From the desk of Andrew Younger MLA

Back to the Stone Age

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:27:00 +0000

It could be back to the stone age for some provincial departments in the event of a disaster.

Today at the legislature's Public Accounts Committee we examined the Auditor General's report about the protection of the government's data networks.

Almost everything is on computer now. Health records, vital statistics, even programs that run many of the province's vital systems like emergency measures, environmental monitoring, and communication networks.

Nova Scotia's Auditor General found the province's data centre has many issues including having no secondary site and being in a facility at risk of fire, with a water sprinkler system (bad for computers) located above a paper records storage site.

The office is acting on a recommendation to have a secondary data centre up and running but it will be 12-18 months before they even are ready to build or lease a site.

If a disaster strikes the province's sole data centre today the Chief Information Officer said it could be a week for some of the province's systems to be back up an running.
To make matters worse, I was surprised to learn when the department has not fully determined what priority they should give to returning computer systems back to working order. They say they'll consult departments after a disaster strikes. That makes no sense.

While it might be necessary to adjust a plan in time of a disaster, its better to start with a proposed plan for returning the province to working order. How hard can it be? Emergency and health services would certainly be at the top of the list and renewing driver's licenses would probably be near the bottom in an emergency.

For now, let's hope disaster doesn't strike the province's computer networks before a backup centre is in place. Otherwise we might find ourselves hauling out chisel and stone to get things done for a while.

Appeal Your Property Assessment, Your Taxes Could Go Up

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:37:00 +0000

If you own property in Nova Scotia you’ll have received an assessment notice in the past few weeks. Because property taxes levied by municipalities are largely based on your assessment you might be thinking about an appeal of your assessment. It might be, but there are risks and it’s important to know that if you are a residential property owner, even a successful appeal is unlikely to reduce your property tax bill.

Generally speaking, residential property owned by Nova Scotians is eligible to be capped. In this case, your assessment notice will have two assessment values for your property. The first is a market value assessment which is intended to be a reflection of what your property would have been worth in its current state if it had been sold on January 1, 2010 (for assessments received this year). You’ll also see a capped assessment value if your market assessment increased by more than CPI (this year that is 3.9%). If your property is one of the minority which saw its market increase by less than 3.9%, then the market and capped assessment will be the same. For more details about what is and is not capped you can read the government's briefing note on it.

So, appeal your assessment, win, and your property tax goes down right? Not quite. It’s more complicated than that.

Your property tax is based on the capped assessment, not the market value. You can only appeal the market value of your assessment. In many cases, the capped and market assessments are sufficiently different that even a reduction in the market assessment still won’t bring that amount below the capped assessment. Thus your taxes won’t change even with a successful appeal because the capped assessment won’t change.

There is one other wrinkle. While the capped (or taxable) assessment won’t go down, it could go up during an appeal. During many appeals Property Valuation Services Corporation staff visit your property to ensure their information is accurate. If they find an addition or improvement has been made to the property, or they underestimated the size of your property, your market value could be increased. Usually this increase would also be added on top of the capped assessment, resulting in a higher value for taxation.

For business property owners it’s a whole different ballgame. Business properties are not capped. As a result, any appeal directly impacts the taxable assessment value. Business assessments are a discussion for another day, but one side effect of the residential cap is that if municipalities don’t adjust their tax rates each year to accommodate for the impact of the cap, businesses pay a rapidly increasing proportion of property taxes in a municipality.

At the end of the day, no matter what type of property you have, it’s important to remember that assessments are intended by law to reflect what you could sell that property for. The actual tax rate is set by municipalities, and even with a capped residential assessment, the tax rate, and other municipal fees, can still be increased

The cap does not prevent property tax increases, it only changes the relative balance of tax revenues for municipalities between residential and commercial properties.

So if you choose to appeal your property assessment, be sure you know the pros and cons.

The Many Unanswered Questions About the Bowater Deal

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:16:00 +0000

About a week ago Premier Darrell Dexter announced he had a deal to keep the Bowater mill in Liverpool open. After weeks of agreeing with both opposition parties to take politics out of looking for a solution to the imminent closure of the Bowater Mill, the premier decided to put the agreement into legislation and ask the legislature to vote on it. A move that is nothing but political, and as it happens, a move which only delays the implementation of the deal and furthers the uncertainty for workers and residents in Queens.

Going to the legislature on this deal might sound on the surface to be a good idea. Yet, the truth is the premier refuses to release information to the opposition parties to make an informed decision on the deal, and just asks Nova Scotians to trust him that the deal is good. As well, there is no indication the premier plans to take future Industrial Expansion Fund expenditures to the legislature, so this is clearly nothing but a politically motivated move that is unfair to people in Queens.

There are many unanswered questions about the deal. Many of the questions being asked by the opposition are coming from people living in Queens County itself. Yet the NDP refuses to acknowledge that. The NDP refuses to provide answers to those questions. In fact, Vicki Conrad, the NDP MLA for Queens, put out an inflammatory press release suggesting that by asking questions about the deal it means both opposition parties are opposed to helping solve the problem of the possible closure of the Bowater mill.

Let’s not forget, the federal NDP’s former International Trade Critic, Peter Julian, has called Bowater a corporate opportunist. (For the record Premier Dexter dismissed this saying the company is now Resolute, except that this was simply a name change in November of this year, and a name change does not change corporate history)

Let's also not forget that this bailout of Bowater may in fact cause more risk and uncertainty for workers at the mill, not less. So here are just a few of the issues that Nova Scotians, and opposition parties, deserve answers to on this deal before it is voted on.

No Workforce Protection?

The premier, and indeed the entire NDP caucus, claim the deal protects the mill for five years. But in fact it does nothing of the sort.

There appears to be no requirement for Bowater to avoid future layoffs. As well, Bowater can write off certain expenditures against the government loan. It appears that by doing so Bowater could shorten the length of the agreement and if the market isn’t going well, still close the mill before five years.

That means every worker at the Bowater mill, and every business owner or employee who relies on the mill, will remain on a razor’s edge wondering if the mill will close. How does that provide any security?

Worker Pensions At Risk?

The deal signed by the province requires the province to purchase land from Bowater (Resolute) for almost $25 million. This is land is one of a group of assets which currently could be used as security for pension liabilities with the company should operations wind up.

The sale of this land to the province reduces the asset base backing the pensions of current and past workers at the mill. Moreover, there is a provision for the province to buy further land up to around $40 million. If exercised, this option would further reduce the assets backing pensions at the mill.

Given that the market is at best uncertain for the newsprint produced at the mill, and even the premier admits there is no guarantee at all beyond five years, this should be a significant concern as now is the opportunity to protect the pensions of workers at the Bowater mill. One needs only to look at the pension concerns in Port Hawkesbury over the closure of the NewPage mill to see this risk is real.

Shutting Out Renewable Energy Suppliers?

Part of the deal includes giving Bowater access to the province’s COMFIT program. According to Nova Scotia Power there is only 3.3 MW of COMFIT access available in the entire Liverpool, Brooklyn, Milton area. It’s very likely the increase of production by Bowater’s Brooklyn Energy will wipe out a significant portion of the capacity available to other COMFIT participants.

Why does this matter? The COMFIT was designed to allow renewable energy producers to access the grid. It was designed to allow communities, businesses, and others to be able to be part of the job creation, economic generation, and other opportunities that could come with that access. It was also seen as a way for municipalities to generate electricity and have an alternate revenue stream to help mitigate property taxes. The NDP has not told Nova Scotians how many jobs, how much production, an how much economic generation will be foregone by signing off this generation to Brooklyn Energy.

This is a loss of planned economic activity in the region and should be subtracted from any economic benefits suggested by the deal.

What Land Is Being Purchased?

The province had already committed to protecting 12% of the province’s land for conservation. The NDP have suggested the land purchase in this deal mentioned above will help address that. However the truth is less clear than that.

The money for the purchase will be given to Bowater by January, but the land to be acquired will not be finalized until the end of March 2012. Furthermore, the premier’s own staff have not disputed comments that some of the purchased land may be logging roads and clear cuts which come with their own liabilities and are hardly conservation quality lands.

Moreover the Minister of Natural Resources has been reported as saying the money for this purchase may come from the province’s debt. While I have no doubt there will be a shell game to show a surplus in the annual provincial budget, the fact is this is a direct charge increasing the debt of the province, and Nova Scotians have no guarantees in the deal on exactly what land they will get from it. By putting it on the debt, you have to add the cost of interest, so the true cost will be more than the roughly $25 million in the agreement.

Oh, and a side note, the option in the agreement is priced at $800 a hectare. A number of private woodlot owners have suggested that this may depress the price of their own land for the next five years (the life of the agreement) at a time that such land in 2011 dollars is sometimes going for over $1000 a hectare.

How Many Jobs Really?

The premier has claimed repeatedly that 2,000 jobs are impacted by this deal. This is an odd claim and isn't supported by the data. Statistics Canada says just over 2,200 people are employed in all of Queens County. As well, a study by the Atlantic Provinces' Economic Council says only 35 indirect jobs exist for only 100 in any industry. Thus for the 220 jobs at the mill, there are only about 77 indirect jobs related directly to the mill.

While it is reasonable to allow that some jobs outside of Queens may be impacted, and there may be jobs 100% associated with the operation of the mill not counted in the 220 at the mill itself, it is also safe to assume that some jobs will disappear just by virtue of the agreed reduction of the workforce at the mill.

It is also absolutely wrong to say that every single job impacted by the mill will suddenly disappear if the mill closed. In fact some woodlot owners have said that while they supply Bowater, whether the mill is there or not would largely be a wash for them. Some hardwood producers in particular have noted that they could see increased economic output by focussing on hardwood production.

This is not to say a mill closure would not impact jobs. Of course it would. But it is absolutely wrong to say all 2,000 jobs that might have some connection to the mill would be gone. Does every gas station which sees workers from the mill close if the mill closes? Does the municipality lay off every staff member if the mill closes? Probably not. But many of those staff from businesses and government agencies that would remain are counted into that 2,000 number the premier keeps using.

Why Is No One Planning For The Future?

