that one. From our department - I can't speak on behalf of the other ministers, but from our department from this time on we'll have a date.

MR. EPSTEIN: The reason the date is particularly of some importance here is because it talks to Nova Scotia's response to the federal government's Kyoto commitment. So that gives it a certain context that has changed a little bit, given the federal election in January of this year and the changed policies of the federal government. So this is a little worrisome.

Mr. Minister, I'm having a little trouble, though, figuring out exactly what it is that the Nova Scotia Government is prepared to do, particularly with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. When I read this document, it seems to me that the essence is, measures that are voluntary or it talks about the government setting a climate or doing things on its own in its own property. What is doesn't say is anything about any laws. It doesn't talk about any Statutes that will actually address greenhouse gas emissions. I'm wondering if I can check a couple of things with you. When I read this document, it seems to me several things emerge, and I want to see if my understanding is correct.

MR. DOOKS: Of course, but I would like to just have an opportunity to comment before you ask the question and then you can be relative to that. To my surprise, the federal government has put out a statement that they weren't moving forward at this particular time with Kyoto - I don't have to recall all that - but, indeed, that they're interested in putting a plan out, Mr. Harper's plan or the green plan, whatever name they may put on that. We

[Page 130]

expect, in the department, that we're going to have an understanding of where Prime Minister Harper is going by Fall.

Now, I believe I'm going to Whitehorse for the council meeting. That will be in August. I expect there will be talks there that I'll enter into in regard to the green plan, federally. It's hard for us at this particular point, as you would know, for us to make any certain commitment until this plan is rolled out, because so much of what this plan has to do for the country is dictated to the province. But in saying that, Howard, if I may, we have certainly put in place some certain initiatives, or we're moving in a certain direction, sort of for our own plan in Nova Scotia. We have been doing some positive things already in the peninsula here to help reduce gas emissions.

MR. EPSTEIN: Certain things have been done, that isn't quite the issue. Let me quote to you from Page 7 of this document, "How far and fast we can reduce these emissions . . ." that's greenhouse gas emissions, ". . .will depend in large measure on the rules under which the federal government will regulate large GHG emitters across the country."

To my mind what that means is the provincial department, your department, the Department of Energy that put out this document, is essentially saying that if it comes to laws with respect to greenhouse gases, it's going to be the federal government and it's not going to be Nova Scotia. Now you will know that after the new federal government stepped away from Kyoto, at least two other provinces, including Quebec and I think the other is Manitoba, have come forward and said it doesn't matter to them what the federal government is doing about Kyoto, they are adopting Kyoto as their provincial standards and they're intending to meet Kyoto standards in their province.

So, my question is, is it the policy of the Nova Scotia Government that we are not interested in meeting the Kyoto standards?

MR. DOOKS: Number one, it's rather easy for the two provinces you mentioned to meet certain targets because they don't have the greenhouse gas emissions that we do. We can debate that, but they have a dependency there, luckily, on hydro, so you're not comparing apples to apples. Anyway, well said, and it's intent, I guess, is what you're bringing forward here today.

It is the intent of this department and the government to move ahead and to take this issue very seriously. You know, without us having commitment from the federal government that gives us some guidance and direction, it's very hard.

The word Kyoto is a word that is very popular. Does Mr. Harper - and I'm not speaking for the federal government, don't pretend to - does he agree with Kyoto? No. Does he agree with a green plan for the country? I believe he's very positive about that. I can't get into those discussions here today.

[Page 131]

But, we're in discussions. We're talking about this and I just can't answer your question more than today. We know it's important, we're sensitive, we have a department that's taking this issue seriously and we're doing things already to help the situation regarding bad air and some things that are costing us some money, that's for sure.

I'll be up front with you. I probably don't have the answer you're looking for because it's too premature right now after the information that was given us by the federal government.

MR. EPSTEIN: Minister, the other day in Question Period, I pointed out to your colleague, the Minister of Environment, that Nova Scotia has no laws that restrict emissions of CO₂. I'm wondering whether - in light of what I read in this document that came out last Fall from your department - it's the intention of the Nova Scotia Government not to enact any laws with respect to CO₂.

MR. DOOKS: I hope you respect this, I'm being up front. The Kyoto plan was in place and it has been cancelled or re-drawn or whatever flowery word you want to put on it, but it's not there anymore.

We've been in conversation with the feds and it would be hard for us to advance in a direction without understanding what the federal response is going to be on a green plan or Kyoto or whatever name you want to put on this. We're doing some things in the department now that we hope are adding up.

But, as minister, I'm not ready to respond to your question, bottom line, until I see what the feds are going to roll out. Maybe I'll like what the feds roll out and we don't have to do much, maybe they're going to give us a whole bunch of money. Maybe I won't like what the feds put out and we'll put our own plan in place. But, it's premature at this particular time.

MR. EPSTEIN: I would say to you minister that the problem is urgent and we should be moving on it. The two main sectors that Nova Scotia could tackle are transportation and electricity generation. I want to concentrate on electricity generation just for a minute, as others have with you today. I want to remind you of a piece of history, in 1992, the last time there was a Progressive Conservative Government before the 1993 election. In 1992, the Progressive Conservative Government of the day passed legislation to privatize Nova Scotia Power. Nova Scotia Power is not a publicly owned company. You, as a representative of the people of Nova Scotia, don't own it. It's not something within your control, in the sense that you can issue orders to it, simply by feat of ownership. For the last 14 years, that's a private company.

The role of the government has shifted since the privatization of Nova Scotia Power, and yet the government doesn't seem to have recognized that its residual role is to regulate the private company. I even heard you refer to it this morning, just a few minutes ago, as a department. It's not a department. It's a private company. It's not even owned by Nova

[Page 132]

Scotians. Every year, since privatization, Nova Scotia Power has generated about $100 million of profit that's been paid out in dividends to its shareholders. That's money that's paid by residents of Nova Scotia that flows out of this province. It's gone. That's a lot of money that could have been used to either keep power rates down or adjust emission controls or improve services. Your role is to regulate Nova Scotia Power, and what I see is you talking and your predecessors talking in terms of encouraging Nova Scotia Power or asking them or talking about setting targets, not when it comes to CO₂, actually setting a law as has happened in Nova Scotia for Esso too, that actually limits the amount of their emission. It's hands off, and I don't know why it is that that kind of approach is taken for this serious a problem.

[1:30 p.m.]

Let me ask you something in particular. You were suggesting that the target for NSPI is 20 per cent renewables, to move toward. Is it within your conception, is it your target that in fact there will be a closure of any coal generated power plant? Are you telling us that that's going to happen, or are you in fact going to say to us, it doesn't matter, even if they go to the 20 per cent level, we're still going to be burning coal?

MR. DOOKS: You asked the question in a peculiar way, does it matter? Of course it matters to the government. We would like all energy to be generated through renewables. Is it reality? Howard, not at this time, no. Are we moving toward that by setting realistic targets? I believe we are. So, do I have any knowledge of a coal production plant closing that generates electricity? No, I do not. I don't have any knowledge of that. Does it matter? Yes, very much so. I have to speak to you on that. It does matter. The government does care, Howard. But on the other hand, we have to set realistic targets and we're doing that. You cannot move away from not only setting targets, setting targets is only a part of it. To set the climate for renewables is another part that we're doing.

As we said, the wind farmers will be able to sell to the municipal units. That's a benefit. That's a credit type of thing. Are we setting a climate for bringing gas? Let's talk about the peninsula, it's important, Howard, but you're just zeroing in on Nova Scotia Power. There's more than just Nova Scotia Power when you talk about the reduction of gas emissions.

MR. EPSTEIN: This is, in fact, the crucial player in the equation and this is something that, really, we have to get a handle on. I'm not only looking at scenarios in which we don't close any of the coal-fired generating plants, but I'm wondering about the scenario in which we open a new one. There was discussion this morning with your colleague, the Minister of Economic Development about proposals for the Donkin Mine. Now, in discussions with him, the expression was used, if the Donkin Mine opened, he was quite adamant that the correct phrase is when the Donkin Mine opens. To use his phrase, when the Donkin Mine opens, where is that coal going? Is there going to be a new power plant built to burn that coal?

[Page 133]

MR. DOOKS: I don't have any knowledge of a new coal-burning generation plant opening. Once again, it goes back to the dollar amount. The amount of coal that we burn doesn't change because a new mine opens up, just that where we buy that particular coal may. For instance, today, any industry that was going to burn coal to produce energy of any sort, it would have to be very clean coal. I think that's important.

To answer your question, no, I'm not aware of another Nova Scotia Power plant opening using coal. I'm not aware, I don't know what they're talking about, no one has mentioned it to me. Once again, as far as Donkin opening up, it is an avenue to create employment, not all good things come from that. On the other hand, I don't think it's going to encourage more coal being burned to generate more electricity simply because there's another coal mine. I don't see how that adds up. Coal is coal, it takes so many tons to produce so much. The hopeful thing is it's some good coal and it would burn cleaner.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I encourage you, minister, to keep your ear to the ground and to be very alert to this possibility.

Minister, in legislation in front of the House at the moment, there is a proposal to designate your department as the lead agency with respect to climate change. I think that's in one of the government's reorganization bills, I forget, it was introduced by the Minister of Finance. It's going to be your department, apparently, that we'll be looking to rather than, say, the Department of Environment, to actually continue to take the lead on climate change matters. Judging by this document that we were quoting from a few minutes ago - the Smart Choices for Cleaner Energy document - it looks as though you've taken up that role already. You're already writing policy about that.

I'm concerned about how it is that this mandate is going to be taken up. Is there some new initiative that you have in mind? Or, is this document that we have from last October going to be the blueprint so far as you can see into the foreseeable future?

MR. DOOKS: Yes, the Department of Energy has been the lead department as far as greenhouse emissions or talking about climate change. This bill that you speak of is in the Financial Measures (2006) Bill. It just clearly defines under legislation the responsibility of what we're doing, so it's a housekeeping issue but it doesn't change who's handling the file on climate change. Climate change is under the auspices of the Department of Energy and this is just certifying that it is so and that it's not an agency whereby it falls under that department. Is that clear on that?

So, getting past that, the Department of Energy, the minister of the department is in charge of climate change.

MR. EPSTEIN: That's fine. I don't think we need to pursue the reassignment of duties. I'm simply encouraging you to take a much more aggressive stance when it comes to those duties that do come within your bailiwick. This is an important issue, I know you see

[Page 134]

it as such. What I worry about is, when I deconstruct this document that's in front of us, it seems to essentially imply all measures short of actual help.

Actually accomplishing what it is that's necessary is going to be more than setting goals and talking. Nova Scotia Power has shown itself for many years to be highly resistant to changing the way in which it generates electricity. The examples you gave, for example, about access to the municipal market, this is the problem of access to the transmission lines and the problem of wheeling, is at a very small level. A very small percentage of the marketplace is proposed to be opened up through wheeling in which non-utility generators - those that aren't Nova Scotia Power - can have access to the transmission lines in order to sell directly to customers who are attached to the system.

To say there's a municipal marketplace there, I think really is a small percentage of what it is we're looking at.

MR. DOOKS: It is a small piece, but it all adds up. Excuse me for interrupting, but all the pieces add up. Anyway, carry on, I'm sorry.

MR. EPSTEIN: It doesn't add up quickly enough. This is my worry and my worry is that the department is not being aggressive enough, and I just encourage you to work much more aggressively than these documents indicate and also to consider using the tool of Statutes. If you're involved in federal-provincial discussions about this, I urge you not to give up provincial jurisdiction to the federal government if they're not prepared to use Statutes that are going to force emitters to reach very significant targets.

MR. DOOKS: It's very important, I agree with you on that.

MR. EPSTEIN: Good luck with the talks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Preston.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: I want to ask you quickly, and I've just got one or two questions here, you indicated - which I think is a very positive thing - that the municipalities are going to be able to buy energy from the wind generating, green energy, I guess you would call it, or whatever.

MR. DOOKS: Yes.

MR. COLWELL: Is the province going to deregulate our transmission to do that?

MR. DOOKS: Well, I'll tell you that has been an issue that has been up for discussion for a long time as well. I'll tell you the approach we're- I can't answer that, that's not under me, but I've been in discussions. When any type of an initiative is taking place, it has to happen slowly so that we can protect everyone's interests. I think permitting regulations,

[Page 135]

renewable wind energy to the municipality, is a step in saying, hey, you know, we're looking at different avenues to help people save energy and reduce costs. So I'm not giving you an answer that we're moving to deregulate that, but yet we're moving forward in initiatives to help people save energy costs.

If municipal units - how many municipal units are there, five or six municipal units- well, if they can get their monies at lower cost, it's a start, but I can't answer. (Interruption) Yes, yes, Alan has just told me that the grid, I guess, is already opened, but it's still regulated, open access, but it's still regulated under the Utility and Review Board. Now, I'm just going to take a moment because I'm a little confused. Excuse me. (Interruption)

It's one of these things, a good question. The system apparently is open, the grid system is open, but the Utility and Review Board does not permit anyone to sell to it, is that the appropriate response, or it limits people who are able to sell. Now, it's complicated, is the reason you're asking the question so that people can generate and pay for a usage of the line? Could you be a little bit more specific?

MR. COLWELL: I just asked if the province is considering deregulation, total deregulation?

MR. DOOKS: No, it's not regulated.

MR. COLWELL: How then are you going to change it so that these- and I think this is a good move.

MR. DOOKS: Yes.

MR. COLWELL: I'm not saying it isn't, I think it's an excellent move actually. How is the province going to guarantee that these people are going to be able to do this and do it in an economical way? For instance, if Nova Scotia Power owns all the transmission lines, the poles, and all those sort of things, they're going to want a fee for using their system I would think, and probably entitled to it, but again that's not for me to say. How are you going to do that to make sure that the people who do generate- and I'll just use wind energy as an example- get a higher price than they are getting now because the price they're getting now isn't- you already had that discussion, you don't need to answer that again- isn't as high as it probably should be for whatever reason? How are you going to make sure? How's the province going to guarantee, or set the environment I should say, that the people who do generate electricity with wind, or other renewable resources, get a really good return on their investment so they'll want to invest more and make more and more available in the province?

