[Page 375]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to now call the Subcommittee on Supply to order.
The honourable Minister of Finance.
HON. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, when we broke off on Tuesday, we believed that we were going to continue today with the remainder of the resolutions but we have reached an accord with the Opposition Parties that we will move on to the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Therefore, the only thing left for me to do is to read the resolutions for which I'm responsible and I'll proceed to do that but I would first for the record like to thank the Opposition Critics, the member for Argyle and the member for Kings West, for what I thought were very good and interesting, useful lines of questioning and I very much enjoyed having that debate with them over the past number of hours.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E9 stand?
Resolution E9 stands.
Resolution E8 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $30,399,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Finance, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Power Finance Corporation be approved.
[Page 376]
Resolution E19 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $43,489,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate. Office of Acadian Affairs
Resolution E21 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $8,615,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Government Contributions to Benefit Plans, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E26 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $432,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Police Complaints Commissioner, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E27 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,463,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Securities Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E28 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $3,852,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, pursuant to the Estimate.
[4:15 p.m.]
Resolution E36 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $178,817,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Restructuring Costs, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E37 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $88,990,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Pension Valuation Adjustment, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E38 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $674,194,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Capital Purchase Requirements, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E39 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $120,454,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Sinking Fund Instalments and Serial Retirements, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E41 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission be approved.
Resolution E42 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation be approved.
[Page 377]
Resolution E44 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolutions carry?
The resolutions are carried.
Thank you, minister. We will proceed with the estimates and we will take about a five minute break to allow the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to take her seat with her staff. So I thank you and appreciate your staff. So we will take a break and we will resume in five minutes.
[4:16 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[4:21 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Supply to order.
It is a pleasure to have the minister and her staff here. So, now, we will have the Estimates of the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.
Resolution E33 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $300,194,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know that the minister has other departments that will fall under her jurisdiction. So I would like now to recognize the honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations with your opening comments and if you like to introduce your staff, you can.
HON. RAMONA JENNEX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak to the budget estimates of my department. It also allows me to present an overview of the programs and services that the department provides to the people of Nova Scotia.
I'm pleased to introduce a few members of my department's senior management team who will assist me with the Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations estimates. First, Nancy MacLellan, Executive Director of Strategy, Integration and Registries; Cameron MacNeil, Executive Director of Program Management and Corporate Services; Nathan Gorall, Executive Director of Municipal Services; also at the table Jeff Shute, Acting Director of Finance; and, of course, Deputy Minister of the department, Mr. Kevin Malloy.
[Page 378]
I'm going to start with a brief look at what Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is all about. Virtually every Nova Scotian at some point in their lives has or will have direct contact with our department, whether registering the birth of a child, registering ownership of a motor vehicle or applying for a birth certificate, at some point in most people's lives, they will come in contact with our staff.
I'm going to take a moment here to pay tribute to staff at all levels in my department. During my brief time as minister, I have found them to be a team of hardworking individuals who do their best every day to provide important services to Nova Scotians in an effective and friendly manner. They are dedicated, diligent and professional in their approach to every task. So, on behalf of our government, I acknowledge and applaud their good efforts.
As the name implies, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is the service delivery arm of government. The department brings government programs and services to citizens and businesses across the province. A staff of approximately 875 people work in more than 50 locations in 24 communities. They answer more than 13,000 enquiries daily. That is all done through the department's Access Nova Scotia Centres, registry offices, call centres and on our Web site.
In September, the newest Access Nova Scotia Centre was officially opened in Sackville. It is the third such centre in metro and will play an important role in bringing our services closer to thousands of people. On the department's Web site, an average of 4,800 visits are received each day. Most visitors spend between 10 and 30 minutes on the website. Nearly 70 per cent are return visitors to our site. This high rate of return visits tells us that there is a high level of confidence in the information provided.
It also indicates that many Nova Scotians return to perform transactions on the site. An exit survey has indicated that 90 per cent of those who use the site are very satisfied with the service that they receive.
Our staff at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also play an important role in community development. We provide municipalities with important information and advice as well as with financial and training support. In fiscal 2009-10 the goals and objectives of the department will emphasize service improvements to customers and stakeholders. For example, we plan to strengthen partnerships with municipalities in order to promote effective local government and encourage healthy and vibrant communities. We will strive to improve accessibility to government information and services in a cost-effective way and we will also work to modernize department programs and infrastructure in order to deal with today's ever changing world more effectively and more efficiently.
It is worth noting here that the department continues to make good progress in delivering a more effective land registry service. The new land registration system has been in place in all counties in Nova Scotia since 2005. To date nearly 40 per cent of the land
[Page 379]
parcels in the province have been migrated to the new system. This means that the ownership and other interests of registered parcels is now guaranteed by the government. As a result, no historic title search is required in subsequent transaction after registration. Under the system, land documents can be submitted electronically. Seventy per cent of Nova Scotia land records are now available on-line. In many cases this now allows lawyers and real estate people to complete land transactions from their desks.
As promised when we took office, our government is committed to making life better for Nova Scotian families. At this time of year many families begin to worry about the cost of keeping warm during the upcoming winter. For many, particularly those on low or fixed incomes, this is a very real concern. Our government is committed to making the necessities of life more affordable for Nova Scotians. Accordingly, I am pleased to advise that the Your Energy Rebate Program, which rebates the 8 per cent of the provincial portion of the HST, will continue in the winter ahead. This rebate on most energy sources including oil, natural gas, coal, propane, kerosene, wood and wood pellets will save the average Nova Scotian family up to $200 per heating season. Those who use bulk fuel and electricity to heat their homes - more than 85 per cent of Nova Scotian consumers - have the rebate taken directly off their bills at point of sale so they don't even have to apply, the rebate is automatically credited to their account.
[4:30 p.m.]
Applications for the rebate on other energy sources such as wood pellets, coal or cylinder propane are available on the government Web site and at Access Nova Scotia service centres. As members of the House know, our government removed the 8 per cent of the provincial portion of the HST from basic home electricity charges effective October 1st. This will benefit all consumers of power, particularly those who heat their homes with electricity. Approximately 200,000 additional households will benefit from this removal of the provincial tax from power bills. It means that householders will save about $15 million in the balance of this fiscal year alone, from October 1st to the end of March.
In addition to the Your Energy Rebate Program, known as YERP, the Heating Assistance Rebate Program known as HARP will also be continued. Under HARP consumers must apply for the rebate. This particular program provides assistance to those who heat their homes with oil, electricity, wood, wood pellets or coal.
Under the 2009-10 Heating Assistance Rebate Program the rebate on both heating oil and electricity is up to $200 per household. I am pleased that the consumption threshold for electricity use under HARP has been reduced to 6,000 kilowatt hours per year. This means that more people will be eligible for the rebate. It also means that those who practice energy conservation can also benefit from the program. The income thresholds for this program remain the same as last year - $27,000 for single people and $42,000 for families. It is estimated that as many as 70,000 households can take advantage of the program in the
[Page 380]
2009-10 heating season. That compares with approximately 55,000 from last season. It is interesting to note that under HARP last season, 50 per cent of those who received rebates were senior citizens.
Another important initiative administered by my department is the New Home Construction Rebate program. It provides a rebate of up to $7,000 on the provincial portion of the HST on the purchase price of a new home. Up to 1,500 people who build or purchase a new home will qualify for this one-time rebate. This program will achieve two objectives. It will keep skilled tradespeople at home and kick-start the home construction industry. It will also encourage potential buyers to get into the housing market.
Our partner in this venture is the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association. We are pleased to have their input, their expertise and their endorsement. The association estimates that this program will save 3,000 to 5,000 jobs in the home construction industry. To date, approximately 900 people have applied for the rebate. This program will play an important role in providing work over the winter because those homes must be completed by the end of March.
You can see our government has acted quickly on measures that contributed significantly to the economy. Most importantly, these are measures that will help to make the necessities of life more affordable to Nova Scotians.
As members of this House are aware, our department is responsible for managing intergovernmental relations with municipalities. The scope of programs provided by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is broad indeed. The Municipal Services Division provides advice and assistance and also prepares policy on municipal matters for the government. The division is also responsible for maintaining the legislative framework in which municipalities operate.
By the end of the current fiscal year the department will have delivered more than $205 million in grants and contributions to Nova Scotia's 55 municipalities. This funding is provided in various provincial programs as well as programs that are cost shared with the federal government. All of this money helps the municipalities do what every level of government must do and that is to provide services and support for the benefit of all Nova Scotians.
Here are some examples of how this substantial amount of money is being invested: provincial equalization payments to municipalities will be more than $32 million. These payments provide unconditional grants to all municipalities to ensure a consistent level of core services for Nova Scotians. They help to cover important municipal services such as policing, public safety, snow removal and road and street maintenance. The province is matching new federal funding for municipal infrastructure projects under the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund. This is a commitment of a total of $38 million federal-provincial dollars over
[Page 381]
this year and next. It provides the funding for important projects in several municipalities including Halifax Regional Municipality and Cape Breton Regional Municipality. It includes such projects as upgrades at Point Pleasant Park in Halifax Regional Municipality; improvements at the Herring Cove and Hubley fire stations; work on the Burnside/North Dartmouth Trunk Sewer System; Sheet Harbour sidewalk paving; Chester Spur Line Recreational Trail development.
In Cape Breton Regional Municipality, residents will benefit from a major overhaul of the water and waste water system by way of 19 separate projects within the municipality. In Annapolis County it means waste water management upgrades that will benefit small places like Nictaux, Bear River and Bridgetown. On the South Shore, it means that the District of Chester will benefit from expanded landfill capacity at the Kaizer Meadow Landfill. In Colchester County, it provides funding to replace a sewer pumping station and storm sewer lines that serve about 25 per cent of the Village of Bible Hill.
Municipalities will also benefit from provincial distribution of the Federal Gas Tax Fund, which will double this year, taking it to just over $58 million. This program provides funding to municipalities for capital infrastructure improvements. My department administers the fund and ensures that terms and conditions of the federal-provincial agreement are met. Department staff work with the municipalities to optimize the federal funds in a way that supports municipal and provincial priorities for municipal infrastructure.
Municipalities will also receive payment of grants in lieu of taxes on provincial courthouses, starting this year. This new grant program will begin with a three-year phase-in period. The annual increase in payments is estimated to reach $2.8 million in the third year and in each year after that. The additional payment this year to the 10 municipalities, where provincial courthouses are located, will be approximately $280,000.
Our government has also made a decision to retain the Emergency Services Provider Fund again this year. Under this particular program half a million dollars, $500,000, will go to volunteer emergency first responder organizations such as fire departments and ground search and rescue teams. These volunteer groups do important work under difficult circumstance and deserve as much public and government support as possible. I'm sure all members of the House join me in applauding and saying thanks to these volunteers who play such an important role in communities across the province. This is especially important in rural areas of Nova Scotia.
Many of you who represent rural constituencies are well aware that transportation can be a problem for some of our citizens. In addition to support for volunteer firefighters and ground search and rescue crews, our government is also providing half a million dollars under the Transit Research Incentive Program. This program supports transit operations in parts of the province that currently have no transit service or very limited service. To ensure that there are transit services for those in wheelchairs across the province, our department
[Page 382]
also offers support via the Accessible Transportation Assistance Program. For example, Kings Para-Transit recently received funding under this particular program that contributed significantly toward the cost of a new Access-A-Bus.
As you see, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is a very diverse department. Through its many programs and initiatives it provides a wide range of services and support that benefit all Nova Scotians. As minister responsible for the department, I am pleased and proud to play a role in ensuring that this will continue to serve Nova Scotians well. Now, I would be happy to entertain questions about the department's estimates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would ask if it's possible that the minister could provide us with a copy of her opening remarks, we'd appreciate that.
MS. JENNEX: We'd be pleased to do that.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Thank you. I'm new to my role as Critic for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, I don't know if that was for something I did in the past or not, I'm not sure, but I've now been given that responsibility. I'm not familiar with some of your staff but I'm sure, over the next little while, I'll get to meet them and introduce myself. I am familiar with some but I won't say who they are because they may not want to identify that they know me. Mr. Henshaw is laughing in the back.
On a serious note, I would like to know, since you came to office, if you've made any staffing changes in your department and if so, what are they?
MS. JENNEX: I have not made any staff changes.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I want to touch now on a case - I know you have limitations as to what you can answer on this case, but I think it's incumbent upon me as a representative of a riding within the Cape Breton Regional Municipality that I ask you a certain amount of questions concerning the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. In particular, and I'm sure you are familiar with this, it's probably one of the first things that you were ever briefed on as a new Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, that the Cape Breton Regional Municipality has pursued a court challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to $20 million a year in equalization payments that the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is arguing that the province has not been paying them. The argument dates back to 1995 when the regional municipality was first amalgamated.
In July of this year, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality filed an application to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter. Let me ask you first of all, I would assume anyway that you have been fully briefed on this matter, is that correct?
[Page 383]
MS. JENNEX: Yes, I have been briefed on the matter.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): If possible, can you tell me if you've had any political discussions regarding this matter with the Premier or Deputy Premier?
[4:45 p.m.]
MS. JENNEX: I have not had any dialogue or discussion with the Premier or Minister Corbett. I've have an aside conversation but I have had no deep discussion or political discussion on that. I would like to say that since coming to office, I realize that this is one of those situations that has been a long-standing problem. I can't speak to the court case but I know that my staff will be able to acknowledge the fact that it is a fresh page, I am a new minister, we are a new government and I am wanting to make sure that I am able to work with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality in the most effective way. It is my wish to meet and discuss any of the issues that they have. I have offered to meet with them and I have sent a letter forward at this time.
In terms of the "politicalness", your question going back with the Premier, no, I have not had a political discussion. It is my wish to go forward and meet with the people in Cape Breton, as I know our Premier wants to do, and we will be discussing their concerns.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, I am aware that you have made an attempt to meet with regional municipality officials and/or council and the mayor. Has there been a date set for that meeting?
MS. JENNEX: I have sent a letter to Mayor Morgan and the council with a date and I haven't heard back, but it wouldn't be that I haven't heard back because they haven't responded, I just don't think there has been enough time for them to respond. What I would like to say is that I have family in Cape Breton and I plan to be in Cape Breton and I thought if I went up a day early, and I offered a date, that hopefully they'll be able to meet me on that date so that I can meet with my family and also meet with the council.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Thank you, Madam Minister, I'm warming up to you already as a matter of fact - just with that statement. So I may have to change my line of questioning eventually I guess. As I understand it, you're going to Cape Breton then to meet - who is going to attend that meeting with you?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, I am going to go to that meeting, I would ask my EA to go with me, and that's it, myself and the EA. This is an informal meeting I've asked to have with the mayor and council.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): The Sydney and Area Chamber of Commerce at one time called for full funding of the province's equalization system for municipalities.
