HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2012

 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

4:30 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Becky Kent

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We will continue on with Economic and Rural Development and Tourism, Resolution Nos. 4, 25 and 41.

 

The honourable member for Glace Bay, with 54 minutes remaining in their one hour allotment.

 

MR. GEOFF MACLELLAN: I'd like to welcome back the staff of the ERDT to the gallery and to the Chamber as well. Unfortunately I missed Friday's session. We were in Sydney for the Strategic Launch of the Framework by the partnership. It was a fantastic afternoon. It's nice to see it's very relevant to what we're talking about here in terms of economic and rural development and tourism in the province as that was a framework to pull together all the development agencies and all those stakeholders that are interested in economic development and moving Cape Breton forward. Certainly a timely event, unfortunately I missed two hours on Friday allotted to the Official Opposition but I know the member for Yarmouth and Kings West filled in aptly in my absence.

 

I'm going to take a little bit of time here - not so much, the minister says - to roll through some of the line items. I'll just indicate where I'm at - it's mostly general discussions, but we're going to go specific to the budget. I'm going to direct your attention under Sector Development which is Page 6.6, it's the third line down.

 

Obviously when we're talking about productivity and innovation, sector development is a critical piece of the puzzle because developing sectors is what it's all about. Whether it's exports or whether it's specific industries, we have to figure out what our core competencies are. I know that the regional developments are important, the RDAs, and where we go in terms of the sector. I guess I'll start by asking the minister what specific activities would be found under the line and functions, Sector Development?

 

375

 

HON. PERCY PARIS: Sometimes I have to look around; we don't have direct eye contact. I must say it's nice to have the member here this afternoon and I'm sure you didn't miss a whole lot from last week. If the member would like, I would be more than happy to go over the items line by line that were raised last week in your absence. (Interruption) Okay.

 

With respect to the question that's being asked, under that line item would be the implementation of government services. There would be some staff under that, but also there would be ocean technologies and financial services under those particular line items. I don't know how much detail the member is looking for, but rest assured if the member requires or requests, I'd be more than happy to provide written detailed information if he would prefer that.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I guess that certainly would be helpful. What I'm looking for though, in terms of Sector Development, I think we're talking about specific industries that would be regional or just under the department in general. What I'm asking is, what sectors are the focus? Even for the last 12 months, what sectors in terms of these programs under Productivity and Innovation have been developed? What are the new areas that we're looking for?

 

Again, we spend a lot of time as a department, the department focuses on export - whether it be aquaculture, agriculture, forestry and the like. What I'm asking for, with this investment under Sector Development, what exactly are the sectors and connected to that, I can see by looking at the budget line that estimate over estimate, this line item was reduced by $1 million. So, why, if it was a certain number, it's been reduced by $1 million, I just want to understand if developing sectors is so important, why is that line item down $1 million estimate over estimate?

 

MR. PARIS: My first response is that with respect to the sectors, is that some of this is linked to the Ships Start Here contract. Ships Start Here isn't just about welding and putting holes together, there's a lot of information technology that goes into that so it's the ocean technology which is linked.

 

We also have Financial Services, another one of the sectors and that's mostly through NSBI. As the member may well be aware is that what we've done in Nova Scotia is that we've been able to grow the financial services industry here in the Province of Nova Scotia. So it's ICT information technology, Ocean Technology and Financial Services.

 

Also when you look at the change in the number is that there's been - what we've gone through at ERDT is, we've gone through a reorganization. Part of that reorganization would obviously have a direct linkage to staff - we've shuffled some staff in and out of ERDT and various divisions, so where you're seeing a decline in the number is in staffing. Also during the course of a year what happens in the area of staffing is, there are vacancies also occur and sometimes vacancies aren't filled; it could be four months, six months into the fiscal year. We're looking more in the realm of staffing which would produce that difference in number.

 

There would also be a relationship to the forestry sector and the amount of investment that we made in the forestry sector this year. I think the member would be well versed in that and some of the allowances, if I can use that word, that we had to make in the past fiscal year. Thank you.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Just again for clarification on this line, I certainly do understand the importance of the Ships Start Here and connected to some of the ocean development that has to be looked at and the financial sector. I do understand how the FTEs are moved around and there are vacancies and the like.

 

I'm just looking for a bit of clarity. If that's the case and they are certainly three of the more important sectors and if they're the ones that are to be developed then that's understandable. I guess my question is, staff notwithstanding, why do we move from $2.5 million to $1 million estimate over estimate if that's the case?

 

MR. PARIS: I think I mentioned the forestry sector. What would have happened last year is that as we proceeded with getting involved in the forestry sector from the point of assistance, what we wanted to do and what we did do, we wanted to ensure that we knew exactly what we were getting into. There was a requirement for some pre-work to be done which we did do and it would have been costed during that fiscal year. It was preliminary work before we moved forward with being full-fledged in the forestry industry. We wanted to know exactly what it was we were getting into.

 

Also, I think I mentioned in my first response that part of that would also be around staffing. That we did reorganize at ERDT so there were some staff that had moved in and out of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism. I also mentioned some things with respect to vacancies.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Thank you. I'm going to jump down now one level to the next line item which is Workforce Initiatives and Entrepreneurship.

 

I assume that this is connected to small business and how small business functions and small business start-ups. As we know, easily 90 per cent of our economy is small- to medium-sized enterprises, so obviously a very important sector of the economy. We talk about sectors and we talk about growth - this is where we kind of have to focus. Looking at the budget line, we go from approximately $18.4 million to just under $14 million. That's a $4.4 million decrease.

 

My initial question on that line for Workforce Initiatives and Entrepreneurship - what exactly, specifically, is the function for this line item and what's the benefit? Is this a departmental exercise? Does this directly connect to small businesses or is it just the public in general? So what's the focus for this line?

MR. PARIS: What we do with the reorganization, we had to move some things. As we know, last year was our first year for the complete year of our jobsHere strategy. We've done and had to include some things such as strategic co-op education. There was youth development, there was the PIP, there was the graduate placement programs. Those are the types of things that would have allowed for that. I think it was close to $5 million variance in that budget line.

 

Because of the reorganization of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism to meet the demands and to meet the changing times, we did some significant things within our department that certainly had a direct impact on our budget and on line items. Notwithstanding, and I reiterate again, it would have been those things also associated to FTEs.

 

We also had the NSRIT which was also transferred from another division so there were lots of things during the year as we were ramping up and as we were implementing the jobsHere strategy and that we had to do which we found necessary to move some things in and some things out.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: If I could ask this one, $4.4 million in reduction in that line item - I've heard in a few cases about certain programs under the department that basically there's essentially an uptake issue with the vouchers and with these programs. Would the reduced budget line be attributed in any way to the fact that many of these vouchers and many of these opportunities they didn't reach their capacity in terms of uptake by entrepreneurs and small business?

 

MR. PARIS: I want to ensure that the member has an understanding of when we talk - what happened with our budget, as you look through the entire budget you're going to see decreases in some areas but you're also going to see that money has increased. What we've done is we moved some things out of one area and made a significant change in another area, probably which would account for, I guess, a deficit in one place which would have been picked up in another place.

 

Even around the staffing and that's why I wanted to be clear is that staff throughout the year - we've inherited some staff but in the same breath we relocated some staff within and those things would show up on various line items, depending on which line item that you're looking at. That's basically it and I would reiterate that if the member is looking for something more specific, with respect to the number of employees and where they were and that, then we would be more than happy to provide that information to him.

 

But if you really look throughout the whole budget, you could see or if you sat down with staff we could actually show you where the decrease was and where the increase was.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Thank you minister for that invitation. When you go through the budget lines, it's very clear what was adjusted from one area to the next based on the estimate numbers. One estimate number matches in another line item in another department or under another category. It's very clear. Support services, financial services - those types of things were moved from different envelopes under this budget. That's very clear. I certainly understand that things are moved around and adjusted accordingly.

 

But my question, my specific question in your initial reply to the opening question on this line was about the vouchers, the PIP and the like. So what I'm asking - and again some of the feedback I received was that when you set these line items for these productivity vouchers and the like, there's a certain budget. Obviously that budget is based on a certain amount of uptake. What I'm asking is, were there issues with uptake or was there not a maximized uptake in these vouchers to provide this decreased funding for this line item?

 

There are a certain amount of vouchers budgeted for, was the uptake 100 per cent? Was it 90 per cent? What happened in terms of those vouchers that were offered by the department?

 

MR. PARIS: Under jobsHere and because of the success of the jobsHere strategy, what we found was that the voucher program was oversubscribed. We looked for and put in an extra 500 for the voucher program. In other words, that was fully subscribed to. The jobsHere initiative initially, we put in a number, not knowing what the uptake was going to be and much to our surprise and much to our pleasure and I think probably to the benefit of all Nova Scotians, it was fully subscribed to. We felt the demand was such that we wanted to add what we did, we added another 500 to that portion of our line item.

 

We suspect that as we go through and continue now with the jobsHere strategy, that our uptake on that I trust is only going to increase. I think one of the things that I've noticed from the results - we talk about measurables, we talk about the results - is that when I look at the positive advertisement we got from that initiative, I think it was well subscribed to and it merited an additional injection of cash on our part. That would also be part of that uptake.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I guess my final question under this line would be, if it's Workforce Initiatives and Entrepreneurship and this is the portfolio, if you will, of money dedicated to those types of endeavours within the departments - you mentioned in your opening reply about some of the sectors and we talked about Sector Development, under specifically forestry, ships and the ocean sector and the financial sector that you mentioned. What are some of the new programs that would be for entrepreneurship and under those sectors that would be found in this line item?

 

MR. PARIS: Some of the new initiatives that we did here - and I don't want to overlook our heavy involvement and partnership with Labour and Advanced Education because one of the things that when we were strategizing about the jobsHere and how we were going to do that, we envisioned the role that Labour and Advanced Education was going to play in this. We saw them as a partner.

One of the initiatives that we saw that was new, was significant growth in PIP, the Productivity Investment Program in the workplace. That program was very successful and it proved to be more successful than we had originally anticipated. We also had the new graduate student program where we offer incentives for new graduates to stay here in Nova Scotia and to be employed in Nova Scotia. We expanded the co-op program, we doubled the number of students through the co-op program that would be made available under this program. We had the student career skills development initiative which was in partnership with LAE, Labour and Advanced Education. Another initiative that we've strengthened that we've utilized and again, we've had great uptake in those initiatives.

 

Those are the new initiatives that we have under the jobsHere strategy and it's part of our goal is around the investment in human resources and investment in people. The other day when we talked about out-migration, this is another strategy that will assist us in stemming the tide of out-migration in the Province of Nova Scotia. We have to keep our trained employees here.

 

Something else that we did and I don't think I mentioned it the other day but it's the increased enhancement of the online portal. We've enhanced that so we now promote the one-stop shopping so we've made some great strides in that portal. Also, in training, online training now is again a partnership with Labour and Advanced Education, it's a bigger part of what we do as opposed to years gone by.

 

This past fiscal year we did sector studies that I don't think they were done, certainly not to the degree that we've done them. That helped us determine as the Province of Nova Scotia, with ERDT, where we want to go in the future. It also enabled us to determine where we had been so that we could look at what was done in the past and in many cases, what wasn't done in the past so that we could move the province forward on a more productive path as we move into the future.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: I'd like to move now down the page to the next category which is Tourism, 6.6. This is certainly one of the very important topics that's near and dear to all of us in the province but certainly in Cape Breton because we see it as one of the key economic pillars for our future and for our survival.

 

I mentioned the strategic framework that took place on Friday and during the Premier's comments he made the statement that Cape Breton is the most beautiful place in Nova Scotia. That obviously got a roaring applause from the audience because we happen to believe that's the case. The Minister of Education says the Valley and that's a beautiful place too but we happen to favour Cape Breton. Of course this is with the Cabot Trail and the beaches and the golf opportunities, the history, the culture, the museums, we're proud of who we are and we're certainly looking forward to who we're going to be. There's beauty everywhere and that's what we want to capitalize on.

 

The minister mentioned in his opening remarks last week that it's a $1.8 billion industry and injection for the provincial coffers. What I find with the tourism operators and the tourism agents and stakeholders that I know is that we're leaving much on the table in terms of what we could draw for revenue and what we could be and what we could develop. I think it's important that when you look at this category and these line items, I think they suggest, where do we find the path? Where do we spend the dollars that support what we have now and find the path to future growth and prosperity in terms of the revenue for tourism?

 

In that preamble for Tourism, it mentions research. The question becomes, what is the research that we're doing? Is it primary research or is it secondary research? The minister, in his previous reply to one of my questions just said they embarked on sector studies which were larger and more comprehensive than any government in the history of our province. In that light, I'd like to ask the minister if he can explain what research has taken place in the realm of tourism and if that was primary or secondary research?

 

MR. PARIS: One of the things I've already said and the member is accurate that tourism is certainly near and dear to my heart as well. I think when I look at tourism in the Province of Nova Scotia, we have so many places that we can boast about. Yes, Cape Breton is the most beautiful island in the world. We also have other fantastic spots, we've got Peggy's Cove, Peggy's Cove Lighthouse, which is the most photographed place in North America. (Interruption) The Hants West member there, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the birthplace of the game of hockey in my hometown of Windsor. So we do have a number of tourist attractions in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

One of the things we are trying to do and that we are doing is we are trying to enhance those - we're trying to build on the Nova Scotia brand. When it comes to research, Madam Chairman, we do research in a number of different ways. One of the things we do is, we work in partnership with our Atlantic Canada partners. Sometimes we collaborate and do research together.

