MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Subcommittee on Supply is reconvened and will be looking at the estimates of the honourable Premier, the Executive Council. We have one hour left in our time. I believe there has been agreement from the two caucuses to split the time and we will start with the Liberal caucus.
Resolution E20 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $185,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the FOIPOP Review Office, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton North.
MR. RUSSELL MACLELLAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the Premier and his advisers this morning. First of all, I would just like to, as an opener, ask the Premier how many staff does he have at the present time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Premier.
HON. JOHN HAMM (The Premier): Mr. Chairman, for the record, on my right I have my deputy minister, Dr. Patricia Ripley; on my left, Mr. Dale Robbins of the Speaker's Office. The question is about the Premier's Office?
MR. MACLELLAN: Yes.
THE PREMIER: We have 10 employees in the Premier's Office and two on secondment from two other departments.
MR. MACLELLAN: Who would they be?
THE PREMIER: The Director of Communications, Jim Vibert and Communications Assistant, Lorraine MacCormac. They are both from Communications Nova Scotia.
MR. MACLELLAN: Is there anybody else from Communications Nova Scotia in the Premier's Office? (Interruption) The answer is no. Is there anyone from Communications Nova Scotia in what is now Priorities and Planning?
THE PREMIER: That is not my particular responsibility, but I understand there would be three in that department, but I don't have their staffing in front of me.
MR. MACLELLAN: You don't know, you would not be able to tell us who . . .
THE PREMIER: I believe it is three.
MR. MACLELLAN: Would the Premier's Office have access to those three people if need be?
THE PREMIER: The member would know that the Premier's Office has access to resource people within every department.
MR. MACLELLAN: Is Jennifer MacIsaac one of the three?
THE PREMIER: My information is that the arrangement with Jennifer MacIsaac is similar to the arrangement with the previous government. She is on contract.
MR. MACLELLAN: What is she on contract to do?
THE PREMIER: Again, you are asking questions of a department for which I am not responsible.
MR. MACLELLAN: Let me put it this way. I have a release here from Sydney Steel Corporation which states as the contact, Jennifer MacIsaac, Sydney Steel Corporation, but the number, of course, is the Bristol Group. Has she been retained by Sydney Steel to do communications work for the sale of the company or assets?
THE PREMIER: It is my understanding that she has been retained by the board.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. MACLELLAN: This was a decision of the board?
THE PREMIER: I would presume so but, again, the member is asking questions regarding departments for which I am not directly responsible.
MR. MACLELLAN: Is she on contract to do anything else that the Premier knows about or is it just Sydney Steel Corporation?
THE PREMIER: It is my understanding that the contract which she had relative to budget matters is over and the only contract of which I have knowledge is the one that she has with the board at present.
MR. MACLELLAN: But the Premier does not know for sure?
THE PREMIER: Well, again, it is not my budget and those would be questions perhaps that should have been put to the appropriate minister when he was before the committee.
MR. MACLELLAN: On Ernst &Young's releases on Sydney Steel Corporation, for further contact it says Peter Halpin and that is a CCL number. Is Mr. Halpin someone who was requested by the government to do communications work on Sydney Steel for Ernst & Young?
THE PREMIER: I would have to research that matter. Again, the member is asking questions that should have been put to the minister responsible when he was before the committee, but if the member opposite is anxious, I will attempt to get the information from the appropriate minister.
MR. MACLELLAN: Now, I want to go to the document, The Course Ahead, and we see there a reorganization in what is now Priorities and Planning. Has that reorganization begun and if it has not, when will it begin?
THE PREMIER: The whole reorganization of government in realigning the structure that actually delivers service in the province has been outlined in broad strokes and preliminary work for P & P has begun, but the actual work of that will begin in earnest after the House rises. It is our intention to utilize the time between sittings of the House, this spring sitting and the fall sitting, to work in earnest to have that reorganization occur.
MR. MACLELLAN: I notice that the funding for P & P has been increased by $319,000. Could the Premier, Mr. Chairman, tell us what that is for?
THE PREMIER: Again, that is a question that should be put to the minister in charge of P & P. If it is the intention of the member opposite to go into the details of that budget, I would suggest that he call to the committee the minister responsible for P & P.