[Page 384]
I don't know if you're aware of that now, you might well be. I understand that your new EA was once connected with the Sydney and Area Chamber of Commerce as a matter of fact and worked for them. The change would have meant an extra $8.9 million for the Cape Breton Regional Municipality in fiscal 2007-08. Were you aware of that call that came from the area's Chamber of Commerce? Are you aware of that?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, no, I'm not aware of that.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I know you can't go into the details of the court case involving the CBRM. Again, the province filed a defence in late August asking for the appeal to be dismissed and the province argued that the Cape Breton Regional Municipality did not have a sufficient foundation to advance a constitutional claim. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the Premier and the minister have said that someone would meet to discuss that issue and now the minister is confirming that indeed that meeting is going to take place at some point in Cape Breton. Let me ask the minister, were you aware back on March 11, 2004, that indeed there were three people, three members of the New Democratic Party, who met with the Cape Breton Regional Municipality Council to address that issue. It was noted in the minutes of the meeting of council that it was now Premier Darrell Dexter who had taken the initiative to meet with that council at that time? Are you aware of any previous meetings that have taken place?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, no, I am not aware of that but I would like to say that I, as a new minister, am looking forward to meeting with the mayor, I have never met him and I haven't met with the council, and I'm looking forward to going up and having an informal meeting. I would like to hear their concerns directly to me and, no, I am not familiar with any other meetings from any of my colleagues.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): So it's not unfair of me to say then that you are going to start from scratch on this file, is that correct?
MS. JENNEX: When I go in, it's an informal meeting and I'm there to listen to the concerns that they have.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Are you willing to take part in an open public meeting? Is that what this is going to be or is it behind closed doors?
MS. JENNEX: In my letter I was very clear that I'm coming to Cape Breton and I'm going to be up there and I would like to meet in an informal way with the mayor and the council.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I assume when you say informal - does it matter to you whether or not this meeting is in public or in private? Are you willing to have anyone
[Page 385]
else attend that meeting? Are there going to be any other MLAs at that meeting? Or, are you just looking for a one on one with the mayor and council?
MS. JENNEX: I hope you can appreciate that my very first meeting with the mayor and council, I would appreciate being there with the mayor and the council in an informal manner. I want us to have as open a dialogue as we can, under a first meeting, and I am there to listen. I'm sincere in being there to listen with an open ear and an open mind.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Certainly, I'm not questioning the sincerity of the minister, I believe you when you say that. Regardless of whether the meeting was held behind closed doors or in the open, there are not many secrets in Cape Breton anyway, minister, you will probably be about to find that out. What is said doesn't take too long to get around, let me put it that way.
Let me ask you - I know the court case is out there and I know there has been a decision to continue to fight the court case on behalf of the province. The Premier has stated that's something that normally would be done anyway, that's part of the legal battle and all that. But, is it an aim of yours, an objective of yours, a wish of yours - whatever you want to call it - that you, as a new, fresh minister, who has not been involved in this in the past, perhaps could put a fresh face on this issue, perhaps starting by getting to the table and bringing this whole issue back where it belongs - at a negotiating table and not before the courts?
MS. JENNEX: It would be very nice if I would be able to do that and it would be my wish to be able to resolve the difficulties that Cape Breton people are having because of this lawsuit. I would like very much to have open dialogue. I want people in Cape Breton to know that we value them and we value the processes that are going on in Cape Breton.
If I could solve the problem around this whole issue it would be a wonderful thing but I can't make any promises around that. I am going up with an open mind and I'm having a listening ear and hopefully we can work together to solve the problems that face the people in Cape Breton.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I will, just as an aside, comment to say this matter has gone on far too long, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that it has been before the courts, and the fact that no one is talking on it, has led to walls being put up by former governments, by this current government, which I don't think in any way, shape or form are constructive to finding a solution to the problem that is real and does exist in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. You have a regional municipality now that is well over $100 million in debt. You have a declining population. You have a problem with out-migration. The problems that are facing the regional municipality are big problems, they're not easily solved.
[Page 386]
They certainly aren't going to be solved by both sides refusing to talk to each other. I'm glad to hear and I compliment you that one of your first decisions regarding this case will be to go Cape Breton and have that kind of open and frank discussion that I think is necessary right now to try and resolve this whole issue.
Let me ask you if you have ever heard of a group called Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness?
MS. JENNEX: No, I haven't.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I would guess that you probably will at some time. According to the spokesman for Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness, John R. MacDonald, a good Cape Breton name, minister, according to John R., the province received $1.465 billion in equalization money from the federal government last year. According to Mr. MacDonald and the Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness, the province only distributed 1.1 per cent of that, or about $16.5 million, directly to municipalities. The rest, according to Mr. MacDonald, went into general revenues. So assuming that you've never heard of Mr. MacDonald and his organization, have you ever heard of those figures being tossed around?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, no, I haven't heard any of those figures and I've met many John MacDonalds over my life here in Nova Scotia but not this particular gentleman. I was wondering if it would be possible if we would be able to have a copy of those figures and that information, please.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I think, probably, I could provide you with a brief that the Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness distribute, but they also have a Web site I think, which you can access, which has all of that information on it. If your officials were to look up Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness dot something, I'm not sure, I'll get the information for them if they so wish. All of that information is available on that Web site.
I'm not looking for a commitment here, right now, because I find it just a little strange that - it may have crossed one of your official's desks - but I'm sure at some point in time this organization has contacted the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, or sent them a letter, or written to someone in the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, maybe you haven't been briefed on it yet. I'm just wondering if you would keep an open mind when this organization contacts you, if you'd be willing to meet with them.
You might want to start with your colleague, the member for Cape Breton Nova because he and I both attended a meeting, within the last month or so, of Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness and I thought, although I don't mean to hang my colleague out to dry, but I thought at that point in time he said that he was going to bring it to your attention as the
[Page 387]
new Minister for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. He may not, well he obviously hasn't, because you said you've never heard of the group, but just to keep an open mind, if you would, and perhaps if I can ask for any kind of commitment right now it would be to make an attempt to contact this organization and perhaps look at organizing a meeting with them.
MS. JENNEX: I'm always open to meetings with groups and if they would contact the staff to meet or if they're a group that's particularly Cape Breton placed, then we can look at my schedule to meet with them, absolutely. If we can make that arrangement, I would be very pleased to meet with them.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that and I certainly will, in any contact that I have in the future with Nova Scotians for Equalization Fairness, make it known to them that you said that you are open to a meeting and to contact your office at the earliest possible time and certainly at your convenience.
MS. JENNEX: Can I just interrupt that . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll recognize the member for Glace Bay and then if he has a question for the minister.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I don't but I certainly would be willing to let the minister talk.
MS. JENNEX: Sorry, I know that we can be a little bit less formal here I hope. I'm very willing to meet with them but I would also like to have as much information and I would like to have an informal meeting. I'm hoping that I'm not going to end up going into an auditorium with thousands of people. If it was an informal meeting or a small meeting, I'm very open to meeting with them.
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): What I'm suggesting is that you and your staff perhaps gather all the information you can. It should be available on that Web site or contact Mr. MacDonald or I'll tell the organization to get in contact with you. Their meetings are small, there were about 20 people at the meeting that I attended and that the MLA for Cape Breton Nova attended. I'm sure that they'd be willing to make it an even smaller group to get a closer one-on-one contact with the minister. I'll make that suggestion to them. I can't commit to that because I'm not a member of the group, I'm only the MLA for Glace Bay.
Are you aware then, when I mentioned the fact that the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is well over $100 million in debt, are you aware of that current debt load and the situation CBRM finds itself in?
[Page 388]
MS. JENNEX: I know that there are many communities across the province that are struggling and I am very aware that Cape Breton has its own unique difficulties. If I can remember all the figures - I wouldn't be able to say if I knew that exact figure but I do know that Cape Breton has extreme challenges, yes.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it that there's a certain point, I'm assuming, I shouldn't assume, I guess, but I'm assuming there is a certain point, in terms of indebtedness, that a municipality in this province would reach before red flags started being raised as to the potential for having to step in and help that municipality. Have you had any discussions with any of your staff regarding whether or not the CBRM has reached that stage?
I guess the question that I am trying to ask here is, is your government concerned enough about that situation in Cape Breton right now, the financial situation, that any red flags have been raised and your level of concern regarding that situation right now?
MS. JENNEX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't received any information from Cape Breton with any requests. They would go through staff and I would take advice from them around any of their submissions of funding, needing funding or loans or anything. That would go through staff and then they would advise me, but I haven't received any.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do understand your newness to the position, I do appreciate that, however many days - the countdown is now, I don't know, 100-and whatever days that your government has been in power now, but I would assume, and again I'm not trying to guess what the response is going to be, but I would assume that your staff already know, since there's no new staff there, they've been in place for some time, they would be quite well aware of the situation in Cape Breton Regional Municipality.
Again, I am assuming that is one of the first things, if they haven't by now, they should have briefed you on, because I don't think you'd find another municipality that is in as deep trouble as the Cape Breton Regional Municipality is right now in this province - not that the concerns or troubles of other municipalities are not important, but if there has ever been a red flag raised about any municipality in this province, I would suggest it is CBRM. I would also suggest that should be high on your list of priorities, to be briefed by your staff, and to try and find a solution to the current problems that are occurring in Cape Breton. You have a municipality that is on the brink of bankruptcy, Madam Minister, and I would suggest that would take a priority, not telling you, but suggesting that perhaps it should take a priority in your department.
Mr. Chairman, I should have let you know at the beginning of my discussion here that I was going to be sharing my time with the member for Clare, I'm not sure how much of my hour I've eaten up so far, perhaps you could tell me?
[Page 389]
MR. CHAIRMAN: About 25 minutes, so you have about 35 minutes left.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): And I will be sharing the latter part of this part of the questioning with the member for Clare.
I did want to just ask you - I've got many more questions regarding Cape Breton Regional Municipality and the rest of the municipalities in this province - but I did want to ask you just a little bit about what you referred to as HARP - the Heating Assistance Rebate Program.
I think we all know that in the prior year there was no heating assistance program of this type for low to modest income Nova Scotians, that the year before that there was the Keep the Heat program and before that there was the Low Income Fuel Assistance Program. When the Keep the Heat program was active, the rebate for successful applicants there was $200. Last year the Progressive Conservative Government increased the rebate to $450. Now it is $200. Can I ask you, what was your line of thinking and who made that decision to reduce the rebate from $450 to $200?
MS. JENNEX: Thank you for that question. This program is the program that we inherited from the past government. We have made no changes to HARP from the program that went forth in the Spring budget under the Progressive Conservatives. The program has changed, not changed from the Progressive Conservatives, but it evolved under their mandate, is up to $200 for electricity and up to $200 for oil, which is down. The threshold was changed by the previous government so that more people would be able to access funds under this rebate program.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So what you've done actually is to create a larger pool, but the pool becomes more shallow. Whereas last time around you would have been able to receive $450, which was a significant amount in trying to keep your oil tank full, for instance, $200 is not going to go, well, it's not going to go as far, it's quite simple. Again, you're saying that you're changing, you're reaching more people compared to the last time around, which is absolutely true. There may be more Nova Scotians eligible for this program but they're going to receive less. So I guess the first question that would come to mind is, how does this help low income earners afford heating?
MS. JENNEX: Thank you for that question. I agree with you, it is a shallower pool and there are some reasons that the former government made around this that I think I would be able to articulate. The cost of oil the previous year had gone up significantly and it has gone down over the last year. So last year, around this time, it was $1.29 a litre and they're basing that on the cost of fuel that has gone down and looking at that part of it, they lowered the price to $200. Also, they raised the amount up to $200 from $150. So this is a program that was put forward from the other government and we are just continuing on with that under this budget and, yes, I agree with you, the pool is shallower, and it would be nice to
[Page 390]
be able to have made it deeper, but under the fiscal restraints that we have, that is what we're doing. We have to live within our means.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to wrap up my part of the questioning here right now because I'll be back again in the future, I know that, but I wanted to turn over the remaining - I'm getting differing signals here from exactly who's going to be taking over - the member for Clayton Park is going to take up the rest of my time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: Thank you very much and I do appreciate my colleague allowing me to have a few minutes of his time in this questioning period. I had intended to come and listen but I'm the past Critic for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and there are a couple of issues that are important to me just as a member that are important in my riding that relate to your department. So I'm going to be rather quick because I'm sharing my time with the member for Clare.
So I wanted to go first to the issue of the Residential Tenancies Board. I don't think you mentioned it in your opening remarks, although I did ask for the copy of the remarks just because it's good to see all the detail and the different programs that you spoke about, but the Residential Tenancies Board is very important in my riding and a few of the other city ridings in particular. In the Clayton Park riding it's interesting to note that I have roughly 13,000 households and 9,000 of them are in multi-unit buildings. So I have a high proportion of people who are renting and it's important to me when I hear a lot of issues that are brought to my constituency around the Residential Tenancies Act.
I was under the impression that this was being looked at for a review, that it might be updated, that there had been some meetings held that might have had tenants, if not tenants perhaps some groups like Dal Legal Aid or groups that represent tenants and the IPONS, which is the Investment Property Owners of Nova Scotia, in attendance. So I would like to know the status of any change to that Act?
MS. JENNEX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for that question, I appreciate it. When I came into this office, I recognized that there were significant amendments to be made to the Residential Tenancies Act. There had been, as you stated, many meetings, and stakeholders and groups had put information forward, and there were so many amendments that I made the decision, as minister, to not move any amendments forward in this session. The reason I had behind that is when I saw as many amendments that there were, I thought that we would end up with a patchwork Residential Tenancies Act. So after the sitting, after we finish with the Legislature, after this sitting, we are going to move forward with looking at the Residential Tenancies Act as a whole and having some target conversations.
[Page 391]
The staff have already met with the general population in Nova Scotia, some targeted focus groups around the Residential Tenancies Act, so that when we come forward, probably in the Spring, hopefully, if we are able to get it done, we will have a much stronger piece, a stronger Residential Tenancies Act for all stakeholders, for the tenants and for the people who are renting - isn't that awful, I lost the word that I needed - the landlords. It needs to be balanced, it needs to recognize where we are in Nova Scotia right now in terms of our economy. There was just too much and I didn't want it to be patchwork, I wanted a good piece of legislation, a good Act for people here in Nova Scotia.
MS. WHALEN: I would just like to ask, are you suggesting then, Madam Minister, that you would be bringing in a whole new Act? I mean sometimes Acts become so dated that you simply want to bring in an entirely new Act.
MS. JENNEX: I was searching for the words, I wouldn't say it's a brand new Act because I think the core of it, the backbone of it is there but, in essence, yes, exactly what we're saying, we're going to be bringing in an Act that reflects Nova Scotia in the year 2010.
MS. WHALEN: I appreciate that and I do agree that it does need an updating although I would question whether or not there has been adequate consultation and you talk about doing some further focus groups and so on, but it is a bit of a minefield when you're working with Residential Tenancies. I think the staff would agree with me, and I know in my efforts to advocate on behalf of the citizens I represent, and work with landlords, sometimes they are on very different pages.
