[Page 185]

HALIFAX, MONDAY JULY 10, 2006

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

12:46 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Alfred MacLeod

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call this meeting to order. We will turn the questioning back over to the NDP.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham. You have 41 minutes left in your time. It is now 12:46 p.m.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, welcome to the Chair. I want to start by congratulating the minister on his appointment. I know, from what I read, he was very excited to get the portfolio. I must say, sitting here last week, listening to the minister answer questions on the environment, it was clear that he has an appetite for this area and shows a lot of interest, and that he's a quick study. That's always a welcome sign.

Myself, I'm a new critic in this area. I have big shoes to fill as the Labour Critic for the NDP. My colleague, the member for Cape Breton Centre, has carried the ball for us for a long time. I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to represent my Party as the Labour Critic. It's an area where I have a lot to learn, but have a great personal interest. So I welcome this opportunity to talk a bit about the initiatives in the department, and to follow up on some of the issues that certainly the member for Cape Breton Centre has been working on advancing over the past number of years that we've been here.

It's interesting, as Nova Scotians, I think the first thing people often ask us when we're introduced in a social setting is, what's your father's name, but generally speaking the second question is, what do you do, meaning where do you work or where are you employed? What we do in terms of our work and employment often defines who we are and how we identify and what have you. It's a very important part of our human identity.

185

[Page 186]

I want to start by asking the minister a few general questions around his priorities as a new minister in the Environment and Labour portfolio. I've had an opportunity to look at the business plan for the department. Under the Labour part, it seemed to be quite skimpy, really, in terms of any initiatives. I'm wondering, does the minister have any particular vision or priorities for the Labour portfolio in the coming months and years?

HON. MARK PARENT: Welcome to your new critic position. I suspect you have far more experience in labour. I understand you're doing your Ph.D. or have done your Ph.D. on labour issues. Is that not part of it?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I'm having a hard time, I can't hear you.

MR. PARENT: Have you not done your Ph.D. or are doing it on labour issues? Someone told me, but perhaps I'm wrong.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: My Ph.D. is in sociology, the sociology of work and employment.

MR. PARENT: I look forward to the questions and to your comments and observations in regard to this. One of the things that the department is putting extra money in, and you'll see that in the estimates, that we're looking forward to is as a result of Bill No. 219. So this is certainly something, expedited arbitration and grievances in regard to union members who grieve their own union. The expedited arbitration in particular is something that I've sat around at the Law Amendments Committee, when there were many people who came forward in regard to arbitration, talking about the length of time it took them to work through that process. I forget what bill we were debating at the time; you might be able to refresh my memory, what piece of legislation.

It wasn't just one person, there were several workers, union workers who came forward - this was some years ago now, I guess - and, really, it was a real hardship, the length of time it took to move through arbitration. There were three or four who told rather heart-rending stories at that time, that I remember, about the delays and how difficult it is to get on with their life when the arbitration - I think it was up to two years or something. It was something that I found bothersome. This is certainly something that we have extra money in the budget for now, and we're pleased to be going ahead with that.

Violence in the workplace is another issue that we want to be able to deal with. It's difficult to legislate that totally out of existence. Certainly one of the things I've been pleased with is that the direction of the department has moved to compliance, and that's our end goal, and how we get to that end goal, it could be legislation, it could be education, but ultimately we want to get to compliance on these matters. We want to work at that, and I want to work at that. I know, particularly in the educational field, this becomes an issue where teachers feel

[Page 187]

that they need protection from violence in their workplace, but it doesn't just apply to that. That would be another priority that I have on my plate.

In terms of when complaints come to Labour Standards, we have certain legislative periods we have to meet, but we want to make sure that everyone is treated with dignity and that their requests are met in a timely fashion. I've been pleased to see that the department, if you visit the department, you'll find - and this is on a blackboard - that the call comes in and then they have listed when the call is responded to, and we've improved on that. I think that is so important, when someone is in some sort of process of grieving something they think is unfair, that they be treated with dignity. I know that happens now. I'm very pleased with what is going on in the department, but that would be a priority for me, as well.

These are the three immediate priorities. One of the things that I mentioned several times that I was really pleased about was in order to put compliance as the number one sort of priority, to reach that process, we have to have proper relationships and ongoing discussion with all the stakeholders, and to treat everyone as a valuable partner. There are different viewpoints, of course, that are going to come up between the workers and the employers, et cetera, but we've moved very far down the road, before we make any sort of changes we consult with stakeholders, we bring them together, if possible, around the table, and we intend to continue doing that.

I think that, perhaps, ultimately may be the most effective change and the biggest change that we make, although we're well on the way to doing that. That's something that we've been doing recently. I want to move away from any sort of confrontational perspective that we have, and we're going to depend, as we have in the recent past few years, even more so on consultation and on getting all the stakeholders involved. Those are some of the priorities that I'll be bringing; many of them, of course, the department has been working at already.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister. I want to follow up on a few things that occurred to me that probably need some following up on from last year's estimates when the minister, in his opening statement - one of the things he talked about was that the Public Prosecution Service had dedicated a Crown Attorney exclusively to the prosecution of provincial regulatory offences, beginning with a focus on OHS. So I'm wondering, one year later, can the minister tell us how many cases have been investigated and how many have proceeded to the stage of charges being laid? I'm trying to get a sense of how this has actually worked out in practice, in terms of trying to make sure that Occupational Health and Safety Regulations are being enforced. It's a question around enforcement.

MR. PARENT: You're asking about figures and as of April 1^st we have 17 prosecutions before the court, in 2003-04 we had 45 prosecutions and in 2004-05 we had 37 long form and 23 summary offence ones. Our dedicated enforcement officer is also working

[Page 188]

with companies on the educational side so that hopefully we don't have violations, because we all want prevention rather than dealing after the fact, but also working very hard to make sure that when we take someone to court we win the battle. Those are the figures. I can table this if you would like to have a copy of it. Does that answer your question?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Not really, but thank you for the information, because as I've said I have a lot to learn so any information is very helpful. I'm really trying to get a clearer picture of this particular initiative around assigning a dedicated Crown Attorney. I don't know, can the minister tell me who that individual is by the way, who is dedicated to do this work?

MR. PARENT: The name is Peter Craig and he does the serious prosecutions himself and turns over other ones to other people to help out. The training that I mentioned, he is doing it with our enforcement officers so they enforce on a uniform basis with various companies, and they're the ones who would be helping companies to make sure they do the OHS Regulations properly and know what they have to conform to. So Peter Craig is his name and, as I say, he doesn't do them all but he handles the more serious cases.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. Does this table that you've given me indicate the specific caseload that this individual has handled in the last year? Do we have that here?

MR. PARENT: No, you don't have that. We could get you that information if you wanted. He doesn't do all the cases himself, he does the more important ones because some of the cases are very complex and take a lot of time. If you need that breakdown of which cases he's handling himself versus which he's getting assistance on from someone else, we could provide that information but we don't have that with us right now.

[1:00 p.m.]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Okay. I'm trying to understand why the minister, last year in his opening statement, said this is a real achievement. We're doing this, we have a person who is going to be dedicated exclusively, and I'm trying to figure out what the benchmarks are, I guess you would say, in terms of knowing whether or not that is going to make a significant difference in the occupational health and safety enforcement for workers in the province. Really, that's what I'm trying to understand.

MR. PARENT: Our feeling is that it has, but we're also looking at the benchmarks to make sure because we want to do our job as well as possible, so we will be continuing the follow-up on that. It has already, in our opinion, made a difference and we hope that and anticipate that it can make even more of a difference, but we need to get those standards in place as well and analyze it.

[Page 189]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. That also is what I'm trying to get at, how we know that it has already made a difference. Where are the comparative kinds of numbers that show us okay, generally speaking, there have been this many prosecutions annually, this many investigations annually but now given that we had this position, this is where you see a change?

MR. PARENT: We could also add into that - and we could probably get you that data - not just the number of prosecutions, but the number of successful prosecutions.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: The number of?

MR. PARENT: The number of successful prosecutions, because that would be another factor that would be important. I mean you can have lots of prosecutions but if they get tossed out of court, what have you accomplished? So that's probably the more important number and we can get you that information and we'll get that for you.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Last week when we were here in estimates, I think at the beginning of estimates, the minister announced that Mr. Comeau is leaving the Workers' Compensation Board. So I'd like to ask the minister, could he provide us with a bit of information about why Mr. Comeau has decided to leave the board?

MR. PARENT: I chatted with Mr. Comeau when I first took over the file. There were some key stakeholders that I wanted to touch base with, including Louis Comeau. My understanding is simply it is just a question of him wanting to have more time, personally. He's what, 67? He's 67 years old, and I guess he had come to a place where he has handled a couple of very difficult issues with WCB and improved in many ways, as I outlined in the statements, and there was no issue other than that. He felt that he had gotten things established, felt good about it, it was time to leave. He was at the age where he wanted to spend some time on other things.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: In reviewing and preparing for today, I was trying to establish, what has been accomplished by the board since the Dorsey report? When you look at the recommendations in the Dorsey report it's not clear to me how many of those recommendations have, in fact, been implemented. I'd like to have some sense from the minister and his staff on how many of the numerous recommendations in the Dorsey report have been implemented and then, perhaps in a general way, the minister can tell me that and we can look at some of the recommendations in more detail.

MR. PARENT: Just before I consult with the staff on that specifically, I did refer to many of the accomplishments that I felt Mr. Comeau had accomplished in his tenure as Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think those are on public record, I can review those if you want. Your question is specifically in regard to the Dorsey report, so I will check with staff.

[Page 190]

I'm just checking, because I knew some of the things that Mr. Comeau accomplished, I'm just checking to see how they're related to the Dorsey report. One of the high-level things we wanted to work out first was governance and accountability - a more stakeholder-driven board, and that has been accomplished. So I'm looking forward to what the stakeholders have to say, and that will come into play, one of the key things that will come into play now is in the choosing of a new chairman for the committee, which is a key position. It's a stakeholder-driven process now, and I think everyone would agree that's better.

The key thing that came out of the Dorsey report that we've accomplished is the supplementary benefits. I guess it was in Chapter 9 of the Dorsey report, is what they're telling me, that was accomplished. The chronic pain, I was going to boast about, because that happened, but that wasn't part of the Dorsey report, that was something that came out later but it was still, nonetheless, an achievement. In my remarks about Mr. Comeau, I wanted to mention that chronic pain has been recognized and that many employees and former employees have received benefits under that.

Basically, the things that have been achieved are governance and accountability structures, the involvement of the stakeholders in a way that never happened before, and we'll see that tested out with the choice of a chairman for Mr. Comeau, and the supplementary benefits. The chronic pain was outside the Dorsey report, but nonetheless I do want to mention it again.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: In reading the executive summary of the Dorsey report, I've more or less counted approximately - and this could be broken down in different ways - 18 recommendations in that report. I'd like to talk to you about different aspects because I think, for example, Dorsey did deal with chronic pain and talked very specifically about things that needed to be done with respect to claimants around chronic pain, and there has been very little progress in this regard. I want to do this in a more systematic way.

At the outset of the executive summary Dorsey talks about Nova Scotia having the lowest percentage of workforce covered by the public Workers' Compensation Program. At the time of his report, which I think was in 2002, he said that 64.3 per cent of the workforce was covered and there was a recommendation that there be a phased approach adopted to extend coverage to all workers and employers in the province. I want to ask the minister, what percentage of our workforce is now covered and has there been any progress toward the recommendation that there be more workers in this province covered under the Workers' Compensation Act?

MR. PARENT: Essentially, the figure of the workforce that is covered is the same. I guess the key difference is that we've only had the stakeholder-driven board in place for about a year and I haven't had a chance in my new role to get a report back from them yet. That's what we're hoping will make the difference when the stakeholders come up with their own suggestions and recommendations regarding how these things can be implemented

[Page 191]

more. So at present, Dorsey's comment still stands, but there is a key difference; none of the stakeholders are on the WCB. The WCB is a stakeholder-driven board, not appointees from elsewhere. These are stakeholders on it, they are going to come up with recommendations that will improve the protection for workers and help the workers who are injured.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I don't want to be disrespectful but I think that's a bit of a cop-out, frankly. It doesn't give me any comfort, nor should it give any members of this Legislature comfort, to see that we have the lowest coverage for workers' compensation for workers in our province. There are significant sectors in our labour market that have no workers' compensation protection in various industries - the financial services industries, for example. So I think it's important, and I would never say that it's not important to have very rigorous consultation processes with stakeholders, but I think government has to show some leadership and some initiative with respect to providing certain labour protections for members of our province. Certainly, workers' compensation is the oldest program of government in terms of advancing social protections, and this is a really important area that we have neglected, I think, for a considerable period of time.

MR. PARENT: Can I respond or do you want a response?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: My time is so limited, but I will give you some of it.

MR. PARENT: I just wanted to clarify. It's not simply consultation, but stakeholders are members of the board and that's a huge difference.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Pardon me?

MR. PARENT: Stakeholders are on the board, it's not just consultation with the stakeholders. They're actually in the decision-making seat of power now.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think my comment still stands. Government has a very important role to play. Implementing the report's recommendations certainly can't be abdicated entirely by the government by saying, well, we have this group now, and we'll let them worry about it. I think that it's really very important that there be the initiative shown as well by government in where government wants to move in terms of asking for regular updates of where the recommendations stand, a timetable for implementing them, and what have you.

The minister talked about governance and how the achievements under Mr. Comeau are a new governance structure - well, to me, that's important, but it certainly has taken a considerable period of time to try to get this new governance structure in place when you have all these other really significant issues that will make a fundamental difference to people who are working in industries not covered, to people who are waiting for their chronic

[Page 192]

pain claims to be processed and settled in a timely fashion. We can't even pretend to be anywhere close to that. I think these are really important issues, and you can't just abdicate responsibility for them.

MR. PARENT: If my remarks were taken that way, I didn't mean - I meant in the actual details of the working out, I need to hear from stakeholders. But in terms of the overall general direction, I will be insisting that there be movement on this. I don't want to micromanage at that stage how they think they can solve the problems, but in terms of moving forward on some of the key recommendations, yes, certainly. I just wanted to clarify that.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have to share a bit of my time here with my colleague, but we will have time to come back after the Liberal caucus. So at this stage, I'm going to turn it over - I think it's about 12 minutes - to the member for Pictou East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I have one Labour question before getting into a few Environment questions. As the Natural Resources Critic, I have a fundamental concern about 350 workers, some of whom have been working for two decades and more as seasonal workers. They are not allowed, for some reason, to unionize. They're working alongside counterparts, and they have no benefits, no protection and, most importantly, no wage parity for doing equal work with some of their counterparts. I want to know why these people cannot in fact be unionized.

[1:15 p.m.]

This isn't an election issue - some people say this became an election issue, this is not an election issue - this is a situation that existed last summer, where 70 per cent of these seasonal workers showed interest in unionizing. They are being denied their rights. I'm wondering, under what Statute, or whatever, are these people not allowed to unionize? Other workers who are involved in seasonal work have in fact been able to unionize over the years.

MR. PARENT: All I can do is state that I'll take your question under advisement. I think you asked this of the Natural Resources Minister in the House, and that's really where the authority is vested, not in me. Certainly I will speak to my counterpart on your behalf, as I know you're doing, as you've doing publicly and are doing privately as well.

MR. MACKINNON: I thought maybe the Department of Environment and Labour might have the answer, since the minister wasn't really clear on the questions that I asked.

MR. PARENT: Generally, the Trade Union Act doesn't apply to employees of the Crown, both federally and provincially, but I will speak to the minister, as you'll speak to

[Page 193]

him, because I haven't had a chance to. I know you raised the question in the House, directed towards him, and I guess not getting an answer you feel is satisfactory, now you're directing it to me, so I will have to speak to him.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much. Regarding environmental issues, there is one of fundamental concern to rural areas, it is a rural area problem. I think before 2000, the inspectors in the Department of Environment did the perk tests and so on; they did these for free, as I understand it. I remember years ago having it done myself. Since then there is a need to have a qualified person involved in the process. The department still has to give the approval of the final approval and so on, which is at a cost of $53 or $55 or something like that. Then they have to do an audit of about 50 per cent, I believe, of the sites.

This has added a cost to some rural people of $600 to $800. I think the concern is that some people are now circumventing the system and there is work being done when no one is around, because of the cost. There is some avoiding of the system. Backhoe work is being done and is much inferior to what was done when the department had control over the issue, because of this increased cost. Is, in fact, the department getting feedback in relationship to this issue?

MR. PARENT: The feedback we're getting from the private sector is that they are very happy with the program; not so much on the cost, no one wants to pay costs. What we have managed to do through changes is, the approval rate is becoming very quick. It used to be about 30 to 60 days; now it's down to two weeks and we hope to get it down even less than that so it's almost instantaneous, so there's a bit of a trade-off involved there. This saves them a lot of money, if they get their approvals quickly.

You raise a very interesting, philosophical question, though, one of the questions that I asked at briefings. I think that's the case with any sort of legislation or regulations you bring in, at what point does it become so onerous that people then circumvent the system and so your regulations, in effect, aren't working. That's the thing that all of us, Opposition and government alike, have to struggle with, how do we enforce proper regulations without making it to the place where people are circumventing them and the regulations, although they are in place, aren't really providing the protection they request.

It's a similar philosophical issue to what we're seeing with water treatment in municipalities, for example, where since post-Walkerton, and of course in the new climate where people are very aware of environmental issues and sensitivities, where we are demanding a higher standard for treatment of cleaner drinking water and municipalities are saying, well, that's fine but we can't afford to do it, will Service Nova Scotia help us out?

We have a case with Mahone Bay, for example, in the paper today saying, these new regulations are great, we all agree that the water needs to be safe, etc., people need to be able to drink and to bathe in it without any fear of health issues, but we can't afford these new

[Page 194]

regulations. So it's a philosophical question that's an interesting one, that I have struggled with, how do you balance those two? Both of us come from rural areas where I know people circumvent regulations, because they feel they're either too onerous for red tape or too expensive.

On this particular one, I need to crow about the fact that we've brought the time delay down and that this has actually been a real cost-saver for businesses, from 60 days to two weeks. We're hoping to have it to one day to instantaneous so that there are some real cost savings for businesses, too, so they don't have to have people waiting around for the approvals, because we have the approval rate down substantially - the timeline down.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, what about the fine situation, the penalty situation for some of these late evening operators who may, in fact, be doing backhoe drainage work, instead of putting in a proper bed?

MR. PARENT: The fines are $450 to $675, but if we feel that the person is really deliberately, and in a very serious way, harming the environment, we have the option of taking them to court and then the court will determine the settlement. It could go up to $1 million. So the initial fine is $450 to $675, if someone is doing this work that you suggest. If we find that it's systematic or it's causing major damage to the environment, then we will take them to court and the fines then jump up substantially. But they would be dependent on the court to impose.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I find that really disturbing that we have a situation where the cost is actually, in some cases, greater than the potential fine. That, to me, is quite disturbing.

MR. PARENT: I think I understand what you're saying, that it might be more profitable for the individuals just to circumvent the regulations and pay for the fine if they get caught, is what you're saying?

MR. MACKINNON: I'm not talking about companies here. I'm talking about some rural incidents where backhoe work is done and we're hurting the environment, and no one is aware of it. There are some areas that you can get away with this quite easily, in this province, unfortunately.

MR. PARENT: I mean, when you're talking about compliance, if someone gets away with it, then they've gotten away with it clearly. But if we catch them, there is the fine, but also we would ask them to reverse the work and put in the proper system. So that's a significant cost for them too, and then finally we can take them to court if we want.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you. I want to turn attention to one of the environmental issues that's in my constituency. It has been with us for over 40 years and it's a very complex

[Page 195]

problem, and I realize we have to work with of other people, but Boat Harbour has had a number of proposals put forward in recent times and one, in fact, was dredging and getting somewhere between 50 and 80 per cent of the spoils or the deleterious matter out of Boat Harbour and then flushing the system. That proposal, of course, hasn't gone anywhere; there's a great danger in that, because you're leaving 20 per cent to 50 per cent still there, for the actual flushing.

I'm wondering, what is the current approach to dealing with Boat Harbour, and does the department have the wherewithal to try to deal with this issue after so many decades?

MR. PARENT: I guess, currently, the effluent that comes to the Boat Harbour treatment facility meets all provincial and federal regulations, so we're not making the problem worse. That's sort of current good news. You're talking about re-mediating past problems. (Interruption) So I guess the answer to your question is, as I stated, they're in operational compliance now with the effluent that they're discharging. In terms of the matter that you're talking about, the federal Department of Environment is the one who is the lead player on re-mediating that.

MR. MACKINNON: It's my understanding that it's the provincial Public Works that has the entire responsibility or most of the responsibility in addressing this, that this issue is no longer a Neenah Paper issue, it's now a provincial government issue as the owner of Boat Harbour.

MR. PARENT: I mean, TPW presently operates the facility. They meet the guidelines that we recommend, but the remedial work is the federal responsibility.

MR. MACKINNON: I understand I only have one minute left and I do want to mention - I'll deal with Boat Harbour later. In relationship to fly ash, this is a real concern in my area. We have the fly ash from Nova Scotia Power Inc. at Trenton, it's a real problem in Hillside in my area. I hope there are monies available to look at a bit of research in this field and also to pay some attention to the fly ash issue at Trenton. It's a problem more so for Hillside, which is in Pictou East, than it is for the Town of Trenton itself.

MR. PARENT: We talked about this before. Maybe we can come back to this, because I don't want to take time from the other caucus. It's an important issue and we did talk about it - perhaps we can raise it again or we can talk privately about it if you want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now turn to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Kings West.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the new minister of the Environment Department, and I do appreciate that it's a big jump getting up to speed on all

[Page 196]

the issues. Perhaps most of the ones I do have to ask about are fairly straightforward. I just have a small amount of time, because estimates on Education will be starting shortly.

During the election, you said publicly that you supported the development of the Digby quarry. I'm wondering if that's your personal position, the position of your government, or are you going to wait for the environmental assessment and let the department dictate what may happen in the future with regard to the Digby quarry?

MR. PARENT: Thank you for the question, because I actually didn't say I supported the Digby quarry at the meeting and the media didn't report that either, but I did get a letter from Pauline Raven which stated that night, and I phoned her back and corrected her on that. What I said is that there is a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment being undertaken at the present time - that assessment was including not just environmental factors, but socio-economic factors as well, so it was at the highest level - and that I would look forward to seeing that report and the recommendations they have.

They are still gathering data at the present time and then they'll be going to public consultation on that. Then I understand the report will be issued to both the federal Minister of Environment and myself. At that stage we'll have a chance to see what the recommendations are. So I thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. Also, when will that federal-provincial report be available?

MR. PARENT: I've been asking about it and the stage that it's at. I think they're fairly close to getting all the information they need, then they go to public consultation and they have certain time limits for that. So I will be going back and encouraging them to get their data, if they haven't got it all. I want them to do a good job, as you do as well. We all want them to do a good job so I don't want to rush them unduly, but I think it's important they move to the consultation stage as soon as they have the information they need to do that.

[1:30 p.m.]

So that's where they are now: the fact-finding with whatever issues they have to get - I know it's a complex issue - and then the public consultation and then it will come as a report, a recommendation to the federal minister and to myself.

MR. GLAVINE: There were a few areas that I was involved in as the Environment Critic, which I was for about a year. I just wanted an update on a few of those, one being Crowdis Mountain. There was an Ombudsman's report there. I'm wondering, was that made public?

MR. PARENT: I can update you on Crowdis Mountain, but let me just get the . . .

[Page 197]

MR. GLAVINE: I want to know first if the Ombudsman's report was made public.

MR. PARENT: There was never an Ombudsman's report on Crowdis Mountain. There was an internal departmental analysis, which we will make public to you if you'd like. We're working at solving that problem - that was one of the first things I was briefed on. So clearly, the concerns you raised as Environment Critic were taken seriously by the department. I think that will be resolved very quickly.

Perhaps for your files or for your colleague's files, if you don't have that audit and would like a copy of it, we'll make sure you get a copy of that audit for your files so you can follow up. But I think there is resolution coming to that issue, one way or the other, that will satisfy both the residents and the facility operators.

MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I thought actually both reports. There was an Ombudsman's report, however, done on Baltzer Bog. I'm wondering why that wasn't made public. I know that it can be. I know the Act certainly has certain directions about Ombudsman's reports, but it could have been made public. Could you tell me why that wasn't made public? Part two would be the recommendations in that report, which were enormously strong for future directions for the department, and I'm just wondering, are those being acted upon?

MR. PARENT: I've got a bit of a briefing on Baltzer Bog, and of course it's an issue that, as you know, I'm familiar with, because - well, I guess it's really in Kings South, but it affects all three of our ridings in Kings County. I'm not sure why the report hasn't been made public though and whether it can be. I'll check with the deputy on that one.

The Ombudsman, in terms of making that report public, has the authority to make it public or not. So that's the question, really, and it needs to be directed to the Ombudsman. In his latest report, he commended the department, because we have taken steps on all the recommendations. He commended us for the progress we've made on it. So that's the good news for us as a department, but in terms of making the report public, that's really not within our jurisdiction.

MR. GLAVINE: Are you saying it's the Ombudsman's?

MR. PARENT: It's a confidential report we give to the Ombudsman's Office. He gets data from us and he or she can decide to make it public or not, I presume. You would have to ask the Ombudsman that.

MR. GLAVINE: However, the department has had that report for some time. I'm wondering, have some of the recommendations been put in place and, if you could, actually specifically refer to one of those?

[Page 198]

MR. PARENT: There are quite a few. As I mentioned, the Ombudsman actually commended the department in his latest report for complying with the recommendations. A quality assurance program was implemented, the new wetlands policy is in place, and an alternative dispute process is in place. So those are three that I can mention out of many recommendations. I don't know in the Ombudsman's report where he commends us. I don't think he outlines them all, but commends us, all of them have had some action on. We've complied with all the recommendations that were given and they're at various stages, but these three have been ones that you can check off the list. There are others, and if you want, I can get you that information later. We'll get that back to you, all the recommendations.

MR. GLAVINE: One of the recommendations that was made in the report was about the local group that had incurred considerable expenses to challenge the department and to try to deal with this issue. I'm wondering if they, in fact - which was a recommendation of the Ombudsman - have received some financial compensation support for their investment in trying to get the department and government to respond to their needs?

MR. PARENT: I figure this is the answer, because my aunt was one of those ones involved and she hasn't been phoning me, so I assume that there was some reimbursement provided, yes.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you. One of the other areas that certainly, not for developers, but certainly for residents that I've been hearing about locally, as you know, the composition along certain areas of the Valley floor in regard to the quality of the aggregate sand products. There was an Order in Council which permitted two hectares and less to be developed and to be used without environmental assessment - it has to be checked off by the Department of Environment, but truly no assessment being done.

I've had some calls from residents with concerns over that change in policy. I'm wondering if it's one the department is going to review in the short term or once again, will it take pressure from residents, perhaps, to bring this to a greater public light?

MR. PARENT: It's a good question. The problem, of course, is when you get into the smaller pits, that the cost of compliance becomes a factor. This is one thing the department took into account when it set the two-hectare limit. That's something that goes back to the question from our NDP colleague in terms of the costs that we impose through my department, and the fact that we have to make sure that's not causing a boomerang effect.

It's an issue that, as a new minister, I'm willing to take a look at again. I did ask about the two hectares in briefings and the cost is one issue, but I'd be happy to talk to the member about it if you're having specific concerns in your riding. Let's talk about that policy change and see what comes out of those talks. It's not something I've been working on currently. I did ask about it, it's something that really is a factor that we can consider the small pit operators. I think it goes back to a comment from our NDP colleague that's a factor there.

[Page 199]

MR. GLAVINE: I have to watch my time here. A local question that has come up recently is that about a year ago the Department of Environment gave guidelines to small abattoirs who wanted to do a composting pilot program, which certainly is an acceptable practice and one that is used in other jurisdictions. However, the year is now up and there seem to be some other qualifiers put into place which could be costly for these companies. I am wondering if there's also pressure from a company like Rothesay, which is no longer picking up the by-product and taking it to their operation in Truro. Is the department switching gears here? Are they getting so much pressure from Rothesay that they're losing out on a certain amount of product they would like to be processing? I'd just like to know what the direction of the department is with regard to composting as one of the disposal methods of getting rid of animal by-product, especially in the light of the concerns after BSE.

MR. PARENT: We have several pilot sites that are working on composting of animal by-products . . .

MR. GLAVINE: Pardon?

