HANSARD

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SERVICES

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Committee Room 1


Department of Community Services
Re: Talbot House Closure

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mr. Jim Morton (Chairman)
Mr. Gary Ramey (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Sid Prest
Mr. Gary Burrill
Mr. Brian Skabar
Hon. Karen Casey
Ms. Kelly Regan
Mr. Keith Bain
Mr. Eddie Orrell

[Mr. Brian Skabar was replaced by Ms. Becky Kent.]
[Hon. Karen Casey was replaced by Mr. Leo Glavine.]
[Mr. Eddie Orrell was replaced by Hon. Chris d'Entremont.]


In Attendance:

Ms. Kim Langille
Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb
Legislative Counsel



WITNESS

Department of Community Services

Mr. David Ryan,
Associate Deputy Minister

Mr. George Savoury,
Executive Director, Family and Community Supports

Ms. Marika Lathem,
Director, Family and Youth Services

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SERVICES

1:00 P.M.

CHAIRMAN
Mr. Jim Morton


MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon folks, I think we'll get started. I'm always organized by a clock that is in front of me and a clock that is on the wall - mine is a little fast, maybe, or that one is a little slow, so we'll start in the middle somewhere. My name is Jim Morton, this is the Standing Committee on Community Services and I'm the chairman of the committee.

Before we start, I would like to say that there is an announcement I always need to make about fire safety evacuation. Just so you know, if there should be an emergency and we need to leave the building, do not use the elevators. There are stairwells on either side of the elevators, and you should go down those stairs to the ground level and exit the building and organize yourselves in front of the Grand Parade, in front of City Hall, and wait there for further instructions. Let's hope that today, as on other days, we won't need to use those, but it is always better to be prepared.

What I'd like to do to begin with is just have us all introduce ourselves.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all. Our witnesses today are from the Department of Community Services. They are here to respond to questions and make a presentation, I think, on Talbot House and the closure of Talbot House. I think what I'll do is ask our witnesses to introduce themselves at this point and then leave you to organize yourselves for the presentation.

[The witnesses introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and please go ahead with your presentation. Then, of course, as I know you understand, all of us as committee members will be in a position to ask questions and to make whatever points we would like to make at the end of that.

MR. DAVID RYAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the invitation to come before the standing committee to present on recovery houses, the Talbot House organizational review, and government's plans to re-establish a recovery house in Cape Breton.

It may be helpful, as we start, to provide a bit of background on recovery houses and the services they provide in our province. In Nova Scotia the Department of Community Services provides funding to five recovery houses on the continuum of addiction services, which includes detox services, mental health and addictions counselling.

Recovery houses are one of the options available for people struggling to overcome addictions. Although recovery houses do not provide clinical programming, they provide long-term transitional housing for people who require a safe, supportive and healing environment. This supportive environment is critically important to the success and recovery from addictions. Recovery houses are community-based and they partner extensively with other organizations, such as the various district health authorities.

The following recovery houses are partially funded by DCS in the form of annual operational grants. They include Freedom Foundation, Alcare Place, the Salvation Army Marguerite Centre, and Talbot House. Recovery houses are autonomous, incorporated, non-for-profit organizations and are neither licensed or regulated by DCS. Organizational oversight of recovery houses is the responsibility of the board of directors.

In 2007-08, DCS and the Department of Health - now the Department of Health and Wellness - completed a recovery house strategy document which included the five funded recovery houses in Nova Scotia. The goal was to determine where recovery houses fit in the continuum of care and support for addictions services, to develop an appropriate model for the services, and to create a more effective model for funding.

Prior to 2008, recovery houses were funded in part by Health, the Gaming Corporation and DCS. These multiple sources of funding made it difficult for recovery houses to develop budgets and to plan and run their operations. The strategy was a collaborative process and involved all of the recovery houses and the two working groups including representatives from recovery houses. For example, the executive director of Talbot House was a representative for recovery houses on the standards working group.

The review resulted in the following: it defined services for the funding; provided a set of standards; developed an accountability framework for the funding which included service agreements and reporting documents; and it placed recovery houses under the auspices of DCS where it was previously the Department of Health.

The annual funding for individual recovery houses in Nova Scotia is on the screen there. You can see that four of the five funded recovery houses are located in HRM. This is largely based on history, but works well in meeting the need given that the highest percentage of Nova Scotians live in this municipality. DCS-funded recovery houses accept clients from across Nova Scotia as well as from other provinces. In terms of compliance, the remaining four existing recovery houses either met or exceeded recovery house standards as described by DCS.

A letter from a former resident of Talbot House was forwarded to DCS in September 2011. That letter had originally gone to the Department of Health and Wellness which then forwarded it along to DCS given that recovery houses fell under our auspices. That letter raised concerns related to programming and staffing of Talbot House. Some of these concerns could be addressed through the process of an organizational review while others were more specifically the obligation of the Talbot House board of directors.

The person who wrote the letter did not wish to be identified nor meet with the Talbot House board at that time. DCS requested to meet with the Talbot House board to discuss an organizational review and attended their November 2011 board meeting. At this meeting, DCS provided a summary of the concerns which were contained in a letter received from the former resident.

During this meeting the board asked DCS what would happen if, during the course of the review, any new information would come to light. DCS committed to apprising the board of any new information. Service agreements for the organization allowed DCS to conduct organizational reviews. The Talbot House board agreed to an organizational review and did not want the complaint to be part of the review. The Talbot House agreed to the terms of reference for the organizational review in December 2011 and in January 2012, DCS began the operational review.

Meetings and interviews with Talbot House staff, the executive director, residents and the board were arranged through the board of Talbot House. Meetings with the stakeholders were arranged through the Department of Health and Wellness and the local district health authorities. Interviews with stakeholders were completed in January. Following on our commitment to bring any new information to the Talbot House board, DCS met with the board on February 2nd and provided a high level summary of the information gathered to date. This information included Talbot House's lack of compliance with recovery house standards and the lack of programming. This information also included the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding Talbot House and concerns stakeholders had received from Talbot House clients.

During the review, 16 stakeholders were interviewed; eight of the 16 had received complaints from former residents about Talbot House. Some stakeholders received more than one complaint. As a result, the majority of stakeholders interviewed for the organizational review had concerns about making referrals to Talbot House. Stakeholders who had received complaints from clients had encouraged clients to come forward to make formal complaints but stated that clients felt uncomfortable to do so. As a result, stakeholders reported that Talbot House was not seen as a service on the continuum of addiction services in Cape Breton.

When DCS went to Talbot House on February 3, 2012 the chairman of the board informed DCS that the executive director had stepped down pending the Talbot House board's own investigation. The chairman of the Talbot House board requested DCS's assistance in assessing stakeholders who shared information regarding client complaints and concerns. The chairman also asked if the individual who wrote the letter DCS received back in September 2011 would meet with the board as part of their investigation.