I think it is important to have a lot of consultation so you can be at least as well apprised of where the pitfalls are and the differences of opinion that are out there because they often find themselves in confrontational situations, they are accustomed to coming to the Residential Tenancies Board and sometimes going beyond that to other mechanisms to resolve their conflicts, but my understanding, at least from talking to some of them - you know, this would be possibly a year or more ago - is that there had been a meeting in Truro and that the tenants didn't feel they were well represented there, the people who were representing tenants' rights felt that they were not entirely well represented compared to the number of landlords.
Landlords are more organized and it's easier for you to identify them and have a spokesperson for them. Tenants are not really that organized so it's more difficult. So I would suggest maybe some public meetings. I've had two meetings in the Clayton Park riding, entitled tenants' rights meetings, just trying to have them come out. In fact, we've had your director of the Residential Tenancies Board at one of those and he was wonderful - Gerald Hashey, I believe his name is - and he was really good and just gave them a proper presentation on what the rules are and answered a lot of general questions. I think that was helpful in itself, he's a good spokesman. But there are a lot of pitfalls, it's a really rocky road
[Page 392]
and I think you need a lot of consultation if you're going into some broad changes to that Act.
[5:15 p.m.]
I would like to ask you whether you're looking at security of tenure because in the Act tenants have only - sorry, if you're renting a mobile home - you have one year, you get security of tenure, you can't be moved out of your mobile home. If you're a tenant in an apartment building, it requires five years living there to get the security of tenure. It looks like you're familiar with that rule which is good and, in fact, I had a Private Member's Bill before the House asking that be reduced to one year and I'm hoping that's one of the issues that is on your agenda. Can you speak to that?
MS. JENNEX: Thank you for bringing that up. That was one of the significant amendments and I know that it's frustrating for many people that I chose not to move forward with the amendments, but I think in the long run, looking at the Residential Tenancies Act as a whole and making sure that it's balanced between the tenants and the landlords, and I appreciate your comment that as a tenant sometimes it might be more difficult to have your voice be heard. I have to assure you that the people within this department are there for the tenants and for the landlords to have any of their questions answered. As you mentioned, Gerald Hashey is an absolutely wonderful resource.
You also made comment about having public meetings and I want to assure you that I'm not taking this on as a lone project. We have staff behind this and there are many people who have had a long-time interest in making sure that the interests of landlords and tenants in Nova Scotia are well maintained. We'll be helping with this project. So I will take under advisement your suggestion for public meetings.
I also would like to say that I don't want to spend too much time rehashing similar problems. I think we have a list of things, there were many amendments that were going through last time. I think we really want to move forward and have a really good piece and in as quick a time as we can and the more we talk, the less action we have. Not that I'm not listening, don't get me wrong, there are many people that have these issues and have brought them forward and excellent staff that know the problems with tenants and landlords.
MS. WHALEN: I appreciate that you're looking at the security of tenure issue in particular since that was one that had been brought to my attention on quite a number of occasions. I wonder if we could just move to another one, because I have one of my colleagues waiting for his time - oh, I can take my time. Good. If I can take my time, I would like to know what other key issues in the current Act you think need changing?
MS. JENNEX: That is a very big question. There were so many different issues and some of them were small and some were big. I can't even tell you how many there were. My
[Page 393]
staff would be able to, it was page after page. So, I just looked at it. It needed a complete rehaul. There were many issues.
MS. WHALEN: In the same vein, I know that your staff have been doing a lot of work and have a history of understanding and being able to analyze the kind of questions and issues that have been brought to the Residential Tenancies Board, so you know where the conflicts lie and the difficulties. But I'm wondering if there are any changes that would have come as a result of this being an NDP Government and that there might have been some specific philosophical changes that you would be looking for in terms of residential tenancies?
MS. JENNEX: I guess that it would be fair to say that I will be looking at all of my issues through an NDP lens, so yes, I would imagine that it would have a bit of an NDP flavour in that we are an NDP Government and we're there for all Nova Scotians to provide balanced service to everybody.
MS. WHALEN: I'm just going to ask if there is anything in particular that might represent an NDP position when it comes to residential tenancies, any particular aspect?
MS. JENNEX: No, there is not one that is coming to mind immediately at this time, but I do know that your question of tenure has come up on many occasions and especially tenure around mobile homes.
MS. WHALEN: Another aspect of living in an apartment building will be the cost of the units and the cost of rent and that's impacted by many factors, one of them being assessments on the building.
Last year I introduced a Private Member's bill that did not get debated, but nevertheless it was there and it was to include the multi-unit buildings, the rental of multi-unit buildings in the assessment cap. Currently in the Act there are several categories of residential properties, they include single family houses, condominiums, mobile-home parks and multi-unit, they're all described as residential, which they are. The only one of those types of homes that are categorized as residential that are not capped under the Assessment Act are the multi-unit buildings. The owners of those buildings say that naturally if it goes up by double digit increases in their assessment, they will pass that, and do in fact, pass that back to the tenants. So I wanted to include them, as long as we have a cap on assessments then I believe that they should all be capped in the same way. So that is one suggestion that I have as well. Have you looked at that?
MS. JENNEX: First, I have to say that I really appreciate what a good MLA you are for your constituents. I've heard you on a number of occasions and you have been very good with bringing forward issues in your constituency. The issue that you talked about, the assessment, is something that has come forward on a number of occasions and we are
[Page 394]
actually committed to reviewing the assessment in 2010. So we would be able to review it with that in mind and thank you for your commitment.
MS. WHALEN: Well, thank you very much. I do think, especially, as an Opposition member that it is important to be bringing forward ideas that are important to the people I represent and I appreciate your comments and if they can be entertained, all the better, because we do feel we can make some good contributions to the debate. That is something that I think is important and I will, perhaps, be discussing it more in the Legislature at other times but I look forward to the fact that you will review it.
I wanted to jump to the other issue which is condominiums in my area, as well, lots of condominiums. I know there has been a working group that was studying changes to the Condominium Act and just to quickly preface it, it relates to poor construction, a lot of construction deficiencies, huge costs to new condominium home buyers when they move into a building. We have seen roofs, leaky windows and entire faces of a building having to be rebricked, all kinds of substandard building and code deficiencies, frankly, that were never caught with the inspections, which people expect, they weren't happening. There were inadequate warranties when the problems were noticed and definitely shoddy construction and no protection for the people who bought those homes, and consumer protection falls under you as well.
So, in that regard, I was very pleased, a group was formed of condominium owners and the department did agree and sit down and set up a committee to meet with them and look at the problems. I know there is a working report that is out and is available on-line, but I want to know what you're doing in the way of legislative changes so that we can start to put an end to this, because right now, as we sit here, buildings are still going up, people are still buying into them and they're still running into construction problems.
MS. JENNEX: I always have to make sure that I tread carefully, as a new minister I don't want to speak out of turn, so I'm just checking with my colleague. There are 54 actual recommendations and we will be bringing that forward in the next couple of weeks. It will be moving forward in this session of the House.
MS. WHALEN: I very much appreciate that. You may have heard some of the Opposition members indicating that we are not aware of the legislative agenda for the Fall and I will just say that in the past, your legal staff and others from the department have come to see us, as the critics, to brief us on the kind of changes that are in those bills. I'm just hoping that will continue, because it allows us to be - and certainly, it may not be coming forward tomorrow - but if we have an advance notice of what it is and what the rationale is behind the various changes, it helps us to elevate the level of debate in the House, because then we're not going to be misinformed or, perhaps, misreading it. It allows us to understand better what led to them, because sometimes we might not know why a certain clause is
[Page 395]
changing and so on. So, I would very much appreciate having a briefing on those changes prior to it arriving at the House.
MS. JENNEX: Yes, we can facilitate that with no problem and thank you for bringing that to my attention. As a new minister, the procedures around these sometimes need to be told to me. So, the staff is more than willing to meet with you and the other Party to have a briefing on that Act.
MS. WHALEN: I can just say that I certainly appreciate it because of the legality of the way the Act is written and just a chance to walk through it and ask some questions, as you mentioned earlier, in a more informal manner that is not geared to confrontation but geared to better knowledge, which is what I would like to see. So, I'm glad that you're moving on that and we will see how many of those changes are going to be in this Act.
With that being said, I would like to turn the floor over, if you're willing, to my colleague from Clare.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Clare, you will have until 5:41 p.m. for questions.
HON. WAYNE GAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly welcome this opportunity to ask the minister and her staff some questions.
Madam Minister, basically, where I want to begin, especially with the few minutes left, we'll probably have a chance to begin, we may have to come back. I'm interested basically in finding out some information with regard to infrastructure here in Nova Scotia, especially infrastructure dollars that have been assigned for municipalities. I want to start off looking at the Building Canada Fund.
Mr. Chairman, the Government of Canada announced a new program for infrastructure back on November 9, 2007. Nova Scotia signed a $634 million agreement with the federal government. Under that agreement, one component, it's called the Building Canada Fund, Nova Scotia will receive $235.68 million and under that fund there are two components. I want to start off my question with the first component of the program, it's called the Communities Component. This component, for the record, will be allocated to smaller scale projects in communities with populations of less than 100,000.
My first question to the minister is, how is this funding divided up among the municipal units?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, the Communities Component is based on application and the need in the community that's applying.
[Page 396]
MR. GAUDET: Looking at the applications, will there be given amounts or set amounts for each municipal unit?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, just making sure I can answer this in a clear way, it's based on need and the monies that came through the Building Canada Fund, the Communities Component, have been spent. The larger municipalities have the gas tax component and - I don't think I answered that clearly, just one second please.
The gas tax is a municipal application that's divided up between the 55 municipalities. The first part of that, the Communities Component, that money has already been allocated.
MR. GAUDET: Maybe just for clarification, under the agreement for the Building Canada Fund, we have $37 million of federal funding that has been set aside and I believe the agreement starts in 2007 and runs until 2014. I guess for clarification, that $37 million dollars of federal funding, is that funding spread over that duration of the agreement from 2007 to 2014? Let's begin with that one.
MS. JENNEX: That is my understanding, yes.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, looking at, let's say, the first year of the agreement, 2008-09, can the minister indicate to us how much of that federal funding has been spent in the first year?
MS. JENNEX: All of the money for the year 2008-09 has been committed.
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. GAUDET: Again, just looking for clarification, for the first year of the agreement 2008-09, has there been any spent and any announced?
MS. JENNEX: Sorry, I missed hearing that.
MR. GAUDET: For the first year of the agreement, has there been any federal funding used?
MS. JENNEX: It has all been committed and it has all been announced.
MR. GAUDET: My next question, will the minister undertake to provide us a list of the funding that has been announced and been allocated or promised for these municipal projects?
MS. JENNEX: Absolutely. I'm sure we can have that to you in a timely fashion.
[Page 397]
MR. GAUDET: Okay. I'm looking at the next year. If I read correctly, the deadline for the second round of applications was April 16, 2009. Will the minister undertake to provide us with a list of the projects that have been submitted and that have been approved for this second round?
MS. JENNEX: That amount was $14 million and it has all been committed.
MR. GAUDET: When I hear $14 million has been committed, is that $14 million strictly federal dollars or is it a combination of provincial, municipal and federal dollars?
MS. JENNEX: It's the latter. It's the federal, provincial and municipal dollars.
MR. GAUDET: What's the formula that's being used for municipal units that are interested in submitting projects? Is it basically one-third, one-third, one-third?
MS. JENNEX: Yes.
MR. GAUDET: I want to come back to my original question that I was asking. With regard to the funding under the Communities Component side, we know we have small municipal units. Basically, for them to try to find capital funding is extremely difficult. I'm sure - I don't know what the number is - but I'm sure that some probably have no capital funding to submit projects under this component section.
What I'm trying to find out is, in order to be fair to all 55 municipal units, especially the smaller units, to allow them, because they have the same types of needs that every unit has, water and sewer, for example, could the minister indicate to me, is the department planning to help these smaller units in order for them to be allowed to apply to submit projects to be considered under this program?
MS. JENNEX: There is $58 million distributed to 55 municipalities annually so they are receiving funding. The question that you asked, would we be working with smaller communities to see if they would be able to access some of these funds? I will say that the staff at the Municipal Relations are there to assist and work with all of the municipalities that have any significant needs. How they would fit into this particular funding, I wouldn't be able to answer, but I know that they would do absolutely everything they could to make sure the smaller communities, and the communities that are having difficulties, meet their infrastructure needs.
MR. GAUDET: That leads to the next question. What happens to a municipal unit that doesn't have the capital funding needed in order to submit a project? Is the department ready to make provincial dollars available to them in order to allow them to submit a project?
[Page 398]
MS. JENNEX: The federal funding has been committed under the Building Canada Fund at this time. The $58 million that I mentioned that goes out to the 55 municipalities, that is money they would be able to utilize.
MR. GAUDET: It's funding that has gone to the 55 units that they can utilize. We're looking at provincial dollars to basically pick up the one-third cost of the project that's being submitted. My question is, looking at the smaller units that have no capital funding to come to the table with, in order to submit a project, does the department have any type of funding arrangement to help these smaller units in order to allow them to apply?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, there are some funds available. I think it's about $3 million that the staff would be able to work with the small municipalities to access some of the funds.
MR. GAUDET: Mr. Chairman, I want to move to the second component of that program. It's the Major Infrastructure Component. There's $198 million of federal funding that has been put aside. I guess my first question is, is this funding to be used only by HRM and CBRM, for clarification?
MS. JENNEX: Can I just ask to have that question clarified and I apologize for that.
MR. GAUDET: What I was looking to find out is, with the federal funding that has been allocated to this component of the program, is this federal funding to be used only by CBRM and HRM? It's for major infrastructure?
MS. JENNEX: There's $14 million of the provincial-federal funds for HRM and CBRM.
MR. GAUDET: Okay, that was my next question. Looking at the duration of the agreement from 2007 to 2014, are there $14 million for each year provided to both HRM and CBRM?
MS. JENNEX: No, that's $14 million total.
MR. GAUDET: For the duration of the agreement?
MS. JENNEX: Yes.
MR. GAUDET: So has that funding been allocated yet?
MS. JENNEX: No, not yet.
MR. GAUDET: No, not yet. Does the minister have a time frame that she can share with the committee on when this funding will be allocated?
[Page 399]
MS. JENNEX: Yes, thank you for that question. It will be within the next year.
MR. GAUDET: Within the next year, okay. I'm looking for a little bit of background here. Under the agreement, Mr. Chairman, projects are submitted to a joint federal-provincial committee that basically decides which project will be funded. Looking at - especially for major infrastructure projects - are municipalities invited to join in with the federal-provincial representatives on that committee to decide which project will receive funding under this component?
MS. JENNEX: They send their priorities to us.
MR. GAUDET: It's in the priorities but I think I recall having seen, many times in the paper in the last year, the priority lists coming especially from HRM. They will certainly need a lot more than $14 million. So I'm just trying to understand the process that is involved in deciding what project will be approved that are being submitted as a Major Infrastructure Component project?