Perhaps worst of all, this deal does nothing to address the future. As you begin looking at retraining, even those who are laid off as a result of this deal, you have to retrain for some job that actually exists. The workforce in rural Nova Scotia has been decimated. Jobs have been lost and people have left the workforce out of desperation. There is no plan in this deal to diversify the Queens COunty economy.

The deal presented may be the only option given the short deadline of January 3, 2012 which appears to be the drop dead date for Bowater's board. But the NDP now admits they knew about the planned closure of the mill in August so they had plenty of time to start looking beyond five years. They had plenty of time to present to Nova Scotians a strategy for the future of the South Shore. A deal like this as part of a longer term strategy may have been far more palatable to Nova Scotians, because the structural issues would start to be addressed

Instead, the opposition is left to vote on a deal on which government will not answer questions. Questions that many Nova Scotians are asking - including Nova Scotians in Queen's County. The government will not provide access to the research it has commissioned on the future of the industry, yet wants the opposition to vote on a deal purportedly based in part on that research.

The premier isn’t looking for real answers and responses to the deal, he’s only trying to use the Bowater deal as a way to make a political statement in advance of what may very well be an election next year. The premier is using it to say that somehow asking questions and seeking answers on a government deal is wrong, when in fact the role of the opposition in a democracy is exactly to ask questions on behalf of citizens.

Take Down: Occupy Nova Scotia

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:35:00 +0000

I've not written on my blog in a while. I kept meaning to get back to it on a regular basis but something else would always come up. Then Mayor Peter Kelly and the gang at City Hall decided to evict the Occupy Nova Scotia protesters from Halifax's Victoria Park. My blog could wait no longer.

Here's the thing. I've had mixed feelings about the Occupy Nova Scotia protest. When I listened to interviews by protesters or chatted with some myself, it was less clear to me than what I heard on CNN from Occupy Wall Street in terms of what the protesters wanted changed. I was also bothered that many of the people who were speaking at rallies often seemed to be the usual suspects who turned up at any protest. But I was also sympathetic to the concern that many of the world's financial systems have not been working all that well. Having spent considerable time in many west African countries, I've seen some of the unintended consequences of actions in North America that make me see the Occupy movement from a more global view.

When it came to Remembrance Day, I felt the protesters should move from the grounds of the province's biggest memorial ceremony, but move on their own accord. And they did. The Occupy movement (if you can call it a movement) around the world holds meetings each night to figure out the consensus. The consensus in Halifax was veteran's come first.They were respectful of the day, just as many - including the Mayor - had asked.

How is it then, that the same Mayor who asked the protesters to respect Remembrance Day chose that same day to evict Occupy Nova Scotia from Victoria Park? How is that any less disrespectful? Armed police officers taking down a protest in a driving rain storm on Remembrance Day is hardly something to be proud of, and hardly an appropriate way to recognize the sacrifices of veterans.

Camping in a municipal park (with the exception of ones including campgrounds) is a violation of municipal law. But it was a violation from day one. Nothing changed. Kelly and HRM decided to negotiate with protesters. They offered to let them stay on the Halifax Commons (also a city park) which seemed to be an acceptance that the parks by-law would not be enforced, at least for the foreseeable future.

I expected better. Indeed, just the night before I'd been asked by someone whether I thought the protesters would be forced out. I said no, that wouldn't happen in Halifax unless there was an incident. They were peaceful, relatively quiet, and generally harmless. They might not get free electricity anymore, but they wouldn't get pushed out. I was wrong. And I was surprised.

I was surprised to see the Mayor ordering police to the streets instead of the Mayor showing up to have a conversation. Maybe I shouldn't have been. It turns out now that council held an in-camera meeting to discuss the matter just days before. A secret meeting that may not even have been entirely above board given its unclear how enforcement of a by-law qualifies as a legal subject for an in-camera discussion in any Nova Scotia municipality.

You don't have to like the Occupy Nova Scotia movement. But you should be ashamed that a decision was made in secret, and executed on the one day of the year we thank thousands of brave Canadians who put their lives on the line to ensure we have the freedom to say and do things in a peaceful way. Even things some people might not like.

And lest we forget, Kelly chose a public negotiation, with cameras in tow, to ask protesters to leave Grand Parade for Remembrance Day, but did not do the same to ask them to leave. He chose a secret crack down instead. That isn't the way I think peaceful protests should be handled.

Submission to the Utility and Review Board on Nova Scotia Power Rates

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:46:00 +0000

NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended

-and-

IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and a Hearing for Approval of Certain Revisions to its Rates, Charges and Regulations

TO: Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board

3rd Floor, Summit Place

1601 Lower Water Street

Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3P6

c/o Nancy McNeil

Regulatory Affairs Officer/Clerk

FROM: Andrew Younger MLA

Nova Scotia Liberal Caucus

Bank of Montreal Building

5151 George Street

Suite 1401

Halifax, NS B3J 1W4

Public Submission

I submit my comments IN THE MATTER OF The Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated for Approval of Certain Revisions to its Rates, Charges and Regulations: P-892/Matter 04104 being held before the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board. I also offer these comments in light of the proposed settlement agreement published on September 19, 2011. I submit these comments as the Energy critic for the Nova Scotia Liberal Caucus, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Dartmouth East, and also as a citizen and ratepayer.

I also intend, in this submission to briefly comment on the Application by NewPage Port Hawkesbury Corp. and Bowater Mersey Paper Company Ltd. for Amendments to Nova Scotia Power Inc.'s Load Retention Tariff and for a Load Retention Rate: P-202/Matter M04175 as it relates to the general matter at hand.

Both of the current applications referenced above should be refused on their merits. Neither application is sufficiently supported by the evidence presented to be approved.

The settlement agreement as proposed in my view is only marginally better for ratepayers and does not address the critical issues of accountability and value for rates which are at issue in this hearing. The settlement proposal leaves the door open for Nova Scotia Power Incorporated to simply seek an increase in rates at a future date based on factors it is only temporarily removing in this agreement.

RATE OF RETURN

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated originally requested the board increase its allowed rate of return. NSPI already enjoys a generous rate of return compared to the stock market. This is evidenced in the fact NSPI parent Emera has routinely noted that NSPI is a substantial contributor to its own returns. The proposed decrease in the rate of return, while a start, does not address the issue at hand which is whether NSPI is entitled to such a generous rate given the level of risk which has been removed over times from shareholders.

For the sake of comparison, NSPI at its current rate of return is a very safe and generous investment for shareholders and investors. Data from the Dow Jones Industrial shows that the average returns of all stocks between 1899 and 2010 are approximately 9.4%, divided roughly equally between price increases and dividends. NSPI’s current return fits exactly in that average. This is despite the fact that the average return on the same index for the period 2005 to 2010 was a combined 4.2% (price plus dividend), and for a ten year period 2000 to 2010 was 3.1%.

It might be argued that the returns for NSPI should only be compared to other regulated utilities. In North America NSPI returns are in the middle of the pack by that comparison. When compared to Standard and Poor’s annualized returns for energy stocks over the past three years and five years, NSPI’s returns are generous to say the least. Standard and Poor’s lists the three year average return to August 2011 for energy stocks as a loss of 3.06% and over five years the total return was still only a positive 3.66%

NSPI argued their demand for a higher rate of return was warranted by a need to attract investment and stay competitive. There is no evidence that NSPI’s current rate of return hurt its ability to raise capital or other investments. In fact, there appears to be not a single project that NSPI can point to that they were unable to fund as a result of the current rate of return. While NSPI may suggest that a higher rate of return would result in lower interest paid on loans, this possible savings to ratepayers is dubious as it results in ratepayers being forced to pay higher rates to cover the increased rate of return itself.

If anything, the board should consider the fact decisions by the board, through legislation, and changes in relative responsibilities of Emera and NSPI, have resulted in less risk to NSPI and shareholders, thus making NSPI a more attractive investment which, if anything, warrant a significant reduction in a regulated rate of return, not an increase. These changes include the introduction of the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism which eliminated all risk associated with fluctuations in fuel cost for the company, as well as the decision by the provincial government to eliminate the risk for NSPI in power purchase agreements for renewable energy by appointing an independent administrator, and decisions by the board of NSPI to utilize Emera Utility Services as an apparent preferred supplier of installation services, something the board has previously commented on.

There was and is no proven benefit for ratepayers of Nova Scotia Power Incorporated in the demand for an increased rate of return. The settlement agreement moves to reduce the rate of return marginally, but the overall question of whether the rate of return is still too high given the reduced risk faced by NSPI remains unanswered.

MULTI-YEAR RATE PROPOSAL

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated has indicated a desire for a negotiated settlement with interveners and presumably the board, which would result in guaranteed rate increases for NSPI over the next three to five years. While this has been represented as providing predictability in future NSPI customer rates in all classes, this is inaccurate.

NSPI already benefits from the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) which results in rates being automatically adjusted (most often increased) in relation to actual fuel costs paid by NSPI.

The effect of this is that NSPI would enjoy very little, if any, risk with multi-year guaranteed rate increases. NSPI would also enjoy the benefit of not having to appear before the board over the period of the deal. While such an arrangement would conceivably result in lower legal and regulatory costs for ratepayers over that period, those savings would likely be so small as to offer little practical benefit for ratepayers. With a multi-year rate guarantee provided by the board, NSPI would be assured coverage for expenses and would still have confidence knowing that should fuel prices spike, they would not be forced to absorb those costs as the FAM provides them automatic relief.

The board will recall that it has already approved rate increases for the coming years in an effort to smooth (defer) some of the underestimated fuel costs from past years which NSPI has previously sought to recover. The practical effect of this for ratepayers is that no matter what magnitude of rate increase is approved (if any) by the board in the current applications these will be added to already approved increases which are scheduled to take effect in future years and also, presumably, future adjustments resulting from the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism.

It is my position that NSPI has been less than forthcoming with the public, interveners, and the board by stating that a multi-year rate agreement would result in predictable environment for rates, when in fact this could not be further from the truth when the Fuel Adjustment Mechanism and previously approved, deferred rates, are considered.

Load Retention Rate: P-202/Matter M04175

The proposed Load Retention Rate is being considered as an add-on for this hearing. At a very basic level, Bowater-Mersey and NewPage Port Hawkesbury Corporation have suggested that they require a lower rate than proposed by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated in order to remain competitive.