 

We also do independent research. We sometimes purchase research; we look at research that's been done by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, so all those avenues that are out there when it comes to research, Madam Chairman, we take advantage of but we do believe strongly in partnerships. That's one way that we see to strengthening our brand.

 

For Cape Breton, and I mentioned last week and I hope I get this number right again, we dedicate, on a yearly basis, $179,000 to Destination Cape Breton. We work with them, we are at the table and I know I mentioned to one of the members from the Third Party that I will be going to Cape Breton again, at the end of the month, House permitting, will be going up there for a few days. Keltic will be my focus but I'll be there for a few days, meeting with individuals who I've already met with - well at least since I've been minister.

 

One of the things that we do in tourism when the member asks about research - and it's fair for me to say that we find in tourism that the research is ongoing - we are always looking at ways to enhance the Nova Scotia brand. We are always looking at ways to evaluate what we are doing in the area of tourism, even how we can make it better. Even in the evaluation of what it is that we do, to some degree one could classify that it's research because that's information that we can gather, that we can build on and it helps us to make decisions about the future.

 

I trust I've answered the question when it comes to research. There are a number of ways that we do it and we have a lot of partners, a lot of stakeholders and we are always looking at more ways to enhance that Nova Scotia brand. Thank you.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Madam Chairman, I want to turn the attention to the line item under Tourism which is Tourism Development, the second line under that budget item. I guess for me it comes down to this, it is Tourism Development and what your decisions are with that amount of money, in the neighbourhood of $25.5 million, what decisions you make, and primary research being the information you find on your own, versus secondary research, which is the information that you purchase or otherwise obtain from various sources. So they are the questions that I'm asking just with respect to where we find our information on decisions that we make about how we fund Destination Cape Breton? The impact of the Yarmouth ferry, the kind of things we do with the Signature Resorts, those types of things, that's the question.

 

I've always sort of broken it down into three facets for tourism, one being the infrastructure, so if we're talking about the operators and those facilities that we have, the various types of infrastructure across the province, Signature Resorts being one of those envelopes, what's our support in that way? The marketing, obviously, which we'll get into a little bit in detail but what is our message and what is our branding behind the tourism package that we have? And, of course, the business environment for tourism operators - what does the tax look like, what does the red tape look like, those types of things.

 

That's sort of how I classify this conversation with that $25 million - what are our priorities and how are we going to spend it? I guess my question for the minister is, with respect to that, what are the functions under the Tourism Development envelope and is it specifically infrastructure focus, is it a marketing focus or are we talking about the agencies such as Destination Cape Breton and the like? What's the focus and what are the functions under that item?

 

MR. PARIS: When it comes to the investments that we make, I think one investment and I want to say and I say this very respectfully because I think on Friday we talked to some degree about this. One of the things is that around the Signature Resorts, we've seen fit to make an investment over the next two years in the three Signature Resorts that we have, and I believe that number is $3.1 million for the three resorts. One of the things that we realized in our research was we recognized that the Signature Resorts were at risk to our brand.

 

One of the last things we want to do is damage the brand. In particular, when I think of Keltic Lodge and how important it is to that particular region in Cape Breton and we didn't want Keltic Lodge to be having to lower their price and lose some of their classification, which would mean that they would be more competitive with those on the ground in that immediate area. We didn't see that as in the best interest of Cape Breton; we didn't see that in the best interest of Nova Scotia. As we all know, one of the things that happens, since times have changed, is that I can reach millions of people now with one click of the button. Now with computers, the last thing we wanted was having the Nova Scotia brand damaged by way of computers. When things go viral, they get around pretty quickly.

 

Also we have $1.8 million with respect to what we call program development that's also available here. Again, that's staying with that Nova Scotia brand, enhancing it and what it all leads to is about development and growth. This past year one of the things that we recognized and with the tourism numbers is, we were able to stay pretty well with the same numbers that we had last year. We're not satisfied with that, but we thought in these economic times and the way things were going globally, we have seen some increases in the European numbers, United Kingdom, Germany, we've seen some increase in those numbers. We've seen decreases in some numbers regionally, but some of those decreases were offset by increases in other regions. We see an ongoing effort on our part when it comes to that development end of things which will hopefully translate into growth.

 

It's not about just holding our own, but we want to do better than that, we want to improve our Nova Scotia as a tourism destination. We think we got off to a pretty decent start in 2012 and certainly the Titanic events would have been a bit of a boost to tourism. We tried to recognize that as a very respectful event and certainly we didn't push that. That was more pushed by the international media and we tried to make that right balance, because it was a tragic event and we didn't want people to misinterpret this as a tourist attraction.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Thank you, minister. In the interests of time, I'm just going to ask if the minister and the staff would turn to Page 6.7, which is the Investment and Trade category. If you look at these numbers, certainly of the $187 million that we'll spend as a department, certainly a significant amount, just under $100 million under this is investment and trade. As we know, it's taxpayers' dollars so we obviously want to make sure that we look at these things very closely and understand where they come from and ensure that they're being spent wisely on behalf of the people who put us here.

 

Just looking at this division, it looks like it's getting an increase of a little bit better than 118 per cent, estimate to estimate, so that would be $45 million to $98 million. While the forecast of that estimate shows a 180 per cent increase, $35 million to $98 million, so that's $63 million more from last year that will be spent and allocated for this year's budget.

 

If you total what is forecast for this year, the total investment, which is the investment line plus the NS Jobs Fund, $16.1 million plus $16.5 million is about $32.6 million. So last year's investment line, if my memory serves me, for the budget there was just one line and it was under investment, that was $42 million. So $32.6 million spent this year, $42 million spent last year, or allocated last year, so we under-spent in this particular line by $9.4 million.

 

When you take the investment line for the estimate and you add that to the Jobs Fund, we're in the ballpark of about $91.3 million in spending between those two programs. So that certainly is the largest with investment in the Jobs Fund, the former IEF, certainly a large portion under investment and trade.

 

So can I ask the minister to start off, what is the staff salary component of that $91 million, versus the other spending under those two line items, investment and Jobs Fund.

 

MR. PARIS: Madam Chairman, the question about the staff salaries - the figure is $3,523,000. When you bring up staff salaries, I truly would be remiss if I didn't say how confident I am in the staff at ERDT, and that's the Investment and Trade people as well - we've grown that division. I should be touching wood, we've recruited some very good people in that division. I will say that the staff at ERDT are the best in all of the Public Service Commission, so when I look at the amount of money, I would also, and I don't know if the right word would be caution, but I would say that when I look at - when we compare year to year, we do estimate to estimate, that we think that that is the fair way to do it so our comparison is with respect to estimates to estimates.

 

The member also mentioned an increase, he mentioned the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund and the total amount of money that's increased over previous years. I think it's important that the member knows and realizes that the reason for that large increase, is sadly to say, we had some difficulties. Nova Scotia faced some difficulties in the forestry industry this past year so that would account for such a large increase over previous years. There was a new crisis in the forestry industry that we had last year that we didn't have the year before so that would have resulted in a huge lift in that money that was available with the investment that we made there, thank you.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Just to the minister for a note of clarification, given that increase was directly correlated with the forestry sector and some of the issues that were faced there. Does that account for the only increase in that budget from the old, what was formally the IEF, to the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund, is it exactly or is it strictly connected to the forestry industry?

 

MR. PARIS: I will say this, is that well over 90 per cent of that would be with respect to the forestry industry. I would also say that one of the things that we always have to remain very conscious of is that we've experienced some things growth wise, that if we were at the end of the growth sector in Canada for the last 20 years, what we've seen under this government is we've seen that slip, that ship starting to turn around which would have accounted for some more investments.

 

One of the things that I had mentioned last week is that we can now boast about the investments that we've made in the financial sector. Now we are one of the leading financial centres internationally, which is a new position for us. Last week we just made an investment in Admiral Administration, an internationally-known investment company, that was in the millions of dollars. It's those kinds of investments, and it's those kinds of efforts through our lead agency of NSBI, making those contacts, sticking with them and now they're starting to pay some dividends for us. Yes, most of that was a result of the forestry sector but I certainly don't want to belittle any of the other investments that we are making and that we continue to make to make sure that Nova Scotia is on the right path.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Again, just as a clarification. You mentioned that salary was in the ballpark of $3 million, and I used the number $91 million. We're talking in the range of $88 million invested for various projects and programs, and there are two line items that account for this number, the $88 million that's invested in Jobs Fund. Could you just clarify for my purposes, minister, is the investment line that is in the budget, is that NSBI and is the NS Jobs Fund line what was the former IEF? Could you explain those two line items and what they were and what they account for, investment under NSBI and the Jobs Fund as the former IEF.

 

MR. PARIS: The Nova Scotia Jobs Fund - NSBI is not a part of that. NSBI has its own budget. The Nova Scotia Jobs Fund is what we've done - and I know the member is aware of - is we did away with the IEF and created this new and better and improved Nova Scotia Jobs Fund. Staff just alerted me to some numbers here which may be helpful for the member. He might want to take these down and add them up and he can do the numbers himself. The PIP capital is $15 million and that's the same as it was in 2011-12 and, of course, we made an investment in Cape Breton Rail which was $1.3 million for last year; the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund, $46.6 million; and the international strategy which was $1.5 million. So that would be part of those numbers that the member would be looking for, and again I reiterate that NSBI would be a separate line item in our budget.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Glace Bay with three minutes remaining.

 

MR. MACLELLAN: Madam Chairman, I guess for the upcoming budgetary season for both of those lines, with $88 million on the table with the investment line and with the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund - and again I will reiterate this. When you evaluate - obviously there must be a process for evaluating business plans and business cases - there clearly are financials which become arguably the most important part of any proposal and any business plan. Under those would be your human resources costs which in most cases account for the majority, or the lion's share, of your costs under any business plan and any business case.

 

So I would like to ask the minister if there have been job targets and a job range established for this $88 million in spending of public dollars? Has there been a formalized evaluation process for how these business cases are decided, and how many jobs are associated with these projects moving forward?

 

MR. PARIS: When somebody comes to Economic and Rural Development and Tourism with a business case, with a business plan, I can say that generally speaking, part of what they present would include job numbers. We constantly evaluate our investments. When we are making considerations about investments, we look at what potentially those numbers could be in all respects, not only just with respect to the loan in terms of the loan but we also want to know how many jobs are going to be created as a result.

 

You know, we always get into this discussion about targets and my philosophy has been that the true measurement on what we do - it is about the results, of what it is that we have done and that has been proven in the past year. We now have concrete results of our jobsHere strategy. We know now of those investments we made under the jobsHere strategy, we know how many jobs were created. We know how much money was spent to create those jobs and we are always evaluating. One of the things that I've said during Question Period is that we pride ourselves on not only our willingness but our ability to do the evaluation. The evaluation starts immediately and we continue with that evaluation always. Even today, as we speak, we never stop with respect to the evaluation.

 

One of the strong points of the jobsHere strategy is the ability for us to be flexible, the ability for us to be able to change and accommodate. As we evaluate, we can change things.

 

Something else that is of note here, when we started it off this afternoon talking about Cape Breton, we, under the jobsHere strategy, can develop a strategy for Cape Breton different from what a strategy could be for Yarmouth. I have to say that we're very proud of that and I think that's probably something new for government, when we came here and drawing on my experience at Dalhousie University, being able to develop and implement programs at Dal by a whole different strategy, based on employment strategies, I think this is working out. We are on a good path and we intend to stay there.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the Official Opposition has expired.

 

The honourable member for Cape Breton North.

 

MR. EDDIE ORRELL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Again I'd like to welcome the minister and his staff. I, too, was at the announcement in Sydney on Friday, on the strategic investment. I missed the comments made earlier so if I talk about anything made earlier, I apologize.

 

Mr. Minister, I'd like to first ask if you could give me an update on the progress of the work done by the new tourism board and the long-term strategy.

 

MR. PARIS: I'm very pleased to respond to that question. With the new tourism agency, we are working on putting a new board in place. We've got an interim board there now, we are looking at something that is going to be more permanent and that's going to sustain us for some time. We're looking towards the future.

 

One of the things when we looked at tourism and because of changes globally and because of where we may be, had been or had not been in the past, we felt that things had to be done differently. I would say that the work that we developed with those involved in tourism and setting up this new agency, I think it has worked out very well, they've been very cooperative. I couldn't say enough good things about those volunteers.

 

We are also in the midst, through them, of recruitment for a CEO, that we hopefully, and I certainly don't want to put any undue pressure on them but I hope we will be in a position to announce something with respect to a new CEO very shortly. I always hesitate about putting a timeline on something when it's contingent on the work of volunteers. I certainly don't want to put any undue pressure on the volunteers.

 

The new strategy that we are working on, in partnership with the agency, will be a long-term strategy. We have already consulted with key leaders and key stakeholders in the tourism industry. That consultation is not over yet because it will never be over, we see that as an ongoing process because we always want to improve what we have.

 

I think, and I can say this quite humbly, what we will come up with will be the way of the future. I think a lot of operators, a lot of the provinces and the territories nationally keep an eye on what we are doing and how it's going to work because I'd like to think that they will emulate what we are doing here in Nova Scotia. I'm confident that it's all going to work out well here.

 

MR. ORRELL: So is there a deadline for this? I understand the fact that we're going to have to continue and continue to monitor the progress but is there a deadline for the strategy itself to be put in place with this new group that's being developed?

 

MR. PARIS: We're looking at realistically - and I'm going to take a real risk here and staff may correct me before it's all said and done, but hopefully I would like to think that we would be looking at something this Fall. By the time we get the agency in place, we get the board in place, have the recruitment of the CEO and carry out all of these strategies that we have got planned for this summer - we hope that we're going to have a real good year. We've been off to a good start in Nova Scotia and if the weather holds and with all the events that we've got with the Tall Ships, the Titanic events are going to go on through the whole summer. We've got the hockey challenge going on in Yarmouth. We've got other things that I'm not in a position to mention but we're always looking for new things, even for this year, that are going to boost those tourism numbers.