MR. DOOKS: The Utility and Review Board have already set a tariff for anybody who wants to use the grid. So if Nova Scotia Power should decide to increase that, they don't have the ability to increase it unless it goes before the Utility and Review Board. So that's the answer to that question. As more and more renewables come on line, there will be more stress

[Page 136]

put on Nova Scotia Power to allow or permit through a process of people selling to the grid but, once again, the tariff will determine the cost of using so many megawatt hours to travel such a distance.

MR. COLWELL: So that there's access to the grid, the basic issue is, if I get this right and correct me if I'm wrong, that if I'm a wind generator and Nova Scotia Power generates in their conventional way, whatever they do, it's whose meter you put actually on the house that really is going to control who bills whom? So if I've got the right to put a meter on the house and charge somebody for the electricity to get to their home, or to their business, or whatever it could be, is that the issue we've got to address? I'm just trying to nail down how you can make this happen.

MR. DOOKS: Yes, that would be where we leave the grid and it goes back to who has the right to sell power to individual residents and that would have to be what we're calling deregulation on the system. So before I was a little confused on just the grid, but now we're talking about who has the right to sell. So that would have to be deregulated which would enable anybody generating power to sell to a customer. That's not in place and we're not going there at this point, because that was back to my earlier question when I was talking about deregulation. There would have to be a long process and many hours of discussion with stakeholders, policy to protect consumers.

You can imagine if anybody who wants to open up a little diesel shop that has a generator can do five or 10 houses, there would be these things springing up all over the place and there wouldn't be anybody who would be in charge of customer service and whatever. So if that should come, there would have to be many discussions and policies surrounding deregulation of the selling of power rather than the transfer of power.

[1:45 p.m.]

MR. COLWELL: Let me get back to my original question then because I'm a little bit confused here.

MR. DOOKS: Yes, I'm all right on it now.

MR. COLWELL: And I can understand why because it's a complex issue, it's not a simple issue, and I appreciate the answers you're giving. If that's the case, how are you going to set the vehicle in place for these people who generate power, outside of Nova Scotia Power, to sell to the municipalities without deregulation?

MR. DOOKS: Yes, well, a little difference there, you see, municipal units own their own utility. They own it and they set (Interruption) Yes, six municipal units in Nova Scotia own their own utility, just like it used to be at home years ago. They set the rate. As a matter of fact, they determine how much - they're in negotiation with Nova Scotia Power to set certain rates for them to buy the power to supply. So they buy the power from Nova Scotia

[Page 137]

Power and they supply it to their municipal unit. Then they can determine what rate they're going to charge the consumer to recoup the costs of what they paid plus other costs that would be related in doing that. (Interruption)

Yes, so now the good news about this wind generation is they'll be able to buy power cheaper from the wind energy people, I should hope, than they had from Nova Scotia Power because Nova Scotia Power is buying it, bringing it up and transferring it down. So they'll be able to buy it from the renewable sources and simply pay a tariff for using Nova Scotia-owned power lines. So there has to be a saving, Mr. Chairman, to the consumer. These are smaller municipalities but you can see how they're cutting the middle man out so to speak if they buy directly from wind farms. I suggest wind farms will be erecting the towers next to these municipalities to sell directly to the municipality and the Utility and Review Board sets a tariff amount for the use of the lines. So it should be a win/win for the municipalities.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I agree, I totally agree with the philosophy of it and everything. I still don't understand because if the municipalities are buying now from Nova Scotia Power, they're not allowed to buy from anyone else because it is only Nova Scotia Power that is allowed to sell to them.

MR. DOOKS: At this point.

MR. COLWELL: At this point. How are you going to change it so they can buy from the guys who do wind generating without deregulating? That is really my question. I hope you have an easy answer because I think it is an answer we need "yes" on.

MR. DOOKS: Legislation allows that to happen and that Act was put in in 2004, that would allow only municipal units to buy from other sources. So that is already in place. What we are doing now is formulating the regulation that will control that and we are ready to deal with that shortly. So it is just a timing issue. So the bill went in, in 2004, to say that if you are renewable, wind energy generator, you can sell it to those specific municipal units that are in charge, and they have a choice to buy from them - they are not dictated to, and that would be a choice I suggest they will use because of all the good things in the saving of that, and go to the Utility and Review Board and say we have this many kilometres of line and the tariff on that and it is a mechanism within the municipality. The same as they are going to control that, Keith, the same as HRM sort of controlled the water, the sewer, the utilities, whatever utilities HRM hold in line. I am very happy about that because I think it is a start of things to come in the future.

MR. COLWELL: I agree with you totally and I think it is long overdue and it is unfortunate we have not had this in place in 2004 so some of these operations could get up and maybe even more of them up and going. So anyway, that is all I have.

MR. DOOKS: Yes, thank you, Keith, for your question.

[Page 138]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the minister for a closing statement.

MR. DOOKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time, committee members. I have enjoyed taking your questions. At the onset, I said I would answer the questions honestly and to the best of my ability, I hope I have demonstrated that.

I also would like to tell both the NDP and the Liberal caucuses that I am the Minister of Energy. Any time any of the critics would like to visit with me to bring up new and refreshing ideas, I am open to that. Also, if they so require staff or staff people to do briefings to the caucus on any issue that is pertinent to the day, that I would instruct staff to do that.

I would like to thank staff who sat here patiently and have given me some of the advice and some good stuff, and behind me as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time, I appreciate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E5 stand?

Resolution E5 stands.

Thank you very much, thank you gentlemen.

We will now call the estimates of the Department of Environment and Labour.

Resolution E6 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $30,064,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Environment and Labour, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Environment and Labour.

HON. MARK PARENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I feel very fortunate to be the Minister of Environment and Labour because our department has an incredibly diverse mandate. As I quickly learned in my short tenure, along with a diverse mandate we have a very talented and hard-working staff. In many ways they have restored my faith in the civil service as a calling. I have been so impressed with their dedication, their love for the job, their willingness to go above and beyond for the good of Nova Scotians. I invite the critics to come and visit us at the department any time because I think you will find it an interesting experience and one that helps you expand your horizons. So, please, a warm welcome from my office - at any time you want to come, just give me a call and I'll set it up at your convenience on the topics that you want to get more information about, or just if you want a general introduction to the department because, as a backbencher, I oftentimes didn't have that and we'll do that for you.

[Page 139]

Please give us a call, because Environment and Labour - the environment on human health impacts Nova Scotians in so many different ways, enhances our quality of life and gives us a unique and special quality.

Nova Scotians, as you know, have a very deep attraction and affiliation with the land. I like to tease that we're sort of like lemmings - we may go out West, but we always want to come back home. I was thinking - honourable member, you'd probably know this - of George Grant's comments when he taught as a philosopher here, both of you would be aware, and the sort of unique perspective that comes out of the Nova Scotia experience. Certainly, that touches very much upon their love of the environment.

More than 70 per cent, however, of our province is privately owned. It's important we don't take this gift for granted. That's why this government is committed to a system of protected wilderness areas that represent 12 per cent of Nova Scotia's land mass. As a department, we have a key role in achieving that objective.

As promised in our Green Plan, we're engaged with our partners in a process to establish a comprehensive system of protected areas in the province. We amended the Special Places Protection Act last Spring, as you remember, to reduce red tape and really to make it more attractive for private landowners to offer their land for protection. That action is already paying off. We will soon designate five new nature reserves that have been made possible in part by the generosity and foresight of private landowners who have asked for their lands to be protected, and that's good news for us all. That will mean that 300,000 hectares of Nova Scotia's natural environment are protected forever. In just the past 16 months, about 12,000 additional hectares of land have come into protection and there's more to come.

[2:00 p.m.]

So I'm pleased to say that this has been a success and that this aspect of the Green Plan has been something that is a great success. I'm also pleased to say that I have other Green Plan successes to report. We have expanded and continue to expand monitoring stations for ground, water and air; we have implemented new emission caps to amendments to the air quality regulations; and we continue to work closely with the Department of Energy on climate change impacts and adaption plans. We're a partner in the Halifax Regional Municipality's Climate SMART project to build capacity in the municipality to manage climate change issues; and we're working with other departments to encourage pollution prevention in their heavy operations.

Of course, when you talk about reducing pollution throughout Nova Scotia and other departments, we need to start with ourselves. I remember seeing a sign once that said the best teacher is not experience, but example. So we're doing that in the Department of Environment and we've begun by acquiring hybrid cars for some staff; we're buying printers and copiers that print on both sides of a document to save paper use; we're sorting the waste in our

[Page 140]

lunchrooms; and we have small green bins, for collecting organics, scattered throughout the hallways.

We've not reached perfection as workplace recylcers, but we're on the right road, I think, as a department providing an example for other departments and for Nova Scotians. We do this because we know we could not have a growing, thriving and successful province if we didn't take our environmental management responsibilities seriously - and I know I'm speaking to the converted here on this issue.

We know that without proper care for the environment, our traditional measures of progress are illusions, so we envision a province where health, economic prosperity and environmental management go hand in hand. We believe passionately in that vision; we know that Nova Scotians share it and we want to be leaders in achieving it.

We also, as you know, have an equally important role in the workplace, including a direct responsibility in Occupational Health and Safety. We have some 35 Occupational Health and Safety enforcement officials in our department, and I'm pleased to say I rarely find them in their office - which is a good thing. When I went for my initial tour, which we still haven't finished - of all the people who work in the department, the rooms were empty, the cubicles were empty. The directors were saying this is a good thing, Mr. Minister, because this means they're out in the field doing the work that Nova Scotians want them to do.

They're supported by managers and policy experts who work to ensure their efforts take place in a context that maximizes their effectiveness. Our Occupational Health and Safety division works according to a four-year plan that we update every year. So we have goals, but also long-term goals that will help maximize the health and safety of Nova Scotians.

This year, as my predecessor mentioned at the Day of Mourning ceremony on April 28^th, one of our priorities is reducing violence in the workplace. We understand, of course, that we can't just legislate that out of existence, but our Occupational Health and Safety Division will review regulations here and in other jurisdictions, and consult with employers and employees to see what we can do to make the changes that will produce the results we all want.

I want to stress that our focus is, really, results. One of the things I learned from the department after Westray, is that out of bad, oftentimes comes good. Out of the regulatory environment there, we had a much stronger, more robust regulatory environment. People who know the history of the regulatory environment in Nova Scotia will tell you that the department now is one of the better ones across Canada.

Part of that was to have more regulations and stronger regulations. Our ultimate goal is really not regulations for regulations' sake, but compliance, to get safe workplaces, and that's what we're trying to do, and if regulations are the way to go, if education is the way to

[Page 141]

go, ultimately, that's the end goal. So that's really what we're keeping in front of us all the time. How can we get compliance? Do we do it through regulations? Do we do it through education? Mainly, nowadays, we do it through getting key players to come together and talk and to startegize together. So, compliance is something we're very, very interested in.

The Department of Environment and Labour, the Workers' Compensation Board, the Workers' Advisory Board, and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal are partners in the workplace safety and insurance system. It brings together workers, employers, and agencies, and its mission is to help keep people healthy and safe at work, to ensure against loss, and to support workers' rehabilitation.

As I said, it's an example of this co-operative work that we're trying to do to get everyone together. Ultimately, what I found in my time in politics, is that while we have different ways of achieving goals, we really have the same goals. We want a healthy environment, we want a safe environment for people. So when we get people together, even though they may have different ideas of how to get to those goals and get them working co-operatively, good things happen.

Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriate time to announce a very significant development at the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Louis Comeau, our board chairman since July 2002, has informed me of his intention to resign. I've accepted his resignation with great regret, and he'll be working with the board to set a mutually convenient departure time before August 31^st.

Mr. Comeau - for those of you who have followed his career with the Workers' Compensation Board - has contributed tremendously to the work of the board and he has developed many key programs and initiatives. I want to express my sincere gratitude for the years of public service he has provided the Workers' Compensation Board and the Province of Nova Scotia.

On Mr. Comeau's watch, significant improvements were made to enhance the Supplementary Benefits Program, cancer benefits were extended for both professional and volunteer firefighters, and chronic pain benefits were fully implemented. In addition, the responsibility of overseeing prevention and education was transferred to the Workers' Compensation Board, and the progress on initiatives to improve workplace safety and injury prevention has resulted in an important cultural shift for both employers and employees in Nova Scotia. Perhaps even more significantly, the adoption of the Statement of Principles and Objectives on Governance and Accountability that has ensured a stakeholder-driven board. This goes back to the theme of co-operation and of getting the people who are directly involved talking together, and this will be a lasting legacy of Mr. Comeau's chairmanship.

Mr. Comeau's purposeful style and his ability to work with the department and stakeholders to achieve consensus has been instrumental in moving these initiatives forward. So I extend sincere appreciation on behalf of the province for Mr. Comeau's outstanding

[Page 142]

service on the board and express my personal best wishes to him and his family for a long and happy retirement.

This news release will be going out as we speak, this afternoon.

Now, Mr. Chairman, before we begin detailed discussion of estimates, I would like to introduce the staff who have accompanied me here today. On my right is Deputy Minister Bill Lahey. I was informed before I took over the department that he's one of the best deputy ministers in the province, and I can attest that he certainly lives up to his billing. To my left is Laurie Bennett, Manager of Financial Services and who is a whiz on figures and is going to help us out if we actually do ask some budgetary matters.

Our department's mission is to protect and promote the health and safety of people and property, a healthy environment and employment rights, and consumer interest and public confidence in pension services, and the alcohol and gaming sectors.

So, to help us promote and protect that vision, we have five core business areas. This is, I know, repetitive for some of you, but if you just give me five seconds I will be finished with this.

We promote safe and healthy workplaces, and safe facilities and equipment. We promote sustainable management and protection of the environment and public health. We promote employment standards, fair processes for wage compensation, effective labour management relations, fairness for injured workers, and protection for the interests of pension plan members, which has become a growing concern with our aging population. We protect the public interests with respect to gaming, the sale of liquor, the operation of theatres and amusements, and the distribution of film products in Nova Scotia.

Finally, we support more than 22 agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals established pursuant to legislation that's administered by our department.