This application proposes that all other rate classes pay more for electricity in order to accommodate this lower rate.

The applicants are applying under a provision which permits an application if a customer may switch their load to a competing energy supplier and thus negatively impact the stability and survival of NSPI’s system and finances. There appears to be no indication that the applicants in this case have plans to seek energy from an alternate supplier so the application could, and should, be refused on this basis alone.

However, if the board considers further the merits of the survival argument presented by the applicants, then the board is duty-bound to also consider the precedent such an application could result in.

There are many businesses, large and small, which are impacted negatively by high, and rapidly increasing, power rates. Each of these would be entitled to make the exact same application, and said applications should be approved if the application currently before the board is approved.

There is no question that high energy rates have impacted the economic viability of paper mills in Nova Scotia and elsewhere. It is also true that other businesses across the province have similarly been impacted by power rates which are uncompetitive with other provinces and states. Arguably most other businesses are impacted by a greater degree by the power rate spread than are either Bowater-Mersey or NewPage Port Hawkesbury Corporation. This is because the applicants already benefit from an interruptible rate for electricity.

This rate is premised on the fact that NSPI can request the applicants to shut down their facility should loads rise above what NSPI can provide at a given time. That interruptible benefit to NSPI has a market value which is factored into the rates already. Given the rarity in which NSPI triggers electrical shutdowns at these facilities, that market value may even be overvalued, yet the mills benefit from it, and in turn already enjoy lower power rates than some other jurisdictions which have similar facilities.

This is not to say that all electricity rates in Nova Scotia are not high. They are very high, in large part due to an over reliance on fossil fuels such as coal. However, the argument, as strong as it might be for the applicants that their rates are a burden, is much stronger for small businesses in the province that given the power rates they pay compared to other jurisdictions. It is also stronger for residential customers, which is not only an affordability issue, but is also an issue of economic activity as the high cost of living – including power rates – impacts the ability to retain people in Nova Scotia and thus maintain a workforce.

The applicants are faced by a myriad of challenges. These include an unfavourable exchange rate for their industry, a general decline in demand for high quality papers worldwide, a stubborn recession greatly impacting some of the applicants’ largest potential clients, increased costs associated with fuel, taxes, government fees and regulation, transportation, and labour costs which cannot (and should not be reasonably expected to) compete with some other jurisdictions. None of those, with the possible exception of some issues related to fuel, transportation, and regulation, are within the purview of the board. While electricity is certainly one issue, the recent bankruptcy filings by NewPage Port Hawkesbury Corporation and its parent company in the United States, indicate that the biggest issues faced by that company are related to demand and debt level issues.

The board should take note that in response to IRs filed as part of this hearing the applicants were unwilling to commit to maintaining staffing levels or economic generation even with the revised, lower, tariff in place. For this reason alone, the merits of the application are worth putting in question.

There is no NSPI ratepayer that is not facing a heavy burden as a result of past and proposed increases to electricity rates in the province. NewPage and Bowater-Mersey are no different. It is undeniable that they are faced with a burden brought on by steadily increasing costs, including energy costs. But this is true of all other rate classes, and the survivability of all businesses in the province – large and small – is worth consideration, not just two companies.

Demand by NSPI For Increases Resulting From NewPage Impacts

With the recent indefinite closure of the NewPage Port Hawkesbury plant Nova Scotia Power Incorporated has demanded of the board that it be granted permission to collect additional funds from ratepayers to make up for what it believes will be significant losses resulting from the closure. NSPI has also suggested that it should be granted permission by the board to collect security deposits from certain companies, or users of a certain size, before providing service to them. Modified handling of this issue remains in the proposed settlement agreement, however it is clear that NSPI still intends to charge ratepayers for costs which I submit could be avoided or substantially reduced. Both of these requests should be refused.

NSPI has previously indicated that the NewPage Port Hawkesbury plant accounts for approximately 13% of energy produced by the company. It has indicated a plan to keep all facilities and staff operational during the NewPage shutdown, though without fuel usage. NSPI does not appear to have pursued the option of selling excess energy onto the New England grid at a price equal to, or more likely higher than, what NewPage was paying NSPI. Such actions would in fact provide savings to all other ratepayers. In other applications NSPI and its parent Emera have stated there is a demand for energy in the New England market. If this is accepted as fact, there are opportunities for NSPI to reduce costs for ratepayers.

NSPI has also given every indication that it intends to proceed with the already approved biomass project in Port Hawkesbury. This will produce even more energy at a time when excess energy will already be available on the Nova Scotia grid. In deciding to proceed, one must assume NSPI has made internal decisions that there is a market for this energy. Therefore there must also be a market for the 13% of excess energy which will be available during the NewPage shutdown.

The request for a security deposit by large energy users by NSPI borders on the ridiculous. This has the potential to be a significant deterrent for new, large scale, economic activity in the province. Many large companies struggle with cash flow and this application is a direct attack on the cash flow of existing and potential companies which may consider Nova Scotia as an option for locating their operations. NSPI has the ability, like any other creditor, to appear before a bankruptcy process in the event of a company shutdown. NSPI has the option to cease delivery of services if a customer falls behind on payments to NSPI. There is no reason for NSPI to be allowed to put further burdens on economic development in Nova Scotia.

It should be recalled by the board that during the hearings on the biomass project which NSPI is now proceeding with, NSPI and NewPage Port Hawkesbury both independently responded to IRs submitted by the Consumer Advocate by indicating that there was little to no risk associated with NewPage ceasing operations. NSPI in the settlement agreement has gone the complete other way saying of Bowater-Mersey that “The future of Bowater Mersey Paper Company is also uncertain”. NSPI has proven it is not able to predict the relative economic strength of companies operating in Nova Scotia. It may be reasonable that it cannot make such predictions; however, it is also reason why NSPI should not be given the authority to levy security deposits.

The board must refuse these requests by NSPI insist that the company explore all options for raising new revenues outside of the existing rate base. This includes exporting any excess energy resulting from the indefinite shutdown of NewPage.

BONUS STRUCTURE

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated has indicated in the settlement agreement that it will cover the cost of executive bonuses through Emera and shareholders. They further indicate this is a one-year promise and may not apply to future years. In the current application I support the removal of bonuses from the rate base. However, the board should require that this be made permanent.

NSPI has indicated that the feel executive bonuses are a valid part of the rate structure. However, a review of the targets that must be achieved for bonuses clearly shows that bonuses are awarded almost exclusively for issues which primarily benefit shareholders, not ratepayers. This is the strongest and most damning evidence that shareholders should always be expected to pick up the cost of bonuses for NSPI executives. Ratepayers should only be expected to cover costs which clearly and demonstrably benefit them and the delivery of electrical service to customers.

DEMAND FOR STRANDED ASSETT FUNDING FOR LED LIGHTING

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated has demanded of municipalities and other lessors of street lights costs associated with the stranding of current incandescent roadway lights and their replacement, as per Nova Scotia law, with LED or other energy efficient lighting as provided for by Governor-In-Council. Provisions to this effect remain in the settlement agreement. This should be denied.

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and Efficiency Nova Scotia Incorporated, as well as other entities, have previously stated before the board that load reduction will result in cost savings to NSPI and thus ratepayers. While NSPI has been quick to seek funding for the cost associated with accelerated depreciation (the stranded asset) it has not been quick, nor clear, on outlining the savings associated with decreased load on the grid.

These savings may come not only from direct fuel costs, but as well the reduction in load provides options for NSPI. NSPI can continue to produce the same amount of electricity and sell the excess at a profit for the benefit of ratepayers. Or NSPI could generate less electricity and take advantage of being able to meet environmental regulations for emissions with reduced requirements for additives such as sorbents and operation of electric and other pollution control systems.

It would also be expected that reduced energy usage as a result of the roadway lighting conversions combined with efficiency programs would extend the lifespan of current environmental and generation equipment as presumably it would not be operated at the same levels given the lighter load. These are cost savings which should come back to ratepayers, and one could reasonably expect these to more than compensate for the shortened depreciation of non-energy efficient roadway lighting.

SUMMARY

With respect to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and the applicants for the Load Retention Tariff, there is insufficient basis to warrant approval of the rate hikes, new rates for interruptible industrial customers, nor addition burdens on ratepayers resulting from the indefinite shutdown of NewPage. The settlement agreement, which a marginal improvement, fails to address the major issues which ratepayers rightfully demand answers of NSPI for.

While the board is tasked with duties prescribed by the Public Utilities Act R.S.N.S. 1989, c.380, as amended with respect to the rate hearing, it also has a duty to consider the public interest. Nova Scotia Power Incorporated is a private company operating as a monopoly in a regulated environment. In the monopoly situation with a guaranteed rate of return there is little incentive for NSPI to find savings or efficiencies in their corporate environment. It is incumbent on the board therefore to force NSPI to find those savings and efficiencies. It is also the duty of the board to ensure that NSPI is held to account and that the needs of ratepayers are considered the priority.

The board will be aware that increases in rates for electricity have more of an impact that just a higher bill for customers in all classes. Higher electricity bills have a trickle down impact which I encourage the board to consider. Higher municipal rates result in higher municipal expenditures and higher property taxes. Higher small business and other commercial rates result in pressure on the price of goods and services (usually increases), or where price adjustment is not sustainable in the market, it can lead to layoffs. This has already been demonstrated in a recent demand to the board by gasoline retailers for a higher margin, in part to offset rising electricity prices. For universities, hospitals, and other institutions, the impact of higher electricity prices can be directly correlated to reduced services and higher fees. The result of these changes in that residential customers end up paying more than once for higher electricity prices as they not only face higher bills at home, but also face the trickle down costs in everyday expenditures.

The board can take a number of steps on a go-forward basis with respect to Nova Scotia Power Incorporated which I would encourage it to take.

· * Nova Scotia Power Incorporated should be ordered by the board to submit to a performance and value for money audit by independent auditors approved by the board. The results of this audit should be made public by the board and made available for public comment following its completion. Nova Scotia Power Incorporated should be required to report within 30 days of the audit’s filing as to how it plans to address any recommendations.