MR. PARENT: Several pilot sites are working and we're ensuring they're in compliance. I was asking for a timeline on it and that's what my smile was because it's another year, but when I expressed surprise it would take so long, I was reminded it takes awhile to compost a cow, so probably a year is not too long. The pilot sites are being tested, they are being monitored, and we will have a full report on it in a year's time as to the success of the pilot sites and the techniques they used.

MR. GLAVINE: So ongoing then will depending on the testing, and so on, that's done.

MR. PARENT: I mean, as it was pointed out to me, I could have added the word "dummy", it takes a long time to compost a cow. It will take some time to get these out.

MR. GLAVINE: I'm aware that it's probably in a four- to five-year range, perhaps.

MR. PARENT: Next year, in a year's time we will have some more results to share.

MR. GLAVINE: In the meantime, will those operators, will it be their expense to do the testing, to make any small on-site adjustments that rightfully, the department should be putting in place, but whose responsibility will it be?

MR. PARENT: It's really on their dime, but they are diverting all their waste, instead of going to Rothesay, it's all going to these sites, so there's a bit of a saving for them there. But it's on their dime, the slight changes needed as the pilot projects go forward.

[Page 200]

MR. GLAVINE: Okay, thank you. Gosh, the response is almost like Question Period. One of the things that all of us, as MLAs, Mr. Minister, deal with on a fairly regular basis is fieldworkers with the department, and certainly with smaller, ongoing kinds of issues. Like in any field of endeavour, we all know there are some who are really capable and time after time, not just to my satisfaction but to everybody's satisfaction, there are great reports done, good action plans put into place.

There are many concerns, sometimes, around department people, and certainly the Kentville office has gone through a number and has had a review in the past, which was questionable at best. I'm just wondering, what is the basic qualification required to be a fieldworker in the Department of Environment and Labour?

MR. PARENT: I was going to say, the wisdom of Solomon, but I'll get you a better answer than that.

[1:45 p.m.]

They have either degrees or certificates in public health or environmental sciences. The degree is not required, but everyone we've hired has consistently had a degree in either public health or environmental sciences.

MR. GLAVINE: Just a couple of other questions. Will the agency Conserve Nova Scotia come under your ministry when it's up and running?

MR. PARENT: I understand that as it evolves, suggestions will come forward of whether it's stand-alone, how it relates to various departments. I would suspect that once you get beyond simply conservation of energy and get into air quality, certainly there would be strong links with the Department of Environment and Labour, but that has yet to unfold and be put in place. That should be forthcoming fairly soon, but I would suspect that there would have to be - it's interesting even in Question Period when you watch the questions, it's pretty hard to talk about conservation of energy without talking about, well, why are we doing this conservation of energy and it's not simply to save money, it does come into air quality and into the fact that we need to reduce harmful emissions into the air and once it does that, it's in the departmental portfolio of the Department of Environment and Labour.

MR. GLAVINE: One of the programs that has been dropped by the federal department, which I find difficult at this point in time to see why it has been dropped, but the One-Tonne Challenge, which was starting to get some traction not just here in Nova Scotia but across the province, I know some of the work that was done in the Valley and they are certainly aware of some of the projects that were ongoing. I'm wondering if the department is going to be proactive in that area and look at putting something forward in terms of a replacement to continue to challenge Nova Scotians to do a better job in that regard, especially with their emissions.

[Page 201]

MR. PARENT: We as a department, which I think I referenced in my opening remarks, participate in the program ourselves, to reduce our emissions as a department. As you referenced, I think it was Kings CED that were one of the leads on this in the Kings County area. We're involved in the Climate Change Atlantic consortium and assist them in ways to help market their climate change expertise on a global change but, when it comes to actually reducing greenhouse gases, the lead agency on that is the Department of Energy, assisted and supported by the Department of Environment. Energy has already come, but it may be a question you want to ask the minister of that department.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Just a couple of others, the other day you brought forward a great topic in late debate on water and the clean water strategy, but you weren't in a position to be able to stay around for most of the remaining debate. One of the topics that I raised was the presence of THMs in community water supply. We know that it's problematic still in some communities and around 2000 there were 18 communities that had unacceptable levels; it was down to 10 communities in 2004. I'm wondering, will there be a comprehensive report for 2006 on the presence of THMs in community water supplies?

MR. PARENT: I noticed you mentioned that and I thank you for allowing me to present the topic and to follow up on the remarks in written form afterwards. The THM issue, I thought you were going to talk about the one with Mahone Bay because that's the ongoing one now, but you want a report on what's happening in 2006 - how many communities? We monitor on a quarterly basis and as of right now, as we're speaking, there are eight communities that have an elevated level.

MR. GLAVINE: Yes, I had just seen some yearly report so I didn't realize - thank you for that. The last area that I would like to ask a question about - I've had some calls, not just locally but around the province, the new regulations around the septic pumpers association, and I'm wondering, when will those guidelines have to be followed? Some of the small companies especially are worried about whether or not they will be able to comply and have the resources, and so forth, to be able to do that.

MR. PARENT: The date they have to comply with is 2010, but I'm not sure if you were here when I was talking in response to other questions - I think it was your colleague - to our new septic program which will see up to $100,000 to help companies meet the new requirements. We assume the majority of them will take that or portions of that, whatever is needed, in order to meet the new requirements. There may be some who feel it's just not profitable for them and will go out of business. But they have until 2010 to comply and we're offering assistance to help them comply with the new requirements, and that's one of the budget additions that I think I responded to your colleague about - he was asking before.

MR. GLAVINE: Okay, I'll pass my remaining time over then to my colleague.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: How much time do I have, Madam Chairman?

[Page 202]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: It's 1:51 p.m., and you have until 2:26 p.m.

The honourable member for Preston.

MR. COLWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask today and when I run out of time, I have a few more when I come back again. I'm looking at the solvency issue of the HRM pension plan in particular. It's an issue that I came across continuously, during the last election campaign, with employees who are very concerned about this and the cost of it.

I see you've struck a committee between the municipality and members of your department, to look at this issue and to see what might be done. What's a timeline in having that report back?

MR. PARENT: They'd have to have it back before January. As you know, Mayor Peter Kelly and myself issued a press release, so I assume that's what you're referring to, that there's a working group looking at this from both the Superintendent of Pensions, our department, and HRM, and any changes to their pension wouldn't take place until January. So we would have to have the results back before then to make some sort of decision on this solvency issue.

It's a very important issue that we're looking at and I don't want to take the member's time, but in my short time in the department it has become clear to me that pension issues are going to be important issues in the future, simply because of the fact that we have an aging workforce and it's important for our department. We have the long-term valuation and the solvency, both of which are important tests to make sure that pension plan is healthy and is there to pay out workers who've contributed in.

We see in California a lot of cases where pensions either are not paid out fully or not paid out at all, and other parts. So I think with an aging workforce and with some of the changes in terms of interest that people earned on investments, this will be an issue that we're looking at. This working group specifically - I think by the end of the year we have to have some decision made, so hopefully we'll hear back from that working group, sometime in November or early December, so we have some time to look at the recommendations and see what comes out of the discussions that they have.

MR. COLWELL: You mentioned, and it was in the press release that the two members from government will be the province's Superintendent of Pensions and the Deputy Minister of Labour. Isn't that a conflict of interest?

MR. PARENT: Excuse me?

MR. COLWELL: In the press release, and you just mentioned a minute ago that the province's Superintendent of Pensions and the department's deputy minister are members

[Page 203]

of this committee, this working group. Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? Wouldn't it have been better to have someone from the department other than the superintendent who has to eventually - and the deputy - sort of evolve a decision?

MR. PARENT: They're not the only ones on the committee, but they are part of the committee, but they're the ones really with the expertise and with the background on it, and I think it's important they be at the table. I see what you're saying in the sense that if HRM says we want this to happen, ultimately it's going to be on my table to decide whether that happens or not and on the table of Cabinet. What you need to understand is that my deputy's counterpart and Nancy McNeill-Smith - the two Nancys and about four Bills that I have to keep - they're working with their counterparts too, and they're working in a very collegial manner in trying to resolve this issue and work it together.

I think that's the best approach, to have a collegial discussion, because they need to know from our counterparts what are some of the issues involved on our side and for us to all work together to try to come to some resolution on this. Ultimately, it won't be the deputy or Nancy making the final decision, it will be the government, so I don't see the conflict there. I think it's important to have them at the table.

MR. COLWELL: Is there a precedent for this ever happening before in the province, where you have the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Pensions being involved in a working group to decide on pensions that are outside of the provincial government, with other people?

MR. PARENT: I can check into that, I'm not sure. There has been - I mean this issue of solvency, as you are probably aware, has been an issue that has arisen in other provinces as well and both at the federal and provincial level. New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador come to mind, provincially, and the federal level has dealt with this in regard to some of their Crown agencies.

In terms of the working groups that help try to come to some sort of consensus, I'm not really sure I can find out for you. But I would like to go back to what I think is an important governance priority in our department, and that is to try to work collegially and co-operatively with all the stakeholders and with everyone who really has some input, so we can come up with some form of consensus, so it's not winners and losers but all of them are winners.

I can check and get back to you, because we know that this issue has come up in New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are very close provinces. I can check to see what the composition was of their working groups and get back to you on that. I don't really know the answer to that right now.

[Page 204]

MR. COLWELL: Yes, and as well as that, I would like to get the answer back if this has ever been done by a deputy minister and Superintendent of Insurance, definitively, with an outside group. Internally, it's a different thing but outside, if you're dealing outside of the provincial government, has there ever been a precedent for this happening in the past? Again, I still think that part of it is a potential conflict of interest.

MR. PARENT: Yes, you're really asking in terms of the working group, because the Superintendent of Pensions is in constant contact with the pension plans of various pensions, so you're really asking about the working group. I will find out for you how those two different provinces, at least, handled this issue and get you that information back. She is constantly in touch with the pension groups. It's about the working groups, specifically, that you're asking a question. I realize that, so I will get you that information.

MR. COLWELL: Yes. Being in touch with a working group is a different thing than serving with the working group on a committee that's put together to resolve the problem. I would think it would take away some of the independence that the Superintendent of Insurance must have with any pension plan, so he can look at it more objectively.

[2:00 p.m.]

Not that your staff member wouldn't do that, I'm not saying that at all. It may put that individual or the deputy minister in a very uncomfortable situation that I'm sure the people in the pension plan and the department and the rest of us wouldn't like to see, because all kinds of things can happen at these working groups.

MR. PARENT: The Superintendent of Pensions, it has been very clear to me that she has - well, she has legislative authority that there really are issues. Her concern, I think - and I really hesitate to speak for someone else here, but I think the health of the pension plans is ultimately a concern for her, as it is for the government, and as I think it is for the companies and the businesses as well. That's what we need to keep in mind, as a government, that those plans are healthy, because the very last thing any one of us around this table wants to have happen is for pensioners who have contributed over their lifetime and when it's time to collect the pension, it's not there, or they're getting 50 cents on the dollar, so your comments are well taken.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, and I appreciate that. The point I'm trying to make is that I totally agree, you have to make sure that these pension funds are in place and with the case of HRM, they're not going to go anyplace and they're probably more solid than the province is right now, financially, and will continue to be that way under the legislation they have to work under, the global legislation under the Municipal Government Act. As long as we don't do anything foolish like change that too badly, that should continue.

[Page 205]

It's a big expense for the stakeholders in the pension plan and HRM and the property taxpayers in the municipality, so a positive solution to this thing would be very positive. That's not what I'm getting at here.

MR. PARENT: No, I understand the point you're making. Be assured that as the minister, the last thing I want to see is a pension plan get in trouble. The solvency test is an important test to help make sure the plan is healthy.

MR. COLWELL: The only issue I have with the Superintendent of Pensions again, who is a very capable individual, and the deputy minister, a very capable individual - that's not the issue here. The issue is what happens if some big company comes to the province and says look, we weren't dealt with fairly in this whole process, because the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Pensions were involved in this decision-making process by the working group and we want them to be here, too, or we're going to appeal this thing or take it to court, or whatever the case may be at the time, when this all goes through. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that they might have a case and, if they do have a case, then we have a problem in the province.

MR. PARENT: I'm not sure that I follow exactly. If you're saying that a private company makes some sort of petition to have changes to their solvency and we didn't respond in terms of setting up the same sort of process of looking at that issue as we have done with HRM, that they would have a case to take us to court - is that really your point?

MR. COLWELL: Well basically, what I'm saying is, I wouldn't like somebody - and I'll use as an example, and I don't like to use a company name, but say if Michelin was a very solid . . .

MR. PARENT: Let's use one that already came to the floor of the Legislature, Neenah Paper Company, that was already asked by the member for Pictou West, so that's already in the public. They've asked questions about the solvency of their pensions, so we can use that company, how's that?

MR. COLWELL: Maybe I'm not making my point clear enough. What I'm saying is, if there's a company, whatever the company may be - it's very difficult to hear in here, maybe we could ask them to turn the volume up a little bit on their speaker system here.

The point is, where you have the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Insurance serving on a working group with the Halifax Regional Municipality, that may not be a problem. Again, when you're going to have to make a decision on this issue and decide that, indeed, at the end of the day if it's just even perceived - and, of course, people can perceive things in all different ways - that they have some kind of special arrangement that could wipe that arrangement out, number one, because I think we have to do something, as provincial

[Page 206]

legislators, to ensure that the municipality doesn't have an unnecessary financial burden, both on the payers and the program.

If you come to some kind of arrangement and then some big company comes to you and says look, you made a special deal with HRM on this thing and you had the deputy minister in that process and you had the Superintendent of Insurance, who aren't independent parties to this - a staff member would be an independent party who does not actually make the decision or recommendation to Cabinet - we feel it's unfair, now we're going to want ours changed and we're going to sue the province.

MR. PARENT: I think the top-level issue that you're asking about is the issue of precedence, and what we do with HRM is going to be looked at very closely by other municipalities and other companies. That's certainly a warning that I have taken seriously and one I have echoed myself.

In part, one of the issues, one of the reasons why we're having so many questions on solvency, because I've been approached, not just on HRM but other companies that I can't really divulge at this stage - the only one I could divulge was Neenah Paper, because it came to the floor of the Legislature - was because of changes we made to help the universities with some of their shortfalls in their pension plans. So I think that's a very salutary warning that we have to be very careful that whatever precedence, as government, we set with HRM is a precedence that we can live up to with other municipalities and other companies.

As a bottom line, while we want the companies or the municipalities not to be under due financial hardship, a bottom line, from where I sit as the Minister of Environment and Labour, is to protect those pension plans for the workers who paid in, so they can collect when they retire. Fortunately I have asked the superintendent on various pension plans that have come up that have been in the news, some with departments other than my own, is that they're in healthy shape and by and large, the HRM pension is a large pension, somewhere around $1 billion, so it's not a huge problem that we're talking about at this stage.

The precedence issue is a very important issue that you raise. So whatever decision is made, and I'm not sure the process is important at this stage as that the issue could be taken as precedence, I don't think other companies would come and say, listen, you have to do the same process with us, but they would certainly take the end decision that came out of the HRM request and they would use that as precedence.

MR. COLWELL: I can see your thought pattern around that, but, again, I'm concerned. What's to prevent every large organization in the province or every municipality from coming and saying, we want the same arrangement as HRM, we want the deputy minister and Superintendent of Insurance to serve on a working committee? It would just be impossible, absolutely impossible to do that. It always appears - and I'm a former HRM councillor, so don't get me wrong when I say this comment here, at all, because

[Page 207]

(Interruption) Every other municipality always looks at HRM and says, they're the big guys, they get everything, they sort of run over and do what they want to do.

I wouldn't want to see any other municipality feel like they've been neglected or slighted in any way, when it's impossible for the deputy minister and the Superintendent of Insurance to meet on a working group with them, and in which case their municipality may not be in as good and solid financial shape as HRM is because of their tax base. Then you're going to have a real problem, if you don't have this organized properly to ensure that you're viewed and the municipalities are viewed as on an equal playing field when it comes to this topic.

MR. PARENT: And your warnings are taken very seriously. As I mentioned at the start, solvency issues - I've already realized in a week and a half - there are four requests that have been made directly or indirectly to me on solvency issues from various municipalities or private companies. This, as I've flagged, is an issue that we have to be very careful of in government. So your comments are taken with great seriousness here.

MR. COLWELL: I'll just ask one final question about this topic. The final one is, if anyone else comes, are you going to do the same thing with any other organization that comes forward, and put the Superintendent of Insurance and the deputy minister on a working group or a committee to work directly with any other organization, or is it just going to be HRM?

MR. PARENT: There are classes of organizations. Municipalities, although they differ, there are certain commonalities, and there are certain commonalities with private companies. There are certain commonalities with universities. I think, where necessary, when you've got those large sort of classes, although it may be one company or one municipality you're dealing with, those decisions have some reverberation on, in HRM's case - for example, HRM is asking for the solvency test to be taken off because of certain abilities they have as a municipality. So that would apply to all municipalities.

Now, I'm not sure what's going to come out of the working group discussions, and I don't want to prejudice those in any way. The point I'm trying to make is that when there are various classes that come, then it might be wise if we follow the same process, but I don't think we would have to follow it for every specific company or every specific municipality, because we would have some sort of general guidelines that would have come out of those discussions that, of course, would need to be tweaked, if Lockport or Kentville came forward for example, but we would have had some discussions that would be similar to what all municipalities would be raising. I think the same obviously would happen with universities, although there are differences in universities, too, but there are similarities there.

I hope I'm making myself clear on this point, that with large classes it might be a process but not with every company.

[Page 208]

MR. COLWELL: I just want to finally state that I'm glad you're going through a process to resolve this problem, especially with HRM, because it is a big-ticket item for the municipality and for the taxpayers. We're already overburdened with property taxes in Halifax Regional Municipality.

The next issue - and I've been aware from the Environment Department as critic for awhile - what's the status on the plant in Truro, with biosolids? What's going on with that at the present time?

MR. PARENT: As I mentioned before, Rothesay is not taking biosolids now, it takes industrial waste, and that's no longer being shipped to Inglewood Farms. So there has been a moratorium on that, if you will. It's an issue that, as I think I mentioned before, we're going to have to deal with more and more, because in the old days a lot of biosolid human waste was just flushed into the ocean and as we get better at caring for the environment, this isn't happening. So this is an issue that we have to deal with, but right now there are no biosolids going to Rothesay. They're not processing any.

MR. COLWELL: Okay. I have another question on another topic. How do you monitor the construction and demolition organizations that take the C&D material and bury it? What provisions are put in place by the Department of Environment and Labour to ensure that they're not burying garbage?

MR. PARENT: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry, there was a truck that went by.

MR. COLWELL: The C&D sites, the construction and demolition debris outfits that actually take private contractors that take that material - some of it they recycle, some of it they bury - what safeguards does the Department of Environment and Labour have in place for the materials that are being buried?

MR. PARENT: There are a number of conditions that those companies have to meet, construction companies, and they're subject to auditing . I guess we've got the same sort of situation; I mean the audit picks up 99 per cent of the problems where someone might be just burying that debris somewhere illegally. There are always going to be some cases - well, not always, but there are going to be cases where certain companies may not be complying with the requirements and where the audit doesn't serve the purpose. So we're going to have some of that, but 99 per cent of the companies are complying with the conditions and then the audit is picking up any problems after that. And the monitoring, of course, picks up if there's any impact on the environment, which then lead us to do the investigation.

[2:15 p.m.]

MR. COLWELL: How much of the tonnage that they receive - specifically, I'd like to know them specifically for each organization - how much, and each location in the

[Page 209]

province. I know it's not information you may be able to supply today, individually, but how much of the material is actually recycled and how much is buried?

MR. PARENT: I'll have to get back to you on that, because I don't have that information right now. Do you want it specifically for each company involved? I mean, that would be . . .

MR. COLWELL: Yes, there aren't a lot of companies in the province that do this, and I just want to see what the percentage of buried material is compared to what's recycled.

MR. PARENT: Would you like to see how that has changed over time, too?

MR. COLWELL: That would be beneficial if that's available.

MR. PARENT: Because progress would be shown if we can move toward recycling, so we'll get you those figures.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I'd like to see that, because I know I dumped some stuff off there and it seems like the big machine comes in and shovels it all into a big truck and it's gone. You have aluminum and glass, wood and all kinds of different things, and some of them, I realize, can't be recycled because it's contaminated with - when I say contaminated, like anything that's painted or anything like that, but the other wood maybe. I just wondered how they're really stacking up, because I think it's a wonderful program. But if it's not providing the environmental advantage we're looking for, maybe we should look at a better way to do this, or improve on the service over time.

One other thing with garbage is, it's my understanding - I could be wrong with this - that the diversion rate with HRM has gone down very slightly compared to what it was, or is that incorrect information?

MR. PARENT: Are you asking specifically about HRM?

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

MR. PARENT: The provincial rate has gone down slightly and I knew that. I wasn't aware of HRM's rate, it has gone down slightly too and that's why they're working on new programs. Part of the reason for that is when you have a boom economic time, people are buying more products, and of course then you have more waste on the other side, so we need to work harder at making sure that recycling message gets out. It is slightly down in the province, it is slightly down in HRM, and that's why they're instituting new programs to handle that. It's sort of, I guess, interesting that as the economy heats up, you have to worry about more waste and encourage people to make sure that as they buy more products and build more homes, they don't lose sight of the need to recycle.

[Page 210]

MR. COLWELL: That all depends on how you do the diversion rates. If you do the diversion rates as a percentage of the total amount of garbage total, if the rate goes down, the percentage shouldn't go down with it. It should be going up or staying stable or go down based on axial tonnage. So if the economy is doing really well and you do 10,000 tons and you get 50 per cent diverted and then if you go down to 5,000 tons and you still get 50 per cent diverted, you haven't really lost ground. But if you go down to 45 per cent diverted, you're losing ground.

MR. PARENT: That's an important point, how we actually measure it. It reminds me of the book The Mouse that Roared - there's lies, damned lies and statistics - we don't want our statistics to hide, we want to know exactly what's being measured so that we progress, that we're not just measuring in ways that make us look good. The benchmark is 1989 and we want to divert 50 per cent of what was put out as garbage in 1989. So that's the benchmark. It's a little different than what you were suggesting in terms of how we measure it, which is why it's down a little bit. Is that clear? Am I as clear as mud on this one?

MR. COLWELL: You use a benchmark rather than the percentage of the total tonnage each year.

MR. PARENT: Maybe we should be looking at the other, because if we looked at the other we'd probably look okay, but because we're using a benchmark and measuring against that and saying we want 50 per cent of that to be recycled and then we have more items going into recycling, then it hurts us on the benchmark. But that's how we're doing it now.

MR. COLWELL: My only concern with it is, I'm really pleased with the level we have and hopefully it will go to a higher and higher diversion. I know your department is pushing for that as well, so that's not the issue. But I want to make sure we're not losing ground now and we're improving on that number instead of it sliding.

MR. PARENT: That's really important and if we measured it a different way it may show that we're actually continuing to gain ground. Our waste management recycling program is one of the envies in North American and beyond. In fact, I just received news that Jacques Whitford received some contract with California to give them some expertise in waste management, because they had two employees who had been working down here in Nova Scotia and were familiar with our program - I think they had worked on it at one stage - so they were leading experts in the world to provide expertise to California. Simply because we are one of the best doesn't mean we can't become even better, and that's what's behind your point.

MR. COLWELL: That's good and I'm aware of that and I think that's excellent. Sometimes with technology in Nova Scotia we can make some money out of it for a change, instead of it costing us money.

[Page 211]

MR. PARENT: When you talk about that, the department is very eager, I'm very eager to do that too, and I really think there are real opportunities to marry concern and care for the environment along with attraction of companies producing environmentally-friendly techniques or expertise, such as in the case of waste management. They can then be exported and leveraged on both sides. I think there are some real opportunities that we have here.

I go back to the Premier's Advisory Council on Innovation that a neighbour and a friend of mine, Kelvin Ogilvie, was chair of. If you read that report, I think by 2020, that Nova Scotia would be the leading environmental province in Canada, but that would be married too, that we would become a place that would be attractive for companies to work in on environmentally friendly technologies and processes that could then be exported.

That may be somewhat idealistic, but I think it's an ideal well worth pursuing, and that's exactly what you're talking about. So I just want to commend you on your comments.

MR. COLWELL: The next one I have is, what you see on these sites in the province. I know when I was on council, I pushed hard for council to get the government to change their mind and let you take paint. I think that was a very, very positive move on the part of the province. Indeed, I think it has diverted a lot of material that would have gone into a dump or been dumped on the side of the road or down the drain - all kinds of nasty places that you definitely don't want paint or paint products.

There are other issues too. Is the department looking forward to taking things like propane tanks that are expired, and other items such as that, that would make it easy for people to get rid of these things? I recently had my propane tank filled at one of the suppliers and I dropped off an old tank, and they told me at that time that these ones are selling off again to another country that allows them to go for 20 years, instead of 10 like we do.

I'm not saying we should go to 20 years without retesting them, but I think if it were allowed to go to the C&D sites, indeed with the proper process in place and proper safety precautions and all the things would have to be with that, it may be another revenue stream for them and a convenience for individuals who want to get rid of these things and don't want them hanging around their property or their yards or dumped in the woods somewhere, which is even worse and does happen.

MR. PARENT: The good news is that we're looking at that issue and hope to have talks with industry about it and involving them in this question of the disposal of propane tanks, both large and the individual barbecue sizes. We're making progress. We should have something to report back within four or five months, six months, maybe a bit longer than that. But there is progress being made on it.

I'm not sure, at the individual level, how deeply that impacts the individual. I know with my own propane, for example, when the tank runs out, I take it back and I get given a

[Page 212]

new filled tank. I think that has become sort of common practice. Rather than filling my own tank, they just give me another tank. That's the practice that I've noticed in my area and it's becoming a common area, but that still means those tanks that are expired need to be taken care of properly. So we should have something to report on that, and discussions on that have been ongoing.

MR. COLWELL: Is there another list of items that they're looking at the Enviro-Depots taking besides possibly propane tanks? There are issues like in HRM, for instance, if they could take refrigerators, appliances, things like that, that the HRM comes around and picks up anyway. In the case of refrigerators or freezers, they have to take the refrigerants out to make them safe to handle. It's quite expensive for . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time has elapsed.

MR. PARENT: Along with the disposing of propane tanks, the one that I mentioned and talked about yesterday with the critic from the NDP, I believe, that we're working hard on, is the disposal of used electronic equipment. That's a growing issue that we're facing as a society. Some of these, I mentioned this the other day, but printers, for example, have become almost throw-away items because the cost of buying a new printer is cheaper than buying the ink. I find that somewhat distressing. I tried to see what I could do about it when I was an MLA.

Clearly there's a growing recognition of this problem and that, along with propane tanks, is the main thing that we're talking about now in terms of disposal of electronic items. That's the growing area problem that we have as a society and as a province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, before I turn the time over to my colleague that was left in the NDP portion, we were talking about the Workers' Compensation Board. I'd like to return to this for a brief period of time before I move on to other things. Probably we could use all of our time talking about workers' compensation, but there are many important issues.

One of the things you indicated was that there had been a change in governance of the board, which certainly was one of the recommendations in Dorsey. I'd like if you could speak to how this reconstituted board is accountable to you, the minister. What are the mechanisms for accountability of the new board to you?

MR. PARENT: I have contact with the chair, as already mentioned. One of the first calls I made was to Louis Comeau and once his replacement is in place, I'll be meeting with that replacement. I think the more important thing is that the board has to report two times to its stakeholders, versus vis-à-vis a strategic plan that has been accepted and then progress

[Page 213]

has to be measured against that strategic plan. We have goals set out that are agreed upon, and then the board has to report twice a year as to the progress made to the stakeholders on those goals.

I mean, as minister, I have an interest and will certainly exercise the responsibility I have with the chair, but I think even more significant than the relationship I have with the chair, or just as significant, is this change in governance. They have to set a strategic plan with definable goals and they have to report twice a year as to the progress made towards those goals.

[2:30 p.m.]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: And this is being done? Right now? We have a strategic plan, we have defined goals, the regular reporting in place?

One of the changes, I believe - and I might be wrong on this, but I'm trying to learn my way through - is that included now are injured worker representatives, or a representative on the board. I'm wondering, could the minister elaborate on how the compensation, or the honorarium, for injured workers is being dealt with?

It's my understanding that the people or persons who come from these groups are often, understandably, in receipt of some form of benefit. I'm wondering, what is the minister's position on policy that would treat honorarium to somebody serving on the board as income and having it deducted from their benefits, rather than seeing that as an honorarium to compensate for the time, the expertise and other incidentals that go with serving in that capacity?