So, it's a busy department, an exciting department, and a department that I think is instrumental in improving and sustaining and protecting the quality of life for Nova Scotians.

With that, I am ready to answer your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic. The time is 2:08 p.m.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Minister, as well, for that overview of the department. I'm going to actually be sharing my time, subsequently, with my colleague, the member for Halifax Needham, who is responsible for

[Page 143]

four of the five core business areas of the department which are those that are labour related. I am afraid my questions will be confined to that single area, which is the sustainable and physical environment. I'm certainly firm in the belief that it's one of the most essential areas of any department's business.

As you very rightly pointed out, Nova Scotia is old, long settled, and as you may not have pointed out, it is, of course, a fragile province. There's a great deal of water, this is a very wet province, and because of old settlement and old construction and urbanization, we have an awful lot of leftovers, I guess. We have physical leftovers in the province as well as sort of leftovers of habits, I guess. I know that means that one of the department's mandates is, of course, education.

We have this tension at the moment between rural forms of development and urban forms of development. Both of those have very different impacts on public health and environment, but no matter what, we have the same need and focus on clean air, water and soil. One of the biggest issues that comes out of this, of course, is that of waste disposal. There are so many different areas in which waste disposal has an impact on the environmental health of the province and the public health of its populace.

I guess a couple of those questions - really the simplest, of course, is that of human waste - sewage and septage. I was wondering if you could tell me what is the current status of septage lagoons and compliance, at the moment, in the province?

MR. PARENT: I'm glad you asked the question because one of our new programs is the septage program. It's about $400,000 that we're putting into that program, and that program will offer support for septage operators who want to upgrade their septage facilities to meet changing standards.

We are demanding higher standards, but we're also going to be helping with those higher standards. We're working closely with the sewage lagoon owners to ensure their operations protect both human health and the environment. A survey of these lagoon owners was undertaken in late 2004 to determine their state of compliance with draft 1990-94 regulations, and it was determined that none of them were really in full compliance. So, out of that, we've created a go-forward plan, if you will, to ensure that either the lagoons will be closed, or operating in full compliance with the guidelines within a specified period.

So we are taking this mandate very seriously. We're also exploring new technology, Norwegian technology, dewatering pumping trucks. The thing I want to stress is that we have found problems there. We are solving them, or demanding that they be solved, we're not the ones who solve them, we're the regulators, but we're also offering help for septage operators in order to get their sewage facilities up to the top-of-the-line standards. So we're not just demanding compliance, we're offering some financial help for them.

[Page 144]

MS. RAYMOND: Is there any kind of protection against operators walking away from existing lagoons saying we can't comply? What happens in that case, is that dealt with in the plan?

MR. PARENT: What we try to do with those, we have one case - I don't know if it is the one in the back of your mind - where we have a situation there, and it looks like the operator, in order to meet the demands of the community and the concerns of the community, may not be able to fund that fully. So, in that case, we are going to step in as a department and help out. We try not to do that because these are businesses and it's their job to operate properly. Our job is to be the regulators. I think there is only the one case I'm aware of where that's the situation.

Excuse me a minute. My deputy is a wonderful deputy, but he has the worst handwriting in the world. (Laughter)

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, when I talked about how we moved to an emphasis on compliance rather than just coming in as the regulator and saying these are the rules but really looking at the end goal, and the way to get to that end goal is through co-operation. So that's why we work very closely with these sewage facility operators at the very start, to make sure they don't end up in that situation. As I say, we have one on our plate right now, and it's an expensive proposition when that happens. I don't know if that's the one that you have in the back of your mind, but that's the only one I'm aware of. We're working closely with them at the very start to make sure they don't get into that situation.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, so they may or may not end up as a part of that $400,000 pool?

[2:15 p.m.]

MR. PARENT: They may decide that they can't sustain the sewage facility, that it's not economically feasible for them, that even the incentive we give to bring the new technology is not enough to make it a viable operation, and those cases, we work at closing them out, as long as there are alternatives to accept the waste.

MS. RAYMOND: I guess this would be connected with it. What is going on at the moment with the Aerotech lagoons and the HRM sewage waste? Is that all being headed right now for Aerotech, or is there any excess, and does the department know?

MR. PARENT: They are building a new treatment facility right now which will handle that waste. There is an issue, whether you're going to bring it up in the future or not, it's out there in the news, and that's the transfer of waste between municipalities. That's something that has come to our department as a request from municipalities. In some sense that's really not directly an issue for the department, the department's issue is that waste is disposed of, it's disposed of in a safe and proper manner, but nonetheless, I've been requested by various

[Page 145]

municipalities to meet with their CAOs, or their elected mayors or wardens, to talk about that. We are actually well served in the province. I asked that question of the department in terms of facilities to take care of waste, because in some provinces that's not the case. We actually probably have a little more ability than we actually need in the province right now.

MS. RAYMOND: More capacity and landfills and things.

MR. PARENT: More capacity than we actually need. This whole question of the transfer of waste between the municipalities, as you know, there was private members' bill that was put out there and there has been discussion on it, is something that will generate some discussion in the future.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, that's more the solid waste, I guess, than the sewage and septage, but, yes, that seems to be in short supply, amazingly enough. On that topic too, I guess, am I right in thinking Aerotech is coping at the moment with all of the sewage that's being generated, all of the sludge, and it will be able to continue doing that until the treatment plant comes up . . .

MR. PARENT: A new facility is being constructed that will be able to handle that.

MS. RAYMOND: When will that one be on line?

MR. PARENT: The timeline that I've been given is within the next year to 18 months.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, great. That's very reassuring, I think, for everybody around. One of the things actually, just in terms of co-operation and working with the municipalities - I mean I realize this is largely a municipal issue as much as anything, but I did bring it up even with your colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, that this is an essential piece of infrastructure that one needs to look at, the availability of proper waste disposal in approving development of any kind, whether it's industrial or residential, and I would certainly encourage you and your department to continue a very close relationship with those other layers of government as well as departments.

One of the other questions that I had had was around that big, ugly waste site of course, what is going on at the moment with the proposed incineration or the proposed facility for Sydney tar ponds, that leftover industrial waste?

MR. PARENT: The Sydney tar ponds? Well, we should be getting a report - as you know, the federal and provincial governments are involved in that and the report is coming out in two weeks time, mid-July. I was given July 13^th, but I didn't want to use a specific date because if they're off a day, all of a sudden Mark said it would be the 13^th and it's the 14^th. So mid-July is when we're supposed to be getting that report, and then we'll have a chance to study it. It is July 13th, that's the figure that I thought I had in my mind but, give or take a few days, it will be open mid-July.

[Page 146]

We'll have information at that stage; we'll have the report back and we'll be able to look at it. And so it seems that the process is operating within the timelines, establish an agreement signed between the provincial government and the federal government, and we're going to be nearing some sense of completion on this, which will be good news for those in that area. Since this has been sort of an ongoing saga for Nova Scotia, it would be nice to get that behind us.

MS. RAYMOND: So has the last period for public comment closed then, with this report, or will there be - this report is final or will there be another opportunity for public comment?

MR. PARENT: It's a recommendation to the two ministers. We'll have to study it, the recommendations, what ones we can adopt. Of course - and you probably know this from your own work as an MLA, but I found this on Highway No. 101, and it is open for federal funding, which is good, 50 per cent dollars - but anytime you get two levels, the federal government and the provincial government working together it always makes things far harder to sort of get some sense of completion, but it's looking good. This is coming to, I think, a place where there will finally be some good closure. So the recommendations will come to both ministers and we'll have to discuss it together.

MS. RAYMOND: So there will or there won't be another period of public involvement, is it or isn't it finished at this stage?

MR. PARENT: No, the public consultation has already taken place and that's what will lead to the report.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, that was the question because, as I'm sure you realize, there's a lot of unhappiness in the vicinity about the concept of incineration . . .

MR. PARENT: One doesn't want to raise false expectations but, from what I'm hearing on this report, we are moving forward in a very satisfactory manner.

MS. RAYMOND: Good. Okay, well, keep me posted, please. Waste, waste, waste - boy, I think that's almost it for waste. It's hard to believe.

MR. PARENT: You're not going to talk about biosolids? With the honourable chairman sitting at the head of the table, I thought you'd want to raise the biosolid issue.

MS. RAYMOND: I didn't realize he'd been left alone up there. Well, there is the biosolid issue, certainly, and what is going to be coming up next and I understand that the application was pulled for the Cutten farm area, but I don't know, are there other applications, in fact, going forward?

[Page 147]

MR. PARENT: Not at this time. There are none pending. We all know the story that we're referring to, in some sense it is a good-news story because it used to be a lot of human waste just flushed out into the Atlantic Ocean. So, really, when we're grappling with what to do with it, it means that, basically, we're doing a better job of not polluting our environment. So, we're looking at the situation and, in some ways, the human waste is environmentally better treated than waste from animals, but it is an issue at the department. We did put a stay, and there are none pending right now.

MS. RAYMOND: Can I ask, and I don't know . . .

MR. PARENT: I don't want to interrupt you. That leads to another program that the government is putting forward, and I think it's in the range of $850,000, and this is a program that we're very pleased with. It might not mean so much for you as an HRM representative, but it certainly means a lot for - well it would, because in HRM you don't have to go too far outside of the city core to have people on their own septic systems.

We are having a program that will see grants of up to about $3,000 to help people upgrade their septic systems, to test them, to make sure that they're pumped periodically. So when we talk about human waste, that certainly is a program that we're very pleased about and I think will be of real benefit to a lot of Nova Scotians. About 400,000 Nova Scotians are on their own septic system and aren't on any sort of municipal sewage system. So it's important that we deal with that problem.

We focused in the past on helping municipalities, bringing up the standards, septage operators, as you said, but we now realize that with 400,000 Nova Scotians on their own septic systems that we need to help deal with that. That is a new program that we're going to be rolling out. You gave me the opportunity to boast about it, so I want to boast about it.

MS. RAYMOND: Well that number seems to correspond pretty closely, actually, that 400,000 Nova Scotians, with the 40 per cent of Nova Scotians who, in fact, are depending on wells and groundwater. So, yes, that is a really, really important part of this.

I'm glad to know that there will be some help for people working with septic fields and, as we know, we have some of the oldest housing stock in the entire country here, and that often is accompanied by some pretty darned old waste disposal systems. You may find that $850,000 is eaten up very quickly, indeed. For those who are dependent on wells which are, almost by definition, near to those sewage disposal systems, there are some real, real worries about the safety of the water supply. I know we had the opportunity to talk the other day about the Drinking Water Strategy, which is great progress in, for the most part, urban areas and larger systems, but what is being done about support for people who are well users, and with the cost of testing?

[Page 148]

MR. PARENT: This program is not simply for septic systems, it also gives them water sampling kits, teaches them on water-saving devices, also with oil tanks, it covers oil tanks, as well; so septic systems, water testing and oil tanks. As you said, we have grants of up to $3,000 for repair or replacement of failed septic systems, and we also work very closely with Community Services to align a new program with existing thresholds and clients they have.

It's estimated in Cape Breton, for example, that safe drinking water group included that approximately 40 per cent of private wells had some fecal coliform in it. So it's important that we help educate people on the testing and we provide these water quality sampling kits to them. We could do more, and I know the honourable member will press me to do more, but it becomes a cost factor, of course, at that stage, when you're talking about paying for the testing of private wells.

The other thing that's happening in terms of water and, specifically, with the private wells, it comes in as that federal government has changed the arsenic levels. It used to be that the federal government would do this and we wouldn't do much about it and all of a sudden people would find out and there would be an uproar about it. The moment we find out about these new guidelines - we're part of the interprovincial group that helps work on them, we push this information out to people, how to test, what are the new guidelines, what this means for them. So we're active in that regard, as well.

MS. RAYMOND: My worry, of course, is not so much about the well testing kits and supplying those and the education, but just the basic cost of testing. It's expensive. I think I have mentioned before that I have instances where eight or 10 households in a neighbourhood will agree that once every couple of years they will share the cost of a well test for one of their wells. I don't know whether it's in the budget of either the Department of Environment and Labour or the Department of Community Services, but I would suggest that this is really preventive maintenance for the citizens of the province, to ensure that everybody does, in fact, have access to affordable well testing, because the results are catastrophic for the health system, at the very least.

MR. PARENT: I appreciate your intervention on this point, as Minister of Environment and Labour. Certainly, we can't afford it now, but I think it's an important thing to keep before people. I know the situation of which you are talking about, that there are people who know that they should be testing their wells on a regular basis but just feel that that cost - it's fairly manageable for fecal coliform, and for arsenic it's fairly manageable, but when you get into heavy metal testing, then you're starting to get up into over $125, I think is the figure I heard for that.

So it is certainly something that I've asked about, coming from a rural area and, simply, it's a budgetary matter, in this case. We are doing an educational program, the water sampling kits, and the $3,000 to help with septic systems, which I think is really good news,

[Page 149]

and maybe that's something we need to keep in mind. I appreciate your suggestion for future budgets.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, those testing figures can get well up over $125, I know. There is one area in my constituency where people are very concerned about casual disposal of electronic waste and of fluorescent tubes and batteries, which are essentially household hazardous waste, they're concerned about mercury in the water supply. The testing cost is very, very high for that. Just moving on from that, leaving that part aside, what exactly is the status of any proposals for regulation of the disposal of electronic waste?

[2:30 p.m.]

MR. PARENT: I'm racking my memory on this one, who was the hockey player who came down to visit us? Did he visit your caucus, as well? Guy Lafleur, did Guy Lafleur visit the NDP caucus, as well? It was like a sort of mass, everyone jumped up to get their shirt signed by Guy Lafleur. I remember getting one and giving it as a present to my son who was so pleased to get this Guy Lafleur shirt. Now a lot of the younger people wouldn't know who Guy Lafleur was, but of course this was one of the projects that he has been lending his celebrity status to help support.

We're really a world leader in recycling and composting, and we've had people from across the country - I remember a Japanese delegation coming to look at what we've been doing in terms of waste management. A growing part of waste management, as you mentioned, is how to deal with electronic waste. So we are working with the four Atlantic provinces, the federal government, and industry groups to determine a solution to reuse and recycle electronic waste in Atlantic Canada.