· * Nova Scotia Power Incorporated should be required to provide for and ensure a further separation of duties, overlap, and other matters from the parent company Emera. It appears that the companies are increasingly less transparent in the division of roles and responsibilities between the corporate entities. In light of increasing rates NSPI should be required to provide more transparency.

· * Nova Scotia Power Incorporated should be required to provide a 15 year rate outlook including forward-looking estimates on rate levels and anticipated dates where ratepayers in all classes are likely to expect stabilization of rates.

· * The application by Nova Scotia Power Incorporated for costs associated with the phase-in of LED or other energy efficient roadway lighting should be denied.

· * On the basis of comments and reasoning I have previously stated, the board can and should require that executive bonuses be considered a cost to shareholders and not applied to costs against ratepayers on a permanent basis.

· * Application P-202/M04175 with respect to the Load Retention Tariff should be denied in full on the basis that the situation faced by the applicants with respect to higher electricity costs is the same as faced by other classes, and therefore it is not appropriate to impede the economic viability of one rate class in an attempt to improve the viability of another class.

Power Rates Matter

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:35:00 +0000

Since my time on Halifax Regional Council when I chaired the municipal energy committee I 've been talking publicly about why Nova Scotia needs to have an honest and open discussion about power rates and their impact on our economy, business survival, and the affordability of life in Nova Scotia.

During the last election I chose to run for the Liberal Party because Stephen McNeil and the Liberals were the only ones talking about the need for long term solutions for stablizing energy rates.

There are likely few (if any) Nova Scotians who are not angry every time they hear about a power rate increase.

In the past two years I've intervened (the only elected person in the province to do so) at every review board hearing on power rate issues, fuel price adjustmments, and the efficiency tax proposed first by the Tories and finally added to power bills by the NDP (after they opposed it during the election).

I've also introduced legislation to introduce competition and grid access to renewable suppliers. Legislation proven in other jurisdictions to help reduce the cost to consumers for power.

In part because of all this work and meetings I've held around Nova Scotia, I've heard from many businesses and residents around our province about the challenges they face.

From kitchen tables to town halls power rates, and the cost of living has been a major issue. It's a rare day that someone does not bring up the issue of power rates to me.

I've previously called for a review of the rate of return and for a performance audit of Nova Scotia Power operations before any rate increase is approved.

While fuel audits are done (it's worth noting Nova Scotia Power doesn't do as well as they could on this front) we have no independent performance audit at a time Nova Scotia Power wants a higher rate of return and at a time that Nova Scotia Power's profits are helping prop up otherwise sagging numbers of the parent company Emera.

Years ago the Tories gave Nova Scotians an effective private power monopoly. They extended that monopoly to both generation and distribution. We've never had an independent performance audit since.

Much of the work related to the upcoming power rate hearings is already well underway. Along with many other intervenors, I've submitted formal questions about data Nova Scotia Power has provided to support yet another rate increase.

We all know fossil fuel prices have been increasing. But we also know more and more Nova Scotians are being forced to choose food or power. And many businesses I've talked to are struggling to survive under increased costs including power.

For over two years I've been talking to Nova Scotians and Nova Scotia businesses about power rates and getting feedback. Looking for solutions. Nova Scotians deserve to know when and at what rate power rates will stablize.

Increasing power rates affects more than the bill you receive. It impacts the price of goods. It impacts jobs. It impacts decisions of companies to locate in our province. It impacts the decisions of people about whether they should stay in Nova Scotia.

The fact is, increasing power rates matter and the fight for fairness and accountability is one I think is worth continuing to fight.
________________________________
Andrew Younger
MLA - Dartmouth East
73 Tacoma Drive
Suite 600
Dartmouth, NS, B2W 3Y6

Phone: 902.406.4420
Fax: 902.406.4421
E-mail: info@andrewyounger.ca
Web: www.andrewyounger.ca

Remarks to the International Oceans Institute Class of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:39:00 +0000

This is my seventh year in a row having the privilege to address the International Oceans Institute class. As with your predecessors you have arrived on our shores from around the world. Arrived with different backgrounds. With the shared goal of a better future for your countries, for the world, and for the oceans. Each of you recognizes the importance of the oceans in the prosperity of your own countries and in addressing the needs of your fellow citizens.

Addressing concerns related to the oceans has become even more critical, and your role is much more urgent today than it was even seven years ago when I first spoke in this room.

A 2008 article in the journal Science titled “Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification” said that with climate change, the temperature and carbon dioxide levels in the oceans will increase to “values that significantly exceed those of at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved.” The article commented that “Under conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained.”

This issue matters. It impacts world protein levels, the ability of the ocean to absorb increasing carbon dioxide emissions. It impacts the ability of species to react to other environmental changes like overfishing, oil spills, ocean waste disposal, growth of invasive species, and so forth. Coral reef systems can collapse as ecosystems as climate change and other environmental factors put pressure on the delicate balance of life under the oceans. This reduces biodiversity around the world, and could result in a catastrophic collapse of some species. Each of these impacts very directly impacts humans in every part of the world.

Reading over the summaries you each wrote about why you have each chosen to come to Dalhousie University and the International Oceans Institute many of you said you wanted to contribute to sustainability. The sustainability of fisheries, of resources, and of transportation on the oceans. Some of you talked about the importance of fairness in international relationships when it comes to ocean governance. It is environmental issues that will define each of these issues as they relate to the ocean. Issues from property rights, to transportation, to species decline, and growth. Each will be measured by how we change our thinking in terms of ocean management, ocean law, and international cooperation.

As those who, like me, have attended annually will know, I was a student of the institute’s founder Dr. Elizabeth Mann Borgese during my own days at Dalhousie University. I recall sitting and speaking to her at length on many occasions about how the oceans are something that links countries and people around the world. Her ground breaking work recognized injustice as it relates to ocean management. You will learn more about that work in the coming days and weeks. Mann Borgese’s commitment to fighting to ensure that the Law of the Sea convention was premised on the principle that ocean resources are the Common Heritage of Mankind and equally belong to those who live in land locked countries in sub-Saharan Africa as they do to people who live here in Nova Scotia or in Sri Lanka has lasted as an important guiding principle that could and should be copied in further international treaties, whether regarding the ocean or not.

As you go forward in your studies, and more importantly as you return home with the warmth of the hundred thousand welcomes I hope you will experience during your time in Nova Scotia, there are many things you can remember about why your work, and the work of the oceans is so important.

I hope you will experience that here in Nova Scotia, at places like Dalhousie and Bedford Institute of Oceanography, and in provincial and local governments, we are beginning to recognize the need for change. The need to develop meaningful coastal and environmental strategies. But we are only beginning. Here too we need to take a massive step forward in our collective understanding of the importance of the ocean that nearly surrounds this province. I hope too we will learn from your understandings and experiences.

Seventy-one percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by ocean, and yet while we’ve been to the moon and to Mars, 95 percent of the underwater world remains unexplored. No matter where you live, the oceans play a critical role in regulating our environment, and specifically impacts like climate and weather. Nearly 50 percent of all species on Earth are sustained by the oceans, and a full fifth of the world’s animal protein comes from the oceans.

Yet despite all of that we continue to treat the oceans as a dumping ground. As a world community, we continue to face challenges in recognizing the impact of unsustainable harvesting practices. And we continue to find difficulties in reaching a global consensus on the breaking point of the oceans in absorbing our own environmental impacts. The oceans have been kind to us and we must begin to be kind in return.

My friends, welcome to Nova Scotia. Welcome to Halifax. We are greatful to have you here in our province just as we are grateful and thankful that you show such keen interest in issues of governance, law, and sustainability, and recognize – just by being here – that issues as complex as ocean governance cannot be solved by individual nations in isolation. They are only solved through cooperation and understanding.

Fracking Needs To Be Considered With Caution

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:57:00 +0000

Interest in onshore natural gas deposits is growing in Nova Scotia, following a trend which has spread across North America. In the United States, it’s estimated the oil and gas industry has committed more than $70 billion on shale gas plays.

Natural gas has an important role in Nova Scotia’s energy future. Cleaner burning than coal and oil, it is at best a balancing energy source to wind and tidal power. At worst, it is a transitional fuel on the road to completely renewable energy sources. Shale gas offers many opportunities for Nova Scotia from jobs to a royalty injection to government coffers. But without proper monitoring and regulation, what could be an opportunity may become a setback for generations to come.

As the possibility of drilling in Nova Scotia for shale gas becomes more likely, concerns and questions are being raised about the process of removing gas from the ground, particularly the use of high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

While some have brushed off these concerns, in light of silence by Nova Scotia’s NDP government on fracking both during questioning in the legislature and publicly, Nova Scotians are understandably concerned. Roughly 90% of shale gas deposits are exploited using fracking, so the odds are good that fracking would be part of the drilling mix in this province. The history of this process in the US is mixed (at best) and increasingly, scientists are expressing concern over issues associated with the process.

It’s important to understand why concerns exist. The fracking process involves pumping water, sand and chemicals at high pressure, thousands of feet underground, to break apart shale to release natural gas. Much of the concern, whether in waste disposal or the actual process, relates to the secrecy around chemicals used in the fracking process. The government must ensure the public knows exactly what chemicals are used. This is an issue which was recently raised in the US congress.

US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was quoted by Reuters as saying “We’re going to have a huge backlash from the American public if we continue to inject chemicals and fluids into the ground without people knowing what it is that’s being injected.”

While the industry, to its credit, has improved the recycling of wastewater, ultimately a cocktail of salts, benzene, and radioactive elements is left behind by this process. In multiple US states there have been reports of the wastewater entering the rivers and lakes through spills. In some locations, fracking fluids have been trucked to sewage treatment plants ill equipped to handle the waste. There are also concerns about the quantities of water used in the process as well as its impact on wells which provide domestic water.

A major New York Times investigation found that both the drilling industry and the Environmental Protection Agency have concerns over whether wastewater is ultimately diluted sufficiently for public safety. The Times stated they “found never-reported studies by the EPA and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.”

Furthermore, while some people have recently suggested that concerns over fracking are unwarranted, in fact “thousands of internal documents obtained by the New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency , state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.”