MR. PARENT: It's an interesting question you raise, because I've dealt with it in other issues as MLA that I was just thinking of when you were raising the question of honorarium, particularly with the KCATS - the Kings County Alternative Transportation System - back in Kings County. There was this whole issue of board members receiving an honorarium and how that affected their income tax on a federal level. So that's what was going through my mind when you were asking the question.

The stakeholders all agreed that the honorarium would not affect their income, but the difference, I guess, with benefits - which is specifically what you're questioning about - is that they're not treated as income. That's really the focus of your question.

So the honorarium would affect their benefits because benefits aren't classified as income, which is an important issue that you bring to my attention right now. I don't want any one group of stakeholders on that board to be disadvantaged. However, there are a lot of things beyond my responsibility as Minister of Environment and Labour in terms of

[Page 214]

income tax regulations on the federal level, et cetera, that are really beyond me. But it's a point that you've put on the public record and worth hearing.

I was surprised just talking about the honorarium, if I can just very quickly . . .

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Excuse me, for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I'm having a hard time hearing the minister. I'm wondering if Hansard can do something to improve the level.

MR. PARENT: Sure, I'm trying to - is that better?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. PARENT: Okay. The stakeholders all agreed that any honorarium would not affect income. So that was all agreed to. The problem that we're having, which I think you've highlighted with your question, that benefits for injured workers are not treated as income, and therefore the honorarium does affect that. That's an important point that you're putting on the record. I was just stating that there are certain legislation requirements that I, we all, work under in terms of income tax that are set federally.

The comment that you made is an important one and I'm certainly willing to take a look at it. I'm not sure if there's much that I can do in regard to that because, unfortunately, benefits are treated not as income, but separately from income.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, maybe if you would move your mic a little closer too. Apparently, the 12-inch thing does work.

MR. PARENT: The 12 inches isn't working - we're up to three now.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I'm not sure of what the problem is, precisely, but I'm aware the Legislature doesn't have the power to amend the Income Tax Act. I would think that we would have the power in legislation to define certain aspects around honorariums with respect to serving on boards and commissions, particularly with respect to members of injured workers' groups sitting on the board.

Anyway, this is a discussion that I'm sure we can, and should, have because it's important to have injured workers represented. I think that was something that was recognized by everybody in the Legislature. The composition of the governance bodies was adjusted accordingly, but it wouldn't be a good thing if people were financially penalized and they couldn't go to the table like everybody else. I think that's one of the things we need to ensure those individuals who are giving of their time and their expertise from the various vantage points that they bring - be it business, labour, injured worker, whatever - that we

[Page 215]

don't create some kind of two-tier participation level in these processes because some group is being financially penalized or treated in an unfair way.

MR. PARENT: They're not, at the present time, being financially penalized, if that's your concern. They may not be financially rewarded.

Two things, just for the public record. This is the first time injured workers have had representation on the Workers' Compensation Board, which is a major improvement. The result of the stakeholders' discussion and the agreement that was reached was that the honorarium would not affect the benefits such that the combination of honorariums and benefits meant that they were making less money with the honorarium than they would have if on their benefits. So no one is being penalized for being on the board. There may be cases on the board where a person is making more money through the honorarium than they would if they weren't serving on the board and others are making the same as they would have, but no one is being penalized.

If that was the focus of your question, then that problem is solved. There's still the fairness question, on the other issue, but no one is being penalized for serving on the board. It's no financial cost to them. It's taken care of one way or the other.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Okay, as I said, the fairness question is really pretty important . . .

MR. PARENT: Can I just add one quick comment, would that be okay? I was really surprised, I asked to look at the list of honorariums for the WCB and I was very surprised how low they were. I had some sort of perception that they're very high, particularly the chair, and that's not the case. So I guess the comment that I've observed with other agencies, boards and commissions at the provincial level, is that people are really doing their civic duty on provincial committees. Now none of them are being penalized for serving on those committees, but we have a lot of public-spirited citizens who give of their time, without much finance in the way of remuneration and I just wanted to add that, and I know you'd agree with that too.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I also think though that why the board - there was re-compensation in terms of bringing injured workers in as a recognition that they have a particular vantage point or perspective that's important to have represented. So this, in some ways, isn't like, you know, the Natal Day Commission that's looking at organizing Natal Day, this has a different dimension to it. Honorariums are a way to make a financial gesture to the expertise that people are bringing and the amount of time that they are prepared to put in. It is an important question.

I have people in my constituency, Mr. Minister, as probably most members here, who have chronic pain, who fall outside of the 1985 Supreme Court decision, and who are more

[Page 216]

than patient. I can't believe some of the people who have had to wait and wait for a processing of their claims, and I understand that, yet again, there has been another postponement and another delay in processing appeals for this group. I have, and I can table, a letter from Nancy MacCready-Williams to my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Centre, with respect to the latest, I think, the most recent decision of the chair, of the board, to postpone appeals. This goes back to my question to you before, how is the board accountable to you, the minister, and what do you plan to do about this ongoing problem of postponing these appeals? These appeals have been waiting for many, many years and I think it's about time that we just get on with it and deal with these problems.

MR. PARENT: You raise an important point and, as an MLA, certainly I'm well aware of having dealt with quite a few WCB concerns of chronic pain and other issues as well. You're aware that in the Supreme Court, October 2003 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada said that every claimant had to be assessed individually, and today there are 6,000 workers who have contacted the WCB asking for individual assessments, putting forward a claim. So that means 6,000 cases have to be individually assessed.

Part of the slowness has been lack of staff. WCB has added, I understand, 70 staff since last April 2005, to help expedite the process. So as the staff came on stream, and they've been on stream for a little while, I have noticed, as an MLA, that there has been progress at the ground level with this extra staff. So in terms of staffing, there has been some progress made, and I myself have seen that progress at the MLA level. Hopefully it has also happened with the constituents you deal with.

The former Deputy Minister of Environment and Labour has written to the Chair of the WCB about chronic pain regulations that the workers who are eligible for those chronic pain injuries, are those who develop chronic pain in relation to an injury on or after April 17, 1985. So that's the time limit that we're working in, if that was part of your question as well.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I want to thank the minister and I think there are essentially two issues here. First of all, you have an additional $10 million having been allocated in the previous year. The board had additional staff, 22. This is the information that I have that comes out of a report from the board, to process claims. I understand that 70 additional people have also been hired to process the chronic claims, in April 2005. Is that accurate?

MR. PARENT: Yes. That's what I mentioned.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: So the problem is not the resources to manage the claims. It is a problem around deciding the policy and interpretation of policy, versus the regulations and the decision that was made by the Supreme Court, as I understand. So as this debate rages on, people languish, waiting for their claim to be settled. I guess my question is, as the minister who is accountable to the public for that situation, how are you going to

[Page 217]

make this board accountable for the ongoing delays in the processing of these complaints? The money and the resources are there, but where is the action to see these claims settled? All I see when I look at numbers, are growing numbers of claims for chronic pain, not a reduction?

[2:45 p.m.]

MR. PARENT: I guess the question you're asking me is how, as minister, will I ensure the WCB fulfill the requirements that we have asked of them as government? Certainly I haven't had time yet, in my portfolio, to speak with them about the chronic pain issue. Chronic pain is a very difficult condition that has to be assessed, not only in terms of its existence but in terms of its effect upon work, its effect upon earnings. So I am aware that since each case has to be assessed individually, and almost every case is a case that's complex in assessing what the benefits should be, that it's going to be difficult, even with the extra staff, to meet the expectations. But certainly we'll be asking of them to do that.

I have had - and I can only go back at this stage to my work as MLA - I have had constituents come back to me and report that their claim has been settled. I've had two cases just recently. So, at the MLA level, I've seen some progress. If that's not the case with your constituents, I'd be happy to talk about it with you personally, but certainly it's conversations I'll be having with the WCB, with the Chair of the WCB.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. Do you have any idea how long the postponement of appeals is planned for, as they attempt to sort out what their understanding is with respect to the regulations and board policy. How long - I think maybe even more appropriately the question might be put as, how long are you, as minister, prepared to allow that decision-making process to take?

MR. PARENT: I suspect you know the answer to the question already. It has been a one-year extension, but the board is grappling with this Supreme Court decision and one of the stakeholders on the board was from the Injured Workers Association, and my understanding of it is there was agreement because of the complexity of the issue for this extension, but I'll certainly check and verify that.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. I would very much appreciate having a better understanding of the time frame, so I can tell people in my riding what the time frame is and what the delay is.

I'd like to move now and talk a bit about occupational health and safety. Specifically, when we started talking earlier today and I had asked you about your priorities, you talked about violence in the workplace and you made reference to the business plan where this is mentioned. You talked about how difficult it is to legislate violence in the workplace out of existence. I think it's important that the record reflect that I don't think any members of the

[Page 218]

Legislature think that government has some magic power to make violence in our workplaces go away, especially, I think, in this day and age, where unfortunately it appears that violence is on the increase in the home, in the community and at work. We do expect, I think, that government will use its considerable power as lawmaker to make sure that workers aren't left on their own to deal with violence at work. Violence, in its ultimate form, can result - or its worst form - can result in death and maybe permanent disability.

I think about the young man in Antigonish at the corner store, working alone at night, who was the victim of violence and was murdered in this situation, and I often think about the number of young people, in particular, who are alone quite often, working in gas bars and various places, alone at night. Additionally, we've seen a number of very serious attacks on taxi drivers here in the metro area.

There are many, many places where people work alone, where they are vulnerable. To me, it's incumbent on government as we observe these situations, to look at ways to try to make workplaces safer. I understand that there was a working group of stakeholders, as you like to say, who have been working on regulatory changes that would put in place some greater requirements for employers to take steps, to protect their employees in situations where they may be subjected to violence in the workplace. Yet, these regulations have not been implemented. They haven't proceeded through the Order in Council process that would, in fact, make them the law of the land, if you will.

I would like to know, why is it, after all the work that has gone into the development of such regulations, and of the growing number of workplace incidents that we've seen that have resulted in serious loss of life, disability and what have you, why is it that this government seems so reluctant to give those regulations the force that is required to protect workers in the Province of Nova Scotia?

MR. PARENT: One of the things that we've done that I've seen a booklet of, and I could get the member, we've published a book of educational material that would help companies determine and identify, and employees and employers identify potential problems, and certainly I can give the material to the member. The only commitment I can make to you is that it's in our business plan for 2006-07 that this is a priority for us. A lot of consultation has been done, more consultation will take place, and we will come forward with appropriate mechanisms and ways to help mitigate the problem.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, my perception is that there has been a lot of work done, that there has been consultation done, that the regulation, in fact, has been drafted, re-drafted, reworked, fine-tuned for the wording. So to put off until some future date in the business plan seems to me to be delaying a measure that we could have used maybe two years ago, three years ago. How many more people have to be injured at work? How much more loss of life will it take to get this government to act in terms of enforcing

[Page 219]

Occupational Health and Safety Regulations and standards particularly around violence in the workplace?

It's very, very difficult, as you know, for any of us as members to have people, families in our ridings, in situations where we have to go to a visitation, to a hospital, or what have you, to meet with people. What are we going to say to people about how long it's taking to provide a regulatory framework to protect people who are subjected to violence in their workplace?

MR. PARENT: Certainly the answer I gave before in terms of, this is in our business plan, this is a priority. This is a priority, when you asked me in my opening comments, that I have as a minister. The important thing I think is that we deliver in this business plan in this business year, as we've indicated we will. There are when you set out regulations, you want to make sure you do them properly and allow for flexibility. Some of the cases that you've talked about might not have been covered under regulation, so the regulations have to be written and done in such a way that we can help not only with the present incidence of violence in the workplace, but to mitigate in the future as well. So all I can promise you is that this is in the business plan of the department for 2006-07 and I intend to act on it.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister and certainly this will be an issue that I will commit to following up on as often as I can because I feel very strongly about this. I think, probably, I feel strongly about it as someone who has worked in the social service field. I know that the minister will be aware that much of the research, including research from our own province, will indicate that people who work in health and social services are often in situations where they are subjected to a fair amount of difficulties at work in terms of assaults and sometimes a lot of verbal abuse. I think you know, Mr. Minister, we have to start someplace.

I understand what you're saying that, you know, you want to set comprehensive regulations, but to me it would be very important to at least start someplace. For example, looking at the example of young people who are working alone at night at gas bars and corner stores, looking at particular industries like the taxi industry where - I mean, it's not like we don't have examples of what can happen to people. We can look at the statistics and we can see where the incidence of workplace violence is the most extreme with the most horrendous outcomes and, to me, that would be a very good place to start.

You don't have to have it all done in one day. This can be developed over time, and the consultation can occur over time. There are people in our province who are working in sectors where they are extremely vulnerable, and it's incumbent upon us, I think, and it's particularly incumbent on the government, people with the reins of power and the tools, to make the changes that are required to do that and not to be complacent. This is not an area for complacency.

[Page 220]

MR. PARENT: A point well taken.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would like to ask a few questions around labour standards. Labour standards is sometimes, sadly, I think, the poor sister, as they say, for industrial relations and matters that fall under the Trade Union Act. That is puzzling when you consider that the vast majority of workers, in fact, are workers for whom the labour standards apply, much more so than people for whom labour relations and labour relations Acts are relevant.

We have a growing number of workers in our province who are immigrants and newcomers. I would say that, just judging from the casework I get in my office that would have a labour standards component, the two groups that tend to come to me for some assistance around labour standards would be immigrants, newcomers and young people, and probably young people in the Mc-jobs-kind of sector.

I'm wondering if you can help me understand a bit more about the numbers of calls your office gets, what that looks like in terms of who are the people who are running into difficulty, what programs do you have specifically to assist and support newcomers who sometimes may be in situations where they, too, are vulnerable for language reasons, or just because they really don't have that extended network and a lot of choices, and as well for younger workers. I notice I do have from your Web site the self-audit work that's going on, which I think is commendable, and certainly if it cuts down on abuses in the workplace of workers, or exploitation of workers, then this is a very good thing. What are you doing to protect workers who are newcomers and young workers with respect to labour standards?

MR. PARENT: It's a good question you ask. The self-audit program - I asked about that - we've been very pleased, and I'm glad that you commended it because we found most of the companies want to meet the standards, and once they do this self-audit, find the areas that they need to improve on. So thank you for your commendation because the word that the department is getting back on that self-audit is that it has been a very helpful tool for businesses that at times weren't aware what the standards were, and when they do the audit they're able to find out what the standards are.

In terms of immigrants, there is another class of workers that I was just approached on over the weekend, which was interesting, that we could add to that sort of an extension of immigrants, and that's offshore workers and what protections they have under labour standards. This is one of the things I intended to do. Of course, having an interest in immigration, having been born in Port Williams - well, born in Halifax and adopted into Port Williams, to be very honest, but having been raised overseas in South America and seeing the need for immigration into Nova Scotia, the importance of immigration to Nova Scotia not only in terms of our population base but also in terms of our skills base, this is one of the conversations that I wanted to have with the Minister of Immigration, that I intend to have,

[Page 221]

because immigrants are overwhelmed by so many things, as you say, and oftentimes the language barrier is a bit of a hurdle as well.

It's important, and one of the things the province does as well is we attract immigrants, but then they move to the larger centres, and one of the reasons for that of course is there's a larger community of people from the same culture and language background. So we need to do all we can to help those immigrants feel comfortable in Nova Scotia, and I think this is what lies behind your question. So one of the reasons I want to have this conversation - I haven't had a chance to do it yet - with the Minister of Immigration is to make sure that my department assists her department in offering these services to new immigrants, that immigrants be very aware of the labour standards here in Nova Scotia and the rights, as workers, that they have. So I'll be having that conversation and perhaps I can report back to you at a future time about that.

In terms of young people, this is a concern that I've had myself with all my three children working - one working at a restaurant now - and there are concerns that I have that I'll be asking the department about as well. Now we've made some progress on support in labour standards for young people, but can I ask a question? Have you seen - because I can get the information which is what I will get back to you on - do you want to see the complaints that have come in, do you want to see if we can break them down as much as we can? But have you seen any change - are both immigrants and young people on the increase or have concerns from young people plateaued and concerns for immigrants continuing to increase?

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think mostly I just think about who I do see in my office with labour standards issues - they tend to be young people or people who are newcomers.

MR. PARENT: Yes, and they continue to appear in your office. Well, certainly I'll get you that information, which is what you're looking for, insofar as we're able to break it down with privacy concerns. I'm not sure how far I can break it down for you, but I'll break it down as far as I can. (Interruption) I'm informed that it will be hard to get the precise data. We'll get you the data we can because of privacy concerns, but the Labour Standards Division has been working very hard at education programs with these two groups that you mentioned to help educate both them and the employers of the standards for immigrants and young people. So that's in the business plan as well, and I'll report back to you on how progress is made on that.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: How many cases does the tribunal hear annually and what has been the trajectory around tribunal cases?

MR. PARENT: The trajectory in terms of the timelines or in terms of whether they're increasing or decreasing?

[Page 222]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Yes, the latter.

MR. PARENT: I saw that number and it totally slipped my mind, so I'm going to have to get some consultation on it. I think it was around 40-ish, but (Interruption) Yes, I was briefed on that, and I didn't want to say the 40, but it is 40, and it has been pretty stable - it has not been going down and it has not been going up.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Could you tell us how that compares to other provinces?

MR. PARENT: I asked that question and, again, this was in a very early briefing and I'm not sure. I don't think it's very different from other similar-sized provinces in Atlantic Canada, and we always compare ourselves to the other Atlantic Canadian Provinces and then, beyond that, if there's another benchmark, to Manitoba and Saskatchewan because of their size, and there's not much difference. But I guess the point is it's not going up, but it's not going down either. With our emphasis on prevention, on involvement of stakeholders, on discussion, we would like to see it begin to go down, because then that would mean we've been doing a better job at the prevention, at educating people so that they didn't have to get to that stage.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Your business plan talks about some changes with respect to labour relations, I believe, and I was looking at talking about expedited arbitration, but also some comments around a duty to represent. Can you be a little more specific about what that means? What you are planning - are you planning legislative change? Are you planning regulatory change? Are you planning public education for trade unions, since you seem to be quite big on public education rather than regulation - what exactly are you planning?

MR. PARENT: I'm not saying I'm big on public education versus regulation, they both have their place. I simply tried to say that compliance is our end goal and how we achieve it, sometimes we need education - I mean certainly regulations will always be a part because you need, in some sense, the stick, if I can put it that way, and it's not to be taken away and I don't intend to. Certainly if my comments were taken that way, I apologize for that.

I'm big on education because it's preventative, but that doesn't mean that regulations are going to be watered down in any way, shape or form. We transferred $400,000 for the implementation of Bill No. 219 for labour services, and that's the bill you're talking about, with expedited arbitration and with the other.

We are staffing up the Labour Relations Board to handle it because our experience in other jurisdictions is that once this is allowed, and Bill No. 219 gives the legislative power for it, that there is a rise in the number of complaints from union members. So that's part of

[Page 223]

the $400,000, to help staff that up. The process is the same process that anyone would have in terms of if they feel there has been some wrongdoing done to them in work and they have access to the Labour Standards, they would make their appeal to Labour Standards, and they would assess their case and, if they felt there was some justification for it, would go to bat for them. So that process would be the same.

The experience the department studied of the jurisdictions is that when this right was given to union workers - the right of fair representation - that it was used, so that's why we felt we had to staff up the department, to meet those concerns coming in, but the process after that is similar to processes that are already ongoing.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: How many additional staff are you planning for that?

MR. PARENT: A total of three - three FTE positions . . .

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: What will their classification or titles be?

MR. PARENT: . . . plus additional vice-chairmen. Their titles are a review officer, a program officer and two administrative clerks. The two administrative clerks would equal the FTEs, so you have three FTE positions, plus additional vice-chairmen.

I can give you the breakdown - it's in the Estimates Book - if you want that broken down, the salaries for the - that's not your question, I don't think, but if you want it we can give you that information.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think some of your documentation indicates that you are going to be establishing a new arbitration advisory committee. Has that been done already, or is that in the planning stage? I'm not really clear on where that is. If it's in the planning stages, I wonder, will there be an advertisement in the agencies, boards and commissions kinds of things, or is there going to be another process for that?

MR. PARENT: The positions have already been advertised and we received applications, so it will be in place October 1, 2006.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: But people haven't been named yet to that committee.

MR. PARENT: No, it will be October 1^st, but we have had applications in already. It has been advertised, we have had applications in, and October 1^st is the date when all those will be finalized and we will have the board in place.

[Page 224]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you. I want to ask you a few questions around the role of your department with respect to labour market planning. I know that primarily the role of the department is with respect to statutory requirements - mostly monitoring, enforcement, education, what have you - but I think any member of this House who isn't profoundly concerned about the loss of members of our workforce to other provinces, particularly Alberta, should pack their bags and leave as well.

I think one of the things that struck me the most in the last election was the number of people I met, especially young people and skilled tradespeople, who were in the process of leaving to go to Alberta. It was astronomical, really, and it makes me wonder about the future of various skilled tradespeople and our own labour market - what is the outlook for our own labour force, and labour market, given the highly competitive nature of the labour markets elsewhere, particularly in Alberta?

So first of all, just because I really don't understand what the role of your department is with respect to labour market planning, I would like first if you could tell me what, if any, role you exactly play, or your staff plays, and who . . .

MR. PARENT: We don't have a direct responsibility, that's really through the Departments of Education and Community Services. We provide them with any sort of statistical information or other information that we can provide to them for help. So, as minister, that would be my response.

As a member of the government side, certainly this is an issue that I think is a big concern. Just anecdotally, since we all serve as MLAs here as well, at an event at my house yesterday two friends of ours - he is an addictions counsellor and she received her Ph.D. in counselling from the University of Toronto, and because of professional designations which are unavailable here in Nova Scotia, which are available in other provinces, they are going to be moving to B.C. - the very sort of thing you're talking about.

My wife's son, for example, is working in B.C. because of the income - and teachers who graduate - to pay off student loans. This is something that's an issue. It's not one that our department deals with directly. We will provide whatever help we can provide to help with the planning.

[3:15 p.m.]

On the Economic Development Committee that I used to sit on, Stuart Gourley came - Stuart is in the Skills Division branch of the Department of Education. Certainly this was flagged as a problem there, particularly with the economy in Alberta heating up. One of the things they are doing at that level, whether it will be effective or not, is they are keeping tabs on skilled workers who may be moving to other provinces to work, so that if the economy heats up in the sector here or takes a downturn in a sector there, we are able to contact them

[Page 225]

quickly and offer them opportunities to come back. But in terms of the department itself, the mandate rests with Education and with Community Services, and we form a support basis for that.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I have probably very limited time left and I have two or three sort of short snappers. One question that I have - and again this speaks to Occupational Health and Safety Regulations - is the indoor air quality regulations. I also understand that a fair amount of work has been done with respect to indoor air quality regs, but yet nothing has happened in terms of moving these regulations beyond draft and to actually making them regulations. We were talking earlier about violence in the workplace regulations. You were saying that this is part of your intention to move forward in the next year or so on these. What about the indoor air quality regulations - where are they sitting right now, and when will they see the light of day as regulations?

MR. PARENT: We are following a similar pattern with this as we followed with the diving regulations. It is too bad that the member for Preston is not here, because we had quite a discussion about the diving regulations, and he commended the department on those, although he still had some concerns with some exemptions we made that were commendations to Nova Scotia's unique industry, but certainly that was a success insofar as the process was involved.

Now that takes a longer process and it takes a lot of staff so, at the present time, I can't give you an answer as to when we will be able to come up with the sort of regulations that we are able to with the offshore diving. It is certainly on the department's radar, but it is just a question of resources and of doing the job properly.

These are the OHS questions you are asking. I thought you were going to ask about radon in homes, which is another issue on the department's mandate because the federal government has changed the requirements there. So we have gotten that information out to people on radon in homes and what the new standards are, and we are working at helping people understand those implications and have proper testing in homes. I know yours is related to the workplace, not to homes.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I don't know if the minister will be able to answer this one or not. I was looking at the quarterly report from the Workers' Advisers Program. On Page 7 of that report - I probably should have made a copy of this beforehand - I noticed that there is a schedule in here of expenditures from their program and there is quite a significant change from year to year in certain areas. In salaries and benefits, between 2006 and 2004, fairly stable. (Interruption)

No, I am not looking at the estimates, I am looking at the quarterly report of the Workers' Advisers Program, which is why I say you might not be able to answer this question, but it is something I would like an answer for eventually.

[Page 226]

The salaries and benefits are relatively stable but the administrative costs are growing at a very high rate. The medical reports and expert fees have dropped substantially between 2005 and 2006. I am wondering what the explanations are for these significant changes from year to year?

MR. PARENT: I have to look at those papers because in the Estimates Book it is fairly stable from estimate to estimate to estimate of 2004 to 2006 for the Workers' Advisers Program, but I don't have it broken down quite that way, so perhaps I could get a photocopy.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I would appreciate if you get back to me at some point with an explanation of what is going on there.

I have two other things before my time expires. One is, I would like to raise . . .

MR. PARENT: I have an answer for that, but I know you are running out of time, so we will get that back to you.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I know that my colleague from the Liberal caucus was earlier raising questions about this new working group on HRM's pension plan. As a member who represents a fair number of people in that plan, both retired and employees, it is an important issue. One of the things, and I would think that the scope of this working group will be fairly narrow and limited to the question of solvency. As I understand that, that has more implications for the current employees, in one way, in terms of their concerns are that they are going to be asked to make larger contributions on a regular basis out of their annual pay, their weekly, bi-weekly, whatever, pay. I have people who are retirees who are in that plan and have not had any increases in their pensions, not even indexed to inflation, for years, and so what they're seeing is a significant erosion in the value of their pension, and they have come to look for some assistance and are having a great deal of difficulty trying to find out where the best place would be to take this kind of concern. I want to ask you, as minister, where should they take those concerns?

MR. PARENT: That really should be taken to HRM because the details of the pension plan are worked out between the employees and HRM as to what is covered, what isn't covered, and what levels of coverage. All I can assure you, having talked with the superintendent of pensions, is that the plan is a relatively healthy one and that actually in many ways HRM employee pensioners get better benefits than provincial pensioners do. In terms of what's covered, that really needs to be directed at HRM.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, thank you for that - they and I have both taken these concerns to HRM and they have not been resolved to the satisfaction of my constituents. It's quite complicated because, around the amalgamation of the various entities, amalgamated out of existence was the former Halifax School Board and the Halifax County School Board. Somehow people who, for example, were custodial workers in those boards

[Page 227]

ended up in the HRM plan and they in particular have been placed in this situation where they see absolutely no annual increases in their pensions. It's a concern that they have and that certainly I have - it just doesn't seem to be fair that they're in this situation and HRM doesn't seem to have the ability to deal with - and it may be something that we can talk about further after the estimates.

The other thing I want to raise is on behalf of my colleague, the member for Dartmouth East, Joan Massey- I think we're allowed to say names in committee - she has received from a constituent of hers, Mr. Bob Venus, who has been here to the Legislature various times. He's an advocate on behalf of people with disabilities and a person who is disabled, and he is very concerned about the building codes in the Province of Nova Scotia and the fact that we don't require enough of the new housing to be accessible.

Right now I understand we're looking at maybe 5 per cent of new residential construction in complexes, and what have you, to meet accessibility standards. He's saying - and I think he makes a pretty compelling case - that given the large number of people in the Province of Nova Scotia with disabilities, given the large number of people in this province who are seniors, and the growing segment of our population that are falling into the seniors category, that there is both, right now, a lack of accessible housing for people with disabilities - and this is going to be a growing problem - and our building code requirements are too insignificant to meet what's going to be and what is a growing demand. I'm wondering, as minister are you prepared to review that situation and look at what needs to be probably more accessible housing for people with disabilities?

MR. PARENT: We've got new regulations in the building code going forward, and I don't know if you're referring to those where, for every 20 units, one has to be totally accessible

I asked about why that figure was achieved. There was, of course, push back against it, as one could imagine. I asked if that was adequate to handle those who are differently abled in our population, or the growing number of seniors, and was told, in comparison with other jurisdictions the figure was chosen because it met the needs of Nova Scotians and was slightly higher than other jurisdictions for the very reason that you mentioned - because we have a higher number of people with disabilities who would need that.

So, I was asked the question, and was assured by the staff, but I will ask again to take another look at it to make sure that requirement is statistically, and scientifically, based. I was assured that it was, and not only was it higher than other jurisdictions, it was higher for the very reasons you raised this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your time is up.