MS. JENNEX: I know that the staff at the department worked with municipalities to make sure that their applications would go toward the federal, for the people to check them at the federal level, that they would be accepted, and I know that there was some frustration with some projects that were refused. I know that there was a frustration based on trying to make the project fit the criteria and the people at the federal end said that they didn't quite fit. I do know that the projects went back and forth a couple of times.
MR. GAUDET: So, in the next year we expect that funding will be allocated. I'm just curious, looking at almost $200 million under this Major Infrastructure Component, CBRM and HRM will receive $14 million. Is that $14 million combined or $14 million each?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, that is combined and the other monies that you were mentioning, the just under $200 million, that has been designated for road work.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Clare, you have about one minute.
MR. GAUDET: Am I to understand that $14 million out of this $200 million and the rest is left for funding for highways?
MS. JENNEX: I'm very sorry, could please repeat that?
MR. GAUDET: I think I understood, $14 million is being used for HRM and CBRM, and the rest will be used for highways?
MS. JENNEX: For infrastructure and provincial priorities, yes.
[Page 400]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, the time has expired for questions from the Liberal caucus.
We will take a five-minute break and we'll return in five minutes.
[5:42 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[5:46 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, I'd like to call the Subcommittee on Supply back to order.
The honourable member for Cape Breton North.
HON. CECIL CLARKE: Thank you very much and indeed, to the minister I again congratulate you on your assignment as Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and your associated responsibilities to that. I think you've got at least into the round of budget estimates, so welcome. My colleagues from the Liberal caucus have touched on some of the things and I think there will be an ongoing discussion of some of the things pursued.
Just to start off, and it's in no means a critique of yourself, but can you provide me with a sense of any engagement or assignment from the Premier about how to deal with the critics and the Opposition Parties as relates to your portfolio and liaison with them?
MS. JENNEX: First I'd like to thank you for your congratulations, that was very nice. We are a new government and I'm a new minister and I did miss the first week of Cabinet duties and I might have missed some of the information coming to new Cabinet members. I've seen that over the course that things were done that first week, which I missed, as you know why. I have not been informed on particulars on how to deal with the critics other than I'm now recognizing, through the procedures of the House, that it is incumbent upon myself to make sure that the critics are aware of bills that are coming forward and so I've made sure that I have informed the critics, through my EA, of any bills coming forward.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you very much and I think, if I've counted right, there are seven bills right now from the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations before the House, is that correct?
MS. JENNEX: I don't know the exact number. I know that we have some in and some to come.
MR. CLARKE: Any idea of how many more bills will be coming to the floor?
[Page 401]
MS. JENNEX: I am not sure of the exact number. I know that there are some in the works but no, I don't know the exact number myself.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you and again, I'm not trying to be overtly critical of the minister. As you know, there has been a standing concern brought forward by the Opposition Parties with regard to the overall approach by the government in engaging the Opposition, coming into this session, what legislation would have been coming forward, things that would have normally been offered for instance, an opportunity for the critics to be briefed by the departmental officials with regard to issues in the portfolio, areas that you would pursue and the like. Really it's a twofold thing. It's the opportunity to offer that to the critics so that you as a minister are protected for giving them and affording them the opportunity to have a sense of the activities and the initiatives within the portfolio so that - I know having been there a previous time - people can't say they haven't been afforded that opportunity or at least able to be engaged.
Again, I don't direct this specifically at the minister but there has been that problem and we still have not had the level of engagement. I'll have to check with our caucus office because as your critic, I've yet to get a notice of any of these bills and, again, it is of concern when you don't have an opportunity.
I do recognize there are bills that are before the House that would have been part of the previous workings of the departments that are what people consider either housekeeping or normal matters versus those of more substantive policy that governments will want to pursue as part of their mandate and I respect that. I just would note, that has been a problem and it does create for us a disconnect on where there could be some consensus or collaboration where right now we're just not as attuned to that. Again, I don't directly fault the minister but I would say it's a greater failing of the wider administration at this point to engage them and at some point, hopefully, we will get apprised, as critics, of where it is, appreciating you're getting fully established in your portfolio.
First of all, if we can just go to some of your opening comments, Madam Minister, so with your comments you've indicated that this year, from October to the end of March, there's $15 million allocated for Your Energy Rebate Program, which is the 8 per cent off the HST. Can you explain to me why you did this universally versus an income test as the Heating Assistance Rebate Program is intended?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to respond to your first comments about making sure that we work together, my staff being made available for briefings around bills, and things that we need to be working together on. I hear you and I want you to know that we're all here for the same reason, to make sure that we are benefiting people in Nova Scotia. So, I'm going to make sure that at any of our bills coming forward, you are notified. If you were not notified before, I think it was maybe because the researcher at the department was called, I do know your caucus office was called, but I will make sure and we'll make
[Page 402]
sure that you are notified and staff will be made available for a briefing on any bills that we go forward with. I agree with you that we can have good government when we collaborate. It's always good to have a critique to make sure that we're all on the right track but, at the end of the day, we're here for Nova Scotians. So rest assured that I've listened to your comments carefully and from my department I will assure you that we will be working together on anything that comes forward. So thank you for that.
[6:00 p.m.]
Now, you were asking about the HST and the universal application of that program. That is one of our commitments that we made during the campaign that when elected, we would be removing the HST, the provincial portion of the HST, off the electricity as of October 1st and we followed through with that commitment.
MR. CLARKE: I can fully understand if an election commitment is made, but why would you not have done it on an income test to be consistent with the Heating Assistance Rebate Program for dealing with Nova Scotians greatest in need and meeting an income test?
MS. JENNEX: As I said, we are following through on a commitment and this was also part of what the Your Energy Rebate Program had previously looked like under the Progressive Conservative Government and then had been removed. It was our commitment to put it back into place when elected and we followed through our commitment. This department, as you know, is the department that worked on doing the regulations and paperwork and dealing with the utilities around making sure that as of October 1st the provincial portion of the HST would be removed from the electricity.
MR. CLARKE: I can appreciate looking at that, having been a member of a former government that looked at it within the context of a balanced budget, of where we would be, and having to make choices of which one was meeting the greatest need at the time. So it's $50 million this year, I'm assuming if you average it out is it going to cost $30 million next year for your projections?
MS. JENNEX: Thank you, I might have been confused in answering that last question about the $15 million. That wasn't under the Your Energy Rebate where the provincial portion of the HST is being removed, the $15 million is actually under HARP. So I think there was a miscommunication there. I answered the question and I think that you meant for me to answer the other component. So HARP is the $15 million and under the Your Energy Rebate Program, the provincial portion of the HST is removed and that works out to another $8 million. It is $15 million, I apologize.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, so $15 million, I just assume next year you are doubling it, are you're projecting that it is going to cost $30 million or what is the formula for next year?
[Page 403]
MS. JENNEX: Absolutely, yes. We're moving forward with that.
MR. CLARKE: So, you have $30 million there. If I could just go from the YERP to the HARP over to the heating assistance, what was the total budget for last year, again, for the HARP?
MS. JENNEX: The actual expenditures under HARP last year, $24.1 million.
MR. CLARKE: Madam Minister, what is the budget for this year's delivery, projected?
MS. JENNEX: This year's program the budget is for $15 million.
MR. CLARKE: Okay, so in essence, I guess what we have done - and I understand Cabinet wanting to meet a commitment and having to cash flow that, they basically had to find a way to make that balance and as my honourable colleague for Glace Bay said, the pool is now shallower for people who, under the Heating Assistance Rebate Program, were looking for continued support within that. At the same time we now have an income test, as you indicated, at $27,000 for a single and $42,000 for families. Then we have on the electricity side - and I know my colleague as well, the honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park has another issue around multi-unit dwellings and the like - for the 8 per cent. So, while one has an income test, and it has been reduced, the other one is universally applied for all users, and at the end of the day, between the two, your net program increase in terms of budgetary commitment is what, between the two programs? You reduced one and you increased another, I'm just going to do my math here. So, you're down $9 million, right, on the Heating Assistance Rebate Program?
MS. JENNEX: Well, for this year, it is $30 million in the budget for both. We did not make any adjustments to the HARP when coming into government. That program was as it was left for the Spring budget.
MR. CLARKE: Okay, so the actual amount that people receive under the Heating Assistance Rebate Program for this coming heating season, the actual amount that people are eligible for is?
MS. JENNEX: Under the HARP, under the program that we brought forward, it is up to $200 for oil and the $150 from last year's program was changed up to $200 for electricity.
MR. CLARKE: So really, where we are, is that we have one program applied universally, so essentially someone with a heated pool in South End Halifax is getting the benefit of a universally applied energy rebate program versus lower income Nova Scotians who would have a greater need for that rebate?
[Page 404]
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, your comments are correct and we restored a program that had been in place, that the people in Nova Scotia had a number of years ago. The HST, that 8 per cent, would be removed as of October 1st as per our commitment as was just restoring a program that had been in place a year ago.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, obviously there is probably some dispute as to what we see as a benefit. Again, given the fact that governments were there and I understand that you said it was an election promise - but at a time when lower income Nova Scotians during an economic downturn, where needs and anxiety go up, especially for those that are either unemployed or haven't been employable or on government support that they would have a greater need for receiving that assistance than those who continue to be employed and yet can have their pool heated and they're not getting the benefit.
So in other words, I don't need that program, I don't think anyone in this room actually needs the program, we are now going to get it taken off our bill and yet there are Nova Scotians in need of extra support that won't get as much because people like myself automatically have that applied. On the basis of fairness, and I understand you're trying to meet a political commitment, but have we really met the social objective that we were looking for? In trying to figure out, governments do take these programs - in a year when we are still trying to come through a recession, albeit, better than most places, with people who have returned home with reduced income or now no income and are on support, that we have a program the government has brought in that's not providing the greatest benefit to the people in greatest need.
MS. JENNEX: The question was?
MR. CLARKE: Well, even though it may have been a government commitment, had the government not considered helping those in greatest need rather than just honouring an election platform commitment. Did that discussion even get held before you made this public announcement?
MS. JENNEX: The needs of Nova Scotians are paramount with this government. I am confident that we made that commitment because many people in Nova Scotia were used to having that component of their electricity rebated at point of delivery under the previous government. It was one of the small components that you can help put some money back into Nova Scotian pockets that we felt was a commitment we wanted to bring forward as an election platform, and when elected we did exactly what we said we were going to do and we reinstated the 8 per cent.
In terms of Nova Scotians and meeting their needs, it is paramount on this government to be able to respond to the needs of Nova Scotians and there are other programs available for people who are struggling and our government is listening to them.
[Page 405]
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, I guess I've made my point in terms of - there is a bit of disconnect in terms of how we would maybe view these, because we're dealing with electricity, with fuel coming to the doorstep and those who are applying for assistance as well, for their annual basis.
Again, for persons on the income test, the adjustment from last year to this year is how much? Just for my benefit.
MS. JENNEX: The adjustments under the oil are up to $200 per household. The adjustments for electricity are up to $200, they went from $150 up to $200.
MR. CLARKE: The reason I'm focused on this is because I actually, regrettably, have the dubious honour of having the highest percentage of social assistance recipients per capita of any other constituency in the Province of Nova Scotia. I have a constituency that has wealth and a lack thereof. Therefore, I hear from those people who look at these programs and don't see how they are helping the people greatest in need. I understand you're saying there's a political commitment, especially on the electricity side, but as we work through, as a former administration, trying to look at the income tests, the thresholds, to get in as many Nova Scotian families that would benefit the greatest amount.
Just on the heating rebate alone, I want to thank your department, they have agreed this year to supply us with 4,000 copies because we actually printed off over 4,000 copies and we had lineups out our door of those citizens who came in and out. It definitely identified it was meeting a need because literally we had lineups out our door through the medical clinic that my office is in. I know it was anticipated.
The other thing we're going to deal with is those that are going to be saying it's not the same amount this year even though they would say their need has not shifted because of other pressures. However, that will be there. But I will thank your staff for working at the constituency level to be willing to provide forms when the thing comes out because we anticipate that we're going to be at least 4,000-plus more people this year that will come through.
When you think of a constituency, that's a lot of people who actually walk through the door and picked them up, let alone anyone who may have had access to a computer. I'm sure we could model that. On that basis we know there's a need. I guess my point is that as we go forward I think you'll see us wanting to advocate that the income test is a good one. On the electricity, for myself, I chose to move over to high-efficiency electronic furnace off of a big old coal one that was in a very old house. Again, on the electricity item, it meets a political commitment but it's not a need that I have, or probably any member in the Legislature, or a lot of other Nova Scotians. If it were on a needs basis like the other programs are, I believe we'd be helping more Nova Scotians meet that.
[Page 406]
As you evaluate the program next year, you will not have any push back from me or my colleagues to say if there's an adjustment made to that program to help the greatest number of Nova Scotians that are most in need. Maybe I'll leave it at this and close this part of it out, that we would welcome the government actually looking and reviewing it, post this year, you've initiated it, I respect that fact. We don't necessarily agree, having looked at history ourselves and learning from it, but maybe I'll just leave it and ask you, when you evaluate the program this year and you look forward to next year, look at what the draw has been for you and your department and possibly look at how you might be able to put this in sync with the other programs so that people like myself are not drawing a benefit that I don't need to have taken off my bill, it's going to come off, and maybe just consider next year, if there's a way that Cabinet could look, if you're continuing the program, that we could help more lower income Nova Scotians is my point.
[6:15 p.m.]
MS. JENNEX: Thank you for those comments. All programs are reviewed and re-evaluated and looked at after being in a program for a year or two. I would like to say that one of the commitments that we made during the campaign, along with taking the HST off of electricity, we also said that we would commit to keeping the same budget and moving it forward from the previous government.
I inherited the HARP as it is and that was a program that was formulated under the Progressive Conservative Government. If it would have been the $450 amounts, they would have stayed in place to meet the needs of people on low income. So I just wanted to say that we will look at the program, we will re-evaluate, and I also liked the comment that, you know, we're there to make sure that we're meeting the needs of Nova Scotians, and any comments or anything that you want to bring forward for us to look at in terms of meeting the needs of Nova Scotians, I welcome.
MR. CLARKE: I do thank the minister, and I do appreciate, with any of the items that you brought forward and, of course, I would just maybe throw the other caveats, and at the same time that was the program within a balanced budget and not a $592 million deficit facing Nova Scotians. So some of the choices that were made were under different assumptions and, again, I would just note that I appreciate honouring certain commitments. I'm just asking to review that in the future, that it would be welcome to review it to make sure whether the electricity rebate can help those Nova Scotians in the greatest need, that we would not be opposed to or be critical of the government changing that at a future date. In fact, we would welcome it and compliment the government if it did that, so I just note that as you review your program.