None of this is to suggest that drilling and exploring for shale gas in Nova Scotia or elsewhere cannot be done safely. However these resources belong to Nova Scotians and Nova Scotians must be the primary beneficiaries, not the victims of a poorly regulated process. The shale gas resource is not going anywhere, and as the price of natural gas rises, the value to Nova Scotia will also rise. There is time to ensure that appropriate regulations are in place.

Nova Scotia has an opportunity to be a leader in shale gas exploration. To enjoy the benefits of gas exploration, we must ensure the environment and health of Nova Scotians are not damaged. The NDP government must begin consultations with industry and the public to ensure that regulations are ahead of industry and that fracking (if it’s to be done) happens in a safe manner which protects the health of our residents and ground water supplies.

It is also vital that the government be seen to be open to all views on this issue. This is not the case in parts of Cape Breton where provincial officials and an exploration company are perceived to be working together, rather than one regulating the other. To regain credibility, government must do the hard work of hearing all views and researching them as Nova Scotia makes the rules for how our resources will be used.

Literacy Is About More Than Just Reading Books

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:59:00 +0000

Imagine going to a store and not being able to read or understand food labels. Or not being able to read prescription instructions. Or even not being able to understand a menu in a restaurant.

What if you couldn't fill out a job application?

That's a fact of life for many Nova Scotians. Not being able to understand words written on a page. Or write a coherent sentence. It's an important social issue but also, as people with literacy challenges have a harder time getting employment, it's an economic issue. Low literacy rates generally mean lower paying jobs. Lower tax revenue for government. And higher social program spending.

Tackling literacy at an early age is important. It's why I make it a priority to volunteer with school reading programs. It's also why school boards across Nova Scotia have targeted students in need at the grade 1 level with a program called Reading Recovery. Tackling literacy challenges early - as soon as they are recognized - is effective and costs much less than addressing it later in life.

So it was surprising to hear the NDP order school boards to eliminate Reading Recovery. Especially since it's cheaper and more effective for literacy issues than other options such as Special Education.

It's the children who are hurt by this as they are denied a 12-20 week program to improve their reading, writing, and comprehension skills. It's children who will be more likely to be left out of opportunities in life as a result of not having strong literacy skills.

Children with poor literacy skills often suffer from self esteem issues that continue throughout their life. This is the future the NDP are willing to take a risk on.

While the NDP claim they will provide a cheaper replacement program for Reading Recovery by fall that will be equally effective, it's unlikely this is possible.

Most of the cost associated with delivering any literacy program is teaching staff. This cost will remain with any new child focused program.

A new program also can't match the effectiveness of Reading Recovery. A US study of 153 literacy programs showed Reading Recovery was the most effective. The US government recently increased funding to this program so more kids could access it as an investment in the future. So it seems highly unlikely the NDP will create an equally or more effective program within a few months.

This isn't about just being able to read the newspaper or the latest Harry Potter book. This is about preparing our youngest citizens for the future. Preparing them to help Nova Scotia prosper and continue to achieve great things.
--------------------------
Andrew Younger
MLA - Dartmouth East
600 - 73 Tacoma Drive
Dartmouth, NS, B2W 3Y6

P: 902.406.4420
F: 902.406.4421
E: info@andrewyounger.ca
W: www.andrewyounger.ca

Did HRM Shoot Itself In The Foot On The Stadium Committee?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:18:00 +0000

HRM Council announced its stadium committee earlier this week. The idea of a stadium seems to have become a big deal of late in Nova Scotia and in HRM in particular. Over here in Dartmouth people wonder whether this is finally the start of doing something meaningful with the Shannon Park lands. Even federal minister Peter MacKay is on board much to the chagrin of the Mayor of Quebec City.

HRM has quite rightly taken the approach of conducting a feasibility study to determine what a stadium will cost (the mayor has been quoted as saying up to $60 million but most independent sources say think upwards of $100 million).

However the promise that the committee would include people of different backgrounds and opinions apparently fell by the wayside this week as council appointed a committee that appears to be largely made up of sporting representatives and stadium boosters.

Glaringly absent were representatives of the cultural industries. HRM's own Cultural Plan approved by council says culture should become a consideration of everything the municipality does. And the stadium proposal is supposed to include its use for concerts and other entertainment events. But there is no representative of Music Nova Scotia. No representative of some of the big entertainment bookers and promoters. No representatives of other cultural federations that might make use or have valuable input into such a facility. No economists specializing in entertainment (are there any economists on the committee at all?).

The most obvious individual omission is probably Waye Mason. (Yes I am biased: Waye is a long time friend of mine going back to junior high school) I am sure there are others who applied for the committee who would be equally qualified, but I use Waye as at least one example of someone who understands the needs of the entertainment industry. He's also done more research on stadium costs, successes, and failures than any member of council. He's also open minded on the issue of whether a stadium should be built. Its odd that council would not include Waye or someone like him on the committee. Its a glaring omission that council would not appoint a committee that clearly includes representatives of the different industries already being talked about as part of the business case (concerts, trade shows, community recreation, etc)

In the end that omission may result in the credibility of any report by this committee being viewed as suspect by those who have yet to be convinced about the need for and financial viability of a stadium.

Let me be frank. I'm on the fence on the whole stadium idea. Would it be valuable infrastructure? Yes. Needed infrastructure? Maybe. Similar arguments have been made for the need for other facilities such as a 2,000 to 3,000 seat arts centre. Personally I'm waiting to see the business case for a stadium and what its realistic potential uses would be. I want to know not only how construction will be paid for (capital money for construction is often the easy part) but how the operating costs will be covered annually, including eventual recapitalization. I wanted the same information for the convention centre project, and while some may disagree with my support for it, ultimately I got enough information to satisfy me - and substantially more information over many years than is currently available about a stadium.

But it won't matter how good the feasibility study or the business case is for a stadium if taxpayers feel the committee was stacked to ensure that the business case would support the facility. And building a stadium that misses critical infrastructure for non-sporting events such as sufficient power supply, backstage support, green rooms, truck access, concert sight lines and so forth will just make a new stadium just a stadium, and not what it should be - a multi-purpose facility.

Every 30 Seconds A Child Dies From Malaria

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:49:00 +0000

Every 30 seconds a child dies from malaria. Every 30 seconds.

Malaria is a horrible disease. The impacts of malaria are very serious. Coma, lifelong brain damage, paralysis, and even death. Malaria is a parasitic disease that takes over the body, infecting and destroying red blood cells and clogging the capillaries that carry blood to the brain (cerebral malaria) or other vital organs.

In 2002 I contracted malaria while working in Niger. I'm not sure exactly when I got bitten by the mosquito carrying malaria. Odds are it was during a few days I was working in the eastern part of the country, in an area without basic sanitation where we slept on sheets over dirt floors, with no mosquito nets and windows open allowing both a cooling breeze from the desert and mosquitoes.

I first noticed I was getting very ill while working in a Peace Corp camp. By the time we'd driven back to the capital Niamey I was passing out in the car, and almost collapsed at dinner. I figured I was tired. By morning things were bad. I was lucky. Amadou Kimba, a friend I worked with in Niger saw the signs and sent me to hospital where I was quickly diagnosed and treatment was begun. I'd seen children die of malaria because they did not have access to hospitals or the money to pay for medication.

The thing is malaria is the single biggest killer of African children under the age of five. Twenty percent of all childhood deaths in Africa are the result of malaria.

It’s a devastating thing to watch a child die from what is ultimately just a mosquito bite. Especially when many cases are easily and inexpensively prevented.

Malaria-carrying mosquitoes almost always strike at night - just like most mosquitoes do. There is a simple and cheap solution to preventing many malaria cases. Sleeping under an insecticide-treated bed net reduces malaria transmission by at least half. It cuts childhood mortality by 25%. Bed nets are cheap and they make a difference.

Not long after I got malaria I went back to Africa. This time working in The Gambia. I visited a British researcher who was looking at different ways to tackle malaria. There are many options. Insecticides. Genetically modified super mosquitoes. Vaccines. But at the end of the day the most effective and the cheapest option remains bed nets.

You can make a difference. It takes only $10 to purchase a bed net.

This month I joined with Dalhousie University which, like many Canadian universities, is raising money through Spread The Net to supply bed nets in African countries. Your help is needed. Its a tiny amount of money that can make a huge difference.

A simple solution and a huge impact: 1 Net. 10 Bucks. Save Lives.

(Thanks to Spread The Net for some of the data in this post)

Winter In Nova Scotia Is Not An Emergency

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 01:06:00 +0000

I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone, but the coming of winter is not sufficient cause for declaring of an emergency in Nova Scotia. Winter happens every year on a regular basis.

If don't want to read the entire blog post here's the Reader's Digest version:

HRM Traffic Authority effectively declares winter an emergency. Traffic Authority uses emergency powers to implement a blanket ban on parking overnight despite legislation already in place prohibiting parking during storms or clean-up after storms. Traffic Authority does not report to municipal council. Provincial Minister of Transportation can overrule Traffic Authority. Minister agrees winter is not an emergency but won't overrule Traffic Authority. You park on the road on a beautifully clear night and get a ticket.

OK, now the gruesome details.

Municipalities generally have a traffic authority. The authority is responsible for all sorts of things from directing the installation of stop signs to setting speed limits on streets. Municipal councils cannot overrule the decision of this person on issues within the scope of the powers of the Traffic Authority.

In fairness there is probably good reason for this in many situations. Prior to the this system councils were in charge of placing stop signs and some communities had them on every street corner instead of placed to best ensure safety. The flip side is the position has resulted in frustration for councils wanting to put in crosswalks in some locations and of course the much hated winter parking ban in HRM.

On December 22, 2010 HRM released the following statement:

The HRM Traffic Authority is empowered through the provincial Motor Vehicle Act to make decisions in the interest of safety for the travelling public. To this end, the winter parking ban in the urban and suburban areas of HRM is in place from Dec. 15 until the end of March, prohibiting vehicles from parking on the street from 1 a.m. until 7 a.m.

HRM is talking about Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

202 (1) The traffic authority is hereby empowered to make and enforce temporary regulations to cover emergencies or special conditions.
(2) Such regulations may prohibit or restrict the parking of vehicles between the fifteenth day of November and the fifteenth day of April.