I'm glad you asked, because I'm going to get on a hobby horse now. I will probably get in trouble, but the heck with it. As MLA, I bought a coloured printer. I won't mention the company name. This colour printer cost me $400; a little coloured laser printer to jazz up my letters. It cost me as much to buy the ink supply for that coloured printer as the printer. So it's actually more cost effective for me to junk the printer and buy a new printer because they come with the cartridges already in. So I went after the company and said what do we do about this, because I'm not bearing the cost of junking that printer. To me, to save the taxpayer money, it would be cheaper by about $100 for me to junk the printer but we, as a society, have to bear the cost of that electronic waste. That's why, when I talk about involving industry groups, they need to be at the table working with us in terms of dealing with electronic waste because it is a growing problem and it's something that, as I've said, we're working at with the four Atlantic Provinces, with the federal government, and with industry.

That is what's so important about a lot of the approaches that the department has been taking lately - and it's clear after three or four days I can't take credit for it so I'm boasting about what others have done, and so I'm allowed to do that without incurring the wrath of the Divine God - they really have worked at a collaborative approach and I think that's the key

[Page 150]

in this regard, collaboration, so that's why I brought in that incident. The company I phoned realized yes, we can see that's a problem - part of the problem is that we offer full ink cartridges in our coloured printers as opposed to other companies that just have starter kits. We need to involve industry in any solutions that we have, so I'm glad you brought up that issue because it is a growing problem.

MS. RAYMOND: So at this point there is nothing specific proposed, but you are in contact with manufacturers, retailers and the federal authorities?

MR. PARENT: We've conducted public consultations for a proposed electronic product stewardship program. Those consultations ended April 11^th, we have draft regulations in place, but we really want to try and do this on an Atlantic Province basis because of the size - we're slightly over 900,000 in Nova Scotia - and we want to be able to do it collaboratively because, if we do it collaboratively, we do a better job.

We have done the public consultation on it, we have some draft regulations in place, and we're working with the other provinces. I missed a meeting of the Environment Ministers and deputy ministers just because I was being sworn in that day, and I assume that that was part of the discussions with those other deputy ministers and other ministers on how to take the very best that each province is doing - the best regulations, the best practices, best examples - and to work in a collaborative fashion. We have those draft regulations and, as I've said, we're now just working with our partners in the other provinces to make sure that we have a coordinated approach and the very best approach we can have as a region.

MS. RAYMOND: Do we have any idea when there may be some regulations in place, at least in this province even if we can't get the rest - I understand the motivation for wanting them, but when will we have in place some regulations that do in fact do a cradle- to-grave work on the electronic waste?

MR. PARENT: We have the draft regulations in place - I'm too new to really know the timeline in terms of the other province so I will ask the deputy, who was at the meeting in P.E.I., if we have a timeline on this.

Yes, our business plan specifies that we'll have it done by this fiscal year - by fiscal year it can extend up to next April.

MS. RAYMOND: It will be drafted and in effect, so in fact we can look to that - okay, well that's very reassuring.

MR. PARENT: The other provinces know it's a growing problem and everyone's eager to try and get a solution to it.

Do you know, there's an interesting sort of - well it's on topic - I was fascinated by a business person in my riding who has been pushing the use of hemp. You can actually make

[Page 151]

plastics, and I don't know if you've seen this, honourable member, but you can make plastics out of hemp that are then biodegradable. Now the technology isn't advanced enough that it's used in mass production, but that would be wonderful if we could ever be at the place where these things would be biodegradable - but in the meantime we're stuck with disposing of them properly and safely.

MS. RAYMOND: Well, I think everyone is pretty well aware that the environmental industries have an awful lot to offer to the economic development of the province as well - it's not stupid. I keep telling people the story that my family is from Bermuda, so I'm used to working with 21 square miles of land, which means that you just plain can't assume that anything has gone away, it's all there and you have to certify that it is disposed of if that's the case - I mean even an old car, you have to have a licence signed that it's gone before you're allowed to buy a new car, this kind of thing. The other thing that I take from that, which is actually related to groundwater particularly, is a recognition that the aquifer is not only fragile in terms of chemical content but it's also more fragile than you'd realize here in Nova Scotia in terms of quantity. I'm just wondering if there has been any thought given to planning for the integrity of well fields. We have a growing issue of water supplies being inadequate in one part of the province or, indeed, in one part of the globe, and another part coming to the area in search of water. Has there been any attention given to aquifer planning in approving water withdrawals?

MR. PARENT: We're working across the province - with the protection of watersheds, we're working collaboratively with the municipalities. I knew this in terms of my own aquifer in the Annapolis Valley, which is quite a large aquifer. I was just trying to think when you were talking with the aquifer that feeds Halifax as the HRM.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, there's trouble out there, I think it's in the Sackville-Fall River area; there is, as you say, in the Valley, as well; and there is up at Sydney, in Mira.

MR. PARENT: We're going to be having a science forum, a forum on the science of water in Sydney this Fall. So if you're free, we would love to have you come if you're up there because it's an important thing to talk about, watersheds and the protection of watersheds and aquifer, also the protection of air sheds. This was a new term for me when I was talking with the department, and it's a little easier to determine, with water, what the watershed is, but with air sheds it's a little harder and yet it's just as important. On this one, we are having a forum up in Sydney and the honourable members are all warmly invited to that. It will be in the Fall of this year, and we'll give you lots of notice. I know that those of you who are free will want to come to that.

MS. RAYMOND: Great, okay.

Mr. Chairman, how's my time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You still have almost 30 minutes.

[Page 152]

MS. RAYMOND: Perfect. Okay, great. More sort of spot things that I guess I'm wondering about is, what is the status at the moment of the strip mining proposal at Boularderie?

MR. PARENT: Excuse me, I didn't catch the last . . .

MS. RAYMOND: The strip mining proposals at Boularderie and Port Morien, they've received their approvals but . . .

MR. PARENT: The surface coal mining?

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, sorry.

MR. PARENT: We have received the information for the environmental approval but they still need an industrial approval. We haven't received the information. We are expecting within about two to three weeks that we will get that information to be able to respond.

MS. RAYMOND: You would be issuing the industrial approval? No.

MR. PARENT: The industrial approval, it is not at the regional office, within policy that we set as a department.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, it's the environment one. So we're still waiting on that one. The other mine that everybody is still fairly unhappy about of course is the Black Bull mine. Given the fact that we don't have a Tobeatic Wilderness plan in place either, and the adjacent Black Bull mine, is there going to be any recognition of that in drawing up the Tobeatic?

MR. PARENT: Which one are you talking about?

MS. RAYMOND: The quartz mine, which was at the Tobeatic watershed and the Clyde River watershed. So this quartz mine has been issued its approvals. I'm sorry, maybe that's not a fair question to be asking you from beforehand.

MR. PARENT: Are you talking about the Donkin Mine?

MS. RAYMOND: The quartz mine at the Tobeatic, the Black Bull mine.

MR. PARENT: I remember now, because my predecessor in this office, and also the MLA for Queens, would talk about the Black Bull mine quite a bit, so it sort of came to mind, next to the Tobeatic. There is a good relationship, it seems, between the management committee for the Tobeatic Wilderness area and the owners of the mine now, and they're working together to make sure there's no damage to the environment. So we feel pleased about that relationship. That goes back to a song that I'm going to sing time and time and time again, I hope you forgive me, but if we're going to get compliance on both labour standards

[Page 153]

and environmental standards, we need to involve all the partners. So that's another example where that is working and working properly. That is the quartz mine.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes. It is right beside the Tobeatic, and even though there is consultation, the Tobeatic remains pretty vulnerable at this point. The plan has been drawn up, and I know what a struggle it is to produce a management plan for a wilderness area, but it has been drawn up and I'm just not sure when it's going to be enacted.

MR. PARENT: I think you reintroduced the bill.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes.

MR. PARENT: I was going to tease you a little bit, you need to change the date because it asked me to introduce one before or by June 1^st, which is impossible for me to do.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay. It wasn't my fault.

MR. PARENT: I know it wasn't your fault. I mean, the issue is what you are raising.

We have the voluntary camp lease retirement program, and that has been going very well. We're very pleased with how that has been going. I just got an update on the figures, and it's quite impressive the number of people who are participating in that program. It's a priority for our department, the Tobeatic Wilderness Area. We've extended the response period for leaseholders until December 31, 2006, in order to encourage them to voluntarily take part in this lease retirement initiative, and then we'll make final decisions on that after that. We'll release the management plan by October 31^st, about the leaseholders. So we're pleased with the progress that we have made in terms of the camp leaseholders on the Tobeatic.

[2:45 p.m.]

MS. RAYMOND: You said the 31^st of October of this year? I am not sure I caught the whole sentence.

MR. PARENT: Yes, the 31^st of October, the management plan will be released.

MS. RAYMOND: It will be released. Do we know yet what this is going to involve in terms of the possibility of granting permission for off-highway vehicle use inside a wilderness area?

MR. PARENT: We're working on that at the present time. That has been an issue that my predecessors have both worked at, both Kerry Morash and Carolyn Bolivar-Getson, and certainly is high on my agenda of activity. We want to protect our wilderness areas, that's the bottom line. So we're working at a policy, because right now, as minister, if you remember when we put through the Off-highway Vehicles Act and we sat around here, it was left with

[Page 154]

the minister to grant permission for access, but within certain periods of specific limitations, because those limitations are spelled out by legislation. So I can't just say if you want to drive through the wilderness, go ahead and have fun. There are very specific limitations, scientific collection of data, for example, stuff like that.

MS. RAYMOND: Also campsite leases, yes, access to campsites.

MR. PARENT: Yes, and the camp leases. So we're working in the department on a policy. So it's not some sort of willy-nilly thing by the minister, but that it operates according to a firm policy that's acceptable to the management committees, that is scientifically based, and that bottom line will protect those wilderness areas.

MS. RAYMOND: With the retirement of the campsite leases, too much to ask you how many are left, but is there a proposal, if they're not voluntarily retired by the end of this year what is the plan for the remaining ones and how does that impact?

MR. PARENT: I asked for that, because I had visions of, I don't know if you remember the Doukhobor women who were dragged out of their cells naked, I don't know if you followed that story out West, the Doukhobors - but I said, you know, I don't want to be in the situation where we're doing that. The voluntary retirement plan is working very well though, so we're not going to jump ahead and anticipate problems that aren't going to be there. We'll know further about it, but we're really pleased with how it's proceeding.

MS. RAYMOND: So would it be fair to say that you've got 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 10 per cent of the leases retired?

MR. PARENT: Well, right now it's what, 30 per cent? (Interruption) Oh, we're just about 50 per cent now - I'm going with old figures - and climbing all the time. So it's moving in the right direction.

MS. RAYMOND: Good, okay. Moving on again, I know environment is a broad area so it tends to be a little jumpy here, but we were talking about a couple of different forms of mining and so on and the blasting concerns and, as you know, there is an application right now for a quarry at Digby Neck, for a basalt quarry, and that's going to involve the extraction of huge amounts of material, not just from that quarry but from the province itself. I think that the opposition to that is partly based on the blasting itself and the impact on adjacent marine life, human life, and terrestrial life. It's based on that, but it's also based on sort of a moral objection to the idea of removing large quantities of the province from the province. Can you tell me - we've had the Porcupine Mountain experience and so on - what is the status right now of that application?

MR. PARENT: There's a federal-provincial environmental review that's ongoing. I know that I talked to my predecessor who assured me that that review was at the highest level possible and that it would include socio-economic factors as well as environmental factors

[Page 155]

and that review is due, I forget the date, I know it's due fairly soon. The joint panel is getting all the data they need to hold public consultations and that's the status of that right now. After those public consultations are held, then they make a recommendation to me as minister and to my federal counterpart, too.

MS. RAYMOND: So the public consultation period has not yet begun.

MR. PARENT: It's not yet started. I thought that we were closer to it than we are.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, yes, I thought so too, actually.

MR. PARENT: They're getting all the factual information in place and then they're going to go to public consultation and then the recommendations come back to both me and to my federal counterpart.

MS. RAYMOND: Just out of curiosity - and maybe I should know this - is there any provision for, I mean if this application was denied and if another application was reintroduced that was essentially identical and followed by another, is there any limit on the number of times one project can be applied for, or is there any time period during which reapplications are not heard? Maybe I should know that.

MR. PARENT: I'm not aware of that. I could find that information out for you and get back to you whether a company - I'm just racking my brain because I know there was an incident in Coldbrook and they applied and I think they can reapply ad infinitum, but I'm not sure on that. Let me just check with my deputy to find out.

I'm right, they can reapply, you know, ad nauseam. I know in the Coldbrook case they went back at it twice and, when they got the same answer, that was enough for them because the community - you know, I mean, how long are you going to beat your head against a brick wall? And it's an expensive process for companies too, but there is no limit if they want to keep coming back. That may be something that we need to look at, I don't know.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, it's an expensive process for the community too, so it can end up being a question of the deepest pockets, and that's probably not the way.

MR. PARENT: It's an expensive process for the community and for everyone, yes. The problem, of course, is that situations do change . . .

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, which is why perhaps a span of time between applications.

MR. PARENT: . . . so if it's the exact same application, that's fine, but if they're coming back a year later, sometimes there are differences.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, absolutely.

[Page 156]

MR. PARENT: But right now there's no limit.

MS. RAYMOND: There is nothing, okay. We'll just, I guess, wait to see what happens with the Digby Neck quarry.

One of the other things that there is ongoing consultation about, and we don't seem to be a great deal closer to results - and this may not fall entirely within your bailiwick - is the question around lumbering procedures and clear-cutting and so on, the forestry regulations which are proving difficult, I think, for everybody to work with. Right now we've got 95 per cent of the lumber that's harvested in this province actually is the result of clear-cutting - should I leave it for Natural Resources?

MR. PARENT: You raise a very important issue and I encourage you to continue talking about it. It's difficult for me as minister to respond when it falls under a different department, but please, do continue.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, okay. Well, I won't pursue that too much, but you know it is something that we need to worry about very much in terms of biodiversity, in terms of infestation protection - we're already threatened at this point environmentally and, face it, if people would prefer to look at it that way, economically as well by the results of monoculture and so on. So I guess I would encourage you to discuss this one further with the Minister of Natural Resources. Most of the things that you're having to deal with I guess are, ultimately.