If we can now move, Mr. Chairman, to the New Home Construction Rebate Program, with the government's initiative, and again, this is something that's very much not the previous government but very much the minister's, there has been discussion in the House.
[Page 407]
Madam Minister, can we maybe just cut right to the chase, and can you explain again why you made this retroactive and if there's any detail that you or your officials can offer on that?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, we made it retroactive to benefit more of the industry getting their industry back to work. We recognized that if we kept the parameters based on the Premier's announcement, and I can't exactly remember the date that he made that announcement, and we had discussion if we moved that date back, the industry that had worked over the winter in completing houses would be able to sell that inventory and if they were able to move that, then they would be able to break ground with new projects. So that is why - so that we could get the industry moving. Some of the builders did have stock that was sitting there, that they had worked at completing over the winter. So in having them able to move it, they were able to get their workers out and building more houses.
MR. CLARKE: Again, you brought this program in, and this was part of the discussions that have been held in the House and others looking at this program, but ultimately you're doing a rebate for some people whereby those decisions were made before you ever decided to bring the program in place, like homes were constructed, and it was our understanding that this was to create new incentive for other people to purchase or build a brand new home. So there is again some dispute or disagreement on the program being retroactive when that industry had already made that. These people had been working. Why would you have done that?
MS. JENNEX: Well, every program, especially a targeted program like this, has to have timelines associated with it. I was the one who really felt that if we moved that into January, that would be able to capture that stranded inventory so that the industry would be able to start making new homes, new building. It's a targeted time and it was the timeline of the end of the program - which is March of next year, 2010 - that they need to have those houses finished. So the industry needed to be stimulated. We had reports in Nova Scotia that industry was lagging behind, so making sure that that inventory moved so the builders were then able to start new projects.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned stranded inventory. So how much stranded inventory did you identify identify there was again?
MS. JENNEX: We're going to have to look at that particular number. At the time that we made the decision, I know that about 700 building permits had been taken out during that time period. We'll get those numbers to you. There were about 1,200 to 1,500 units in stranded inventory when the program started.
MR. CLARKE: There were 1,200 to 1,500 stranded units at the time of the program. When you say stranded units, are they either units complete or under construction or both?
MS. JENNEX: Both.
[Page 408]
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, can you explain to me what level of discussion and recommendation and feedback you've received from the home builders? I think they've been an advocate of doing this association. Again, there is a bit of a disjunct on the rationale of when this should have been triggered and any of the retroactivity is off programs or not retroactive when they are newly started. Can you explain what the pitch from the home builders was, exactly, or is that consistent with what you've said?
MS. JENNEX: I didn't have a pitch from anyone. We were looking at making sure we could make this program more inclusive for Nova Scotians. There was inventory out there and for people who were looking at buying new homes, it would be an incentive for them to buy the house. As you know, up to $7,000 goes to the owner, the home buyer, and that was stimulating the economy in that people who might not have been thinking about purchasing a home, that was an incentive. They were saying, now this is the time, with that $7,000.
Actually, I've been out in the community over the last number of months and I've met people who had never thought of purchasing a home until this came out and they realized they could have about $7,000 back in their pocket for new floors or for finishing off the house, so it was an incentive. Where things were slow, it was an incentive for people to get out and buy houses, to start building a house. Maybe a person who had that permit - because you can hold them for up to two years - it was the incentive to break ground on their new home.
At this time, there are over 900 applicants to that rebate because that's an easy one to check the numbers on, as you know. You go into our Web site, it's getyourrebate.com - I love that - and it has a number that will show you actually how many people have been approved for the rebate and how many are still pending.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, no one is going to turn back a $7,000 rebate and any homeowner is not going to have any shortage of things - I agree with the minister in how they could spend that in fitting up or doing other finishing touches to a new unit. Again, when you formulated this, did you have statistics to show where the numbers, the actual housing starts versus housing purchases, had lagged to justify doing a retroactive?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, we knew that there was stranded inventory and that the industry that would be actually going out and putting workers to work were in a place where they didn't have the funds to be able to do that because their inventory hadn't been moving. This was actually able to get people in Nova Scotia working. We were able to keep tradespeople here in Nova Scotia working and our young people, especially, were able to pick up jobs over the summer because the industry really picked up because of this incentive.
[Page 409]
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, in appreciating the rationale of stranded inventory, do you have statistics to show how the inventory lagged in this current construction season versus other year-on-year numbers that would show.
With developers and people constructing in subdivisions, there is always speculative spending. Before this program came out, people made the investments to build these homes in advance. Do you have statistics, either with you or that you can present, to show how it legitimates doing a retroactivity and thus, hopefully, alleviating some of the critiques that have been put your way?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, we do have statistics around that. The sales were down 35 per cent prior to the program and they're back to the current year at the prior year level, at this time.
MR. CLARKE: Madam Minister, this is new home construction, which I understand has been for the reasons you've mentioned. Has there been any consideration - especially in other regions where new inventory isn't an issue, but people being able to afford a home and to invest in renovations - where a first-time home owner would be able to access a rebate?
There are a number of people who haven't been able to own a home, haven't been able to gain access, and in an area where oftentimes the type of new home construction we're talking about has a higher value per unit than many people buying a home for the first time. That would just be an existing unit that's in inventory. So, my question would be, have you considered incenting first-time home buyers to be able to do the same thing because they would go and spend money on renovations if they could get a rebate and allow them to get access to the housing market as a new entrant?
MS. JENNEX: This program is for a new home, not first-time owner so this was a stackable program. There is a federal program for first-time home buyers so if a first-time home buyer bought a brand new home or built a brand new home, it was a stackable. That was an incentive for people going into their first home.
MR. CLARKE: I do appreciate that. But in other areas of the province - of course recognizing the federal programs, the renovation programs the federal government has under stimulus - in other regional areas of Nova Scotia where oftentimes new home owners are getting existing inventory, in rural areas it's really someone renovating a home more so than it is in a lot of urban cores where you have ability to access new inventory.
Was there any consideration given to trying to incent people to do renovations of existing homes, or newly purchased homes, with renovations they would do? I'm really thinking about the regions of Nova Scotia, in rural areas there is often older housing
[Page 410]
inventory needing retrofits especially to meet all of the EnerGuide and other energy efficiency programs that would be out there. Was there any further thought given to those?
[6:30 p.m.]
MS. JENNEX: There is up to a $5,000 rebate for homes under the EnerGuide program and also there's a federal incentive under the HST for what you were speaking of.
MR. CLARKE: I guess, as we go into next year, I would just flag part of what we'll be discussing with the minister is looking at other incentives that may be more broadly based. With a recovering economy, we all know it has been somewhat successful in incenting people to do renovations or work that has otherwise been put off for not being affordable, we will be wanting to have that discussion. So I'll just sort of raise that with you now, and as we go forward and evaluate the different programs, we'll be looking to speak to the minister over the course of now and the next budget cycle just to say, where were the wins and the successes, and are there other things that can further incent and maximize the dollars that could go into it?
Again I would just note, even to advocate that Nova Scotians may be better off, for those who truly need an electricity rebate to receive it, and use other monies to incent getting and enabling lower-income or moderate-income Nova Scotians to be able to participate and help stimulate the economy rather than others who are receiving a benefit who don't need one. We'll look at that program next, but I just note it for the minister's information. As we go forward we'll probably continue the dialogue.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on to gas regulation - another familiar topic to the minister, I know, since you've taken on your responsibilities. As you can imagine, there are differing points of view and opinion with regard to this. As you know, we have one Party in the Legislature that wants nothing to do with it whatsoever. It's fair to say that both your caucus and my own have had a different opinion about the value of regulation, but now where we do differ is over who is doing and engaged with the regulation. Again, maybe the minister could provide me with some further background from her perspective as to why you would deem it appropriate to move that out of what seems to be a very effectively-working program within government, and with direct government responsibility and accountability for those actions and based upon a very specific model. It's not something people pull out of the air every week and decide this is the new number. Why the URB?
MS. JENNEX: At the outset of regulation, and I think my honourable member will remember this, it was suggested that the Utility and Review Board manage it. As you know, the other Atlantic Provinces have their gas regulations handled by the Utility and Review Board. This brings us in line with all the other Atlantic Provinces.
[Page 411]
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, Madam Minister. However, where are the cost savings in doing this?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that I recognize the process of gas regulation, and when it was handled by the previous government, there was a perception that there was political interference. It was not an open and transparent procedure, and it was important for this government during the campaign to say we were moving it over to the Utility and Review Board so that Nova Scotians would see it as an open and transparent process. I would like to add to the honourable member that it was a situation of perception that there was political interference, and to make sure that the people in Nova Scotia recognize that it isn't, we moved it over to the Utility and Review Board, as we said we would, and this does fall in line, as I said, with the other provinces.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perception aside, Madam Minister, you've been in the portfolio, you've been advised and consulted. Is it your opinion that there has been political influence on the pricing structure of gas regulation?
MS. JENNEX: I will get around to answering the question, but I have to say that for some reason Nova Scotians really like to talk about the price of gas. They watch the price of gas. It's a common topic for people, and there were a lot of misconceptions about gas prices. There was a misconception that the government could make the price go up or down. It is a formula-based process, and the people at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations did an extremely good job at making sure that that process was done each week using a formula and informed the minister of the day the options around that formula.
I think that the problem with gas and the lack of understanding is the lack of, maybe, education around informing Nova Scotians what it meant for forward averaging. It's not just a basic one formula because you had to look at the needs of the consumer and the needs of industry and make sure that they were balanced. While I was part of that process, I watched good people making this process work and those people from the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, as you know, have been seconded over to the Utility and Review Board. As part of our campaign we were very clear that it was one of those things that we said we were going to do, was move over to the Utility and Review Board so the people of Nova Scotia would see it as a transparent process and that's exactly what we did.
MR. CLARKE: I believe the minister said there is absolutely no political interference in the price-setting process and that the actual mechanism itself was working effectively, whether the optic, or perception as she has indicated, has been what they would have preferred from her own political Party's perspective, correct?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, and it's an unfortunate situation that the previous government did not provide Nova Scotians with what it looked like and what the formula was, because
[Page 412]
it is formula-based. I know from participating in the process myself, it definitely wasn't a political decision, but the minister did have a choice between three options and that was to make sure that we looked at making sure that the industry and the consumers' needs were balanced. Because you had to look at it over weeks and months to make sure that there was balance, it might have looked as if the minister was favouring one over the other, but it's the large picture that was being looked at.
In answer to the question, I can honestly say that there was no political interference but there's definitely a human factor that had to be added to the formula to make sure that, week by week, Nova Scotians were best served by gas regulation. Now that it has moved over to the Utility and Review Board, it will be up to them to inform Nova Scotians on how the price is set.
MR. CLARKE: If the previous government obviously did stand by the process, and the minister was in and saw that the process was appropriate and clear, one would then assume that people say, yes, the process does work, there is no need to transfer that process; there is no need to cloud or confuse things, and people, where you had indicated, would say, well if it's a closed shop and we don't have transparency, we don't see the formulas; if that's the case, how is the URB any different other than just another entity that will deal with this?
MS. JENNEX: Well there were a number of reasons to move it over to the Utility and Review Board. One of them is that during the campaign it was one of our commitments, that's what we would do, and as soon as we took office, we started the process of moving that over to the Utility and Review Board. The other component of moving it over to the Utility and Review Board that is a standard system where gas regulation is monitored through the other provinces, so it falls in line with our Atlantic Provinces that the Utility and Review Board do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton North. I would like to advise that there is approximately 10 minutes left in the PC caucus time.
MR. CLARKE: If that's the case, the minister will be happy to know I don't have a lot of time for the CBRM stuff right now, so, give her a reprieve.
MS. JENNEX: Can I just interrupt for one second? I apologize on this but I did want to say that we were also following recommendations from two independent reviews, the Gardner Pinfold - it was a recommendation too, to move it forward to the Utility and Review Board, so there were three levels of reasons for the commitment to move it over to the Utility and Review Board. Thank you for allowing me to interrupt.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member. (Laughter)
[Page 413]
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and no problem to the minister, I guess. I'm familiar with Gardner Pinfold and some of the aspects of this, and appreciating this is about a change that was brought in. Again, you had a political commitment, so it was politically expeditious to bring this forward and to move it off what is seen as the government. So therefore, in one way, if it is at the URB it's off the minister's desk, and if it's off the minister's desk, the hope, I would assume, is that it is not in QP or other realms on an ongoing basis. However, it doesn't take away the fact that we're going to have a regulatory system in place. On the basis of moving on recommendations and understanding those recommendations and seeking consensus on that, admittedly it was a political decision of the government to move in that direction. I'll want to come back.
Mr. Chairman, again, can the minister just tell me, what are the savings, the cost savings to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia for making this move?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, there are no cost savings and there is no extra cost because of that. There is no extra cost and there were no savings, it was just a move forward. It has been managed within our budget.
MR. CLARKE: There are two staff seconded. Now, I assume those staff will come back to the department and those are being paid for. However, in saying that it is cost neutral and transferring, there is no guarantee that the URB won't impose additional costs as they see fit to, implementing this program. Or is there a price guarantee to government that the URB will do it at or below the cost the government could do it?
MS. JENNEX: For the next year we have our funding worked out, and there are no additional costs within this budget.
MR. CLARKE: Madam Minister, in discussing this with the URB, have they provided you with a long-term forecast and financial model of administering gas regulation?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, I have not had any discussions personally with the Utility and Review Board around that question.
MR. CLARKE: Have your officials?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, there will be hearings, and there will be a cost associated with the hearings, but that will be managed within the existing budget. There will be no extra funds needed. That would be managed.
[6:45 p.m.]
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, if the Utility and Review Board were going to do that, then what is the ongoing relationship the minister sees with the URB over this and reporting
[Page 414]
to Nova Scotians on this, and if there are cost overruns beyond what the current level is, what is the government's response to that? Or is it just something that the ratepayers have to absorb?
MS. JENNEX: Well, the Utility and Review Board has taken over the regulation part of gas regulation and Service Nova Scotia holds the policy part.
MR. CLARKE: So again, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, if the URB, in engaging this, ends up costing more money than the current - because what I've been able to hear is that it has been politically expeditious to move this and it was a political commitment to want to move it because no one wanted to, in a new government, have the minister have to defend a model that actually is working and cost effective in terms of government's ability to provide the regulation, assuming that's the choice to continue to regulate. My Liberal colleagues don't want it at all and we've understood that and if moving it over to them rather than other regions - but if it has been working well here, sometimes if it ain't broke you don't fix it - when you have the competency and the capacity to do that within government. So my question is, if the URB is not effectively doing this within a proper budgetary context where the government has been able to do it, what type of recourse will you seek from the URB if costs accelerate?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, it would be speculation to answer that question at this time. As the honourable member knows, gas regulation, the cost of that, is covered by a levy and that is where the funds come from. So, it would be just speculation on my part at this point to answer that question.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, as we go forward with this, if we have to speculate and we don't really have the clarity, we haven't been there - again from my perspective, it may be more politically advantageous than it is process or anything else but that's a political comment. You understand where I'm coming from and so do your officials.
