HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Mr. Michel Samson (Chairman)
Mr. Brooke Taylor
Mr. William Dooks
Ms. Judy Streatch
Mr. Howard Epstein
Mr. Charles Parker
Ms. Marilyn More
Mr. Wayne Gaudet
Mr. Harold Theriault
[Mr. Harold Theriault was replaced by Mr. Keith Colwell.]
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mrs. Darlene Henry
Legislative Committee Clerk
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Michel Samson
MR. CHAIRMAN (Mr. Brooke Taylor): In the absence of the chairman, we will bring the meeting to order. Perhaps we will begin by going around the table and introducing ourselves for recording purposes.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The purpose of today's meeting is to set the future agenda for the committee. With that, I will turn things over to the committee member who would like to begin.
Mr. Epstein.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: We have in front of us a suggested list that comes from the Tory caucus, and a suggested list that I think comes from us. I'm just wondering, Keith, if the Liberals had any suggestions for this? Is there a list that I'm missing, as well?
MR. KEITH COLWELL: I have a short list here, only three items.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do you want to tell us what they are, or copy it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: It's the Nominee Program under Immigration; the Federation of Agriculture, in particular, the pork producers and the new arrangement they have; and Sydney Steel, the status of that.
[Page 2]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee members, we have a list put forward by the NDP caucus, the Liberal caucus, and the PC caucus, so let us begin.
Mr. Parker.
MR. CHARLES PARKER: I had one addition, if I could. Looking over both lists, I don't see any mention of the forest industry and, certainly, as we know, it's a major employer in this province and an industry that is perhaps in trouble right now at this time not just in Nova Scotia but probably across the country. I know the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association is meeting tomorrow, or perhaps this week, for their annual meeting.
Stora, as you know, is very much in limbo. Neenah Paper is talking about selling a good portion of their assets. Bowater, MacTara has had difficulties over the years. Some of those industries, either all or some of them would be relevant at this time to have before this committee to hear directly from them. I'm suggesting at least some representative of the forest industry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll add, if it's okay, Mr. Parker, Nova Scotia Forest Products Association.
MR. PARKER: I guess they're representative of all those that I've mentioned.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else have any additions?
Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Not additions, I was just going to start the discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, go ahead.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, the first thing that's striking is there's no overlap. Sometimes on previous occasions we've seen lists and there is overlap and we're able to kind of pick things out that are similar or exactly the same and that gives us a happy start. Here we don't seem to have any overlap at all. I don't see that as meaning that we can't reach agreement, it just so happens we have different lists. At least I hope it doesn't mean we can't reach agreement.
What I might suggest, given the composition of the committee, where we all have the same number of people here, is we might all just keep picking ones from our list and that could be the list. We could generate six or nine items and that will certainly give us lots of grist for the mill for the remainder of our time.
[Page 3]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard, I do notice that Keith's immigration suggestion is, in fact, I don't think you're coming from the same . . .
MR. EPSTEIN: I think it's a different aspect of the immigration question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be agreed then, where the lists are somewhat distinct, that we would go turnabout, where we have three members on the committee? Would that be agreed?
MR. EPSTEIN: Hard to see that that would offend anybody, so far as I can tell.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we'll begin with the NDP and then we'll go to the Liberals and to us, just a friendly little discussion.
MR. EPSTEIN: Our first item would be the question of bringing in the superintendent of pensions and I can just give you a quick rundown of what this has to do with. In her latest report we noticed that the question of the extent of how fully funded private pension plans are in Nova Scotia. There are tables in her report that show that it's really in decline, I think about 80 per cent of the private pension plans were fully funded a few years ago and now it's down to about 60 per cent of those plans. It's kind of worrisome because a lot of the population is getting older, there are going to be retirements, and the state of people's pension plans is kind of worrisome. What we thought we'd do is just get some more information about this, find out what the options are and what those companies are that are having problems and why and so on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard, have you had them at the Public Accounts Committee?