MR. PARENT: There's a strong interface between our department and Natural Resources and the fact that my colleague, who is my neighbouring MLA, will give us ample opportunity to discuss these issues - I'm not sure if we'll always see eye to eye on them, but I'm sure we'll both do what's best for Nova Scotians.

MS. RAYMOND: Maybe I can raise a particular sore point of mine, which is where the Environment and Labour and Natural Resources portfolios have interacted, and that's around this delightful issue of infilling. I mean I keep talking about water protection and drinking water protection and so on, and of course we all know that wetlands are one of those essential filters, natural filters, for groundwater and they're part of the drinking water protection.

MR. PARENT: The lungs, the lungs.

MS. RAYMOND: The lungs, yes, absolutely, or the gills. But we're still losing a lot of wetland. I keep getting, just in my constituency alone, reports of infilling and so on, either infilling or of siltation which is the result of vegetation cutting right up to the edge of watercourses. So there is some real concern about that.

That's the freshwater infilling part, and of course the other part of it is the salt water infilling, which I guess basically touches on the Natural Resources jurisdiction of the

[Page 157]

province, the beaches and those that are designated beaches, but we do have a big, big environmental problem here in terms of coastal zones, the protection of coastal wetlands, as well as the protection of that which you can't deal with, which is the intertidal zone, and I'm just wondering, what does the provincial Department of Environment and Labour see as its jurisdiction in this area in terms of exerting some controls over the deposition of solid materials in the intertidal zone?

MR. PARENT: You've asked two - can I go back to the first question of wetlands and what we're doing on wetlands and then come back to the other?

MS. RAYMOND: Yes. Yes, it is two questions.

MR. PARENT: Projects disrupting more than two hectares of wetlands are subject to the environmental assessment regulations, so not only can I step in, but I have to step in according to the regulations - they are a designated activity under the activities designation regulations. So what we've been doing is we're improving protection for our wetlands by devising a decision-making procedure that helps avoid wetland alteration wherever possible and have sort of consistent standards across the province.

If we can't avoid it and there are good reasons perhaps to go ahead with the development, then we mitigate. Our next thing is, okay, how do we mitigate the impact on the wetland? And then the very last thing that we like doing, but sometimes have to, is compensation. If this wetland has to be taken out, can another wetland be created somewhere else by the company, the developer, which is an expensive process for them, so that Nova Scotians as a whole don't lose wetland - but our first line of defence is to preserve the wetlands whenever and wherever possible.

As I said, we're working on the decision-making procedure that all our various regional offices will have, they'll be able to apply it early, get in on the ground level. I think that's one of the important keys here with developers, with people wanting to do development that will impact wetlands. If we can work with them early on we can avoid the damage to the wetlands, rather than having to come in after the fact, and it's much, much harder to deal with at that stage. This is something the department has been working very hard on. I've been briefed on a couple of cases already about wetlands in HRM, so I'm aware that it is a problem for you.

Rather interestingly, I was approached by one of your colleagues who was approached by a constituent and wanted us to take a wetland out of - my staff don't know about this yet - wetland status.

MS. RAYMOND: I do.

MR. PARENT: I told her that our procedures, whatever cases we can, we protect wetlands; second, fall back on mitigation; and, third, on compensation, and that I would look

[Page 158]

at it in that category, because the wetlands are so important for the environmental well-being of our province.

In the salt water - which is where you ended up in your question and it's an important issue there too - that's generally a federal responsibility. One of the first calls, actually, I didn't even have to place it, it was placed to me, was by the federal Minister of Environment. She promised we would get together and we'd have discussions. Certainly, with the coastline that Nova Scotia has, that issue will be high on the agenda item as we talk together about environmental issues and environmental concerns. Basically, that's in her ball court, and I'll simply be lobbying on behalf of the province in regard with protection of coastline.

MS. RAYMOND: Coherent system of legislation. This is a very, very serious threat around the entire coastline of the province.

[3:00 p.m.]

Some municipalities have adopted coastal management zones. Has the Department of Environment and Labour looked at all at seeing this as a blanket policy, that all the way around the coastline of the province there should be coastal management zones?

MR. PARENT: Again, that's an activity that's mainly DNR. I will work with my counterpart on that one. That's an activity that mostly falls under the Department of Natural Resources, the part that's provincial, most of it is federal. The part that's provincial is DNR, I'll certainly work with them.

Protection of coast lands, access to coast lands. There are some good models out there and there are some bad models, so we want to maximize the good models and minimize the bad models.

MS. RAYMOND: It's also something that affects Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations because there's just no reason why it shouldn't be an element of the Municipal Government Act that where there is coastal land, there is a coastal management planning zone. It's not out of the realm of possibility.

Wetlands, the two hectares, you were saying something about coming in after the fact, and I guess that's the real problem a lot of people are having is, quite honestly, where there's non-compliance. Two hectares is a pretty good size. One could say that perhaps a slightly smaller threshold would be appropriate, but even if you leave that aside. The department has the power to order remediation and removal of materials, but how often does that actually happen? How often would that have happened in the past year? I know you won't know that, but maybe one of your colleagues will.

MR. PARENT: I don't know how often it's happened in the past year, but I can tell you I'm working on a case at the present. I can't talk about specific cases in my capacity.

[Page 159]

MS. RAYMOND: No, just numbers.

MR. PARENT: I'll have to get you that information. You'll be pleased to know that one of my very first acts was to sign off on a PO where we turned down the appeal to develop on the wetland,that was one of my very first acts, so I know there's one. I do have a list of the enforcement actions that we've taken across the department, do you want this information or do you just want me to photocopy it?

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, sure.

MR. PARENT: I'll just photocopy that one.

MS. RAYMOND: I'd be really pleased to have that because this is one of the problems that people come to me with.

MR. PARENT: This will give you - we issue warning reports, summary offence tickets, the long-form prosecutions and, finally, the last stage is the ministerial order. As I say, when you think about it - and I know you'd agree with me philosophically - if we get in early, if we work co-operatively, if we work with education - it's like preventive health care, the only time we want to get to the ministerial order . . .

MS. RAYMOND: We want to know how many vegetables Nova Scotians are eating, right?

MR. PARENT: . . . really, when we get to a ministerial order, we've failed in some senses. So that's where our focus is coming, but I will get this photocopied so you have this data.

MS. RAYMOND: That will be great. How's my timing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five minutes left.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay. I guess I'm just about ready to pass it over to my colleagues in the other caucus.

Again, I know this is another one of the offshore jurisdictions, it's one of those federal-provincial complexities, but I know that this department has been involved and has been invoked a number of times on the issue of seismic drilling. Yes, it's offshore in salt water and so on but it does have an environmental impact on land. Are there proposals at the moment for seismic testing, are there applications at the moment in the department?

MR. PARENT: For seismic testing offshore?

MS. RAYMOND: Seismic testing. Sorry.

[Page 160]

MR. PARENT: It's all federal at the current stage. We have no trigger as a province, it's a federal jurisdiction.

MS. RAYMOND: There's no trigger whatsoever, okay. I know you had been invoked, but okay.

There's another question that I was wondering about, and I know I'm running out of time here. Federal-provincial jurisdiction is around the treatment of wastewater and so on. What kind of standards are there to ensure the infrastructure projects, federally and provincially - I guess usually three levels of government are involved in funding the green infrastructure projects around wastewater, I think public transit is included, and drinking water - what assurance do we have that the most environmentally essential projects do in fact come forward as applications to those programs? The one I'm thinking of specifically is Mahone Bay, which at the moment the Mahone Bay drinking water plant is concerned that they're not going to be able to meet the 2008 deadline. What can you as a department do to ensure that those applications get pushed forward?

MR. PARENT: I'm glad you asked. I was just talking to the Mayor of Mahone Bay and I was talking to the reporter who covered that from the ChronicleHerald. The meeting that they had was a very good meeting, the mayor was very forthright in the problem, but not alarmist in any way. The town is really dealing with three issues relating to the water treatment facility: non-compliance with the water treatment facility operational approval; lack of a water withdrawal approval; and probably the one that I think was in the paper today, elevated levels with trihalomethanes - THMs is the short form for that. Our job as the Environment Department is to monitor that, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is the funding arm that would help fund where there are problems.

All I can tell you from my experience as MLA is that they have been very good. When we have asked, for example, on water treatment facilities in the Village of Canning in Port Williams, we have demanded higher standards, the DNL demanded higher standards, in part because of Walkerton and in part just because of growing awareness of the importance of clean drinking water, and those higher standards resulted in costs to the municipal units and in every case Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations came forward and helped fund the infrastructure that was needed to help meet the enhanced regulations and qualities.

So, I have expectations. Certainly, when I was talking to the mayor, he thanked me for his call, but of course took the opportunity to lobby that we need provincial money, infrastructure money to help meet these standards that you've called for. So I think there's an awareness of the two working together, but that really is not within my department, but certainly I make my colleague aware of that, as I know he is aware already.

MS. RAYMOND: There's something about the nanofiltration system needing to be tested before construction begins at the Mahone Bay site. Is that right? I'm just wondering whether that's something that can be accelerated or dispensed with, as the case may be, a test

[Page 161]

of the technology itself, which is what's making it impossible to meet the deadline? Are you aware of that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has elapsed, but if the minister wants to respond.

MR. PARENT: Sure, I would be happy to answer that question, but I'm not sure I heard it fully.

MS. RAYMOND: The testing of the technology, which is required beforehand.

MR. PARENT: They're going to be using a new technology, nanotechnology, or something, but we will require it to be tested to make sure that technology actually does the job it's supposed to do in that particular instance. One of the good things is that there are a lot of new technologies coming forward to help.

One of the visions that came out of the Premier's Council on Innovation - I'm probably blabbing on too much here so I'll stop. I wouldn't mind speaking about that with you personally at some stage, because I think I just want to make the point that caring for the environment has costs, but there are also opportunities in the development of new technologies that can then be exported, either the technology and the expertise. We've done that with our solid waste management program, which is a leader in the world. So you twigged me on that. The Premier's Council on Innovation speaks about that. So we'll chat about that later, because I think I would like to hear your perspectives on it. I don't want to cut into the Liberal caucus' time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We'll now turn to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Preston.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: I have lots of questions I'd like to ask, and I'm sure there are lots of questions you'd like to answer. I was intrigued by the $850,000, I believe it was, system that you're going to put in to help people with septics and wells and water testing and all that stuff that you mentioned when my colleague brought that up. I'd like to get some more details on that if I could, when it's going to be implemented, for what it's intended?.

MR. PARENT: There was a study done, I think in collaboration with Dalhousie University, where they found about 30 per cent of older on-site septic systems were malfunctioning. So we were alerted to this problem. As I said, we focused in the beginning - you never have enough funds to do everything you want so you have to have focus and do things, so we focused on municipal sewage systems, but now we realize, with 400,000 Nova Scotians on their own septic systems, that we need to move to that. So this program is going to be unfolded. It's part of the budget for this year, $850,000, and it will offer individual

[Page 162]

environmental assessments to homes served by wells, waste water systems and, as I said, up to $3,000 to help upgrade that.

We will get you that information when the program rolls out, which is really I think what you're asking, as MLA for your area, which I know has a lot of people on septic systems, that you would like to have that information on that program, how they can apply, what is involved. We'll get that as soon as we have it. I guess just to clarify your question, when this program is rolled out, you are really wanting to know how residents will be able to apply for it and find out about it, and make application?

MR. COLWELL: Yes, but I'd like to know, now, just a little bit about the program, when it's going to start, and who it's going to be targeted at? Just in general terms.

MR. PARENT: It's targeted, basically, at below $50,000 income, but above the Community Services level, it is targeted at that group of people for obvious reasons. That is who our target is. In terms of the timeline of the rollout, we are looking at a couple of months before we are able to roll it out. It is a new program for us and, as I said, it is one that will be of real benefit to people on septic systems, which almost half the population is on, but it is targeted at that.

We work with Community Services in terms of the standards, but the group that we are targeting are basically - I don't know what term you would call that, but you understand that they are not on Community Services, they are below the $50,000 family income, so this is the group that would find it most onerous to fix their septic systems without help from us, so that is who we are targeting in our program. As I say, it will take a couple of months to begin to roll out this new program for us. It is one that we are excited about; $850,000 won't go nearly as far as we would like it to go when you start looking at it, but it will certainly be a start. It is aimed at septic systems, wells, and tanks, and we are working hard.

I think the oil tank issue is one that may, in time, go away as the insurance agencies - and you are probably aware of this in your work - are demanding that any oil tanks over 15 years be replaced. I have had to deal with that as a MLA, as I am sure you have had, because that causes a bit of a financial burden if a tank is in good shape. I have asked the insurance agency, why are you doing that? I mean why not test the tank and see if it is good, but I guess that they, as insurance agencies, found that oil spills in basements of homes are just so costly to fix that they have imposed this as insurance agencies, separate from us, so we are finding that the oil spill issue is starting to lessen simply because of that, which is outside of our hands.

[3:15 p.m.]

The program is aimed at all three is all I am trying to share with the member, because if you have an oil spill the oil is going to get into the groundwater, so the two tie together.

[Page 163]

I stress once again that it is up to $3,000 - that will be the maximum. A septic system can come in anywhere from $5,000 to $8,000, so it is a good chunk of it, but it is still going to be a stretch for some of these people to be able to upgrade their septic system. It is a need and we are meeting it with this program, and we are quite excited about it.

MR. COLWELL: I think it is a great program that the department is going to do and I commend you for doing that, because you see this all the time - people have malfunctioning septic systems and it is causing all kinds of problems not only for the residents, but potentially well water and the other people in the area.

I would just like to correct you on the cost of putting a septic system in. It starts at $3,000 and goes as high as $35,000 for a new system.

MR. PARENT: You would know better than I would because of your work. But you can get a septic system for $5,000. I guess a lot depends on a lot of factors, as you said. Thank you for commending the department, because they deserve commendation.

