MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, I would like to call the Subcommittee on Supply back to order. It's Tuesday, April 10, 2001. We are continuing debate on Acadian Affairs.
The honourable member for Lunenburg West has seven minutes remaining in his time. Your time is now 1:54 p.m., please continue your questions for seven more minutes.
The honourable member for Lunenburg West.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: My question to the Minister of Finance is, can he explain to me, can he inform the members here what their government's position is on the celebrations that will take place in the year 2004 by the Acadian community? Do they have any specific amount of money allocated for that major and, hopefully, very successful event for not only Nova Scotia but the Acadian community across North America?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Finance.
HON. NEIL LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question. We have been working along with Heritage Canada in the planning process. There is a committee that has been put in place. They have elected a CEO, Vaughan Madden has taken that position. There is also a committee that has been appointed throughout the process, and a gentleman I think you know very well has been elected President, Allister Surette, whom you served in Cabinet, has graciously agreed to Chair that. I am not sure how many terms he will - it's for one year, hopefully, he will stay on. I know he has an interest both as an Acadian, but also in his capacity as President of the Collège de l'Acadie. Things are moving along relatively well in the planning process. There have been public hearings held throughout the province since the new year, especially in trying to encourage families to become involved and we, as a government, are working with them to put in place a process for funding that will be submitted to the federal government in this fiscal year.
There has been assistance offered to the committee to do its planning but, obviously, this is a major initiative. It was started by the previous administration, and I want to thank the honourable member and his government for first of all putting it in. I remember when I first joined Cabinet, actually, even before we took office, that the decision was going to be announced in Louisiana. I was unable to attend because we were basically in a transition of office and trying to put together a budget so I was unable to go to it. I think I would have liked the experience. It means we, as a government, will have to make contributions. We are committed to this initiative and we continue to plan to work with the committee.
In regard to specific numbers, a lot of that is still in negotiation with Heritage Canada. I have spoken with the Honourable Sheila Copps on two different occasions about this initiative. She has indicated that she has very much an interest in this and they look at it as being tied in with other events. I refer the honourable member to the anniversary of Quebec which is coming up. Nationally, they want to tie these events together whereby there is a national trend rather than having just local.
MR. DOWNE: I know you sincerely, and members of the Acadian community who are part of the Legislative Assembly will be doing all in their power to make it a success. There is a lot of commitment in kind and supportive. Fiscally, they are going to need money from the provincial government, that's the bottom line. I would hope that the provincial government, in your capacity as Minister of Finance, would allocate the proper resources to making this a success.
It's a huge opportunity and the mosaic culture of the Province of Nova Scotia, the Acadian community are a major part of our history and a major part of our future. They in turn, deserve the respect of this government and all governments, especially with regard to financial contributions to this celebration in the year 2004.
Notwithstanding the fact that Champlain spent some period of time in my riding. Little did I know that he was there at the time but, anyway, he came and plotted off the areas, LaHave, Petit Rivière, many of the areas that have been named after his involvement there. Some of the early maps show his tremendous ability. I would encourage the minister to put a figure on the paper within the next budget so there is some indication what financial contribution is there. It is great to hear that the federal government is going to be helping in some capacity. I know that the new federal minister of ACOA will be very supportive, Robert Thibault. We can't rely on Ottawa doing it all. I think it is incumbent upon this province to do its part in showing respect and support for the Acadians in our community, and that we cherish their rich culture, identity and language and we want to support them in their endeavours to showcase the world in this very special time in 2004.
Mr. Minister, I only have a few minutes left so I won't go into any real major issue but I will ask the question regarding the Department of Finance spending $3.8 million more than the year previous. I thought of all sorts of reasons of how to do that. There are 29 staff
leaving your department, some going to other departments. It seems as though your staff numbers are going to be going down, yet $3.8 million more. You are losing the procurement side, the pension regulation, the corporate expenditure control. How do you explain such a large increase in your budget with losing in so many other areas?