MR. MACLELLAN: Let me put it another way to the Premier. In The Course Ahead, which is a government document of which the Premier would be knowledgeable, it says on the new Treasury and Policy Board that it will include the current Priorities and Planning Secretariat and, as well, the Human Resources Policy Division from the Department of Human Resources. What does that mean? What is he talking about when he says the Human Resources Policy Division?
THE PREMIER: What that means is that the HR responsibility regarding corporate decisions on hiring, training, occupational health and accessibility, all of those decisions would move into the Treasury and Policy Board and perhaps I could venture an opinion that the new responsibilities would be one of the reasons why, in fact, that budget item is increased because it is taking from another department's responsibilities and it would also take along that portion of the budget that in other years had been part and parcel of the budget of HR.
MR. MACLELLAN: The Premier has said, Mr. Chairman, that the new Treasury and Policy Board will have responsibility for staffing. Does that mean that senior staffing with the government, in the Civil Service, has to be approved by the new Treasury and Policy Board?
THE PREMIER: My answer to that would be that what we are talking about is an organization that will define staffing policy and as well would have a responsibility to ensure that all staffing is within the budgetary limits that every department is being asked to work within. So what you are going to see is a Treasury and Policy Board that, in fact, has control over government expenditures. Part of that control will be controlling the hiring policies of the various departments so that government will, in fact, be more accountable in that it will have more control over hiring policies which, as the member opposite would no doubt concede, has a great deal to do with being able to align oneself within the lines of the budget over the 12 month period of any fiscal year.
MR. MACLELLAN: Yes, but I would suggest to the Premier that under the present situation with Priorities and Planning, that Human Resources does hiring as a separate department and it is not reviewed by Priorities and Planning. Now you have a review and essentially an approval practice at this new Treasury and Policy Board level. So in effect, the Treasury and Policy Board will have to okay the hirings of senior civil servants.
THE PREMIER: The member's question implies that he has a misunderstanding as to what is going on. We are talking about policy, not individual hiring. So what we are talking about is the hiring practice and the parameters under which people are hired. The Treasury and Policy Board will not dictate individual hiring decisions.
MR. MACLELLAN: But if the parameters are such that only certain people can be hired, doesn't that in fact help to dictate who will be hired?
THE PREMIER: Other than putting out the parameters, I don't think one could come to the conclusion that in fact that is allowing the Treasury and Policy Board to in fact make an individual decision as to who will be hired. There is a proper process that will be followed in making those determinations and it won't be carried out by this particular arm of government.
MR. MACLELLAN: How will it be carried out, as you understand it?
THE PREMIER: It would be carried out using the same parameters that have been used before. We are advocates of the fair hiring policy and we are not going to be backing away from that particular commitment.
MR. MACLELLAN: Who is going to be doing that?
THE PREMIER: That will be carried out, as in the past, by the corporate service units that have been performing this function up until now but there will be a difference in that all the corporate service units will be reporting to one minister. (Interruption) When the restructuring is complete, yes.
MR. MACLELLAN: So all the hiring is now under the responsibility of one minister?
THE PREMIER: Not now but will be.
MR. MACLELLAN: Which minister is that?
THE PREMIER: That will be the Minister of Transportation and Public Works.
MR. MACLELLAN: Who is the same person who is going to be the head of the Treasury and Policy Board?
THE PREMIER: The member opposite is making a jump ahead and making an assumption which really has no basis in fact at this point.
MR. MACLELLAN: What I am saying, and the Premier will agree, Mr. Chairman, is that the Chairman of the Priorities and Planning Secretariat right now is Ron Russell who is also Minister of Transportation and Public Works. If this minister is in charge of hiring in his new capacity through the Minister of Transportation and Public Works - and presumably he will be the minister responsible for the Treasury and Policy Board - essentially all of the hiring is within one minister. Now whether you look at it through Public Works or Treasury and Policy Board, one minister has that decision-making capacity and whether he wears one hat or the other, there is going to be that minister who can discuss all of the hiring at the Treasury and Policy Board and be able to give any information at that level that would be available. Is that correct?