 

So I would think that it's probably safe to say that we'll be looking at the Fall. I say that and somebody from staff may send me a message saying another date. If you don't hear anything contrary in the next couple of minutes, I think we're safe to go with the Fall timeline.

 

MR. ORRELL: You mentioned a good start to the tourism campaign. I know this year in Cape Breton they're going to have the 55-Plus Canada Games. Could you give me an indication of how much the department has invested in those games to bring them to Cape Breton to try to stimulate the economy a little bit more there?

 

MR. PARIS: I can say this to the member opposite, there is a request within the department now. Nothing has made it to my desk yet but I do know that there's a request that's circulating out there somewhere and being evaluated by staff but there hasn't been a recommendation one way or the other that has come forward to me.

 

MR. ORRELL: So without that, we don't know a timeline or how much, or when, that will be invested in that for now, I take it that's (Interruption) With respect to the 2010-11 revenues of the tourism industry in Nova Scotia, what were the annual revenues for that year? Can you tell me offhand?

 

MR. PARIS: Yes, the tourism industry in Nova Scotia is a $1.8 billion industry and that's in total. That's the figure that we use.

 

MR. ORRELL: And was that number comparable to the 2009-10 year or has it increased or decreased over that time?

 

MR. PARIS: That number is comparable to last year. One of the things when we look at tourism, when I compare numbers this past year to the previous year is that there was very little change that - I'm not going to say "flatline" but one of the things is that we've increased our traffic when it comes to the United Kingdom and Germany. We've increased with some places, and some places that we want to increase, we haven't, but it has pretty well been a balancing act. It pretty well balances out. This year we had two million visitors to Nova Scotia which is - we're pretty well on par with the previous year. Hopefully this time next year when I stand in my place - if I'm still the minister and we're still the government, et cetera, et cetera - I'll be able to say that number has increased both financially and with respect to the visitors.

 

One of the biggest friends or enemies, I guess, is the weather. If we all remember last year's weather, it wasn't the nicest summer for Nova Scotia tourism. One of the things we're also looking at, and I mentioned last week - part of our long term strategy is to expand the tourism year. We're looking now at ways that we can open up some of the things in the area of tourism sooner than they are now, and also keep them open longer. Also in saying that, the weather plays a very prominent role in that.

 

I will go back to something I already mentioned, and that's with respect to the Titanic. I think two weeks ago around when we had the ringing of the bells and then the service at the cemetery - and this is not by my numbers but the number I read in the newspaper - there were over 600 people at the Fairview when we did the ceremony. Then on Saturday night at the Grand Parade - I mean, it was just an overflow. I've never seen traffic like that this time of the year coming into Halifax, I never saw traffic like that before. So that was a huge boost and what we received out of that - this was a human interest story. I'm doing an interview this weekend with an United Kingdom television studio and I did one with - I think they were from Wales, the weekend of the Titanic. All this added exposure gives me the opportunity to say to the world, not only the role we played with respect to the Titanic but also the other things that Nova Scotia has to offer as far as being a destination.

 

So those are the numbers and hopefully those numbers will grow in the years to come.

 

MR. ORRELL: Last week my colleague asked about North Sydney as a Gateway designation. I'm just wondering there have been any more conversations with your staff since he asked that question and if there's a possibility to receive that designation?

 

MR. PARIS: I trust the member will not misinterpret this response. That was mentioned on Friday and one of the things I trust I said in my response to that member when he mentioned it is, when we talk about the Gateway, I consider all of Nova Scotia - I don't consider it in isolation. I recall my response is that we will look at that. We will do what makes good sense. One of the things we will be looking at - I think the way the member put it, was to get some travellers of the so-called main thoroughfare and get them into some of the local - and we are giving that some thought.

 

I trust I made a commitment and I will reiterate that commitment - we will continue to work with Destination Cape Breton and that will be something we will put on the table. I would like to think that between Destination Cape Breton and our tourism staff, we are a little bit ahead of that. In other words, I would hope that has already been a topic of discussion around that particular table with our stakeholders in Cape Breton. We are always looking at new and innovative ways to have our visitors visit as much of those communities that aren't on the TransCanada or on the 100-Series Highways.

 

MR. ORRELL: The reason I was asking the question about the gateway for Marine Atlantic is, North Sydney - or I should say Cape Breton in general in that area - doesn't have what I'd call a proper tourist bureau. We have a small shed with two students that the BIDC helps to organize and run. Signage, as you get off the ferry, directing you to North Sydney is probably two to five kilometres up the highway, so once a person has passed that area, they've missed North Sydney; they've missed Sydney Mines - and maybe if a turn-off into Sydney would be easier for them, they could go through. I guess that's my direction on that is if we could have a sign as you come right off the ferry - I know that's the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.

 

I've asked and discussed those questions, but I guess I'm saying if there was some signage there and a proper tourist bureau, that would go a long way in promoting the local area as they come off. I'm just wondering if there could be any discussions around that area to see if that might take place in the next year or so.

 

MR. PARIS: I do know - and because this is so fresh in my mind - that when visitors get off the ferry there are tourism personnel there to greet them. I'll say this - I don't rule anything out. There is always a possibility to do something. I never say no until we've had a look at it and see what we can explore along with our partners.

 

The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal - one of the things that I did also commit to when it comes to signage is that we've worked closely with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal as we do all the other departments. The member is absolutely correct that any type of signage would come under the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, but we will certainly sit down with them and see what we can do. We will also be inclusive. It wouldn't be us in isolation. Certainly we want to take into consideration our partners and I mentioned Destination Cape Breton.

 

I think the member should also be well aware that we do a lot of investment. We have the $179,000 that we invest with Destination Cape Breton, but also I know that last year we made a huge investment in Right Some Good, the culinary experience that was held the first time. Just recently, in the last couple of weeks, I signed off again for another financial commitment to that experience this year. There's also - we make heavy investments in the Cabot Trail with our Doers & Dreamers.

 

I mentioned already about Peggy's Cove Lighthouse, about it being so well-photographed and you can't help, when you're talking about the most photographed places in Canada, you always have to throw Cabot Trail in there as well. I've been fortunate enough to travel the trail a number of times in my lifetime and it's one of those pieces of scenery in Nova Scotia you never get tired of. There are so many assets in Cape Breton that I consider as icons for Nova Scotia. They do so much for all of us. I guess the short answer is that nothing is ruled out. We look at anything and everything and we move forward from there.

 

MR. ORRELL: Speaking of the Cabot Trail, I wonder if you could give me an update on the progress of the Keltic Lodge renovations. You talked about re-branding earlier.

 

MR. PARIS: As the member may be aware, I authorized, since I had to sign it, $3.1 million for the Signature Resorts. Of that $3.1 million, $1.3 million is going to Keltic Lodge. I don't know this to be the absolute, but a lot of those - well in some cases renovations, upgrades, visitor experience enhancements, whatever you want to call them - a lot of them would be done by now because they wanted to get in place for the upcoming tourist season. Some of this was just what we consider as elementary things such as new televisions, new curtains, new carpeting and maybe paint refresh. I can remember looking at lists one, two and three, and they were yay long. If you wanted a more detailed list, trust me, I wouldn't be able to quote from memory what were on those things. I do know some of the things that were common - the TVs, draperies, carpeting, bedspreads.

 

I was in the Keltic Lodge before they started - if I can call it a refresh - before they started with the refresh and they gave me a tour of some of the rooms. As minister responsible, I would be somewhat hard-pressed to boast about this resort as one of our Signature Resorts with the condition that it was in.

 

MR. ORRELL: We talked earlier about signage as you come off the ferry in North Sydney. The signage as you come on to the island, coming from the mainland to Nova Scotia has 'Welcome to Cape Breton Island, Home of CBU'. Now I went to CBU myself for a year; I appreciate the value of the university - not probably one of the biggest economic tourist drivers in the area as compared to being the Number 1 Island or Highland Links Golf Course or the Fortress of Louisbourg or any of those other areas that could draw people. I'm just wondering if there has been any consideration done on upgrading that sign to give us more of an idea of what beauty our island actually holds.

 

MR. PARIS: For the member, I made note - that question came up last week as well. I committed and I'm more than willing to work with TIR and our partners in Cape Breton to see if we can get some sort of appropriate signage somewhere in a good location that would bring attention to visitors to Cape Breton Island and that, in fact, it is the Number 1 Island in the world. We are willing to see what can be done. Again, what I will do and what I've committed to is working with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and all the stakeholders to see what we can come up with.

 

MR. ORRELL: I appreciate that, as will tourist operators on Cape Breton Island. I want to change gears a little bit and just go back to the economic development side of it and just some budgetary stuff. I think I might have had the answers earlier, but I'm not 100 per cent sure, so if you could clarify some of this for me.

 

The department's operating budgets came in about $10 million under budget this year. Is there an explanation on why that occurred?

 

MR. PARIS: I think it's $8 million that was under spent. That is as a result of the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund being under spent and also we realized some savings within this past year and that could change next year. I don't expect- there would have been some savings also around I think staffing numbers because we had some vacancies. People retire, people move on to other jobs, and so there would have been some delays there. There also would have been some delays in some of the projects, delays not on our end but on the end of other Nova Scotia companies that would not have met - they didn't require, I'm sorry - that they weren't at the stage where they were ready to receive funds from the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund. So those were estimates and those were the reasons mainly because of the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund under spent.

 

MR. ORRELL: So we're talking FTEs. If we look at the estimate to estimate, we're going to raise a total number of funded jobs in the department for this year but as of last year you had only used 224 FTEs and you say that's because of people being off sick and being off. So if we're using that many and we got through the year, did all those jobs get done or did they end up sharing jobs with people and if they were able to function on that year, why the increase in funding the number of jobs for next year?

 

MR. PARIS: I'll try to be as brief as I can on this one but in the same breath I want to make sure everybody has a full appreciation of what we went through. We went through what I would call, and I think anybody regardless of what side of the House they sit on, we went through a reorganization. Because of the jobsHere strategy, we reorganized what ERDT would look like. So the first thing I want to say is I want to say kudos to staff because during this reorganization, and I think this has to be known, staff stepped up to the plate.

 

We were short staffed, we still have to bear in mind that during the reorganization we still had people who were retiring, we still had people who were leaving because they found work elsewhere. We still had vacancies and as we were going through this reorganization, people within ERDT really stepped up to the plate and picked up the slack. The reason that the numbers have changed is around that reorganization and part of that reorganization included a change in how we do things under the jobsHere strategy with respect to NSBI, our investment in trade. So it's all about the reorganization and people leaving through various reasons.

 

I mentioned NSBI - we also transferred some individuals into the Department of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism from NSBI. We also transferred some individuals in from other departments - the Department of Agriculture being another one that people came in. We knew that as we worked through the jobsHere strategy, when we were originally planning this, before we really got into this, we knew that we would need some new personnel to pick up the slack that was going to be created by the jobsHere strategy.

 

MR. ORRELL: The offices of the executive directors in most areas of the departments looked to be really under budget as of last year. I wonder if you could give me an explanation why most of those were under budget?

 

MR. PARIS: Those are technically new positions. We just staffed those under the jobsHere strategy. Those positions didn't exist - I'm sorry, I'm confusing myself. Before the jobsHere strategy, those positions didn't exist. We started staffing those positions in the Fall so that's the reason.

 

MR. ORRELL: So the Office of the Executive Director Regional Planning and Development had budgeted for $134,000, but only used $12,000. Next year, you've jumped from $134,000 to $275,000. That's almost double in one budget year. Can you explain why to me?

MR. PARIS: There were some savings, I think, which I've already mentioned. What happened is we staffed those positions and also with those positions would be administrative support positions. They would be accompanied positions that would come with those executive director positions, which would have made it increase, which would be reflected as a line item.

 

I mentioned administrative support, but also financial officers as well so there would be more than just strictly administrative support.

 

MR. ORRELL: Salaries and benefits are estimated to go up by about $4.8 million in your department. Can you explain? Is that new money or new jobs? Can you explain why to me?

 

MR. PARIS: Those would be operating expenses related to the implementation of the jobsHere strategy. Also included in that would be those transfers that came into the ERDT Department or division.

 

MR. ORRELL: There was a 350 per cent increase in the jobsHere fund. Are there any job targets associated with that increase in the funding?

 

MR. PARIS: I think what the member may be referencing there is the increase in the Nova Scotia Jobs Fund, which is directly related to the need of investment by Nova Scotia with respect to the forestry industry. When Bowater fell on troubled times and in order for us to save those thousands of jobs, then that's where the biggest amount of the difference is coming is with respect to the forestry sector.

 

MR. ORRELL: On Page 6.7, under Investment and Trade, can you please give me a breakdown on the 1,000 per cent increase in international commerce?

 

MR. PARIS: One of the things that we recognize with respect to international commerce is that there wasn't a whole lot of investment before we came along. We realized that the Province of Nova Scotia was lagging behind other jurisdictions so we wanted to increase, certainly step up the amount of investment that we were making and that's what we did. I think the member may be looking at a $1.5 million increase. That's mainly because, again - I reiterate - that we saw a need for us to step up.

 

What has happened certainly in the last couple of years is the Province of Nova Scotia's involvement with CEDA. We're such a small jurisdiction, but we also recognize in Nova Scotia the value of the resources that we do have and that some of those resources are in high demand when we consider such things as fish. We know that fish products are in high demand especially in Europe so when we looked at CEDA and were there at the table, we know that we've got to make some investigations.