DCS contacted the director of Addictions Services to facilitate access to stakeholders as per the request, and also contacted the individual who had originally written that letter in September. The individual now agreed to meet with the Talbot House board and the meeting was arranged on February 17, 2012. This offer was passed along to the Talbot House board and at that time the board declined to meet. The DCS offered to work with the Talbot House board and staff to keep the doors of Talbot House open and we also offered initial funding to backfill any necessary positions to ensure that the residents would not be disrupted.

On February 16th, the board issued a press release stating that the board had initiated an investigation review into the matter and in the interim the executive director agreed to take a leave of absence. On March 7, 2012 the board of Talbot House issued another press release citing that Talbot House was discharging all of their residents, citing the resignation of the acting executive director of Talbot House as the reason for the closure. With the support of regional DCS staff, DCS relocated five former Talbot House residents who wished to continue their recovery to an alternative recovery house facility in Nova Scotia. The remaining residents were supported in accessing other services and some returned home.

Talbot House ceased operations indefinitely as a recovery house on March 9th and the service agreement for funding expired March 31st. Currently there is no arrangement respecting services or funding between Talbot House and the DCS. The DCS Family and Youth Services have completed 14 other reviews and evaluations in the last three to four years. These organizational reviews are part of the regular DCS operations and ensure accountability for public funds and that the services delivered on behalf of DCS by community-based organizations to vulnerable Nova Scotians are provided in a manner consistent with the expectations and standards. In other reviews, DCS has supported the community organizations to implement the recommendations of their reviews.

The findings of the organizational review were presented to the Talbot House board on April 4, 2012. The first key finding was that Talbot House was not in compliance with the majority of standards for recovery houses, specifically was not in compliance in the following 11 areas including administration, operations and so on. Talbot House was compliant in the following three areas: insurance, food, facility/spaces. The second key finding was that there was no evidence that the Talbot House board was actively overseeing the operation of Talbot House.

The DCS frequently reviews the policies, programs and service level agreements in an effort to enhance or approve their programs. The decision of the board to close indefinitely provided an opportunity for DCS to work with its partners to enhance recovery house services in Cape Breton. DCS has consistently stated that we are committed to having a recovery house in Cape Breton and this position remains unchanged. Residents of Cape Breton looking for help in their transition away from addiction will be assured access to a facility that meets the highest standards for recovery services, as a result of a request for proposal process jointly managed by the Department of Health and Wellness and the Department of Community Services.

We have committed to providing the best service possible for clients and we feel that the RFP process is the best way to ensure these standards are well understood and met as we go forward. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I have begun a speaker's list and the first person on that list is Ms. Regan.

MS. KELLY REGAN: Thank you very much for coming in today so we could learn a little more about this particular issue. You stated that the other four recovery houses meet or exceed DCS standards for recovery houses and I'm assuming those are the standards that came out of the report from April 2008.

MR RYAN: Yes.

MS. REGAN: I'm wondering how you know the other ones meet or exceed those particular standards.

MS. MARIKA LATHEM: Actually we meet with all four recovery houses individually and we went through the standards documents almost like a check list and ticked off every single standard that was there. Some of the organizations who had sort of corporate affiliations actually exceeded the standards because they were accredited at a national level but we went through that whole process.

MS. REGAN: And when would that have been?

MS. LATHEM: We had two meetings in February and one in March.

MS. REGAN: So from 2008, when this report came out, until February of this year, there was no oversight? No one was going through and working with the board, saying this is what you are supposed to do? Is that correct?

MR. GEORGE SAVOURY: Well actually, in Mr. Ryan's presentation you would have heard him say that the recovery houses were an integral part in developing the actual standards and, in fact, Talbot House, as you know, was a representative on that working group. Part of the service agreement with them clearly explains the standards they are expected to be in compliance with. They receive funding on the basis that they are, in fact, following the standards that have been established for them.

So we do reviews on an as-needed basis, we wouldn't be doing them annually. We also have a requirement that they submit information to us. So based on that, they clearly know the standards and based on the information that they would submit to us, we would determine, in fact, if they are in compliance with the standards.

MS. REGAN: And yet from 2008 until 2012, there was no review of these particular houses done like that, going through with the checklist. Is that correct?

MS. LATHEM: The service level agreement essentially provides the requirement that organizations have to have certain reporting requirements to continue their funding and they are very high level. All the organizations submitted the annual reports and we work in good faith with these organizations and we believe that what they provide us in terms of reporting is actually what is happening there.

For example, in the service level agreement reporting document, there would be anecdotal information or even some qualitative information as far as how many clients they saw, the programs they delivered, what their partnerships were in the community with addiction services and mental health. That's the way we tracked it.

To your point, which I think is a good one, this experience has really certainly highlighted the need for us to kind of look at things differently, as far as how we provide that oversight. I think we've got some opportunities here to do it better.

MS. REGAN: I had contacted the chair of the board and said, did you at any time receive any education about what a board is supposed to do? When I talk to other organizations that receive funding from DCS to run various programs, they said our board is always getting education. What I heard from Talbot House was, none of that was ever made available to them, they didn't know about it. I'm just wondering how that happened? They did not have the kind of education that transition houses, for example, have received.

MR. SAVOURY: Well there would be regular meetings that would have taken place with staff and recovery houses. Talbot House is not a new organization that just got funding; I mean, they've been around a long time. It's not uncommon for us, as a department, to get requests from organizations to say look, can you come in and do a presentation on board governance, we'd like some help on developing personnel policies, et cetera. So, in fairness, we never did get that kind of request from Talbot House, so there's some responsibility on that organization to make the request as well. We do get them periodically from organizations to go and do that.

MS. REGAN: But the flip side is also true, too. At no time were you asking for them to indicate what their human resources policies were, for example. Is that correct?

MR. SAVOURY: Well again, there are many, many organizations that get funding through government in this province and we view the people who make up the boards as very knowledgeable. Often they bring a professional background, some of them have previous board experience. I'm sure some feel they could do the training themselves, but we feel that it's a two-way street and they would have been involved, in fact, even as we developed the standards for the transition houses. At any time, they could have come forward and we would have gladly responded.

MS. REGAN: In terms of the complaint that was made against the executive director, what a lot of us have found very difficult to even get our heads around is the fact that the Department of Health and Wellness received a complaint, which it passed on to the Department of Community Services. According to what we've been told by the board, the Department of Community Services told the board that they had to make the complaint to the police. The board had no knowledge of what the complaint was about or who was making it, but yet they were supposed to go to the police and we still cannot figure out why that is.

And it's not like I haven't asked this question, or the Third Party. We asked this question repeatedly in the House - we've never had a good answer. We've never had anyone explain to us why the Department of Community Services would not have just gone to police since they had knowledge of it, and why they forced the board to go to police with an anonymous complaint of a non-specific nature, why they were supposed to do that.