[Page 228]

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Could I thank the minister and his staff for the response to my questions, and just request that in your closing comments you address the fly ash issue that my colleague raised?

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

The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello to the minister. I have a number of issues I want to raise this afternoon and they cover quite a gamut of areas, as well. So I'll jump right in, because there are others with questions to follow me. I will be sharing my time.

The first question I'd like to look at is the issue around quarries and quarry blasting. In the Clayton Park riding there is a quarry that's been in existence since the 1970s, and quite some time before there were people living nearby. In the more recent years, Clayton Park West has grown right up to Highway No. 102, and the quarry is right on the other side of the highway. You may remember, Mr. Minister, from three years ago, the incident where the quarry had a major blast and rocks were thrown across the highway, luckily nobody was hurt on the road; and they smashed through apartment buildings, and luckily nobody was injured inside those apartment buildings. It raised a lot of issues and a lot of concerns in my riding, and people are still concerned about it. They worry about the intensity of the blast and they worry about the regulations that quarries are held to.

The question I have for you today is, really, to look and see if you're examining in any way the differences in the allowed intensity of quarry blast as opposed to other blasting. Again, because I was an HRM councillor previously, I understood there was a difference in what is allowed, because quarries are considered more of a mining operation. By the same token, in the same area, we've had a lot of construction for new schools and homes and so on, and the construction companies are not allowed to use the same intensity of blasting, and because they're all in the same proximity to a residential area, I believe we should be looking at a difference in the blasting allowed or the rules under which they are managed because of both damage to homes and disruption to urban life.

[3:30 p.m.]

MR. PARENT: Just to clarify your question, rather than differentiating on the basis of what's a quarry and what's a construction site, you're saying that if they are adjacent to population, whether they are a quarry or construction site, they should have the same stringent standards. Is that really what is behind your question?

MS. WHALEN: It is. It's the fact that blasting of any sort is really disruptive in a city, in an urban area, where there are a lot of people, and the fact that the higher intensities are

[Page 229]

allowed in a quarry means that I'm getting more complaints, the city councillors get complaints, and we have no recourse because the rules are different.

MR. PARENT: I'll further ask for clarification on the question, because we are working at new blasting standards. Blasting is provincially regulated, the noise and the dust problems are under municipal regulation and control. So is it the noise and the dust that is the issue that you're asking about?

MS. WHALEN: No, noise and dust are part of the problem, but it's really the intensity of the blasts the people are complaining about, and I have gotten direct complaints recently about damage to apartments and that sort of thing. It is very different to correlate from the blasting to their damage but, at the same point, they're talking about the strength of the blast being enough to damage the buildings. It is condominiums, in particular, I'm talking about.

MR. PARENT: The municipality has vibration standards as well and I understand that different municipalities have different standards, so it's something that if it's an ongoing problem I'll have to talk to counterparts in HRM in terms of the vibration standards that they have. We have standards that their industrial approvals depend upon - if they want to get their industrial approval to proceed with their operation they have to meet the standards we set provincially. There are also standards on vibrations that are set municipally, so I'll talk to my counterparts if it's still an ongoing issue in HRM. I can see where you have heavily, densely built-up areas that there would be some differences in terms of vibration control versus an area such as in my riding where you might disturb the cows a kilometre away but that might be it.

MS. WHALEN: Well, I think that would be a good start if you could even initiate a conversation with HRM to see what might be done, but I'll go back to what the standards are for a quarry or mining as opposed to other blasting - I think that the intensity or the amount of charge that's allowed in each blast is greater for a quarry than it would be for any construction site, so I think that should be a big part of your discussions with HRM, or internally perhaps in the department.

If in fact what people are telling me is true, they would rather see a series of smaller blasts than these large intense blasts, because the quarry in my riding doesn't have blasts every day, they'll have - maybe a couple of days a week - big blasts, and smaller charges more frequently might be a better way to go about it, it would certainly coexist better with a residential area. I realize the quarry was there prior to the arrival of so many people, but it's still really important, and I think if nothing else if you could begin some discussions that would be a very positive step forward. Thank you very much.

So that's the quarries - I wanted to talk to you about the Wilderness Areas Protection Act which has been around since the mid-1990s, and it's my understanding in the last seven

[Page 230]

years only two new properties have been added to that inventory of properties that are under the protection of the Department of Environment and Labour. In the last couple of years there were two around the Pictou area - Gully Lake and Eigg Mountain were the names of the two that had been added, but none in the meantime. Prior to that, when the Liberal Government was in place, we had 31 properties initially identified and brought under that protection. These have to be fairly large parcels of land - they're not for small pieces of land, they're for wilderness areas.

As I'm getting to the question I wanted you to get the background as well from the department, but what I wanted to pursue with you is the area of the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes which begin just behind Bayers Lake Business Park. I know that there have been a lot of letters sent to the Premier and, I believe, to the Minister of Environment and Labour - so it would have been prior to your taking over that position, but the community has become very involved and has been asking for that area to be reviewed and included in the Wilderness Protection Act so that it will no longer be subject to sale without any knowledge of the public, and it will be left for future generations to enjoy - just to have it protected so that it won't be diminished or logged or mined.

It's a beautiful area, it has over 22 wetlands and lakes and it covers 1,750 hectares, close to 4,000 acres if my correlation is right on that. It is a really large area going from Bayers Lake and just the other side of Clayton Park West all the way to Timberlea and back to the Hammonds Plains area. In that, as I say, there's a tremendous opportunity to create a wilderness protected area right in the city. The reason it's even more topical at the moment - I wanted to raise it with you today - is that HRM has just completed and only a few weeks ago voted on their regional plan. In the regional plan they designated five regional parks, big regional park areas. They did include the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes as one of their regional park areas. They don't own that land; the majority of it is owned by the Province of Nova Scotia. So there will be a question of how the province reacts to the regional plan, or how we see our role as facilitating their vision for the long term of HRM.

I am hoping, first of all, that the department has been aware of the regional plan and understands what has been going in that regard. I'm not sure if that was the briefing you got. Certainly there is a role to be played here. I would like to know your opinion of how we can respond to the regional plan.

MR. PARENT: To the first question, in my opening remarks I talked about 12 per cent of the land mass, and we're working at the wilderness protection in consultation with various stakeholder groups of all sorts, trying to work at both appropriate sites and appropriate usage of the wilderness areas - I don't know if this is a politically correct word anymore, patrimony, the patrimony of Nova Scotians - they're really something that we share, and we share in common, and that is part of our green plan.

[Page 231]

I was going to crow a little bit about the nature reserves that we've added, the five new nature reserves, they're not wilderness areas. I think that, as I mentioned previously, changes through the CCI, the regulations that we're working at, allowed private landowners to designate these as nature reserves, and while they're not wilderness areas, they're nonetheless areas that are, to some degree, preserved.

In terms of the actual area that you're talking about, I personally wasn't aware of the HRM plan. What I was aware of was that HRM suggested that a corridor needed to go through that land for a possible bypass from Hammonds Plains. That's the same piece of land that we're talking about. The way you've phrased it now they're wanting park designation but also wanting a corridor preserved for transportation. I would have to check on how they see those two things working together.

MS. WHALEN: The one clarification I can give you is that they didn't include all of the Crown lands in the regional park area they designated. They actually included some privately-held lands that were in more beautiful parts of that, that were adjacent to it. So they designated an area about the same size as all of the Crown land, the 1,750 hectares, a similar size but not all of the Crown land. So there may still be an understanding that there's room for a connector road in there. I'm not really sure myself, but I think we need to look at all the work they've done and the area they've designated, and, as I say, a great part of it would be the provincial Crown lands. I think it's quite different from a nature reserve - it's my understanding that the rules are very clear, the Wilderness Areas Protection Act provides the greatest level of protection for the lands.

Another thing I would certainly like to be asking today, in that move towards the 12 per cent of protected lands, is that we extend it, and also that we look at the hot spots, like this area, which are so close to urban development. The value of the land is skyrocketing, and it becomes ever more valuable for developers. That makes it at greater risk and greater threat than many other parcels of land that you'll look at across the province.

MR. PARENT: Your point is well taken. The previous government, well, two governments back, certainly, I had long discussions with the Minister of Economic Development and the member, your predecessor, at that time, who was advocating for the protection of those areas, as well. So I'm familiar with the area, and one of the first things that I was briefed on in the department was that area and the importance of it. Although I'm boasting about the nature reserves, I realize that the largest or the most stringent protection is wilderness protection - but boast where to you can boast, I think it's important. There are good things.

I'll certainly take your comments under advisement, in terms of the areas that you're talking about. I think that whatever we do has to be done in conjunction with HRM, and certainly you've referenced that already as a former councillor.

[Page 232]

MS. WHALEN: That's right. In terms of the Crown land in the province, I realize most of it's under the management of the Department of Natural Resources, but as a member of Cabinet now, when any land is being traded or sold, that becomes a Cabinet decision, as I understand it, an Order in Council comes out from Cabinet. Would there be a greater awareness now about this area, that it's a possible candidate for protection and should be left intact?

MR. PARENT: I smile a bit, I don't know, really, how public it is. I'm going back to when I tried to get Cape Split. I can assure you that the government of that time knew of the value of the land you're talking about, and has known it for quite a while.

MS. WHALEN: That's a good start. Again, I would urge you to initiate some conversations with HRM around the regional plan area that they've already got designated now.

MR. PARENT: You may be pleased to know that the request from HRM and TPW on the preservation of the corridor, the Hammonds Plains bypass, No. 113, that I've asked that to be bumped up to a full environmental assessment. Part of that was simply because I'm aware, as the department is aware, of the value of that land that we're talking about. I know that Natural Resources is aware as well. That may give you some consolation that we're aware of the value of that land. We're also aware of development pressures, as you are, too, being a member from that area, having been a former councillor.

MS. WHALEN: In your consultations around the 12 per cent of the land mass that you talked about being protected, would you be including the Public Lands Coalition, which I think is largely led by the Ecology Action Centre?

MR. PARENT: Yes.

MS. WHALEN: They indicated this area is number one on their concern list. Hopefully you'll get that story from another side.

MR. PARENT: One of the calls I made was to Kermit DeGooyer, and to Raymond Plourde, and also to Mark Butler. We've talked with Raymond, back and forth, and as soon as we get a little free time we intend to sit down and discuss the issues that he brings forward. I can assure you of that.

MS. WHALEN: Very good.

MR. PARENT: So if they've designated it number one, it will be listened to very seriously.

[Page 233]

MS. WHALEN: That's what they've told me anyway. Thank you very much. On the labour side, I'd like to look at the number of statutory holidays we have in Nova Scotia. As you'll be aware, over the last two years, I've twice introduced the Joseph Howe Day Bill to allow for a February holiday. I've introduced it because we have the fewest statutory holidays in the entire country, and only ourselves and Newfoundland and Labrador are at that level of five statutory holidays a year. I realize Remembrance Day adds a half-day, it's a special Act, it's not a fully statutory holiday. I guess before we have that discussion, it's my understanding that the Legion prefers the Remembrance Day Act as we have it. That's not something that we want to go into.

[3:45 p.m.]

I would like to ask whether or not you are reviewing the need for more statutory holidays. New Brunswick has added them, and so has Prince Edward Island in the last little while, the last couple of years. Alberta and several other provinces out West have nine statutory holidays a year. Alberta is the only other one with a February statutory holiday. I would like you to, if you would, just comment on the need for extending that?

MR. PARENT: Absolutely, we are reviewing it. There are some important issues, and some justifications. If I could make a comment, because I've been waiting to make this for a long time, without getting you angry at me, but I've not had a forum to do it. I guess I find it somewhat ironic that the Liberal Party has taken a stance in favour of Sunday shopping, which would force retail workers who traditionally didn't have to work on Sunday to work on Sunday, so that means 52 days out of a year that they would have off are now being exchanged for one day. I do find that somewhat ironic in light of your concern about the Joseph Howe Day, which is a concern that my department is taking seriously.

MS. WHALEN: Well, I think that in 2003, we had a stance that was clearly in favour of Sunday shopping. I don't think you've heard that recently, so there may be a presumption there in that response. In terms of the 52 days . . .

MR. PARENT: Just for clarification, because it has struck me as ironic, and you don't have to answer because it's your time to question me and for me to have to answer, but is the Liberal Party stance on that issue that it should not be allowed, and that that day should be preserved for retail workers?

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I think that it is the right time for me to be questioning you, not the other way around. So I think we'll let that pass.

MR. PARENT: The answer, again, is we're looking at that, the issue that you raised. (Interruptions) I am answering the question, that we are looking at the issue that you've raised and, certainly, it's something that we're taking a look at, which I think is what your question was.

[Page 234]

MS. WHALEN: I think that's the key answer, thank you very much. On the Labour Standards Code, when the Labour Standards Code was being reviewed in 2003, an amendment was proposed by the Liberal members of the Law Amendments Committee to have a half-hour break after a five hour consecutive work period. That was voted down by both the NDP members and the government members on the Law Amendments Committee, largely for political reasons I gather.

I'm going back to that today because the government, through the Public Service Commission, has a little program underway where they're urging people to take their half-hour break if you're a public servant, that people are more productive, that you'll feel refreshed, that you'll work harder. I would like to see whether or not there are any plans in the department to revisit the idea of enshrining in the Labour Standards Code the half-hour break after five hours consecutive work?

I think we're out of sync with the rest of the country in not having that. It seems to me that people are very surprised to realize it isn't already in the law, because it is such a plainly necessary thing.

MR. PARENT: I think one of the lessons that we've learned in the past is that when we change the Labour Standards Code, we have to do so in consultation with the affected stakeholders and looking at the full Labour Standards Code as to how it affects - overtime hours, you may remember was one issue some years ago. So that lesson has been learned. We're going to look at this change in terms of a full review of the Labour Standards Code.

In regard to the other provincial patterns, and I know you're not talking about - because there's a related issue of not just a 15-minute break after five hours work, but the other issue is 24 hours rest within a given week versus 36 hours. The two are issues that have been raised simultaneously, and really are connected issues. Of the 13 jurisdictions in Canada, only three provide more than 24 hours rest or one day off in a week. So we're not out of sync in regard to that.

MS. WHALEN: Three have it?

MR. PARENT: Only three have more than 24 hours. So we're not out of sync on that side. In terms of the 15 minutes after five hours, more jurisdictions do have it. I've had this raised as an MLA and I raised it myself, actually it was someone from another riding at one stage, Kings West, who had raised it to me, very early on in my career, so I've raised questions about that myself as an MLA, in terms. Not so much of the 36 versus 24, because I can understand the scheduling problems there, but I guess the lesson we learned as a department is when you change the Labour Standards Code, do it in a comprehensive way, do it in a wise way, do it in a way where you know all the ramifications, and make sure that you do it well.

[Page 235]

MS. WHALEN: Well, then could I ask you, are you reviewing the entire Labour Standards Code at the moment, so that we can have some progress made? If you don't want to do it piecemeal, then are you going to look at it in its entirety?

MR. PARENT: I think, just to clarify, because you caught me - I wasn't saying that we have to look at the whole code, but we have to look at, if we make a change, how it affects the code - so on this specific thing, I'd like to stay with the five hours. Certainly, I guess you can read between the lines, because I raised it as an issue as an MLA, that now that I'm in a position to raise it another level, I use the opportunities I have to work on behalf of my constituents, and this is an issue for your constituents, as well. So I'm not committing that there will be any changes, but certainly the questions will be asked, particularly about that. The 24-hour/36-hour is a different matter. We're in the majority in that regard. So probably I'd be inclined at this stage just to leave that one alone. That raises real scheduling problems. The 15-minute break, certainly I've had it raised to myself as MLA and you're raising it again.

MS. WHALEN: My question was specifically around the break after five hours of work. The amendment we had proposed was a 30-minute break, which would be a lunch break after five hours of work. I think if you're looking at how it affects the entire code, it would be good just to think it affects people who need to have a break after five hours consecutive work. I don't think there's a lot of other implications to the code, although perhaps your staff may have other concerns. I think that one is very important.

If I could, just briefly, I'd like to go back to the issue around the HRM pensions again. I had a number of letters and I'm sure other members from HRM did. I heard both the member for Halifax Needham and our member for Preston speak to you about the issue. During the election, the members of the union, not really the union, I guess any who were members of the HRM pension plan and a lot of their pensioners as well, were corresponding with us by e-mail and by letters.

But, in your answers today, I didn't hear an answer to this and it's essentially in the letter that they've given us, they're saying that federal and provincial governments, including Nova Scotia, have exempted a variety of pension plans they sponsor from pension legislation, thereby exempting those plans from the solvency requirements. What they would like to see is, why can't municipal governments also have the same exemptions that we allow for our own Public Service pension plans. That's one of the questions they're asking.

MR. PARENT: I'm just not sure I heard that question clearly. That other provincial jurisdictions and the federal government have exempted some units, why can't we do the same? Is that the question?

MS. WHALEN: Well, if I can read from the letter, it may help. It says: In Nova Scotia, plans exempted from these solvency requirements include pension plans covering

[Page 236]

provincial civil servants, former Sydney Steel Corporation pension plans and the Teachers' Pension Plan.

MR. PARENT: The province is exempted, it's the federal government exempted as the Crown. That's the case that historically has been given to the Crown. I'm not aware that the Teachers' Union has been exempted? Can you read that line once again?

MS. WHALEN: Yes, I'd be happy to give you a copy.

MR. PARENT: Just the last part of that line.

MS. WHALEN: It says: In Nova Scotia, plans exempted from these solvency requirements include, and the last part says the Teachers' Pension Plan.

MR. PARENT: I go back to the purpose of the solvency test is, in order to make sure that plan is there to pay out at the time of retirement. I understand HRM is asking to be treated in the same way the Crown's treated, both federally and provincially; in other jurisdictions, in a very limited way, in both Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick and to a certain degree, in the federal government. As I already mentioned, certain Crown Corporations have been given an option for the solvency test to be taken away, but on very stringent conditions.

For example, in New Brunswick there are about three conditions, one of them is that there be a guarantee that over 50 per cent of the pension plan members vote for it, and that's not just present people paying in, but that's people collecting as well. So, to my knowledge, although that option has been given to certain municipalities, I believe in New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, that no one has taken advantage of it because the requirements are so stringent.

We really have to balance very carefully with the solvency requests that the ultimate goal is that that plan be there to pay out for the pension plan members. That's why the solvency and the long-term valuation, both those planks, are in place, to make sure those plans stay healthy.

Although New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have offered very limited options to municipalities that none have taken advantage of because of the requirements, we haven't moved in that direction. But the working group that I referenced in my press release with HRM Mayor Peter Kelly, will be looking at what can be done, keeping the end goal in mind that that plan be healthy and be there for workers who will have paid into it during their working careers.

MS. WHALEN: I appreciate what you're saying is that essentially the plan has to continue. I don't think there's any question the entity will continue, that HRM in one form

[Page 237]

or another - whether it's called that or called something else - will continue and has the capacity to raise money to fund their pension.

MR. PARENT: The point was raised, and I don't know if it was by yourself or someone from another caucus, that whatever we do - I think it was from your own caucus - that whatever we do for one municipality, we have to be careful about precedents for other municipalities. While certain municipalities may be healthier now, have a healthier tax base than other municipalities, if you allow precedents in one municipality that has a healthy tax base, you affect any municipality that may not have a healthy tax base, plus there are municipalities down in the States, particularly in California, where this has become a very perplexing issue. Mr. Schwarzenegger is having to deal this, where municipalities are defaulting on their pension plans.

So, I'll go back to the question raised by your colleague to your right, who pointed out, and I agreed with him, that whatever we do for one municipality, we have to look at other municipalities and at other organizations as well. We have, with HRM, already provided some substantive relief, and the working group is looking at what further can be done.

MS. WHALEN: I wonder if you could repeat, when you said there were stringent conditions set in New Brunswick, you said there was something about 50 per cent, and I couldn't hear what you said. Could you repeat that?

MR. PARENT: Well, there were at least three conditions, and I remember viewing them. One was 50 per cent of the plan owners had to opt in, and that includes present plan owners who might be tempted to say, well, I don't want to pay as much on my pension because they're not going to retire for 20 or 30 years, but that also includes people presently receiving pensions. Plus the municipality had to take responsibility for deficiency. I can get you this if you want, to see what the other plans are. I can provide you a printed copy of Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick.

In New Brunswick, it was 50 per cent. Over 50 per cent had to agree that if there was any deficiency, if there was a deficiency, that the municipality had to meet that deficiency. There was a cap on the benefits so that the municipality couldn't, in New Brunswick, say, well, we'll offer richer benefits because we know that, with the solvency test, we have room to do that. But the danger, of course, would be that it might not be there to pay out. So those were very stringent. Newfoundland and Labrador has other ones that are, I think, even more stringent, if I remember them. I'll get you a copy of those for your own files, if you want.

MS. WHALEN: Yes, I would like to have a copy of that. I think it would help. I'd also like to know if you've looked at Quebec at all, because in this letter it says the Province of Quebec, responding to the circumstance of the municipal sector in that province, has proposed measures to exempt municipal pension plans from funding solvency deficits. So

[Page 238]

they're pointing to other provinces that have responded to this need. I think while we're talking about this, that it's important to know the impact will not be just felt alone by the plan members who will have to pay so much more but this will come back to our own property taxes.

Everywhere in HRM will have to fund this $7 million or $8 million extra a year, simply to go into a fund to protect the fund against some possible insolvency in the future, that it won't continue. That's going to have an effect on our assessments - well, not our assessments, on our tax base. They're going to charge more property tax. It's going to have an effect on every single person who owns property in HRM.

[4:00 p.m.]

MR. PARENT: I think it's important to come back to the joint press release that Mayor Kelly and I issued, and to the working group that's in place, because, certainly in Mayor Kelly's remarks in that press release more than my remarks, he wanted to make very clear that the heightened level of concern, that there really wasn't a lot of substantive cause for it. There was concern, but that the pension plan was a strong pension plan. That needs to be stated because I don't want, and I'm sure you don't want, people worrying about the health of the HRM pension plan when it's a very strong plan.

In terms of Quebec, I can't recall right now, I looked at New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and some federal Crown Corporations, but I can't remember looking at exemptions that Quebec offered. We have already, with the municipality, offered substantive relief in the solvency side that is a total benefit of about $65 million. I think at this point I would rather sort of defer to the working group, because they're the ones with the expertise, and both the mayor and myself are very hopeful that with the experts around the table that this problem will be solved. Please, the plan is a healthy one, and that's the bottom line. We just want to make sure we keep it healthy.

MS. WHALEN: I do thank you for your concern about the ongoing nature of the plan, that it is a big concern. I don't think you should diminish the concern to the individuals, because, again, they were told that their costs will go up significantly if this rule is not relaxed or changed in some way, and that means they'll have a lot less money to bring home because their money will be going into pension plans. So, even though you're looking at the plan and the long-term stability and so on, you still have to consider the impact on property owners in HRM and also on these plan members.

MR. PARENT: Do we still have time, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Twenty-five minutes left.

[Page 239]

MR. PARENT: Okay, and that's what we have done already and will continue to do, but I do want to come back to the fact that those two tests, long-term evaluation and the solvency test, are both in place for reasons and they're very valid reasons.

MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much and I'd just like to thank the minister for answering the questions today. My questions are finished for the moment, so thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Annapolis.

MR. STEPHEN MCNEIL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions for the minister before I turn the rest of the time over to the member for Preston. First of all, I want to congratulate you on your position. Good things come to those who wait. It's going to be our motto of the Liberal caucus, I think, perhaps, but congratulations.

You may have been asked earlier about the Digby quarry, but I want to ask you again around the issue. As you know, there's been a huge amount of community opposition to this. Not only in and around the Community of Digby, but through my riding and as you continue to go up through the Valley. There's a federal environmental assessment taking place now through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I'm wondering what role your department is playing now, in terms of what applications are in front of you for this quarry?

MR. PARENT: Yes, well I mean, you've really stated what's going on. There's a joint EA panel review, appointed by both the federal and provincial governments. The names you probably are aware of, Bob Fournier, Jill Grant, Gunter Muecke, and they're at the stage where they're getting all their information now that they need and then they go out to public consultation once that's done, then they present a report with recommendations to both the federal Minister of Environment and myself and then it's our turn to respond to those recommendations. So, right now, they're getting factual data that they feel they need, as a three-person panel and then they go to public consultation, and then they report back to us.

MR. MCNEIL: Let's just be hypothetical. Let's say that it meets the criteria that it's attempting to meet and yet community is so overwhelmingly opposed to this project, are you prepared as the minister to not grant that application?

MR. PARENT: I guess it didn't take me to long as an MLA to find out that you don't answer hypothetical questions.

MR. MCNEIL: Well, let's hope I don't have to ask that question at a later date. Another issue which has been in my riding - I'll give you the version as I look at the difference between pits and quarries, one you can blast and one you can't. There's been a case that has been put before your department, where a pit had blasted, taken it to court. Your department had charged them actually, for blasting in the pit. You took them to court, and

[Page 240]

they won that court case because there was a loophole in the guidelines if you're blasting for a road. I'm wanting to know what your department has done to close that loophole?

MR. PARENT: I understand that, and I wasn't familiar with the case that you're talking about, but I understand that they applied for an exemption based on the fact that they are building a road, and therefore were granted the exemption. If they are not actually doing that, then that exemption isn't open to them and they fall under other categories. So, is that really the basis of your concern?

MR. MCNEIL: Well, that's not how I understand it. Perhaps I it. I didn't realize that they had applied for any exemption to build a road; they were just building a road and they blasted and the fact that there was a loophole in the legislation that allowed them to blast, was my understanding but you can correct me if I am wrong.

MR. PARENT: It is not really a loophole, which I was trying to say. If they are actually building a road, and that is what their activity is doing, then they are allowed to blast for that purpose. If they are not building a road and they are claiming the exemption for the blasting requirements so they are building a road, that is where my previous comments come into play.

MR. MCNEIL: I guess from a community perspective, when they recognize there is a pit in their community, they believe, and I think fairly, that there is no blasting going to take place in that pit and then all of a sudden there is blasting. What is to stop every pit that is presently open in the Province of Nova Scotia from blasting for a road?

MR. PARENT: Companies could do that, you are right, member, but they would have to be using the material that they are blasting to build a road and we would investigate and, if they are not, then that exemption is not open to them. Now that may not be satisfactory and that you want more stringent - but they are complying right now. They asked for exemptions because they are using the material that they are blasting to build the road.

MR. MCNEIL: Here's how a case could unfold: someone applies for a quarry permit, a tremendous amount of community opposition to that. They downgrade it to a pit, take all the product that they can out of that pit and decide there is another access to get into to expand that pit is by putting another road in. So you blast for the road, which they are legally allowed to do, even though there has been a huge community outcry to that, to me, clearly defines the lines. If they are wanting to blast for a road, why aren't they forced then to go to the community again and say listen, this is what we are doing. Why are they just allowed to blast for a road and then . . .

MR. PARENT: I am going to have to really get back to you as minister on this. In the general policy I am able to respond but in terms of the specific case, what I will do is I will promise to . . .

[Page 241]

MR. MCNEIL: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, but I am going to exclude the case, I'm going to talk in general policy. The general policy is - it doesn't matter if the pit is in my riding or your riding or any riding.

MR. PARENT: Is it possible for me to get back to you on this? I need a fuller briefing on this besides the high level answer I gave you. Is that satisfactory to you? Probably not satisfactory but - what was that?

MR. MCNEIL: I can't hear you.

MR. PARENT: Is it satisfactory that I get a further briefing on this and get back to you on this issue about the high level because you raise some interesting points that I haven't had time to consider. I know there are exemptions if they are blasting a road, I know that we monitor that to make sure that the material used is for the road but now you are saying that if they want another road into the quarry besides the road they had in, they could fall under that exemption.

MR. MCNEIL: That is fine and I appreciate the fact, you know, we are 13 or 14 days into this so for you, and I would appreciate you having a look at this and getting back to me on this issue because it is a concern. Where one can do, many can do. That is what we are going to be faced with not only in my riding, but in lots of ridings so I would appreciate that.

One of the other issues which I am faced a lot with in the riding is around septic systems and the installation and the guidelines around the installation of septic systems. One of the concerns that is always brought when someone comes in talking about that to me, and you talk about the Department of Environment, they don't talk about your department, quite frankly, as a resource or as a friend. They talk about you as if you're the enemy and part of that is because of the way, you know, some of these systems, as you're well aware, could be $15,000, $16,000, $20,000 to install and for many families, and I would say not only in my constituency but around Nova Scotia, this is a horrendous cost. So what happens, in essence, is they don't tell anybody. They try to hide it.