 

Also, in order for us to make the right decisions - and I might have mentioned this on Friday and if I didn't I wouldn't have been remiss, but we had to do some intelligence investments. We wanted to make sure that as we proceeded with CEDA that we are making the best decisions possible. We made further investments - and I know the member will appreciate this - with respect to international trade missions. If we want to take a lead or a more prominent role in the future of Nova Scotia - one of the things that I've always said is that we have to be more competitive globally; we have to make sure that we are on trade missions; that people know we are open for business and where we are. Where we are has a lot to do with where we are going. Part of that also is not only for us as a government, but also for those in the private sector so we've offered some assistance to the private sector.

 

I've gone on a couple of trade missions this year and I guess I didn't really appreciate the value of trade missions until I became minister. One of the things I realized is that it's easy to forget who you are if you're not there at the table because when you look behind you, there's always somebody waiting to replace you and it's not a Nova Scotia company. I've always said and I'll say again, our competition isn't here in Atlantic Canada. Our competition is in the U.S., it's in Europe, it's in Asia, it's all over the world. It's a very competitive market there so we have to make those investments so that we can stay competitive and be competitive.

 

MR. ORRELL: Madam Chairman, on Page 6.3 under the senior management part of it, the Nova Scotia Gateway Secretariat, I want to know if you can tell me what the role of the Office of the Secretariat is, please?

 

MR. PARIS: Madam Chairman, the role of the Gateway Secretariat is to promote Nova Scotia by way of our roads, our highways, to promote Nova Scotia by way of oceans, by way of rail, by way of air. All those modes of transportation are part of the responsibility, part of the mandate of the Gateway Secretariat. One of the things, when someone talks about the Gateway Secretariat, I think of Nova Scotia as a whole as the Gateway Secretariat and it's not isolated, in my thinking anyway, to Halifax. We've made some investments already and when I think of, and the member for Cape Breton North will realize and recognize the investment that we made in the dredging of Sydney Harbour, a huge multi-million dollar, the investment we made in Cape Breton Rail. We see these as future investments and it's all part of our Gateway strategy.

 

So we also have to think about the $25 billion Irving Shipbuilding bid because we have to think of the supply chain and the role that the Gateway Secretariat is going to play in meeting the demands of that supply chain. So I think of it in a more, in a provincial scope certainly and all those modes of transportation that I mentioned.

 

MR. ORRELL: I wonder if you could tell me if there are any targets associated with this secretariat's role, job-wise or job creation-wise, economic-wise?

 

MR. PARIS: Madam Chairman, when asked a question like that, I think of the Gateway Secretariat and I want to put it in the global context because we've increased our association with places such as Vietnam, with Korea, with other international markets. One of the things that we are trying to do with the assistance of the Gateway Secretariat and with it playing the lead role is, if we increase the demand for our products, we've increased productivity. If we increase productivity, that's going to equate for more jobs here in the Province of Nova Scotia. If we have more ships coming to our ports, then that's going to mean that we've got a need for more workers in those points of entry. If we have more rail cars going on our railway spurs in Nova Scotia, it's about productivity so we are looking at Europe, South America, certainly the Caribbean. We are looking to increase and the Gateway Secretariat has a huge role to play in that increased productivity.

 

MR. ORRELL: We're talking about maybe increasing more ships to the ports to the area. Can we assume then that the Sydney port developments will continue in the next number of years to maybe on bulk development or container development? Is that in the future or is that in the plans of the Department of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism?

 

MR. PARIS: I've said in this House a number of times, I wish I could predict the future. I say that, but I would hope that things are - we're making huge investments here so that things will only get better. When I think of the partnership that we have with the Port of Halifax, we are looking at increasing container traffic to Nova Scotia period. When I think of the Sydney Port Commission - and I think the financial contribution we made so that they could dredge Sydney Harbour. I think that with investments like that, it increases the viability of Sydney Harbour; it increases the chances of foreign markets looking at Sydney as a place to do business and being able to accommodate larger ships, I see as a good thing. I think that if Nova Scotians can be patient, we're going to see some things.

 

It makes me think of the story that I related last week. I won't reiterate it to an in-depth degree, but there have been companies with the expertise coming from NSBI and the leadership coming from NSBI that we have dined, if I can say the word - we have been in contact with for a couple of years. It took that long for them to finally create a footprint in the Province of Nova Scotia. Sometimes things do take a little bit of time.

 

The short answer to your question is, I believe that all of this is going to pay off. We never know when, but the possibilities are good. That's why we are at the table and that's why we continue with the relationships with CP Rail, the Ports Commission, no matter where they are in the province. We just made an investment last year in the runway at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport and what this investment will do is it will allow larger cargo planes to take off and land at our airport, which again is all about increasing that traffic when it comes to those large cargo planes.

 

MR. ORRELL: On Friday when I was at that announcement in Sydney, the Premier talked about the development of the Donkin coal mine. Back in the Fall, I believe it was - and I could be corrected on the timeline there - there was an announcement in Sydney of a $75 million investment in a coal pier there; private investment, no government money, with hopes, I would think, that the development of the Donkin mine would provide some coal to be shipping to international markets. I just wonder if the statement that the Premier said on Friday that the development of the Donkin mine is moving forward - I'm just wondering at what stage is that development at present?

 

MR. PARIS: With respect to Donkin, and I think you're probably referring to Xstrata?

 

MR. ORRELL: Okay.

 

MR. PARIS: Yes, and look, I've always said that as Minister responsible for Economic and Rural Development and Tourism that I am willing and agreeable to sit down with everyone or anyone when it comes to increasing the economic benefits for the citizens of the Province of Nova Scotia. The one thing that I won't do, is I don't make promises that I can't keep. I would never make a promise about any business until I actually had the analysis, the proper study and analysis done and everything would be measured on its own merit. The more direct answer to your question is that I'm willing to sit down with anyone and everyone. I can also say that it has been my experience that NSBI as the lead contact for the Province of Nova Scotia, and I say this in a complimentary way, trust me, they'll sit down and talk to anyone and I say that with all best intentions.

 

MR. ORRELL: With respect to the jobsHere ads, I wonder if you can tell me how much they actually cost?

 

MR. PARIS: When we sat down and we were going through the jobsHere strategy, we were coming up with all these new and I think wonderful l- and some of them were just enhanced. When we were coming up with this strategy and what we were going to do, we thought that it was important that Nova Scotians be aware of them. It was all about, if we wanted individuals to take advantage of them, then we had to invest in something as far as advertisement. So we've invested $248,000 in that advertisement strategy.

 

I would like to think, and maybe the member has heard me refer to this during Question Period, I sometimes refer to it as Percy's philosophy because when you create something that's new, one of the things that you can't forget about is creating the awareness and the understanding. Under the jobsHere strategy we created a lot of things that were new, new to Nova Scotians. The way that we are investing in companies and the way that we are investing in individuals, we felt it important that those individuals be well aware of what was available to them.

 

MR. ORRELL: Thank you, minister. The call to action on those ads was to visit the government's Web site. I wonder if you could tell me how many hits were on that Web site and what was the biggest timeframe, was it summer, winter, Fall?

 

MR. PARIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the chair. Gee, quite a question. I don't have that number but what I will do is make a request for staff to get that number for you and tie it to timelines and I will make it available to you as soon as possible, taking into consideration that it's 6:20 p.m. (Interruption) Give me a little time to work on that. I've got to say that the concept of the one-stop shopping with respect to our Web portal, I think was a good strategy and although I don't have the numbers, I feel that it has paid some dividends for us and I trust the member will be satisfied with that answer.

 

MR. ORRELL: According to the 2011 Public Accounts there was $10 million transferred from the Department of Economic and Rural Development and Tourism to other government departments. Can you tell me why that transfer took place?

 

MR. PARIS: I wonder if the member could give us a little bit more detail on that number and where you got that number from?

 

MR. ORRELL: From a Public Accounts Committee.

 

MR. PARIS: For the member, it was $10 million and it was from the Public Accounts. We're going to have to get back to you, I'm going to have to get back to you on that number. We'll check it out and we'll provide you with an answer.

 

MR. ORRELL: Under the jobsHere Program, I'm just wondering how many jobs were actually created and how much did that end up costing last year?

 

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I must say I wish in my own mind I could give you those numbers right off. I can give you the numbers but I can't give them off the top of my head. So I'm going to read some numbers to you. Unfortunately, I don't have that mind that can pull all those figures out, off the top of my head. I know that compared to the same time last year that, first of all, employment is up by approximately 5,000 jobs. There are a number of companies and individuals that we have helped through the jobsHere Program and through jobsHere we are supporting 2,000 jobs within the forestry industry, just particularly along the South Shore.

 

There are also through jobsHere, and I think this is another important number. There are 6,300 Nova Scotian employees who are better trained today through the jobsHere initiative who hadn't received that training until jobsHere came along. Also under the jobsHere strategy and in partnership with the Irving shipbuilding contract, at peak times we are going to see over 11,000 employees working during peak times with a consistent base range - this figure I do know off the top of my head - for an extended term of the shipbuilding contract, somewhere in the vicinity of 4,000 employees. When we talk about the jobsHere strategy, we shouldn't ignore the investment that we're making in training Nova Scotians as well.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member's time for questioning is now concluded. The minister at this time can make closing remarks.

 

MR. PARIS: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly be very brief. I will not refer to the script. I would like to take a moment to thank the members opposite for their questions and for the most part, the dignified way that the questioning took place. I acknowledge that I certainly appreciate it. I would also like to take a minute to pay tribute and say thanks to all staff members who have been in the gallery and certainly special mention of the two staff here to my left and to my right.

 

I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to the staff who are back in the departments and have been standing by on their Blackberries and on their monitors. One of the things that I said at the start of this is that all the advancement that we are making in the Province of Nova Scotia would not be possible without them. I want to thank all the agencies and the boards and certainly all of the volunteer board members that give direction to those agencies and boards.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E3 stand?

 

Resolution E3 stands.

 

At this time we will take a break to allow for the next minister and his staff to come to the Chamber.

 

[6:30 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[6:38 p.m. The committee resumed.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Acting Deputy House Leader.

 

MR. MAT WHYNOTT: Mr. Chairman, I ask that you call the Estimates of the Department of Community Services.

 

Resolution E3 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $977,924,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Community Services, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Housing Development Corporation be approved.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

HON. DENISE PETERSON-RAFUSE: Mr. Chairman, once again it is my privilege to appear before this committee as minister and to present the Department of Community Services' budget for the 2012-13 fiscal year. I am fortunate to have two knowledgeable members from the department with me today. I would like to thank Dave Ryan, our acting deputy minister, and George Hudson, our executive director of finance and administration who will be with me for these budget deliberations.

 

Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth time I've had the honour of presenting the Community Services' budget and I have to say that I'm extremely pleased with the progress we have made since 2009. We have been busy building meticulously a strong foundation, a foundation for a brighter future. We have, in a little over a three-year period, made significant improvements in the social safety net.

 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to mention some of the highlights. As part of our ongoing effort to help families, my department has invested almost $200 million - yes, an investment of $200 million - and we've done it while keeping on our path of getting back to balance. We have been very strategic by analyzing what we what we do in every division to improve services and at the same time find efficiencies.

 

Mr. Chairman, $128 million has been used to create new affordable homes for hundreds of Nova Scotians and to renovate and repair thousands of units; $48.1 million to upgrade the province's public housing stock; $20.6 million for repairs to 1,100 units and co-operatives and non-profits; $27.4 million in new construction activities representing almost 196 units; $13.3 million for the creation and preservation of 409 units; $18 million in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program to assist over 1,500 households.

 

We've improved Income Assistance supports by over $13 million for some 30,000 adult recipients. We increased personal allowances by 10 per cent. We increased wage exemptions $150 a month for clients who are working and we've allowed them to keep their income refunds. We doubled the amount of money people can keep as assets, such as savings, so they could begin to set some money aside. We increased financial support for eye exams. We changed the rules around co-habitation so that people could have a chance to form stable family relationships without fear of losing support. We made sure that shelter benefits were not reduced when a youth turns 19 if he or she is in college or university and as a student living at home. These are a few of the changes that we have made because we have listened to suggestions from the people of Nova Scotia.

 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that helping the most vulnerable in society is an investment in a better province. There is also an economic spinoff when people are supported and become employed and independent. For those who are less fortunate and always need our help, our government is working hard to ensure they receive the supports they deserve. We know that children provide hope for a brighter future and that is why this government has also made significant investments in the Nova Scotia Child Benefit Program. We increased benefits for families by over 20 per cent and this is correcting for the fact that benefits had not been adjusted for inflation for almost a decade. We expanded the income limits so more working families can qualify. Today, 24,000 families and their 40,000 children are better off because of these changes. We invested $2 million to increase rates for our 800 foster families - one of our greatest resources - to help them meet the needs of the 1,150 foster children they have taken into their homes.

 

Mr. Chairman, I have such great admiration for foster families. I am fortunate to have a dear friend who with her husband, they have fostered for over 30 years. I saw over those years the dedication, the love, the challenges and rewards the foster family experienced. Unfortunately, foster families did not receive the financial supports over the years that they should have. I was delighted to be able to increase foster family rates two years in a row. I do know more needs to be done and as we turn around our province's finances, we will be able to do more.

 

Mr. Chairman, our government recognizes the importance of helping seniors stay longer in their homes. One of our initiatives designed to do this is an investment of almost $2 million to increase the Seniors' Property Tax Rebate Program. Now more than 14,000 seniors can get a rebate up to $600 a year on their property tax bills.

 

In 2009 we promised that we would add 250 new child care subsidies to help families access affordable child care. Since then, we have invested $5 million and exceeded our own targets four-fold. Now there are 1,000 new child care subsidies available in our province.