So, just in closing and I know my time is running out at this point or shortly. I will come back at some point to talk about the Cape Breton Regional Municipality in a wider context, but maybe just a quick little technical question which will help me. Can your officials advise you, and I'm looking at the debt servicing levels for the CBRM versus the HRM from the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation. Do you have those numbers?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, those are figures that we will be getting to you, we don't have them here but we will get them for you.
MR. CLARKE: Yes, if you can just bring them forward, it is just to have that discussion around equalization and looking where we are with other municipalities. So if I could just leave that with the minister and her staff, when we come back, when we're next up, likely tomorrow, to just follow up on that. Thank you.
[Page 415]
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have one more minute, if you have one more question.
MR. CLARKE: I will say, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I'm sure there are many people in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality looking forward to your visit. I do know my colleague for Glace Bay had indicated, and I think your staff will tell you, that the mayor and council oftentimes want full public meetings and not private meetings when you go, foretold is forewarned in some ways. But there are a number of legitimate serious issues that we will want to talk about and maybe just as a little preamble for the minister, there are some things I know my colleague for Glace Bay has raised, and some others that I would like to expand on which really deal with the infrastructure, the supports and the greater understanding of some of the dialogue that is going on in this equalization, what has been a debate - but really looking at where it is for CBRM versus the rest of the Nova Scotia and some of the other infrastructure items that you have. So thank you and thank you Madam Minister.
MS. JENNEX: Thank you very much for your questions and I take your last point and I appreciate that, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Liberal caucus has 35 minutes according to the sheet that I have been left here and it is my understanding that the member for Glace Bay is going to go first. Are you going to share your time with the member for Kings West?
The honourable member for Glace Bay.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Probably, that's all I can tell you, Mr. Chairman. I would offer, if the minister, and I know it has been a long day and if you wanted to take a short nutrition break, Mr. Chairman, that would be fine by me.
MS. JENNEX: No, we're good to go. I appreciate that but no, I'm ready thank you.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Great, okay, you're on, Madam Minister. There are a couple of things I would like to ask you. I would like to go through some line items in the budget if you don't mind because I notice that there are a few differences between the May 4th budget of the Progressive Conservative Government and the September 24th budget of the New Democratic Party. So if we could just - and I'll give you the page numbers - if you could turn to Page 21.2, you'll notice under the line of Service Delivery, under Program Expenses, there would appear to be what is a 1.17 per cent increase in Service Delivery - an increase of about $380,000. I'm just wondering what that is.
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, this is based on staffing because of the conversion and I'm going to read here: On November 30, 2007, the Province of Nova Scotia announced the collective bargaining rights would be extended to seasonal and casual workers to do bargaining unit work. After 10 weeks of continuous service, those employees doing
[Page 416]
bargaining unit work would become civil servants. The Service Delivery Division uses casual employees extensively in access centres, the Registry of Motor Vehicles and land offices, and with this change in legislation, most of the casual employees were converted, and there's the word, to civil servants. So that line item that you're discussing is based on salary, based around that conversion.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, in other words, those were salary increases then, is that what you're saying?
MS. JENNEX: It would be when they were changed over from casual, there would be increased salaries.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): On that same page there under the item of Municipal Relations under Program Expenses, there is an increase of 8.42 per cent or about $16.2 million. Can you explain that increase, please?
MS. JENNEX: That is from the gas tax and the Building Canada Fund.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): I'm sorry, what was the name of the fund again, please?
MS. JENNEX: It's the Building Canada Fund.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): On Page 21.5, Program Expenses, Service Delivery, there was an increase of 1.53 per cent under Salaries and Employee Benefits. Can you explain what that is, please?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, the explanation under the conversion applies to that line item, too.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, on Page 21.7, under Information Management Services and the line item of Operating Costs, there was a 6.7 per cent increase of about $603,000. Can you explain what that is, please?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, I'll just need a little time getting that answer back. Well, sorry, could you repeat the question?
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Yes, it's Page 21.7, the line item, well, it just has Operating Costs, and there is a $603,000 or 6.7 per cent increase.
MS. JENNEX: It is the year's program operating costs.
[Page 417]
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): On Page 21.9 under Program Expenses, Program Management and Corporate Services, the line item is Salaries and Employee Benefits. There's a decrease here of about $65,000. Can you explain what that is?
MS. JENNEX: That is for a communications person who is now being paid through another program.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): That was our suspicion, $65,000 sounds like a job in most provincial departments. It wasn't the loss of a job, it was a transfer of a job to another?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, you're absolutely right. There was no loss of a job, it was just a movement in which pot of money that job was being funded.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Same page, 21.9, under the Operating Costs, there is an increase of approximately 3.65 per cent, or about $415,000. Could you explain that, please?
MS. JENNEX: Those are administrative costs for the New Home Construction Rebate.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Just one other page item, page 21.10, under Municipal Relations and Grants, there seems to be about a $16 million increase, about 8.58 per cent under Grants and Contributions. Could you explain that please?
MS. JENNEX: That's additional funding from the gas tax and also the Building Canada Fund.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): If I can, I'd like to ask a few questions about the New Home Construction Rebate program. As I understand it, it was a one-time rebate of $7,000. You said earlier today about 900 had applied, and you also listed a couple of objectives - one was to kick-start home construction and encourage potential buyers. In your opinion, has that program done that?
[7:00 p.m.]
MS. JENNEX: Yes, our statistics indicate that the industry has gone back to previous levels, which had been down before. Yes, that program was successful, our statistics show that it was very successful.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): The new home construction, the number of starts over the past month or so, have they actually increased?
[Page 418]
MS. JENNEX: Sorry, I missed the question.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): The number of new home construction starts, in the past month or two, have they actually gone up?
MS. JENNEX: We go by the number of permits that were issued and so I wouldn't be able to answer you on how many homes actually started, we would only be able to judge on how many permits have been taken out.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Has the number of permits gone up?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, the number of permits has gone up.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): These are new permits that have been issued in recent months.
MS. JENNEX: Yes, those are new permits.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): What you're telling me is that the actual number of home construction starts has not increased, but the number of permits has.
MS. JENNEX: Based on our statistics, the industry was down by 32 to 35 per cent. Since the New Home Construction Rebate has started their program, the industry is back to current levels that they usually have been at, so based on permits, they have gone up. How many houses are actually being built at this time, I don't have those statistics.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Of the 900 that applied, how many had already started construction previous to this program even being announced?
MS. JENNEX: My statistics show that 17 per cent of the rebates were from permits that were dated before April 1st. The other is 83 per cent of permits that were dated after April 1st, so 83 per cent of the permits were taken out after April 1st.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Are you telling me then that there has been an - I'm not quite following you - are you telling me that there has been an 83 per cent increase?
MS. JENNEX: You asked about the 900 applications that have come through the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and of those 900 - approximately 900, and that number changes every day - 17 per cent of those applications have their permit, which they have to submit when they apply, 17 per cent had been dated before April 1st; 83 per cent of that 900 that we're basing these figures on, have had their building permit dated after April 1st of this year.
[Page 419]
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): It's your, let's say, assertion that the New Home Construction Rebate program - which is a $7,000 rebate - has been in some way responsible for an increase in the number of permits that are being issued?
MS. JENNEX: Based on the industry statistics, the New Home Construction Rebate responded to a need that was in the community to stimulate the construction industry. Based on our statistics, and based on anecdotal evidence too, it's evident that the New Home Construction Rebate was highly successful and is highly successful.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Here's what I'm trying to get at and here's where I take a different point of view. The $7,000 rebate tended to be more of a bonus if you were building a new home, but not an incentive. In other words, I don't think there are a lot of people out there who would say, I'm going to build a new home and now I can get $7,000 from the provincial government, I wasn't going to build it until I heard about that $7,000, but now that I can get $7,000, I've decided to go ahead with my new home construction. How do you see it? Did you see it as an incentive? Well, obviously you did, but wasn't it more of a bonus?
MS. JENNEX: We looked at it as an incentive, it was to have the industry stimulated to become more vibrant. There was definitely a lagging of the industry. Based on what I've been hearing in the community, and as MLAs we know that we're in the community probably more than anybody else and talking to more people than most, it actually has been extremely successful. There were people who had not considered buying a new home that that $7,000 definitely was an incentive, and especially since we have people who were even considering purchasing their first home, if they bought their first home and it was a new home, they were able to stack the rebates from different programs so that it was more of an incentive. It was that time period that people who had not thought of purchasing - or, sorry, building a house, actually - it was an incentive and being in the community and talking to people about their decision around building a home, that definitely was a major factor that they considered.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Glace Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave the rest of the time that I have remaining to my colleague, the member for Kings West.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to ask a few questions. We have very limited time. I guess I have a little bit of that advantage of having challenged the Minister of Finance around this very issue as well, of how this was a bonus versus an incentive. Before I ask you this question, I'll be right up front. As you will see from the Hansard report, he still saw the two balls in the air as to whether it was a bonus or an incentive. When you take a look at the number of new homes that have actually started since the program was announced, there are a substantial number of homes that were built prior
[Page 420]
to or were in the planning stages, and therefore it probably was much more supportive, conducive, election-oriented toward the Homebuilders Association. We have heard from the Home Builders' Association as well in that they had a fairly considerable housing stock that had not moved.
I think the real question here at the end of the day on this program is, how many families will benefit from this program? Will it be the builders? Did we really help the builders get some housing stock off the market as opposed to incentive and move the construction industry in a stronger way - which we all wanted to see, obviously. So that's what I'm concerned about. Was it more for builders and not necessarily for homeowners? We have no guarantee that $7,000 will be passed along to a homeowner.
MS. JENNEX: This program is a program that the rebate goes to the homeowner. There are extremely strict, stringent guidelines that we have put in place. The staff was very careful about making sure that they could think of every possibility that could be taken into consideration to make sure that the money that is coming back goes to the homeowner. The builders would benefit in the fact that they were selling their product. The builders were able to get tradespeople out working. There was a spinoff and they benefited, but they did not benefit from that $7,000. The homeowner benefited from that $7,000, and it's a targeted program, as you know - it's capped at 1,500 homes that would be able to get that rebate. So I want to go back, to be very clear, in absolutely no way did the builder benefit from the monies from that rebate. Definitely the homeowner is the one who is getting up to the $7,000 rebate.
MR. GLAVINE: I hope that is the case, and I hope the few cases that I know about are very few and are not indicative perhaps of the program because a builder can own a home for a short time, make the application in somebody's name, resell it, and he pockets the benefits of this home. I can tell you that it is probably exceptional, and I hope it is, but as far as airtight, I don't think so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you putting that in the form of a question or are you looking for a comment?
MR. GLAVINE: Yes, question, you know, you convince me that it's airtight, yes, because I know an exception.
MS. JENNEX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honourable member, if you know of an exception, my staff and I definitely want to know about this. This was a one-time rebate and I know that staff - because I worked with this particular program from the time period of the preliminary discussion around it to its rollout-we looked at every possible way that we could make sure that that money went back to the homeowner. It has to be the primary owner of the home so the person has to live there. It's a one time. So if a builder benefited, that means that the builder is the owner of the house and it's a one time. So if you feel or you see
[Page 421]
something that we have missed or somebody who has benefited from a program in a manner in which they shouldn't have, then we would definitely appreciate speaking with you later so that we could have that information. Because I know the staff worked tirelessly to make sure that the people who benefited were the homeowners. The benefit, as I said, for the builders came from the fact that they were keeping the industry working and tradespeople here in Nova Scotia.
MR. GLAVINE: I think I can help you out on that, Madam Minister.
MS. JENNEX: Thank you.
MR. GLAVINE: The other part which I've had at least one example and, again, you always can find one or two examples perhaps but sometimes people are great planners, as we all know. They had their permits back last October or November but they're Spring and summer builders. They built their home and now they can't get the rebate.
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, I understand what you're saying, that people can sit on those permits for up to two years. What they could have done under this was just to go get another permit so that they would be able to fall under the parameters of this program. There was nothing stopping them from getting a fresh permit and then starting their house. So there was a way that they could address that discrepancy.
[7:15 p.m.]
MR. GLAVINE: Just to conclude that topic, I wanted to see it as an incentive and as a real pickup. Kings County is a great example of one of the five counties in Nova Scotia that's still growing. Now, Kings County permits are down this year, not by a lot, but again it's an area that has X number of new homes built year over year. So I don't think it has realized perhaps quite the pickup and that I still see it, if half the homes, if half the permits were before this program really got rolling, then it's a bonus and not an incentive because that's how it was presented. So it was to be an incentive, but if we have X number of homes built prior to the program even being rolled out, then those folks got a bonus, not an incentive, the work is already done.
The construction company and their skilled workers have accomplished a job and it's not just semantics here because, as we know, in the last unemployment statistics we had, it was 9.5 per cent in Nova Scotia, 9 per cent of our population was unemployed. The seasonal construction industry is a significant one. So what I'm saying is that I don't think it achieved the goal that it was hoped for when designed. The Minister of Finance, I think, put it in good perspective during estimates in Finance, because it is a program that comes, again, strongly under the Department of Finance, and he says the jury is out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you're looking for a comment in relationship to that?
[Page 422]
MR GLAVINE: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Minister, we do have a little bit of questioning about the time that is left, so we will look into that for the Liberal caucus and ascertain whether you have more time or not.
I was just given the sheet that was in front of me here that showed that you had 35 minutes.
MS. JENNEX: Okay. I just want to go back, based on the 900 figure that I was talking about in terms of percentages. At the time that we took those statistics, before April and after April - are actually based on 896, so it is not quite the 100. We know that 83 per cent of the permits dated after April 1st are in that queue; 52 homes of the 896 were built in Kings County during this time period.
Now, you were talking about the Minister of Finance's take on the program and my take on the program. I will have to say that I'm sitting in Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. We are sitting in the department where people call in and ask questions; we are in the department where the municipal relations and service aspect are dealing with the people. We're dealing with the personalities behind these new homes.
My take on this program is that it was definitely an incentive and it did move people to make that choice - in this economy with a recession - to think about building their homes, and they did.
As you can see, 32 per cent down from last year; we're up to par, where we should be in the industry. So it benefited the industry and the incentive went to the homeowner. But who is benefiting in the long haul of all of this is Nova Scotians, because we had our summer students out working, we had tradespeople working - the industry was out working.
Of course, in any one of these programs, 41 per cent of the population of Nova Scotia lives in HRM. So as we see from our statistics, 40 per cent of HRM is in that number. But I want to say that I feel very strongly, and I think that I would have that echoed with the staff who work at Service Nova Scotia - that this program was successful, because we have been talking with the people and see it on a daily basis because we have the getyourrebate Web site.