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. LEBLANC: First of all, the member is bringing up good points whereby there has been some change. He mentioned procurement moving out, also internal audit is moving in. We also have changes with some staff moving over to the Treasury and Policy Board. The major change that we have in the budget is regarding the Controller's division and his office, along with the corporate information system, SAP. This year, we have made some changes to that and we have taken all the amortization in regard to that and centralized it in Finance. That has added $1.949 million into the Department of Finance.
There's another issue that we have talked about with regard to extending this to the MASH sector, we have made an investment whereby we would be buying the licenses. So we have done that and we have extended that to different municipalities. I know some of them have responded to it very favourably, thanking us for the efficiencies of scale by buying bulk rather than doing it individually; a lot of the municipalities are able to take advantage of this. We think it is a good reporting tool and I know this had actually started before my taking over the department and we're continuing that work here. I think it's important to mention that.
The other thing that happened is that the annual operating costs to support SAP has also increased by $1.579 million. So if you add that up, the majority of the costs that we have in the department is directly related to the Controller's Division, and it isn't that Kevin Malloy has lost control of his department, it's that we, as a government, have made a conscious decision to do that. I don't know if Kevin is here or not? Too bad, I would have liked to have said that and made him turn red, however he's not here. But I guess Suzanne Wile will feed him that information.
There is a multitude of much smaller items that we could go through. I don't know if you want me to go into them (Interruptions) Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired for the Liberal caucus for questioning. I trust the Liberal caucus will be back for future questions for this minister?
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage. Your time is now 2:02 p.m. You have one hour.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to federal transfers to the provincial government. I want to talk about the CHST. I wanted to give Liz a chance to come up to the table. We missed her from last time.
MR. LEBLANC: She's very photogenic, too.
MR. DEVEAUX: I have been trying to get my head around the whole social accord back in, I think September 11th of last year, and a breakdown of what type of numbers you're expecting to get over, I think it's a five year period - I am trying to remember now - and how much that breaks down to for this province on an annual basis with regard to, I think the areas specifically, primary health, early childhood, general health and then just general increases in CHST. Is there any way you can tell me on a yearly basis what those numbers will come to? Remember, a couple of years ago the CHST, they said over two years you could bring down the money and you could pull it all in the first year . . .
MR. LEBLANC: I think it was over four years, if I recall correctly.
MR. DEVEAUX: Could have been. I am not sure whether these are locked-in numbers for each year or whether you're able to pull down more or less in any given year, so if you could explain that as well that would be great.
MR. LEBLANC: First of all I would like to point out, if you look, some time ago the federal government made an investment in CHST and it turned out to be $75 million over a four year period. At that time we had discussions with the Auditor General in regard to how we would show that. There was no predetermined implementation or schedule as to how you could draw down that $75 million. The Auditor General informed us that since it was available for us to draw it all down in the first year, that is the way that we should do it.
Looking at a four year balancing provision, we would have liked to have looked at it over a longer period, however the Auditor General said that's the way it should be reported. We respected his decision and it came down all in the first year, which meant, basically, out of that fund, there would be nothing left to apportion to years two, three and four. Subsequent to that, and then last fall, I think it was in September, the Premier, along with the other Premiers of Canada, along with the Prime Minister, had more discussions whereby the Prime Minister said that everyone agreed. I don't really think that is altogether accurate that everyone agreed. I think that the Prime Minister put an offer on the table and I think the people went home - even though the Premier indicated that we have a different makeup of people in Nova Scotia whereby our people are perhaps a little older, we have different ailments which make us a little unique and the CHST factor doesn't take that into consideration. We received another $75 million, which was to be used. Over and above that, there are some specific issues, and I think that is what you are referring to, which refer to early childhood intervention, the increase this year - staff is telling me, I am trying to go through the accounting, if you could just bear with me - based on the budget of 1999, Mr.
Martin's budget, there was an increase of $2 billion for the year 2001-02. Nova Scotia's share of that would have been an increase for our revenues of $61 million. That is the provision that went into this budget.