 

At the same time, we gave child care operators an additional $7 million to strengthen and expand the child care sector, making it easier for parents to access licensed, quality child care. We increased funding by $500,000 for transition houses and women's centres. We also invested $125,000 for safety, security and energy efficiency repairs and upgrades in shelters and transition houses across the province.

 

We put $1 million into programs to help address homelessness. We invested $5 million so more of our disabled clients can live at home, in an apartment or with a foster family; and another $1.5 million to strengthen day programs for individuals with very complex needs and to expand access. We are completing the $8 million long-term residential treatment centre on the Wood St. campus in Truro to provide long- term treatment for up to 80 more children and youth.

 

These are just some of the highlights of what we have been doing. We are building stronger foundations for brighter futures and this year we will do more. These kinds of investments demonstrate our commitment to a strong and sustainable social service system. The government puts our money where our hearts are. We are recognized for being a compassionate Party. We are proving we can make life a little better for our citizens, while being responsible managers of the public purse.

 

Needless to say, with this busy agenda I have gotten to know my department very well during this time and I have gotten to know the many dedicated people who work there - whether they are social workers, child care specialists, case workers, administrative assistants or accountants, I am always impressed with their professionalism. More importantly, they are always there for our clients; for the Nova Scotians who depend upon the Department of Community Services for any number of good reasons.

 

As always, while estimates debate is about the numbers, none of should forget that we are talking about people. It is our job and, in fact, our duty to provide the best possible support to those in need while living within our means as taxpayers. One of the things that makes budget preparation so difficult is that behind every number is a person, cause or a worthy proposal. As any family or small business owner knows, putting a budget together is hard work. It's about making choices, hard choices. We believe we have put forward the best possible budget to help Nova Scotians face the future, all the while keeping our eye on the government's bottom line.

 

To that end, I am pleased to report that we are meeting government's priorities and making life a little bit better for today's families with ongoing support, our department's programs and service. We have done that through taking a different approach than previous governments. Instead of a reactive model, we have been changing the model to be proactive. Instead of providing services based on a system approach, which means a cookie cutter that you have to fit the program model, we have been developing a framework to provide services based on individual needs with a restorative focus.

 

This is certainly not an easy task because you're changing a culture that has existed in the department for decades. One of the first things I did as Minister of Community Services was to meet with as many individuals and groups that I could, to learn from them and to develop better relationships. Keep in mind that there were many relationships and partnerships with Community Services that were not positive in nature. This was due, in part, to the system approach, that the system knows best rather than embracing the experiences and knowledge of those outside the department. This is restorative and brings interested parties together to move towards a solution.

 

It also gives everyone the opportunity to be more aware of the opinions and challenges each one faces. One example of a restorative relationship we initiated is the homelessness project announced last year. Community Services' homelessness action groups, homeless shelters and corporations came together to create a new model that does not offer just shelter but just as importantly individualized support.

 

Another example is a new committee we developed called Connections. This committee consists of representation from our service providers who identify better ways Community Services can do business with their service providers. The committee looks at everything from communications to funding to policies. This type of committee never existed in any other governments and I am very proud that this committee exists which certainly shows our desire for transparency and consultation.

 

Another example was creating a committee of experts in the area of housing for those with a disability, the controversy over institutionalization and community living. This committee has very strong advocates including the well-known Community Living advocate Michael Kendrick who many here know wrote the Kendrick report. With previous governments, Mr. Kendrick was seen as an adversary to the department. However, believing in being restorative means all sides coming together to work towards solutions.

 

These are just a few examples of how we are doing business differently with collaboration and transparency as part of the new model for Community Services. The next fiscal year will see us building on the significant amount of progress made since 2009. Our major financial investments last year are allowing us to build for the long term, building stronger foundations for brighter futures.

 

The government's direction is to make strategic investments that will make a positive difference in people's lives, not just for one year but for the next five, 10, or even 25 years. We want to make sure our programs and services serve as a bridge to a better life. We want to make sure people, including persons with disabilities, have a chance to take advantage of job opportunities and that they are not penalized for trying. We want people to have access to affordable housing in diverse communities that are healthy places for their children to grow. We want our children to have the best possible start so they have a chance for a bright, healthy and prosperous future here in Nova Scotia.

 

I am so proud that our choices - difficult as they were - saw us travelling down the right path. Our next choices will ensure that our journey continues and we reach our destination - a Nova Scotia where fewer people need our support and those who need it, need less of it because they are more independent and/or engaged in their community. We will achieve this by focusing on longer term strategies for success.

 

What is impressive is how this government is striving for sustainability while recognizing the immediate needs of individuals and organizations that support them. I am proud of the work we have done to make life better for Nova Scotians. We have created a strong base upon which we can build a solid future. For the 2012-13 fiscal year I am proud to propose a budget of $978 million for your consideration.

 

Mr. Chairman, you might ask, if you look at last year's estimates of $985 million, isn't that less than last year and are you cutting programs? I want to assure you that we are not. We are showing a slight reduction of $7 million in total budget spending over the last year. That's less than 1 per cent on a budget of almost $1 billion. Are we cutting programs? I want to reiterate, no, no, we are not. Simply stated, some initiatives have come to their planned end. For example, last year there was $18 million in our budget from the economic stimulus. The stimulus program has ended.

 

As any family knows, once you have fixed the roof, you reduce your spending, maybe saving some or using it for different things or projects you couldn't get before the roof was fixed. That's exactly what we have done. We are saving some and turning our attention to other priorities. In fact, we are investing almost $36 million in additional spending to enhance existing programming and services across several sectors. Some of the ways we will make life a little easier for Nova Scotia families include raising income assistance rates for the second year in a row by an addition $9 a month, increasing the Nova Scotia child benefit again this year by another 5 per cent. Providing greater access to employment support and training programs to help more people find a job, including persons with disabilities who have so often been left out, and helping more people with disabilities live independently. I will be happy to elaborate on these strategies as I get into the more detailed aspects of these estimates.

 

In the meantime, it is worth noting that these issues are very much part and parcel of my government's stated priorities. By providing better health care sooner, by creating good jobs and growing the economy, by living within our means and by helping families make ends meet, this government is making life a little better for families. It has been a busy and exciting year. This committee and all Nova Scotians who follow our work deserve to know what our year over year scorecard looks like.

 

Under Housing Services, housing is key to the economic and social prosperity of Nova Scotia. It contributes to the growth of the provincial economy and to the creation of good jobs and is at the centre of individual family and community well-being. One of our most successful investments to date has been in housing. Since 2009 more than 1,400 affordable housing units have been created, preserved or constructed. With our partners we have invested $128 million in affordable housing throughout the province. The stimulus program helped us build 196 new homes and make five years of repairs and upgrades to public housing in just two short years which was just tremendous.

 

From one end of the province to the other we have invested in housing projects - in Wolfville, in Wedgeport, in Middleton and New Minas, in Port Hawkesbury and Sydney, in Preston, in Spryfield, projects like Millwood Place, a $7.7 million 59-unit state-of-the-art seniors' facility in Middle Sackville, are helping to provide Nova Scotians, the most vulnerable, with more options to access affordable housing. Projects like Fort Clarence Place in Dartmouth, the location has considerable historic significance. It is named after a battery built by the British in the 1750s in the area of the Dartmouth Imperial Oil Refinery. This fort was manned for about 150 years. Initially the fort was called the Eastern Battery but in the late 1700s the Duke of Kent renamed it Fort Clarence after the Duke of Clarence who became King William IV. It is a four-storey building with 71 units. Eight of the units are fully barrier free - meaning totally accessible to anyone with a disability. The other 63 are visitable and can be made fully barrier free if needed to accommodate aging in place. Visitable refers to how easy it is for someone with a disability to actually visit a unit. The building exceeds current energy and water- use standards for green buildings. It has two elevators, underground parking, and a scooter-charging area. All units have been rented mostly to low income seniors. These housing projects are also providing jobs and helping to grow the province's economy.

 

After our substantial investment in housing for 2011-12, this year's housing budget line will be less. Why? Are we cutting programs? Again, Mr. Chairman, we are not. Simply stated, the multi-year affordable housing initiative has ended. Last year there was $18 million in our budget as part of the economic stimulus package. It is not there this year because the program ended in March. This means our housing services' budget will be showing a reduced number in comparison to last year.

 

We have renewed our federal-provincial housing agreement which means we have secured access to $60 million. This will allow us to build on the good work we have done through to 2014. This agreement means more Nova Scotia families, seniors and persons with disabilities will be able to access the kind of housing they need where they need it most. We will use these funds to build on that success and work with our community partners to develop a targeted long-term sustainable and affordable housing plan that will help provide more housing options and improve existing ones. Like any homeowner dealing with growing utility costs, we are setting aside $2.8 million to deal with the higher costs of operating and managing the thousands of public housing units throughout the province. We understand the importance of planning and that is why we are now working on a framework for a housing strategy.

 

Another area showing a reduced budget line this year and for a good reason is Early Learning and Child Care. Again, we've completed our planned investments. We are now reducing our licensed seats or the number of subsidies. Since 2009 we have invested $5 million to create an additional 1,000 subsidies. This exceeds our government's platform commitment to create 250 additional daycare subsidies for Nova Scotia families. This brings the total number of subsidies available to children in low income families to 4,430 and we've spent $7 million in expansion grants.

 

I am pleased to say that the department managed to reduce its wait lists down to zero in 2011-12 and there were still 48 child care subsidies available at last count in March. This means we are making childcare more affordable and accessible for Nova Scotians. It means giving more children a great start in life, allowing their parents to go to work or school, thereby improving their chances of securing a meaningful job. The first five years of a child's life are very important in preparing them for future success in school and life. This year together with our partners in Health and Wellness and Education, we will consult with Nova Scotia families to develop an approach to early childhood development that ensures our children get the best possible start in life. This is the first time any government in our province has committed to such a large endeavour for early childhood development.

 

Programs for Youth - just a few weeks ago I was sharing the enthusiasm of several young people in announcing a $614,000 investment to support youth ages 16 to 20 with a wide range of services. In collaboration with my fellow ministers in the Child and Youth Strategy, this funding will allow community organizations around the province to hire 10 new outreach workers to support youth. Young adults from across the province will soon have more support to stay in school, find jobs, get involved in the community and get help with family problems.

 

These youth outreach workers will reinforce the province's largest efforts to support vulnerable youth with a wide variety of services in Education, Health and Wellness, Justice and Community Services. For our children and youth who require specialized treatment due to experiences of child abuse and neglect, we are investing $3.6 million to open a new long- term, community-based residential treatment centre located on the Wood St. Campus in Truro. This will provide us with additional capacity to help up to 18 children and youth so they can access their services closer to home.

 

I already referenced our commitment to restorative practices across the department and we will begin with our children and family services program, instilling the practice in every aspect of its service. Our goal is to enhance our focus from working for people to working with them; an approach which has seen to be very successful in helping people to maximize their independence.

 

Services for Persons with Disabilities - focusing on this year's budget highlights, we are continuing to invest in our Services for Persons with Disability sector or as we more simply refer to it, SPD.

 

First, I want to talk about the actions I have taken to improve services for residents of Braemore Home. Our disabled persons residing in a home funded by government deserve our care, our protection and the best possible program we can afford. Last year I commissioned an independent review of the Braemore operation. This government is prepared to follow through with funds to address the recommendations coming from that review. I have spent a great deal of time working with staff in our SPD program, with our stakeholders and the many organizations providing support. I find it most rewarding to see how our programs and services can help people with disabilities.

 

Seeing people move into a new community-based home or ensuring that families get a much needed break is satisfying for everyone involved. We are increasing funding again this year by $900,000 for two community-based programs - Independent Living and Alternative Family Support, enabling up to 50 individuals to live more independently.

 

We will also respond to the needs of service providers with increased base- funding of almost $4 million to manage growing operating costs. Along with our partners in the Department of Health and Wellness, we will also be launching a consultation process to examine ways we can better enable people with disabilities and seniors to live as independently as possible for as long as possible in the community.

 

I know all members of this committee and the House will be pleased to hear that the Employment Support and Income Assistance budget is increasing again to provide additional help to those who need it. For the people who rely on income assistance benefits, I have some good news. The Department of Community Services is providing an additional $9 per month for IA clients receiving personal allowance benefits. This brings the new rate to $238 per month. Clients will begin receiving the increase this July. I also want to remind everyone that this $9 increase added to last year's $15 increase means an extra $24 a month for Nova Scotia families trying to make ends meet and that's a significant boost in two short years. While we know there is more to be done, for now we are doing what we can. We are listening and acting responsibly in a compassionate way.

 

It is important to note that our government not only financially supports the Department of Community Services budget for the most vulnerable that we serve, but also programs such as the Poverty Reduction Tax Credit and the Affordable Living Tax Credit, which sits in Finance. We are increasing the credit this year so that some of Nova Scotia's most vulnerable people - many of whom have a disability and are unable to participate in the workforce or contribute to their community in ways that they would like - will receive an extra $45.60 a year. That brings the credit up to $250 a year.

 

We recognize that raising a child these days is an expensive proposition and every little bit helps. We provide the Nova Scotia Child Benefit to all families with incomes under $25,000 to help them with the cost of raising children up to the age of 18. This year we are making an additional annual investment of $2.5 million to help 24,000 families with children. We are increasing the monthly benefit by an average of 5 per cent. This represents a two-year increase of $180 per child. That is on top of the $4.8 million invested last year.