THE PREMIER: That would be correct if, in fact, the presumption that you had in your statement comes to fruition. On the other hand, there is a total reorganization going on in the way that we are going to be administering government. I don't think it should come as a shock to anybody who was paying attention to what it is we were talking about; we talked about smaller government and we talked about being able to deliver government services with fewer people. Any of the information that has come to my attention since 1993 has not provided me with any other answer but that kind of an answer to the financial woes that the province finds itself in. The whole issue of how we are going to provide service, I think is integral to us being able to deliver our mandate, and our mandate is very clear in terms of where we want to be fiscally year after year.
I think it is inaccurate to make a lot of presumptions and assume that people will end up in the same slots after reorganization, the same slots that they find themselves in today. Obviously there are going to be some changes made and as we go through the process of moving responsibilities, obviously that has a budgetary impact and you correctly pointed out that the Treasury and Policy Board will have a bigger budget. On the other hand, they are actually taking on board parts of budgets of other departments. So there is a logical explanation for all of this and what it is we are doing. It is a very complicated process but I think it is one that is overdue. We have had changes in the alignments of government departments in the past but in reality still holding onto that traditional structure that has developed over many years in this province.
I am looking forward, with a great deal of excitement, in terms of providing a restructured government that in fact makes more sense relevant to what it is that we are doing today as government and what it is we should be doing as government, and providing those services in a way that allows us to be more cost effective. It is a huge undertaking and one that is going to require a lot of input, and you have some information in the document to which you refer in terms of how we are going about doing that with committees and so on.
We have outlined the structure that will carry out this process and we have indicated where we will end up in this process. There are a lot of steps in between, obviously, that will require the input of a lot of persons within government. The one thing that one becomes aware of when you cross the floor to government, is that we have a tremendous number of talented people working in the public sector. Many of them don't receive the credit which they obviously deserve. I am always impressed with senior management people and people in not so senior management positions who, when the task requires it, are there and perform above and beyond the call of duty.
MR. MACLELLAN: On a point of order. I appreciate what the Premier is saying, Mr. Chairman, but I only have half an hour.
THE PREMIER: I will try to keep my answers briefer.
MR. MACLELLAN: I know what he is saying and I agree with the calibre of the civil servants. They are excellent and that is why it bothers me if, in fact, they are downgraded, Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you. I want to tell the Premier, and just so I can get this in and he can comment on it, in fairness to him, what I do see is a very serious lack of an arm's length relationship between what he says is a separate responsibility for staffing and policy decisions on staffing, and the actual hiring itself. I don't see that. I see, frankly, a very inviting situation which will lead to patronage in the senior Civil Service here. I say that with due respect to the Premier and that may not be his intention, but I see that.
There is this connection which worries me and we, as a Party, really suffered quite a price with our own people in getting rid of patronage in government and we suffered a very serious price. Now I see the possibility of it coming back at a very high level in government and I want to ask the Premier about that and I would like his comments, quite frankly, on that.
THE PREMIER: I have noted the member's concern and he does understand fully, as members of this government understand, that there has to be a separation of certain functions so that, in fact, there is not a centralization of too much power in any one person. I think it is fair to point out that the Treasury Board function in terms of hiring is very distinct from what will be transferred to Transportation and Public Works because on one hand it is the actual implementation of a policy and the other case, the Treasury Board case, it is the policy that we will follow for hiring.
The other thing I want to just get on the record as well, Treasury Board is assuming a function that heretofore had been in the Department of Finance and that is the regulator monitoring of departments' budgets. This has been a thorn in the side of successive governments in this province in that government department overspending has gone on and very often would come to the attention of the monitoring agency, which happened to be the Department of Finance, far too late.
What we are doing through Treasury Board is taking over that function and rather than quarterly reporting, or in some cases less frequent than that, we are going to have monthly reporting to Treasury Board by all departments to ensure that budgetary objectives in fact are met. I believe, and I am not saying this critically because it was a problem for successive governments, but having government departments, in fact, once they have established their budgets, living within those budgets. It is our intention in the process of this reorganization to have a process in place that allows a central body, which in this case will be Treasury Board, to keep an eye on government spending by department.
MR. MACLELLAN: With respect, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, there are ways of dealing with departmental expenditures without this procedure being set up and I, frankly, don't see how this procedure is going to help in that regard. I don't see where this relates to controlling departmental expenditures at all. I look at The Course Ahead and we see a statement of how is it different, how is the Treasury and Policy Board going to be different from the Priorities & Planning Secretariat and the first bullet is, will hold departments accountable for staffing and spending decisions.
