HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Mr. John MacDonell (Chairman)
Hon. Barry Barnet
Hon. Karen Casey
Mr. Patrick Dunn
Mr. Sterling Belliveau
Mr. Charles Parker
Mr. Wayne Gaudet
Mr. Leo Glavine
Mr. Harold Theriault
[Hon. Leonard Goucher replaced Hon. Karen Casey]
[Mr. Keith Colwell replaced Mr. Wayne Gaudet]
In Attendance:
Ms. Jana Hodgson
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
Mr. Neil Ferguson
Legislative Counsel
WITNESS
Canadian Coast Guard
Ms. Nancy Hurlburt
Assistant Commissioner
In Attendance
Fishereries and Oceans Canada
Mr. George Da Pont
Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard
Mr. Gary Sidock
Director General, Fleet, Canadian Coast Guard
Mr. Daniel Roussy
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada
Mr. Thomas Donovan
Legal Counsel, Cox & Palmer
Mr. Stephen Bornais
Communications Manaager
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
9:00 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. John MacDonell
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, if it's okay with the members, I'd like to get started. I think the fact that our presenter was here earlier than us, I don't think there's much point in holding off any longer. I want to say welcome to Assistant Commissioner Nancy Hurlburt, really pleased to have you here today.
The usual format is that the members of the committee will introduce themselves and then the floor is open to you, so we would ask you to introduce yourself for recording purposes, as much as anything else, and you can also introduce the people you have with you. At any point that you want - I'm not sure what you have planned for the presentation, whether you're going to do it all or somebody else is going to share with you but certainly when it comes to answering questions, if you want to refer to somebody else, that would be fine. I think it would only be your legal counsel who couldn't present to the committee but obviously can present to you.
So anyway, we'll start with Mr. Belliveau and we'll come around.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The floor is yours.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Hello, I'm pleased to be here. I'm Nancy Hurlburt, the Assistant Commissioner for the Maritimes Region of the Canadian Coast Guard. I have with me, to my left, Daniel Roussy, who is our legal counsel from Justice Canada and to my right, Thomas Donovan, who is the legal counsel from Cox & Palmer.
[Page 2]
With me today - there are a few people with me - we have our communications manager, Stephen Bornais, for the Maritimes Region; the director general of our fleet from headquarters, Gary Sidock; and the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, George Da Pont, from Ottawa.
So I have a few opening comments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You go right ahead.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Now that I see we have a presentation, I could have given you a nice pictorial overview of some of the services we provide, because we're pretty proud of the services we provide at the Canadian Coast Guard. But I didn't prepare for that, so I have just a few opening comments that will only take a few minutes.
As I said, my name is Nancy Hurlburt, Assistant Commissioner for the Maritimes Region of the Canadian Coast Guard. I'm here today pursuant to a warrant issued by this committee on June 20, 2008, regarding the committee's interest in the redeployment of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers Louis St. Laurent and Terry Fox from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The subject of the redeployment has been previously discussed before members of the federal Parliament, particularly the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the Senate Committee on National Finance. These proceedings are all matters of public record, maintained by Hansard, and may have already been reviewed by members of this committee.
In addition to the federal committee proceedings, which are a matter of public record, this committee was provided with a package of materials from the Coast Guard on June 30, 2008. This package contained all of the information relevant to the decision to relocate the icebreakers. This information is also in the public domain. It was provided to this committee in the spirit of co-operation.
It is the view of the Canadian Coast Guard, and I also understand this committee, that I'm not compellable to answer questions from members of the committee that are under federal jurisdiction. The Government of Canada is of the opinion that the subjects previously reviewed by the parliamentary committees, as well as the information contained in the package previously provided to you, generally relate to matters of federal jurisdiction and are therefore not appropriate subject matter for review by this committee.
While members of this committee are free to review the material, I have been instructed not to provide evidence in this regard, pending a judicial determination on the warrant, which is scheduled to be heard on November 12, 2008. I hope you will appreciate that I will only be able to respond to questions that do not fall under federal jurisdiction. I have counsel present, with whom I will consult to determine whether questions posed by the
[Page 3]
members relate to the federal sphere. Further, as a public servant, I cannot offer opinions or views on policy decisions or on federal decision-making processes. So now I welcome your questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I sure have one but I guess I would like to refer to the members of the committee first. Mr. Belliveau.
MR. STERLING BELLIVEAU: I definitely have a question but I don't think - I'll definitely try to ask the question. For the record, Mr. Chairman, if I can, I think the decisions that we saw unfold about removing these icebreakers and relocating them to Newfoundland and Labrador, I think a lot of fishermen across Nova Scotia questioned the motivation behind that. I think that many fishermen feel these were moved more for the safety of political MPs in Newfoundland and Labrador than the safety of fishermen across Nova Scotia and the Atlantic Provinces. To me, that's clear.
I think the question, for the record, I would like to know how this decision was ultimately reached. I want to put this on the record for the people that I represent, which is a strong fishing community. I've had the privilege of looking at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and I've observed that particular area is one of the richest areas where we have a lot of supply vessels that are frequent with the offshore oil and gas. Mr. Chairman, those supply vessels are equipped for firefighting, search and rescue, and I can go into great length. I mean, those particular vessels are frequent to that water so to me, any decision where you're removing two of these search and rescue vessels from the Halifax area, I think - pardon the pun here - it raises some alarm bells for a lot of people in Atlantic Canada, particularly in southwest Nova Scotia.
The point I'm trying to make here is that if you look back, in 1990-91 there was a cod moratorium put in place in Atlantic Canada. The majority of activity in our ground fisheries, I suggest to you, is in southwest Nova Scotia and it's still there today, a very active fishing, it is the most active fishery in the Atlantic Provinces.
I guess I'm just putting this out as a question. If you kind of look at restructuring where these vessels were going to be deployed and knowing that you have probably the most active fishery in Atlantic Canada in southwest Nova Scotia - and I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that from Sambro, I can basically throw a rock out this window to where the District 33 lobster fishery starts off of Sambro and goes around to southwest Nova Scotia, Baccaro Point; District 34 lobster starts there and goes around to Digby; and we have the Digby area, District 35, including up to Grand Manan.
[9:15 a.m.]
The point I'm trying to make there is that this particular fishery is active in the winter. In taking this job on, I noticed as I come here during the winter, when everybody is pulling
[Page 4]
their pleasure crafts up after they enjoyed the recreation of our summer months, the people in these particular areas are just getting serious about going fishing. This is the busiest time of the year, in the winter months. So if you have all of that knowledge, the question I have, Mr. Chairman, is, how can you deploy two of these vessels to Newfoundland and Labrador when you have the most active commercial fishery in southwest Nova Scotia?
I would ask the question, was southwest Nova Scotia or even Shelburne, which has one of the most protected harbours in Atlantic Canada, was that considered in this evaluation? I think that's a fair question and I'll leave it at that.