When I bought my house ten years ago, the owner I bought it from was discharging all their laundry discharge into the ditch by the road, and we know that there is some of that still going on in the province, so it is important.

As you mentioned, septic systems can go a lot higher, but $3,000, which is the maximum, will help and may be the deciding factor in getting someone to say yes, it is time to improve my septic system.

MR. COLWELL: I agree, I think the $3,000 is a good point because if you made it $10,000 or something, the province would go broke trying to do them all. A limit of $50,000 per household income I think is appropriate, too, because if someone has a couple of kids in the family, and with both people working it is pretty tough to make it today.

I think it is a really good program and it is one of the things that the department, hopefully, will get some good PR out of for a change.

MR. PARENT: Well, I can't take credit for it, but I can boast about it.

MR. COLWELL: Well, that is great. I am going to ask a bunch of other questions here, and some of these will be pretty straightforward.

[Page 164]

On Page 8.2 of the Supplementary Detail there's a line item called Competitiveness and Compliance Initiative. The budget has been increased by $500,000. Could you outline what the $500,000 increase is for?

MR. PARENT: I'm glad you asked about that because that's a program that we're proud of, and pleased with, as well. It's designed to create a regulatory environment that's both protective of things valued, and also streamlined to help businesses and the economy. So, it's really a province-wide initiative, it's situated in our department, and the staff for it are situated in our department, but they have a mandate across government to help with the regulatory environment to streamline regulations, and provide effective service to Nova Scotians and ease the burden on businesses.

It has spearheaded many improvements, developing a common training program for provincial inspectors, testing new ways to regulate on-site septic systems. You will know this in your work, to get approvals for septic systems it used to be a long process for a householder. We have that down to, I think, two weeks and we're hoping to get it down so that it can be done within days, within hours. That's what the CCI program is doing; that's one of its successes, actually. I hate to use the words, red tape, but it's to help improve the regulatory environment. That may mean, at times, that we have more regulation, but focused and good regulation that's streamlined, that's sensible, that's easy to navigate through.

As I said, it's situated in our department, housed in our department, but it's an across-government initiative. I know when I talked to the Premier about this portfolio it was certainly an initiative that was high on his agenda. So it had a start-up budget of $500,000. I can give you a list of what it's been able to accomplish so far - occupational diving if you followed that. I had that because of a diving shop in my - it's had some great success in incorporating awareness training and regulatory activities with occupational diving. It has been part of the success in bringing approval for septic systems down to this two-week period, and we're hoping down to where it will be almost instantaneous.

It will receive another $400,000, I believe, in year two, to bring its total budget up to $900,000 to continue the projects launched in 2004, 2006, to implement a sustained, specialized regulatory training program, to increase our capacity to evaluate potential impacts of existing and proposed regulatory measures, and to get the best models from across Canada and get them working here.

So it is not simply to cut red tape, but to provide the best regulation that's possible. That's what's behind that program.

MR. COLWELL: Okay. Thank you. I have a bunch of these things, again the same, on Page 8.6 in the Supplementary Detail, Administration line, Labour Services, increased by over $237,000. What was that for?

[Page 165]

MR. PARENT: Can you just repeat the question, honourable member? Under the Labour Services, an increase?

MR. COLWELL: Yes, under Labour Services, Administration line, Administration section, under Labour Services.

MR. PARENT: Okay, yes, the Trade Union Act. You remember Bill No. 219 - I should have remembered this - Bill No. 219 had really two aspects to it. It expedited arbitration. Do you remember the discussion we had around this table about that? So it allows for and supports expedited arbitration and also it applies to unionized employees who want to take their own union to task for certain matters. So it has those two foci to it, and processes were introduced that will be effective October 1, 2006. So the increases were for staffing for that program, but you may remember Bill No. 219 - I didn't until I was briefed, then I remembered - we had the big discussion on how arbitration was too slow here and we need to expedite it, and so it has that factor, and also when unions (Interruption) duty of fair representation it's called, when unions want to grieve their own union.

Both of those are in place, that's Bill No. 219, and in order to meet the demands of Bill No. 219, we have that in our budget to hire extra staff.

MR. COLWELL: The next one I have is Page 8.8 under the category Environmental and Natural Areas Management, increased by $782,000. Could you give me the details on that, in particular what's that for? It looks like a good idea.

MR. PARENT: For the administration?

MR. COLWELL: No, it's under Environmental and Natural Areas Management, it's Page 8.8.

MR. PARENT: Our booklets are not exactly - we're working with the same figures and everything, but organized in a slightly different fashion.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, it's actually the section under Environmental Services in the book that we have and the heading is Environmental Natural Areas Management and you budgeted this year for $1,182,700.

MR. PARENT: Yes, that's the Home Assessment Program that we just talked about, the $850,000.

MR. COLWELL: Okay, I thought it might be, but it's better to find out for sure.

MR. PARENT: I really should have the Budget Books here as well, so I could find that information for you faster now.

[Page 166]

MR. COLWELL: Okay, I'm going to ask you something else. One of the budget bulletins from the department indicates that the department plans to spend $1 million for land acquisition for protected spaces. There's not a line item in the budget this year for this that increases anywhere by that amount, so the message seems to be a little bit misleading. If indeed it's going to go up $1 million, where is it in the budget? Do you think $1 million is enough to acquire land? And then I have another question on that.

MR. PARENT: It's under Tangible Capital Assets, under Consolidated Fund. If you want to go to Page 1.9 on the Estimates Book it does show up there - 2006-2007 - $1,025,000. It's not that it's not there, it's just in a different area of the booklet.

While we're talking about that, some of the changes that were made on the regulatory side helped private landowners - these five new wilderness sites that we're designating are no cost to the taxpayer, and that's a real success. We need to have this in here to be able to procure, but these five ones that we're boasting about so much really are gifts to the province because the CCI, which you've just referred to, helped make the regulation more streamlined and therefore helped these private landowners to be able to donate the land to the province for wilderness. So those is no cost to the province, but they're another example of how the CCI program, that $500,000, next year $400,000, is benefiting Nova Scotians. That's different than this figure, but the figure is there on Page 1.9, it's just in a different . . .

MR. COLWELL: Okay.

MR. PARENT: Confused me, too.

MR. COLWELL: If you're going to work with this in the wilderness areas and buy out private property, or however you're going to handle this, because I know each case would probably be different as you progress through these acquisitions, do you have a list of priorities that you want to address with this money, of areas that . . .

MR. PARENT: Half of that money is buying the Bowater land that was around river systems and lakes that was land that we very much wanted to get our hands on. The other half is difficult for me to give you priorities without signalling to the landowners that we are coming after their land and then it elevates the price. So it is hard for me to talk about that in anything but the broadest terms that what we want to look at, of course, with our fund, is land that is environmentally sensitive, important as it was with the Bowater lands.

If you will allow me, without getting angry at me, since the chairman is sitting there and was instrumental in helping me, one of the successes that I can crow about as an MLA was when we got the Cape Split lands, but that was through the Department of Natural Resources, not through the Department of Environment and Labour. We got 600 acres, I believe, Mr. Chairman, into public hands. When I was in the department, in the boardroom, looking at the map of all the lands and the designations of wilderness areas, Crown land, to see that Cape Split designation did my heart good, and I know that you are part of it.

[Page 167]

It is difficult for us to tell you those priorities without signalling to the people that it is their land we want, and then the price goes up beyond what we are able to afford. So I guess you can look at the Bowater acquisitions and along riverbed-sensitive areas, areas that are environmentally unique and interesting and maybe extrapolate from that.

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that answer.

[3:30 p.m.]

MR. PARENT: I am not trying to be evasive. I had this happen, for example - well, you served as a minister so you would understand - with a Community Services project in my area on affordable housing. Somehow mixed signals got out, Community Services released information before the land was acquired by the actual developer. The moment that information went out, he couldn't find a spot he could buy, and we are only going to get that back on track a year and a half later. So it is not trying to be evasive, but I know you understand.

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that, and I have no problem with that at all.

I have some other questions here on Nova Scotia Power, and the emissions from Nova Scotia Power. You knew I would have to come to that one. They are proposed to be the third-worst polluter, I believe, in North America. We see the high rates of cancer and respiratory diseases and everything else that go with pollution in our air and water and everything else we work with.

In discussions with Nova Scotia Power some time ago, they indicated that they do their own monitoring, that the actual department doesn't monitor their emissions. I have talked to some employees who didn't want to be identified, for obvious reasons, who questioned the reports that possibly are put forward. I am not accusing anybody of anything, or anything like that. Wouldn't it be more prudent, where we have a Nova Scotia company, - not really a Nova Scotia company anymore, but a company that supplies power and is a very serious polluter in our province, although they are a very important company to our province, providing most of our energy needs - for the Department of Environment and Labour to spend a few dollars and actually set up monitoring systems for their pollution control equipment so we have some comfort to know and at least you know exactly what is going on there?

I have never ever heard of this, and private industry, if it was somebody supplying something, you would have to make sure your quality was there and you would have to prove that you met the standards set by your customer, and if you couldn't prove those, they would be in soon to check and make sure you are going to do that and set a system up to do it.

MR. PARENT: In terms of the monitoring, there are two levels there. The companies monitor themselves, which I think is at the basis of your worry, that if they self-monitor what company is going to want to incur - but we audit that monitoring. Then we have monitoring

[Page 168]

in the community at large of the air sheds that I was talking about before. So there are checks and balances on the company, that if they're not being compliant with doing their monitoring, there is a check, both in the fact that we audit their monitoring and we could pick up, but also in fact that there is monitoring we do outside.

I just want to mention that the Canada-wide standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired electric power generation plants was finalized and approved by Cabinet in October 2006 and presented for signature. At the next Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meeting this will be signed off on, and Nova Scotia, I think, was key in this. This will set provincial caps on mercury emissions from existing coal-fired power plants starting in the year 2010, and they'll reduce emissions by about 56 per cent based on the 2002 to 2004 monitoring program. So there is action that's taking place, and this will be an item that we sign off at the next federal-provincial ministers' meeting, and, as I've said, this has already been approved by Cabinet here in October.

MR. COLWELL: Are there indications that the other provinces are going to sign off on it too, because I know if you don't do these things with all-Party agreement, they all fall apart real quick?

MR. PARENT: Well, I don't know. The answer is yes, because we've been working collaboratively, but one is tempted, after hearing Mr. Klein's comments about Mr. Gore, to wonder, but that's off topic. This has been worked on collaboratively. We were one of the key players in initiating it, but it has been worked on collaboratively.

There is some hope in talking about coal and Nova Scotia Power. This brings up a whole bunch of issues which I know you're very interested in, because we're so dependent upon coal, there is the clean coal technology, that's becoming important, but also alternative energy sources which will help reduce the dependence upon coal. One of the ones that I'm really interested in, and it has been talked about for so long, in fact I was quite interested - if I'm blabbing on too long, tell me - was with Cape Split, that it was actually bought by, I think, the Rockefellers, for tidal energy. Way back in the 1920s, 1930s, they saw this as a potential.

We've never exploited tidal power the way that we should. I was talking to people from Nova Scotia Power - I don't know if you went to one of the forums they had on renewable energy, what they're doing with air, with wind-generated power, which is where they think the action is right now. I did ask about tidal generation of power, and perhaps I'm being idealistic, but I foresee the day with the Minas Basin, the potential there for generation of power, of tidal power. They tell me that tidal power - and I haven't checked back on this to see whether they're pushing it out too much in the future - is about 10 years away from full commercialization.

We have one example down in Annapolis Royal, what they're doing now, basically, they're just like windmills that they sink on the floor. They're below the shipping lines, and when the tide comes in, they turn one way, and when the tide goes out, they turn the other way

[Page 169]

and the electricity is generated. The problem they have right now is determining whether that will affect fish habitats. That is something that they're not fully aware of. So they need to work at that, on the environmental side, but within 10 years they say full commercialization will begin and it will make it financially viable for tidal power.

I really think that in the long run we can cap these emissions, and we're doing that on the regulatory side, as I stated, but I really think that in the long run that alternative energy sources also need to, along with conservation, go hand in hand. So when we cap the emissions, that's part of encouraging them to begin to look at alternative energy sources and to push conservation.

MR. COLWELL: I'll go back again, when I asked about monitoring, you indicated that your staff monitors the community at large.

MR. PARENT: Yes.

MR. COLWELL: What process do you use, what technology do you use? Is it just sort of call-ins that you get from people? Do you do some gathering of scientific data and, if you do, in what areas, and what type of equipment do you use?

MR. PARENT: Okay, there are a bunch of things we are doing. We are doing an index for air quality that we are piloting here in Nova Scotia actually - we are the pilot project - that will measure not just for environmental issues but for the impact on human health. We have 11 monitoring stations across the province; we are looking at adding four more. These report data back electronically. I think you were here when I invited anybody who wants to come to the department to please come visit, I would love to show you around. I am just learning myself, but please do come and visit. We are down on Terminal Road. Just give me a call or just talk to me and we will set up a tour for you.

The monitoring stations of course aren't there, but the data gets fed back electronically to us - and we are also hooked in on the federal level as well with data. So there are 11 monitoring stations. The technology is in the process of being modernized as we speak and we are in the process of adding four more. So that will bring us 15 monitoring stations scattered throughout the province with the data coming back, compared with the federal data, and working closely with the federal data to make sure we have the very best handle on what is going on with air quality out there.

MR. COLWELL: That's good and I appreciate that, and I will take you up on your offer . . .

MR. PARENT: Please do.

MR. COLWELL: . . . and come and see that. I am glad to hear that you have that equipment in place and I think that is something you should maybe go to the public and talk

[Page 170]

about a little bit, because a lot of people are skeptical of the department. I know the department works hard in this area, as they do in other areas.

Back to Nova Scotia Power again. How do you conduct the audits? How are the audits conducted?

MR. PARENT: We respond to complaints and we also - it's a condition of their approval to be able to continue on that we have to issue and it is conditional that they meet the standards that we set.