MR. SAVOURY: First of all, I should say that the letter was what triggered us to do the review, because the review could only be done - from our perspective in terms of looking at the administration, the programming and other aspects of it - that's our only scope and only responsibility we had. Then there was other information that we felt that we had a responsibility to share that with the board. We shared that with the board and we suggested to the board that they share it with the police. That whole area fell within the realm of the board's responsibility from a human resources perspective, and not in terms of the review that we decided to conduct because the document that we had pointed to a number of other things that caused us concern in terms of programming.

When you use the word "force" - with all due respect, we didn't . . .

MS. REGAN: Actually, I used that word very specifically and on purpose, because what we were told by the board was that they were told that if they did not go to police, they would be held liable. So when I use the word "force", I absolutely meant to use that because it was no suggestion. They were told, you must do this or you will be held liable.

MR. SAVOURY: I will certainly reiterate what I said, and that is that we felt a responsibility to share all relevant information with the board, and we shared that with the board and it was suggested to them that they take it to the police. That was their decision and we left it with them. I can only reiterate that again for you.

MS. REGAN: I'm . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you've had some opportunity, Ms. Regan. We'll perhaps have another round. I think what I would like to do at this point is go to Mr. Bain.

MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you for being here this afternoon. I would like to follow up on the questioning that Ms. Regan brought forward about the information being shared with the board, because it is also our understanding that when they were requested to go to the police, the board didn't really have any information to go to the police but were told, go to the police. So I guess my first question would be, when was this information shared with the board?

MR. SAVOURY: That would have been shared in the February meeting with them. In fact we would have shared it as soon as we got the information - I should say the letter. We also had an agreement with the board that if we found any additional information through the course of the review we would bring that forward, which we did at the February 2nd meeting. When we told the board the content of the letter, we suggested to them, again, that they bring it to the police. They made their decision and obviously the police, as their procedures were operating, would have taken it from there. It was left with the board.

MR. BAIN: I guess the reason I ask that is because in the response from the board, they requested that that be put on-line the same as the response from your department or the facts from your department. The board says, "Despite the fact that the Department of Community Service [sic] had directly received report of the allegations and possessed relevant information of which the Board had no knowledge, the Board of Directors was strongly advised by the Department of Community Services to contact the police regarding this matter."

So they're told to go to the police not knowing what they're going to the police about. I guess I would like an explanation on that.

MR. SAVOURY: Again, I can only reiterate that we felt it was very important that the board have all the relevant information, which we shared with them, and then it was in the board's domain to take it from there. That's how we left it.

MR. BAIN: Well, since we're talking about the reports and the fact they were posted on the Web site, on April 26th the minister told members of the Legislature that she had been advised to put the review on the Web site. My question would be, who advised the minister to do that?

MR. SAVOURY: There are many reviews, of course, that we do in the course of a year or over a couple of years. I can tell you that it was not our intention to make this particular report public; however, the Talbot House board issued a press release on February 16th and that resulted in a significant number of media events. Later there was a FOIPOP request, and we followed proper procedure and released the report. It ended up being put on our Web site.

MR. BAIN: So I'm assuming that discussions took place at the department level before it went on the Web site. The fact that you had a FOIPOP request - was that FOIPOP request a media request?

MR. SAVOURY: We're not able to disclose the nature of FOIPOP requests. However, we did have one and we followed the proper procedures and it ended up being put on our Web site.

MR. BAIN: So every time you get a FOIPOP request, is it automatic that the department post something on the department Web site?

MR. SAVOURY: We consider the people who manage our FOIPOP requests very professional and knowledgeable in terms of the legislation. They consult with legal counsel and I'm sure there are times that reports could be posted and there may be a decision to not release it if it has information that is - you know, if it's deemed a report that shouldn't be released. However, in this case and most of the reviews of this nature would find themselves posted on the Web site.

MR. BAIN: Did the FOIPOP officer within your department review the report before allowing it to be posted on-line?

MR. SAVOURY: As I mentioned, they are very professional staff and I'm sure it was reviewed by our FOIPOP staff and by our legal counsel.

MR. BAIN: I guess the biggest concern is in the disclaimer in the report for Talbot House which says, "The report contains confidential and identifiable personal information. Disclosure of this review . . . is governed by the . . . Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." Although that was in the disclaimer, the department went ahead and published the report on-line.

I guess because of the disclaimer that's there and the fact that there is confidential information that the department has already said is there, in their disclaimer, it still proceeded to do it, against what it was telling everybody else not to do.

MR. SAVOURY: That particular sentence that you just read could have been redacted from it, however it wasn't. However, it was deemed that the report was fine to be posted on the Web site. That particular sentence could have been redacted.

MR. BAIN: But wasn't. I think that's what has caused a lot of the problems that we're talking about here today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bain, I think I'm going to go to another questioner at this point just to give everybody a chance to raise their points of view. I think we'll go to Mr. Burrill next, followed by Mr. Glavine.

MR. GARY BURRILL: Unlike some of my colleagues, I belong in that category of people who have followed this issue without being immersed in detail from a certain distance. Just as my way of introduction, I'd like to ask you to explain. From a certain non-specialist distance, the narrative of this issue seems quite normal. There is a tension, a difficulty between the funding agency and the board, which has a personnel component. This happens a lot.

The narrative makes sense until the moment - this March moment - when the operation is discontinued. One sort of following the story says at the point, "what?" This is not the normal thing that happens in contentions of this sort between Community Services agencies, community boards and funding agencies. Sometimes there's a struggle, the struggle unfolds in various ways, but this is not the normal way.

It seems to me that the public following this issue, this is a matter of where people would normally say, what happened there? What is this about? What is the significance of this precipitous - thunk - the door is closed? I understand that this is properly a question for the board of Talbot House and not for yourselves, but nevertheless, as people look for some clarity and sense that things have unfolded in a way that we would like to see them unfold, I think that this is a kind of common sense question that would emerge. I was wondering if you would be able to say something about this part of the narrative that's so counter-intuitive.

MR. SAVOURY: Well, first of all, we have a service agreement with organizations like Talbot House and we believe we have a responsibility as a department and as a province, if we receive information that would bring into question - is an organization following and delivering programs for which they're funded? - that it would prompt us to do a review, which the letter triggered that review.

We met with the board in November, we shared the terms of reference for the review. In December the board indicated they were fine with the terms of reference and they didn't want the complaint to be dealt with as part of the review, which we respected and so the review commenced. We also had an agreement that if any new information came to light, they wanted that made known to them, which led to the February 2nd meeting. Then on March 9th, they discharged the residents from the home and we were surprised. We weren't aware that they were going to take that particular action. They indicated to us, but it was a very short notice. Of course our agreement with them really ended because we were funding them to operate a recovery house. Well, they no longer had any individuals there so we set about to find places for the men who wished to continue their recovery program.

Our service agreement with them expired March 31st, so really, as of March 31st we have no agreement in place with Talbot House.

MR. RYAN: Could I add just a bit to that because during those two or three weeks DCS had worked with the board in a dialogue, I think - and Marika, you might be able to elaborate a little bit. They had requests to provide extra funding for backfilling positions and to hire an interim executive director. They asked DCS if we would provide the additional funding, which we agreed to, both verbally and in writing.