To summarize my question, and I hope you can address some of those comments, is that many of the fishermen I talk to, including the above scenario I just laid out, came to one conclusion and it's that these particular vessels were moved for the safety of political MP seats rather than the safety of fishermen.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Okay, obviously I can't speak to the decision-making process because as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that is federal jurisdiction and I've been advised by legal counsel that it's not appropriate to respond to.
I do want to clarify one point that you made about the substantial fisheries in the southwest Nova Scotia area in the winter, I'm fully aware of that. I did want to point out that these two vessels are primarily ice-breaking vessels. In the 10 years that I've been with the Coast Guard, I don't recall we've ever assigned either of those vessels for the search and rescue program in the opening of those fisheries. So we still have all of the resources that we historically have had; for example, in the specifics we've got the Sambro Light Boat Station, we've got the one on Cape Sable Island and then we've got the one in Grand Manan, they're always there. We also put additional resources on for the southwest Nova Scotia opening of the fishery, so we usually make sure we have an 1100 in the area. So those vessels are remaining in our area, and will continue to deliver the same services.
The two heavy icebreakers, which primarily spend their summers in the Arctic and the winters normally getting repairs done or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, if it's required, we'll continue with their programs as they always have. So it doesn't matter where they're home-ported, the operational plans for the vessels are determined on a national basis, involving all regions, and then we use the vessels accordingly. So in the past those icebreakers have been used in the Quebec region, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Maritimes, wherever they're needed, even though they are home-based here, and that will continue into the future. I hope that addresses your question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sterling, do you have anything else?
MR. BELLIVEAU: I'll let the committee - I'll hopefully have a second one.
[Page 5]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunn.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: Thank you. Perhaps just a clarification you could comment on. My understanding for the restructuring is that the two coast guards are going to another location but that other smaller vessels will replace the two that are moving on to another location. I guess my question would be, is that something that is in the restructuring plan, a replacement of smaller vessels for this area? How many? When can we expect, in the future years when this will actually occur, replacement vessels for the two that are moving on to the newer location?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes, those two heavy icebreakers are leaving their home port from this region but will continue in the Coast Guard delivering the same programs, as I mentioned earlier.
At the same time this announcement was made, there was an announcement made in terms of budget allocation for new vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard. In total, I think through two different budget processes we've received funding for 16 vessels for the Coast Guard, four of which are coming to this region. There are five regions in the country so obviously we're getting a larger percentage than other regions. Four of those new vessels will be in this region and they're mostly replacements; three are replacements for other vessels that will be retired and another one is an addition to the fleet. They're not replacing icebreakers; they are replacing other vessels.
The plans, in terms of timing, there were original announcements around anywhere
between 2012 and 2014 for the replacements. We are having difficulties with our tendering process so they may be delayed, in terms of actual receipt.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Keith.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: I just want to ask you a few questions about the economic impact to the regional area here and the subcontractors that would normally work on these icebreakers. It is estimated - the estimate we've received is somewhere between $12 million and $15 million negative economic impact, and that's a direct impact to this province.
Whether you're the Coast Guard or whether you're some business operating here, whatever the case may be, this is direct negative impact to our economy. We've seen the Moirs candy factory close, about 1200 to 1400 jobs gone; we've seen the TrentonWorks close, about 1200 or 1400 jobs gone. This is going to have a serious negative impact financially to the local area, to local contractors that would work on the Coast Guard vessels. I'd like to hear your comments on that and that is directly related to this province.
[Page 6]
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes, I do have some figures. I think I want to just take a few minutes to explain how we operate with our budgets. We basically have budgets around salary dollars, our operating budget, as well as money for refits.
What you've talked about, I think you were focusing a bit on our refit program. Some of that is done along shore, through contracts, local contracts, others are done through large bidding tenders. So I'll start, I guess, with the human resource costs. For those vessels - for example, in 2007-2008 the human resource salaries for the Louis St. Laurent are $6.4 million and for the Terry Fox are $3.7 million.
I do want to point out that we have a five-year transition plan so the employees can continue to live wherever they're living now and we will actually take them from Halifax to meet the vessel wherever it may be located. As you can appreciate, because they're in the north in the summer, very rarely does the crew-change happen in their home port anyway. We normally do it on-site in the north, so we'll just be taking the charter from Halifax to wherever we're meeting it in the north, as we normally would.
The salary costs - the point I want to make is that we have employees now who live in France and who live in Vancouver, who operate out of our home port vessels in Halifax. So it is quite common, because of the shift that they work, they work 28 days on and 28 days off, that they live wherever. Many do not live in Halifax; many live throughout the Province of Nova Scotia.
What I foresee over the next five years and what we've been getting from employees is that they intend to continue doing that for the next five years. Some, or many, may choose to continue to do that at their own expense in the future, so instead of after the five years is up, they'll pay their own way to get to Newfoundland and Labrador, which is common, and join up with the crew change there. For example, the commanding officer on the Louis St. Laurent, one of our commanding officers is from Newfoundland and Labrador as it is, so he has done the opposite for a number of years. So those costs, it's very difficult to determine what percentage really will move from the province, it's hard to say.
On the operating side of it we spend - and that's where we get into a lot of the contract stuff, the purchasing of supplies for the vessels and what have you - the operating dollars are about $1.2 million for the Louis and $900,000 for the Terry Fox last year. In both of those cases, some of that will be going to Newfoundland and Labrador, there's no question - when they do their major resupplies, they'll be doing them out of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, when they're in the Gulf in the winter months they will resupply in Sydney, Nova Scotia, as they always have in the past. They go back in and get supplies throughout the season, so you can't say 100 per cent of that will leaving as well.
The other big component is fuel and depending on where they're operating, they refuel wherever. Most of the summer they refuel in the Arctic so the $6 million for the Louis
[Page 7]
and the almost $4 million for the Fox, most of that money is spent in the Arctic now and will continue to be spent there or spent in Sydney or wherever we are - Charlottetown sometimes, wherever we're refuelling in the Gulf in the winter months. So although it sounds like a lot of money for the operations of those vessels, it's very difficult to target exactly what percentage will be lost out of the Nova Scotia income.
The other piece on the refit side, insubstantial, but on substantial refits we tender, so any shipyard can get the work. They often go to Shelburne, they often go to Newfoundland and Labrador now, they can go to Quebec, they can go to Halifax. For example, between 2000 and 2007, we spent $8 million over that seven-year period on refits for the Terry Fox. Actually, exactly half of it was spent in Newfoundland and Labrador and half in Halifax. Over that seven-year period she had all her refits between Newfoundland and Labrador Shipyard and Halifax Shipyard. So that will actually continue because they will tender, as we always tender and whatever shipyard gets the job is where the vessel will go, so it might come from Newfoundland and Labrador to Halifax to get its refit done. I hope that gives you a bit of understanding.