To me, staffing decisions, who the members of the staff are going to be, and I see no other way of interpreting that, quite frankly. You will have the same minister and that minister as chairman of Priorities & Planning and where you are going to have intimate and confidential information on people who are going to be coming into government, I see frankly no arm's length at all between the policy on hiring and who, in fact, is hired. Maybe the Premier can give me more information, but I just don't see it.
THE PREMIER: I think it is fair to point out that we are the only jurisdiction in the country that does not have this kind of a function carried out by Treasury Board. I don't think anybody could mount a strong argument that the ability to live within budgetary estimates in this province has been not a strong ability. We have year after year ended up with surprises. We are simply going down a road that others have travelled before us and while the member opposite may have some philosophical difference in this move, I believe it is certainly a move upward. Whether or not it ultimately turns out to be the ideal solution remains to be seen, but I am firmly convinced it will be a much better system than we have in place at present.
MR. MACLELLAN: I will agree, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier does not want to see surprises and I think one of those surprises that he does not want to see is people appointed to senior levels of the Civil Service who may not be in hand and glove with the government. That is the whole basis of my concern and I still have not heard from the government and from the Premier ways that they will develop that arm's length transaction. So I must say I leave with a great deal of trepidation and concern about where this is going. Maybe the Premier can give me some solace for my agitation.
THE PREMIER: I can say to the member opposite the solace will come over the summer when he sees this starting to unfold.
MR. MACLELLAN: After the House is closed, yes.
THE PREMIER: We have been kept fairly busy since the House has sat and I don't think the member opposite is serious when he would suggest that government would have the time during a sitting of the House to initiate this massive reform of government structure.
MR. MACLELLAN: I am not asking for the whole review, Mr. Chairman, I am just asking for one, little, itsy-bitsy clarification and arm's length relationship in a very sensitive area which we, as a Party, want to see maintained, quite frankly. How much time do I have?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.
MR. MACLELLAN: Just on a couple of points before I go, on Intergovernmental Affairs, I want to tell the Premier that I agree with his bolstering of Intergovernmental Affairs and I wonder if he has any ideas as to how that is going to, in fact, take place? There are how many new, a doubling of the staff, is that correct?
THE PREMIER: Yes.
MR. MACLELLAN: Does he have any structure as to how that will work?
THE PREMIER: Yes. Again, first of all, it was a difficult decision to make in terms of what we found were necessary changes in the budgets of key government departments to suggest that any government department would have such a massive increase in funding that we are suggesting for IGA. What I have discovered coming into government is that our applications, our presentations, our approaches to Ottawa have not been as strong as other provinces. Other provinces it would appear send, if not weekly, fortnightly, delegations to Ottawa to access various programs that Ottawa has.
We are getting messages out of Ottawa that they are looking for innovative ways to fund projects in provinces through various programs that they are making available. We can only access those if, in fact, we have an organization that is strong and is able, first of all, to put together reasonable presentations and, as well, has the time to do the appropriate, and I hate to use the word, lobbying but, in fact, that is what provincial governments have to do in Ottawa, is lobby, and we are simply putting together a structure I think that will allow us to take better advantage of programs available in Ottawa.
MR. MACLELLAN: I would caution the Premier, having been in the same position, that Ottawa will find a reason sometimes for not doing something that you may want them to do and blaming Intergovernmental Affairs and proper procedure is one of them, but I would say to the Premier once again before I leave, that he has, as he says, figured out and structured what he wants to do in Intergovernmental Affairs, I would say it should be even easier to figure out what he wants to do with respect to hiring practices and human resources and the new Treasury and Policy Board and that that should be the priority, quite frankly.
I would hope that even before the House adjourns that he will be able to tell us exactly how he intends to maintain that arm's length transaction and how he can assure us that there is not going to be blatant patronage in the Civil Service because I am very concerned about that and, Mr. Chairman, nothing the Premier has said today has alleviated that concern. In
fact, after having asked him and not receiving the answers that would calm my nerves on this question, I am probably more apprehensive than before. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time allotted for the Liberal caucus has expired. We will carry on with the questioning from the NDP caucus.
The honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party, you may begin. You have approximately 29 minutes, and I require 1 minute to wrap up with the resolution voting.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Premier, I wanted to list a few items here. We began yesterday, and I will be pretty upfront with you, you are making quite a bit out of sharpening your pencil and going through programs and trying to save money here, there and everywhere. We have seen lots of examples of it, and we are still ferreting out others. It has come to our attention, some invoices - I presented you with two yesterday - for the coaching of deputy ministers. I am going to go through a few of these things, and then maybe ask you to respond to a group of them.
The first couple I have here are for professional fees relating to deputy ministers. I will be happy to table these for the committee. One is for the Deputy Minister of Education for the Province of Nova Scotia. It says first instalment, $15,000; out-of-pocket advertising expenses, $11,700; for a total with tax, $29,000. Another one here, for the recruitment of the deputy minister, first instalment, $13,500; out-of-pocket advertising expenses partial billing, $4,500; with tax, a total of $20,000. I was going to ask you a little bit about these. Maybe you could explain them.
One that isn't here - these are from November 26th - maybe it is just hiding somewhere, is the one for the Deputy Minister of Health. When you think about hiring somebody locally, the Deputy Minister for Tourism, locally it cost $20,000; the deputy minister from New Brunswick, who fulfilled the job on a part-time basis for awhile, $29,000; my God, what must be the cost of recruiting the deputy we got from British Columbia. I would like you to comment on those things in a moment, if I may.
We also have an invoice here from Atlantic A Priority, it's purpose, time and priority management for Cabinet, dated September 21, 1999, for $4,500. Maybe you could let us know about that.
THE PREMIER: Could we get quick copies, it would be much easier if I had those in front of me.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Sure, here you go. Maybe we will leave them with the committee when we are through.
We have the bill for RDI, the Tory research firm, $15,000. I would ask you to comment on that. What else do I have here? I think that might be about it for now.
Again, I just want to ask you if you would please explain what type of coaching these deputies got, and whether other deputies got coaching? Did your deputy get any coaching? Did any of the other deputies get any coaching of this sort? What is it all about? I know Bernie Smith has been a deputy for at least one year, in fact I believe he was let go soon after he was coached. Maybe that is what happened, he received transition coaching or something, I don't know. I guess I would like to know the purpose of the coaching. Peg MacInnes has been a deputy for a year or thereabouts, I think, Aboriginal Affairs. Could you explain the coaching, and maybe tell us whether any of the other deputies have received any coaching? How about if I give you a chance to respond to those few questions.
[10:30 a.m.]
THE PREMIER: You are going to have to lead me through the questions, you asked quite a number. I will try to answer them.
The first one was on the top of the pile you handed over, Priorities and Planning Secretariat. It was the workshop that was held in September. It was an orientation for Cabinet Ministers. As the member opposite is aware, our Cabinet, being smaller, individual Cabinet Ministers do have heavy workloads, and this was a session to allow the new Cabinet Ministers information in terms of how to priorize their time, how to organize their workday in terms of making maximum use of the hours available in providing the services that they provide to the province by way of performing their Cabinet duties. It was an orientation for Cabinet to allow them to better address effectively the challenges that we were putting before them.
As you know, when people get elected, they don't necessarily fit perfectly into the jobs that are required when they become members of government. Not all of us, certainly including myself, have all of the skills required to perform the tasks in the positions in which we sometimes find ourselves.
There is another one here, Thompson and Associates. I did have some questions earlier about the selection process of how we come up with the best person to run a government department. What you have presented here is a bill by Thompson Associates, and this had to do with going out and recruiting all of those persons who would be interested in becoming Deputy Minister of Tourism. It was our intention, each and every step of the way, when we are filling those top management posts, that we access all of the best people that we can, who would be interested in the position. Those fees are relative to the search process. As the honourable Leader of the NDP pointed out, it ended up being that the interim deputy was the most qualified of all of those who applied to handle the position.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Premier, excuse me, if I may, does first instalment on those invoices indicate that there is more to this bill?
THE PREMIER: What this may not include would be some travel expenses that were incurred by the recruiter that may not have been available, and they would be paid on the basis of invoices. We can provide that.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: That would be great.
THE PREMIER: They like to get their bills out early.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Sure, I understand.