It was our understanding that during that process they had worked out a plan where they had appointed - I think one of the workers at Talbot House assumed the position of the acting executive director and they were embarked on a plan to continue as a viable organization, with the residents staying where they were. Despite the disruption it was largely business as usual. It was my understanding that they were looking to recruit an executive director but in the meantime, the person there was the acting.

There was a point in time where we had considered and were pretty confident that the Talbot House operations were going to continue and that the residents were going to continue with where they were in the services.

MS. LATHEM: I guess just to add to that, I think it's really important for me to say the last thing that we wanted was Talbot House to close. We recognized the impact that would have had on the residents and we also realized that this was a very difficult time for the board, so we offered whatever support we could. We offered additional financial support to backfill the positions because we expected it to continue board development that one of my staff would do, and we offered to bring in other recovery houses that could provide mentorship as far as some of the policies that they had.

I guess, as both Dave and George said, we were very surprised when they advised us on March 7th that they were closing. We found out pretty much the same day that the press release was issued. As folks have said here, I guess part of the surprise was that we felt we had gone through some bumpy roads in early February, but that things had stabilized in that house, and I think the staff did a fabulous job in stepping up the plate and doing what they had to do. It was both a surprise and concerning for us.

MR. BURRILL: One additional question. Is it fair then to ask you why, in your view, the board took this action?

MS. LATHEM: I don't know if I can speculate. All I have, I think, is essentially what the board identified as far as what they had in the press release - and that was that, based on their acting executive director resigning, they felt that they had to close.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I expect we'll have additional time for questions, but we'll go to Mr. Glavine, and then Ms. Kent.

MR. LEO GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here today. I'm interested primarily on the addictions side and the treatment programs and so on in conjunction with Talbot House.

I was wondering, first of all, could you indicate whether the Department of Health and Wellness played a role in developing the standards for the funding of the recovery house? We know that beyond detoxing, the recovery house did have a program in place.

MS. LATHEM: There was a working group, actually, that was established to develop the recovery house strategy and there were both individuals from Health and Wellness, as well as from some of the district health authorities at that table, as well as, in the beginning, every single recovery house executive director participated in that process.

One of the things that was really important as part of that work was defining what role the recovery house played and what role Addiction Services, Mental Health Services and detox played. The clarity that we sort of brought to the strategy was that the recovery houses provided the transitional supported living aspect and the clinical piece, which was the treatment piece, was done in partnership with the district health authorities.

For example, some of the recovery houses would have their residents go out to some of the programs on a daily basis and they'd come back to the recovery house. Some of the programs that happened there were things like relapse prevention, some things that really supported people getting their lives back, like employment/job search, that type of thing. So the recovery house strategy really delineated the mandates between what the recovery houses did, which was non-treatment and transitional housing support, and what Addiction Services, detox, and Mental Health Services provide.

MR. GLAVINE: In terms of the operational review, did staff from the Department of Health and Wellness actively interview the clients that were at Talbot House, given the fact that the real mandate of Addiction Services does come from the Department of Health and Wellness?

MS. LATHEM: No, they didn't. They facilitated the scheduling of the interviews with various health authority staff through detox and Addiction Services, but they did not participate in that piece.

MR. GLAVINE: In terms of the residents that were displaced as a result of the closure, I'm wondering where they were moved and which department paid for the programming that continued on.

MS. LATHEM: There were five residents who chose to work on their recovery. First of all, we went to all of the existing recovery houses that we funded and said do you have any space? None of the recovery houses - actually, I think they were almost all full - were able to take all the men together and that was important for the residents at Talbot House. So we actually looked to a private facility in the Valley to take the residents and they were transported together and they went and stayed there, and we paid for their stay. That facility is a 28-day program but we negotiated, given some of the additional services that those residents required, for an additional month. So five of them were there for the first month, one left at the end of the month, and the second month there were four residents there. But we covered those costs.

MR. GLAVINE: The current action and plan that we see from the Department of Health and Wellness is, of course, to move away from residential settings and Talbot House, to some degree, had aspects of in-house residential treatment - longer term, I guess, in many respects. We all know that addictions need an array of different services; the cookie-cutter approach doesn't work for everybody. I'm just wondering, given that Addiction Services is not your departmental responsibility, are your current actions around Talbot House and the development of standards being led by an approach that's being developed by the Department of Health and Wellness? Because it seems like the opportune time, if you wish, if there are some challenges and difficulties at Talbot House, well, let's get rid of another service. So I'm just wondering where we are with that.

MS. LATHEM: I guess a couple of things. When the decision was made to go to an RFP process, we began working with the Department of Health and Wellness. The director of Addiction Services has been involved with us, as well as Procurement Services, in crafting the RFP. The biggest partnership for any recovery house is the services through Addiction Services and Mental Health.

You seem to know a lot about it so I'm sure that you're also aware - and there was a lot of discussion around this when we did the recovery house review strategy - that services for individuals suffering from addictions have to occur on the continuum. You know, there's harm reduction, there are different kind of services - there are individuals that don't require intensive support, but there is a place for recovery houses in terms of those individuals that absolutely have lost everything. In the absence of any kind of stable, supportive housing they can't even begin to work on their addictions.

The recovery houses are all abstinent-based and for those individuals that choose to go there that's the model that works for them. Once the addiction becomes under control, for lack of better words, then oftentimes they will start to work with Addiction Services even after they're in the community, perhaps in a way - you know, will continue with appointments on a monthly basis or that type of thing. The recovery house program really does work for some of those individuals when, really, there just aren't any other options, harm reduction is just not something that would work.

MR. GLAVINE: I look at the pattern over the last number of years around opening and closing recovery houses - Crosbie House and the Marguerite Centre - and the history and so on there. Given that Addiction Services really does fall under the Department of Health and Wellness, doesn't it make more sense, in fact, if that's the primary and central focus of the work going on - even though, as you said, there are other mitigating factors around the lives of these individuals, doesn't it make sense that funding should come from the Department of Health and Wellness and that it be part of that comprehensive strategy of dealing with addictions?

MS. LATHEM: I can tell you that this is a conversation that I've had with Carolyn Davison, who is the director of Addiction Services. What she indicates is that there have been attempts for the Department of Health and Wellness to take over some of the supportive housing piece, but they don't necessarily want to do that because they don't see that as part of their mandate. They see their mandate as being treatment- and clinically- focused. I think that there is room for a partnership, like the one that I think we're going to have with the Department of Health and Wellness in terms of this particular facility where it doesn't necessarily matter where the money comes from, but programs work together with their very specific mandates to make things work for the people who need that service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I'd like to move on for a bit now with the expectation that probably there will be a chance for a second round. Just as a point of clarification though - Mr. Glavine, in asking his questions, has been focused a little bit on treatment. Could you clarify whether recovery houses have a role in treatment or what their primary function is? I think maybe that's not widely understood.