MR. COLWELL: I appreciate the answers on that. What about the small contractors, the local contractors who may call in here locally to repair some minor thing on the ship - up to, I don't know what dollar value? I used to know some of the contractors who did that work and they did a pretty substantial amount of work with the Coast Guard.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I have some figures but again, alongside refits, some years we've done in the vicinity of probably $1 million between the two vessels on alongside refits. There's no question that some of that will now be done in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, there will be some percentages of it because we often have, because of the age of our vessels, they'll break down and will go to the nearest port. If it happens to be operating in the Gulf at the time, it will come in here to have its repairs done. But if there is a scheduled alongside refit, that will happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. COLWELL: Again, this relates to our economy here in Nova Scotia. Was the decision made to move the vessels from Halifax to Newfoundland and Labrador, one that was recommended by the Coast Guard and your staff or was it one that came from Ottawa?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: That is clearly in the federal sphere of operations. It's an operational decision from the department, so I'm not able to respond to that.
MR. COLWELL: How long have the Terry Fox and the Louis St. Laurent been in Halifax?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I don't have that right in front of me, but I do believe the Louis has been here since 1969 and the Fox from 1993.
[Page 8]
MR. COLWELL: Have any of the operational requirements for the vessel been changed in that time, since they were deployed here?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Sorry, I made a mistake, it's 1983 for the Terry Fox, that it has been here. I could have sworn it was 1993. Oh no, that's the year built - yes, I'm getting confused, it is 1993 that we have had the Terry Fox. It was actually built for private use and then we purchased it later on after it had been in operation for a while. Sorry, what was the question?
MR. COLWELL: My question was, have their operating requirements changed since the dates that respectively the two of them had been here from when they were initially deployed until now - their operating requirements?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: In terms of what it delivers, in terms of programs you mean?
MR. COLWELL: Yes.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I can't answer that because the Louis has been since 1969 - that's certainly before my days - but they are both heavy icebreakers. That's what they were meant, well, the Terry Fox was purchased for that purpose, the Louis was built for the purpose of ice breaking, so I'm assuming that they are mostly used for that purpose. Just one second and I'll check.
[9:30 a.m.]
They're agreeing that they're basically heavy icebreakers. The programs change from time to time, this year we're working on the international polar year, so we're spending more time on science this year than we might have in the past and also on the unclose verification of our waterways in the north. Depending on the programs, the program may change a bit, but they're primarily always operating in the Arctic in the summer and ice breaking in the winter.
MR. COLWELL: We talked a little bit about personnel and where some people are located in the different locations. Has there been any indication from any of your personnel that are stationed in Nova Scotia - I want to stress, Nova Scotia - that they may leave their employment after the five-year period?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I'm not sure the nature of your question, but we certainly have employees. What we have done is spent a lot of time with our employees and actually had face-to-face interviews with them, one on one, to get a sense of what their interests are - whether they wanted to go to Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they wanted to stay with us, whether they planned to retire. As the province is facing as well, we're certainly facing
[Page 9]
an aging population in the Coast Guard and over the next five years we have about 30 per cent of our employees in this region who will be eligible for retirement. It is even a little bit higher on the ships and elsewhere in the region.
A number of those employees have told us that within the five years their plans were always to retire and they'll continue with those plans. They are quite happy to stay with the current state where they'll stay with their vessel until they retire.
We have others who have asked to transfer to other regions, which we've accommodated and we're also accommodating requests to be reallocated to other vessels within our region because we have so many people retiring that there's not a problem accommodating the employees. But if you're asking if they're going to private, I haven't had any specific knowledge of that.
MR. COLWELL: I share my colleague's concern here. I know that these two vessels are primarily ice breaking, with the fishing fleet we have here in Nova Scotia and that does have a negative impact on our economy if our fishing fleet is held up at any time because they need the services of ice breaking. Typically in your experience, how much time is spent in Nova Scotia with the ice breakers related to the fishing fleet in Nova Scotia?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Obviously, I don't have those statistics with me but the Louis, for the last seven years - this is the first year actually that she has operated in the winter time. She has been alongside in the cold or hot layup for the whole winter in the past six years, mostly because of budget restrictions, but we've got her back into the field of operation this year. The Terry Fox has traditionally been doing ice breaking. Most of our harbour breakouts - if that's what you're asking about for the fisheries - are not normally done by those two vessels because of the draft that they take, they're large icebreakers.
In Northern New Brunswick is mostly where we do breakouts for the commencement of the fisheries and we often use the hovercraft from Quebec to do those kinds of breakouts and occasionally the Terry Fox. To my knowledge, the Louis has never actually been involved in breakout of harbours for fisheries, but it's not traditional that we do it in Nova Scotia, actually, because we don't normally have the need to breakout harbours for fishing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker, and would you introduce yourself?
MR. CHARLES PARKER: Good morning, I'm Charlie Parker, MLA for Pictou West. I have a few short snappers here. I want to pick up on my colleague's point of view, I guess he had asked you about the decision-making process. You had indicated that perhaps you're not able to share with us whether it was a management committee in DFO or it was a minister's decision or federal Cabinet, or whomever. I assume that probably in the end it came down to the federal Cabinet to make a decision. Regardless of that, if you can't be quite sure what that is, I'm still trying to figure out the reasoning why. Why is it that the
[Page 10]
icebreakers were taken from here after 40 years, especially for the Louis St. Laurent, having been here for that length of time? If not the decision-making reasons, what are the operational reasons? Why would they move from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and Labrador?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Again, based on legal counsel, I can't respond to any questions related to the decision-making process because it is federal jurisdiction. I would however want to point out that the material provided to you on June 30th did contain information that may answer some of your questions.
MR. PARKER: So you can't share with us anything specific to the fishery or to ice breaking or any operational reasons for why it was in the best interests of our country to have them moved from this province to another?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: No, I can't speak to the decision-making process for why it is moving. I can talk about the operations of the vessels in future, which is basically it will happen the same way it always has, the operational planning happens in headquarters with all of the regions present and they determine what the plans will be for each vessel every year and they're assigned accordingly.
MR. PARKER: I'll move on to another question. The berthing spaces that we have here in Halifax-Dartmouth, one of them has been here for 40 years and the other one for 25 years, I believe it is. Obviously there has been space here for them, was that a factor in the decision? Was there not sufficient berthing space here to continue to hold them in Halifax-Dartmouth?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I'm sorry I have to keep giving you the same answer, but unfortunately, based on legal counsel, I can't respond to questions about why the decision was taken because it's a federal jurisdiction. I do want to say that this stuff has been discussed before parliamentary committees and that information is a matter of public record, so if you'd like to get copies of those, I'm sure you could and you may have already looked at some of them yourselves.
MR. PARKER: Okay, I'll try again. In Argentia and St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, can you share with us the cost to renovate those spaces to accommodate these two vessels coming over?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes, I will. In terms of the Terry Fox, it will be going alongside, she'll be home ported at the base in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, so there are no additional costs for her to be alongside there. The Louis St. Laurent will eventually go to Argentia and the fees for berthing there for a year are only $18,000 a year. There will be a one time cost of about $70,000 to establish the proper electrical power hookups for the vessel.
[Page 11]
MR. PARKER: Were there any additional costs to accommodate the Terry Fox in St. John's?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: No.
MR. PARKER: No berthing fees either or rental fees of any type?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: No.