So, in essence, the relationship with your department is one of not protecting the environment but one of harming the environment. Whereas, if there was a mechanism - and I asked this of your predecessor by the way - to look at and put in place a graduated proposal that would allow a system upgrade to take, you know, a four or five year period. Granted, it is not solving the problem immediately, but I would say to you it's going to solve it a whole lot quicker to the betterment of the environment, the best interest of that family in terms of costs, if we allow that to be graduated in over a period of five years say. Maybe you start at one end with the tanks and move your way out but, as it is right now, many constituents across this province avoid your department.

[Page 242]

MR. PARENT: It's an interesting question you raise and it was raised by the member for Pictou West before in terms of, if you have regulations and the regulations are - he was talking about disposal of waste material and what the fines were, but the philosophical question is the same - if your regulations result in such an expense to people that they circumvent the regulations because it gets too onerous an expense, then you've defeated your end purpose. I mean, I hear that and you and I both know of cases where that happens in our ridings. That's why we're really proud of the Environmental Home Assessment Program where we put in $850,000. I don't know if you're aware of that, it's in the Estimates Book. Part of that program monitors water quality, oil tanks, and the health of wells. In that program, we will offer up to $3,000 to help people upgrade their septic systems.

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, you've mentioned, you know, the figure can go up to $12,000, $18,000. I think your colleague, who knows more than I do about septic systems, also mentioned that. However, there are systems that are down around $5,000 and $6,000 as well. So we're going to be offering grants for repair and replacement of up to $3,000 to help rural landowners. There are about 400,000 people in Nova Scotia who are on septic systems. Our initial Party was working with municipal sewage systems and working on that and now, with this new program, we're moving on to home septic systems. So we're going to be helping to the tune of $3,000 which should be a substantive break to people.

It has to be remembered that if people live in rural areas, they're paying lower taxes as well because they're getting less services and that one of the services - well, they certainly are in the County of Kings, that's at least the theory, and one of the things in town, you'll get sewage systems, you'll get a water supply. Well, in rural areas you've got to pay for a well which could be, I put in my well, it was $2,500, and sewage systems, but we are going to be helping out.

MR. MCNEIL: Perhaps you're - and the more you talk - missing the point of what I was saying to you. It's not that they don't want to fix it. It's the fact they don't have the money, you know, and they can't do the outlay, and just let me finish. You're talking a system of $5,000. It's not as if the homeowner can go pick, well, I'll take that system because it's $5,000. It's the property they live on, the land, all kinds of other things determine what kind of system is going to be put on their property. I would like to hear of one for $5,000 in my constituency, quite frankly, because I haven't heard of any, absolutely zero, in three years. I don't want to knock $3,000 because it certainly would be much appreciated by anybody who was eligible to receive it.

What I'm trying to say to you is, from an environmental perspective - and that is what your department is there for, to try to protect the environment of Nova Scotia. There's no reason people will avoid coming to your department for this very reason. It's all or nothing. Here's the system, you have an engineer assess it, here's what he told you, install it. It's all

[Page 243]

or nothing. It's not like we can install that system over a four- or five-year period so they can actually, literally afford to do it. It's an all or nothing proposal.

I would say to you, as the new minister, I would appreciate perhaps you getting back to me on that.

MR. PARENT: Your point is validly taken. There are a couple of issues around it. One is installing a graduated septic system, it's not that easy to do. I mean, a septic system is a septic system; how you install a graduated septic system, I'm not terribly sure. I would have to do more research on the possibility of that.

MR. MCNEIL: For one thing, they've done in many areas, holding tanks are put in with the potential to be with the field to be added to them. I guess what I'm saying to you, why don't you provide, as a department, that option to an engineer to say, yes, it's possible and to that family it's affordable and to that family it's doable.

MR. PARENT: Well, I guess we've concentrated as a government on this $850,000 program which we see as a very significant step forward and good news for homeowners - a grant of up to $3,000 to help them. That's the direction we've taken because we think it's the best way to protect groundwater to protect from environmental damage.

I hear your question. I'd like to assess how this program's working first. It's a new program, it's one we're proud of, it's one that we're excited about and it's just being unrolled. So I would like to see what that does in determining how many septic systems are out there that have failed. We know in Cape Breton, for example, we did a study and about 30 per cent of them were not up to regulations.

As this program unfolds and as people get the opportunity to apply for the grants to upgrade their septic systems, then we'll get the responses back in terms of how successful this program has been.

MR. MCNEIL: That's great, if you would, I can see we could talk about this for my whole time. I appreciate your comments. Your department is also . . .

MR. PARENT: Could I respond one more thing on that? You do touch then in that regard, getting away from septic systems per se and getting to the philosophy of the question, you talk about another initiative we're very pleased with - the CCI initiative, which I mentioned and referred to in my opening remarks in terms of better regulation. On a philosophical level, I think you're talking about how we can make the regulations so that they work best.

Sometimes it means fewer regulations, sometimes it means better regulations. I think that, philosophically, goes in that discussion, where the mandate, province-wide, for doing

[Page 244]

that is vested in - it's housed, or situated, in our department. We've had some successes on that.

I guess I'm encouraging you to continue to ask your question on the philosophical level in that regard, in terms of this actual program. I'm hoping that this will do a large chunk towards helping to get septic systems across Nova Scotia up to snuff.

MR. MCNEIL: Okay. It's also my understanding there are some regulations, improvements to regulations, around sewage lagoons. I'm wondering where that's at. I know in my riding, it has created quite a little problem, because some of the regs are forcing lagoons to close. Who knows where it's going to be dumped?

MR. PARENT: As I mentioned before, we've given all the operators in this industry to 2010 to meet the new regulations and we're providing up to $100,000 for operators to upgrade their equipment and facilities. We suspect most of them will do that. There may be some, very few, that decide it's not economically feasible. We have enough capacity in the province. We have, in fact, a little extra capacity beyond what we need right now. We, along with the new regulations, are providing substantial financial help to help the facility operators.

MR. MCNEIL: Is that help in the form of grants, loans?

MR. PARENT: Yes, grants. We do grants.

MR. MCNEIL: Hey, that's good. I know a few people who would be happy to hear that.

MR. PARENT: And we can give you more information on that for the specific constituent you're talking about or a company you're talking about.

MR. MCNEIL: I want to also touch on the Labour Standards law, and a little bit around Sunday shopping. As you know, there was a plebiscite and Nova Scotians said no to Sunday shopping. I'm wondering why your department, or why your former minister, or why your government didn't take the lead from Nova Scotians and close the loophole in Sunday shopping? Not effective June 1^st, but correcting the problem that Nova Scotians said they didn't want to be there, because it appears to many Nova Scotians that you're rewarding those who flaunted the law and punishing those who respected it.

MR. PARENT: I was trying to listen to the question because it's nice to have the windows open, but sometimes when the trucks go by, it's hard to hear. I would think that question is best referred to the person who has the Sunday shopping file and that's the Honourable Michael Baker. I just tabled legislation in the House for protection of workers which is workers' protection legislation under the Labour Standards.

[Page 245]

MR. MCNEIL: I don't know if it applies because, to be honest with you, I haven't seen it because you did it today, but in essence what you've said to people who work for a retailer who flaunted the law prior to June 1^st, you're forced to work on Sundays and those who work for a retailer who respected the law, you don't have to work?

MR. PARENT: The workers' protection that I tabled in the bill today covers all historic retail industries that had exemption from Sunday and other holidays.

MR. MCNEIL: So the plebiscite that Nova Scotians said no to Sunday shopping really was about the protection of workers then, is that it, or was it about Sunday shopping?

MR. PARENT: I'm talking about the specific legislation that I tabled today and it applied to all under the Retail Business Uniform Closing Day Act that historically . . .

MR. MCNEIL: I hear that.

MR. PARENT: So I was just elaborating on that. The question that you're asking really needs to be directed to the minister who's in charge of that file and you'll have an opportunity, when Finance comes forward in the Red Room, you'll have an opportunity to ask those questions.

MR. MCNEIL: No, but does he do Labour Standards? I thought that fell under you.

MR. PARENT: I do the Labour Standards and that's why I was talking about the Labour Standards.

MR. MCNEIL: I recognize you're the Minister of Environment and Labour, and I recognize someone else introduced the bill on behalf of your government which entails your department?

MR. PARENT: No, I introduced it.

MR. MCNEIL: No, no, the Sunday shopping issue. I guess you're right, it wasn't a bill, you introduced the bill today.

MR. PARENT: Right.

MR. MCNEIL: But the issue around Sunday shopping, which includes your department, what I'm wondering is, you're saying there is a certain group of workers in this province who should work at the retail grocery business on Sunday and another group that shouldn't?

[Page 246]

MR. PARENT: I guess maybe I'm making assumptions about your question. Can you flesh it out a bit further, because in the bill that I tabled today, those workers who historically did not have to work on Sunday have the right to refuse to work on Sunday and other holidays and they can apply to Labour Standards if they feel that they've been discriminated against because they took that option. So I'm not very clear what your question is, I'm getting confused, sorry.

MR. MCNEIL: Well, the bill that the minister introduced around the issue, or the position you've taken on Sunday shopping, let's say, has a June 1^st drop date of, if you're before that, your employees work Sunday; if you're after that, your employees don't. How, as the minister in charge of the Labour Standards, can you ratify that?

MR. PARENT: I think I just answered your question.

MR. MCNEIL: Well, I guess maybe I didn't hear it.

MR. PARENT: The bill that I introduced today will protect workers who traditionally in the retail sector and traditionally have not had to work on Sundays or other holidays from having to work on those days. If they are discriminated, if they say, I refuse to work that day, and they are discriminated against by having their hours reduced or something, they have a right to complain to Labour Standards who will look into their case. If they have a case, we'll take up their case with the employer.

MR. MCNEIL: I guess as a member of the Executive Council then you're supporting Sunday shopping?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has elapsed. I believe we're ready now for the minister's final statement.

MR. PARENT: Final statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: For today, yes.

MR. PARENT: Oh, okay, I was just getting excited. There is no final statement, the question keeps going, you just declare time's up, we get to go have a pee break. Is time up for estimates today?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your estimates are up.

MR. PARENT: Oh, my estimates are up? There are no more questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: So if you have a closing statement, my mistake. If you have a closing statement please.

[Page 247]

MR. PARENT: You can always come back. Well, I want to thank the critics for their questions, I want to thank department officials for their support, and certainly there have been some issues raised that we will get back to members on. I want to reiterate my invitation to not only the critics of the portfolio areas that I have the great privilege of having under my ministry, but I want to invite all other members who may be interested in Environment and Labour, because it touches so much of Nova Scotians' lives to come visit the department and give me a phone call. If there's a specific area you're interested in, I'd love to have you come and visit. As I said before, I think it's a department that protects the quality of life of Nova Scotians both in terms of their work, which is such an important part of our lives, but in terms of the environment which we support in part. With that being said, thanks to the staff, thanks to the critics and thanks to the chairman who has done a wonderful job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E6 stand?

Resolution E6 stands.

The Department of Fisheries is next.

[4:29 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[4:33 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. The time is now 4:33 p.m. We will now call the estimates of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Resolution E22 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $5,031,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture, pursuant to the Estimate and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board be approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call on the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and we will ask him for an opening statement.

HON. RONALD CHISHOLM: It is my pleasure to be here this afternoon to discuss Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture with you today. I have with me Rosalind Penfound, the Deputy Minister; Weldon Myers, the Director of Finance; as well as Greg Roach who is with me this afternoon.

I will take a few minutes to highlight opportunities to our proposed budget. As you know, the fishery is important to the economy of our province, particularly to our coastal communities. The fishing and the seafood processing industries have prospered because of hard-working people. As well, our sport fishing industry continues to be a great success story

[Page 248]

for our province. The seafood processing industry and the primary fishery employs 17,000 people. Another 50,000 people are employed in food distribution and service industries. The value of fish landings in 2005 was $647 million.

I will now give a brief overview of our business plan, goals, priorities and programs. The 2006-07 business plan outlines our programs and services which will be supported by our budget. One goal is to provide for sustainable resource management through environmentally and socially responsible development of the fishery and aquaculture. To do this, we will continue to deliver the Aquaculture Environmental Monitoring Program, implement strategies to support the federal Species at Risk Act, participate in the Gulf of Maine Council of the Marine Environment, support community and volunteer organizations to address freshwater fish habitat restoration, and ensure that rockweed leases are managed in a sustainable manner.

Another goal is to promote industry growth and development through competitive fisheries, aquaculture and food businesses. These create economic growth and employment in coastal communities. To do this we will implement marketing strategies, address market access, supply chain needs of regional food producers and processors. We will prepare an aquaculture development strategy and enter into negotiations for a new federal-provincial aquaculture framework agreement. We will implement a new aquaculture industry development program and address fish health issues.

We will develop commercial fisheries for new species and provide new opportunities for recreational fishing, increase the promotion of sport and recreational fishing opportunities, and we will promote fishing gear and boat-building exports.

Another goal is to provide for responsible governance that promotes the orderly development of the fisheries, aquaculture and food industries. Good aquatic health is extremely important to Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture and we will participate in a national aquatic animal health program, review the Nova Scotia Fish Processors and Fish Buyers Licence Policy, and work with the aquaculture industry and government partners to harmonize the aquaculture site application process.

The 2006-07 budget demonstrates the commitment of Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture to the fisheries and aquaculture industries and its employees. We will continue to provide important programs and service to our fishermen and processors. This year's budget will see services, program delivery, staff, and operating abilities receive a boost - there will be an increase of $450,000 for aquaculture development and a $50,000 contribution to a lobster-quality research project.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that Nova Scotia's fisheries industries are key to our entire provincial economy and very important to our rural and coastal communities.

[Page 249]

These sectors provide employment and career opportunities that enable Nova Scotians to work in traditional industries, train in Nova Scotia, and live in our coastal areas.

Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture remains an active partner and a responsive leader in Nova Scotia's fisheries industries. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the questions that the members of the Opposition will have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I will now call on the member for Shelburne to begin the questions, and the time is 4:38 p.m.

MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, and staff, it's interesting that I have this privilege and honour to be in this position here today, and I really appreciate the time. And it's interesting to look over my life and see some of your staff who have participated in a number of issues over the number of years, and I look forward to asking these few questions - if I don't ask appropriate questions I may be called on by the people back in Shelburne County where fishing is the economic engine of that community and, as I said in my election campaign, the fishery is the lifeline of our communities, not only in Shelburne but actually the lifeline of many communities, if not all coastal communities across our province.

It's interesting to note that as a fisherman, and I chose to do this at a very early age, Mr. Chairman - I entered the fishery at the age of 15, and that was common at the time - and many people of my generation look back on that as an opportunity when the workforce entered the fishery at a very early age, which was common practice as I pointed out, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the fishing industry you could basically work 24 hours, seven days a week, non-stop, and if you were a workaholic you could make some big money. You could go from any particular fishery that you felt comfortable at, and there were a lot of opportunities to make some money, and I will point out that there were a lot of professionals, teachers, people of professional backgrounds, who also chose to enter the fishery and took a leave of absence from their professional careers at that time and they did so.

I guess what I'm leading up to is that these decisions back in the late 1960s and early 1970s were based on, at the local level, personal decisions to go and pursue a resource that was there, and the resource gave many people in our coastal communities a lot of income. The particular point that I'm trying to make is that fishermen and business people had the flexibility of choosing and going after whatever species they felt was probably the most profitable, and it worked. There were great opportunities there, and the point is it seems to me that the fishery is the major export of Nova Scotia and we are at a stage in the industry where we've seen the provincial fisheries play a less and less important part of that decision-making process.

[Page 250]

So my first question to the minister is, why won't the provincial government go after a constitutional amendment allowing the provincial fisheries more control, more input in the decision-making process, to help create more income in our community? I can give a number of examples, but that's my first question. Why aren't we going down this road and looking at a constitutional amendment to have more management, more control, and more say in the fishery?

MR. CHISHOLM: Thank you for the question. I guess I can agree with what the member for Shelburne has been saying. I too, at probably 13 or 14 - I didn't stay in the business, but I recall many Saturday mornings getting up at three o'clock in the morning and being on the small wharf, a little outport in Bayfield in Antigonish County, wanting to go fishing lobsters with whomever would take me.

I guess the fishery has changed over the last number of years, as a lot of our resource- based industries have changed. The farming industry has changed; forestry has changed over the years. Why aren't we going after a constitutional amendment, I guess was the question? What I'm told on that is that we are working with DFO. DFO is coming out with a review of the Fisheries Act, and we will be working with DFO to enhance any aspect of the fishery that we can, that included.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, if I could just go back to my introductory remarks. I'd just like to point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleagues as we go into this particular time allotted.

Mr. Minister, I appreciate that opportunity, but I think that the review of the fisheries by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be echoed strongly that we want to participate in that process and that we want to speed that process up. If I could just kindly nudge that the process needs to be implemented on a fast-track scale, I think a lot of our people in our coastal communities would appreciate that.

I'll quickly point out to the minister, before I ask my other question, that we talk about job creation in coastal communities here, and I'm going to give you three or four examples, that if we had, at a provincial level, some input into the decision-making process. For instance, we have a halibut quota that's allotted to small-boat fishermen on 500 pounds per week. This may be all right for some ports, but in southwest Nova Scotia for instance, the vessels are large, they're powerful boats and it costs a lot of money to send these boats out. A simple solution is, instead of having four weeks we reduce that to two weeks per month, and we combine the total amount of quota into two weeks, thus creating a more feasible approach to that.

[Page 251]

[4:45 p.m.]

We have green crabs that have been allotted to Eastern Nova Scotia, and I understand that southwest Nova Scotia has been requesting for two to three years that this lottery be drawn so people in southwest Nova Scotia would have access to that.

We have a tuna fleet in the Gulf off Nova Scotia, P.E.I. in particular, that has access to quota, and because of the high cost of fuel and just moving that fleet down here, by simply having a policy change, which they had in the early years when this was first introduced, that fishing fleet can transfer that licence to southwest Nova Scotia, thus giving an idle fishery in the summer access to a quota that the Gulf fishermen have already been allocated.

We have international quotas that the foreign fleet have access to. We have, basically, fishing fleets tied up in our communities in the summer months, the most reasonable time to go fishing.

Those are three or four examples where we can better manage or co-manage these fisheries and create hundreds of jobs. I'm very serious when I say that we can create hundreds of jobs instantly by a simple policy change. This is the importance of having more involvement and getting in there for this review of the Fisheries Act.

If I were someone coming from another country and suggesting I was going to get 400 to 500 jobs here within a week, I would have the red carpet rolled out. I'm saying we can do a better job of managing our fisheries.

The question I wanted to point out right now is that presently the P.E.I. provincial government is challenging the federal DFO under their management of the herring fishing fleet. They have a court challenge going through the court system. My question to the minister is, why doesn't the provincial fisheries of Nova Scotia become an intervener in this particular case?

MR. CHISHOLM: Just to get on your previous question, we will work with the critics for the Opposition Parties to take their advice to go to DFO, to work with DFO to address the issues for the new Fisheries Act. I think that process will probably start tomorrow morning. I do have meetings set up with both yourself, as critic for the NDP, as well as the critic for the Liberal Party. So that process will start tomorrow.

On your other issue on why we haven't got intervener status, our legal advice is that we don't at this present time. We will monitor it closely and make a decision at some point in time down the road as to when and if we should have intervener status.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Most recently, in the last few weeks, actually the last days, the Irish moss fleet, as you're aware, has held some discussions with the federal DFO basically

[Page 252]

requesting access to a resource that is basically right off our doorsteps. Again, I see a number of opportunities, and my understanding is that this particular peaceful protest was successful, after the DFO has met with them in these recent weeks, recent days, the indication is there's a possibility of creating 40 to 50 new permits.

These are simple examples of creating more jobs in the coastal communities, and the resource is there. I guess what I'm asking is, is that something that your department would endorse and try to work with all the other Fisheries Critics to come up with different scenarios in a way we can get more employment in our coastal communities.

I guess my question is, do you endorse that concept of creating more Irish moss permits?

MR. CHISHOLM: We endorse working with everybody, all stakeholders in the fishery for whatever fishery we may be involved with, all fisheries, to try to create more jobs, more opportunity for the fishery.

As you know, the province manages marine plants, such as rockweed, that are found above the low-water mark. DFO manages plants like Irish moss that are found below the low-water mark. We have to work with DFO, and I think last Thursday's meeting - I mean, our officials from our department were part of that discussion. As you said, it was reasonable, all parties appear, at least at this point in time, to be happy with the decision that was made there. So we will continue to work with whomever we have to work with to make things better.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I just gave my colleagues a heads-up. After this question, I will turn it over to them.

One of my main reasons to pursue this particular political area - I'll be very blunt and to the point - is that I think the survival of coastal communities is very heavily dependent upon making sure the independent fisherman will survive and that there will be policies put in place to ensure that we can pass on these licences to the next generation.

One of the interesting situations is that the provincial loan board was established in the late 1930s through an Act of Parliament, and this is something that has been supported by our provincial Fisheries. It has never been acceptable and we have a bill before the House now dealing with the loan board and recognizing the licence as collateral. I know some of your staff have heard and participated in some discussions that the fishing industry, including myself, has presented over the years - not years, decades. I guess my question before I turn it over to my colleagues here, is given the fact that we need to keep our fishermen in our communities, keep them independent, right now there is no avenue of getting a lending agency to accept these licences as collateral. I personally feel, along with a lot of people across our province, that needs to change. My question is directly to the point, will you and

[Page 253]

your government support that bill and will you personally see that that's going to be endorsed?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, you know, I guess as the new rules come out for the owner-operators, it will allow for arrangements where our loan board will be able to have some legal security if the licence holder defaults on the loan, so we're looking forward to working with DFO on that new option and I certainly support that concept.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to turn it over to my colleagues - Charlie, would you want to go first or, Vicki, would like to go first because of the time requirements?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Queens.

MS. VICKI CONRAD: Thank you for the chance to speak. First, just a little bit of background, I grew up in a coastal community and although my father wasn't a fisherman, we spent most of our summers fishing to stock our winter supply. I remember a time when there was such a thing as the groundfishery, and my brother and I used to have contests to see who would bring in the biggest haddock or the biggest cod. So it was fishing although, like I say, my family weren't fishermen, but it was a big part of my growing up, experiencing handlining and fishing. I also experienced fishing for eels, and potting eels myself many years later as I got older. (Interruption) Well, yes, a little bit of that too. I actually had an uncle who made spearheads and we used to mask and snorkel and actually - yes, spearheads. It was a long time ago.

Anyway, I'm very concerned about our coastal communities and our fishing communities. Over the past 20 to 30 years we've seen our fishing industry change drastically, but we're fishing species that we never thought we would be fishing before. We're looking for those value-added products. We're fishing plant species - our rockweed, our Irish moss, our kelps, are all being fished now and harvested - and processed elsewhere I might add. It was interesting, just a little while ago I was reading an article in the paper where we're looking at the green crabs as potential for - well, I think we're already fishing the green crabs and looking for markets, but I think there's some question as to the genetics of the types of green crabs out there. So it's interesting to just see how our fisheries have changed.

Also the eel fishery, my husband has a berth on the Medway River and the eel fishery has changed. They're now selling little, tiny - I forget the name - the elvers? Are they the elvers? You know, years ago when I used to help my husband with the eel fishery, his particular berth, they were bringing in eels as big around as my forearm and today to find eels that size, you're just not finding them. So protection of the fisheries, whether we're talking about the new species we are fishing, whether we're talking about freshwater species, we do need to be looking at the sustainability of our fishing industry, period, regardless of what sector you're actually looking in.

[Page 254]

So I would like to ask what provisions are we putting in place, is the government putting in place, is the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture putting in place to ensure sustainability of the species that we are harvesting now that we're not overharvesting? We have overharvested. Years ago in the groundfishery, and even with the draggers and that, whatever came up in the nets, if it wasn't the particular fish that was being fished, everything else went overboard and none of that product was utilized, 20 or 30 years ago.

So sustainability is certainly a question of mine, and what the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is actually doing to promote sustainability. Another question I will have will be around aquaculture, but if you could just indicate to me what sustainability measures will be put in place.

MR. CHISHOLM: It's all a DFO mandate, the quotas, the management. From what we understand, it's the number one priority for DFO. We work with them on different committees to ensure management and sustainability of the resource. We do have people from our department who are on all the committees associated with the management plans for DFO, and that will continue.

MS. CONRAD: So are there any particular species that you see at risk that are high priority to be looking at sustainability for a particular species?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, we worked on the cod action plan, and we're being very cautious with the herring fishery, as well. There was some discussion in the last few weeks over the herring fishery and the amount of quota the DFO was going to allow this year. We do have our concerns, but we're working with DFO to maintain the management plans that are in place and work on the ones that need to be worked on.

[5:00 p.m.]

MS. CONRAD: I'm going to just jump to offshore development, and offshore development happening through the Department of Energy, where we see a lot of drilling and offshore exploration and a lot of that is happening along the Scotian Shelf, which is one of our most sensitive ecosystems, and certainly, I would think, will play a role at some point in time in what that sustainability will actually look like for some of our fish species. So I'm wondering, is the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture actually working closely with the Department of Energy and putting in safeguards or checks and balances in terms of that activity out on the Scotian Shelf, and how that may or may not directly affect our inshore fisheries?

MR. CHISHOLM: I'm of the understanding that there is a fisheries advisory committee that deals with some of those issues. Each oil and gas development has to go through an environmental assessment through the Department of Environment and Labour, and we give fisheries input into the Department of Energy on those issues.

[Page 255]

MS. CONRAD: Part of that fisheries advisory committee, some of those committee members, would they be fishermen who would come to the table with their . . .

MR. CHISHOLM: Processors and fish harvesters would be involved on those committees.

MS. CONRAD: Is that a committee that meets fairly regularly?

MR. CHISHOLM: What was that again?

MS. CONRAD: Is that a committee that also meets regularly?

MR. CHISHOLM: About four to five times a year, I'm told.

MS. CONRAD: So again I'm hearing that sustainability is certainly a priority of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and that's a good thing because sustainability is certainly something that I'm hearing on the doorsteps when I'm talking to many of the men and women in our fishing communities.

I'm going to talk about aquaculture for just a little bit. There are two operations in my riding - two larger operations that I'm aware of. The one operation I have had a lot of concerns raised about from constituents is with this particular aquaculture farm harvesting salmon. It sits in the cove around Port Mouton and around Spectacle Island. Some of the concerns are that the byproduct of the salmon, or the fecal matter of the salmon, is kind of compounding, I guess, on the ocean floor around the area, and the concern from some of the local fishermen is that the bay doesn't flush really well, to encourage a lot of aquaculture development in this particular bay. The local fishermen who have raised concerns with me have been living in that area for years, in fact for generations, and are very well versed in the cycles of the bay flushing in and out with the tides and feel that this particular farm is not conducive to that area.

I understand that the operator of this aquaculture farm is looking to expand that particular farm. So in terms of aquaculture development, which I think is a fishery that we do have to seriously look at, there is a place for aquaculture to be happening around our province, but at the same time have the checks and balances to make sure that aquaculture development actually happens in the right spots so that other fisheries or other coastal areas may not be negatively affected.

So again the question around aquaculture - are there safeguards in place so that when development or new operations spring up, or if an existing operation is looking to expand, the safeguards are there - I'm sure there would be an environmental assessment process that would have to be gone through, that no stone is left unturned to ensure that before an operation is set up or expands, that all safeguards are taken into consideration?

[Page 256]

MR. CHISHOLM: We do have an environmental monitoring program that is in place for aquaculture - and we will endeavour to, at your convenience, if you want to come into our office we will get a presentation as to actually what does happen, what process is there, all the aspects of the monitoring program, and we are prepared to do that whenever you want.

MS. CONRAD: Thank you. I have one further question. I visited an interesting operation in my riding during the election campaign. There is a gentleman who has set up - it's aquaculture in a sense, but it's not directly on the coast itself, it's a greenhouse operation. This gentleman grows abalone, which is a shellfish that I understand comes from European waters - is that correct? (Interruption) West Coast, not European - it's getting to be a long day. So this shellfish originates on the West Coast. He is growing this shellfish in a greenhouse operation. He has been in business for approximately five years now, from the beginning stages of this particular business. It takes years to grow this shellfish to a marketable size. I understand that it's a very expensive marketable product when it is mature.

I was quite intrigued, and it's a type of fishery that I would like to encourage the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture to be partnering with, or working with the fishing communities to explore other options of growing species in an environment that we could create the habitat to grow other species that we could actually look at marketing. This was an operation that I thought looks like it will be a very successful market.