MR. EPSTEIN: No, and we kind of thought about this for Public Accounts but because they're private companies and not government money, although the consequence for the government would be if some of those companies weren't able to meet their pension obligations, you could well imagine that there's going to be a lot of pressure to help out from public dollars. At this point it's not a public dollar expenditure, so not for Public Accounts, and it hasn't come up there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed we bring in the superintendent of pensions?
It is agreed.
We will move to you, Mr. Colwell.
[Page 4]
MR. COLWELL: I think there are some similarities between the immigration thing that the NDP have and we have. We're particularly interested in the Nominee Program to see how that's working, there appear to be some difficulties with it that we'd like to investigate.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do you have witnesses for that, Keith? Were there people you thought should be brought in?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, we would have some witnesses. I don't have them with me today because I didn't get a chance to talk to our members at length about it. That's one that Michel had suggested.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We would probably want, I guess, or I think we would have the deputy minister. Is Elizabeth Mills not the deputy minister?
MR. EPSTEIN: No. Oh, sorry, I don't think she's deputy - maybe she does have status as deputy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe she was elevated, promoted, whatever. I'm just throwing that out if you guys want to come up with names, but that's certainly somebody who I think seems to be well versed in that whole issue, Keith.
MR. COLWELL: I would think she'd be very appropriate as at least one witness.
MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, were you thinking just the government department or were you also thinking Cornwallis Financial Corp. that administers that program on behalf of the government?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Both probably. I'll make sure we get that information to Darlene and any other people that you have, within reason.
MR. COLWELL: I'll have our caucus forward any other suggestions that they have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My colleagues on the PC side of the equation, we'll move to you.
Ms. Streatch.
MS. JUDY STREATCH: Certainly I would have to say that if I could choose one, Composites Atlantic is one of the more up and coming, very successful, it would certainly be interesting to get their perspective. They have had great success as well as expansion out of the main plant into my riding as well, with a smaller subsidiary. It's nice to have a look at the success stories to see exactly what type of activity they have undertaken and certainly Maurice has been extremely co-operative in the community.
[Page 5]
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed to invite Composites Atlantic Limited in?
It is agreed, and we'll confer with Darlene regarding the witnesses.
We'll go back to the NDP caucus. Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: We're going to go with Charlie's suggestion about the forest industry and we will make some suggestions as to possible witnesses, but we'd like it to be a general look at the current state of play in the forest industry. That would be a variety of things, of course, it would range from pulp and paper to flooring and other kinds of uses, but basically have a good look, if we could, with the assistance of some of the department people and maybe some industry people as to where they are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask you a question, Charlie? Are you on the Resources Committee as well?
MR. PARKER: I am, and I think at some point we had had them in to the Resources Committee, but it has been some time. The industry is changing, it's not getting any better and I think it's time we talk about the problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed on the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association?
Thank you. It is agreed.
Keith.
MR. COLWELL: I'll go back to the Federation of Agriculture, the pork producers in particular, and the witness in from the federation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that would be the chairman and president probably, Mr. Berfelo and Mr. Vissers.
Okay, Mr. Dooks.
MR. WILLIAM DOOKS: The boat building industry. As a witness I think probably through the government people to get an understanding on the program that was announced almost five years ago in support of the boat builders in Nova Scotia. I'd like to see if it has been successful and if more money needs to be positioned there - so just to get an overview of that, please.
[Page 6]
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be number 13, the boat building industry. Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Mr. Epstein.
MR. EPSTEIN: Our third one would be looking at skill shortages, that's Skills Nova Scotia and also the new community college system president, Joan McArthur-Blair, to see if we can look at what's happening in the community college system to try to meet the skill shortages that we've been reading about.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is Skills Nova Scotia. Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Keith.
MR. COLWELL: The last one I have is Sydney Steel, and I would have to get my caucus to forward the witnesses to you and the other Parties.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Sydney Steel. Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Ms. Streatch.