MR. PARKER: Only in Argentia there had to be some improvements made?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: That's right.
MR. PARKER: How many personnel are we talking about in total? How many men or women are actually being transferred from here to there?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: There are 132 positions on-board the two vessels in total, but the numbers that will actually transfer to Newfoundland and Labrador, it's very complex. Since the decisions were made, we've been running joint processes and competitive processes between the two regions. Some of our employees have won higher-level positions in Newfoundland and Labrador off those two vessels or elsewhere in the Newfoundland and Labrador fleet. We've already had some people leaving and going to Newfoundland and Labrador, we've had some go to other regions, we've had some go to other vessels in our fleet. It's almost impossible to determine at the end of the day how many will actually go to Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. PARKER: And that 132, does that include only those on ship or does that include some that are in supply and service on the ground?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: That only includes those on-board the ships. The impact is strictly related to the ships.
MR. PARKER: Are there personnel here in Halifax-Dartmouth who may lose their jobs because their ships are being berthed elsewhere?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: No, our shore-based support will stay as it is now. We have a generic organization that's pretty much the same, regardless of how many vessels you have and it's the same from region to region.
MR. PARKER: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I guess those are all of my questions for now, answered or unanswered, we'll hold it there for now.
[Page 12]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I just want to make sure that there are other members because I had a couple of hands up. Minister Goucher, then I'll get Mr. Theriault.
HON. LEONARD GOUCHER: My question really is probably - I think you probably already touched on it. It's a very basic one and I guess probably one of the most important ones to all of us in here, and myself, and yourself as well. Can the Canadian Coast Guard, given its current resources, without the Terry Fox and the Louis St. Laurent, which you've already stated were basically not used in the SAR - search and rescue - category, with their current resources, continue to carry out as they have in the past the search and rescue function, both in the fisheries and as required, within the area?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I'm very confident that we'll be able to continue because, as I said, those vessels were not traditionally used for search and rescue and we have a very good network within this region of lifeboats. We also have other ships that are used on-call for search and rescue. We have two 1100s that are used, which are very large vessels - they'll be the largest in our fleet - that are used primarily for search and rescue, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast of Nova Scotia. We also have our Inshore Rescue Boat Program in the summertime, which we use students for.
I would like to point out that five of the nine lifeboat stations in the Maritimes Region are located in Nova Scotia. We also have the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, which is an extremely important part of our network of search and rescue, which is the voluntary arm of - our partners, basically, do this on a voluntary basis. We compensate them for expenses when they're called out on search and rescue, so we have a very extensive network.
MR. GOUCHER: And the new vessels that you were talking about, the four replacements, any idea on the anticipated delivery date of those vessels? Or is that still up in the air because of the problem with the contracts?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes, it's very much up in the air with the problems.
MR. GOUCHER: There was one other question I had and it was to do with the - back in, I think, 2004 with the previous administration federally there was an exit strategy that was brought forward to the Prime Minister at that time, but I guess you're probably not in a position to be able to discuss that federal part of that. Would that be correct?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: No, it is part of the information that you were provided.
MR. GOUCHER: I noticed the briefing book and I just got a look at the briefing book actually this morning but okay, thanks very much.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: The commissioner just reminded me, we are still going to try to stick with the original time frames. As I mentioned earlier, the targeted dates for
[Page 13]
receipt of the new vessels was 2012 to 2014, so we're still hopeful. Certainly it's the mid-shore patrol vessels that are being held up, but we're still hopeful that we'll get it because we were on the latter end of that delivery anyway.
MR. GOUCHER: And that will basically give you, with the retirements, a net increase of one vessel for the area. Is that correct?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes.
MR. GOUCHER: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I want to go to Mr. Theriault because he hasn't had a question yet.
MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Hurlburt. I can see that you can't answer many of these questions and I can see that one question was answered for me, though, today. I thought there was an advantage to moving these boats from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland and Labrador, and I see there is no advantage.
Everything you've answered here - I've listened to every word - you said there's no advantage because that boat can sail anywhere, it can be repaired in Shelburne, Saint John, New Brunswick, up north, wherever. The people who work are flown around anyway, so the only thing it's doing, it's going from one port to another, there's no advantage. Even the cost, I thought there would be a big cost. You say it's only $10,000 in one place and $60,000 or $70,000 in another, that's very little cost for moving these boats. I heard it was millions, so no advantage there. There's just no advantage for moving these ships from this port to Newfoundland and Labrador. Even for your budget, your budget isn't even going to move there, the way you've explained it, so no advantage there anywhere. There's only one reason these boats are being moved and that's got to be a political reason. There's no question there, and that's all I've got to say, I think, to sum this all up.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Belliveau.
MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a point of clarification because one of your latest comments to one of the earlier speakers said that these vessels were not used for search and rescue. The point I wanted clarified is that you said one of the icebreakers - this last year, if I understood you right - that this is the first time it has been recommissioned for ice breaking. So there was a five-year interval; what was that vessel doing in those five years?
[Page 14]
[9:45 a.m.]
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: As I mentioned at the time, what I was saying is that you probably will recall many years ago, around 1995-96, there were some very strong budget reductions and to use that as a vehicle to work within our budget, we kept her alongside, so she did not deliver a program during the winter months. That was the Louis St. Laurent.
We are now in a position, I'm happy to say, that our vessels are being fully utilized and funded, so she goes back in operation this winter in the Gulf of St. Lawrence doing ice breaking. But she was not doing search and rescue or anything else when she was alongside.
MR. BELLIVEAU: So she was not doing search and rescue, she was not doing ice breaking, what was this vessel - because I'm lost here, Mr. Chairman.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: She was doing nothing, she was tied up.
MR. BELLIVEAU: She was utterly just sitting there.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Absolutely idle, yes.
MR. BELLIVEAU: I find that a bit remarkable but the point I think I'm trying to make here, and we touched on it earlier - not that we want ice in southwest Nova Scotia because basically we are ice-free - but I do sense that there's a lack of protection of search and rescues, and I don't think that these vessels are all meant for ice breaking, I think they play another role in the security, and I see a couple of people shaking their heads there. If there's a major accident, whatever, east of Cape Breton, you've got that particular area there but anything west of there, these vessels aren't on the particular scene. The question is, are we going to have enough of these vessels around to accommodate a serious situation?
I'm saying here that if there was an oil tanker that frequents the Bay of Fundy, that there's a need for some assistance there, or if there's a major shipping accident, whatever, again, I just sense - I think it relates to the next question. You're going to have three more vessels come on-line here, so it ties into where these new vessels are going to be relocating.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Okay, in relation to the search and rescue, I'm fully confident, as I responded earlier, that we can deliver on our program. Those vessels, as with any vessel, can be called out on a search and rescue but it's not their primary operation and they very rarely get involved in that.
The 1100s are primarily offshore vessels for search and rescue and we continue to have those two: one in the eastern part of the province and the other in the western. Nothing will change what we had in the past so those vessels will continue. The Terry Fox and the Louis St. Laurent, if they happen to be in the Gulf, they will be there like they were this year.