MR. GLAVINE: Like the minister, I hope that it continues to create that incentive through the Fall as well because many people in the construction industry are seasonal workers, and so making sure they stay working as long as they can and get as many homes - so I, like you, didn't see it as strongly because of the date in which the program was rolled out. We can agree to just disagree, perhaps, on that point. I guess it will be construction
[Page 423]
companies, homeowners, building supply people that I think will at the end of the day say, yes, it was a good thing, or it was a help - perhaps not the final answer, but a help.
I'm going to move to gas regulation. I guess all of us who have been around for a while, this has been one of our favourite topics. First I need to know a little bit about how the URB is setting gas prices, which they will do tonight at midnight. One of the things that bothered Nova Scotians, I think, more than anything, perhaps even more than whether or not it cost a cent per litre more to have regulation and what the goals and objectives were to try to keep our rural stations open and stabilize their margins and all of that. I think more than anything, when it started to be revealed and more Nova Scotians knew that the minister played a little game of darts, will it be one, will it be two, will it be three this week, because you have three options. So is the URB going to be using the same forward averaging concept or is there going to be a strict formula and eventually Nova Scotians will know exactly, in a very transparent way, this is how Nova Scotia - New Brunswick may do this - but this is how Nova Scotians will know how their price is set from week to week?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Liberal caucus is going to have some more time. We are going to continue here.
The honourable minister.
MS. JENNEX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard you say a few things in terms of the gas regulation, and I guess the last comment that you made, would the Utility and Review Board be using the same formula? The Utility and Review Board will be using the same formula as Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations did.
MR. GLAVINE: I will have to ask the minister at a later date for her explanation on that because my colleague was shuffling about here and asking me a few things. I guess we have a little bit of a time discrepancy.
So do you think then that Nova Scotians are better served by the URB versus the way in which it was done, in which we did set regulation - and you were only a minister for a few weeks and having to be responsible for the weekly setting - but will the URB be a more transparent (Interruption)
MS. JENNEX: Excuse me, could we just have a few minutes, it is not so much a break but I'm having a hard time hearing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We apologize. There are some discrepancies in relationship to the start.
MS. JENNEX: So, the honourable member and I will just sit patiently until we have that sorted out, is that okay?
[Page 424]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your indulgence. The respective Parties are going to work out the time sheet. I was working with what was presented to me. You do have more time than we originally allotted you. We will determine how much in a few moments. So, maybe we could continue, thank you.
MS. JENNEX: I think maybe the honourable member should repeat the question and then I could answer, thanks.
MR. GLAVINE: As I said, I think Nova Scotians really wanted to know a formula, a very transparent way in which gas prices - as people became more knowledgeable about gas regulation, they knew it was costing them roughly a cent or 0.6 cents per litre more just to have it regulated, without regulation you don't have that cost, the market looks after the changes. There is no group of people. There is no administration of it. However, because we did learn that three prices were actually presented each week, so I'm wondering if the new URB process will have some degree of transparency? You made that shift, is there a benefit to Nova Scotians?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, the benefits of gas regulation are numerous and you made an earlier comment that I only had it for X number of weeks that I could do that. I have to say that it was a very good place for me to be to see how misinformation can actually become truth to a person. I had a preconception to what gas regulation - probably similar to many people in Nova Scotia - to what gas regulation actually looked like and the process. When I was in the position of doing the gas regulation, I could see very clearly that the misinformation was masking actually what was happening. Moving it over to the Utility and Review Board is a good move for Nova Scotians because they recognize that the Utility and Review Board are at arm's length from government and there's no interference. Even though there was not interference, it was perceived to be a political interference.
Yes, you are right, there were three prices to choose from. One would be set as the model and then you would be looking at making sure that the industry had been taken care of over the long term and also the consumers. So there was a give and take back and forth and that was monitored very carefully. The Utility and Review Board will be following that same formula. That was another question that you asked I think in the question before we were interrupted.
Before gas regulation in Nova Scotia, approximately two and a half gas stations were closing on a monthly basis and statistics now show that we are still losing gas stations but it's at about one a month. As you know, it's an industry that there's a give and take, people move into a service centre to out of a service centre so there's a bit of fluidity in that. But you can see from statistics since regulation that there has been a significant change. This is keeping rural gas stations open and as the honourable member knows, I have a very good friend that's in the industry and he also knows that person and that person who owns the Petro-Canada in my community says that gas regulation is serving Nova Scotian rural
[Page 425]
communities extremely well. It's what's keeping gas stations open, it's the stability that they know that they will be served well by having a constant.
Your question is, is this good for Nova Scotia? Yes, this is good for Nova Scotians, it is moving arm's length from government so that people in Nova Scotia will recognize that there's no political interference. Even though there wasn't, it was that perception, so gas regulation is good for Nova Scotia. That it's moved over is good for people's perceptions too and understanding that there is no political interference with the setting of prices of gas in Nova Scotia.
MR. GLAVINE: I guess maybe that's a discussion for the minister and I, who know each other very well, for another day because I can give her a list of what happened in Kings County and it was truly a case of literally almost no more gas stations could close. It was a case of before regulation came in, the number that were exiting plus during the time of regulation as well. It's hard to see if we just even take Kings County, there are precious few more gas stations that could actually close and provide the service that we would need. I think this is what you would, if you do a study of New Brunswick, the same phenomenon happened. That was it was just no way that we could lose any more and provide the actual service. Take for example, Canning, a good-sized community, new vibrant high school of a thousand students, many people coming and going in that community, no stations there any more unless we're going to get one started up, which would be great.
[7:30 p.m.]
People do come and go but we've just about lost as many and that's the geographic area that I know the best and even those people that are left in the business will say we couldn't lose any more and provide the actual service. I don't think that's a legitimate argument to say that regulation actually saved a number. We went through that decline period and bottomed out and that's where we are today. We'll see an occasional one come up and we'll see a few more go under as well.
In this transfer to the URB, are there any Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations employees involved in this transition?
MS. JENNEX: Yes, I did state, I think, on the floor maybe a week ago, there are two Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations employees seconded on a part-time basis. They're not going over on a full-time basis, they're seconded on a part-time basis and they, at the end of that transitional period with the Utility and Review Board, will definitely be coming back to the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to do the good work that they continue to do.
MR. GLAVINE: It's not a big issue but do you have any timeline for those employees?
[Page 426]
MS. JENNEX: They're returning to the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations in January.
MR. GLAVINE: If we see any change in the formula, that will now be up to the URB and therefore government will have a complete hands-off in terms of if there should be a new formula arrangement.
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, it would be pure speculation that the Utility and Review Board would consider another formula. At this time they're using the formula that Service Nova Scotia used. They have, as I said, two of our employees over there working through the transition and that formula has worked well. It would be only speculation on my part to make any comment about what the Utility and Review Board would be doing in the future with any kind of formulas.
MR. GLAVINE: In terms of the tax on a tax, which again is an area that your government has talked about in the past, I was wondering if you, at this time, have taken a look in your department and would it be from the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations that a recommendation would actually come from?
MS. JENNEX: Tax has nothing to do with my department, if there is - I apologize, yes, there's a lot of tax to do with my department but decisions based on tax on tax or anything like has nothing to do with our department.
MR. GLAVINE: We also know that the URB has already stated that there will be two hearings regarding gas regulation. Do you have any time frame when they will take place and also will there be Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations employees involved with that process?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, you gave me a number. I don't know if it's a firm two, it could be two or more. The other part of that is that early in the new year, it's my understanding that they will be having their first one.
MR. GLAVINE: There's going to be a second hearing, I guess, around promotions on rural stations. Again, will government or the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations have any role to play in that regard?
MS. JENNEX: The Utility and Review Board as an agency, as the honourable member knows, is at arm's length and if they're having a hearing and when they have their hearing on promotions, we would not be part of the formulation of their hearing on that. It would be the Utility and Review Board.
[Page 427]
I just want to clarify that if Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations does have the ability to intervene in that process, it will be handled by the Utility and Review Board, but we hold the policy piece, I mentioned it earlier, and I don't know if you were in the room.
MR. GLAVINE: I just wanted to move to a different area because it is one that I do hear from a number of constituents on. My colleague raised the question during Question Period, and that is the tax rebate on oil, on assessed resource properties. The issue that I hear is the multiple times of having to apply. We all know that a piece of property can take on different uses, different times, and there can be revenue gained and so forth, but I guess - and maybe I'm looking at it through the lens and a bit of the bias of Kings County, where we know there are many small farms and the resource is no longer even rented out - it has grown up in alders - and yet they have to go through this application process. I'm wondering if you, as minister, are satisfied with that process? Is this an area that, as you become more familiar with it, you would have a second look at?
MS. JENNEX: You mentioned a number of areas, honourable member, around the multiple use, and you're absolutely correct. Properties change. I could purchase a mixed farm and never farm it, so therefore it would be considered residential, but if I sold it, it could go back to farming. Therefore each and every year, Service Nova Scotia does require making sure that the point of delivery of the oil would be appropriately delivered, so there is an application.
Your colleague did mention on the floor that there was a four-page application form, and there is, but if the property is 100 per cent residential, you just have to fill in one box on one page. One of the pages just has information, and if it is 100 per cent residential then that's clicked off. Of Nova Scotians, it's only 1 per cent of Nova Scotians who fall under this mixed-use type of property. If it is 100 per cent residential, you click it off and you're fine. If it's a mixed-use property, generally those are commercial properties that would be having mixed use, then generally people would have an accountant and would be able to fill in that paperwork. If it is a senior citizen or anybody else, Service Nova Scotia would be there.
I want to say that multiple times of applying is because you would first have to submit your receipt of your oil. You can apply any time that you have a $30 rebate, so you can apply, you can hold the receipts and do it in a half-year period. It's not something that you have to do on a June or a July - there is no specific time frame. It's when you want to submit your receipts to get the rebate. If the forms are onerous for some folks, we do have people at Access Nova Scotia who would help people with the forms.
You asked if it is something that I would be looking at. That is something that Service Nova Scotia always looks at. They're always looking at making sure that things are streamlined. Service Nova Scotia is there for people; it is there to serve the people in Nova Scotia. The forms as they stand now are a professional and legal document. They have been
[Page 428]
streamlined, but under my mandate - and I know that the staff are always looking at ways to make things easier for Nova Scotians.
MR. GLAVINE: I do appreciate that, and I guess maybe in my case it is the three people who come into my office 40 or 50 times complaining about having to make out the forms and where it can be quickly, easily determined that through their assessment nothing has actually changed. So they would like to see it at the oil company that it is determined and they don't have to make that determination either through a long form or a short form.
MS. JENNEX: If they are deemed 100 per cent, then it is a very quick application, once a year and then they get the oil delivered to them at point of delivery. They don't have to apply if it is 100 per cent. The only time the people have to apply for the rebate is when it is mixed. But no, they do and I think you would understand, that it is based on what the property is classified as. It is based on a classification, so therefore, we never know how a property is going to be used year after year because it could sell. If it sold and then it was a mixed - I'm just going to have some clarification - so, as I said, if it is mixed use, you have to go through that, but once it is deemed 100 per cent residential, it is just that one time.
So, I'm hearing you say that you are having a number of people coming in and they're probably coming in often but I wanted to repeat, if they are having difficulty with the forms or the process that we have Access Centres. We also have toll free numbers and it would be nice - I could give you the number. So we do have staff there that will support anybody who is having any difficulty.
Also, one of the nice things about Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is bringing everything up into our present way of doing things. There is an on-line application but I recognize that some senior citizens may find that a little bit problematic. But once you have done this on-line, it stays on-line, you don't have to fill it out each time. It will remember who you are, of course, and you just have to go in and verify it on the on-line service.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you, Madam Minister. One of the areas that you touched upon during the process of this questioning is the fact that, yes, rural MLAs or semi-rural MLAs get a lot of those kinds of requests to our office. Generally, we're able to pull the application off line, hand it to them and tell them, based on their circumstance, what the most efficient way is for them to handle it. As I look at it, it is fine from that political perspective of helping people but I'm in an area where we don't have the highest percentage, perhaps of computer use in some of our rural communities - we don't have broadband yet or Internet service, except dial-up, nothing high speed. My office, especially with any kind of new program until people become knowledgeable about it- I know over the last six years my office has often been a clearing house for many things that in some communities Access Nova Scotia does a marvellous job assisting people.
[Page 429]
[7:45 p.m.]
I know it is early stages for you but perhaps maybe people in your department may even share a quick note to you, do we have enough Access Nova Scotia offices? When I look at Middleton-Kingston-Greenwood it has twice the population of Kentville for example, when we look at it as a military area. Has Service Nova Scotia looked at the possibility of other Access Centres, satellite type of locations? I think of a way of helping Cheticamp, right off, as they lose their call centre, for example. Why not a bilingual Access Centre down in that area that could help out an area? So I'm just wondering is it something that is a bit under review? It provides a marvellous service, any time I send somebody into Kentville to Access Nova Scotia, I don't hear of negative feedback or fallout from the work that people do. I'm sure there are times, there's going to be a little bit of confusion, possibly, passport stuff is tricky, as we know, but overall, great service. I'm just wondering if you've ever thought of reviewing the number of centres?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Less than four minutes left in the Liberal time.
MS. JENNEX: I want to commend you for being there for your constituents. I know from my own knowledge that you're a very good MLA for your area and thank you for bringing that to my attention. I do want to say that Service Nova Scotia is there for service and we would always be open and looking at the best way to serve people in Nova Scotia.
Your point is, have we looked at it? Have I looked at it specifically at this time? No, but has staff? Absolutely. They're always looking at ways, and the best ways, and the best facilities to have Access Nova Scotia in to serve Nova Scotians. We'll be looking at the demographics and populations to make sure that access centres are in appropriate places, over the next couple of years, under our mandate.
I also want to say thank you for bringing that to my attention. To tell you the truth I hadn't thought of that until today, so I appreciate that.
MR. GLAVINE: One final question. More and more, Nova Scotians are accessing information, forms and so forth, through the Internet and high speed is advancing all the time. Would every program and form that you are offering, is everything on-line under the one Web site for Service Nova Scotia?
MS. JENNEX: I would like to say that, yes, everything is there, but I don't want to misinform you. I would say that the majority of all things that are needed by Nova Scotians would be on-line.
Another point - I know our time is closing at this time - Service Nova Scotia is always looking at the best way to serve Nova Scotians. There are things on-line and also, with the birth registry now, it's one-stop shopping, you have a baby and it's one piece of
[Page 430]
paper and Service Nova Scotia will take that information, share it federally, provincially. We're looking at that process continuing on for Nova Scotians.
Are all of them on there at this time? Can't say they're all, but anything that is on-line now would be the most commonly used forms that people in Nova Scotia need.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. Our official timekeepers indicate to us that we have until 8:16 p.m. We do have 25 minutes for the Progressive Conservative caucus.
MS. JENNEX: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I'm requesting a two-minute break.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure there's agreement on that. Thank you. We will add to your time.