Now some of his hurdles will be marketing the product - it is a high-end product - and also getting whatever support systems in place or having support systems through the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, whether it be to help with the promotion of that product or whether it be to encourage expansion at some point in time. Any thoughts around different fishing opportunities?

MR. CHISHOLM: Our budget this year does include $450,000 more for aquaculture initiatives. We're hoping that maybe that will generate a little bit of federal money as well to go along with that - we'll be working on that with our federal counterparts. We do have a halibut operation in Woods Harbour that's land-based as well that does a good job providing jobs. They provide a good product. So these things can and do work. It's our intention to do as much as we can to enhance these projects and to provide for more aquaculture in the province.

The other issue, on the monitoring program that we do have in place, the invitation will be to anybody from your caucus who wants to attend that. Our staff will set it up and get you a time, and we'll put it on to make sure that everybody is fully aware of what monitoring programs we do have in place for aquaculture. That will be to your Party, as well as the Liberal Party.

MS. CONRAD: Okay, thank you. I think, for now, that's all. I'm fine.

[Page 257]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.

MR. CHARLES PARKER: Mr. Minister, I want to welcome you and your staff here today. Having seen you not too long ago in the Town of Pictou - we were trying to band some lobsters there, and I think we managed to get our fingers bitten a little bit, but nothing too seriously, and all in good fun. That was on the weekend of our 72^nd Annual Pictou Lobster Carnival. It was a great weekend weather-wise, and certainly large crowds came out to celebrate our lobster fishery on the Northumberland Shore. It was great to have you there; it's the first time I can remember actually having a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at our Lobster Carnival, in a good number of years - I'm sure there was at some point in the past, I just don't know when it was - anyway, a successful weekend.

I wish I could say it was a totally successful lobster season for our local fishermen, but I can't say that - and I'm going to come to that in just a minute.

I just want to mention if you're ever up to Pictou County again, and I don't know if you've been to the LORDA Park in Landsdowne, but we'd love to have you come there to visit. It's another park that's supported by your department. They stock a lot of freshwater trout there for seniors and the disabled to fish - the limit is five, as you know, for freshwater fish. A good number of people from all over central Nova Scotia, Pictou, Colchester, Halifax, Hants County and so on who come to LORDA Park, located about 17 kilometres from the Trans-Canada - Magic Valley, Storybook Village, that area - to Highway No. 289, heading back towards Colchester County. It's Landsdowne Outdoor Recreational Development Association, LORDA for short. We'd certainly welcome your visit there at any time. I guess I would ask, have you ever been to the LORDA Park, or are you familiar with it at all?

MR. CHISHOLM: No. I have heard a bit about it, but I'm not really familiar, no, but I will . . .

MR. PARKER: As Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we would welcome you to come out and have a tour someday, and perhaps bring some of your staff with you - the inlands fisheries people in particular. Certainly some of the inlands fisheries people have been involved - it's stocked every year by your department.

Okay, I want to come back then to the lobster fishery on the Northumberland Shore. As I said, this year it has been perhaps just a slight bit better than last year, but still tough slogging for many of our fishermen up there, especially on the western end of the Northumberland Strait into Cumberland County, northern Colchester, and in my riding in areas like Cape John, Skinners Cove and Toney River - in some of those areas the catches are not near what they could be or have been in past years.

[Page 258]

One initiative that has been undertaken by the federal level of government, the provincial level and some others interested in the fishery is the - I think it's called the Working Group on the Northumberland Strait, trying to determine why the catches are down, why is it the catches have dropped off so much. There's one fisherman there, you may know him, Ronnie Heighton ,who is involved with the Northumberland Fisherman Association, and he tells me that over time his catch went from about 30,000 pounds they used to catch at one time, now it's down to about 10 per cent of that, maybe in the 3,500-pound range, and almost to the point where it's not economical to fish.

And that's a similar story for many, many who have lost so much of their income, yet their costs are going up - bait is up, ice is up, and you know certainly labour and everything, fuel in particular has been rising, so they're caught in a squeeze, they're not making any money, and some of them don't even go out every day, they just let it ride for a couple of days.

So I wonder if you can give us any update on the Northumberland Strait, the working group on the lobster fishery - where it's at and are there any findings yet on what the cause of the low catches might be?

MR. CHISHOLM: You're absolutely right, the lobster fishery is one of the most important fisheries that we have in the province. It's $400 million to $450 million annually. So it is very important and we do have some concerns about that area of the Northumberland Strait. I guess you probably know by now that the Province of Prince Edward Island conducted a study and, as a result of that study, they're calling for a summit, I think it's on July 31^st. The federal minister, Loyola Hearn, is going to be there and I will be there, as well as officials from my department will be there and, after that time, we will maybe have some more information as to which way we should move forward.

[5:15 p.m.]

MR. PARKER: Is that summit on the 31^st related to this Northumberland Strait working group or is it a separate initiative by the Province of P.E.I.?

MR. CHISHOLM: It's an independent initiative that I think was done for the Province of Prince Edward Island. The south side of Prince Edward Island, as I understand, is having the same problem as the north side of Nova Scotia. The north side of Prince Edward Island they tell me, the lobster fishery there, they had a great season. So there is I guess an issue, like I said, on the south side of P.E.I. as well as the north side of Nova Scotia. So I guess we're going to sit down to try to figure out what the reasons are and try to come up with some solutions for what may be happening there.

MR. PARKER: Of course, the Northumberland Strait is only nine miles wide in some areas and up to 14 miles wide at Pictou - it's the same water, it's the same body, it's the same

[Page 259]

lobsters, I guess they intermingle between the P.E.I. and Nova Scotia boats, and the New Brunswick boats as well as you go up the shore, but . . .

MR. CHISHOLM: I'm told that the Fisheries reps will be there, as well as the working group. So all the stakeholders, all the processors, that sort of thing, will be involved in this process.

MR. PARKER: That's good news and hopefully by working together, the three provinces, solutions can be found. I guess I'm particularly interested in this Northumberland Strait working group. I know DFO is involved, each of the three Maritime Provinces has at least one representative there - I'm not sure who the province's representative is - there are a number of scientists' and fishermen's groups represented. It's pretty broad-based, there are about 30 different representatives on the committee.

Are there any findings thus far? Have they identified why, what is the cause of the low catches? Is it environmental, is it seals, is it the fixed link? There have been about 30 different reasons identified, I think, why the catches might be down, and they seem to get worse as you go west along the shore. I've heard water temperature, I've heard maybe pesticides coming off the land - is there any identified reason at this moment?

MR. CHISHOLM: We don't really know. We've heard lots of people suggest what could be wrong - and all of the above, everything you mentioned there has, at one time or another, been suggested. I don't think anybody really knows. There has to be more study done, more science probably, to try to figure it out. But it is my intention, sometime over this late summer, early Fall, to get around the province to all the associations that are involved in the fishery, and the Northumberland Strait one would be included in that as well. I think the only one I've done so far is the Antigonish one, the Gulf Nova Scotia Bonafide guys. I haven't had time yet to meet with the Guysborough County inshore fishermen who are in my own county, so I plan to do that sometime soon. I will be meeting with the rest, and Ronnie Heighton's group will be part of that.

MR. PARKER: I guess we're all hopeful that the problem can be found, that it can be identified so that we can work towards a solution. The lobster fishery has been a way of life along the Northumberland Shore for generations. We have to find out why it's down and work towards improving it. I know that is everybody's interest, but so far nobody has been able to identify what is causing it.

MR. CHISHOLM: I guess over the years there have been downturns in different areas. Down my way, in the Bayfield-Arisaig area, for a number of years the catches were down, but it always seems give it a few years and they rebound for some reason. I know, from what I'm hearing, in the Strait where you are, River John, that area, that things are very bad this year. I've had some personal calls from fishermen up that way who are very concerned about it. Hopefully we can come up with some solutions, and we'll work on it.

[Page 260]

MR. PARKER: One solution that has been suggested or asked for in the past, if the lobster doesn't rebound, if the season catches are still pretty poor, is there some compensation or financial assistance that could be provided to help in these low-income areas, these low-catch areas? I just want to get your thoughts on that.

MR. CHISHOLM: That's probably something that's going to be discussed with the federal minister when we're in Prince Edward Island. I would assume that's going to be part of it - if not, we'll make it part of it.

MR. PARKER: Okay, we'll leave that, but let's hope there's a solution that comes forward - and the best solution, of course, is that the stock rebounds and that people make a reasonable living off the water.

I want to touch base on the clam fishery, especially off Cape Breton Island. There has been controversy in North Sydney about the clam fishery maybe closing down, or it's in the final throes of that happening right now. Clearwater owns the licences there; over time they've been able to accumulate 100 per cent of the licences, and it's almost like a private stock for them. At one time there were a lot of clams processed in North Sydney, and some were processed in Newfoundland and Labrador as well. But it seems, today, that almost all our stock is being harvested and shipped to China. Most of it is being processed halfway around the world, yet it's Nova Scotia's resource, it's our stock and it's our jobs that are being lost because it's not being processed here, or very, very little of it.

We know that the resources that are in the ocean are a public resource, they belong to the people, they belong to all of us as Nova Scotians and as Canadians, but yet there's really no benefit coming to us from that stock that's off our shore. It has been suggested that the policy should be that fish that are caught here should be processed here. I think other provinces have that policy right now, Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. It protects jobs, it protects the fishery, it keeps the whole spinoff in the local economy, but when the fish are caught on a big boat and they are shipped to China, or wherever, there's very, very little benefit to Nova Scotians. So I'd like to get your thoughts on fish being caught here actually being processed here.

MR. CHISHOLM: I guess there are a lot of reasons why the processing industry is not as good and as vibrant as we want it to be - global competition is one, particularly from countries like China; the lack of raw materials is another one; and the Canada-U.S. dollar exchange rate is a big one.

We have a study going - we'll be conducting a detailed study of the processing industry which will describe the present state of the industry, the challenges it faces, and the potential for more opportunities. There's also another study that's being conducted in Cape Breton that will focus on groundfish only, and it will feed into a larger work that we will be doing. So there are some things going on.

[Page 261]

I know there's major concern, there's tremendous concern in the processing industry, but a lot of these companies like the Barry Group, Clearwater, whoever, they've bought these licences over the years. So there are some difficulties there, we know that. I guess it's a work in progress as far as we go in trying to figure out which is the best way to go.

MR. PARKER: Like the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador though, might you consider protecting our industry by enforcing a policy that fish caught here should be processed here?

MR. CHISHOLM: I'm told that we're grandfathered under NAFTA and we really can't do that.

MR. PARKER: If Newfoundland and Labrador can do it and New Brunswick can do it, why can't Nova Scotia?

MR. CHISHOLM: Newfoundland and Labrador got an exemption from the inter-provincial trade agreement and NAFTA, so that's why they're able to do that. As I said, it's a work in progress, we have to try to come up with some solutions. I know there are studies being done and we'll see what happens out of those studies.

MR. PARKER: Perhaps we could get an exemption like Newfoundland and Labrador as well, could we, to protect our fishery?

MR. CHISHOLM: Open up the NAFTA agreement, I guess, is probably the only way we can, an agreement like that.

MR. PARKER: I'll leave that one for now, but it's food for thought, I think. It seems that if one province can do it, another province should be able to do it as well.

While we're in Cape Breton, I'll mention the Highland Fisheries dispute in the Town of Glace Bay. It has been a labour dispute since February of this year, and I visited that plant around that time and I think there's a lot of frustration there. It has been building up over the months and people are still very concerned about keeping that industry in Glace Bay alive, and, again, keeping our resource here in our local communities and keeping local people employed.

There has been talk about the redfish that are allocated for that plant going to other plants in the area and it's causing a lot of frustration. Can you give us any update on what is happening there, and is there some glimmer of hope that may be settled?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, it doesn't appear that anything that is going to happen is going to happen this year. It's probably 2007 before - what we're being told by Clearwater is they've lost their snow crab buy, they don't have anything to buy and they don't have

[Page 262]

anything to process. They've lost the markets that they did have for 2007. They will be working on those markets and trying to find product to buy and process there.

So it's not a very good situation, I realize that. It's a very tough situation not only for the people who work there, but for the community at large. We've met with both sides and just as we couldn't tell the workers in the plant to take the agreement that was offered by Clearwater, you know we can't order Clearwater to open up their plant.

MR. PARKER: Obviously there are redfish being caught off our shores and so there is at least one species available to the market, and I could mention that on the day I was there, in February, there were all kinds of redfish being processed. Are you continuing the dialogue with the company and with the employees? Is there a mediator appointed at this time?

MR. CHISHOLM: There was a mediator appointed some time back and I think from what I understand, through the Department of Environment and Labour, that they met and the mediator at that time basically saw that there was no room to move and that was the end of it - it takes two sides to negotiate an agreement . . .

MR. PARKER: I realize it is a labour dispute, but it also involves your department, and the fishery is very important. I guess I will ask that you continue to work with both sides and try to bring a resolution here. It is hurting our local economy and it is a lost opportunity for sure for many people.

MR. CHISHOLM: Definitely we will work with both sides. If there is any way we can help them to get back on the rails again and get back working, we will do it. At this point in time, as far as the company's position, it doesn't look like anything is going to happen until 2007, next year.

The redfish that you speak about, what we are told is that it's not Clearwater's redfish that's coming in there - I'm not sure whose it is that came in last Friday, that belongs to some other - they got it somewhere else, but it wasn't Clearwater's.

MR. PARKER: I'm going to change topics and go back to the Northumberland Shore. Over a year ago, as some of your staff will know, we had a public meeting there and talked about the herring food fishery and trying to get something off the ground there on the Northumberland Strait. It seemed like everything was in place - lots of fish and lots of fishermen willing to go out and catch the product, and there was a processor, North Nova Seafoods, I believe, that was willing to invest in the equipment necessary to process it. There seemed to be all kinds of markets, I'm told by your marketing people who were overseas, in Russia and Scandinavia and Japan and so on. There seemed to be lots of markets, so everything seemed to be in place, and the scientists were saying there is lots of fish out there of the right size that could be processed but yet, for some reason, it didn't happen.

[Page 263]

I'm just wondering, can you give us an update on why it didn't happen, and is it still possible to bring these parties together and use this valuable resource?

[5:30 p.m.]

MR. CHISHOLM: I understand, and you are absolutely right, those things didn't take place but we're still working with the industry, working with the fishermen to try to get the resource to process. It's my understanding that the company needed a guarantee of so much herring to process, and they couldn't get that guarantee so they weren't able to more forward.

MR. PARKER: We're close, though - I mean everything was there to make it happen, just a few missing links in the chain, by the sound of things. Are there ongoing efforts to try to put it all together, to try to make it happen? It could provide a lot of jobs in a season between lobster season and others.

MR. CHISHOLM: We had a workshop apparently and we will continue working with all stakeholders and all of the industry to move that forward.

MR. PARKER: I would hope so, because I think it's a valuable new fishery and it would really, after the end of the lobster season, work around the other seasons to provide more employment for our local fishermen.

Okay, I will move on to a couple of other things here. I guess I'm sort of all over the map, but they are all fisheries-related. One complaint I hear about from fishermen, and it doesn't matter if it's in the Northumberland Strait or southwest Nova Scotia or Cape Breton or wherever, it's around the seals being a problem in the fishery. Grey seals are one of the species, they are a large animal, they eat a lot of fish on a daily basis - some people say 28 pounds per day, some say more than that, and some of those animals can get up to 800 pounds or even larger. They're multiplying like crazy on Sable Island and elsewhere, so they're potentially causing quite a few problems here for fishing families. What initiatives are being taken to try to combat the problem, or do you see it as a problem?

MR. CHISHOLM: I do know it was a very hot topic at a Fisheries Ministers' meeting in Newfoundland and Labrador that we had, probably two months ago. The federal minister, I guess as you know, is one of the most well-versed guys in the country on seals and what should be done with them.

MR. PARKER: The federal minister?

MR. CHISHOLM: The federal minister, yes. He was very pointed in his comments as to what should be done - now how we get there is another thing. I would imagine that we'll be in for a lot more discussion at the next federal-provincial meeting, whenever that may occur - September, I believe - so we will work with our federal counterparts to try to do

[Page 264]

whatever we can to get the proper harvest and work with it. It's a difficult question, as you all know, but I agree it's something that has to be done and we will work with the federal minister and other governments across the country to try to solve the problem.

MR. PARKER: I believe there is one initiative, I forget the exact name of the group, but it was the Grey Seal Society or something that had a quota that was allowed to harvest so many seals, up to 10,000 seals a year. They haven't actually ever caught their quota amount, but they were looking at using the whole animal maybe for food or for the pelt, the blubber - I guess all the uses of the seal. Has there been any initiative on that, especially as a meat source? Apparently there are some markets for seal meat in other countries - has there been any further initiative in that regard with that group?

MR. CHISHOLM: The industry and the province are trying to expand the grey seal hunt in order to respond to what you're saying. This past winter, Nova Scotia seal harvesters were denied access to Hay Island - you know where Hay Island is, it's somewhere around Scatarie Island I guess, in a wilderness protected area. I'll certainly work with your Party, your critics, to try to get a resolve to that issue, try to meet with the Department of Environment and Labour and go over what we have to, to allow for a managed harvest on Hay Island. The problem is right now, most of the grey seal I'm told, where they are, from the coastal areas, is Hay Island. There are thousands of them and harvesters can't get access to them. I think, of a quota last year of 10,000 seals, they were only able to get 400. In order to have a sustainable harvest and to reduce the numbers of the seal population, we have to be able to go where they are.

If your Party is willing to support me, I don't mind going to the Minister of Environment and Labour, or whoever, to ensure that Hay Island is not part of that wilderness area, that we can go there and harvest.

MR. PARKER: I understand there's a whole lot on Sable Island as well, offshore. I understood part of the roadblock for the group that was trying to utilize the whole animal was just a proper abattoir or killing facility where they could process the meat and then get it ready for shipment to market, wherever that was - I forget, somewhere offshore. Would the department or would your government be willing to invest or investigate assistance with that abattoir, to allow the meat to be processed?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, we will partner with anyone who wants to set it up. I know we have had some - I have had some discussions - with Bill Berry from the Berry group that has the Canso plant that can probably set up a processing plant right in Canso. So we are willing to work with harvesters, to work with processors, to try to get it resolved. I guess that in order to be able to get a big enough quota, or get our quota filled, we have to get to where the seals are. Right now I'm told the seals are on an island that's in a wilderness protected area, for the most part.

[Page 265]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has elapsed.

MR. PARKER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Glace Bay.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I wish I was anywhere else but here right now talking to you about what I'm about to talk to you about. I'm sure you're aware of the situation in Glace Bay, because I heard you talk about it already today and I have asked you questions about it. I'm sure you're aware that over the weekend, on Friday night, there were some 22 of the workers who were locked out at Highland Fisheries in Glace Bay, who were arrested in Glace Bay. I'm sure you know how serious a situation it is.

I want to ask you a number of questions but first, I want to say that it's my opinion that you and your government have done absolutely nothing to help those workers in Glace Bay. This is an issue that has been put before you time and time again, it's an issue that has been put to the Premier, it's an issue that has been put to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, your federal counterpart, and nobody has done anything to try to help bring a resolve to the situation in Glace Bay. If they had, you wouldn't be reading headlines about 22 workers being dragged kicking and screaming off a picket line in Glace Bay and arrested on Friday night.

I want you to tell us, in your opinion, what has led up to this situation where you have what used to be a successful fish processing operation in Glace Bay, with a steady workforce that was not involved in any labour disputes of any great amount over the last number of years. They were a loyal workforce, they want to work, the fish were there and, all of a sudden, Clearwater Fisheries decides to ask that workforce to take an 18 per cent pay cut. This is where it started, this is where it all started.

I want to know why you and your government have decided to stand by and let fish processing jobs disappear from this province. I'm just talking about Glace Bay here, but it is in other areas that they have disappeared as well. I want to know why you and your government have decided to let Clearwater have their way with fish processing in this province, so that they can get to a point - there's an article in the Cape Breton Post from Friday, and one from today again, where union representatives of the workers involved here are about to appear in court. The workers, according to the president of the CAW local, actually were prepared to accept the company's 18 per cent wage rollback, but the company turned it down. Now they say they don't even want to accept the 18 per cent wage rollback.

I don't know about you, Mr. Minister, but that indicates to me that the company didn't want to negotiate in the first place. What the company wanted, I'm suggesting, is to close this fish plant. What happened in this instance is that you, as Fisheries Minister, and

[Page 266]

the Premier - you did talk to the fish plant workers and it just so happens there was an election underway when everybody was willing to sit down and talk to them and everybody was willing to travel to Glace Bay and sit down and say oh, we're concerned about your situation, let's listen, let's sit down and talk. Of course you would in the middle of an election campaign, everybody did it. But now nobody wants to talk to the workers anymore because the election is over and nobody cares.

So what you have in an area such as Glace Bay is 100 and some jobs, which you can't replace. These are jobs - there are two fish plants, as you well know, Mr. Minister, I'm not here to give you a history lesson in Glace Bay. One went bankrupt, it's now back on its feet under new owners and so on and they are processing fish. It's because of a mix-up, I think, that occurred the other night that the workers were there saying that was quota from Clearwater, which led to the intervention by the police and the arrests and so on. As it turned out, as I understand it anyway, it is not quota from Clearwater.

You can understand the frustration and the anger of the fish plant workers from Clearwater who are involved here. It's why they visited other areas and it's why they have gone around protesting, because they are standing by a perfectly good fish plant, which has had millions of dollars sunk into it by governments to renovate it and bring it up to modern-day standards and it's closed, and they're watching the fish plant next door process fish and maybe the fish plant in Arichat process fish and so on.

The quotas are there for Clearwater, they have the quotas and they have the fish. I met with a Clearwater representative myself to try to see if I could do something, I don't know, I just felt I had to sit down and meet with Clearwater. I did it with the MP for the area, Rodger Cuzner, during this strike and we sat down. I have to tell you, I walked away from that meeting scratching my head. There probably would have been more interest if I had walked in and talked to the wall about what I was talking about. They already had their minds made up on what was going to occur in Glace Bay and what was going to take place, and they put forward an exceptionally unreasonable offer to the union, to force those workers into the situation that happened. Then they locked them out on March 10. This is a lockout, this is not a strike. This is a lockout by a company.

Now what we are being told by yourself and by the government is that after talking to Clearwater - and this is Clearwater saying, well, things may not happen now until 2007, sometime in 2007.

So I think, first of all, it's an absolute shame that this has been allowed to happen, that this government has not appointed a mediator at some point in this dispute, in this lockout, and said to Clearwater, you are a Nova Scotia fish processing plant. You are processing Nova Scotia fish, you are employing Nova Scotian workers, and you have to sit down at the table and you have to negotiate fairly with these workers. Why that hasn't happened, I don't know. I would like you to please explain to me at this point why and how

[Page 267]

it was able to reach the elevation that it has reached right now, where you now have, in my opinion - there's no way that fish plant is going to open again, there's no way.

I would like to hear your explanation of that, please. I know there's a lot there, Mr. Minister, but I would like to hear how you can explain what has happened to date.

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I guess what has happened - there were labour negotiations taking place and in the situation of labour negotiations, offers are made by both sides. The company made an offer to the union, the union rejected it, or, yes, the union rejected it. That's part of the negotiations. It's also part of the negotiations that the company has the right to lock out employees, or the employees have the right to strike.

In our situation, I guess as a government, or myself as the minister, it's not my role or responsibility to get involved in labour negotiations with any company. That's why they are there, that's why the labour rules or Labour Standards Code is in place, so that negotiations will take place. It's my understanding that Clearwater gave the union a deadline of a certain date by which time they had to have an agreement for that wage rollback or whatever it was they offered. If it went beyond that date, they would lose the crab they would have been able to buy, the groundfish they would have been able to buy. They would have lost their markets where they were going to sell these products.

It's my understanding those deadlines weren't met and the company has chosen to not reopen until 2007. That's what they've told us and that's where we are. It's a very unfortunate situation for the workers at the Highland plant, for the community, for everybody, but I don't think it's my role as Minister of Fisheries to get involved in the bargaining process of any labour negotiation.

I recall back in the early 1980s, I was a business manager for a local union. When I did my negotiations for the company, I certainly didn't want the government interfering with how I was doing my negotiations. It was part of the bargaining process and as I said, there were dates the union had to agree to an agreement. They missed those dates and as a result, we are where we are.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Minister, it's okay for you to sit there and say it's not your role as Minister of Fisheries in this province to intervene in labour disputes, but it is your role to care about fish plant workers, to care about fishing in general in this province and what's going on.

It's funny, because during the election campaign, the local Tory candidate back home went about saying he was a union person too and that he was going to arrange a meeting with the federal Fisheries Minster, Loyola Hearn and maybe that could help the situation. And you met with the workers, if you were concerned about the situation and you couldn't help with the workers, what did you tell them when you met with them?

[Page 268]

MR. CHISHOLM: The day I met with them, what was asked of me was if I would talk to the Minister of Environment and Labour to see if a mediator could be appointed, and I did that.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): And the Minister of Environment and Labour told you no? And you relayed that back to the workers?

MR. CHISHOLM: They did appoint a conciliator.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): A mediator. We're talking about a mediator.

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, in order for the Department of Environment and Labour, as I understand it, to be able to appoint a mediator, both sides have to agree to that mediator. The conciliator could not get agreement to a mediator, so as a result it didn't happen.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): You also met with the company. What did the company tell you at that time?

MR. CHISHOLM: We didn't ask the question as to - well, you know, that's part of the labour negotiations and the bargaining process.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): You didn't ask the question? What question didn't you ask of the company? You didn't ask if they would sit down with a mediator?

MR. CHISHOLM: We didn't.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): At what time did you meet with the workers? When did you meet with them, can you recall?

MR. CHISHOLM: It was sometime when the House was sitting previously, this Spring.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Which was previous to an election campaign being called?

MR. CHISHOLM: It was, yes.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Then the company, as well - Mr. Chairman, you can tell I'm a little bit upset because of the fact that I don't think a real effort has been made here on behalf of the government. I don't think any effort has been made here on behalf of the government to try to prevent this situation from happening. I think this government has simply rolled over and played dead for Clearwater Fisheries. That's what I think has happened.

[Page 269]

In this case, Clearwater has been telling the government to toe the line here and not interfere. There are always exemptions to every rule and there are always exemptions in labour negotiations as well. If the government saw fit and if the Department of Environment and Labour saw fit, they could, under extenuating circumstances, appoint a mediator here to try - at least to try - to get both sides back to the table. But that hasn't been done. It hasn't been done. And in this case, if it had been done, then this situation may have been avoided and the situation the other night - this is a situation where you had women dragged off a picket line and put in police cars and taken to a jail cell overnight because they want to work and process fish in Nova Scotia.

I would say that would concern the Minister of Fisheries in this province and I would say it should certainly concern the Premier in this province. But the only thing the Premier ever did was roll into town on a campaign bus and say hi and shake a few hands and then get out of town and never come back again. That's what happened.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to know at this point in time, are you content that Highland Fisheries is ever going to open up this plant? They've stated - and I know that something won't happen until 2007, but are you satisfied with what Clearwater has told you and are you optimistic that plant is ever going to process fish again?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I'm cautiously optimistic, I guess. We had a meeting with them, we asked the questions when they would be next processing and that Highland Fisheries plant in Glace Bay and what they've told us, it would be sometime in 2007 probably before they got that operation up and running again.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): In the meantime, Mr. Minister, is there anything at all that you and your government plan to do regarding this situation? Have there been any discussions that you can possibly tell us about involving yourself and the Department of Environment and Labour? Is there any kind of movement at all that the government is willing to undertake to try to bring an end to this dispute?

MR. CHISHOLM: I haven't discussed it with the Department of Environment and Labour. I know there are some discussions, although I haven't been a part of them, with the federal government, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as to maybe some things that can happen in the Glace Bay plant as well as other plants. If there's anything I can do to help out with anything that may be able to happen in Glace Bay with the federal department, I will do it.

MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Again, I don't want to take up all of the time here in estimates because I know our Fisheries Critic has 1,001 questions that he wants to ask you, and issues that are important as well.

[Page 270]

I think, right now at this point in time you're getting a snapshot of what's happening in the fish processing industry in Nova Scotia. It's not a very good picture. It's not a very good picture at all, because there is fish being processed elsewhere and because of that, our people are not working. When there are companies - and I'm not picking just on Clearwater here - that manage to scoop up and grab all of the licences, all of the quotas that are out there and they're under one company's control, the only kind of advocacy that workers can count on, or should be able to count on, should be coming from their government.