MS. STREATCH: I think the aerospace and defence industry in Nova Scotia would be one that the committee could get some valuable input and information from.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the aerospace and defence industry in Nova Scotia. Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. DOOKS: Mr. Chairman, how many have we booked in now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have about nine now.
MR. DOOKS: I'm just saying other things could come up that we may want to . . .
[Page 7]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I was asked to bring an issue to the caucus table, because we always build in flexibility, and I would like you to possibly consider representatives from National Gypsum.
MR. PARKER: That's probably a good one.
MR. DOOKS: That would be urgent, would it not? Should you prioritize that one?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not at this point because I just received the request, and I told them I would take it to my colleagues to see what their opinions were. They are in mediation, as I understand it, but the workforce rejected the contract, and the management, the mediator and union reps are supposed to get together. They are still talking, but they're not talking about the right issues, so it's something that I just wondered if the committee would be agreeable to.
It is agreed.
Howard, you have some thoughts on this, I can tell you are pondering down there.
MR. EPSTEIN: I'm just kind of wondering about timing on this and whether you are thinking of inviting both some management and some of the union folks in?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we'd have to, I really do.
MR. EPSTEIN: I think so, given that dispute.
MR. PARKER: At the same time?
MR. EPSTEIN: I assume so. Given the fact that they've had this long-standing dispute, we'd have to think carefully about what it is we were hoping to accomplish. If we were hoping to kind of find out more details about why they can't settle their damn work stoppage, that may be a useful thing. If we were expecting that talking to us all together in the room might help. I don't know if we're set up to be mediators or not - we don't want to do any harm, that's the main thing. We don't want to make them mad at each other.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard, when you mention management, the difficulty is that the employees are alleging that management is reticent to speak about this in a public forum. Unless you have the manager, Pat Mills, agreeing to come in, they'd probably welcome the opportunity to come and bring their points forward, but it really wouldn't be balanced.
[Page 8]
Would it be worth Darlene exploring as to whether or not - I'm just throwing out the name, Pat Mills, he's the manager of the plant, and his house is picketed every day, mind you. It's very hard on his family, that's part of this whole process. The union representatives are Don Dixon and Jim Peterson.
MR. COLWELL: Is it appropriate for us - I'm not saying it's not . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know where you're going. Go ahead.
MR. COLWELL: I was just wondering if it is appropriate for us - it's sort of a labour-management dispute, I don't know if it is something the committee can really have any influence on or should have any influence on, that's something that should be left to the Department of Environment and Labour to work with, if necessary - it's outside of our realm. It would be interesting to hear about the gypsum plant, and what it means to Nova Scotia and all of those issues, but if we step into a labour-management dispute, I don't know, I have some reservations about that. I don't know how my colleagues would feel about it, but I have some real reservations about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I do, as well, Keith. I just brought the request, I promised the guys I'd bring it up.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have a stray thought about this, which is, maybe if we invited the plant management and the union to consider whether they would both be prepared to come. If one or the other of them isn't prepared to come, then maybe we shouldn't do it. If they're both prepared to come, then maybe it would be because they both decided there would be some use to them in meeting with this committee. Otherwise, I'm not clear what help we're going to be to anybody.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Exactly. One thing we can be sure of is that it is not outside our mandate, that's clear, it's not outside our mandate. I have the same concerns. As far as the economic development component of it goes, it's not, but the labour issues (Interruptions) I think that would be the best approach.
Is it agreed that we would ask, through Darlene, whether both sides appropriate are willing to come in and discuss the issue or issues? If they're not, I can't see any value in it.
MR. COLWELL: I have just one more question before you decide on whether you're going to do that or not. If one side decides not to come for whatever reason and then the other side goes to the media and says, look, the union refused to come, or the management refused to come, will that put another spike in their negotiations? That could easily happen, you know how these things sort of get out of hand. I still have some real reservations about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dooks.