[7:50 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[7:54 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and first, Madam Minister, may I congratulate you on your position as minister. I know that you have a very competent staff and I'm sure that there will be a lot of challenges between now and this time next year when we're sitting to talk about a budget. However, there are a few things that I would like to ask a couple of questions of that come under your department. One of them is, I'm curious as to the amount of money that you would transfer to TIR after the fees and licence fees from the Province of Nova Scotia. Anything in excess of what is made - it is my understanding by law - has to be put back into the road. I assume that money is transferred from your department, from licences and fees, back to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.
MS. JENNEX: That money from any of those goes into general revenue.
MR. MACLEOD: Interesting, because I thought there was legislation in this province that said that money had to be spent on roads.
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, that money goes into General Revenue and I will make a shorter answer than my colleague. It will go into General Revenue and then it's tagged how much goes in and then it is taken out and it does go on roads.
MR. MACLEOD: How much would that be in the last budget year?
[Page 431]
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, we will have to get that figure to the honourable member because that figure would come from TIR.
MR. MACLEOD: Now I have to be honest with you, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if I'm writing a cheque I usually know what numbers I'm putting on it and if it's coming out of your department, going into General Revenue and then transferred on to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, I would think that somebody in your department must know how much you're making the cheque out for to General Revenue.
MS. JENNEX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate your comments around that and I definitely will be able to get that information to you.
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, I look forward to seeing that number. In past budgets there was the Emergency Services Provider Fund, does your department have anything in that line category for this upcoming budget?
MS. JENNEX: It would be half a million.
MR. MACLEOD: This was a very successful program, which is something that was well received by the volunteer fire departments across this province. In my own constituency we have 16 volunteer fire departments that help service the communities there and whatever help we can get from your department and other sources is something that is needed and something that has a long lasting effect.
I was at the 50th Anniversary of the fire department on the weekend of Marion Bridge and they had just purchased a new truck and that truck came in at $235,000. To expect a community to be able to operate and provide that service, they need help from as many different areas as possible. Half a million dollars seems considerably less than what was in that line item in the previous budget.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You're looking for a comment.
MR. MACLEOD: You have to tell her she can talk.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.
MS. JENNEX: I suppose that your hearing is good enough that I could have, but to be on the record I would have to use the mic and I appreciate that. I have two things I'd like to say, I hear what you're saying and I value the work that our volunteers are doing in the community. Now, in terms of that line item, I'm having staff actually check because I can't answer that question for you. That fund, as you mentioned, is a well-received fund because
[Page 432]
I know that our volunteer fire department and our ground search and rescue across the province provide a valuable service for Nova Scotians. It's good that we do have that fund and over the next number of years, hopefully with a little bit of fiscal responsibility early, that we'll be able to do more for our volunteers.
[8:00 p.m.]
MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Minister, I did mean for you to get on the record, he had to say that to get the mic engaged. There was nothing meant by it other than that, just that he had to get the mic on so you could be on the record so I hope I didn't offend you because that was not my intention.
MS. JENNEX: No, you didn't, it's just that I knew that they have a procedure here even though it's a much more informal setting, it is a procedure. No, I didn't take any offence, I knew that we had to use the mic to have this dialogue.
MR. MACLEOD: One of the things that comes under your department is motor vehicle inspections and I've been told by several individuals, when it comes to trailers, whether they be utility trailers, travel trailers, et cetera, that in order for a company to perform an inspection on them, they have to actually put them in a garage and in that garage they have to put them up in the air to do their job.
My question would be this, when you're talking about some of these travel trailers, homes, they're 35, 45 or 50 feet long in some cases, they do the repairs outside, the maintenance is done on the ground. It limits the ability of the people who are doing the repairs if they have to have a facility that large to get them inside. I'm wondering if you're, first, aware of that, and you probably aren't. Secondly, if the information provided to me is accurate, is there a way that we can help accommodate the individuals who are doing inspections on these types of trailers?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite familiar with the Motor Vehicle Act, but I have to say that I was not aware that the inspections had to be done indoors. So, yes, that is one part that I think I missed in my understanding around that.
I want to say that the Motor Vehicle Act has been amended and has been looked at. It is a dated document. There have been some mismatches and they did a review a number of years ago to bring it up to national and international standards. There are still a few areas that don't quite meet the fit, so we're going to be looking at that. As we pull resources together after the House rises, we'll be looking at specific areas to make sure that the industry and the consumer are well protected, because the Registry of Motor Vehicles is all about safety and we want to make sure that not only is the person that is servicing safe, the person who is driving the vehicle is safe too. So, if that's an area where there was a misfit because
[Page 433]
of the revamping of that about two years ago, then we would definitely take that under review. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.
MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, the other area, when it comes to motor vehicles and inspections, that I've heard some concerns expressed about are the trike, which is a kit that is added to the tail end of a motorcycle to make it a three wheel vehicle in order for people who may be getting older, who can't balance their motorcycle, it's their way of staying young and being able to. I'm told that if you are registered as a motor vehicle inspection station to do motorcycles, you can't do trikes. I'm wondering if that, again, is accurate, and if it is something that is accurate, is there a way to have that looked at?
MS. JENNEX: Any time you do modifications to any vehicle, there is a safety component. It would have to be looked at under the issues of safety. I think that in our ever-evolving society, things change and changing a motorcycle to a trike as opposed to purchasing a trike, is something that would probably not fit under the present Act. So that is something that we would have to look at in terms of safety, accommodating the needs of the consumer and also balancing the needs of safety for Nova Scotians. If these are done by engineers, it would be different than being done by, for the want of a better word, backyard mechanics. So, we want to make sure that safety comes first and that anything that we look at, safety is paramount. But that is something that we definitely can be looking at to make sure that, if they meet certain standards, we would look at that under the Act as we do a review under that.
MR. MACLEOD: Madam Minister, it is my understanding that these kits are imported. They are made by professional companies and have the stamp of approval of Transport Canada. When they are installed by licensed installers who have been licensed to inspect motorcycles, they are told they are not allowed to inspect a trike. About a year or a year and a half ago, we had an issue with a vehicle called a Spyder. When we asked about the definition of a motorcycle, they said it didn't fit because it had two wheels on the front instead of one. Well, a trike has one wheel on the front instead of two and now it doesn't fit into that category of a motorcycle. So there is some work that would be required to be done and defined. Transport Canada believes these kits are safe, which is to your question about safety. It would be something that I respectfully request that your department look at as soon as possible to see if there is some way of accommodating some of these people, again because of the downturn in the economy people are looking at different ways of taking their operations and doing different things so they can sustain their jobs and their employees. So, if you could look at that, or if you have any comments on that, I would really be pleased to hear them.
MS. JENNEX: I have a few comments because I've grown up in a culture where motorcycles have been a part of my family and so I recognize people with motorcycles, and working on motorcycles and having them inspected appropriately. The issue of the trike, having that being evaluated appropriately - it would be my understanding that it would have
[Page 434]
had to have been done by an engineer. So I take it under advisement what you have to say, definitely. As we pull our resources together, after the House rises, we will be looking at that issue. Rest assured, I will take that issue with the staff, and we can look at how that fits in under the Registry of Motor Vehicles. We could make sure that in some way, to meet the consumer needs and safety needs that we can look at that under the Motor Vehicle Act.
MR. MACLEOD: Madam Minister, I appreciate your answer and if there is a way of you keeping me in the loop on that I would appreciate it very much. Now I'm going to turn my time over to the honourable member for Cumberland South.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cumberland South.
HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Minister, for the opportunity tonight to just ask a few questions.
I want to, first of all, as my colleague did, congratulate you on your position. I think you're in a great department and I want to thank your staff who are here tonight. I know I see some fairly familiar faces here that I've had the opportunity and the pleasure over the last number of years to make inquiries of on behalf of the constituents in the communities that I represent in Cumberland South. I just want to say that I think you have a great department, and they are very responsive to members, at least from my experience.
Madam Minister, I guess the first thing I want to ask you is something that is very important to the people in my area and that is an issue that has already been talked about tonight - gas regulation. Now, during the campaign, the honourable member who is here tonight, who represents the area of Cumberland North, made a statement about the government, if it was elected, would look at a change in gas tax for border towns. I wonder, could you just explain to me what that actually means? The Premier actually supported that initiative throughout the campaign and afterwards, so I wonder if you could explain to me what exactly you and your government mean by changing the gas tax regarding border towns?
MS. JENNEX: What I have committed to around that issue is that the Utility and Review Board will be taking that piece on and they will be having hearings starting early in the new year. There will be a consumer advocate on that committee, so it is in the hands of the Utility and Review Board.
MR. SCOTT: Madam Minister, there was discussion around, and people are looking for this imaginary line that is going to divide communities in regard to where the tax would be and where it wouldn't be. A lot of people in my area are very concerned about what that means for them, so I'm wondering, could you tell me what your government envisions in regard to what a border town is? I understand now that the government has decided to move this off to the URB and I think that was a way to not make a decision on it, but that was not
[Page 435]
what was said during the campaign - it said, the government, if elected, would do something about lowering the gas tax in border towns.
Now, the URB may have a different stand on that, and I'm sure they're going to be there to argue on behalf of the people that I represent, because I am sure you would agree that no matter where you draw that line, you're going to pit Nova Scotian against Nova Scotian, community against community, and service station against service station. You can't have two service stations in a province paying different taxes and being able to compete. So whether it's the New Brunswick border and Nova Scotia border that divides that line, that's something that we have to live with, but I don't see how you could put a line, whether it's between Springhill and Oxford, or Amherst and Springhill, or between Oxford and Pugwash, without putting those businesses on the other side of the line in a very uncompetitive situation.
So I believe, as many people believe, that it's a huge mistake to go down that road. A loaf of bread, a pair of shoes, a package of cigarettes, those are issues either left in a competitive process, or anything that is regulated it's the same across the province.
I understand there's a difference in the zones now, and I also understand there's a difference when it comes to trucking rates and that's to be considered, and I know when the gas prices are set, but regardless of those prices they all have the same taxes on them, and that we as a province levy a tax regardless of where you live. I think it's a huge mistake and there's going to be a huge backlash and a huge fight that will oppose that, so wherever that magic line is drawn, it's going to cause a huge problem.
I think - you know I have to say on the record that when a Premier and a government are elected, they're elected to represent the Province of Nova Scotia and they're elected to ensure that they provide the very best policies they can for all people, not some, depending on where they live.
Can you tell me what it's going to cost by putting this issue off to the URB?
MS. JENNEX: I can't answer how much the hearings will cost. Right now it moved over with the gas regulation and the hearings are covered under the current budget. I appreciate your comments; I guess we differ on that. In terms of the Utility and Review Board, as you know, it is arm's length and they will come back with recommendations to our government. I'm not interfering with what they are going to do, but I will just say that there are border towns in Canada now that have what they call "feathering" at their borders, which mitigates the problem that came forward during the campaign but, as I said, this is something that the Utility and Review Board will be having public hearings on and there will be a consumer advocate.
[Page 436]
If a consumer advocate is not there, then we'll make sure that a consumer advocate is there - that is one of those, under my mandate I'm able to ensure that there is a consumer advocate at those hearings with the committee. So the public hearings will be taking place, and as soon as we find out the place and the date we will let people of Nova Scotia know - well, not me personally, but of course the Utility and Review Board will be announcing those in the paper.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member for Cumberland South, you have approximately five minutes left this evening.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Minister, I guess my question though was, can you tell me what it's costing to shift responsibility of setting gas prices and whatever else you're going to include in this mandate of what you're giving to the URB - what is it costing the Province of Nova Scotia to switch that responsibility from your department to the URB?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, as the honourable member knows, there is a levy on the cost of fuel that covers the regulation. That is not changing; there is no change. There is no cost involved in terms of it moving over to the Utility and Review Board - it's still funded by that same levy that has been in place.
[8:15 p.m.]
MR. SCOTT: Madam Minister, would you be aware then if the URB are going to be forced to hire additional staff to look after this issue?
MS. JENNEX: They will be hiring staff for this. Two of our staff will be there in a position, they're seconded until the transition, so they'll be coming back to Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations in the new year. At this time it's covered under the budget; it's the funds that were budgeted - there's no additional cost to the movement over to the Utility and Review Board.
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, the positions that are being advertised then, who are they going to work for - Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations or the URB?
MS. JENNEX: The advertisements are for two staff to work at the Utility and Review Board.
MR. SCOTT: So those two positions, at least those two positions, are going to be dedicated to gas pricing and this issue you mentioned about deciding on tax zones?
MS. JENNEX: It would be speculation on my part to know exactly what their job is going to be over at the Utility and Review Board. I do know that part of their job definitely
[Page 437]
would be on the gas regulations, but their other duties when they are at the Utility and Review Board, I wouldn't be able to answer.
MR. SCOTT: Would you be able to provide any documents between your department and the URB in regard to what your instructions are to them or your request of them, the mandate of not only gas prices, but also anything to do with different levels of taxation possibly that could be considered in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, yes, we can provide you with the information that you need. If you could be specific as to what you are requesting, my staff would be more than pleased to provide you with that information.
MR. SCOTT: I guess, Madam Minister, what I would be requesting is, since you came into the government in June, any documentation or e-mails or whatever between your department and the URB in regard to this issue?
MS. JENNEX: Mr. Chairman, my staff have heard your request and I am sure that they will get back to you with that information in a timely manner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member for Cumberland South - a quick question and a quick answer.
MR. SCOTT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam Minister. One real quick question that I'll probably pick up on tomorrow. I'm questioned on a regular basis, and the people in my constituency office, on the Amherst Access Centre that's under your department. It's too small, it's understaffed - there are not even any washrooms in close proximity, other than over at the mall. What I would ask you tonight is on behalf of the employees there - if you would have a review done of that centre to ensure that there is a proper level of employees there - we have heard of people waiting 4, 5, 6 and 7 hours to get service there.
I want to say on the record that you have a very dedicated, professional staff there and I don't know how they do it because I've been there myself and watched and I'm amazed, when you go there and you're number 70 or 80, it's just a fabulous number of - an extraordinary number of people, I am sure, for a small area like that, but the staff have asked me on many occasions to try and bring something forward for them, so I would ask that you undertake a review of that Access Centre to see what further you could do to assist the staff and to make it better service, obviously, for people in Cumberland County.
Obviously if it's service you have to come to Halifax for, as you know it's a long drive and it's a long wait - the weather, the roads and whatnot - and then getting here and the wait, so I would ask that you undertake a review of that Access Centre on behalf of the
[Page 438]
citizens and staff, to see what can be better done to provide a better service for the community.
MS. JENNEX: I'll just wrap up this - I thank you for bringing that to my attention and, as you know, service is key but also our employees are very important to us, and I take that information that you've provided to me and staff will be looking at that. Thank you very much.
MR. SCOTT: I would just like to thank Madam Minister and her staff for the answers, and I really appreciate them, and we'll see you tomorrow.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that does it for tonight and there will be a resumption tomorrow.
Thank you all and good night.
[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:20 p.m.]