THE PREMIER: The next one you presented, again, is one from Thompson Associates for $29,000. This is relative to the recruitment process for the Deputy Minister of Education. Again, we understood the tremendous challenge that would face any deputy minister running a department of that size, and we were determined that, in fact, we would search the market place for the best person available. What you have before you is the invoice relative to that process. As you correctly pointed out, the new deputy minister did come from New Brunswick.
Without this process, we would not necessarily have, perhaps, attracted the quality of persons that did apply to be the Deputy Minister of Education, and it would be very unlikely, for example, without this process that the incumbent would have, in fact, been recruited. I think it is fair to point out that in that process, 11 interviews were conducted, so there was a very healthy competition for that particular position.
I have run out of invoices, unless you can provide me with some more.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I am curious about the Deputy Minister of Health. What does that cost?
THE PREMIER: We can provide those numbers if you don't have them.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: The other question I had asked was further explanation on the coaching question. Are deputies not up to scratch? Do you try to beef them up a little? Is this media training? Do all the deputies get this coaching?
THE PREMIER: To begin my answer, since August, there have been at least three professional development sessions for deputies as a group so not only were these kinds of professional support opportunities provided individually, they were also provided as a group. We had a number of sessions with presentations that involved a form of specialized training . . .
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: How much did those cost?
THE PREMIER: . . . that talked facilitation, mediation skills and so on. It was pointed out to us as the new government that we are the only province, the only jurisdiction, where there were not mandatory professional development opportunities for senior management people. In essence, we are not doing anything new. As a matter of fact, we are playing catch-up.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Would you give us an indication on what you have spent on professional development. I guess coaching is part of it and you have mentioned several professional development sessions with the deputies as a group? I don't think most people would argue that senior staff, all staff in fact, require an investment in their professional capabilities. I think some civil servants might kind of get the sense you are spending a lot of money and giving a lot of attention to the senior folks and cranking up their salaries while you are putting a bit of a pounding on the folks at a lower level.
THE PREMIER: A lot of the group professional development sessions were actually done in-house. There wasn't a great cost involved in it. What we simply did is took those with particular strengths in an area and utilized in-house persons to provide the sessions. We can provide you with any out-of-house expenses. I can assure you that they were not substantial.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I would appreciate that.
THE PREMIER: What we are simply trying to do is make sure that those who are running departments - because it is a huge responsibility to run a government department - have all the opportunities to acquire all of the skills. I am using the words all of the skills that are required. I believe this was a worthwhile expenditure of public funds. The member for Halifax Atlantic can make his own decision once he sees the numbers.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Premier. Do you want to tell us how many staff report to you? I understand that one of your deputies, Karen Oldfield came into the position that Tom Hayes had before and got a pretty significant raise, went right to the top of the scale. I wondered if you could give us an indication of what the basis was of that raise? Again the number of staff that report to you, if you would give us an indication of that.
THE PREMIER: First of all, I would like to point out that the costs of my office are smaller than the costs of the previous administration. What had happened, when the previous chief of staff came on, between that time and the time when we were negotiating to take people on, there had been actually an increase in funding that was available to deputies, so there was a jump in remuneration levels. The basis of my chief of staff's remuneration was the result of a negotiation and the number that you see reflects the results of that negotiation. It is very much in line with the increase that was available to deputies, and the broader Public
Service that it was made available from the time the previous chief of staff had his salary negotiated and the time we negotiated with my chief of staff.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: So all deputies got a raise?
THE PREMIER: Yes. In the collective agreement . . .
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I heard what your deputy said, and I think she said that deputies got the raise that other civil servants got, so was it 2 per cent?
THE PREMIER: What we are saying is there was an increase in funding, yes. Bearing in mind, those who come into the Premier's office come in under much different circumstances than somebody that comes into the Civil Service.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: There was a chief of staff there who was doing the same job.
THE PREMIER: Yes.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Your new chief of staff went right to the top of the scale.
THE PREMIER: I think it is fair to point out, though, that even when deputies come on board, the qualifications which they bring into their position has a bearing as to what their entry salary is.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: So you are suggesting that Karen Oldfield was better qualified or had more qualifications than Tom Hayes did.