In my short term in the department I have been very impressed with the rigour of the regulations. I know that we can always do better as a department, but I really think, as I mentioned before in my introductory comments - there was, after Westray - out of bad comes good, and there really was after Westray, on the labour side - and I think environmentally as well, some of the very best people working at it, so I guess I just want to assure the honourable member that the rigour is there. We don't take these things lightly. For example, the dusting incident at Whitney Pier. If we don't have compliance - we have to determine who the culprit is, and we're still working on that, but if we don't have compliance when we determine who the culprit is, on that, we will step in.

Now, we want to work co-operatively, we want to get compliance, and sometimes compliance is achieved best not with the heavy hand but with education, with working co-operatively - but, if necessary, that's what we're here for as a department.

We have an incident now, that I thought you were getting to, in terms of one of Nova Scotia's generating stations and we're working with them on it, and we'll ensure they comply to get their industrial approval in order to continue operating as a facility.

MR. COLWELL: I can understand this is a difficult question to answer because. . .

MR. PARENT: They have to submit their data to us, that's part of the condition. We analyze the data.

MR. COLWELL: How do you verify the data was taken properly?

MR. PARENT: Well, I guess - and I asked the very same question, how do we know the data's been taken properly? - there are a couple of checks on it. One is we audit the data and our people are trained, the same way an auditor would pick up in financial statements if someone's trying to fudge the books, any trained auditor would pick that up but, also, if there are complaints that then trigger an investigation, a further investigation, a deeper level of investigation.

If we're getting the data and our audit is showing - let's say our audit, which is a backup system, is showing that everything's fine and there are still complaints, then that

[Page 171]

triggers a further look at it. So there is that level. Then a third level is we have these 11 monitoring stations - four more being added on - we compare their data to our data and if their data is way out of whack with our data, that's a trigger to us that something's going on and we need to take a closer look at it.

[3:45 p.m.]

MR. COLWELL: Has there been any consideration by - and I know this is difficult when you're auditing these things, it's difficult to verify and I'm not saying the department's done anything wrong, I'm just inquiring . . .

MR. PARENT: It is hard, the air sheds as I mentioned before, as opposed to watersheds, are a little harder to determine. A watershed is an easy sort of entity to determine - what specific watershed it is and then to determine where the pollutant is coming in. Air sheds are a little harder, so I appreciate the member's recognition of that difficulty.

MR. COLWELL: Has there been any move by the department, and I'm going to be very specific, I'm going to talk about Nova Scotia Power because where they have such a bad record - hopefully, there are no other companies in the province that are nearing their problem, and I understand they have a serious problem overall - is there any initiative on the department's part to insist or mandate that Nova Scotia Power install the monitoring equipment, that you can monitor it live on-site in the offices, whatever offices would be appropriate, that you can actually see the data as it comes in, as they generate the data themselves? That way you'd have a better chance to see live what is happening.

In today's technology, that's pretty simple to do, especially if you insisted that Nova Scotia Power pay for that. It's not very complicated.

MR. PARENT: We have the right at any time to go in and inspect the data, and we do do that. I know with the Trenton power plant - which is one power plant we've had some concerns about and some complaints about - they operate a network of five air monitoring stations located around the Trenton generating plant which record SO2 sulphur dioxide emissions. We can go in at any time and demand that data and look at that data and, as I said, if we're not satisfied then the industrial approval is not granted and they can't operate.

Now, are you - I don't know if behind your question you're saying, could a person from the public go in and look at that data?

MR. COLWELL: No. No, what I'm asking is with your monitoring stations you have, they're monitored live at your office . . .

MR. PARENT: Right. The data feeds back to our office, yes.

[Page 172]

MR. COLWELL: . . . which is a fantastic way to do it. Has there been any initiative from the department to do the same thing with Nova Scotia Power? They have the monitoring equipment in place, has there been any initiative from the department . . .

MR. PARENT: To make them, as a power company, have their data feedback and report to us?

MR. COLWELL: Feed it back right to the Department of the Environment and Labour so you can keep live records of what is going on and you can watch it on a continuous basis.

MR. PARENT: It is a very good suggestion and that is where we would like to go in the long run. Right now we are building up our own network, but that is where we want to go so that we have their data coming in live, too, along with our own data. So the member raises a very good point and one that I am sure we are working at and is the end goal that we would like to reach.

MR. COLWELL: It is an issue, I think, that if you push Nova Scotia Power hard enough they would pay for it, because basically it is an interface between their equipment and your equipment and over the Internet you could probably tie it all together with the technology that is there today. I think that would give me, as a resident in the community who breathes in some of this junk that they are putting out, a better - I would feel better about it if the Department of the Environment and Labour was . . .

MR. PARENT: More confidence, yes.

MR. COLWELL: More confidence in Nova Scotia Power because then if your staff in the department was looking at this on a regular basis, you would be in a position that you could take action quicker.

MR. PARENT: That is where we want to get to and we are working towards that.

MR. COLWELL: What kind of schedule have you got towards that?

MR. PARENT: In terms of sort of prioritizing what we are doing, we have 11 stations and we want to go to four more, we need to modernize the equipment; we are demanding the reduction in SO2 emissions, the rather substantial reductions, so that is how we are working; and then the third piece, of course, would be to tie in their monitoring with our monitoring. So I really don't have a timeline I can tell you - that is an end goal we are working towards.

The SO2 emissions are at year 2010, and I would hope we could get there in terms of tying in the systems at that time, but we don't have a timeline. Right now our priority is to get these four extra monitoring stations, get our technology, which needs modernization, modernized fully and, once we get that piece in place, we have already regulated that there

[Page 173]

have to be - well, when the various provincial and federal ministers meet and sign off on it, we will have regulated these SO2 emissions and then that will be the next piece after that.

MR. COLWELL: I would think it would be in the best interests of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation to provide you with that information sooner rather than later, especially with the record they have, because if they have a really poor record, which it appears they do have, the higher problem or the higher their scale of pollution is - or whatever you want to call it, and it depends of course on what chemicals and what pollutants you are looking for - the higher they are on the scale, the easier it is to get a 50 per cent reduction.

MR. PARENT: The other thing though, too, I did mention the air sheds. In the air sheds we are working at for all, not just for Nova Scotia Power, because there are others. Right now some of our heaviest polluters, they pay emission fees - it is not a fine because they are operating within the limits that are placed on them now, but they do pay emission fees and all that money comes back to our quality management program, and that is looking at the air sheds, the monitoring and all that.

So certainly it is something, when I meet with the Nova Scotia Power people, I would be happy to explore further and to take it under advisement to see if maybe there is some way that they can, on their own dime, because I know that they are well aware, too, that they have to meet industrial approval standards from us. It is important for them financially to not run into problems with us because it becomes costly then, so I will certainly raise that question with them with their own monitoring - how is the technology and is the interface possible with our system - and report back to the member.

As I said, we don't want to come down heavy, but what we want is compliance and we found that they are responding to some, in Lingan, for example that they're fixing that in large part because of the demands that we've placed on them. It's a delicate balance, as the member will appreciate. Our job is to encourage and if we have to, to hold them accountable and we are making progress in that regard, but I'll certainly report back to the member and be happy when I meet with the Nova Scotia Power people and have discussions about the air monitoring systems and how they can be interfaced with each other.

MR. COLWELL: Personally, I would feel a lot better if I knew if you had a live way to check what they were emitting and then give you the ammunition too, to go after them if there is a problem that you identify and hopefully in a co-operative mannerr and get the problem resolved sooner than later and I appreciate the minister's commitment to look in that direction, which is very important as far as I'm concerned.

I've got a ton of other questions here. (Interruption) Just conferring with my colleague, he has some questions too but he'll wait he says. I'm going to ask some questions I asked here two years ago about diving regulation in the Province of Nova Scotia and I know the province has implemented diving regulations. Am I correct with that?

[Page 174]

MR. PARENT: Yes. I mentioned with the CCI, with the initiative of province-wide for better regulations, streamline regulations, working with education and getting compliance, that the diving program was one of our success stories on that. They were announced as you know, on September 12, 2005. They'll come into effect on May 1, 2006.

MR. COLWELL: May 1^st this year?

MR. PARENT: Yes, so they came into effect already.

MR. COLWELL: I know it's really early with only a May 1^st start, how is the compliance so far? Are people complying, to date?

MR. PARENT: There are no incidents as of yet, but as I said in my opening remarks, the co-operative method is the method that really made this a success story because we worked with the industry, co-operatively, helping to train them, listening to what their concerns were and getting back to them and working together so that by the time the regulations came in place, they were aware. They were part of the process of understanding. They were trained adequately to meet those regulations and so they've only really been in since May 1^st, and where we are two months in, they're no incidents. We feel because of that policy initiative, that the likelihood of incidences will be going down.

I guess it's a model that I believe in very firmly and it's a model that the department has used successfully and this is one of the success stories. So we don't expect any problems because they have been part of the training from before the regulations even came into place. In the old days, we'd pop in regulations and then they might not even know about them until they got into problems about it and then we have to enforce the regulations and then perhaps do training, but the new model is to involve them in the process from the very beginning so that by the time the regulations are brought into place, we don't have those problems. So, we're feeling really good. There have been no problems since May 1^st, and it seems that model seems to be working well.

MR. COLWELL: I certainly hope it does because we've had a lot of fatalities in the diving industry for poor practices, poor training and probably all kinds of things and that's for the experts to decide, not me. I know the international commercial diving industry, which I know your standards didn't come up to, haven't had a fatality since they initiated the process, from what I understand, and they're doing saturation diving and all kinds of commercial diving.

There still exists the problem in some of these areas that the industry itself - all they do is dive - that work in the international standards, feels that the standards that you have now are simply not up to scratch. They work hard in their industry to make sure they don't lose valuable employees, or have the costs that goes with that. They are happier than they were, but they're still a long way from where we should be in Nova Scotia to ensure that we don't

[Page 175]

have fatalities, and, hopefully, we don't, under the new regulations. I really hope we don't, or any serious injuries, it is a very dangerous business.

MR. PARENT: Well, I think the honourable member was one of the ones who raised concerns about this sometime ago, as a result of a fatality. Certainly one of the department's key priorities - perhaps you can pat yourself on the back for that, although it's sad that it comes out of a tragedy - is that this was a priority for the department, and we're feeling very well positioned in regard to this now, and we're very hopeful. So, again, out of bad comes good, and certainly out of some of the work that MLAs such as yourself have done, the department has put this as a priority in the diving regulations.

I go back to the process that came into effect May 1^st. I go back to the process, because I think the process is so important in terms of getting compliance in terms of education, and this new process that we've instituted, this is our second year in following this process. It seems to be working well, and providing for success stories. Logically, it only makes sense, if you just bring in regulations apart from the industry you're regulating and then come in after the fact when there are problems, a lot of them might not even know the regulations and, secondly, how to comply with them. So to go in early to educate, to involve, is a model that we've been following for two years and it seems to be having some success.

[4:00 p.m.]

MR. COLWELL: I think the process you used was very good, as you describe, but the fact still remains that - I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong with this - you can still use a scuba tank to do some semi-commercial work in the province, which the industry, the true commercial diving industry, that's all they do internationally, I believe, has almost completely and totally abandoned the scuba gear for this because it's just so dangerous, and no matter what you do or how you try to prevent it, it will come back and eventually cause some injuries or some deaths.

MR. PARENT: Yes, there are some modifications that have been made to national standards to accommodate the Nova Scotia industry, if that's what you're referring to now, and whether those modifications - they're made in consultation. We believe, firmly, that the modifications will not result in incidents. Yes, we monitor. It's not that we just put a program in place and then leave it. If the program needs to be fixed, that's certainly part of what we look at. So I take your warning and comments seriously, and thank you for them.

MR. COLWELL: This is really not a question, and I don't want to put you on the spot, but have you personally taken the opportunity or had the opportunity to speak with any of the people that are directly in the commercial business that work internationally? There are some companies here in Nova Scotia that do that.

MR. PARENT: No, the conversations I have had are with recreational divers. So I need to have those conversations, and I'll certainly do that. It has been, as you can imagine,

[Page 176]

a busy time. In my riding, basically, I was exposed to recreational diving, we don't have much commercial diving taking place. We have no real aquaculture industry in my riding. So it's something on which I need to educate myself and have those conversations on.

MR. COLWELL: I realize that and I am really impressed with the awareness you have of your department, with such a short time to learn it all, and I know how difficult that is.

MR. PARENT: That is because they haven't given me time to have a proper meal in two weeks. I threatened the last time to take them to the Occupational Health and Safety Board and to launch a complaint to the Labour Standards Division about how they treat their minister - so they gave me a cup of tea to keep me quiet.

MR. COLWELL: So, when you get the opportunity, and within the fullness of time, as one would say.

MR. PARENT: I know this is an area you are very strong on so perhaps we might want to go jointly and do it together.

MR. COLWELL: Well maybe we could do that, because I think it is something that maybe some of your staff could work on it as well, and we are very familiar with the people, and could join us and . . .

MR. PARENT: Could you excuse me for a second, because these suggestions that come up, I am pretty sure that we have someone behind me taking notes so that they are followed through - it is like with constituents when we are talking and I make promises, I want to follow through on it. So yes, absolutely yes.

MR. COLWELL: That would be good.

MR. PARENT: As Richard likes to say, as the honourable minister, my word is my bond.

MR. COLWELL: I believe that. I also want to talk about other issues as well - how much time do I have left, Madam Chairman?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have five minutes.

MR. COLWELL: I want to talk about biosolids, and I am not going to have enough time in five minutes to do that, so I am letting you know that I am going to ask about it in the future.

MR. PARENT: Can I ask you about - can I turn the question back to you about biosolids?

[Page 177]

MR COLWELL: Sure.

MR. PARENT: It is an interesting issue. I have been informing myself of this, and we talked about the Cutten farm, and I guess in some sense, what the difference is between human waste and animal waste. We have such a problem with human waste and yet, in the farming area where I come from, we have used manure for years. So I think it is more of a philosophical factor.

Actually in this province, right now, human waste is treated environmentally with more stringent standards than animal waste - now maybe we need to treat animal waste more stringently. I guess I am just asking you what your concern is on this so I can do some thinking about it, because you are going to come back to this.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, and that is fair enough. One thing that I think is a problem - it is not necessarily the human waste per se, it is the other chemicals that are being dumped down the drain that happen to get into the solid waste that the municipality, particularly here in HRM - and there are some really dangerous chemicals involved with that that we have been aware of and which we will forward . . .