There was another one, the announcement that the First Minister made on September 11th, I have the date here, that refers to another $75.6 million, that is included in this year's revenues; so those two different components. There is the childhood intervention which this year is $9.1 million. Then there was an offset, a reduction of $30 million, and that is moving to an equal per capita. Nova Scotia has had some concerns some of the larger more populous, affluent provinces have been pushing for, they want to do it on a per capita basis. We felt that didn't take into consideration some of the issues that I mentioned before, such as the level of seriousness of disease, age of population and so forth. If you add those up, the difference is $109 million.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. Maybe I am going to go through these one at a time. I understand the numbers can get confusing, so I am trying to clarify this. Early childhood intervention this year, $9.1 million; next year, 2002-03, how much are you expecting to get from that?
MR. LEBLANC: I think it is $12 million. I don't have it here. That is readily available. I do believe it is in the $12 million range.
MR. DEVEAUX: But you don't have it for the year after that. How many years is that one?
MR. LEBLANC: It is outlined, I think, for three years. Those are predetermined ahead of time. We know what the numbers are and those will not change.
MR. DEVEAUX: There was another component in regard specifically to Health. I think part of it was equipment and part of it was other things. Can you give me how much that amount was for this year that was specifically designated for Health?
MR. LEBLANC: That isn't part of the CHST, it is another separate component that is coming in. That funding went directly to the Department of Health, they showed that as a recovery. They can draw from that to make investments. I think this is in regard to equipment, I believe it is along those lines. That is not part and parcel of this, it came out of Health - I am just being informed - but it was jointly with the federal Department of Health, the Health Minister.
MR. DEVEAUX: Do you know how much that was this year?
MR. LEBLANC: It is $30 million, whereby you can draw it down over two years.
MR. DEVEAUX: It is $30 million over two years, and you drew it all down this year based on the Auditor General's recommendations?
MR. LEBLANC: No, this is different because it isn't for operating, it's for capital, they have the latitude for doing it differently.
MR. DEVEAUX: So, how much was drawn down this year?
MR. LEBLANC: It was $15 million.
MR. DEVEAUX: And there will probably be $15 million next year.
MR. LEBLANC: That's right.
MR. DEVEAUX: There is another section, I believe, in the accord last September that talked about primary health. I think that's separate, and I am just trying to clarify whether that is also something given directly to the Health Department or whether that was money that was allocated through CHST and, if so, how much?
MR. LEBLANC: Obviously it is not coming through CHST, we are not aware of it.
MR. DEVEAUX: I just remember reading that in the accord, and I was just trying to clarify, there was a specific amount of money, maybe somewhere in here I have it.
MR. LEBLANC: I vaguely remember something about that. It didn't come through these negotiations, so I am not privy.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just based on Nova Scotia being 3 per cent of the population, I worked it out to probably about $6 million that was going to be given out this year to Nova Scotia from primary health. I was just curious if that was an accurate number. So you are saying that generally there was a $61 million increase this year in general CHST increase?
MR. LEBLANC: This is a per capita increase that was announced in the 1999 budget. When you looked at it this year, there was $61 million plus the $75 million that was announced last fall, plus the $9.1 million, which is basically coming in but it is predetermined, that is spent and you are aware of that, less the $30 million which is a decrease because we moved to an equal per capita.
MR. DEVEAUX: So $61 million plus $75.6 million plus $9.1 million minus $30 million.
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: The $75.6 million you are talking about, is that designated, obviously within the limits of CHST, is it allocated for Health, is it allocated for early childhood or can it just generally be spent?
MR. LEBLANC: Those were just increasing the CHST funding which comes globally, in a sense, it isn't coming into the childhood intervention, whereby $9.1 million comes in, but it is targeted specifically to an initiative.
MR. DEVEAUX: No strings attached.
MR. LEBLANC: No.
MR. DEVEAUX: I understand that CHST is done for periods of time and then they are sort of renegotiated, I presume . . .
MR. LEBLANC: No. The CHST has some indexing that things will move forward from them. We are having some discussion as to which factor we will use for the indexing, I don't know if that has been resolved yet. (Interruptions) No, that hasn't yet been resolved. Obviously, we look at different indicators such as the GDP, that would be a good one, but even though health care increases are going beyond GDP, for ourselves it leaves basically all the rest to the provinces, and we are trying to deal with that, but we haven't had a resolution to that yet. It will be indexed, we just haven't resolved it as to how.