MS. LATHEM: No, recovery houses don't provide treatment. They provide supportive kinds of programs, but the supportive housing piece is their primary focus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think we'll now go to Ms. Kent and then back to Ms. Regan.

MS. BECKY KENT: I'd like to just follow up on a couple of statements that have been made and some question lines. Marika, is it my understanding that you, in fact, were part of the February meeting that was around the details of the letter of the complaint that was received in the dialogue with the board?

MS. LATHEM: The February meeting actually wasn't about the letter.

MS. KENT: When the letter was brought to the attention of the board, were any of you at that . . .

MS. LATHEM: Yes.

MS. KENT: You were there. It has been suggested that perhaps the board - it was said, told us today, they recommended going to the police. Ultimately that was the board decision to do it and at that time, was the letter actually shared with the board? Did they see it?

MS. LATHEM: Can I clarify?

MS. KENT: I'd love to have you clarify that, thank you.

MS. LATHEM: When we received the letter of complaint, I spoke to the complainant and they did not necessarily - as folks have said here - want to be identified; they did not want to go to the board. There were aspects in that letter that an organizational review would have addressed, so we requested the meeting with the board and the first opportunity we had to go up was in November. At that meeting the board really had no problems at all with doing an organizational review, but in any other kind of process that we undertake like this, we always provide the board with a copy of the terms of reference and say, please take a look at this because we wanted to make sure that everyone understood the process of the review - who we were going to talk to and how this was going to work. Although they agreed to the review, they wanted, again, to have some more discussion about the terms of reference.

So we got their approval in December for the terms of reference. We started the interviews in January and, if I could just back up, we actually made a commitment to the board in November that any new information that came to light we would bring to the board's attention. We had all the meetings and the interviews with the stakeholders in January and out of those interviews, there was new information that came to light and because it was really important to fulfill the commitment that we had made to the board in November about providing them with new information, we requested a meeting in February. At that meeting, we provided a high-level summary of the information that we had gathered to date that was new.

Based on some of that new information - and the board had indicated that they were going to develop their own plan to investigate the issues that were brought forward - I contacted them and suggested that as part of that, given the fact that they were also looking for some support in developing a plan and who could assist them, we suggested that they may wish to contact the police. That's when the request came. I know it's really confusing, in terms of the letter of complaint and some of the new information, but we actually made a commitment never to investigate the letter of complaint.

MS. KENT: Do you feel that they had a good understanding of why you were suggesting that they include the police in that?

MS. LATHEM: All I can say is I spoke to the board myself and there was clarity around that.

MR. RYAN: Could I just add some clarity? To me it sounds confusing listening to it and I've sort of been through a bit of the chronology later on but I think there's one thing to separate. In the letter that came in September to Health and Wellness and to us was approximately a four- or five-page letter and it outlined some very high level concerns about the programming and the services offered and things like that. It really wasn't enough to warrant anything other than an organizational review. When we looked at it, we read it, the person was a previous resident and was speaking from their own experiences. That prompted that interim process with the board to say, we just have enough and we think that most of the complaints in here involve things that we would normally do as part of an organizational review.

That's why an organizational review was suggested, just because it was time. We had this letter and we had these four or five different high level issues so it was an organizational review. At that time the police, there was no warrant for the police from the perspective that they needed to be involved. We were going to do an organizational review and try to look at the issues stated in this complaint. It wasn't until February that the new information Marika's talking about actually precipitated some more information that really wasn't part of the review but we thought that the board needed to be made aware of it and what their next steps were.

We need to differentiate, really - from September to almost February was just an organizational review.

MS. KENT: Okay. I want to go to the point about releasing it to the public. Can you tell me how did the review report first become known to the public?

MR. SAVOURY: The first time anything related to the review became public was when the board issued its press release on February 16th. It got picked up by the media on the 17th.

MS. KENT: Then the decision was made by DCS to put it on the Web site? How did DCS make that decision?

MR. SAVOURY: After the board issued a press release, it led to a lot of media calls to the department. The next thing we had a FOIPOP request and then our FOIPOP staff would have reviewed that request in concert with legal counsel and it was then that the decision was made that because of all the attention this was being given, and it fit within the scope of what could be posted on the Web site, it was released.

MR. RYAN: Just to clarify, then we had multiple FOIPOP requests, including one, I think, Marika - again some of this stuff gets in terms of dates - but I understand we had a FOIPOP request before the report was even delivered to the board, in fact maybe two, three or four weeks before we had a FOIPOP request for the report and it hadn't even been completed yet. We were acting on that and then later on as this unfolded and the report was finalized it was delivered to the board. Then the board issued a press release and then some other FOIPOP requests came in and that's when we went through the formal FOIPOP process.

MS. KENT: How did the personal information such as the executive director's name become known to the public? That keeps coming back, his name is out there. How did that become known to the public?

MR. SAVOURY: We did not release - as I said, the press release came from the board even before we got the actual review completed. That wouldn't be how we would operate and release information

MS. KENT: So DCS did not release the name?

MR. SAVOURY: No.

MS. KENT: But the name got out.

MS. LATHEM: We never release information generally when we're conducting business, it's just sort of regular operational business. It's just something between DCS and the organization.

MS. KENT: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will take us back to Ms. Regan and then I will be going to Mr. Ramey.

MS. REGAN: Just to be clear, in terms of the executive director's name getting out, when you have one recovery house in a small community and it gets out that the executive director has been accused of things (Interruption) yes, it's like a house on fire. Quite frankly, expecting the executive director's name not to come out would be folly. The fact of the matter is that as soon as you mention that word "executive director" and what he did for a living, you had to know what was going to happen. So DCS may not have planted the name out there but certainly you knew what was going to happen.

In terms of the initial concerns that were raised, you indicated it was by a previous resident. Did that previous resident leave of his own volition? Were they okay with that? I'm just trying to find out - was this somebody with a grudge? Was that ever considered?

MR. SAVOURY: I have no sense that that was the situation but it is not information - we wouldn't release the information that might in any way serve to identify the individual. The individual asked that it be treated confidentially and he didn't want the letter released and we respected that.

MS. REGAN: But eventually the person said it was okay to meet with the board, is that correct?

MR. SAVOURY: Later the person - after we contacted the individual, he indicated a willingness, since the board seemed receptive to doing that and we contacted the individual and arranged for the individual to meet with the board on February 17th. The board then decided they would not do that.

MS. REGAN: In terms of your remark - and I'm not sure it was yours, it might have been somebody else's - that you were surprised by the closure, was that you?

MR. SAVOURY: Yes.

MS. REGAN: It's my understanding that the board had asked actually not so much for funds to hire someone to fill the place of the executive director but they asked for an actual person. They were having difficulty filling that position and they had asked for help from DCS and they also asked for help from the local health authority.

MR. RYAN: Addiction Services.

MS. REGAN: Okay. They couldn't find someone, that is my understanding. So I'm wondering, did you say no, sorry, we can't help you with that? Or were you just surprised?