You should be, at this point in time, making some sort of effort anyway to see if the Department of Environment and Labour can try to get people back, can try to get both sides back to the table. If there are talks that are taking place with the federal Fisheries Minister, I would suggest to you that you should be part of those. If you're not, you certainly would want to be part of those, because it's the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans that has a lot of control and a lot of say over what goes on with the fisheries in Nova Scotia. I would think you'd want to be involved as the Minister of Fisheries right now in those discussions.

I would respectfully suggest to you that you become involved with those discussions and you take part in them. I would further suggest to you that I am asking you, on behalf of those workers and on behalf of the people of Glace Bay, that you would do everything in your power to try to ensure that, number one, those workers get back to work, and that fish plant reopens again in Glace Bay.

With those comments Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over to my colleague or, of course, the minister will reply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Digby-Annapolis.

MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, Mr. Minister. I'm going to give you a little break here and do a presentation for you that I've worked on. What my colleague was going on here about is if we don't do something about what I'm about to present here, you won't have to worry about any more fish plants in this province or in Atlantic Canada, period.

Since 1990, the groundfishing industry in Atlantic Canada has declined significantly. A downward spiral that had begun with overfishing has been compounded by environmental elements that are affecting not only the fish that we harvest, but the marine life as well. One of the most significant problems that the government is refusing to take solid action against is the Sable Island grey seal population. As in the harp seal invasion of 1988, off the Norwegian coast, the population has increased to such proportions as to be detrimental to the fish stocks on the Scotian Shelf. Now, as the herd continues to grow and move into the Bay of Fundy, even more of the fish stocks have been depleted, or are unable to rebuild themselves as the seals disrupt the main breeding areas.

[Page 271]

Grey seals feed on fish, and will feed on whatever's plentiful. The feeding patterns of the grey seal, which the current population size can consume hundreds of thousands of pounds daily, can therefore be disruptive to many different species of fish and carries right on down the food chain. It should be mentioned that there are now more grey seals in Nova Scotia waters than there were in the entire world 10 years ago - this is not necessarily a victory for conservation, but is rather of symptom of an imbalance in our marine food chain.

When John Cabot arrived in Atlantic Canada he was amazed, not at the gigantic herds of seals, but rather at the volume of the cod stock - this proves that in its natural balance something was maintaining a low seal population. Whether or not Atlantic Canadian fishermen should be held responsible for the disappearance of the natural predators of the seals is not the question at hand. Since there is an unnatural balance of seals versus predators, it is necessary for those who depend on the fish stocks to rectify it.

If management has let this imbalance take place, then we must all be responsible for correcting it. Just imagine what would happen if we did not cull or manage our deer herd in this province like we do - this herd is culled at 20 to 25 per cent annually and, if we didn't, you couldn't grow a garden in this province, or drive down the highway without hitting one. They would be a harm to the livelihood of our farmers and a safety problem on all of our highways.

[6:00 p.m.]

The growing seal herd has a definite impact on the whale herds as well. It is not only the cod stocks that are taking longer than anticipated to replenish themselves, the right whales and humpback whales that depend on the summer feeding in the Bay of Fundy and around Nova Scotia are more frequently dying of starvation, becoming malnourished, are not reaching adulthood, and are unable to migrate south due to a lack of quality food. The shrinking herring population has forced the whales - that require approximately one ton of food daily - to survive almost exclusively on krill, depriving them of many of the nutrients that they require to maintain good health.

To put these figures into perspective. In 2002 the grey herd seal consumed 310,000 tons of fish of one species or another, and the total annual capture by Nova Scotia fishermen that year was roughly 50,000 tons; approximately 15 years ago when the seal herd was at a normal level, they consumed less than 50,000 tons per year, and the fishing industry captured over 300,000 tons per year. As you can see, the natural balance in our coastal waters has completely reversed from where it should be. There are several thousand more grey seals in our coastal waters these past few years, and one can assume that their food consumption has grown with the population, reducing industry's quota even further.

Seals are known fish eaters, and although some groups have cited results of the quantitative fatty acid signature analysis - that's a test that determines a seal's diet by

[Page 272]

comparing the fatty acids in potential prey with those found in a sample of the seal's blubber - they claim this is proof that the seal herd is not consuming enough cod to deplete the stock, but there's a striking amount of evidence that would determine the contrary.

In Iceland, where cod stocks are abundant, codfish account for 20 to 25 per cent of a seal's diet - it seems unreasonable to think that a seal in Nova Scotia has different tastes in food than their cousins in Iceland. If a certain fish is unavailable to the seals, it will move on to other species, and Nova Scotia grey seals have been seen to eat lobsters of any age, and also herring and what few cod there are left.

In the case of Nova Scotia, the cod stocks were getting depleted when the seal population began to rise, and therefore there was simply not enough cod to amount to the 25 per cent of a seal's diet. In a herding number of 350,000 animals, at 1,000 pounds apiece and growing, the seals would have to consume 560 tons of codfish daily and 204,000 yearly to reach that level in the QFASA assessment.

Fishermen say that the seals appear to be belly feeders, or will go after the softer part of the belly, destroying the fish and leaving most of it behind, an action that would give inaccurate QFASA assessment results when calculating the number of cod the seals consume annually.

Fishermen have seen grey seals charging schools of fish, including the migratory Atlantic salmon, making it impossible for them to return to our Nova Scotia streams, and the groundfish to spawn successfully in the shallows along the Scotian Shelf.

Fishermen have also noticed that entire year classes of cod and herring are conspicuously absent, something that would occur if the cod were being forced away from their spawning grounds and forced into colder water where the mortality rate would be exceedingly high and the food they eat would be absent, causing lower weights and smaller and unhealthier fish in general.

The seals also contribute to the high levels of seal worm parasites found in our cod, making some of the catch unfit for human consumption. Research has been conducted that would suggest that the seal worm parasites are also causing an increased mortality rate in the fish it affects. In Iceland, scientists test the levels of parasites in cod in order to determine the number of seals in their water. When the parasite levels in the fish get too high, they perform a cull on seals, just like we do with our Nova Scotia deer population.

In both Iceland and Norway, where trouble with the seal population has been a problem in the past, the Minister of Fisheries makes no apologies for harvesting the seals in order to keep them at a reasonable level so that the human industry is not harmed. Granted, the seal herd is not the only factor that is detrimental to the rebuilding of the fish stocks and, by association, the rebuilding of the industry - there's a strong argument for overfishing, that

[Page 273]

the fish stocks cannot rebuild themselves with quotas at the level that they are and that fishermen are cleaning out the waters as fast as the fish can repopulate.

Short of completely eliminating what was once a vibrant and financially viable industry, is there any way to return the Nova Scotia fishing industry to its former glory? I believe if you give Mother Nature a fair chance, everything on this earth and in its oceans are possible. The fishing industry is not a dinosaur, it is not extinct, and a government that is giving it up for dead is discounting one of the cornerstones of Nova Scotia's culture.

Fishing management needs to be changed, and badly, before the industry can rebuild itself. This may mean a few more hard years to come, but if those years can yield a greater return than this province has seen since the collapse of the cod stocks, then so be it. The question we should be asking ourselves is, why haven't the Nova Scotia fisheries management in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans program in place, evolved in accordance with the massive changes taking place in our waters?

It is unreasonable to think that one can fix every problem with the same tool, so it is therefore imperative that the way we, as Nova Scotians, manage our fishery must change in accordance with the unique circumstances that are present in 2006 that were not present in 1990.

The evolution of a management program takes many tries and many approaches from many different angles; it is a time-consuming venture that takes many years to get right. Nova Scotia fishermen have been waiting too long for fisheries management programs to evolve enough to benefit them. It is becoming more and more clear that the industry is being allowed to collapse in favour of other industries in the ocean - the government is forgetting that the fishing industry can be more lucrative than any other industry in the ocean if it is given a chance to revive itself.

In Norway, fishing is a $4 billion industry, and 15 years ago they were in the same place Nova Scotia is right now. In the last 15 years their export has increased 264 per cent - compare that to Nova Scotia's increase of 3 per cent, with only thanks to the shell fishery, and you realize that even in the presence of an expanding global market where export opportunities are endless, Nova Scotia cannot keep up because we no longer have the product to export and nothing is being done to improve the situation.

We should keep in mind that fish, both natural and farm grown, is the greatest and healthiest food source on this earth, and the demand for this is going to grow much higher. The best thing about a natural resource is that it has the capacity built into its biological system to replenish itself if given that proper chance - our fisheries have potential. Iceland and Norway, two countries that depend heavily on the national fishing industry, found themselves in the same place we were 15 years ago - they are now ranked 16^th and 11^th in the

[Page 274]

world in terms of the fishing industry, creating twice the number of jobs than in Nova Scotia, and focusing specifically on maintaining coastal communities through the maintenance of the fishing industry in those areas.

We, in Nova Scotia, are past the point where we can just sit back and complain about our youth and young families leaving the province to find work elsewhere - something needs to be done, and restoring a Nova Scotia industry like the fisheries to its former glory seems to be the most logical step. The Norwegian fisheries regulations are based on the objectives of maintaining settlement along the coast and securing employment opportunities for the coastal communities; in short, they make sure that their industry has enough value to sustain people who have chosen the fisheries as a profession and allow for people who desire to enter the fishery to have a future in it.

Iceland has a population three times smaller than Nova Scotia and an annual fishery three times larger, and the unemployment rate in Iceland and Norway is three to five times smaller than it is in Nova Scotia - it is not a far stretch to assume that the two are interconnected. There is no reason why Nova Scotia cannot implement some of the same management programs used by Iceland and Norway to rejuvenate and stabilize our industry, it's all a matter of proper balance. In both Iceland and Norway the authorities do not hesitate to place partial or temporary moratoriums on different classes when necessary. Due to proper management practices, Iceland's and Norway's herring stocks have grown from almost nothing to 500,000 tons in 15 years - and their haddock and cod stocks are not far behind.

Nova Scotia's herring and groundfish could benefit from a similar management because, believe me, our stocks are getting close to almost nothing. It is imperative that we become open to new ideas of management and allow for the fishermen, those people who know the sea the best, to have a voice in how it is managed. Nova Scotia has recently seen a trend where the voices of the fishermen are discounted and changes in the sea are blamed largely on overfishing. This may be part of the problem, but how are we moving to fix it - by getting rid of people involved because DFO believes too many people are chasing too few fish, or by deferring to the federal jurisdiction which doesn't know the fishery and doesn't experience first-hand the changes that are occurring in the ocean ecosystem?

Iceland and Norway have proven that a dwindling fishing industry can be built back to what it had been before. It has been done and it can be done again. They did not take the people away to create a balance; they found the proper balance in the ocean, which today creates more jobs than before their fishery collapsed. Not only do we have to implement a new management system, we also have to be willing to help it along.

Norway's fishery would not have survived had the invading harp seal in 1998 not been killed off by distemper; in that instance balance in the marine ecosystem was restored naturally - in our case the grey seal is so close to our fishery sectors we may need to help nature along. If balance is not first restored, there is no point in making any changes to this

[Page 275]

industry anymore. We can wait it out and watch our coastal communities die off, along with an overpopulation of seals, or we can start to work towards changing that right now, and by doing so I believe we can rebuild a fishing industry for this province that will be envied worldwide.

Canada knows and this province knows that our groundfish management is not working. I believe it is time we looked outside this country to others who have proven that a plan different than ours can work. If not, we will just sit and watch the further decline of our coastal communities of Nova Scotia.

My question to that is, since the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not taking any lead at all to rebuild the groundfishery of Nova Scotia - and I believe they know how, and I know we know how - does the Nova Scotia Government believe, as a province, that we should stand up and tell the federal government that we can rebuild this fishery better than before, if given that proper chance?

MR. CHISHOLM: I think we have been. A month and a half ago, two months ago, I was at a federal-provincial ministers' meeting in Newfoundland and Labrador where the federal minister was pretty clear on what his views were on the seal population. There is a new government in Ottawa in the last few months, and there is a new Fisheries Minister in Ottawa, and I think a minister with a different point of view on what should be done with the overpopulation of seals.

[6:15 p.m.]

It is our commitment, as the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to work with the federal minister, work with you, and work with the critic for the NDP, to come up with ways that we can at least start to manage the problem - I commit to you to do that.

That presentation you just gave, I think I would like to see you give that to the federal minister. You have been in the fishery, you know the issues, so if you agree, maybe you, the critic for the NDP, and myself, with some of our officials, will go to Ottawa and make a presentation to the federal minister as to what you have done, what you have there.

No doubt there is a problem, and wherever I go I get the same thing from fishermen right across the province, the issue of seals comes up. How do we handle that? As you know, it is a touchy issue with some people, but we are prepared to do that if that's what it takes to do it. I do know that the federal minister is very concerned over the seal population, I mean he comes from Newfoundland and Labrador so they have the same problem over there. So we know what you're saying, we know it has to be resolved; how we get there, I guess, is the problem. I'll work with you, the critics from both Parties, and the federal government to see what we can do.

[Page 276]

MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Minister, I received a letter back from our federal minister, and I don't believe that he's convinced yet by the scientists of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that we do have a problem. I can show you this letter later, and he's still saying that he doesn't believe it's a problem yet. We're seeing something that happened here in two other countries, 15 years ago, and I truly do believe that anything that overpopulates in the wild, I think they will die off like they did in Europe. How long are we going to wait, and are we gutless enough to sit around and watch our coastal communities vanish here, waiting for an animal to die off so we can build an industry back here that can be one of the best in the world? I'm willing to make a stand right now and say we've got a problem. I know it's a touchy situation. Like I said before, I got Chico and Molly and I love them, and I won't go into that again.

We do it with our deer. What's any cuter than Bambi? Bambi the deer. I mean, they're wonderful, but if we didn't cull 20 to 25 per cent of them annually to keep that herd at 46,000 to 54,000 in this province, you couldn't get out of the city. The city would be full of them. They'd be everywhere, you couldn't grow a garden. But we cull them down to keep them - that's what the Norwegians are doing, the Icelanders are doing and their fishery, and they have a $4 billion industry in a country a third of the size of this province. We have $1 billion here and it's going downhill and we're scared. We're scared of our lobster, and when our lobster goes here - God forbid that lobster goes in this province - if you want to see a ghost town outside of this city, you'll see it. We're just holding our breath. We're holding our breath continuously out on the coast. Scared to death. Everybody, they can't even sleep nights in them million-dollar rigs and something is happening in our lobster fishery right now that we're scared of.

We used to have a groundfishery to turn to. I fished all my life and when you had some lean times at lobstering, you went into the groundfishery and you made your little living. On a hook-and-line in the Bay of Fundy today, if you were using a jigger, over the side, jigging it up and down, you'd cut your boat in two before you caught a fish. There's just not one fish left. They're completely gone, but we see seals out there.

We're in the whale-watching business. My son is, and like I said, the whales too. There's no herring. The herring are gone. The seals, where they used to go out to 30-fathom edge, are now going to 100-fathom edge. They've adapted to dive in 100 fathoms of water. The seals right here in the Bay of Fundy. This has all occurred in over the last six or eight, 10 years, we've watched it. I don't know when they're going to die off, but they're going to.

In this world we have a person dying every three minutes of starvation. In the world, and some of the best protein out there, millions of tons of it that's going to die off and rot out there on the bottom. The sand fleas are going to eat it up because we're scared to make a stand in this province, like Iceland and Norway has. We can do it. Just keep Brigitte Bardot home and McCartney won't be back, his wife's gone. It's all propaganda, that stuff. They make millions of dollars a year doing that stuff. If they went to Iceland and Norway and did

[Page 277]

that, do you know what would happen to them? I won't say, but you know what would happen to them? They would be culled.

It's a big thing and out on the coast anywhere you go, and it's going and, Mr. Minister, you should know, more than anyone east of Halifax here, how bad it has gotten. You know, your talking 450,000, 1,000- to 1,200-pound animals. They're not cute little cuddly things. They're eating 20 pounds minimum a day. Figure that up and you come out to 3 billion pounds of fish a year, a minimum, to keep this herd going, and it's growing. They're going to starve to death, too. The most humane thing we could do here is cull that herd down, one way or the other, to bring it down to try to get it to the balance where it used to be, and that's the only question I can talk about.

I was sitting here listening about a few fish plants left open. In two more years, there's not going to be a groundfish plant left. There's not going to be one left open in this province. D.B. Kenney down home, and I'll say this, is ready to close their doors down there on the groundfishery. You know, they've given up. They're going to give up on it. So if we don't make a stand here of some sort - you know, we had, in the Digby Neck area, 20 fish plants 20 years ago and we're down to one or two left there that are ready to close their doors. So it's time that we make a stand. It's sensitive. I mean what's any more sensitive? If we're scared to be sensitive about animals, go talk to the people on the coast now where their grandchildren and children are leaving to go to Alberta to make a living, or leaving this province. That's 10 times more sensitive than having to cull some animals that are taking your livelihood away, you know.

Anyway I guess there's no more questions there on that. The question is, are we going to do something or aren't we? I mean that's the only question. Are we going to sit here in this Legislature and wait until the seals die off and our children leave coastal communities? That's the only question I had on that and it's time for us to make a stand. You said the federal minister had a different idea on the seals, but this letter that I received just lately is June 27^th and is saying different than that now.

MR. CHISHOLM: That's certainly not the impression that he gave us in Newfoundland and Labrador at that meeting that we had over there . He made it quite clear what he thought because, basically, that was in the Spring when the seal hunt was taking place and there was a lot of media coverage at that meeting because of that but, you know, we will move the issue forward with the federal minister when we meet with him. The federal-provincial meetings are in September again, I believe, and we'll certainly bring that forward. I know we have a meeting tomorrow morning. I think you're coming over to our office to meet, along with the critic for the NDP, and maybe we can have some more discussion at that point in time and maybe come up with a plan.

[Page 278]

MR. THERIAULT: Has this province ever sent a delegation of people from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Iceland or Norway to talk to people in those countries about their fishery? Has that ever taken place in the past few years?

MR. CHISHOLM: There was a delegation that did go to Iceland as well as Norway. In Iceland there was some discussion on the seal harvest, cull of seals, and apparently in Norway it was mostly aquaculture initiatives that they were looking into there, but they did have some discussions last year.

MR. THERIAULT: Is there any report from that, would the province have any report from those discussions about the seal herds that used to be there?

MR. CHISHOLM: It was an informative visit on aquaculture and some of the other issues that were going on. There's no real report.

MR. THERIAULT: Could the department or could this province put together a delegation to go to Iceland and Norway to speak to people who have gone through this? I mean I've done all this research on this, I think it's pretty fair to say it's true. Is that possible in the near future?

MR. CHISHOLM: That's something we can consider and we'll maybe discuss that further tomorrow at our meeting and we'll try to move it forward.

MR. THERIAULT: Jumping from the seals to our final last fishery we have left - our lobster fishery. As I said in the presentation, people are afraid that something may be going wrong with our lobster fishery. I like being positive and saying it's not - I think that maybe with the water temperature changing a little, I believe the lobsters may be staying softer longer and stuff.

We do have a problem there. I think the Americans for years have dealt with soft-shelled lobster because they fish right through the summer months. They start in the Spring over there and fish right through to late Fall, but I think they separate their soft lobsters and they don't get into the hard lobster market. There are two prices for them, they've always dealt with it over there. We've never, ever had to deal with it in southwest Nova Scotia because of the time - we used to fish from November to late May. By the time we get at it in the Fall, the lobsters were hardening up. Now we're seeing where the warmer climate is maybe keeping them softer, longer.

We do have a problem of soft lobsters being held improper and soft lobsters being shipped with hard-shelled lobsters. It's not good when you go to buy a hard-shelled lobster, crack it open, and dump a glass of water out of its claw, not good for the market.

[Page 279]

I know the minister has a meeting every year, usually in Truro - is it possible that maybe the next one, or maybe a special one could be held by the province in the western or southwestern Nova Scotia area somewhere, where the problem is, with the proper people at the table for that meeting? Would that be possible?

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, it could be. We're discussing that with the industry right now as to maybe at some point in time, in the very near future, to have that same meeting down in southwestern Nova Scotia. That's something that can happen and we will work with the industry to see if it can happen. If they're in agreement, I think we probably could be in agreement.

MR. THERIAULT: I'd like to get back to the groundfishery again. There's not a whole lot of sense of talking about the groundfishery unless we deal with the major problem at hand, because there is no groundfishery left. Up east of Halifax where you're from, minister, what fish is left up there is so full of worms that they don't even want to buy them anymore. The only fish left they're catching is the perch - the red fish, we call them - ocean perch. They go out in 100, 150 fathoms of water to catch them, the big trawlers.

[6:30 p.m.]

Seals are going that way, looking for them, but they're a spiny fish. I don't know if a seal - they might take a bite out of one of their bellies if they can catch them right. They will, if they run out of fish inshore, they're going after whatever's out there. I think probably a lot of the fish that's being landed up to the east and in Glace Bay, red fish, I believe. As soon as they're gone, I don't know what's going to take place.

If we ever did work to bring the fishery back, is it possible the government could probably - of course, if we had a $4 billion industry here like Iceland has come back to over there, you wouldn't have to worry about this too much maybe. But probably keep a portion. If a portion of the fish could be kept in this province for processing, is that something the department has ever thought of or looked into?

MR. CHISHOLM: We try to encourage it but, as you know, most of the quota is owned by the bigger companies. There are a lot of things causing the problem with the fish processing in the province. It's not because there's not enough of them, it's the cheap labour in China, the U.S. dollar, a whole host of things that are causing the problem with the processing. As much as we encourage companies to process as much as they can in the province - but it is on the agenda for the federal minister, as well, to discuss those points. They are having the same issues in Newfoundland and Labrador that we're having. Some of the companies are shipping overseas, and wherever they can, to get it processed cheaper. But anyway, those discussions will be ongoing and I will certainly support the processing of as much fish products as we can in the province, because it does create jobs. It's good for the economy of the province and we will do whatever we can to see that it moves forward.

[Page 280]

MR. THERIAULT: As of right now, like I say, there's not a whole lot of sense in talking about that because until you build a fishery and get an industry back - you know, lobster is one of them. I've always thought of that down in west and southwest Nova Scotia, because we catch millions of pounds of lobsters down there and they end up in New Brunswick in the canneries. That has always been something in our crop down there that we never, ever liked and now that there are more of the soft lobsters, maybe it could be viable for something to happen down that way, if we can keep our lobster fishery going.

I would like to jump to the clam fishery for just a few minutes. In Digby, I guess it's Area 2 of the clam fishery, they've been having a job - I think they have. I don't know what kind of management plan they had in place, so I won't go there because I really don't know about it. Probably your department knows more about that than myself. These were more the independent fishermen of the Digby Clammers Association. We know some of the beaches there have been leased to a private company and that has kind of been a stickler down there for awhile.

The clammers have looked at a program in Maine where beaches were reseeded and proper management was put in place where they were on a quota and so many could be dug per day. It looked like that clam fishery over there, what I've seen of it so far - and I think you'll hear more about this because I have asked you, Mr. Minister, for a meeting with a couple of the clammers from the association and I think they're going to come and present this to the department. It sounded like a fairly good plan. I think it's something that probably would be better than they had in the past because it hasn't worked for them. It hasn't worked in the past, they have collapsed the clam fishery again, and they are kind of down and out down there. So they want the department to look at this reseeding program and to have some kind of a quota system put in place where so many harvesters can dig it when the time comes.

Has the department ever looked into what they did in Maine? I'm not sure where it was - Passamaquoddy Bay or something like that, in Maine, has the department looked into that?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I think we looked into what has happened in Maine, but the staff in the innovations unit have been involved and clamming has been worked with harvester groups from other parts of the province, particularly on the Eastern Shore. Tomorrow morning, probably when we have our meeting, we will discuss when we can meet with a few people from the clamming association that you speak about, and try to get a time and a place to meet with them. We will do that.

MR. THERIAULT: Yes, okay, thank you.

I guess maybe we won't get into all - I think we have some more time later, I believe, so I will come back later. You can have a couple minutes break, if you want, Mr. Minister.

[Page 281]

MR. CHISHOLM: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the honourable member from the Liberal Party for those extra two minutes, I appreciate it. (Interruptions) I will. I will be fairly brief, Mr. Minister. I congratulate you on your new portfolio. You seem to be bouncing around, you know, you'll probably get to see them all before long.

I'm remembering the last presentation, I think before the election, to the Resources Committee, I think it was the Grey Seal Research Society, or something to that effect, and we were actually going to have another presentation after that which we didn't get to, but one of the issues that was raised, not during that presentation or through that presentation, was around the issue of brucellosis in grey seals. I'm just wondering if the department has any information around the safety, I guess, as far as consuming grey seal in relation to brucellosis. It's my understanding that CFIA actually is looking into it. So I'm just wondering if anybody has been in touch.

MR. CHISHOLM: They do all that testing before anything was sold, before it was consumed by humans. So CFIA would be the group that would be doing that.

MR. MACDONELL: Because I think the question was around the slaughter facilities. Basically you're not talking about a fish, you're talking about a mammal, and so you're basically going to butcher it on a ship or a boat, at least that's what I'm thinking - maybe not.

MR. CHISHOLM: At the plant, I understand, too, and that would have to be all CFIA inspected before it could be, yes.

MR. MACDONELL: So you don't have information as to whether it will be a plant, whether it will be a boat, time of getting the animal caught, cooled, which is kind of more of a particular in terms of mammals. You know, we have cattle around for an hour after we kill them.

MR. CHISHOLM: I'm told that harvest time is usually around February. It's one of the coldest times of the year, so that would help some. But anyway, I don't think we have enough information to really be able to speak about it and if we do get any information, we'll see that it's passed on to you.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I would appreciate that and I'll probably pursue it myself through CFIA as well. Okay, I'm curious about the comments around processing fish in the province. It seems to me that a couple years ago - and I might be wrong on my timeline - there was a protest, I think I remember, on the causeway. It was around the plant in Aulds Cove unable to get fish. It was being hauled out of the province. I thought Minister Fage at

[Page 282]

that time had implemented something to prevent that. So you seem to be thinking that either I'm thinking it was something but it was nothing, or it was never something.

MR. CHISHOLM: The way I understand it, under the interprovincial jurisdiction of trade, that if there is a decision made by one province over another that's detrimental to that province, then they can retaliate. I think that's what was done in that particular instance.

MR. MACDONELL: I don't know everything about every chapter of the interprovincial trade agreement. I do know in Chapter 9 that there's a limiting clause that says you can't interfere with the flow of agricultural goods. Now, I don't know if every chapter sets out - of course there's a chapter on procurement, there's a chapter on, you know, but just because I didn't read it, it doesn't mean it's not there. I would be curious if anybody knows what the wording would be that would say you couldn't interfere with that flow in processing. Does anybody know it?

MR. CHISHOLM: I'm not familiar with it, but maybe we can get that answer. We'll dig it up and get it back to you. Apparently Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador have an exemption under that trade agreement for fish processing. So that's why they can . . .

MR. MACDONELL: My understanding is that they were grandfathered in when the agreement was written. We obviously must have had processing going on here at the same time that they were grandfathered in.

I kind of jumped in here on my colleagues and I'm supposed to go question another minister, so I thank you and your department for their time. I appreciate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou East.

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, I too congratulate you and look forward to working with you. I know you have the interest of not just the province, but this industry at heart because I know you from other lives and I think you will work very hard.

Having said that, I have already hit you up on Lismore. You're well aware of the situation, the plant there in fact went down two years ago through a sale situation involving Prince Edward Island. There were some complex arrangements there, and we ended up with some of the product being landed in Lismore going to Prince Edward Island for processing.

We have a displaced labour force there. We have management capabilities in the community. We have a plant that would need some work on it, for sure, but we have most of the ingredients. We have some resource being landed there. We also have the possibility of attracting some additional resource and dealing with some species that are not overly developed.

[Page 283]

My first question to the minister is whether or not this government is committed to exploring the possibility of reopening the Lismore plant.

MR. CHISHOLM: We're open to exploring the opportunity of opening any plant in the province. If there's a company or individuals, or whatever, that want to set up shop in the Province of Nova Scotia, I guess the proper steps would be through Economic Development, Nova Scotia Business Inc. - whatever avenue is available to set it up is there. It would be my position as a Minister of Fisheries to work with whatever company, to work with other government departments to see that it's done. So if there's a company around that's interested, bring them on.