MR. DEVEAUX: What I am getting from you is based on the $61 million in 1999 that was going to increase, plus the $75.6 million minus $30 million for offsetting per capita, it comes out to $106.6 million for general use within CHST, roughly.
MR. LEBLANC: I am being told here it is $109 million, but I haven't done the addition. You may be right.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is that number supposed to go up next year, is it going to stay, is it something that will always be there as an increase, or in three years do you have to renegotiate it again, or next year will it go up $20 million, for example? Do we know?
MR. LEBLANC: Since we don't have an agreement on the indexing - I stand corrected on that, there is no guarantee that indexing that will happen. Part of the problem that we have, a lot of times is more going to Ottawa, a lot of these issues, we deal with them year after year. Of course, the other issue we are dealing with now is the cap. A few years ago they talked about the cap on equalization - I am getting off CHST - they said, you will never meet it. Now we are going to be meeting it and Ottawa is saying that is where the cap is. Obviously, for us, that is a concern because if we exceed the cap, that will have an impact on our revenues here in Nova Scotia.
MR. DEVEAUX: The cap was removed on equalization, wasn't it?
MR. LEBLANC: For one year.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just for one year, so it is not ongoing.
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct, unless it has changed, we will have to do it every year or they will have to change the legislation.
MR. DEVEAUX: Are you guys going back to negotiate something in the future?
MR. LEBLANC: I find it is difficult to negotiate with Ottawa. I think what we are trying to do is make our case. Obviously, they have the purse strings and they are allocating funds to the provinces. Nova Scotia is not alone. I will be working very closely with our Atlantic Provinces here, also with our members from out West, I have been working closely with the minister for Manitoba, Greg Selinger - very proactive. We have been trying to work on these issues, such as the cap and so forth, because it will have an impact on us and we are trying to make the best case forward. I believe there are some people listening, but we want more than just listening, we want to change the actual agreement.
MR. DEVEAUX: If you look at the federal Web site - I find this interesting because I was looking at this before the budget, now this is their propaganda - they claim that in 2000-01 they gave Nova Scotia $2.2 billion. Then I look at that number, and that includes something which they call, under CHST, cash portion and tax portion, which doesn't show up, necessarily, in the budget unless it comes under revenue somehow. I am not sure how it works. I asked this without knowing the answer. I am not clear on what they mean by the tax portion that then allows them to claim they are getting $2.2 billion.
MR. LEBLANC: Some time ago what happened was the federal government said to the provinces, in regard to certain formulae, certain programs, we will give part of our taxing power to the provinces. They made an agreement whereby they taxed less and provinces taxed more. Every year, we do not get those funds sent to us because they are part of our provincial revenues, but when the federal government speaks about their contribution to CHST and so forth, they always include the cash portion or the portion of taxation that they gave to the provinces - actually your question is a very good one, because I kept trying to find out myself what was going on, but in a nutshell that is what is.
MR. DEVEAUX: Which taxes did they reduce to allow us to step into?
MR. LEBLANC: The 13.5 per cent personal, and - we are having a discussion here, every time I had been briefed on this before I have forgotten it, because it is technical. They gave us 13 points on the personal income tax and 1 point on the corporate income tax. Maybe if you want to get the staff to explain this to you after, we can do it rather than take the time
of the committee. I am prepared to do so if you want, but I am sure that Liz is more than prepared to do that for you.
It occurred in 1977, so we are talking about 24 years ago, the bottom line is that Ottawa always insists on mentioning that in their contributions. I don't have a problem with that. Obviously, they made a conscious decision at that time that they would give some of their taxation powers to the province, and we took it. So, in a sense, there should be some recognition of it.
MR. DEVEAUX: The fact that we have moved to a TONI system or a tax on income system and we have decoupled, has that impacted that at all?
MR. LEBLANC: Impact on that, no, that doesn't have any change on that.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to talk about that, the fact that we have our own income tax system now. We haven't really tinkered with much, other than the fact we have moved to our own percentages as compared to being a percentage of the federal tax. Is your department in any way considering any major changes in our income tax system notwithstanding your promise of a tax cut, but major changes like Alberta moving to a flat rate or moving to a different basic personal exemption and so on, things that would adjust it quite differently than the federal system?