MR. SAVOURY: Well a couple of points I should make. First of all, these are autonomous, board-run operations and organizations and I believe it's inappropriate that when organizations are in this situation that the solution is that DCS or Health and Wellness has to put or find somebody to go in and run the operation.

We were very willing and made it very clear to them that we would provide financial support and as you know, they subsequently appointed someone as acting executive director, so I think that would be an appropriate response for government - they find someone and we help them financially if, in fact, they needed our help financially to do so.

MS. REGAN: My understanding was that they came too, after that person had resigned.

MR. SAVOURY: They did and we indicated that we can't assume the operations for a board-run organization. Really that's what they were asking for, in our opinion - if we were going to step in and try and give them someone to run it - and yes, we were surprised that when we couldn't do that, the next thing is we're advised on March 7th that they were going to discharge the individuals there and within two days they were basically saying we're closing as an operation. It wouldn't be an experience that we normally have with organizations that get funding from government.

MR. RYAN: Can I just add one thing? I think that what we did from DCS' perspective when we got those questions, we always try to resolve issues and to assist where we can. The funding was an easy question for us because we could provide that funding and basically provide whatever funding they asked for. I think, and Marika, you might be able to add to what George has said - if you get asked about, do you know of anybody who could come in and fill in for an executive director position, you can imagine that probably the list is pretty small.

Since that's not our area of expertise and that's not our business, I think that we would think about names and colleagues and service providers that we could call and put the word out. I actually think that word went out to a variety of the recovery houses and whoever else that they could call and we could call. I can't speak for the health authorities or Addiction Services, but I'm sure that where we could, we would have provided names or at least organizations that they could call for potential candidates.

MS. REGAN: Here's the thing that I keep coming back to. DCS says that it would be inappropriate to step in after they have told the board that they must go to the police and make this anonymous complaint, but it would be inappropriate for them to provide staffing to help run the place, which they clearly had concerns about already. The end result is, this facility is shut down and we paid a whole lot of money for five men to go to Crosbie House. It does seem to me that possibly finding someone to step in and help out Talbot House could have saved a whole lot of disruption and money if just that had been done.

MR. SAVOURY: We had no indication that they exhausted all possibilities in terms of their search for an interim executive director. Many organizations that the province funds deal with difficult situations and they find someone to step in. We have no reason to believe that they exhausted all possibilities before resorting to a decision to close.

MS. REGAN: In terms of the organizational review of Talbot House, I don't think I saw anything there that indicated whether the program there worked. Is that measured at all?

MS. LATHEM: It's not part of an organizational review.

MS. REGAN: Do we ever?

MS. LATHEM: Yes.

MS. REGAN: Why wasn't that done as well?

MS. LATHEM: The thing that was missing there was that there was no feedback or evaluation mechanism that Talbot House had in place to solicit information from the residents. If you look at the standards, there is a piece in there about getting feedback from clients - that was never done. We met with residents, but that was one small group. In order to do a program evaluation, we measured Talbot House according to the standards and you saw what came out of that. In terms of program, that information would be super-critical and to determine how effective that was would be from the residents and there was no mechanism in place for that.

MS. REGAN: I have to say, we've heard from a lot of residents - or the families of residents - and they've told us that Talbot House saved their lives. I just think it's a crying shame that a place that helped a lot of people has been shut down and I'm not sure that everything that could have been done to save it was done. If there had been oversights since 2008, perhaps this wouldn't have been necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask you to stop there but our witnesses might want to respond to your observation, because I don't think there was a question in there.

MR. SAVOURY: As I mentioned earlier, I'm sure - and to your point - that there individuals who have benefited significantly from Talbot House, but it's not a new organization, it's been around many years.

In the response to the review from Talbot House, they make it very clear in that document that they acknowledge that they were not in compliance with the standards of the department. I could pick one area, like on the human resource policies, you could check off they admitted - in six areas, they acknowledge that they were not in compliance.

MS. REGAN: Again, that didn't happen overnight.

MR. SAVOURY: No, and as I mentioned earlier, we have a lot of respect for the people on the board and as many other boards in the province, they've picked up the phone and come forward. There was a lot of - you could tell that the board had done some thinking about some of these issues and planning was in the works, but, again, we had to assess according to whether things are actually in place rather than planning to put them in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. Mr. Ramey and then we're going to go to Mr. Bain and Mr. d'Entremont.

MR. GARY RAMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess maybe along the lines of what Ms. Regan was saying and my colleague Mr. Burrill, I'm still trying to get the sequencing right on this. I made some notes here. I guess I'll just say something and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong and then I'll know what to say next.

The board relieved the executive director of his duties - the board did - on February 2, 2012, pending the completion of the organizational review and the board's own investigation. True or false?

MS. LATHEM: True.

MR. RYAN: True.

MR. RAMEY: True, okay. So a decision was made . . .

MS. LATHEM: I'm sorry. I mean the board did relieve the executive director of his duties on February 2nd, pending the completion of our organizational review and their own investigation.

MR. RAMEY: Yes, that's what I asked.

MR. RYAN: The reason why I questioned you is that it implied to me your statement was that they had finished their investigation and I don't believe . . .

MR. RAMEY: No, what I said was, just to clarify it, I'll say it again because I want to be on the record with this. It's my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - the board relieved the executive director of his duties on February 2, 2012, pending the completion of the organizational review and the board's own investigation. True or false?

MR. RYAN: True.

MR. RAMEY: Okay. So a decision was made to ask the executive director to take a leave of absence. True or false?

MR. RYAN: True.

MS. LATHEM: That wasn't by DCS, though.

MR. RAMEY: No, I'm suggesting by the board; I'm still on the board thing. Am I correct on that?

MR. RYAN: That's right.

MR. RAMEY: Okay, what factors led to that, do you know? I mean it was the board's decision, but did they - they didn't tell you or you don't know, but for some reason the board asked the executive director to take a leave of absence; am I correct?

MR. RYAN: The press release that I have in front of me, which was February 16th - which for the first time mentions names, right - says the board, ". . . has initiated a process of investigation and review and in the interim Abbass agreed to take a leave of absence . . ." from his duties until such time as the review is completed.

MR. RAMEY: Okay, that's basically what I asked. So tell me if I'm true or false on this one then and then I have to ask you something else. On February 15th - that's 13 days later because the first date I gave you was the 2nd, on a previous question - DCS offered to provide additional funding to backfill any necessary staff positions at Talbot House, to ensure that adequate staffing was maintained and to mitigate potential disruption of services. True or false?

MS.LATHEM: True.

MR. RAMEY: True. And is this true or false then, that Talbot House board did not act on this offer and shut down the operation essentially? True?

MS. LATHEM: True.

MR. RAMEY: Okay, that's what I needed to know. The reason it was shut down - there was an interim director appointed. Am I correct in assuming the interim director was a person who had been on the staff there before? Did I hear somebody say that?

MS. LATHEM: Yes, that's right.