[Page 15]
If something happened in southwest Nova Scotia, we would bring them down if we had to. We will continue to do that, even though the vessels are home-ported out of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We actually work very co-operatively, the three regions - I'm saying Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Maritimes - in terms of whenever there's a major crisis, we pool our resources and determine where the priorities are at the time. So that will continue, I don't see any change there.
I'm sorry, I forget the second part of the question already, the end part.
MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, I guess the end part was, to me, if there are three new vessels on the horizon and it looked like they had been stacked and pushed toward Newfoundland and Labrador, I just sense, I think a lot of people, in particular in Nova Scotia, are asking, where are these new vessels going to be located? I think it's a fair question.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: The four new vessels - three are replacement vessels. One is for the Hudson which is a research vessel, the other one is for the Alfred Needler which is also a scientific research vessel. The third replacement is for the Cumella, which is stationed out of Courtney Bay in St. John, in the Bay of Fundy. The fourth is in addition to the fleet and that has not yet been determined, but it will be multi-tasked as most of our vessels are, for security, for conservation and protection of the fishery and what have you, so the determination of the fourth has yet to be made.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: Just a few things. My colleague had alluded to the fact that there seems to be no advantage by moving these two Coast Guard vessels to the point and I don't want an answer on this because you can't answer this. It just so happens - and I want this on the record - that these two locations, St. John's and Argentia, both have Conservative members in government and it just seems too much of a coincidence that they're being moved out of Halifax at a great cost to Halifax. I'll just leave it at that because I know that that's a political question.
The thing I can't understand is we have two solicitors here representing you and the Coast Guard here today. You repeatedly tell us that most all these answers to the questions we're asking are public record, so why can't you answer these questions if they're already on the public record?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I just want to make one comment because it has come up twice that I have said that there's no advantage - I don't want to be on record as saying that. I have given you facts, and decision-making I cannot respond to, so you have material in your binders that should help you in looking at what factors were taken into consideration
[Page 16]
when the decision was made. In terms of my being unable to respond, this provincial committee cannot compel a federal government official to respond to issues relating to federal jurisdiction and that's primarily - although you have the information, I can't respond to your questions because of that.
MR. COLWELL: It doesn't quite make sense to me. It's on public record, you or somebody else in the Coast Guard has answered these questions in a public forum, made these issues public. As long as you don't introduce any new information that hasn't been made public, why have you got solicitors here today telling us you can't answer questions on stuff that is public? It doesn't make any sense?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: We'll, as I've just responded, the committee is not able to compel a federal official to respond. We are in court on this issue, so . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask our solicitor to make comment in that regard?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Absolutely.
MR. GORDON HEBB: I would disagree with the advice that the Assistant Commissioner is getting. The only thing that is actually before the court is the ability of the committee to subpoena the Assistant Commissioner and she is here. As far as the questions being asked by the committee, once she is here, it is my view that the committee has the right to ask any question which they wish to ask and the Assistant Commissioner is obligated to answer. I'm not saying that the committee should ask any question or that the committee should delve into things that are totally within federal jurisdiction.
The law is certainly even quite clear, if the committee had indicated the purpose of the Assistant Commissioner being here, that if the purpose is, in pith and substance, matters within provincial jurisdiction, the fact that it may touch upon matters that would otherwise be exclusively within federal jurisdiction does not matter and the requirement of the witness to be here for that purpose.
I guess maybe the witness may be on the horns of a dilemma if she is receiving advice that she can't answer questions and the committee insists upon asking those. Up to this point, the committee hasn't insisted on any of those questions being answered but I would suggest that that's certainly up to the committee.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure who I'm going to. Mr. Dunn.
MR. DUNN: I'm just a little confused because my understanding at the beginning of the meeting was you, as Chair, said that the solicitors to my left here can't make any
[Page 17]
comment with regard to the procedures here. I'm a little confused now why this is happening?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You shouldn't be too confused by it. We pay this solicitor by the government to advise the committee, so this information is for the members of the committee. He can't go whispering it in everybody's ear.
MR. DUNN: We're playing games here, but I still say I disagree with the procedure that's happening right here, it just doesn't seem to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are allowed to disagree.
MR. DUNN: I do.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I have to echo the same sentiments. I thought I understood at the - and we can check the record later - beginning of the meeting that you, as Chair, made it very clear that we would not entertain any comments from a solicitor.
MR. CHAIRMAN: From their solicitors, yes.
MR. GOUCHER: I thought it was ours, as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. GOUCHER: I'm just saying what I believe I heard and I just want it to be on the record as well that our guest here today is not a politician, she's being asked to answer some questions which I think are in the political realm and she has made it very clear - and I'm not trying to defend her here because she doesn't need it, but by the same token, we're politicians and I know we want to try to have our questions answered, but she's not and she's just, I believe, trying to take that stance. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate what you just said and I agree with part of it. Mr. Barnet, I think the floor is yours.
HON. BARRY BARNET: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Colwell, I apologize, go ahead.
MR. COLWELL: I still want an answer to my question where you've indicated on several occasions that some of the information that we're requesting is a matter of public record. If something is on the public record, I want to know why you can't answer the question?
[Page 18]
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I thought I had responded to that in that the committee is not able to compel a federal official to respond to questions related to federal jurisdiction, so with legal counsel, I am unable to respond.
MR. COLWELL: Some of the questions - basically, any time a major change is made like this in Nova Scotia, when we affect Nova Scotia, here today we're talking about Nova Scotia, and to move vessels of this size and the potential economic impact, and you've discussed that in some detail, that it does affect Nova Scotia. Some of the other things we've been talking about that we didn't ask you to comment on and presumed that you wouldn't want to comment on those because they're really out of the realm of what we should be asking, we didn't ask, we just made comments, but anything to do with these vessels being moved out of Nova Scotia has a negative impact on Nova Scotia. It may be short term, it may be long term, probably both and this province is going to be struggling, I think, in a few years because we have more and more businesses closing, substantial employers, and the Coast Guard is one of those and it's very, very serious.
I'd like to speak on the point of order that my colleague has made if I could, Mr. Chairman. I clearly heard you state that the two solicitors could not speak, didn't say anything about our own solicitor. Our own solicitor speaks at every committee that we ask him to make a view on. It appears that they're getting quite political with this whole thing and I won't go any further than that at this point, but if they want to make it very political, we will make it very political and that's not the place in a committee to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: I'd like to drag this back to the topic. I have a couple of quick questions, one with respect to earlier you talked about the fact that there are employees who currently live in B.C. and France, I think, were the two. Do you have a breakdown or percentage of employees who would be Nova Scotian, compared to other jurisdictions? Do you know approximately, it doesn't have to be exact, even a percentage would be fine.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I don't have where they live because obviously, that's not necessarily our business as an employer, we just happen to know these circumstances exist. I do have a breakdown - currently the number of positions in our region is 940; 84 of those are in New Brunswick and 95 in Prince Edward Island. The 95 in P.E.I. includes the large vessel, the Earl Grey, which the crew is home ported out of Charlottetown. So out of the 940, 179 are outside of Nova Scotia and that leaves you with what, 741 that are in Nova Scotia.