 

As an example, the annual income for a single parent with two children has increased by almost $1,100 a year and that is within less than three years. Furthermore, in fewer than three years, a working parent with two children who does not receive income assistance has seen their annual income increase by $4,400. The Nova Scotia Child Benefit is making a difference by helping to reduce or even prevent child poverty. The road to eliminating child poverty is long, but it's a road worth travelling. The number of children living in poverty is getting lower each year and for that we are grateful. Any investment in children is an investment in Nova Scotia's future.

 

I want to put some of these numbers in context. Since coming to office in 2009 and with the changes in this year's budget, we have increased income support for a single disabled person by $865 per year. For our disabled clients who are able to work, income support has increased by $2,125 per year. Our working single parents with children are now better off by almost $2,360 per year. Promoting independence is a central theme for many of our programs and a key element within our employment support and income assistance program. Not all clients are able to make this shift, but for those who can, it is a goal worth pursuing.

 

We know our clients want to work, to be independent and provide for themselves and their families. This year we will be simplifying our assessment for employment support services, enabling more clients - including persons with disabilities - to access supports and job opportunities.

 

In our departmental offices, we have posters on the walls from the Disabled Persons Commission that encourage us to look at person's ability, not the disability. Why are we always amazed at how much people with disabilities can do and achieve when given half a chance? These are people living productive lives, working in a variety of jobs or professions. Nova Scotia reports the highest rates of disabled persons in the country, at 20 per cent. Isn't it time we tapped into a resourceful vein of talent? How valuable do you think these willing and able potential employees could be to an organization? With a shrinking workforce, Nova Scotia's economic health and social progress will be directly tied to the knowledge, skills and productivity of its workforce.

 

This year we are increasing the Return to Work initiatives budget by $860,000, to help more people regain their independence. Mr. Chairman, I am more than pleased with the progress made by the Department of Community Services over the past year but, more significantly, in what we have accomplished in just a little over three years. We have worked hard to show stakeholders that we are compassionate, we have given proof to clients that our promises translate into action and we have reassured Nova Scotia taxpayers that we can do it with dignity and within budget. I hope that it is something that all members of this committee and the House of Assembly can take home with pride.

 

It is with a sound and practical budget like this that we can make a positive difference in the lives of many Nova Scotians. We believe we have come up with a responsible budget that supports our clients and those who rely on us for extra help. Therefore, I am pleased to submit this resolution on Estimates for the 2012-13 fiscal year, for your consideration.

 

For the 2012-13 fiscal year, I am proposing a budget of $977,924,000 for your consideration. Mr. Chairman, we are providing the necessary supports that Nova Scotians who depend on us have asked for, while still living within our means. As I mentioned earlier, it's all about choices and I think you would agree that we have arrived at a very sound and sensible approach to delivering programs and services to Nova Scotians. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Bedford-Birch Cove.

 

MS. KELLY REGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was first made Critic of Education, I think the former Education Minister will remember I didn't spend a lot of time making speeches, I just sort of tried to delve down into the meat, as it were, so I'm hoping we will be able to do that here, in Community Services, as well.

 

I wonder if the minister can give us an update on Talbot House and what is going on there. My understanding is there was some possibility of Talbot House reopening and funding, et cetera, and I'm wondering if she would give us an update.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you very much for the question. I'd like to take the opportunity to explain to the members here this evening the situation with regard to Talbot House, from the beginning point. As many of you know, I've stood in the House many times over and provided the facts on Talbot House and I'd like to be able to take this opportunity this evening to do that again. The facts are what are very important here, not the misinformation or the misperceptions that get out in the media or that are provided through our Opposition members. It's very important because these are issues that are very serious to us and they have very serious ramifications to those who are affected by it.

 

As we know, Talbot House is a recovery house that has been around for 56 years and that has provided a housing service to men who are recovering from addictions. There are different philosophies, I know, in terms of what is the best type of support for those who have addictions and with respect to whether the programs that we have, if it's necessary to have a house where individuals would go to stay overnight versus the care that they can get during day programs, through counselling and so forth, through the health system.

 

I do know that the men I have spoken to often feel that actually having a safe place for them to go is very important to them because often what has happened in their lives, because of the poor decisions they know they have made, they've lost family members. Quite often, too, because of that, they do not have a place to go and lay their head during the night. So it's really important for them to feel that there's a kindness and a security there, a place they can go and rest.

 

Also, I think that the recovery houses give an opportunity too, for gentlemen to sit with their friends, or people who will become friends, who are going through the same serious problems and challenges in life. That often helps individuals who have that opportunity to express their feelings. As we know, sometimes we've always heard that with men it could be a little bit more difficult for them to express their feelings with the way that society is and how they've been socialized. So I do believe in the fact that a service such as Talbot House or Freedom Foundation provides is very critical. I've also had the opportunity to be at Freedom Foundation and visit with the gentlemen and have talks with them and enjoy the time to learn from them and what their challenges are and how we, as a department, could provide them with better services.

 

With the situation with Talbot House, as with any time in our department that we would receive any concerns or complaints, it's our responsibility to act upon them. That's what we did in this case, we received a letter of complaint and within that letter of complaint there were some strong words that we knew that we needed to proceed and talk to the individual who wrote that letter, to find out as much information as possible. Also to talk with people in the health system who would be working as counsellors or clinicians with individuals who would be from Talbot House, going to receive services through the health system. So that's what we did.

 

What we discovered is that there seemed to be some issues there that would prompt us to look at an organizational review of the organization. That's very important to know that we've done that before, that is not anything new. Any time that we receive any type of complaints, if we wouldn't act upon them, I think that the Opposition would be the first to say that you sat on that - you received a letter from a gentleman who received services that you actually fund but you didn't act upon it.

 

We must do that because we don't know what the source is or what the reasons are that an individual may complain about one of the services that are provided through the many hundreds of service-providers that we have, as a department. It's very important for us to find out what's going on, so that's what we did within this case.

 

As I said, we did, we went to the Board of Directors of Talbot House and we explained to them that because of a complaint, we felt that it was necessary for us to do an organizational review. What an organizational review does is exactly that, they go through and review if they're meeting the standards. Those standards would be standards that were set out in a 2008 service agreement.

 

I think it's very important to know that one of the things that actually took me by surprise when I became Minister of Community Services was to discover that previously there were no service agreements. There were very few in the department whatsoever, which means that there were no contracts. There were no contracts between a service-provider and the Government of Nova Scotia and the role of the Government of Nova Scotia was, and is today, to provide the funding, so we are the funder. That's important to know, that we don't run the operation, we fund the operation.

 

To me it was just illogical that if you are writing cheques for hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars, that it's only responsible leadership that you make sure there is a contract between the Province of Nova Scotia, the Department of Community Services, and the board of directors that is providing a service. In 2008, amazingly, after decades and decades in this province, it was the first time that service agreements were established for recovery houses in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

What would happen from there is in the service agreement it would lay out standards of expectation to the Department of Community Services. Those expectations would be agreed upon by both parties. They would sit down and they would negotiate what that service agreement would look like. I think that no one in our government or any person in Nova Scotia would expect anything any different than having a service agreement that would lay out those conditions. In that agreement you would have such things as how the finances were being handled, what type of information would be provided back to the department, when should there be audits every year. When I mean audits, it's not a Notice to Reader, because some organizations will use that and it will look like they've had this audit done by a professional accounting firm when, in fact, it is a Notice to Reader.

 

For those people who may not be sure what a Notice to Reader is, it's basically just a professional accounting firm counting up the numbers that you've provided them. So it's not a real analysis of where the dollars were spent. That is one of the things that came forth within this organizational review, that there was no audit done within Talbot House, in terms of an accounting audit for 13 years, that it was actually a Notice to Reader. I know there's always a disclaimer from the accounting firm that with respect to a Notice to Reader is that, in fact, it's just a counting up of the numbers.

 

Anyway, as I said, I want to give you a real good idea of what the agreement would look like, it would also include things about the importance of having an annual general meeting and that the budget, that would be presented at that annual general meeting, would be part of the budget that you provide to Community Services because it would be in more detail.

 

One of the other things that we had discovered in our organizational review was the fact that there had not been, in 13 years, an annual general meeting held by the Board of Directors at Talbot House. So as we were going through and discovering some of these occurrences, the way that we actually did the organizational review was to go in and talk to the board of directors, which is typical, we always do that, talk with the staff and, if necessary, we would also talk to those people who were receiving the services, to get an understanding of - it's very important to know that they are getting the quality and the type of service that they would expect to get by going to a recovery house.

 

So in that, as we did that review, there were a few other things that came to our attention while we were doing the review that were of concern to us. There was the lack of policy in many areas. For example, there was not an admission policy as to how you decided which clients would be accepted into the recovery house. There was actually no policy, which as you can understand, is not appropriate when you have more than one individual who may want to be able to access that service. There needs to be a policy to say okay, these are the qualifications that allow you to receive the services. Some people were turned away when other people were accepted.

 

There was no policy with respect to professional development and that created an issue within the organization because we discovered that one that person was receiving $6,000 for university studies while other staff people received nothing, that was of concern to us. There was a list of things that we found of concern.

 

As I have stated in the House over and over again, our intention was solely an organizational review and we were very clear with the board of directors on that. I understand that people will say that those who are sitting on the board are very professional, well-known individuals in the community and that is true. But it doesn't always mean that a board is going to be functional because you have those individuals sitting around a table, either. I've seen many boards where the executive director is basically running the facility or the organization and not a lot of input from the board of directors.

 

Now I don't know if that is the case here, but I've seen that since I've been in my position. I have seen where a board of directors - very good people but they do not have the knowledge of governance of a board and the responsibility that you have sitting on a board. So sometimes even if we recognize people as being very professional because they have a higher status in society for their work, that does not mean they may know what the governance model is or should be of a board and what the responsibilities are.

 

There were no job descriptions in this organization, so if there's no job description, it's very difficult for anyone, at any level of professionalism, sitting on a particular board, to perhaps know what his or her role is and what their responsibilities are. The same with staff, I know that this organization ran for many, many years but without having a job description for the staff or the board members, it can be very challenging and I think that gets boards in a difficult situation.

 

As I said, we've seen this in the province before, this is not something new. Things can always be improved and that's why we do the organizational reviews. So if that shows us that an organization is not following the actual governance that should be followed, or there's no training, then, even though our role is typically as the funder and we don't run the organization, I think that maybe we need to step up to the plate and say to them, we need to have more training. And maybe look at what training we need to provide, or, part of the service agreement may need to say that you need training level 101 in board governance and that we ensure that training takes place.

 

So as I said with regard to Talbot House, that's exactly what we did, we took the time to discuss how the organization could be improved. I know it's a very difficult situation. It's difficult in the fact that if you have a particular reputation in your community and an organizational review is done and all the t's haven't been crossed and all the i's haven't been dotted, it can be very embarrassing. So it's not going to be something that the board members are going to accept with happiness. So we do expect when we are in these difficult situations that there definitely will be some type of comment back or push-back.

 

This was a very difficult situation, our initial intent - and we discussed this with the board - was that we did not want to make this public, because of the fact that it can be embarrassing and we didn't want to put anybody in that position. However, we were stuck, we had requests by the media for the organizational review. Certainly a difficult position to be in, in that we want to be very transparent and we also had a FOIPOP request. So if we had refused to inform the public of what the review was, then I think it would have put everybody in a much more difficult position- that we were trying to hide something, not just the department. It might have been interpreted that the board was trying to hide something.

 

It's very important for us to work with boards and that's what we tried our best to do As I said, it's very difficult when there are sensitivities, emotions and the fact that you're going to be talking about some work that could be improved upon.

 

One of the other things with the Talbot House situation was, as people know in this House, it was the Opposition that brought it up - can I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time have I left for the hour of questions and answers?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time is one minute.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I have one minute left in an hour? Okay. So I'll wrap up. With the Talbot House situation . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, sorry, in terms of the . . .

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: For myself, in responding.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, in responding, you have until 8:18 p.m.

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: So with respect to Talbot House one of the key things for us is to - if the Talbot House Board of Directors, and I've said this publicly in the media, that if they had a willingness to look at the organizational review and that they are able to sit down with us and provide us with a sense of security that those items that we saw that there was a weakness in, that there would be an improvement, that we would certainly be open for further discussions in that area. I think that those recommendations that we made are really important and they're very important if we want to see improvement.

 

One of the other things that I think is very important to note, too, is, I know the organization and the board of directors have put a lot of work into Talbot House over the years and worked very hard and have given a lot of themselves to make sure that the organization is running. But we all have to be ready to review ourselves and to look at, are there ways to improve upon what we're doing.

 

That doesn't mean that because a government department goes in to do a review that we're looking to be critical. These organizations are service-providers. We don't provide that service, we don't have the capacity to do it. We rely on those service-providers and it's very important that our relationships are very good. That's why, in the budget in my opening speech, I talked about the importance of relationships to me and as a new minister, that was one of the first things that I did to open the doors of the department, to invite people and organizations in.

 

Many of those who were adversarial towards the Department of Community Services and the government now have very good working relationships. There will be times when there's push and shove on both sides because of opinions and the way you feel that things should roll out but I think what's important is that when everybody is around the table brainstorming, talking and challenging each other, the fact is that at the end of the day, you create a better service for the people you are here to serve in the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

I don't want anybody to think that myself or the department does not have an appreciation for the years of work that the board of directors have done at Talbot House. They have done great work and they have been very dedicated to the organization, the staff have been very dedicated to the organization. But it's like anything, we have Opposition members here to ask us questions and to keep us on our toes and you expect us to provide you with answers. Those are almost like mini-reviews every day that we have Question Period, right?