Really what the HRM Traffic Authority is saying is that winter is either a special condition or an emergency. Winter in Nova Scotia is neither a special condition nor an emergency. I say this because while the regulations specifically allow a prohibition or restriction on parking, it is still intended only during emergencies or special conditions.

In declaring an emergency or special conditions the Minister of Transportation has to be advised.

(4) A copy of any regulations made under this Section shall be immediately forwarded to the Provincial Traffic Authority and shall be subject to cancellation at any time by the Minister.

In other words, the Minister of Transportation, who is the person the HRM Traffic Authority ultimately reports to, has the responsibility to ensure that any regulations brought forth under this section of the Motor Vehicle Act are done respecting the intent and purpose of the act.

In response to my calls for the Minister to get involved in this issue, the current Minister of Transportation, Bill Estabrooks was quoted by various media today as saying the winter parking ban is not an emergency and thus he won't overturn the ban. Huh? The whole reason he should overturn the ban is exactly because it isn't an emergency. The provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act are being abused and its his job as Minister to be steward of the act.

I have no doubt the Minister would rather this did not fall into his lap. I can't help but agree with his suggestions municipal councils should be able to make these decisions. Unfortunately the Motor Vehicle Act does not provide this authority to municipal councillors. It provides it to the Minister only.

HRM's Traffic Authority says that the reason for the ban is that ensuring streets are clear of vehicles during storms and clean-up operations is important. I agree completely. However provincial law already prohibits parking on the street during both storms and clean-up operations.

The Motor Vehicle Act in fact has a section specifically about winter parking:

139 (1) Notwithstanding Section 138, no person wilfully shall park or leave standing a vehicle whether attended or unattended, upon a highway or any part thereof in such manner that it might interfere with or obstruct snow removal or winter maintenance operations on the highway.

(2) Where a vehicle is parked or left standing on a highway in such manner that it interferes with or obstructs snow removal or winter maintenance operations, the Department or a peace officer may cause the vehicle to be moved or towed to some other place.

(3) Any cost incurred by the Department or a peace officer in moving or towing a vehicle under subsection (2) may be recovered from the owner of the vehicle and such debt shall constitute a lien against the vehicle.

So to be absolutely clear (if a bit repetitive) the Motor Vehicle Act already prohibits parking on the street during storms, clean-up operations, and even winter maintenance.

According to Paul MacKinnon, the Executive Director of the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, few of the tickets issued under the ban were issued during storms or clean-up operations. Those that were issued during storms or clean-up operations could have been issued under existing legislation. So there seems to be little point to the ban other than ticketing people on clear nights when snow removal or clean-up is not underway. It makes no sense at all.

Minister Estabrooks is right. Winter is not an emergency.

That's why he shouldn't let HRM's Traffic Authority - which ultimately reports to him only - declare winter in Nova Scotia an emergency in order to enact a ban which is not needed, penalizes residents, and hurts business.

Still haven't had enough? Check out Waye Mason's earlier blog on this very issue at http://halifaxpolitics.ca/2010/12/23/faq-traffic-authority-and-winter-parking/

Canada Games Centre Opens

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:13:00 +0000

I remember standing outside in the sleet and wind on one of the coldest days of the year for the ground breaking of what would be the new Canada Games Centre in Halifax.

It was an exciting day, though the frostbite is still hard to forget.

Today, on a much more pleasant, sunny winter day the Canada Games Centre opens its doors.

A celebration for the community and much needed infrastructure for Nova Scotia and HRM.

I remember being on Halifax Regional Council through the discussions, funding debates, and ultimate approval of this facility, and in fact the games themselves.

Some days it seemed we'd never get agreement from the many groups who wanted the centre to reflect sometimes competing needs. But as residents of HRM we made it. We succeeded. Through sometimes acrimonious debate we have a facility that the community is proud to call their own.

Today under sunny skies, a brisk wind, and more than a bit of a sense of community the Canada Games Centre has opened.

Congratulations to all.

Caucus Funding Changes Could Have Left Taxpayers On The Hook

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:28:00 +0000

Remember the MLA expense scandal? I bet that got your attention.

The House of Assembly Management Commission was established by the legislature to publicly handle caucus and MLA funding issues in the wake of the Auditor General's report on MLA expenses. One recommendation all parties supported in a vote months ago was to move to fiscal year accounting and away from calendar year accounting. It simply made sense to make all government budgets match the Department of Finance's own budget year.

It surprised me then that on Tuesday the government moved a motion to exempt caucus office funding from the change until April 1, 2012 and allow a 15 month year for caucus offices from January 1, 2011 until March 31, 2012.

Who cares right? Well it wouldn't have mattered except that caucus offices gain and lose funding at the start of each year for any MLA they gain or lose (a loss includes members going to cabinet as caucus offices are not funded for party leaders, the speaker, or cabinet members because they are supported from other budgets).

The motion was made and passed by the committee just hours before the NDP expanded the cabinet. With two new cabinet members from the government benches the NDP stood to lose about $90,000 on April 1 without this change. The Tories stood to lose roughly $45,000 for Karen Casey's departure and potentially another $45,000 if a federal election is called and Cecil Clake departs prior to March 31. Total cost to taxpayers? Up to $180,000.

I realize $180,000 is not going to solve the province's fiscal crisis. It's not going to cover the $196 million in education cuts that have been floated by the NDP. But it does mean something. There was little rationale for this change since every other expense was switching to the fiscal year and there had been a lot of notice.

I spoke against it at the time and Liberals did not vote in favour of the change.

Today, Liberal leader Stephen McNeil announced that the Liberal caucus wouldn't accept money that would have come with the arrival of Karen Casey for the transition period in the regulations created by the NDP/PC committee vote. Our leader just didn't think it was right for taxpayers to pay twice for one MLA - just as they would have been doing for the two NDP members going to cabinet and with the Tories planning to keep money for an MLA they don't have.

Both the NDP's Deputy Premier Frank Corbett and PC House Leader Chris d'Entrement gave spirited defenses of keeping the money at Tuesday's committee meeting, even after I pointed out they'd had lots of notice for the change in fiscal year.

As the clock ticked today, it appears the feelings of both Corbett and d'Entrement changed. I'm happy that late today both the NDP and PC caucus offices have decided to follow the Liberal lead (at least in part). Both announced they will not accept the money for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 - though they still appear happy to keep the money from now until March 31, 2011. Money which Liberals also refused to accept.

Floor Crossing Is the Messy Part of Democracy, But It's Still Part of Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:12:00 +0000

In case you are living under a rock, former Tory MLA Karen Casey has left the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative caucus and joined the NS Liberal caucus. It's called floor crossing, though with the legislature in recess it's really walking down the street a few blocks from one office building to another.

Karen is a great and welcome addition to the Liberal team. I've respected Karen's work as an MLA for some time and for many HRM residents she's a folk hero as the minister who fired the Halifax Regional School Board a few years back.

Almost on cue, there were those who yelled loudly that floor crossing shouldn't be allowed. An affront to democracy some claimed. PC leader Jamie Baillie implied on CBC Television that floor crossing means a by-election must be called and he was heading to Cumberland North to find a candidate. Note to Mr. Baillie: loor crossing does not require a by-election.

Floor crossing is part of the democratic process. A messy part of democracy just like filibusters, bell ringing, and motions of confidence perhaps, but democracy nonetheless.

Sure, as a Liberal I was annoyed when MP David Emerson crossed the floor to the federal Conservatives shortly after being elected as a Liberal. But I still recognized it as part of the democratic process. Today many of the same people who heralded Emerson's floor crossing complain about Karen crossing because it did not benefit their party.

CBC says the first Canadian floor-crossing in Canada was in 1868 when Stewart Campbell left Nova Scotia's Anti-Confederation party to sit with the Liberal-Conservatives of John A. Macdonald. There have been many floor crossings since. Every major political party in Canada has had experience with floor crossing. In the Yukon for example, every party has lost and gained members to floor crossing. A 2006 CBC election report called floor crossing in that territory a sport because it happened so often that governments have changed mid-term and once a sitting party leader even crossed the floor.

Floor crossing is not unique to Canada. Democracies all over the world experience floor crossing as part of democracy.

In writing this blog, my colleague Kelly Regan reminded me that across the pond Sir Winston Churchill crossed the floor in 1904 leaving the Conservative Party to join the Liberal Party. He crossed the floor again back to the Conservative Party in the 1920s.

South Africa tried to ban floor crossing in their 1996 because that country uses proportional representation. After a few years it was decided that clause needed to be changed. Legislation was introduced in 2002 to actually facilitate crossing the floor.

We live in a democracy where you vote for a person. While the person's name may sit next to a party name on a ballot your vote is for the person you want to stand up for you and your community. It's why elected members of all parties with strong constituency track records can often win in spite of the fortunes of their respective party.

I'm thrilled to have Karen as part of the Liberal caucus. Karen wasn't the first to cross the floor in Canada and she won't be the last. Floor crossing is just another part of a democratic process that may be a bit messy but is intentionally designed to allow for as many options as possible to represent the people we're elected to serve.

The Only Thing Idling Is the NDP Legislative Agenda

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:21:00 +0000

This morning the NDP Environment Minister introduced his anti-idling bill. It's a bill that does nothing but add to the number of bills Nova Scotia's NDP government can say they have introduced in this session of the legislature.

Idling is not only an environmental issue but one that costs motorists money as fuel is needlessly burned. It's an important issue. But this bill does nothing to reduce idling.

Once you get past the definitions the actual bill amounts to one line. That line says "The Government of the Province and every person who owns, operates, manages or controls a public passenger vehicle shall establish in writing on or before October 1, 2011, and thereafter maintain in effect an anti-idling policy that promotes the reduction of unnecessary idling."

As this bill only applies to the provincial government and public passenger vehicles, everything accomplished by this bill could be done by a letter from government or cabinet policy. In fact, the vast majority of those covered by this bill already have idling policies.