MR. BARNET: Out of the employees who - and I guess I don't understand this - may not live in their home port where their ship is, when they're responsible to report to work, is it at their expense to get to their ship?
[Page 19]
[10:00 a.m.]
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes.
MR. BARNET: They do that at their own expense?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes they do, at their own expense.
MR. BARNET: My only other question is that given the fact these are large icebreakers, and I think I know the answer to this, what percentage of the work that these large icebreakers do would be southwest of their current home port, Halifax and what percentage would be to the north?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I don't have the exact specific data, but I would say it's pretty close to zero. As I mentioned to an earlier question, I can't remember them ever being assigned to southwest Nova Scotia, either one of them. They're north totally in the summer and in the winter normally where the ice is opening the channels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
MR. BARNET: So would it be safe to say that the new location of both of these ships is actually closer to the work that they do?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: That would be safe to say certainly for the Arctic and when it's going to be in Newfoundland and Labrador, for doing ice breaking in the Newfoundland and Labrador ports as well.
MR. BARNET: So would there be operational savings as a result of that? If you're closer to your work there's less fuel, that kind of stuff and environmental savings I would expect as well.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes, there would be operational savings.
MR. BARNET: There's a great deal of attention in Canada about the impact to the environment so if there's less fuel then obviously there would be a lesser environmental impact as well?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes.
MR. BARNET: That's all I have, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to make a few comments and ask a couple of questions if I could. First of all, I'd like to go on record to say how ridiculous it sounds that we can't ask questions in federal jurisdiction. I'm not sure who changed the boundary line for Canada that lopped Nova Scotia off it, but for us, Nova Scotians are Canadians. We represent the
[Page 20]
people. We are a committee of the Legislature. It would seem to me that if there are comments that you made that are on the public record somewhere, they could be on the public record here.
The people in this province have every right to question federal committees, federal politicians, Prime Minister, whatever, as much as any other Canadian anywhere else. So the notion that you could come here and not answer questions regarding federal jurisdiction seems to be a ridiculous one to me. It probably is a bit unfair that you seem to have to be the brunt of my comments, but you're the closest person I can get at. We've had CFIA here, I thought they were federal - I must have made a mistake that day - but they didn't have any problem being compelled to answer any questions. So I'm surprised by the reaction for the Coast Guard.
I would like to know how you get to be Assistant Commissioner? Where did you start out? How do you get here, you know, university, whatever? I'd like to know your history of how you got to be Assistant Commissioner?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I was university educated in Nova Scotia. I took a degree in math and economics, a double major. Then, at the time, I joined the federal Public Service and had moved from a number of various different departments throughout the federal Public Service, working primarily, in the earlier part of my career, in the human resources field.
I then spent some time in Ottawa in the human resources field, came back to the region after the merger of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with the Coast Guard in the mid-1990s. About a year after that I took an assignment with the Coast Guard, working in the Maritime Services side, which is the program piece. I worked there for about a year and applied for the position as the director of Maritime Services - it was Marine Programs at that time - and was successful in obtaining that position.
I spent the next seven and a half years in that position, also spending time in Ottawa in a number of different assignments and then presented myself for the position of assistant commissioner two years ago and was able to get appointed to that position.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Beyond that, what's the highest level that you could go in that department?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Well, the highest position in the Canadian Coast Guard is the commissioner. There is an in-between position, at the level that I'm at, there's a deputy commissioner in Ottawa and the commissioner. So those are the only two positions higher than mine in the Canadian Coast Guard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so the gentlemen seated behind you, are they above you in authority or lateral to you or below you?
[Page 21]
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: The director general is at the same level as I am and the commissioner is my immediate superior.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good, thank you very much. I'm just wondering if we got the right person before the committee, that was where I was going.
I'm just wondering - this may be one of those questions you can't answer and I'm kind of leading off of Mr. Parker's question - for the number of years that the ships have been in Dartmouth, has anything different happened in Newfoundland and Labrador that would warrant their going there, in 40 years?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Well, again, you're getting to the question of the decision-making process and the reasons why and that is federal jurisdiction, so I'm afraid I can't answer that question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's your opinion, that it's federal jurisdiction.
I'm wondering about - it seems that reporters can get more information out of people from DFO than we can on this committee but I see a couple of newspaper articles that are in my binder - one is April 17, 2007 and it mentions about 124 crew members. Then on April 18, 2007, The ChronicleHerald has a quote from the minister and they also quote 124 jobs - the minister says he told reporters that the move would create 200 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think we've all heard enough Newfoundland jokes - how many Newfoundlanders does it take to screw in a lightbulb or whatever - so I'm curious why it takes 200 - whether it be 200 jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador or 124 jobs in Nova Scotia, can you tell me what the other 76 jobs would be in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I'm unable to comment on press reports and whether they're accurate or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, will there be 200 jobs created in Newfoundland and Labrador, then, as a result of this move? Can you answer that?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I can't respond. I will tell you that the vessels will be crewed with the same number of crew members as they have been in this region.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so you don't know beyond that, you don't know what the impact will be?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I'm not going to comment on the media speculation, I guess, on the number of positions.
[Page 22]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then let's assume the media is wrong on that. So what would the impact be in Newfoundland and Labrador? Would there be 76 more jobs created there if they moved those boats?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Well, the same number of crew are going to be used on those vessels out of Newfoundland and Labrador as they are here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I'll assume that the media, then, is wrong on that. I see it also refers to a $10 million cost if they stay here. So what would that be?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Again, this comes back to the decision-making process and the reason why it was moved but that information . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not asking who decided on that, I'm just saying it has a number, so what does that number represent?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: It is part of the decision-making process. It is available in the parliamentary committee minutes that have been discussed and you certainly have access to that as well, so I can't respond to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you know it? Do you know what the $10 million represents? Can you answer that? You may not be able to tell me what it is but can you tell me if you know it?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I can't comment on the process. I do know there are reports available that refer to a $10 million expenditure . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not asking about the process, I'm just asking if you know what the $10 million expenditure would be.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I do know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. So should I assume that in Newfoundland and Labrador there's $10 million worth of infrastructure that's not being used? If it's no additional cost by sending the ships to Newfoundland and Labrador - I think you said there would have to be some money spent for Argentia but for St. John's, so is there this capacity that taxpayers have that's not being used in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: I guess my position on this is the same as I had responded earlier. There is space available at the base in Newfoundland and Labrador, existing space where they can accommodate the Terry Fox, and the Louis St. Laurent is going to be accommodated, through minor expense, to retrofit to accommodate the vessel and a minimal fee for yearly berthing of the vessel.
[Page 23]
MR. CHAIRMAN: That space that's available in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that new space or is that space that has been in existence for . . .
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: It has been in existence, it's not new space.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much.
Any other members? Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: I'd like to put a motion forward, if it's in order at this time. I'd like to put a motion forward that this committee not endorse the movement of the two ice breaking vessels from Halifax to St. John's, and I'd like a recorded vote on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion by members on this motion?