 

So it's no different than anyone who provides government a service and I think that the people of Nova Scotia expect that. They expect that if we're providing hundreds of thousands of dollars and into millions over the years, that there is a system where we know that the service that we're paying for, we're getting that service back. So with regard to the recovery houses, we've done that with all the recovery houses - we sit and we talk to them and we find out whether they are complying with the standards that are in the service agreement and that's a review. Sometimes when the reviews don't turn out as nicely as those who are involved would like, they get upset. Certainly they're going to lash out by any means, either through Opposition members or through the media.

 

I know at Talbot House that there were other issues that came to light through the letter that the complainant gave us and we actually talked to the complainant. Because of the fact - and this is where people have to understand the division, where we provide the funds, we do not run the operation. So the operation at Talbot House was run by the board, so they are the ones, when there is a serious issue outside of the organizational review that we have authority to do, that we would ask them to take the next step in the other areas, if there is a serious complaint. That's exactly what we brought to them at the table.

 

They understood, they agreed, they said they wanted to do their own internal review, to see whether the complaints had any backing or were substantial or if there was any evidence with respect to the complaint, from the complainant. So we said that that's the route to take.

 

What happened was they decided that they would ask their executive director to step down for a period of time so they could do their own internal review and they put in a temporary executive director. It was only, I believe, a couple of weeks that the temporary executive director stayed in the position and made a choice to step down. That is actually when we first heard that Talbot House was closing its doors. We got notification that they made the decision because of the fact that their interim executive director stepped down. Now all along, the other thing that we provided the board was, we said in the meantime if you need any support through our staff and Community Services or need extra funding, in terms of having an interim executive director, that we would be there to work that out. We offered that to the board. They made the decision on their own to close Talbot House because their interim executive director stepped down.

 

Now there were opportunities, you know, because we had offered that we would provide extra staff and funding, that if we had known, if they had come back to us and discussed it with us, we would have been able to work something out with them. But, as I said, it was their choice and it is their choice because they are the operators of the recovery house.

 

As I said, we found out only several days before they were closing the door and our first and prime concern, and rightly so, was actually those gentlemen who were receiving services at Talbot House. We wanted to move very quickly to be able to figure out how we could help them. We contacted each and every one of them and talked to them about what would be available to them elsewhere in the province so that they could continue with their recovery and the support they needed.

 

Five gentlemen chose to do that and we placed them in another organization and actually they have done very well. We're very pleased with how quickly we did it and that they knew that we really cared about them. The doors were closing but we weren't going to forget about them and the importance of finding another place they could go to, to get the support they deserved to have.

 

That's how this all actually rolled out, in the sense that it was just as much of a surprise to us that the doors were being closed. We didn't cut any funding, that's what the word was- you cut funding. But if an organization's doors are locked, why would we fund them? They knew that. They closed the door so we ended their funding at the end of March because they closed their doors about mid-March.

 

I would think that if we had continued to write the cheque to keep them going when the door was closed, that we would have the Opposition and the media saying, well why are you paying for an organization that is not providing the service that is supposed to be provided there?

 

As I said, I know there's often mixed messages, in terms of what gets out in the media. I know it's the Opposition's job to hold us to the fire but I guess I have to say that the one thing I find very disappointing is when there is misinformation and even when you stand in the House and correct that information, it continues to come back across the floor, totally switched around from what the facts really were and what the facts are that we provided.

 

I find that the disappointing part of that is that you have individuals' lives who are being affected, it's not just a political game to maybe look good to a few people. We're talking about many people here and I think that's probably what I would express to others, is to consider- is it worth the political gains when you're talking about gentlemen who are going through a terrible time in their lives. In the first place, because they have an addiction and how difficult it is when you have an addiction and you really want to stop drinking, you really want to stop taking drugs and how difficult it is. Often, too, they feel very ashamed of the fact that they can't stop drinking or they've tried and they've done well for a couple of years and then they're back to drinking because something serious has happened in their life and that seems to be the outlet.

 

We must consider that it's not just the gentlemen, it's their families and what they've gone through for years having a family member or a husband who has an addiction issue. How terrible it feels when you're worried about the person, you love them so much but you're angry at them at the same time because if you don't have an addiction, it's like why can't they - all they have to do is stop drinking, all they have to do is stop taking drugs, why aren't they doing that? So if you don't live in that world, it's harder to understand.

 

We also, as I said, have the families who are affected. Then you have the whole entire community who has taken pride in that facility in the community in Cape Breton and have taken pride in that facility for years for what has been done. So as soon as that kind of stuff hits the media and there's a battle back and forth between the government and the organization, you know what does that do to the community and the people in the community who support those members who are on the board, or the people who support the service that has been provided over the years and the history that comes with that.

 

Those are the things that we must consider when we're playing this game in this House. What we want to do, as a department . . .

 

MS. REGAN: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here for half an hour, waiting for the minister to answer a question which she hasn't answered and she just keeps on talking.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Is there a point of order, member?

 

MS. REGAN: Mr. Chairman, this is called Budget Estimates and we asked one simple question about a facility that was formerly funded by the minister. She has taken half an hour to run us through the history. We still don't know what new steps they've taken at Talbot House and we have lots of questions. The minister is so afraid to face the questions about Budget Estimates that she has talked for half an hour on a simple, what was it - could the minister please update us on Talbot House.

 

Instead, the minister stands up there and blithers on for half an hour, with no answer, and we have tons of questions here. The minister knows darn well what she's doing, she's eating up the time that the Opposition, by doing our job - we're doing our job by asking them questions.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, I'm giving an explanation because I want the members opposite to know the facts. I want the members opposite to know the people who are involved, the people who get affected by (Interruptions) Excuse me, rules are rules, I have the same rules as you do, okay? Maybe you need to take them to legislation for change but the rules are the rules.

 

The reason I can answer many budget questions I have had in this House and I have stood here and given facts many times over and for some reason the Opposition chooses not to listen to them. So this that's evening what I'm doing is I want people to understand that this political aspect, or life that we live in within this House doesn't just always stay within this House, it goes further and it affects people and it affects their lives and Talbot House is one of them.

 

I'm very passionate about it because I care about those men who are receiving services there and what this has done to them and the unfortunate - and I care about the people who sit on the board of directors because they have given of their life to make Talbot House work. I've explained also the fact that people can make mistakes and we need to be reviewing what is happening. I think that as a government, that you should be applauding a government that if they receive a complaint, they take the initiative rather than turning their backs because it may be a difficult time when you are talking about people who are very professional, have skills, are well-liked and are well-known in the community.

It would have been easier to turn our back on those gentlemen at the recovery house and on the person who had a concern. Turn our back on Nova Scotians as taxpayers, wanting us to be leaders and responsible in terms of the millions of dollars that we provide to service-providers in a year, out of our budget, that we need to have checks and balances.

 

That's why I'm talking about Talbot House, because it's not, as I said in my comments at the start, it is not just about numbers. It's about people and that's what I want the Opposition to remember. It's about people who are hurting and people who we needed to find an optional service for them within two or three days.

 

As I said, we're looking at how the organization itself functions and that's really important for people to know is the fact that it's how the organization functions. If we're providing money, taxpayers' dollars, first in my mind is, are those individuals receiving the services they deserve? Are the gentlemen going there getting the utmost care and support that they require and also, are the taxpayers getting the best for the monies because money doesn't grow on trees, as we know. We always hear from the Opposition, spend, spend on this but we have to be very strategic and we also have to make sure that the money is being spent in the right area. That means doing organizational reviews to make sure that the dollars are being spent appropriately in our province.

 

With regard to Talbot House itself, we're looking at, as we always do in being very strategic, we're looking at what options are available to us now in the Province of Nova Scotia. We want to know about the service, if there's an opportunity that the board of directors feel that they can come together and they can address the recommendations that we have provided them through the organizational review.

 

I would like to be very restorative in our practices, in our approach, so I'm more than willing to have staff or myself talk with the board members, if that's what they want, but it doesn't resolve the issues when these issues are being played out in the media. That doesn't resolve anything.

 

As I have said here in the House, when you are asking us questions about the knowledge that the board of directors had and how they felt - or those were the Opposition words, that they didn't have any options to how to go forward with the issues that they were facing. I have said in this House that in fact, they did have lots of opportunity to sit with the gentlemen who wrote the letter of complaint. We actually sat down with the gentleman and that's a hard thing for somebody to do. That is very difficult for somebody who has put a complaint in writing, it is very difficult for them to come forward in a public forum. I give great credit also to that person who felt it was serious enough that he would sit down and he would talk to the board of directors. The board of directors had every opportunity to meet with the gentleman who wrote the letter of complaint.

 

Now I have no idea why the board made the choice not to go that route. In fact, I would have thought that they would want that opportunity, so they could have asked many questions, a lot of questions and hard questions, in order to know how to go forward with their own internal organizational review. I would have thought that would have been part of the framework to that because that's exactly what they had told our department that they wanted to do their own organizational review, in terms of that letter of complaint. It wasn't the organizational review that we were doing because we were doing it based on the service agreement and whether they were meeting those standards in the service agreement.

 

They had the other issue of concern that was brought up in the letter of complaint and it was their responsibility, as we had said to them, to go forward and for them to be able to investigate it further. So we said to them, yes, with respect to what you wanted to do, we were there to support you and if you wanted to do your own organizational review, that's what we suggested would be a good thing to do, to do a review.

 

We said to them, and because they had said they didn't have enough information that we had provided at that time. I've heard that in the House, members opposite standing up and saying that they did not have enough, that they felt, or the word was, that the board did not have enough information. So that's why I guess I am quite surprised that when the offer was made by the complainant that they could, indeed, take the opportunity to sit down and have a time with the board, with this gentleman, that they would have been able to discuss it with him and find out a lot of information.

 

One of the things that was missed, was that opportunity to hear it directly from the person who had the concern in the first place. I think, myself, that if I was in that position and somebody had complained about me, I would want to face them and find out exactly what the complaint is about and why do you feel that way to make those complaints. That would have given, I believe, the board much more information to go forward and to design the framework of their organizational review in the manner that they would want to design that review.

 

That's why I'm standing here and explaining it. Maybe I wouldn't be standing here so long explaining it if I wasn't asked so many times over in the House the questions. I gave the facts as they rolled out, and then I am asked them again and again. So for some reason I guess I feel that maybe the members opposite do not understand or they are not hearing me, or something of that manner, that I need to be more clear about it and to re-explain the situation with regard to Talbot House and perhaps what the next steps are.

 

I am not quite sure what they would be, because of the fact that I haven't heard from the board of directors, except for I know that they didn't agree with all the information that was provided in the organizational review, so they refuted some of those. They have the absolute right in a democratic society to do that, so I respect that.

 

It is unfortunate that things like this that are quite serious, of concern and hurt people have to get played out in the media. That's why I'm taking this opportunity, as the rules provide me in this House in budget questions, because it wasn't actually a true budget question about numbers, it was a question about Talbot House and what is going to happen and what our plans are. That's why I think it's important that when I answer the question that I have the opportunity within the rules to stand here and explain about Talbot House and the organization and how long it existed and what the board of directors have been doing over the years, in terms of their work and their commitment but yet it does not mean that it shouldn't be reviewed.

 

As I said, we did that with Braemore, we did it when I came in as Minister for Riverview, because there were issues. They were all sensitive issues with regard to that, too. Because the fact was that once again you had a board of directors made up of municipal councillors but we discovered that some of the governance wasn't being followed. That must tell you, when we've seen this happen before that there is an issue within the way that we're doing business, as a government, to provide funds. Then there's an expectation with the board of directors that they run the organization. If we keep that as a hands-off type of relationship, that's why we run into these problems.

 

One of the things why I am so pro on the service agreements for us to have, as a government, is the fact that those service agreements will identify everyone's role. I think that's really important. I think that is one of the reasons that, not only with Talbot House, but with other organizations that the government dealt with over the years, there have been issues, because there hasn't been a clear description between the government and that organization of the roles. So then people assume certain roles or there are no job descriptions. The board doesn't understand their role, they don't understand what we expect. Maybe we have expectations that may not be as fair as they should be but the way you make them fair is to communicate and to develop that in a contract at the start. That's why we have contracts, to identify that.

 

As I said, I was quite amazed in the fact that in a province as large as we are and the money that we have given out over the years in this province, probably adds up to the billions of dollars and there were no contracts. There was no agreement signed on the dotted line to say that this is your responsibility and this is our responsibility.

 

I'm not saying that it's one-sided either. I think that if we had clearer service agreements and that we had annual reviews of those relationships with the organizations, that we would have better relationships within governments with service providers and there wouldn't be such contentious issues that end up at the end of the day in the media. I think that's a learning lesson here for all of us, not just the board of directors but for us, as a government. That is why, as the Minister for Community Services and all the people and organizations we deal with, I'm very adamant about having good service agreements.

 

I think that with respect to Talbot House that we've gone through a rough period and I hope that it's a lesson to both sides and that we will be able to have more conversation in terms of a restorative approach. It is too bad that it gets caught up in the political world because that kind of keeps the fires going on both sides, to have adverse relationships. Certainly that's not what I want or our department or this government wants. We want to make sure that the relationships with the service providers are good relationships.

 

One of the other things that I think is important about Talbot House, and there's always good things that come out of bad situations and I think we have to be optimistic and look at situations like that in that type of lens because I believe it's important for us to also work with the Department of Health and Wellness and not be in the silos. I know that our government has worked very diligently to get outside of those silos and to look at the fact with regard to recovery houses and the services, how they are complementing each other.

 

So where we have Talbot House and we have Freedom Foundation and the other organizations providing that service, how is that relating to the Department of Health and Wellness and the services that those gentlemen can get during the day when they go to the hospital? Or for Addictions Services, how do we have to coordinate better with the Department of Health and Wellness to know what services they are receiving at the addiction service and is that service actually being complemented at the recovery houses? I think that's an important factor that will come out of this.