MR. LEBLANC: At this point in time I am not prepared to say we are. But since you are coming to the tax cut, I just want to clarify something I said yesterday. It may have been your colleague who asked the question in regard to the tax cut. We emphasized that in the year 2003-04, our revenues would be approximately $1.3 billion in personal income tax. We indicated that would give a tax reduction of $136 million. I am not sure which of your colleagues asked me the question as to whether or not everyone would receive 10 per cent across the board. I may have indicated yes; I want to clarify that. First of all, I want to make sure that I didn't misspeak.
There are many complexities to the taxation system. We have talked about the brackets and we have talked about the different rates of those brackets, we also talked about the non-refundable tax credits which are other issues of it. It will have a different impact on different individuals, especially if people are located toward the lower part. I will just use an example, if someone is just barely paying taxes, if you were to change the bracket they may pay no tax whatsoever. I just wanted to clarify that. I think it is important that I do so, because if I misspoke yesterday, I wanted to make sure that I clarified it.
As to how that will all unfold, that will be happening in our budget year 2003-04. The details will be there. I know I was also asked some questions as to how that would all unfold and, as I indicated yesterday, it will happen in that year. Since you got into the tax situation, I felt it was important that I clarify that.
To go back to the issue you talked about, and to tell you the truth I forget the question. You were talking about taxation, can you just repeat that please? I am getting older Kevin.
MR. DEVEAUX: What was the question? Now I have forgotten it.
MR. LEBLANC: You were asking whether there were any major changes . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, are you planning any major changes to make our system more customized to Nova Scotia?
MR. LEBLANC: We are looking at some different initiatives. I will say, without getting into specifics, if you look through our blue book you will notice some initiatives where we talked about trying to focus on certain parts of our population. The thing about the TONI that allows us to do it, if we want to focus, it's much easier than it was in the past where we were tailored, basically, to work in concert with the federal government.
There is an issue here that I would like to perhaps point out. There are some arguments about how you define taxable income. This has been a national issue. We have some provinces that would like to change how they define taxable income, and I will just point out a specific issue that is a concern. If you lived alongside Alberta you would have a lot of problems, people looking at selling a major farm sometimes maybe saying I should move to Alberta because that is where I will reside.
Those are issues that some of those people have. Fortunately, we are not in the same situation here, but these are some national issues I think are important. Nova Scotia has been adamant that we should have a national definition of taxable income. I have been adamant about this, I have been forceful in my presentations to my colleagues that I think it is important as a country that we don't start tinkering too much with the taxation system whereby people will move to areas because of the fact of huge tax discrepancies.
That is one of the major points when we talk about equalization, that it is a serious issue. For us, it is meant to bring about equal services at relatively equal levels of taxation. We have not increased our, I guess, stead versus the other have-provinces over the last 10 years. That is an issue for us, which is a concern and why we are making some presentations, especially in regard to trying to deal with it, both on equalization but more so in the Campaign for Fairness.
The Campaign for Fairness is not going to help me in my budget balancing situation. We won't receive enough royalties in the next two or three years to make an impact, but down the road it will have a huge impact. If we can make some changes to that, it will have some positive impact for my kids and for yours too, and the one that is coming. When is that one due, is it pretty close now?
MR. DEVEAUX: Five weeks.
MR. LEBLANC: Maybe you will get some tax relief on that. (Laughter). Anyway, I don't know if I answered your question or not, but those are some of the examples.
MR. DEVEAUX: Now that we have a system based on TONI, we still have things like basic personal exemptions, equivalent-to-spouse and so on, percentage rates, just like the federal, what is the basic personal exemption in Nova Scotia?
MR. LEBLANC: You have asked me a good question, I don't know if the number is in front of me here. Actually it would be almost easier to get your tax form, I can get you the numbers. But I do want to point out . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: I do mine by computer.