MR. BARNET: If I could ask him to repeat it because I didn't get it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat that please, Mr. Colwell?
MR. COLWELL: Yes. I'm putting a motion forward that this committee not endorse the movement of the two icebreakers from the Dartmouth port to the Newfoundland and Labrador facility.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion by members?
MR. GOUCHER: I'd like to make an amendment to it - recognizing also the fact that given testimony here today that neither the Terry Fox nor the Louis St. Laurent have been used in search and rescue operations here in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell, it's your motion, so . . .
MR. COLWELL: No, I won't accept that. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. GOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I think it's critical - I mean it's fine to just put a very, very straightforward motion like that on the floor. The witnesses have been called here today and every question I've heard around this table deals with search and rescue and the ability of the Canadian Coast Guard to be able to deal with issues in the southwest region, or wherever, around this province and to be able to respond to emergencies.
[Page 24]
[10:15 a.m.]
It has been very clearly stated here today, and I don't think it has been questioned, that the Louis St. Laurent and the Terry Fox, neither are used in search and rescue operations. But it was also given under testimony today that if a situation occurred in the southwest region, or wherever, and their presence was needed, it could be done relatively quickly.
The thing is if you're talking about just a blank motion, what are you making the motion for? Is it just because the vessels have been moved? I mean if we're just saying that and we're not trying to attach a reason to it, if you're not trying to say it's because of search and rescue, which is very critical to the fisheries in this area, or if you're talking about ice breaking, is there a downside to the vessels being moved, because their primary function is Arctic patrol during the summer, I believe, and during the wintertime the Gulf of St. Lawrence and those areas for ice breaking. Those are my comments and you know, given the motion that's on the floor right now, I'm not going to support it. It doesn't expand on what the real issue is here, because you're just putting a motion out without any reason at all attached to it. So those are my comments, Mr. Chairman. (Interruptions)
MR. COLWELL: Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason for this is I do believe there's a negative economic impact to Nova Scotia. The operational ability of the vessels here is up to the Coast Guard, what they want to do with them. My learned colleague brings his view to this but I believe it's a negative impact to Nova Scotia, for employment, for the subcontractors, whatever that impact is - it's negative for here, it's negative for this region and that's the reason for my motion. I think that's a valid reason for the motion and I won't be supporting the amendment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I think we should vote on Minister Goucher's amendment.
Would all those in favour of the amendment please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The amendment is defeated.
The motion on the floor, a recorded vote.
MR. BARNET: Before we do so, there's an opportunity for members to speak for or against the motion, right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BARNET: Then I'd like to speak, I guess.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barnet, go ahead.
[Page 25]
MR. BARNET: I looked at this as an opportunity to better understand the rationale around why the decision was made. I was able to learn some things here today, as a result of the questions that were asked and the answers that were given. But I also believe - and this is my belief - that the rationale for this item being on our agenda today is nothing more or less than political, and specifically the fact that we're in the middle of a federal election, I think it's completely inappropriate.
I also believe that the work of this committee is extremely important to Nova Scotians and we have an agenda of items of a provincial nature that we've not been able to get to. We still have an agenda of items that we need to discuss as a committee that include a lot of important items for Nova Scotians.
Frankly, I will be voting against the motion, based on the fact that I believe our provincial agenda is the area of jurisdiction that we have, it's the responsibility that we have as a committee and as members to deal with issues within our control and our mandate, and I believe this is not one of those items. I think this is nothing more than an opportunity for members to try to score cheap but weak political points, particularly during a federal election. Therefore, I will not be supporting the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I appreciate your comments . . .
MR. BARNET: If I can add further to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. BARNET: If the member opposite is sincere about his concern about the economy of Nova Scotia and the impact on jobs, I don't necessarily believe this is the appropriate committee. There are other committees that deal with the economy of Nova Scotia and jobs and therefore, it may have been more appropriate - if that was a sincere rationale for the motion and for this witness appearing - to have the witness appear at another committee of this Legislature. I'm not recommending that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you very much for your comments. As Chair of the committee, I want to make some comments. This request came before this committee to have Ms. Hurlburt show up before the committee to make presentation. That was unanimous by the committee, that she appear.
Also, when she refused, there came a comment about subpoena. I asked that she be requested again to reconsider, before we subpoenaed her because I wasn't keen on the idea. So, we got a legal request or a letter from the lawyer asking that we vacate the warrant.
I sent out to the committee members for a response. I got a response from Mr. Parker and I got a response from Minister Casey. Both said it was the committee's wish that she
[Page 26]
come forward, so they suggested that we proceed. I never got a response from any other members of the committee. So if somebody didn't want her to show up, they had plenty of time to say that and didn't say it.
Now last winter, the Tory caucus went on out-of-town caucus meetings and we missed four committee meetings, so to raise the issue about the other important issues in Nova Scotia of those people who should come before the committee, I think, is a bit ridiculous at this stage because we couldn't sit most of last winter and get those people to come to speak to this committee, which is what we were trying to do.
I can appreciate the politics of what we do and I can understand Assistant Commissioner Hurlburt in her role and I don't think she should answer questions that are politically directed. There are other people who should answer those questions and they are not here. She's a federal civil servant, she can only do what she is told to do in her job, and answer questions accordingly. So I don't believe she can address the politics of the situation.
I would like to go to Mr. Colwell's motion but I'm willing to entertain Minister Goucher, very briefly, and then I'll come back to you, Mr. Colwell.
MR. GOUCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to bring it back on focus with the motion that's on the floor, and we are on the main motion now and I'm just going to very briefly state again, this motion basically is very narrow in its focus. It doesn't deal with the real issues that have been brought up here at the table by everybody around this table, dealing with search and rescue, dealing with the issues of ice breaking, dealing with the issues of emergency response. That has been very clearly articulated by the witness today, that nothing has changed. Yes, the positioning of the ships has changed and it has also been brought up that - whether we like it or not, there still is a mandate with regard to cost-saving, environmental issues, things of this nature.
So I just wanted to very briefly, on the main motion, bring those back again for consideration because the motion just deals with the icebreakers, it deals with nothing else. We've dealt with the real issues around this table today and I greatly respect everything that everybody has said because they are issues. But the big thing is that other than the repositioning of the ships, really nothing has changed and things actually, I believe, are going to improve as time goes on with the new ships.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted to raise that issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I'm glad you were brief.