THE PREMIER: I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that the process of bringing on my chief of staff, because I had nothing to do with it, and I am not really aware of the qualifications of my chief of staff's predecessor. What I am aware of are the qualifications of my chief of staff, and I believe she is being fairly remunerated.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: You said that most new deputies when they come on get an increase. Well, they certainly have under your government. The cost for the deputies has gone through the roof. Do we expect to see that continue as deputies change? I asked you that question yesterday whether you set a new scale or let's say the Deputy Minister of Economic Development were to leave tomorrow, or you decide that it is time, will you just negotiate it? Will she or he be, will you just negotiate it on the spot, or have you set a scale. There used to be a scale, right? In fact I believe there still is a scale that you have kind of blown the roof out of.
THE PREMIER: The current scale in place takes deputies to $104,000. The reality of the world is that when we went out looking for people in Health for example, when we went out looking for people in Education, we found that the level of persons we needed to fill those were already working at salary scales that are in excess of $104,000. We believed it was a good investment for the province to get the proper people in those lead positions, and felt we had to meet the demands of the market place to ensure that the person or persons we identified as being best for the job, in fact, would be made available to the province. That could only be done by negotiation with that person and it had to reflect in some way the kinds of remuneration they were getting in their current positions in order to allow them to make the move to Nova Scotia. It is market place driven.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Sure. Some have been somewhat critical of this attitude, because it seems only to apply to the most senior or the Civil Service, and not to anybody else. There seems to be quite a contradiction in your approach to remunerating people in the Public Service. The people who are around you, the people who are heading up these departments, you figure they are worth $100,000-plus, yet the people that are toiling now in the Public Service are being laid off, are being asked to do more with less, and on and on it goes. It is a contradiction that I think many people have some considerable trouble with and understandably I think.
THE PREMIER: Maybe I could answer that by saying that I believe this government has delivered a very significant message. We didn't freeze wages, we didn't roll back wages, we didn't give unpaid holidays. We have said to the public sector, yes, within the constraints of the provincial finances, we will negotiate through the collective bargaining process, a process that I support and I know the member opposite supports, and we will negotiate a fair wage settlement. We have done that. I think we have signalled that we are under some significant constraints, but we are prepared to be fair to public sector workers.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Well, I would disagree. I think the signal you have sent to people in education and health care and in the immediate Public Service is that they had better hang onto their hats. As your cuts shake down, as your reorganization takes place, people are going to be cast aside left, right and centre.
My time is short but I do want to move on to a couple of other things. One is, you have made some considerable to-do over program review. And yet, here we are well into your first year and you have not told anybody - we have tried through freedom of information to get on the program review to get a list of the programs; a list, the 1,200-odd list and you won't even give us the list through freedom of information. The FOI officer was meeting with your officials yesterday to try to sort that mess out. We have tried to get a list of classification on the basis of which the review was conducted. Nothing. You won't give us anything on that. Why won't you tell us what you are doing? Give us an indication of what the program review is all about. I think one of the explanations has been that employees have to be notified first. Surely, employees have been notified. Why can't you make that information available? You
have made such a fuss about it and you have created such concern and anxiety within the Public Service, Nova Scotians need to know.
THE PREMIER: First of all, may I suggest that the member for Halifax Atlantic made a great to-do that elected officials not interfere with freedom of information applications. Now you are suggesting that I do exactly what you initially said we shouldn't do and simply start saying when an application comes in, do it.
The member opposite would probably . . .
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: You could send a direction pretty clearly to your staff that when requests for information on things like this are presented - I mean, the freedom of information officer said that information should be made available. Yet, there is a lot of work going on to try to hide that information. You been asked several times across the way to present that information and you continually refuse to do so. What are you hiding?
THE PREMIER: I have indicated that you will have that information. It is a huge volume of information and we are prepared to provide it. But, getting back to the freedom of information, either we are going to have a hands-off freedom of information process or we are not. You can't have it both ways - it is either we stay out of the process or we are in the process. It has to be one way or the other.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Well, why don't you just provide the information? Don't hide behind the Freedom of Information Act. Why don't you just provide the information? What are you waiting for?
THE PREMIER: I indicated I would provide the information.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: When?
THE PREMIER: As soon as it is ready.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Why don't you make a commitment here in this committee to make the information available today?
THE PREMIER: Because it is not ready today and we will make it available when it is ready.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: The list of the programs. That's not available?