 

There are programs that they run directly at the recovery houses and certainly Talbot House would have been one of those. The fact is that how does that work with the Department of Health and Wellness and are there good relationships between the clinicians at addictions services and within our Department of Community Services and the recovery house.

 

I think that this situation has actually opened the door for further discussion. I think it's very important for us to realize that, that when something that may be seen as negative, how we can turn around and made this positive.

 

I believe that at the end of the day what we are going to see is actually a stronger service for recovery houses and for addictions services in Nova Scotia because we do realize that we have to be monitoring what is taking place in the recovery houses. What is taking place within the organization and if the board of directors have the skills, the training and the support from our department, in order to run that facility.

 

So in terms of where we will go with Talbot House, and I know this is a question that we were being asked but they are not listening to it, is the fact that we are looking at all of our options with respect to Talbot House. Whether that means that the board of directors want to come back to the table and talk about the recommendations that we have made to them. We very much understand the importance of the service of the recovery houses in all of the province, including Cape Breton. We know that's an important service and it's a service that we want to support.

 

Now in what format we support that, I don't know because I think this has given us an opportunity to look at the services. That's a good thing, we can't always go on the fact that we've run a business for 56 years, so that means it's being run well and it's the way we want it. I think that it's really important for us to take the opportunity now. That's what I'm saying with regard to Talbot House, I'm sure that our staff and we will, as a department, reach out to the board of directors and ask them what do you want to do next. They are the ones who, as I initially said, actually closed the facility.

 

We don't have the ability or authority to turn around and open that facility. We may have to find another service-provider and open it up in another place. That could be one option. We need to find out, I guess, where the board actually sits and if they have a willingness to go back into the business of having the recovery house. So if that's their wish, I think what is most important to me is to be able to take a restorative approach. To be able to come to the table and go through those recommendations that we've made, to see if we can come to an agreement on those recommendations, to see if those are things that they feel, as a board, that they can provide us with, so we can be really clear on the relationship and what the roles are with regard to the service they provide.

 

If there's not a willingness to do that, then we're going to have to look at other options, because of the fact that we know that having a recovery house in Cape Breton is a very important service to the communities of Cape Breton and to the gentleman and to the family members who have accessed that service. I think that's a point that people need to take away tonight, that we know that service is very important and we are supportive of it and in what format it ends up, I would say I'm not quite sure, because of the fact that I always feel that information and knowledge is power and we always have to be ready to research, study and to look at ourselves, as a department, and to look at the organizations we work with and see where we can improve those services.

 

I think that's very important and Nova Scotians really appreciate the fact of having a government that doesn't want to just say oh well, because this organization has worked and has run this organization for 56 years that everything is running smoothly.

 

MS. REGAN: What was the question - financial?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: In fact, actually I know the member opposite is asking me if it was financial. The question was not financial and I just spent probably 20 minutes in conclusion, answering the actual question that asked but they weren't listening, so I can repeat that part again. That part is that we are looking at what the options are and whether the Board of Directors of Talbot House have an interest in looking at those recommendations and taking those recommendations and working with us to see whether they can meet the recommendations. If there's a willingness, we need to come back to the table and have that discussion.

 

As I said, they were the ones who made the choice, without us. We did not sit around any table with them and make the choice to close Talbot House. They made that choice, so if they want to reopen Talbot House, that is their choice. But we now, because we have done an organizational review and we've identified some issues there, that it's very important for us that we know they will be able to meet those conditions. That's exactly why service agreements are very important, because you can go down the bullet points on your service agreements and cross-reference them to see and make sure that those services are being provided in the manner that everybody is on the same page. That's really important for everybody to be on the same page when a service is being provided.

 

So as I said, Talbot House is a very important service that was provided and that we're still looking at what other opportunities are there but it's really up to the board now to see where they want to go, if they feel that they can have a working relationship with Community Services, as I said earlier, any of these organization . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just like to remind the member that although I wasn't here for the entire presentation that you offered, I know that at this stage you are repeating your comments of earlier and there is a rule against repetition.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: I'm actually explaining . . .

 

MS. REGAN: No, you're not . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'll just remind the member that there is a rule against repetition of the same presentation or material and reference to, as I said before, just as a reminder to the member. Thank you.

 

The honourable Minister of Community Services.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE; Thank you very much, I must have forgotten those other points as I was speaking but we were asked if (Interruptions) I was asked actually the question - see if they want to hear it - I was asked the question with regard to where were we going to go with Talbot House and that's why I know when I was explaining it, I think I repeated it because they were talking and didn't hear. I didn't want them to feel that I wasn't answering it for them.

 

So, as I said, we are looking at hopefully that we can do an assessment, see where we are in terms of what we can provide in services. We want to go forward to have services in Cape Breton. We are going to be looking at the various options that are available to us. We are going to be talking with the Department of Health and Wellness, to also see where it fits in to their strategic plans with addictions services and if we are complementing it with the type of services that we already provide through recovery houses. Do we need to expand them, do we need to have better communication system between the Department of Health and Wellness?

 

So that's what we're looking at. I guess I would repeat that what we're looking is what options are available and how do we go forward with those particular options.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order. The time has elapsed for the Opposition.

 

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

 

MR. KEITH BAIN: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'm just wondering how much time I have.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: About 15 minutes.

 

MR. BAIN: Okay, thank you, Madam Chairman. I am not going to talk about Talbot House this evening because of the shortage of time. I'm sure that over the next while we'll have at least 12 hours after this evening . . .

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have 21 minutes, sorry.

 

MR. BAIN: Okay, still not enough time to talk about Talbot House because I'm scared the minister might forget what she said again and start repeating it.

 

I want to get to some line items, Madam Chairman, if I could. I think that's what the honourable member, when she initially asked her question, was going to try and get into, so I'm going to give it a try anyway.

 

The first one is concerning senior management, Section 5(4). The overall budget of the department shows a significant decrease yet the office of the minister and deputy minister has gone up. My question through you, Madam Chairman, is why does the minister's office warrant a budget increase when the department doesn't?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Thank you for the question. The increase is approximately around $10,000 and that's because of wage and salary increases.

 

MR. BAIN: Communications budget has increased by $20,000, I guess. Why is more spin needed?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That is a result of two things - one would be with respect to also salary, wage increases and the other is an increase in costs through CNS.

 

MR. BAIN: So that means the department is not necessarily doing more communicating; it's just the increase in salaries and the increase of costs that CNS charges to do communicating?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The increase with respect to CNS is approximately $5,000 and that is on about a $450,000 budget so it's only an increase around $5,000.

 

MR. BAIN: I need some clarification, if I could. You just said it's an increase of $5,000 of a $450,000 budget? I'd like the minister to explain that please.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The previous years, the budget was $446,000 so if you add on the extra dollars you're speaking of - so it's around a $10,000 increase, but $5,000 of that is communications.

MR. BAIN: I'm puzzled. Is the minister saying that the communications budget for the Department of Community Services is almost half a million dollars?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The total amount is for 51 and that would be a similar amount going back several years, including when your Party was in government.

 

MR. BAIN: Maybe we can spend the rest of the time tonight for the minister to explain what communicating is being done for half a million dollars.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Well as the member opposite would know, all departments have a communications budget and that communications, as we said, included salaries, so that would be our team that we have on board. I'm sure he is aware of the things that a communications division would do and that's such things as speeches; in terms of media relations; advertising; sensitive correspondence; the media work that they do. In fact, I have to tell you that as somebody who comes from a communications profession, myself, I was actually very surprised with the lack of budget dollars within the department for communications and developing communication strategies that would be supported with such things as literature and brochures. I know there is always a fine line where people think that you're spending too much money or should you be spending money on promotion or marketing, but how do people become aware of the programs that you are doing and supporting?

 

I'm sure yourself when you were in government, when you were out in your constituencies, people would say, well I didn't know that or I didn't know you did this or you did that. It can always be quite a challenge to get information out to the public and get them to understand it. In the communications world, it's always said that you have to at least repeat something 15 times for the first time for somebody to kind of realize that they're giving you a message. Also in today's world with so much information and technology, we're inundated every day with thousands and thousands of pieces of information to try to take in.

 

So I have to actually say that, you know, the budget we're talking about is including the staff complement and their salaries. There's actually not a whole lot that sits there, if any, in terms of providing you with the dollars to be able to develop a communication strategy and support it with the literature or the radio or TV advertising that you need. I think that it is important that there is a balance in government that people advocate a little bit more in supporting your ability to promote in terms of, not the political promotion but the actual, I guess a better word than promote is the word awareness. To create an awareness within the public of what you're doing for them so they will take up the programs that you're offering and that they have more of an awareness of what you're doing as a department.

 

MR. BAIN: I think just one correction, I believe the minister initially said the communications budget went up by $10,000 - I think it was actually $20,000 that it went up, I think it was actually $20,000.

When we're talking a budget of that size of over $450,000, I wonder if I could through you to the minister request a line by line breakdown of the communications budget?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually I stand to be corrected because it's only a $5,000 increase. It went from $446,000 to $451,000 in the budget. As I said, the majority of that you're going to find is actually salaries and we certainly do not mind at all to provide you with those line to line amounts. So we can provide that. I don't have it with us tonight but we certainly will provide that, yes, staff will provide that to you tomorrow.

 

MR. BAIN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, minister, for doing that, I look forward to seeing it.

 

Under Section 5(2), the departmental expenses summary, and under departmental expenses by object, the expenses chargeable to other departments was nearly $10 million and I'm just wondering if the minister could explain what was charged to other departments?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: We can certainly provide you with a detailed listing but what you will find is that there are two major areas and that would be services such as health, there may be staffing services that we have provided, and wage increments with respect to the restructuring.

 

MR. BAIN: I'm just wondering if the minister could say what services she predicts will be charged this year, would they be the same services or are there additional ones that might be coming forward?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: You will find that they're similar from year to year over the last number of years.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, they're short snappers, nothing like the last one I guess. I'd like to now go to Section 5(5), Field Offices and we notice there's a sharp increase in the estimated FTEs needed in field offices. This is a two-fold question to the minister, what is the cost of these additional FTEs and what roles will they be playing as far as the field offices are concerned?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What we did in those areas was that we moved staff to other areas, so like financial clerks we moved those individuals out into the field office so you will see the increase in the FTEs because of that.

 

MR. BAIN: Is there no additional cost as a result of this?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: No, they're actually just movements between the different sections so you actually see offset lower in other areas because we've moved those staff people out and put them in the field areas. Then you'll see the increase there, but lower in other areas in the department.

 

MR. BAIN: Section 5(4), the Corporate Services Unit - this year's estimate shows a need for 10.4 additional FTEs than were shown in the forecast. Where will these FTEs be allocated and are they also somebody who was shifted around as were the field offices people? I'll ask that question first.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Actually under Corporate Services, it's a reduction of 18.

 

MR. BAIN: I thought the estimates showed a need for 10.4 additional ones. That's what my figures are showing. Maybe you could check further into that - a need for 10.4 additional FTEs.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: In fact, it is actually a reduction of 18, but we can provide you with our actual print-outs that we have here so you can see it's a reduction of 18 FTEs.

 

MR. BAIN: Section 5(5), Policy and Information Management - it's noted that the administration costs are growing quite substantially in Policy and Information Management. Why is the growth in administration out-pacing other elements of Policy and Information Management?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: What it's reflecting is actual legal fees from the Department of Justice because it was actually within the Department of Justice before and so now we're responsible for those fees.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, under Section 5(6), the services for persons with disabilities, it shows that the head office and administration growth is leading the way here, too. So I guess my question to the minister would be why?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: That amount is reflective of the fact that previously there were positions within SPD that were not filled and now all the vacancies are filled and so that's why you're seeing that increased amount.

 

MR. BAIN: So there are no additions - it's just the jobs have been filled? Okay. What is the exact cost of this then? If those jobs have now been filled, what is the cost of having those jobs filled?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: The budget increase to have those filled is $171,000.

 

MR. BAIN: I'm going to jump into something that I think we've been asking a few of the departments previously. It's interesting to get some of the responses so I guess my question would be concerning credit cards within the department. I wonder if the minister could provide us with a number of credit cards that are government credit cards - be they gas cards, fleet cards or whatever - within the department and what the cost of that would be.

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Certainly we can offer that information. I can tell you there are very few within our department of fleet cards or card cards, but we can provide you tomorrow with that information.

 

MR. BAIN: Madam Chairman, if the minister could do that it would be greatly appreciated. Section 5(7), Family and Children's Services - here the department has decided there will be a need for 33.9 additional FTEs in this year's estimate, yet the overall funding for programs and services has decreased. I think I'm correct in saying that. There's 33.9 additional FTEs - the overall funding for programs and services has decreased - so I guess my question is, why the need for additional FTEs?

 

MS. PETERSON-RAFUSE: Those increases are actually for the new facility that will be opening - the Wood St. facility in Truro - which of course needs to be staffed. That's something that we're actually pleased to have in the Province of Nova Scotia because we do not have that service available to youth and those are the youth that are sometimes very difficult to place, to find help for them. What we've had to do - and what your previous government has had to do - is send them out of province to very expensive options there. This is actually a good thing and will in turn, in the long run, mean better services and results for the youth plus savings in dollars from not sending them out to very costly facilities outside of Nova Scotia.

 

MR. BAIN: I don't think I'll even ask a question with eight seconds remaining.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time allotted for the Committee of the Whole House on Supply has elapsed. The honourable Government House Leader.

 

HON. FRANK CORBETT: Madam Chairman, I move that you now do rise and the committee report progress.

 

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried. The Committee of the Whole House on Supply will now rise and report progress to the House.

 

[The committee adjourned at 8:39 p.m.]