Mr. Colwell, before I go to you - Ms. Hurlburt, you may not be able to answer this and it's also related to a news story which we already deemed how credible, but in one of these stories there's a quote and I'm trying to see if I can find who said it - oh, okay, well it's
[Page 27]
you. "We know in five years, we've got a significant amount of people retiring. We don't think there will be a problem accommodating people." This is the Daily News, April 17, 2007. What I'm thinking is at some point in the future there will be very few people working from here and it looks as though most of those people will be employed by people living in Newfoundland and Labrador, just from the way this looks. I guess that's what I would like you to address if you could, it looks as though we're going to have people retiring here and they'll be hired in Newfoundland and Labrador, rather than Nova Scotia.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Yes, I can respond to that because I was quoted, it was my quote. We do have people retiring and I think I said a lot of this before, but we have a number of people retiring, about 30 per cent of our workforce in the next five years, so yes, when the vessels are in Newfoundland and Labrador and those people retire they will be staffed through that region. As I said, we are doing joint staffing processes, so it might be someone from Nova Scotia who gets the position. Whether they choose to move or not is their choice and as I had mentioned before, there are many people who live throughout the Province of Nova Scotia or in other provinces and work off our vessels in Halifax, so that could continue. What else am I missing?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I'm just going to the point that I think in the future it looks to me that very few of those jobs will be in Nova Scotia and more of those jobs will be in Newfoundland and Labrador, which I think is going toward the motion. Mr. Colwell, do you have a comment you want to make?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, just quickly. I want to say a couple of things, I agree with the chairman - this issue came before this committee long before there was even any indication of an election, it's a very important topic for the residents of Nova Scotia. My motion is directly related to the negative economic impact on this province and that's what it is. The operational capabilities of the Coast Guard isn't in question here, it hasn't been. There were some comments made about the concerns of some operational characteristics, but I feel the Coast Guard does an excellent job, as I believe all my colleagues do in the Legislature. I think the men and women there should be commended for the excellent work they do.
I am very concerned about the potential long-term negative economic impact on this province and anyone who thinks anything else and says this is political needs to re-examine what they're saying. It's time that we stood up in this province for people working in this province and it's critical because if we don't do this soon, we're going to have no employers left in this province and we're going to be a not-have province like Newfoundland and Labrador used to be. That is the end of my comments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A recorded vote has been called. Can you read the motion again, Mr. Colwell?
[Page 28]
MR. COLWELL: I move that the committee not endorse the movement of the two ice breaking vessels to Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we'll start with you, Mr. Belliveau.
MR. BELLIVEAU: I agree with the motion, yes.
MR. PARKER: Yes.
MR. THERIAULT: Yes.
MR. COLWELL: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. BARNET: No.
MR. DUNN: No.
MR. GOUCHER: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say the motion passes.
Do any members of the committee have any other questions for our presenters? We have two or three agenda items I would like to deal with, only because it has been so long that we were able to get together.
Okay, I'll assume members don't have any more questions or comments for our presenters, so Assistant Commissioner Hurlburt, would you like to make some closing comments?
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: No, I don't have anything further to add. Thank you very much for your patience.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming today, we appreciate having you here.
MS. NANCY HURLBURT: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, members of the committee, don't go anywhere.
[Page 29]
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. BARNET: First of all, before I speak specifically to the agenda items that I think we can all agree are important agenda items and we can add to our list, I want to say, for the record, that there were a number of Resources Committees cancelled as a result of a variety of caucuses having out-of-town caucus meetings. It is inappropriate and inaccurate to say that the Progressive Conservative caucus was the cause of four meetings being cancelled.
I think the chairman can reflect back and find out that that's not the case, that there were other caucuses that caused meetings to be cancelled. I stand corrected but I believe that is factual.
Obviously we've put forward two items - Nova Scotia Egg Producers Association and Horticulture Nova Scotia and we would be happy with either of those two, or both of those two being agenda items at future meetings. But in addition to that, notice that both the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus have asked for the Federation of Nova Scotia Woodland Owners, which is a common one and I don't think we have an issue with that as well. So I guess in the interest of developing an active list beyond the two that we have, I'd be happy to include the Federation of Nova Scotia Woodland Owners, Horticulture Nova Scotia and the Egg Producers Association of Nova Scotia as three items that specifically I can support being on the agenda.
As well, my question is related to, and I believe it is lobster fisheries - is that what we said it was, Lobster Fishing Areas 34 and 33? I guess I just don't know what those two areas are and what the rationale behind that is. So if I could just find out what the areas are and what the specific issue might be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to speak to that?
MR. BELLIVEAU: I tried to describe them. Actually LFA 33 runs from Sambro around to Baccaro Point, off of Shelburne County and LFA 34 goes from Baccaro Point to Digby. That's basically the whole South Shore, southwestern shore.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Parker.
MR. PARKER: Oh I think all those topics that were mentioned are relevant but I also want to put a plug in for the last one on our list, Select Nova Scotia. It was brought to our attention during June but I think Nova Scotians are wondering how is it working, what are the benefits to Nova Scotians, can it be improved? I think it would be nice to get an update on Select Nova Scotia. That's on the second page there, the last one. I think it would be relevant to have an update.
[Page 30]
MR. BARNET: I guess I was assuming that the two items approved at the June 17th meeting are already on our agenda to have meetings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it says, there were additional wishes approved at the June 17th meeting, so they're additional to the list I think, I don't think they're . . .
MR. BARNET: Oh, is it?
MR. PARKER: Additional to the list but not approved for a meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So basically, they're just part of these lists.
MR. BARNET: Oh, I see. Who submitted these two, do you know? I have no problem with either one of them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Nova Scotia Environmental Network approached us after we had the Mining Industry Association in around the uranium mining. They wanted to have a chance to speak after the Mining Industry Association. So only because I think the Mining Industry Association - was that the last one we had before the committee? - I think maybe the members would want to have somebody to speak to the same topic fairly close together.
I agree with Minister Barnet on the commonality of the choices of the Liberal and NDP caucuses, but I have to say when I see the Nova Scotia Egg Producers Association from the PC caucus and it says they haven't been before the Resources Committee since somewhere around 1997, it kind of makes me think they're long overdue. Anyway, I'm not sure if we've ever had the Federation of Nova Scotia Woodland Owners before the committee, I think that's a relatively new organization. So, all fairly good choices, if the committee can kind of think about the order.
I was thinking of the Nova Scotia Environmental Network only because they were relating to a previous presentation. I thought maybe we should have that sooner rather than later before we forget what the other presentation was. But I'm willing to go with anything the committee suggests in this regard.
MR. BELLIVEAU: Just for a point of clarification, are we talking about having one or two meetings a month or one meeting a month in the next several months?
MR. CHAIRMAN: One meeting a month and we'll say - we'd like to think about until December maybe. If we can pick the next two, I think if we could do that today that would be great. We don't know for sure what happens when the House sits, whether we'll be able to meet and all other things, the other factors will come into play. I think if we could
[Page 31]
pick our next two presenters, that would give the committee staff here some kind of direction and they could kind of get some of their work done.
MR. BARNET: Can we do the Federation of Nova Scotia Woodland Owners, that would be one, that would give us October. The egg producers would be two and then Select Nova Scotia would be three, that gets us to December and then we can look at the agenda at our December meeting, or even November meeting and use the same list.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And revisit it. Is the committee fine with that? All in favour, Aye.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good. The Federation of Nova Scotia Woodland Owners, for staff here they want to know what the topic is. Is it general?
MR. PARKER: Just an update on what their association is all about and what their vision for forestry is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. This meeting is now adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:38 a.m.]