THE PREMIER: I know that you would like to get things in dribs and drabs, but when the information is available, you will have it.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I just want the information.
THE PREMIER: And you will have it. The interesting thing is what you are not prepared to point out is the fact that no other government has ever done what we have done and you are actually going to get information that was never available before - not to Opposition Parties and not to government. It was a huge project.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I haven't seen any yet.
THE PREMIER: And you will get the information.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: I have four and one-half minutes left. I want to ask you, you said throughout the campaign, you have said since, your Minister of Education has said and other ministers have said, you said - these are your words - the days of buying your way out of the problem is over. Yet, yesterday we saw that your government, I believe your Cabinet met downstairs this morning and approved a plan that you would take over the deficits of the school boards. We also know that your officials have directed the hospitals and the regional health boards to run deficits. Would you explain why your policy has changed?
THE PREMIER: I think there was a mistake in your question.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: No, there was a memo that was tabled in the House two days ago from the Deputy Minister of Health, the options that were presented to CEOs of regional health boards and the regional hospitals, one of them was to run deficits. Just like the Liberals used to do that you are so dead set against.
THE PREMIER: First of all, getting back to the deficits of the school boards, I don't think there is anybody who looks at this thing objectively that ever expected us not to take over those deficits in one way or another. Obviously, that is one of the weaknesses of our system that governments aren't reporting deficits that were incurred by government agencies who received substantial amounts of money. We have indicated that and we took on board the books of the province, the debts of the regional health boards. It should come as no surprise to anybody that we would be doing the same thing with school boards.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: It came as a surprise because you brought a budget in here that didn't say a word about picking up the deficits of the school boards. What are you talking about? Twenty-four days ago, you brought a budget in here that reconciled 1999-2000 with nothing in there - there was no $33 million or $20 million or $25 million, whatever it is - representing the school board deficit. In fact, your Minister of Education stood up and said, that is their problem, they are going to have to deal with it. What do you mean we shouldn't be surprised?
THE PREMIER: You shouldn't be surprised because what we tabled the other day is the budget for the year 2000-01, the deficits relate to previous fiscal years and have nothing to do with this year. What we are saying is we are handling that deficit and accruing it to the year in which it was built up, as is dictated by the kind of accounting we are doing, the accrual form of accounting, under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, that requires us to do that. Why are you surprised? Why would you have in the budget something that has to do with an expense incurred in a previous year? That will be rationalized at the end of the summer when the numbers for the fiscal year 1999-2000 are in fact brought together.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: Mr. Premier, how gullible do you think we are?
THE PREMIER: Why would you talk about school boards of the year before debt in the same context as the estimates for the year 2000-01?
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: How gullible do you think we are? You are making this up as you go. The school boards have been going nuts, parents have been going nuts, children, teachers because they were facing a $53 million deficit, a cut that was going to mean, and will still mean, significant cuts to the classroom. You have continued to say, no, no, it is only $20 million; they said, we have these estimates; you and your officials and your ministers have said, that is your problem, we are not going to deal with it. All of sudden you say, oh, didn't we tell you, we were going to pick up those deficits all along.
Come on, seriously, Mr. Premier. I think you are little more straightforward than you are letting on. If that had been in the works, you would have said so, you would have told school boards. Why not tell people up front, when the 1999-2000 statement was being presented, when the budget for this year was being presented, why not tell people, why not prevent all of the protests?
THE PREMIER: The member is very creative in how he is presenting his question. The reality is that we worked with school boards, and we now have acceptable solutions to meeting the budget requirements of the Department of Education and school boards. Now that might be disappointing to the member opposite.
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: No, no, the fact that you have caved in is fine. I think that is a great idea.
THE PREMIER: The budget is intact and the accounting principles . . .
MR. ROBERT CHISHOLM: The fact is that you made it up as you went along.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, gentlemen. I would like to wrap our proceedings in accordance with the Rules and Forms of Procedures of the House, 62 FA(2), the maximum time allotted for the debate of the subcommittee has now been realized and achieved. We have achieved our 40 hours.
Shall Resolution E20 Stand?
Resolution E20 stands.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.
That concludes our business for today and for the fiscal estimates. We shall report our progress and our conclusion of duties to the House. We stand adjourned.
[10:45 a.m. The subcommittee adjourned.]