MR. PARENT: I appreciate that, I just wanted to know where your concern was coming from, because you will come back to that and I don't think we will get time to do it today so I would like to do some research for you.

MR. COLWELL: I would appreciate that, and I want to do a little bit more research myself because I have been out of this . . .

MR. LEO GLAVINE: I was going to make a funny remark about it - Mr. Cutten, from the Green Party, I am sure could inform us.

MR. PARENT: Well, I mean you talk about the Green Party - it is interesting that we had 52 candidates - I had one run against me, a very articulate person, a friend of mine actually, which is an interesting phenomenon politically - although they talked about other issues besides the environment, certainly the environment was one of their issues they talked about very strongly, so there is a greater awareness and appreciation for this.

So your colleague's comments about the Green Party are interesting comments, and what that phenomenon means politically is an interesting one to analyze.

MR. COLWELL: It will be interesting. I will also be asking you questions - it is a lot easier to tell you what I am going to ask so that you are prepared . . .

MR. PARENT: I appreciate that very much.

[Page 178]

MR. COLWELL: . . . and we will save a lot of time - about the system in Truro, the biosolids operation there. I will be asking you some questions about that, so if you can be prepared with some information in that area I would appreciate it.

The other thing I am going to be interested in, maybe you can answer now. HRM presently operates, at Aerotech Business Park, a sewage, not a disposal system but it is a settling pond, I guess - what monitoring does the Department of Environment and Labour have to ensure that that doesn't overflow and is kept at the right level and that the material coming out the end of it is not a pollutant itself?

MR. PARENT: Could we answer this question, Madam Chairman? Do we have enough time?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have two minutes.

MR. PARENT: I'll have to get back to you on the schedule. We have a risk management criteria on that one and we can do yearly evaluations and, if the system's a good system, we might not visit it for two years. I will find out what the schedule is for Aerotech and get back to you, for the facility you're talking about.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, and I'll have some very specific questions on that issue.

MR. PARENT: Thank you for the warning.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has expired.

The honourable member for Timberlea-Prospect.

MR. WILLIAM ESTABROOKS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just have a couple of questions on a very specific issue. Perhaps the minister could clarify for me the role that the provincial Environment and Labour Department plays in the overseeing, monitoring and control of the Otter Lake Landfill site?

MR. PARENT: Sorry, I didn't catch the very last . . .

MR. ESTABROOKS: I'm wondering what is the role of the provincial department in overseeing the Otter Lake Landfill site?

MR. PARENT: We had a complaint - and this may be where the member is coming from, with this particular facility - and they were generally in compliance, but there were problems with old drums and with litter. We asked them to take care of those issues, and we will check back to make sure that they did. That may be the incident that lies behind this question?

MR. ESTABROOKS: No, nothing specific.

[Page 179]

MR. PARENT: Okay, I thought you knew of some specific incident there, because there was a complaint that we investigated, and the investigation found they were in compliance.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Madam Chairman, waste management in the HRM and the glowing reports of how everything is so wonderful with waste management in the HRM sticks pretty deep in the craw of the people in Timberlea-Prospect. Let me tell you, on my way in this morning, the stench as you came up Highway No. 103, off the South Shore highway - I'm sure there are members here who can tell you there are some days when they're coming in from their constituencies, as they make their way into the Legislature, it is not a state-of-the-art landfill site. In fact, it is a dump.

Today is a perfect example. I was in my office for about 15 minutes today at about 10:30 a.m., and I will tell you, it smelled as bad as the days when I was the vice-principal at Sackville High School when we put up with the dump in Lower Sackville.

The concern I have, Mr. Minister, and your department, is that the community knows how to respond. We called Jim Bauld at waste management, we called the community monitoring committee telephone number, we called the councillors, and the problem just continues. We get a lot of excuses - they can talk about the Spring run-off, they can talk about the hot weather, it depends on the excuse. We've had to put up with the landfill site, in the deep of the winter, when it stinks. I just take this opportunity today because of the number of people who've sent me e-mails and complained.

So what is your advice to me, as the MLA, when they call me? I want to be very clear on the fact that they call me as the MLA because of a certain amount of dissatisfaction with how things are handled with the HRM councillors. Where can we go with these complaints, aside from the fact that I meet with Mayor Kelly in a fairly regular fashion? The Otter Lake Landfill site isn't all it's made up to be. It's more than that. The member previous brought up concerns about what's going in it and so on and so on. It's not state-of-the-art, Mr. Minister, it's a huge problem, and today is a perfect day to smell that it's a huge problem, the Otter Lake dump stinks again, and the community has had enough of it.

So what's your advice to me, as the MLA for the area, when it comes to these complaints? Can we go to the provincial department and say, we have to do something about this because this waste management strategy, and it is so so great and wonderful, the Otter Lake Landfill site is a dump, it stinks, and it ain't all it's cracked up to be? What's your advice to me as the MLA?

MR. PARENT: Just talking about the Otter Lake Landfill, there are some problems that we're checking into now, because we've had complaints. We've asked HRM to come up with a plan for odour, because odour is one of the things that we asked them to comply with. They're telling us at the present stage, we think it's due to the excessive rains that we've had.

[Page 180]

So we've asked them to come up with a plan to solve this problem. If they're not in compliance, then we'll take the appropriate steps.

[4:15 p.m.]

If you're feeling with the HRM that you're not getting the satisfaction, we will receive the complaints as a department. Our Bedford office is 424-7773. Please, if your constituents are feeling that they're getting the runaround, they're not getting satisfaction, we would welcome their calls. As the MLA, I know that you are a hard-working MLA and that you want to do what's right for your constituents. So encourage them, if they're not getting satisfaction at that level, to phone our Bedford office at 424-7773.

There is the issue that the odour is elevated. They're claiming, or somebody is claiming, I shouldn't say they are claiming, but the claims are that this is part of the heavy rainfall we've had. We've said, you have to come up with a solution to it.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you, and I want to point out to you that your Bedford office is an accountable, responsive group of professionals. I want to compliment them, Darlene Fenton, in particular; that staff have a very good working relationship with my office. They're extremely responsive and professional, and I hope you pass that on to them. Thank you for your direction.

MR. PARENT: Can I just respond to that, because it's an important thing. The enforcement is handled by regional officers. It would be inappropriate for me as a minister to step in in regard to saying, cut these people slack, or anything. They have a certain autonomy, which we value. Our job at the central office is to set policy that hopefully allows for consistent standards. I know you realize that, but you just gave me the opportunity to talk about that. It's important that they have autonomy to investigate and to deal with complaints, and that they're not micromanaged in a way that would politicize them, that would be highly inappropriate, because it's their job.

I know we have complaints on our staff; I've had complaints from MLAs that they're too heavy-handed. I think there are legitimate concerns about consistency across the province, and consistency in regard to certain forms of complaints, consistency in regard to certain issues that we need to work on at a policy level so that it is consistent and clear. It is important they have the autonomy, which they do have by legislation. I think you understand that, but I just wanted to get that on the record.

MR. ESTABROOKS: Thank you. I'll share the remainder of my time with the member for Halifax Atlantic.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

[Page 181]

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, I'm glad to be back here. There were a couple of questions I wanted to ask, which I didn't have a chance to ask.

Actually, I was interested, and I just have to add my voice to the voice of the member for Timberlea-Prospect that certainly there are real problems around landfill sites in my area as well, similar problems with odour and so on, not always in the event of wet weather but actually it can be almost like blowing dust and fumes and so on. There are some serious concerns around that and around what will be the eventual disposition of some of the materials that were stockpiled when one of the dump sites was applying for - although it was denied - a C&D disposal permit. I guess I would just flag that with you, through you to the department, that all is not completely rosy in Halifax Atlantic either.

I had another question which I wanted to ask about in terms of a local issue - well, two - and I don't know how unusual this one is, but I suspect there are other instances elsewhere in the province. As you know, my constituency falls inside the Municipality of HRM and it includes a lake which flows down to the Northwest Arm. That lake, Williams Lake, was dammed about 1810 - actually earlier, probably about 1795, initially - and it provided power for a grist mill and later for an ice factory and so on. So it has been dammed for a long time.

The regime of licensing is obviously later than that. Now the dam licence is held by an entity called the Williams Lake Conservation Company. They got that licence in 1996, I believe. It's a non-profit, incorporated corporation. One of the terms of the licence, I think, is similar to that of any other dam licence, which is that it has to be either restored to its previous condition or dismantled when the licence is abandoned. Now the conservation company doesn't have a huge amount of money; it's a citizen organization and the standards that have been suggested would require approximately $300,000 to rebuild to the required standards, a dam which has failed since 1790, and I'm just wondering, how can that be gotten around?

MR. PARENT: I don't have an answer to that question right now. I've listened with great interest to what you have to say. Can I get back to you on that particular issue?

MS. RAYMOND: Sure.

MR. PARENT: Because I really wouldn't have a satisfactory answer, I would just be saying words for the sake of words, which they used to accuse me of in my former profession - although I don't think I even engaged in it. They used to accuse me of saying words for the sake of words as a minister, but I don't think I ever did, at least I hope I didn't. I wouldn't want to do that to you now. I really don't know, and I have to get back to you on that.

MS. RAYMOND: That would be great. I'm sure it is a problem elsewhere in the province, because we know this place has been industrialized for a couple of hundred years, many parts of the province. I'm sure these other licences exist. So that would be great.

[Page 182]

The other question is a little broader, although it has a constituency aspect to it. Once again, in my area, which goes out as far as the fishing village of Sambro, there are some 30 kilometres of road out from one part of it to the other, there is a population of 20,000 people in the entire riding, and there is no apparent provision for public transit at this point. So we haven't just a rural population, we have an urban population - and yes, transit is a municipal responsibility but it is also something which really, really needs to be actively fostered.

If we look at it in the name of the Kyoto Protocol, you have those people, not all 20,000, but you've probably got about 6,000 living well beyond the end point of transit, and there are pretty well no workplaces, so these are single vehicle trips over and over and over again. There are a lot of kilometre hours going on, and there are a lot of particulates going into the air. I'm just wondering, has the Department of Environment and Labour any plans for intervention?

MR. PARENT: We work with HRM on climate adaption programs, encouraging them. That's certainly an important deficiency that you've outlined. I'm hopeful, and I met with the head of Conserve Nova Scotia, that these are some of the things that they'll be able to provide some of the things that they'll be able to provide some lead on and find some solutions to.

I know that in my area - and the honourable member from the Liberal caucus would know this as well - with Kings Transit, we have one of the best. It has been recognized as one of the top small-transit firms across North America. If we can do it in Kings County with our spread-out population, certainly it's a priority that should be happening with HRM. We work with them to encourage them in this regard.

I'm just trying to rack my brain. There has been some movement, federally, to provide some tax relief to help encourage people to use public transit. One of the problems, of course - I probably shouldn't name people, but he was in the paper claiming that he wouldn't use public transit even if it was in his area, that was Mr. Ross Haynes. Certainly one of the things that we need to do is encourage a different mindset about this, as well. If there's not even the opportunity to use it, which is what you're mentioning, then how do you encourage that mindset?

Our department, we work on this climate adaptation, doing some lobbying. As I mentioned, I had conversations with Conserve Nova Scotia with regard to this. They've been looking at Vermont and New Brunswick models, and that will be very applicable to the issue you bring up.

So our job, as a department, is to encourage them to provide ideas - and we do that - and how to help out. In terms of specifically running a transit system out to your area, that's beyond the mandate of our department.

MS. RAYMOND: There was, in fact, community transit, which was obliged to disband as a result of some more local regulations, I believe. What I'm wondering is whether

[Page 183]

the Department of Environment and Labour has, or has contemplated, the establishment of a population-to-distance ratio. When you have a population of a certain concentration living along a certain stretch of road, when the density is that great that even if there's not publicly- operated transit, that the field is at least open for community transit, because there are those options, as well.

MR. PARENT: It's an interesting question. I was just thinking, we have regulations in terms of educational schools if you have a certain population. It's not something I really thought of before and it's certainly something that you . . .

MS. RAYMOND: Certainly, you don't want the worst of both worlds in which you, both, band to the possibility of community transit, and not replaced it with a public transit system. I would just like to flag that.

MR. PARENT: It's an interesting - do you have any models that you're aware of in other jurisdictions?

MS. RAYMOND: No.

MR. PARENT: Anyway, it is something that twigged me to think about, and certainly talk to the department to think about, as well.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay. Well, it is very important, certainly, that we do our bit here. Thank you very much.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's 4:28 p.m. There are two minutes left.

MS. RAYMOND: With only two minutes left, I'll just take this opportunity to say thank you very much. I'm looking forward very much to working with the department as we move forward and encourage you yet again that the interaction of the province and the municipalities and the federal government is really, really key, because environmental issues are all about planning, and if we can coordinate these things then that's . . .

MR. PARENT: Since we have a few minutes. That is one of the interesting things, I've been serving on a committee called Crossing Boundaries, which is a national committee that ties together municipal, provincial, and federal politicians, and civil servants. The subcommittee I'm on is Democratic Renewal, but the main focus has been on service delivery. But very much the philosophy out of it is that the old system of silos, where each department does its own thing, isn't meeting the modern concerns and problems that we have, that we have to learn to work inter-collaboratively, and across departments, across levels of government. All of us as MLAs know that.

People come into our office about it, concerned with government, and basically we find out the concern is municipal. Early on, I used to say to them, well, that is a municipal

[Page 184]

concern, and I found out they don't care - you're government, you fix the problem. It's an important topic that I'm talking about here . . .

MS. RAYMOND: Okay.

MR. PARENT: No, seriously. We do have a bit of time and I don't want to - we need to learn to work interdepartmentally and across provincial . . .

MS. RAYMOND: Inter-jurisdictional.

MR. PARENT: Yes. And there is some progress being made. Thank you very much for your questions and comments.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time has lapsed and the member for Halifax Atlantic can continue on Monday. The NDP caucus has 41 minutes remaining.

[The subcommittee rose at 4:28 p.m.]