[Page 9]
MR. DOOKS: I re-thought that since we had the conversation in committee. I'll support the committee, of course, on the request here, but I do agree with Mr. Colwell, that without having any power to make any decision in the dispute that we're just allowing ourselves to be a sounding board, and that can be positive, it also can be negative. I'm cold to this, but we'll support the committee if the other members wish to have them in. Mr. Chairman, I don't see it benefiting anything or anybody.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: Part of the difficulty here, why they haven't been able to come to a settlement, my understanding, is that there are replacement workers doing the work, the company is carrying on the same as always. I guess we don't have legislation that prevents that kind of thing from happening. The workers are at a disadvantage because the business is the same as always, it's carrying on. Some provinces have anti-scab legislation, and I guess we do not. It makes it very tough for those families who are out on strike, knowing that the work and the profits of the company are carrying on the same as always. That's maybe an issue that needs to be looked at.
MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, I think I will agree with my colleague, Mr. Dooks. I was asked to bring it forward and I brought it forward in the context that I would think we would have to have agreement to have both sides in to have a balanced discussion. I'm not keen to bring the dispute to Halifax, but I do represent a goodly number of constituents who had asked that maybe they be given the opportunity to come before our committee. That is why I brought it up at the end of our witnesses.
So where do we go from here? What is the thought at this point?
MR. DOOKS: Darlene could do some research and come back to our next meeting with the thought of if both sides would want to come, that's one option. The other thing is just to say no here today. Not that it's not appropriate, it's just what benefit will it be?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we perhaps, as a committee, and I don't think this would be unreasonable, ask for if it's not confidential - I guess we wouldn't want to go in camera or anything - the mediator, Milton Veniot, obviously has done some work on the issue, and if it's not deemed to be sensitive and private information - Howard, I'll defer to you.
MR. EPSTEIN: I'm really worried about this one just because, as I said, we don't want to do any harm in the situation. I understand the dilemma you're in, like any other member of the committee, if you're asked to raise something in a committee, people usually say that because they're flailing around and they don't see where they can go in a situation that gives them a real dilemma. From our perspective, I think we have to worry about whether we're going to advance anything or not advance anything here, and not doing any harm is sort of the starting point.
[Page 10]
There are a couple of possible approaches. One is just to say no and the other is to say we'll only hear them if both sides agree that they're prepared to come in. A third possible approach might be to say to them, after the labour dispute is settled we'll get you in and talk to see if we can look back at it to see if there was anything there that we might have been doing different. Those seem, to me, the options.
Now if we just say yes and issue a public invitation to both sides and one side says yes and the other side says no, I think we're just stirring the pot and kind of not doing them any good, and probably doing a little harm at that. So that part would worry me, I wouldn't really want to do that.
Now there's another possibility, I suppose, which is where it could be one of those rare instances where we might think it's useful to everybody to hold an in camera meeting, even if they're parties but . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Howard, what would the pros and cons of the committee be - and this is in the interests of the workers, I'll be very fair, because I've only talked to management once and that was to Mr. Mills, and he doesn't want to talk on site. I spoke with a number of the workers and they're really concerned that the talks have bogged down, they're not at the table. Would there be anything wrong with us encouraging both sides - it may be just symbolic - to get back to the table to try to resolve this dispute?
MR. EPSTEIN: Is there no mediation at the moment? What's the state of play on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Milton Veniot has filed his report with the Department of Labour but it apparently hasn't been officially received, there's a process in place where it has been filed. I did talk with Minister Morash about this, and Kerry said that he understands that the vote was quite overwhelmingly against the contract. There are about four outstanding issues, I do understand that just from talking to the workers and talking to management. They don't seem to be able to compromise and a lot of it has to do with personalities. Somebody has suggested that they take two of those issues outside the contract and deal with them. The other two, there may be some movement on.
I do know that the workers on all fronts, and the union, would appreciate maybe the committee encouraging both sides to get back to the table. It's in everybody's best interest if they resolve it, it clearly is. Even the management will tell you that their production is down, their costs are up, and it has taken an incredible toll on everybody in the area.