This morning's bill is really symbolic of the fall session of the legislature in Nova Scotia. As many of the bills hit Committee of the Whole yesterday for clause by clause consideration, it was telling how short many of the bills were. Not that there's anything wrong with short bills if they mean something. But the vast majority of bills introduced by the NDP government this session are what are more frequently called housekeeping bills

Other governments use so-called omnibus bills to handle housekeeping amendments. Omnibus bills amend numerous pieces of existing legislation at once implementing corrections and making necessary changes to keep laws up to date. The NDP government in Nova Scotia has chosen instead to not only bring in every amendment as a new piece of legislation, but to often trumpet that legislation with press releases and media briefings as something earth shattering.

There can be only one reason for this. To increase the total number of bills the government can say they've passed once the session comes to an end. To make it look like they have done more than they have.

There are serious issues in Nova Scotia. The government could be holding debates on issues like post-secondary education funding, the NDP's proposed 22% cut to public education, and the Ross Report on emergency health care delivery. They could also be working with the legislature to improve Nova Scotia's competitiveness and grow jobs instead of sitting by while jobs leave the province.

Instead the legislature is spending much of its time on government bills that accomplish little or are housekeeping matters.

NDP Launches Urban Sprawl Team

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:57:00 +0000

The NDP announced a Suburban Priorities Team today for a part of HRM. Too bad if you are in the capital district or rural areas of HRM - you are out of luck.

There's no question HRM needs attention. For years the Tory government made their political fortunes on bashing HRM. They failed to realize the success of Nova Scotia is tied to the success of HRM. Just as the success of HRM is tied to other parts of Nova Scotia from Cape Breton to Yarmouth.

There may even be merit for a Capital District or HRM committee of the legislature. Such a committee would have representatives of all parties and would address the interlinked and sometimes unique needs of all of HRM - especially the capital district. But that not what this is.

This is a committee of five back bench government MLAs who are having challenges in their own ridings. It's reported that at least one of those members has been claiming in their constituency they will be in cabinet very soon. It's a committee established to solely represent the interests of a part of HRM that downtown proponents often suggest contribute to urban sprawl.

Why set up a committee in a way that may only exacerbate the conflict between different parts of HRM?
The introduction of the "team" trumpeted three new laws. None of of those bills has anything to do with this team. A bill to prevent prohibitions on clotheslines has been a desire of Howard Epstein (not on this team) for years. The bills to allow buses right of way and to allow HRM to finance solar heating systems (but not other municipalities in the province) are direct requests of HRM.

The legislature chicken and cat debates can't be far off...

Stay tuned.

Minister Thinks He's Santa Claus - And That's The Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:19:00 +0000

There's a problem with how Nova Scotia's NDP government approaches promises. It starts with the fact the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal thinks he's Santa Claus.

At first it was thought to be a bit of a joke.

On April 28, 2010 Minister Estabrooks said "when it comes to this time of year, the Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal Minister often feels a bit like Santa Claus, because everyone is interested in what gift they're going to get under the tree and the gift arrives in the form of a tender."

But it seems the minister is more serious than previously thought.

Let me step back a bit and give this story some context...

In January 2009, the Nova Scotia government announced the Burnside Expressway - a long awaited four lane, $35 million highway connector - would proceed. In April 2009 then provincial Minister Angus MacIssac and federal Minister Peter MacKay announced a cost sharing deal that would split the cost of the project evenly. A completion date of 2011 was announced.

The expressway is a critical piece of infrastructure needed for safety and to meet industrial and commercial demands of the province and Burnside. It's one of the approved elements of the Atlantic Gateway. During public consultations no one questioned the need for the roadway and previous NDP members were among those of all levels of government, and all parties, who lobbied for the project.

However, yesterday in Question Period I asked Minister Bill Estabrooks about the status of the Burnside Expressway and he would not commit to the project. It was intended to be a fairly easy question. A question just to confirm the project was still on schedule for 2011 completion. It became anything but.

After question period, I was contacted by a variety of sources who pointed out that federal funding for the Burnside Expressway may be at risk if the project is not completed on time. That could mean a loss of $17.5 million to Nova Scotia taxpayers.

The possible loss of $17.5 million concerned me even more. So I asked the minister about it during today's Question Period. The minister simply complained that no one had lobbied him for the project to continue and asked why he should worry about it.

Were we supposed to give him some milk and cookies?

Up until the April 2009 confirmation that the project was funded and confirmed, many businesses and individuals including NDP members, the Greater Burnside Business Association, and members of Halifax Regional Council including me lobbied for this project.

Once project funding had been approved why would anyone think they'd need to continue lobbying. After all, there was a firm completion date. Funding was in place. Owners of businesses went back to work and focused on their own business. People had no reason to believe the project was in jeopardy, after all as of today even the government website still offered a 2011 completion date.

The fact is, not only was the project funded and a time line committed, but the minister's office has said nothing to the business community to suggest the project was delayed, or that it may not happen. That is not the way to treat the many Nova Scotians and businesses who have been eagerly awaiting the project's completion (or even start).

It also directly breaks a promise by the man who is now premier.

On May 13, 2009 the Chronicle Herald reported on a promise by now Premier Darrell Dexter to honour any commitments made by the previous Tory government. The 2011 completion of the Burnside Expressway was one very clear commitment.

The NDP not only promised to honour the commitments of the previous government, but also promised to take politics out of construction projects. Now the minister in charge of those projects thinks infrastructure investments should be done by writing pretty notes on the back of napkins or playing to the minister's ego.

And that is the crux of the problem.

The minister could have said in Question Period that issues have arisen which have unavoidably delayed the project. People would be upset, but would likely understand if the reasons were legitimate. These things happen.

Instead, Minister Estabrooks confirmed the NDP really hasn't taken the politics out of infrastructure projects.

Reinforced by comments such as those today, and those we hear so often from ministers like Minister Estabrooks like "I don't have any adding machine to total it up - but we will see what happens when those tenders cross Santa Claus' desk" (April 28, 2010)

Why Remembrance Day Matters Even If You Hate War

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:27:00 +0000

I have met and talked with a lot of Veterans and service people over the years. Maybe that comes from growing up in Dartmouth. Halifax-Dartmouth has a long military history and so you can't help but see the many faces of the Canadian Forces.

No Veteran or current service person has ever told me how great war is. Yes, I've heard battlefield stories about comraderie, meeting wives, and the moments of joy that punctuated war and conflict. But none have ever said that war is a good thing.

In fact there are many Veterans who will not speak of the horrors of war and conflict. Most will tell you about how we must remember the past to help us avoid future conflicts.

Every day men and women answer the call of duty in the Canadian Forces to serve in places around the world. They answer the call of their country doing jobs many of us wouldn't be willing to do.

Veterans and service people have put their lives on the line in past world wars for many reasons but at least in part to defend the right of Canadians and others to be able to publicly state different opinions without fear of reprisal. Even different opinions on war, conflict, and the role of the military.

We must also never fail to remember that the role of the Canadian Forces is diverse. Our service men and women do all the obvious things a military does. But they also lead search and rescue efforts, provide humanitarian relief efforts in Canada and around the world, do work in fisheries monitoring and protection, and so many other things we so easily forget about.

The military is part of our community.

Peace and diplomacy must always be the first choice. There is nothing wrong with debates about the role of the Canadian Forces or what our role should be - if any - in conflicts around the world.
But this should not tarnish the memories of those who have died and those who on this very day serve around the world in the name of Canada.

Remembrance Day must be about remembering those who have served our country in honour and service on our behalf and the desire they have, like I hope we all have, for peace.

Political Sewer Pipe From Carleton County

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:11:00 +0000

If you watch parliament or the legislature you’ve no doubt witnessed the verbal sparring and heckling that’s become a part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition. Some days you’d figure anything goes.

Last week’s opening of the Nova Scotia legislature not only got me thinking about decorum and in particular about a book my colleague Wayne Gaudet showed me which includes a list for parliamentarians on what can and cannot be said. The list is continuously updated with rulings by parliamentary speakers throughout the Commonwealth.

Perhaps the most famous phrase contributed by Canada to the banned list is Pierre Trudeau’s famous “Fuddle Duddle” in 1971.

Some banned words are obvious – liar (1959), racist (oddly enough banned only in 1986), jerk (1980), sleazebag (1984), and scuzzball (1988).

However, some words and phrases stricken from the language of parliamentarians make you wonder about the story behind them. In 2007 calling someone a “weathervane” was banned. While back in 1881 saying someone is “inspired by four-rod whiskey” was deemed equally inappropriate.

Also on the list are from saying someone “has come into the world by accident” (1886), is a “trained seal” (1961), is a “bag of wind” (1878), or is an “evil genius” (1962).

One of the most intriguing ones to me is a banned phrase which I presume originates from the New Brunswick legislature, that is calling someone a “Political Sewer Pipe From Carleton County”. For those who don’t know, this is the area which is home to the world’s longest covered bridge in Hartland.

Apparently though it’s still ok to call someone a political sewer pipe from any other county in Canada. Just like it’s apparently ok to call someone a trained sheep.

Well, at least until a speaker somewhere rules otherwise.

A Competitive Province Will Help Keep Young People Here

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:57:00 +0000

The following column originally was written for and appeared in the Dartmouth Cole Harbour Weekly News the week of October 21. I have received quite a lot of positive feedback to it, so I am republishing it on this blog.

I graduated from Prince Andrew High School in 1992. While many of my classmates chose to go elsewhere for post-secondary education, I chose to stay in Nova Scotia for my university degrees. Following university I established my business in Nova Scotia, while I watched even more of my former classmates head west or even out of country seeking opportunity.

Of course, some people have returned to Nova Scotia to be close to family, but they’ve often made sacrifices to do so. I frequently talk to friends who simply find it too expensive to return to Nova Scotia when compared to other locations. With among the highest income, gas, and sales taxes, as well as rapidly rising energy and household costs, it’s difficult to encourage young people – and immigrants – to bring and keep their families here. In turn, it is more difficult to attract companies to a province seen as uncompetitive on taxes, energy costs, transportation, and infrastructure.

I know Nova Scotia has a lot to offer, from a dedicated and well educated workforce, to an excellent quality of life. But I have also seen that in just a year that many of the NDP government policies and decisions are making Nova Scotia rapidly more uncompetitive and unattractive.