[6:45 p.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: It's my understanding that there is a company that's showing some interest. What I'm asking you is, will you designate staff to work with Economic Development and local interests in trying to re-establish a processing plant at Lismore? It can, in fact, be one person, but I would like to see someone designated to work on that issue with Economic Development and local interests.

There are two companies involved here and I'm trying to establish a relationship with both, and there is considerable interest and there is also a situation where previous management people are available with a lot of expertise and we can, in fact, work together to try to - I realize this is not going to be an easy task. We have to realize there is or isn't enough resource there to do something. What I am asking is that we at least give it a try. Are you prepared to designate someone to work with us on that?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, if there's a company you want us to meet with to bring an opportunity to Lismore, to any part of the province, bring them forward. We'll have staff that will deal with them and work with them.

MR. MACKINNON: And will a resource person be designated to work with us on an ongoing basis? Not a regular, but at least whenever there - so that we're dealing with one person rather than dealing with numerous people.

MR. CHISHOLM: That would be part of it, yes, that one person could be designated to do that.

MR. MACKINNON: The department, of course, is back to being the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It is an entity of its own. Are there immediate plans to appoint a deputy minister to this department? Is the department going to try to re-establish or rebuild and actually - maybe I'd be inventing a word or so - but is it ready to take a stronger role in the industry? The word that was going through my head, just as I'm speaking here is that the department be prepared to be a little bit more gutsier than it has been in recent years.

[Page 284]

MR. CHISHOLM: I guess the member for Pictou East would probably know the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture a lot better than I know it having worked in it, I understand, for quite a number of years. The change from Agriculture and Fisheries to two separate departments is basically still a work in progress. There are still ongoing discussions as to how everything is going to play out. I would assume, and imagine, that by the next two to three months we will have a lot of those things worked out, and we'll certainly let you know when that happens, as to the results of those discussions.

It is a work in progress. I think it's a very good thing. I recall this past Spring, one of the first things I did when I became the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was go to the Boston Seafood Show, one of the biggest trade shows in the world, really. It's amazing. I just didn't realize how big, really, or what it was until I got there. It was amazing to look down, out over the floor. I spent about three days there with staff. It was just amazing. We had a really nice booth that was all set up, a nice sign out that was all lit up and said Agriculture and Fisheries and Aquaculture. This year when we go there it will say Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture.

There are a lot of good things that have happened over the last few months with the changeover, for both departments. We have a dedicated staff. I'm totally amazed at the dedication and at how passionate our staff here, in both Agriculture and Fisheries and Aquaculture, how dedicated and passionate they are about what they do. I've had occasion to call some staff on weekends, cellphones or e-mails, whatever. I'm looking for good things to happen in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I think they will happen.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, a name on a booth does not a department make. I'm asking whether it will be a real department and whether it will in fact have a deputy minister and take on the air of a real force within Nova Scotia.

MR. CHISHOLM: We haven't had those discussions yet, as to if there will be a deputy minister for that department or not. Like I said, it's going to take a few months for us. All those discussions have to take place, and we will. There are things that we're working on.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, the capital gains issue has been on the go for so long. It has kicked around for at least 10 years. This is the situation where fish harvesters have been looking for the same treatment as farmers, that the exemption be $500,000 as opposed to the $100,000 level that it is at currently. This may have been raised - some of these questions may have been raised - when I was not here. I think that's a very important issue.

Quebec, in fact, showed leadership a few years ago by stepping ahead of the federal government on this issue, and showed real leadership and recognized the $500,000 level for the provincial portion of the capital gains. I'm wondering if the Province of Nova Scotia -

[Page 285]

the federal government is making a lot of talk about this, but if more provinces took the lead from Quebec and actually tried to make some moves, I think it would be a very good gesture. The federal government is committed to doing this, but this issue has been moving so slow for so many years that I would like to see the department take leadership on the issue and try to follow Quebec's lead.

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, we know what you're saying. That was a discussion too, I think, that we had at the federal-provincial minister's meeting in Newfoundland and Labrador a few months back as well. I know the Conservative Party of Canada made that commitment during the last election campaign and I had thought that they might have put that in the budget this year, but I'm not quite sure of that. So we'll get a little more information on that and get it back to you. I thought there was some inclusion in the last budget federally that included that. I could be wrong, but we'll check it out.

MR. MACKINNON: The Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters and other bodies have been pushing this for several years, many years now, and it would be nice to see this issue moving a little bit more rapidly. The member opposite mentioned about the seal situation and seals are an issue dear to my heart, and have been for many years, having served on a marine mammals committee at one time, and some other industry committees over the years in relationship to seals.

The grey seal issue, when the grey seals were numbering 30,000 to 40,000, they were considered to be a real concern back in the 1970s, a number of years after the bounty was taken off for the jaw. As you know, there was a bounty on the jaw and that Sable Island colony has grown at 12 per cent to 14 per cent compounded for a good number of years. We're now dealing with a situation where we have whelping producing somewhere in the order of 50,000 animals a year now and we have a population exceeding 400,000 grey seals. The federal government, of course, put on the 10,000 as a trial harvest but that harvest is very, very difficult to execute.

I'm wondering - we have Sable Island, which is a sensitive area that is protected and we have Hay Island which is a rugged area that is protected. Some harvesting was taking place there and I realize that's before the courts and so on, but there has to be some place where these seals can be harvested. Would this department look at lifting perhaps the protection around the shoreline of Hay Island? This is very complicated, there's a tremendous lobster fishery out around Hay Island. It's in the shallow waters and the protected area actually goes, I understand, beyond where the lobsters are being harvested there. This is a very delicate issue and I know it's before the courts, but we needed some place where those animals can be taken and Hay Island is one such area.

MR. CHISHOLM: I understand what you're saying and I guess I'll relay to you what I relayed to your colleague on your left there. We know that there's quite a population on Hay Island of grey seals and we will - if you fellows will support us, your Party will support

[Page 286]

us, we will go do whatever we have to do to see if we can maybe trade off Hay Island for some other island that's not in the protected wilderness area. But as it stands right now, I think you mentioned, and we know, that there was a quota for about 10,000 seals to be harvested this year and I think the number was only about 400 that were actually harvested out of those 10,000. You know with your support, if we're going to go this route, we're going to need the support of both Parties.

I asked the honourable member for Digby-Annapolis, as well, to support us in that initiative, to try to come up with a solution to being able to harvest the grey seals on Hay Island. The department, the staff and officials have been working on dealing with this and we don't mind moving forward with it, but we're going to need your support to be able to do that.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think this is one of the most misunderstood issues that exists anywhere. When people think of seals, they think of the literature that's being produced by some of the animal rights people and no animal rights person would ever put an 800-pound grey seal - and I've said it before, and I hope the chairman will excuse me - with snot and foam and everything else on it. It's not a pretty sight and they consume a lot of fish.

We were dealing one time with the Eastern Shore where something in the order of 389 tons of cod had been taken in bycatch on the Scotian Shelf one year, quite a number of years back, and we ended up with an estimate done on the stomach contents, the percentage of stomach content of the grey seals, and it was determined that somewhere in the order of 20,000 to 40,000 metric tons were taken by the grey seals, as opposed to the 389 metric tons taken in a bycatch fishery. The extrapolation is actually scary when you take that 4 per cent or 5 per cent that they're eating of cod, by their numbers, by the amount of consumption per day and you multiply everything out. If people would only realize this, they would perhaps have a different opinion on grey seals.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that some of us from the rural areas will probably have to work on some of our own caucus from time to time, but I think the issue warrants a lot of work and I think we're prepared to try to work on it. I understand you are too, so we're speaking from the same notes. We don't have notes, but we are singing the same notes.

[7:00 p.m.]

Anyhow, very quickly, on soft-shell lobster. I hope you can increase the amount of support you have coming forward. It's my understanding that just a few more thousand dollars pumped into some of the survey work would bring us to doing something concrete. I understand you're looking at that matter. Can you give us perhaps the assurance that you will come up with another $15,000 or $20,000 to put on top of what you already have?

[Page 287]

MR. CHISHOLM: Right now, we're into budget estimates and if our budget gets approved, there is $50,000 that will be allotted to the soft-shell lobster science for the province. We have supported that initiative for the past two years, pretty close to $80,000, I believe, has gone into that program. I have been invited by Danny Morrow and his group to go down and take a sail with them someday when they're out doing the lobster sciences and see what they're doing, so I hope to be able to take him up on that offer. So there's money that will be allotted to that.

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much. I hope that you will take a couple of Opposition people with you as well. I appreciate the time and the education. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Shelburne. I've been keeping track; there has been a trip to Norway, to Iceland, to Ottawa, to Hay Island. Where was that last trip? I didn't get where that one was (Interruption) Southwest Nova Scotia.

The honourable member for Shelburne. I'm curious to see where we're going next.

MR. CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left? I'm going to have to take a "Baker break" sometime soon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's 7:01 p.m and the NDP time expires at 7:38 p.m. I understand that the Liberals have seven minutes after that but have decided to allow the caucus (Interruption) Did you want to take a break now?

MR. CHISHOLM: Two minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll recess for couple minutes.

[7:02 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[7:05 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the subcommittee back to order.

The honourable member for Shelburne.

MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable minister. First of all, Mr. Minister, I want to take the time, before my time expires, to congratulate you on your appointment. I do sense there is an air of co-operation here with the previous speaker, the Liberal Critic. I just want to point out that I made a note during the other speakers earlier, while they were talking, that between the Liberal Critic, myself and some of your staff, there is over 100 years - without dating our existence in this fishery - of knowledge of participation and, from your staff's point of view - and I think that this needs

[Page 288]

to be recognized here - if we seriously have this co-operative atmosphere - and I sensed that here in the last few hours - that there are a number of issues that can be addressed.

Again, we mentioned a number of tours that the chairman pointed out that we were basically all over the globe and there is one more invitation: your tour should include southwest Nova Scotia, in particular the day before the lobster season starts and the day the season actually starts. I think it's a very moving exercise for any person, any Nova Scotian, to see that first-hand. I offer you that invitation and I think that all Parties should be involved in that, not only to participate in it but the invitation to be involved in the District 33 or District 34 opening of the lobster season.

It's a very remarkable sight to see this fleet have all the traps and all the gear in place and ready, and it can actually be deposited in the ocean within hours. Within six or eight hours they are all set. This is done at a time of the year when all the other recreational fisheries and their sailing fleets, or fishing friends or sailing partners, pull their boats up. It's also a time when this fleet is active that the Gulf of St. Lawrence may be frozen over. This is the most active time, when the southwest lobster fleet is engaged in their fisheries.

Again, the tour would include the many holding facilities in southwest Nova Scotia. The evolution of that particular fleet has moved from the famous Cape Sable Islander to a wooden craft, to the large fibreglass boats that now fish offshore, up to the 50-mile area. These people have made a heavy financial commitment.

I think that all we heard here today is important, that this co-operative atmosphere exists and we all work together to find ways of addressing some of these serious issues out there. We talked about a number of them that need to be addressed. First of all, I think that the soft-shell issue has been addressed. I also think there is a component that may be overlooked here now that we have a large number of processors who have built these holding facilities. I know, in fact, that at times they have at least $1 million of capital out there in the markets and they're waiting to be reimbursed before there are to be critics coming in, the line of credit to be updated.

Again, I guess what I'm asking you - the first question is that the financial support for these buyers to have backing so they could have their credit rating raised so they could borrow more capital, because they're investing thousands, if not millions of dollars, to hold these lobsters over a period of time. So I think that's an issue that first of all needs to be addressed by provincial government, for the lobster holding buyers or the processors to have a higher credit rating.

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, you know, that's always an issue. Money always seems to be an issue when anyone, any company or business, is expanding or trying to grow. In the Department of Fisheries, we don't have money to grant money, or whatever you want to call it, to give to companies to be able to expand or to make their business better. But there is

[Page 289]

Economic Development or Nova Scotia Business Inc., and any business plans that are brought forward, I understand they do their due diligence and they try to help business wherever they can. Any business that has a fisheries component to it, surely we would staff, we would have some input into what it is they're trying to do, to expand a lobster pound, a lobster processing plant or whatever, so staff would be involved in that aspect of it, I would assume.

As far as the funding part of it goes, it's basically Nova Scotia Business Inc. or Economic Development or some federal funding partner that we may be able to access, but we would work with the company to be able to do that.

MR. THERIAULT: Mr. Minister, I'm going to go in a different direction here, so please bear with me in the next line of questions. They may be on a number of different topics, but I want to try to get as many topics in within the next space or the time that we can.

The provincial government has been involved in different components of training, particularly the radio courses, safety, firefighting, stuff like that. The response I have back from the fishing community, for instance, the radio course is something that needs to be - every licence holder should have access to a radio ticket. The fishermen are saying that these courses are basically too long. What they would like to see is a condensed version of firefighting, or radio, or safety, condensed into something that they would like to have some input into organizing the structure of these committees - not these committees, the safety training - so there's going to be more information jammed into a week.

Instead of having a week just for a radio course, they say that they could have the fire training or the safety aspect dealing with survival, life rafts and the radios all combined into one week or a time frame. Is that something that has ever been discussed with your department of trying to have some recommendations from the fishing community to realign these training committees?

MR. CHISHOLM: That's the School of Fisheries, I guess, that would administer that and the Department of Education. It was my understanding at the ministers' conference that we're going to have, every year we have it, and at the next one the principal for the School of Fisheries will be there. Maybe we can set up a meeting with him to discuss that very issue.

MR. BELLIVEAU: The next question is dealing with marketing of new species and my understanding is through your department there are marketing experts who help the fishing industry do some marketing, especially in new niches, or across the world. Is that something that can be improved and the second part of that question is, people in the fishing industry would like to have access to air cargo space. They're always competing, and I'm not going to name names here, but they're competing with a few large companies in Nova Scotia, to have access to fly their product around the world. First of all, is there more money that can be directed towards solving that problem?

[Page 290]

MR. CHISHOLM: That's not a question I can answer right here tonight, I don't believe. I will have to talk with our marketing people, our deputy, and executive director to try to get some real direction on that, because I'm really not sure. (Interruption) I'm told we're working with the Halifax International Airport to be able to do some of the things that you - pre-clearance and that sort of thing. At our meeting tomorrow, maybe we can make arrangements for both critics to meet with our marketing people to discuss those issues further if that's what you want.

[7:15 p.m.]

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'm suggesting to you, minister, that I know there are markets out there across the world, and we live in a place that we can actually put a product on the consumer's shelf in less than 48 hours. So if there are markets out there crying for our product, I think that's something that we can expand upon and we need to expand upon.

One of the issues that people have raised with me is that if we can move away from the commercial fishery for a minute, we talked about our culture has been involved with recreational clam fisheries, or mussel harvesting, or dulse or whatever, and the residents in Shelburne County would like to have access to the clam fisheries. Through regulations or heavily regulated, there seems to be almost a blanket of non-access now to this recreational fisheries. I know that there are some concerns about the toxin, whatever, at summer months, but during the winter months these particular clams are very safe. The local residents would like to have access to those resources that they've had for generations. Is that something that can be promoted through your department to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for these locals to have the traditional access to the clam flats?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I guess it's something that we can certainly discuss with DFO, because I'm told it's the commercial fishermen who will probably be our biggest opponents to that.

MR. BELLIVEAU: It's interesting, Mr. Minister, you bring this up because that was the point I was trying to get to. The people in Shelburne County, for instance, and I don't want to get into a turf war here, but it seems like, traditionally, they've always had access to these beds for recreational purposes. Because of the cleansing methods that now may be available to the commercial harvesters, they basically are the only ones that have access to it and the locals are saying, you know, we've always harvested the clams in particular, and we would just like to have that same respect. It's something I think that's being kind of overlooked here.

MR. CHISHOLM: I know what you're saying, I mean I have the same problem in my area as well, that the commercial guys think they have control over the clam fishery and the clam digging, whatever you call it, but there definitely will be some problems. I guess if we did open it up, you know, it's something that we can probably work on and discuss a little

[Page 291]

bit further. We are meeting tomorrow morning, as we said before, and if there needs to be some more discussion there, that would be fine.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, Mr. Minister, I do look forward to that meeting tomorrow morning, and also with my colleague from the Liberal critic area. One of the other issues that has been talked about earlier was the Irish moss harvesters, the last week. We all know that seems to be a very successful story at this time, that there are permits that are going to be available to those 40 or 50 harvesters.

One of the questions that arose out of that situation is that there's a possibility of those harvesters looking for a charter through the provincial Fisheries and Aquaculture to have DFO biologists to go out to study the biomass that may be there, to look to see how much harvesting area may be available along the eastern shoreline of Nova Scotia. The question that has been posed to me is, is that something the provincial government would be interested in endorsing to enable these people to go out and have this area surveyed? I guess the term they're using is a charter, to charter (Interruption) Well, to charter some of the fishermen to go out to do some of this initial surveillance or inspection of the area.

MR. CHISHOLM: It's something that we can certainly discuss further. We don't have a very big budget for those sorts of initiatives, but the federal government probably does and maybe we can access some funding there as well.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Minister, if I can just take you to the line of questioning regarding groundfish. I know there is an issue regarding one of our processing plants on the eastern shore that's sitting there idle, or they're in a labour dispute. One of the questions that has surfaced amongst the fishing industry is when there are large companies, or large fish processing plants, or large fishermen who have access to large quotas, who do not fish them on a seasonal basis, if you follow my line of thought here, that these fish are actually left in the water. There are also international quotas that our local community could have access to.

I'm suggesting that we have fleets that are basically idle during the summer months, the most productive time of our year and, to me, it's a simple logic that if the provincial Fisheries and Aquaculture initiate a discussion process of going out and finding ways of getting these fish quotas and the inshore fleet having access to, these are some of the discussion points that I think we can create, you know, literally hundreds of jobs in our coastal communities. Is that something that these meetings tomorrow morning can initiate? Is that something that - I think that's the way we need to go, if we got this air of co-operation here.

MR. CHISHOLM: I think this initiative sort of started awhile back. I know there was some discussion on that at the last federal-provincial meeting in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it's something that will probably be - well, it will be discussed further with the federal minister at the federal-provincial meetings. It will certainly be on our radar screen

[Page 292]

any time that we meet privately with the federal minister as well. So, sure, it's on the agenda for tomorrow, but every one is on the agenda tomorrow.

MR. BELLIVEAU: I guess I'll ask another question. I may ask my colleague to ask a couple before our time expires, but I just want to echo the major concern dealing with soft-shell lobster. We talked about that in the last few days and I believe that you have committed, if I understand you correctly, to do a special meeting in southwest Nova Scotia. This has to be addressed.

MR. CHISHOLM: The next sector council meeting, we're discussing that with the industries and see if they can be held somewhere on the South Shore.

MR. BELLIVEAU: Okay, at this time, I think I'll turn my time over to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Pictou West.

MR. CHARLES PARKER: Can I have an opportunity to have a few more minutes to ask some questions or raise some issues . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have 16 minutes.

MR. PARKER: Okay, we'll see what we can do here. I had mentioned before, I guess, when I started off, Mr. Minister, about us being at the Lobster Carnival in Pictou on the weekend and, like I said, it was a successful event. Lots of folks out. I guess a similar idea that I'm going to raise here is around celebrating our fishing heritage or celebrating our culture, our coastal communities.

The fishing industry has been important here in Nova Scotia for hundreds of years, and before that the Aboriginal people certainly fished, and from one end of this province to the other, all around our coast, there are many fishing wharves and fishing communities that are very much supported by the bounty that comes from the ocean. It has been suggested to me by a couple of fishermen that, you know, similar to the Lobster Carnival celebrations that we should have something called like a Nova Scotia harbours day, to celebrate our heritage, to celebrate our culture, celebrate our fishing history. Maybe that's what we can call it, the Nova Scotia harbours day.

Similar to what the Department of Agriculture has done with open houses once a year, to invite people to come onto the farm and look at the livestock and look at the produce that's growing, it would be a chance for the public to come out and into the fishing communities. It would have to be coordinated on a local basis by each harbour authority or a group of fishermen. I think it would be a way to celebrate our industry and to promote the value of the fishing through our province and to let the public know what value it has. It

[Page 293]

would have to be coordinated maybe through the Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, as is the other initiative through the Department of Agriculture.

I just want to know what your thoughts are on that, or do you see any merit in doing something like that, or is it possible to coordinate a Nova Scotia harbours day?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I see merit in it, that's for sure, but we do have Oceans Day, I think it's called, on June 6^th every year. That would be something that Tourism, Culture and Heritage would probably be a very active partner in. So those discussions probably should take place there to see if there would be an appetite to consider something like that. We'd certainly work with them, to that extent anyway.

MR. PARKER: I'm throwing it out as an idea and I guess I based it on the agriculture success. A lot of people did go out to the farms and look at what was going on, and here's a chance to learn more about the fishing industry. It could be at every harbour through the harbour authority, or it could be just a select number like we had a number of farms set up.

MR. CHISHOLM: Maybe it could be coordinated with Oceans Day, early in June?

MR. PARKER: There's an idea for the department to mull over and think about and see what - you know it's a very valuable part of our economy here in Nova Scotia and it would be a great way to promote the industry. Okay, I'll leave that thought with you.

I had a few other questions, I guess I didn't get to ask before, so I'll turn to them. One of the problems or the concerns out there in certain areas, more so than others, especially in southwest Nova Scotia, has been around the illegal lobster fishing and the problem with people catching fish out of season, or in season, whatever, but selling it under-the-table or by one means or another. It's estimated there's a large number of dollars being lost to the Nova Scotia economy through an illegal trade in lobsters. I was wondering if you could give us any insight into just how big of a problem it may be in this province, and what is the department doing to try to stop it?

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, we're working very closely with DFO in the enforcement area of any illegal activity that may be taking place. You're absolutely right, it's a major concern for us, especially in our lobster fishery right now with the illegal lobsters that have been going to the States. I haven't heard very much on it lately. I don't think there has been too much activity but I know awhile back, maybe a year ago, during this last season, the southwest Nova Scotia season, there were a number of trucks that were totally searched. That has a real negative impact on the industry.

I've been told that even down in the States in some of these restaurants where you go in and the tanks have the lobsters in, that there were v-notched lobsters that were in these tanks, pretty well knowing where they came from. Things like that are a very major concern

[Page 294]

for us, because the exporting of seafood products for the Province of Nova Scotia is over $1 billion a year - $450 million of that is lobster - so it has a real negative impact.

Even the tie-ups at the border when they are searching these vehicles for either small lobsters - and they were finding car batteries and rocks and everything in the crates of lobsters at the border. We are working very closely with DFO on the enforcement part of it. We do have some compliance people that are working very closely with DFO, and I think they're making some headway. Hopefully, they're making some headway.

MR. PARKER: How many compliance officers would you have in the department? Are they full-time committed to this problem or do they have other duties?

MR. CHISHOLM: DFO is mainly the enforcement - we have one person that's dedicated totally to working with DFO on these illegal activities, just on the lobster enforcement.

MR. PARKER: Any idea how many people in DFO? How many full-time people would there be there?

[7:30 p.m]

MR. CHISHOLM: We have one person dedicated with DFO just to work on this lobster project, they're calling it. Our compliance officers work in the restaurants and different other areas where there could be illegal lobsters in Charlie Parker's house or wherever.

MR. PARKER: It doesn't seem like there's many, it just seems like one person for all of the Province of Nova Scotia. I know DFO has some people there also, but is it adequate to address the need?

MR. CHISHOLM: We have about eight total for the province - fishery inspectors. One of those people are designated totally to working with DFO right now on this issue, but there's eight total for the province.

MR. PARKER: Okay.

MR. CHISHOLM: Then there's other food inspectors working through Agriculture in the restaurants and wherever.

MR. PARKER: It certainly is a big issue, a big problem and a big concern. Certainly one, I think, the department has to be pretty vigilant on and continue to work to try to find a solution. But if you step back a little bit from compliance, the next thing you know others take advantage of it, so you have to have a presence out there all the time, I would think.

[Page 295]

I will move on to another lobster-related question I guess. Up on the North Shore, there has been a bit of an experiment with, I guess, lobster seeding - setting out very young, very small lobsters; I think about a Stage IV lobster, primarily in Wallace Bay. I think they picked up the idea from New Brunswick. It has apparently been successful in northern New Brunswick, so they're trying it in Wallace. I know in the Pictou area, the fishermen are talking about it, maybe as a way to help bring up those low lobster catches that have been going on too long.

Is that something the department is encouraging? Is it something that you have investigated, or do you feel it might have merit and help solve some of our low catches?

MR. CHISHOLM: Something very much that we're working with the industry, and I'm told we have taken people from Pictou down into the U.S. - from the Pictou museum down to the U.S. to see the technology and how it works down there.

MR. PARKER: I understand it has worked in New Brunswick. Caraquet, I think it is, or somewhere in northern New Brunswick and quite successfully. The Wallace fishermen have been trying it now for a couple of years, I believe, and others are starting to talk about it and they are looking at it. You mentioned in Pictou at the Fisheries Museum, working on seeding and with the idea of spreading it out into areas where catches are low. So we're hopeful that might be another solution to our low lobster catches on the Northumberland Shore. So then there's no real update other than that, just that they're working on it at the Fisheries Museum?

MR. CHISHOLM: That trip was only a month ago, I'm told, so the report is in the development stage. Anyway, we'll work with them to try to enhance it and make it better.

MR. PARKER: If I have a few more minutes of time here, I guess, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask about the owner-operator policy. Maybe you have already been asked by somebody previously today, I'm not sure, because I didn't hear all the discussion here earlier this afternoon. It is a federal policy by DFO and it worked quite well for a number of years and then I guess when the price of gear and licences and boats climbed up to $0.5 million and $1 million or more, there were loopholes in the policy and then fishermen and processors and others were getting around it and it led to the trust agreements. This has been talked about for decades, but it is a real concern.

If we're losing the independent fisheries family, it's going out of the fishing communities and into the hands of people who have money, I guess, whether it's a fish processor or an investor or somebody from offshore. When it's time to buy a fishing business from somebody who's retiring, you have to get the capital and if the capital is not available through the Fisheries Loan Board or a bank or a credit union or wherever, then somebody seems to come up with the money through a trust agreement and, lots of times, we don't even know where those trust agreements are or who holds the purse strings. It seems to be a

[Page 296]

problem more so in southwest Nova Scotia, but I know it's starting to creep into other areas of the province as well.

What is your department's position on this whole problem, the owner-operator policy being skipped around and trust agreements sort of taking our fishing industry out of our own hands, out of our own communities? I would just like to get your thoughts on it.

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I guess the department has put forward recommendations suggesting that the owner-operator policy be strengthened for inshore fleets, but mechanisms have to be established to allow fleets to opt out if they do not presently operate under the owner-operator model, the examples being the full base scallop fleet or the Scotian Shelf shrimp fleet. I guess our position is that it has to be discussed, it has to be worked on, like one size doesn't necessarily fit all. I know that's an ongoing discussion with the federal government, and we're waiting for the federal government to move ahead and implement the changes.

MR. PARKER: I guess the bottom line is access to capital. You know, a young guy wants to get into the fishing industry and if someone else is offering the money, then in exchange they want to have control of his boat or his catch. It's enticing, naturally they want to get in the business. My colleague from our caucus has certainly introduced the legislation, as you know, that would allow the Nova Scotia Fisheries Loan Board to lend money to a young entrepreneur who wants to get started.

That would be a solution, that way it would prevent trust agreements with somebody outside the community or somebody who doesn't have the best interests of that young entrepreneur at heart perhaps. If he or she can control their own destiny through getting their own loan through the Fisheries Loan Board, then I think it will protect the families and the communities. It's definitely the way to go. I hope you will be able to consider passage of that bill when it comes before the Legislature. I think it is a solution to protect . . .

MR. CHISHOLM: Some changes have been made by DFO and we're looking forward to those changes. We'll work with DFO to see that they are changed.

MR. PARKER: Okay. Well, I think our bill's coming forward very soon. It's a step along the road, I think, that will help resolve the problem.

MR. CHISHOLM: DFO has to make the change to be able to allow them to use it for licence or capital for loans.

MR. PARKER: It's a joint effort between both levels of government, so let's hope it can happen. I guess my time is up, so thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Page 297]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Liberals have indicated they would just push forward their time from now until 7:45 p.m. and start tomorrow with 53 minutes remaining. The Committee on Law Amendments is going to start here in a few minutes, I understand at 7:45 p.m. - is that right? Yes, okay. So do we just adjourn, is that how it works? I don't know, I've never done this before. (Interruption) Yes, and the Liberals have 53 minutes remaining.

We are adjourned.

[The subcommittee rose at 7:39 p.m.]