[Page 11]
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. EPSTEIN: I'd certainly support - if it would help or at least would be symbolic - a letter from the committee, representing the views of all three Parties saying, we read about an extended labour dispute and we certainly encourage both the union and management to get back to good-faith bargaining and get on with the process if they possibly can. There would be no harm in that, I wouldn't think. Any extended labour dispute isn't good for the economy of the province, globally, it's not good for local communities, it can't be good for the company. I don't think we'd put our foot wrong if an all-Party committee says that, but it would have to be unanimous. If we're not unanimous then there's no point in saying that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think possibly we would consider, if we do a letter that all three Parties would sign, a representative from all three Parties. So we agree to a draft and go from there and advance it to both sides. Actually the head office is in North Carolina but I have the FAX number.
MR. PARKER: That sounds like a reasonable alternative or proposal that might at least get the ball rolling, without us interfering too much. Just ask them to come back together and talk.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be the point, absolutely.
Ms. More.
MS. MARILYN MORE: I agree with that strategy but I'm just wondering if we might put in a line that says the committee is seriously considering asking both sides to appear before it within the next two to three months, if that might sort of kick-start them into seriously talking to one another again? I don't know.
MR. COLWELL: I don't agree with that. I think a letter from all three Parties - and because I'm not a regular member on this committee so I would have to check with my colleagues to make sure they don't have an objection, I don't imagine they would, but who knows - and I'm not opposed to that, personally, I would think that in the letter it should indicate that after the thing is settled that we invite them in to ask them what could be changed to prevent this from happening again, this prolonged process. Maybe the process through the Department of Labour should be accelerated in this sort of case or who knows what.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right now the issue is they are out, they're not working and I think, Keith, in all fairness, we should probably stick to trying to get them back together. Then, if you, or the NDP feel, or we feel we should bring them in to discuss some of the issues, I think that would be more appropriate. I think the worst thing we could do would be to kind of intimidate them on either side at this point. If they get back to the table and are
[Page 12]
serious about resolving this, and I think it will be resolved, they have had a couple of good sessions, they've made progress. Right now there's a big issue with job displacement and as well with people crossing the picket line. Some people are trying to receive clemency for that and pardons, it's stuff that would be way over my head, I'm not a negotiator at all and I don't pretend to be. I think if we encourage them to get back to the table - and we've said that in the Legislature unanimously by way of resolution - to reinforce the position that they must get back, I think that's where we should stick.
MR. EPSTEIN: To summarize where I think we are which is, a letter would go but only if it's unanimous and we're going to hear from Mr. Colwell or someone else from the Liberal caucus whether that's okay. Can we see a draft before anything comes out?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: So a draft will be circulated, okay.
MR. COLWELL: I suggest in the absence of my colleagues who are on this committee, who couldn't be here because of the snowstorm, so they tell me (Laughter) If you maybe prepare that letter and send if off for approval by our members on the committee, I would have no problem with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
MR. PARKER: When are we meeting next or do we have a schedule of regular meetings or what?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Next week.
MR. PARKER: January 23rd did somebody say? (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear the job of President of the Royal Canadian Mint is up for grabs today. Keith, you might be a shoe-in for that. All jokes aside, when are we going to meet, folks? Early February?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): I was thinking of February 7th, because the NDP caucus is out of town February 14th through to February 17th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the committee okay with February 7th?
MR. PARKER: I'll be away but someone can take my place, I'm sure.
[Page 13]
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's getting pretty close to a pretty important date in Halifax, but it's not too close.
MR. DOOKS: We're pretty busy that week.
MR. PARKER: What's going on that week?
MR. DOOKS: It's just as big as what's taking place on January 23rd.
MRS. HENRY: We could go on February 21st.
MS. STREATCH: I'm fine with February 7th, Mr. Chairman.
MR. COLWELL: I'm fine with February 7th.
MR. PARKER: February 7th will probably work, I'll find a replacement for me.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill may have to find a replacement, but the rest of us will be here. (Laughter) Let's shoot for February 7th. Is there a motion to adjourn?
MR. DOOKS: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your co-operation.
We stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:37 a.m.]