The NDP government’s approach has been to raise taxes, increase the price of electricity through added fees, increase the provincial deficit, and drive up the provincial debt. Now it appears as the government will also allow tuition fees and student debt to rise dramatically.

Economic growth depends not only on attracting new businesses, but also on ensuring Nova Scotia is a place young people find engaging, exciting, and attractive. For young and old it means making Nova Scotia more affordable and competitive.

As the fall session of the legislature approaches it will be my priority to encourage the government to stop making this province less competitive and less attractive.

Why You Need To Care About Mercury

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:27:00 +0000

Mercury is probably most commonly associated with thermometers. While the metallic element is rarely used for measuring temperature now, it remains part of many products and is emitted from the smoke stacks of power plants that burn coal. Power plants like those found in Nova Scotia.

In 2006, environment ministers of every political stripe gathered and decided to regulate mercury emissions on a national basis. The standards called for a decrease in mercury emissions at power plants in Canada. Nova Scotia adopted these guidelines.

It’s important to understand why the ministers were concerned about mercury. In their 2006 background document they said:

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has determined that mercury levels in fish and wildlife across Canada warrant efforts to reduce mercury emissions in order to protect not only fish and wildlife, but also human health. Mercury is a toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative substance. It converts in water to the

highly toxic form, methyl mercury, which accumulates in fish and other species, damaging the central nervous system and causing reproductive failure among loons and river otters.

Human exposure to mercury – primarily by eating contaminated fish – may cause neurological and developmental damage. Low exposure to mercury may cause problems, such as learning disabilities in children. Women of childbearing age, pregnant women, children, and populations who depend on fish as a traditional food source are most at risk.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2006

http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/hg_epg_cws_w_annex.pdf

Removing mercury from coal plant emissions can be costly. Newer plants like Cape Breton’s Point Aconi are very efficient at limiting mercury emissions, but older plants need the addition of chemicals or technology to remove the mercury.

Earlier this year Nova Scotia Power announced plans for massive rate hikes they claimed were necessary to meet mercury emission targets (targets they’d known about since 2006). The NDP government quickly announced they would abandon the nationally agreed to mercury emission standards and let Nova Scotia Power put more of the dangerous element into our air and waterways. Nova Scotia Power responded with a slightly smaller proposed rate hike and this province became the only one that would not meet mercury emission targets.

At the time I said relaxing mercury standards should be a last resort – after all other options were considered. Turns out there were other options to keep rates down.

Evidence presented at this week’s Utility and Review Board hearing questioned whether mercury could be better captured using existing technology such as precipitators, bag houses, and the capture of unburned carbon in fly ash which is common in the Colombian coal used by Nova Scotia Power. This week’s hearing demonstrated the NDP moved without all the evidence, putting the health of Nova Scotians at risk.

The NDP claim relaxing mercury emission targets was necessary to limit electrical rate increases. The truth is there were many other strategies that could have been considered. For example Nova Scotia Power could reduce its power rate hike using money it received as a result of controversial penalties it charged renewable energy suppliers last year. Nova Scotia Power could defer part of its proposed rate hike over a two to three year period which would lessen the impact to ratepayers. Nova Scotia Power could also return to its customers the $5 million incentive it earned for saving money on fuel costs in 2009 – a savings which has now largely vanished.

The NDP will tell you they’ve made the limits on mercury emissions at some distant point stronger than they were originally to compensate for the changes. The fact is, in 2006 the joint Canadian ministers of the environment talked about the possibility of even lower emission targets than the NDP have proposed for the future. So while it’s true they’ve formally set targets for those years, they could still turn out to be higher than what will be recommended nationally. In any case, it really doesn’t change the heart of the problem.

You can read about fish and other food products being taken off the market due to mercury levels. Pregnant women are warned to stay away from certain fish species. Mercury stays in the environment. It’s why the ministers were worried about it. It’s why it was important to reduce mercury emissions early.

It’s important to protect Nova Scotians from rapidly increasing electrical costs – particularly the lowest income ratepayers and most vulnerable business customers. The NDP government had options. The NDP took the easy road and put the health of Nova Scotians at risk for years to come.

This Blog May Be Redacted

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 02:47:00 +0000

You have to wonder whether Nova Scotia Power (NSP) takes training from the CIA. Or maybe it’s from the Harper government which has become known for having political staff vet and sometimes even delay Freedom of Information requests from the media.


Redacted document from NSP hearing related to filings by Liberty Consulting Audit of Nova Scotia Power

On Monday I’ll be an official intervener at a power rate hearing before Nova Scotia’s Utility and Review Board. Of roughly 2000 pages of publicly accessible documents a sizable portion is blacked out or “redacted” in technical speak. As well, in a bunker somewhere there is a space known as the FAM Data Room which holds mysterious confidential binders which can be viewed only in person at the Nova Scotia Power offices.

Well, viewed but not by just anyone. You need to be a stakeholder and must agree to sign a confidentiality agreement.

To be fair I could have signed that confidentiality agreement. That would have allowed me access to every word and number concerning NSP’s coal, tendering, and mercury reduction strategies. But I couldn’t have told you about it.

I didn’t sign the confidentiality agreement because it would have meant I couldn’t speak as freely about the proposed rate hikes and, more importantly, I firmly believe NSP has gone too far when it comes to secrecy. The Utility and Review Board has said the same thing about NSP, more than once scolding the company for its secrecy, most recently in September about proposed biomass project.

This document aims to show outages
at NSP generating stations.
Apparently that is top secret.

Some of the redactions border on ridiculous. In response to questions from NSP to Liberty Consulting (the company which did an audit on NSP’s fuel procurement practices) the entire page is redacted with the exception of one line suggesting Liberty doesn’t agree with NSP’s line of questioning. Likewise a table which should show any generating plant downtime of more than two days is completely removed with no explanation as to how this could possibly impact NSP’s ability to negotiate fuel purchases. Why shouldn’t the public know when the power plants were offline

NSP does legitimately require some things to be kept confidential. No doubt there are agreements in place and a small number of sensitive items that could impact future negotiations on fuel pricing and other issues which would negatively impact ratepayers if made public. But with an effective monopoly on electrical power in Nova Scotia, there’s no doubt much more can be made public than what appears in the redacted rate filings. Without access to costs and audit results how are the public to make an informed decision for themselves on the merits of higher power rates?

The public deserves access to as much information from Nova Scotia’s power monopoly.

For now, that’s all. I think I hear the censors coming to redact this blog…

Please Minister, Tell Me What You Think...

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:18:00 +0000

This morning I discussed the proposed new convention centre on CBC's Information Morning with Minister Bill Estabrooks and Interim PC leader Jamie Baillie. Neither Baillie or Estabrooks would comment on the estimated cost of the project. The numbers are public now so why they wanted to avoid numbers is beyond me.

$159 million construction costs plus yearly costs for a 25 year total of around $325 million.

Premier Dexter and Jamie Baillie are too busy with rhetoric to put the all facts on the table and discuss the merits and costs of the project.

The Dexter government has kept the costs of the convention centre private since June. But we still don't know what government thinks of the project. Nova Scotians want their elected leaders to give them the information and make their positions clear. Neither Estabrooks nor Premier Dexter have shown leadership on this issue by saying whether they believe the project is a good idea.

There's been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the convention centre debate. I don't buy into the claim that the convention centre will suddenly revitalize of downtown Halifax overnight. But I have spoken to property owners with approved projects who are waiting for approval of a new convention centre before moving ahead. I do believe the convention centre will be a positive addition to downtown and Nova Scotia.

For a short time in 2002 I worked with Destination Halifax. Even then I saw regular conventions choose to go elsewhere because the current centre no longer had the capacity, availability, or infrastructure requirements to handle them. Yesterday the public saw a list of some of those events.

Convention centres have a life span. The current one is past its best before date. Renovating the existing centre would likely still not meet current requirements for ceiling height, space, and sight lines. As important, a renovation may be just as expensive as a new centre. So we have a choice. Even outside of the possibility of attracting new business, keeping much of the existing business requires a new facility. So as a province we stay in the convention centre business or we don't. That's what a new centre is primarily about and the risks and rewards that come with that decision.

Trade Centre Ltd.'s Scott Ferguson said publicly in response to a question from The Coast's Tim Bousquet that he will stand by the projections. I give him credit for that. He's got to know that statement won't go away so there's a lot on his shoulders.

From day one I've read everything that has been sent to me, or I could find, both in favour and against the convention centre project. I continue to do that. I'm comfortable explaining to someone in my own riding of Dartmouth East, or downtown Halifax, or Cape Breton, or anywhere else in Nova Scotia why I think this project makes sense, not just for Halifax, but for Nova Scotia. I know there are people who will disagree with me. That's ok. I respect their opinion just as I hope they will respect mine. And respect it, at least in part because I - and my caucus colleagues - are willing to say where we stand on this issue.

Now Premier Dexter and Minister Estabrooks... will you please tell me what you think?

Whose Gas Is It Anyhow?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Younger MLA) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:08:00 +0000

Today the Utility and Review Board will investigate whether Heritage Gas Limited’s marketing strategy to distribute natural gas is meeting its obligations for the franchise it was awarded in 2003. That’s a complicated way to say the board is investigating a complaint by two residents, Peter Allen and Balwantray Chauhan, that Heritage Gas is not doing enough to provide service to residential customers.

I’m intervening on behalf of the Liberal caucus. Why? Because we want to ensure that Nova Scotians are the primary beneficiaries of our natural resources. After all why shouldn’t we be? These resources don’t belong to any company. They belong to Nova Scotians. All Nova Scotians.

When Heritage Gas was awarded the right to distribute natural gas in much of Nova Scotia back in 2003 they promised a lot in terms of benefits to Nova Scotians. Today, interveners like me will explore whether those promises have been realized.

While natural gas has environmental benefits over some other fuels, I personally view natural gas as a transitional fuel in the environmental debate. So today is not about which fuel is better environmentally. Today is about choice. Nova Scotians were promised choice in energy supply, yet for many that hasn’t been realized. We all deserve to know why.

Peter Allen and Balwantray Chauhan are two residents who were upset about an issue and took action. They may not have realized the interest they would generate in this issue from across the province. But today, the question they raised will take center stage.