MR. RAMEY: That interim director stepped in, and then that interim director quit or left or something?

MS. LATHEM: Yes.

MR. RAMEY: Do we know why that interim director left?

MR. SAVOURY: No, we don't, no.

MR. RAMEY: I just have two quickies. How many board members are there for Talbot House? Or were there for Talbot House?

MS. LATHEM: I don't have the list.

MR. SAVOURY: I'll have it for you in a second.

MR. RAMEY: It seems to me we've been referring to the board . . .

MS. REGAN: Ten.

MR. RAMEY: Ms. Regan says 10 and I have every reason to believe that's accurate.

MR. SAVOURY: Ten.

MR. RAMEY: So there were 10 directors and did these directors - I'm not expecting names or anything like that - have a variety of backgrounds in health, in business, in various occupations? Would it be safe for me to assume that these individuals were gifted people in a number of areas and would be able to provide reasonable expertise to being an advisory board?

MS. LATHEM: I would say yes.

MR. RAMEY: There were 10 people on the board and they were, in your opinion, well qualified people to be on a board. Okay. That's good, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As I said, we will now go to Mr. Bain followed by Mr. d'Entremont.

MR. BAIN: Thank you very much. I just want to make a couple of statements that are in the report. One is on Page 11 where it says, "One staff reported doing 'the church books'; this is done afterhours or during a shift when 'things are slow.'"

On Page 13 it says, "Stakeholders expressed concern that a client or a former client . . ." - we don't know which - ". . . was hired to dispose of church property."

When I read those two, I questioned why they were even in there because it could have been part of the treatment plan; we don't know that. I don't know what investigation might have been done. My question would be more directly to you, Ms. Lathem. You met with the board before the report was posted online, correct?

MS. LATHEM: Yes.

MR. BAIN: Did you at any stage think the fact that the executive director was a Roman Catholic priest was at all relevant when the report came out, where there are accusations made against him?

MS. LATHEM: Well, what I can say is that regardless of what occupation that individual had, I think we recognized - we take the issue of confidentiality very seriously. We went through the proper process in terms of FOIPOP. Did I take into account that he was a Roman Catholic priest? No, I didn't.

MR. BAIN: I guess my second question - have you or anyone in the government, including the minister or political staffers, ever stated or suggested in private or in public that there may be more allegations coming forward or more to the allegations that might become known?

MR. SAVOURY: We can only deal with the information that is presented to us and that was the focus of our review. We conducted it . . .

MR. BAIN: Yes, but I guess my question is, was that ever said by anyone within the department?

MR. SAVOURY: Again, we could only base it on what was provided to us in the course of the review. We proceeded on that basis.

MR. BAIN: In fairness, I don't think that is an answer. It's a specific question as to whether or not anybody within the department ever said that in public? Or in private?

MS. LATHEM: In public? We've never spoken about any of this information in public.

MR. BAIN: Or in private?

MS. LATHEM: No.

MR. BAIN: Okay, interesting. I guess the final question I'm going to ask is if there is a problem with faith-based models for recovery. Does anyone have a problem with faith . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Excuse me could we just have some order here. I'm sorry Mr. Bain, but there are a number of chatterers in our committee and I think it will be helpful just to keep it a little more quite so we can hear the speaker and the responses.

MR. BAIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman and I'm asking these questions with my lead in because I think the fact that a Roman Catholic Priest was the executive director played some role because we hear things about church being specified in the report, so it had to play some part. I guess my final question would be do you see a problem or do you have a problem with faith-based models for recovery.

MR. SAVOURY: It's really a non-issue for us. Recovery houses are expected to provide a caring, supportive housing environment working with other professionals in the community. The five recovery houses in the province - and I included Talbot House in that - got funding, signed service agreements because we believed they were very credible and could provide a solid program. The professional background or affiliation of the executive director - whether they are Salvation Army, or a member of another denomination - would be immaterial to us and I can say that very emphatically to you.

I think it could be problematic drawing conclusions around someone doing church books and that that reflects a bias. You know if I ran a private business offline in the evenings and a resident in my program was doing my books, that may have an impact on how that individual might bring issues to me or concerns or question my approach. I think it would be wrong to draw conclusions from that comment in the review - that it means that because somebody is of a particular religious faith, that there was a bias there.

MR. BAIN: I guess, and very briefly Mr. Chairman, the only reason I bring that up is because it is open to interpretation - both those statements. As far as the client or former client hired to dispose of church property, in order for that to appear there, was that checked out? Was it a client, or was it a former client.

MS. LATHEM: I can speak to the context of that and I'm sure you are all aware that context is everything. That comment was more in relation to the fact that there was a lot of confusion because there weren't any job descriptions around roles and responsibilities of staff and again it tied back to the standards piece.

If I could, Mr. Bain, just sort of speak to your comment about the faith-based model. I'm sure most folks around this table we're all aware of the 12 Step program; there is a huge faith component to that and every single recovery house has a 12-Step component to it. Is it specific to the Catholic Church, no it's not, it's specific to faith and so I would say that every recovery house uses that particular approach.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bain, thank you and we will go to this point to Mr. d'Entremont.

HON. CHRISTOPHER D'ENTREMONT: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions. I want to move forward just a little bit because on April 13th , that's when CBRM Police issued the news release that there were no grounds to pursue criminal charges following the investigation of that complaint brought forward to Talbot House. I'm just wondering did that change your view or maybe some of the findings within the report? Is there anything there that necessarily - you had the allegation, you've asked them to go and react on it, and this is the response that you got back. Does this change anything?

MR. SAVOURY: We stand by their review. Our ambit of responsibility was looking at the programming, the staffing, the administration and the board. That was the focus of our review, and we gave information to the board. They were the ones who contacted the police and obviously the police did what they felt was appropriate. We still stand by their review, and we believe the review identifies areas that clearly needed to be addressed.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: Did you find throughout this process - I mean, I can understand the member for Lunenburg West, there are a lot of different dates that flow along on this one and who said what to who. But knowing that particular information there and that the executive director in our estimation was maligned by some of these statements - whether it's the direct quotes from the report or what has been extrapolated by media or by others - is there a bit of an apology maybe to Father Abbass along the way here?

I was hurt by this, as a Catholic, listening to the allegations that flew along here. Is there a method for us to basically say we're sorry to Father Abbass and to move along on this one? By the look of it, this is not finished by any stretch of the imagination.

MR. SAVOURY: Again, I can only reiterate - the focus of our review was on the administration, the board, how they dealt with referrals, their budget process, things like that. We were not the ones who put information out there in the public domain; it was the board's press release of February 16th that first makes any public reference to the executive director. That wasn't the Department of Community Services.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: The issue is that you seem to have had a lot of protection in this process of dumping it upon the board to do their own thing, yet it was precipitated by allegations that went to you and things that were suggested and pushed down by you. Can't you or the department take - I see you're not taking a whole lot of responsibility for anything that happened here, except for the report itself or the writing of that report. I see a lot of blame going to the board, I see a lot of blame going to others. What are you going to do to, first, help out with the process? I mean, I see a press release came out at the ninth minute here during this meeting that we're going to be bringing a new recovery house into Cape Breton, which seems disingenuous that it would happen in the middle of this meeting.

Secondly, there are a lot of things that went wrong in this process. How do we fix this process, whether it's the inappropriateness of the FOIPOP, the non-redaction of that FOIPOP and things like that? There are a lot of things to be learned from this process - what have you learned from this?

MR. SAVOURY: A couple of points that I think are extremely important. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at their response - clearly the chairman of the board acknowledges that they weren't in compliance with the standards. We're always looking for ways that we can improve services and enhance them. The board, of its own volition, decided to cease operations in March - and we funded them to be a recovery house. We then acted to find placements for the individuals who wished to continue their recovery and supported the other individuals. Then, come March 31st, the agreement expired.

We are going to go forward in concert with the Department of Health and Wellness on a RFP, a request for proposals. If you look at the quotes from the chairman of the board - like in April the board acknowledges that they're aware that we're going to request proposals and they acknowledge that our minister has stated that they can also be one of the organizations that can put in a proposal to be the recovery house. Certainly we always look for opportunities to always strengthen and improve services. We are committed to a recovery house in Cape Breton and our goal is that it will be an excellent recovery house and it will be an open, transparent RFP process.

MS. LATHEM: Could I quickly add to that, just in terms of process? I know that there are lots of dates and there is a lot of information and it really is hard sometimes to follow, but I think it might be helpful for folks to understand that in terms of process - as far as an organizational review - we didn't do anything different than we would normally have done in any other organizational review, with the exception of one thing. That being, we requested a meeting with the board based on our commitment to them in November, that if there was any new information we would bring that to their attention as soon as possible, and we did that in February. Other than that, it was the same process.

The terms of reference is a template. The way that we met with the board, we allowed them to review the terms of reference and get back to us. They knew who we were going to be talking to, who the stakeholders were. They were involved in setting up the appointments. The process was exactly the same; there wasn't anything different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Glavine. I think this will be our last speaker; I have seen nobody else on our speakers' list. Some people had a chance to have a couple of questions.

MR. GLAVINE: I see that a new recovery house will begin at some point in the future. I know it's a board that is regulated, and an overseer and so on of Talbot House, given its strong history, because people that I talk to in Addiction Services saw it as a very strong program - why didn't you take that line in the sand and say, look, we're going to correct whatever deficiencies there are and keep this moving forward as a positive entity in the Cape Breton community and for Cape Bretoners? I don't understand that.

Now government wants us to look over here and stop probing and digging as to why the Department of Community Services didn't do a full job, because I don't think you did a full job here. Why not have taken that position - we're going to work with the board, we're going to work with the staff that's there if there are some replacements needed on the human resource side because it is a needed entity. Why didn't you take that approach?

MR. SAVOURY: Well we did make that very clear when we sat down with them to discuss the terms of reference. That's our normal process of operating, to say to an organization that we're engaged in this review, we want your input and we'd like your okay with the terms of reference. But we're not going to just make recommendations and walk away; we will work and support you in implementing them. That would have been the process we would have followed here, had the board not chosen in March to cease operations.

The board needed to take ownership of the recommendations and work in partnership with us to implement them. The response is - as I've pointed out several times - the chairman of the board is saying that they weren't in compliance.

MR. GLAVINE: I noticed in the announcement this afternoon that the Department of Health and Wellness will, in fact, be a significant partner. I mean, it is addictions recovery. We may say, look, the DHA is doing this and this, but a program is significant here, so I still have that difficulty around why wouldn't they be the significant partner here. I think the Crosbie component here and that whole culture is something that the Department of Community Services and the Department of Health and Wellness can, in fact, gain from, and so they are going to be a significant partner. Why not let them be, in fact, the lead at whatever the new house is called?

MS. LATHEM: They are actually, or they will be, in terms of the treatment component. Absolutely. Again, if you take a look at the individuals who end up or choose to go to recovery houses, it's the end of the road. Most of them don't even have a home, and you can't begin working on your recovery issues or your addiction issues if you don't have a place to stay. That's what the recovery house piece does - they provide that safe, supported environment.

In the absence of that, I can honestly say, going into an appointment once a week, I mean you might get one appointment with that individual, but if they don't have a place to stay they probably won't come back for the second one. We're really good at that supportive housing piece, but you are absolutely right - Health and Wellness Addiction Services is really good at that clinical treatment program piece, and that's the marriage of the two.

MR. GLAVINE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Glavine. I do think that is our final question. Would you like to have a final word, as witnesses?

MR. SAVOURY: I want to thank you for the opportunity to present key information that I think we all benefit from, and I appreciate the questions that have been posed and the opportunity to respond to them. I thank the team that has been here with me today during this process, and thanks to each of you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much and thank you, everyone, for your questions and comments.

I think what we'll do - this is a crowded room so I'm afraid you won't come back, but we have a little more committee business to complete, so let's take just one moment to allow our witnesses to leave and then we'll resume.

[2:32 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[2:35 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call us back to order. We have a quorum, and we have a little bit more business to complete and I'd like to get that done.

Under Committee Business, we have two pieces of correspondence, and I think you have that in front of you. The first was a letter from Feed Nova Scotia which was a follow-up to questions that had been raised but not answered when that organization appeared before us some months ago. You will all have a chance just to look at that - I think they provided us with some facts related to the number of individuals and households supported by food banks.

What I need from you is - because this was something we set ourselves as a standard some time ago - permission to post that correspondence on the Web site. Is there any objection to doing that?

Agreed.

Great, I think that's available for the public and for those people who might want to follow this questioning. Thank you very much. We'll take that information for your advice and for the Web site.

The second piece of correspondence was from our most recent witnesses, Valley Restorative Justice, who wrote, in essence, a letter of thanks and appreciation for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I think that is for our information.

The only other piece of business to deal with is our next meeting date. We will be meeting next on September 4th or the 11th. September 4th would be the Tuesday after Labour Day. I think I'd propose, for sake of discussion, that we meet on Tuesday the 11th at 9:00 a.m., if that's acceptable.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: That's not intercepting with anybody else's meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that the space is free. (Interruption)

I'm sorry, at 1:00 p.m., not at 9:00 a.m. as I just suggested, but at 1:00 p.m.

MR. D'ENTREMONT: For those of us who committee surf, just to make sure they don't run into the same one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, right. We do have free space and our practice when the House is not in session has been to meet in the afternoon. Our planned witnesses, the agenda for that meeting is Affordable Housing. (Interruptions) We still have business to attend to, folks. Apart from our agenda with Affordable Housing, a portion of that will be for organizational purposes, where we look at setting the agenda for the future. I would encourage each of the caucuses to consider ideas, witnesses they might like to purpose for consideration at that point.

Is there any other business that we should be discussing? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 2:38 p.m.]