MR. LEBLANC: . . . in 2000, basically, in that year, we did move in concert with the federal government. I hear some pages shredding, ripping, probably they are going to give it to me. In that year, we did move some indexing because it was relatively small, and we did match it. For 2001, we have not - and we are talking about those changes only after we would find ourselves in a situation to give a tax cut. I will get that information, it is readily available everywhere.
MR. DEVEAUX: So, in October when Paul Martin, as part of his pre-election goody package, announced the basic personal exemption would go up, I believe, you guys didn't match it, is that correct?
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: All right. You can't tell me the difference. I am just trying to get a sense of what the difference is. I don't even remember what the basic personal exemption is, federally, right now.
MR. LEBLANC: Just for your information, in 2000, the change that we move, and that wasn't a major movement for the federal government, this year is a bigger one, I think it cost us about $14 million, just last year over and above some of the other issues that we talked about, like capital gains, which is another, because they have changed the definition of that, we use their definition of capital, taxable income, so all those changes are being felt throughout our province, whether or not we make changes to the brackets.
MR. DEVEAUX: So, let me ask a question, if you can't answer it, I hope you can, but if you can't, maybe you can undertake to provide me with it. Because we did not move up, we didn't match the basic personal exemption that the federal government raised in late 2000 for this fiscal year, how much money are we bringing in - I am just trying to word this
properly. You must be able to answer this, if we had increased our basic personal exemption to match the federal increase of the basic personal exemption last year, how much money would we have lost?
MR. LEBLANC: We would have given another approximately $25 million.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just on the basic personal exemption?
MR. LEBLANC: We are having a discussion mostly about timing, because there were two different issues last year, there was a spring budget and there was also the mini budget. You are asking me a question about what impact the fall budget had and I don't have that information available. Just to clarify the personal exemption for 2001, it is $7,231. The federal one has changed in this year, so that will be different than that number. We haven't indexed it.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, for 2001, the province's basic personal exemption, if I am filing my taxes now that we have our own tax system, for my provincial share of the taxes, my basic personal exemption is $7,231. Do you know what the federal basic personal exemption is for the same period?
MR. LEBLANC: For this year, I don't have a tax return in front of me so I don't. For 2000, it was the same. For 2001, I don't have it.
MR. DEVEAUX: I understand that now it's higher.
MR. LEBLANC: That's correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: Where it used to be that we were tied to the federal tax system, and at that time then all my taxes would have the same level of basic personal exemption, now that we have decoupled, and we have our own tax system, when the federal government imposed their basic personal exemption increase in the late 2000 budget, we didn't do it here for our provincial taxes.
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: We don't know how much that is bringing in, or how much we would have lost if we had matched it. You can't answer that question?
MR. LEBLANC: We have some information here, I just want to make sure that it is correct. It is not a difficult number to get, it appears that it would be $12 million, but I am going to verify that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can we do that by the end of today?
MR. LEBLANC: It shouldn't be a problem. I will get Liz to make a note.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. Equivalent-to-spouse, I am not sure what happened, since my wife works, at least works part-time, it is not something I have to deal with in filing. Did that go up in the federal budget in the fall of 2000, the equivalent-to-spouse deduction you can make for dependents?
MR. LEBLANC: I will check it out. I didn't get into the federal numbers there. (Interruptions) These aren't difficult things to find out, I just don't have them at my fingertips.
MR. DEVEAUX: I am just trying to clarify whether we matched. If it did go up, did we match it, that is what I am trying to clarify.
[2:30 p.m.]
MR. LEBLANC: We didn't index.
MR. DEVEAUX: The percentage levels, that is the bracket creep to some extent, the federal levels went down in the fall of 2000, I believe they went down from 27 per cent to 26 per cent for some, I am trying to remember the exact numbers. We didn't match those decreases either.
MR. LEBLANC: We kept ours where they were. Basically, we changed ours as a percentage of income rather than as a percentage of the federal tax.
MR. DEVEAUX: Which, technically, isn't bracket creep, just so I am clear. Bracket creep was the indexing of the percentages so that the actual numbers of 27 per cent at $44,000 would continue to increase on an annual basis. What are our percentage levels for income tax in Nova Scotia, what are the rates?
MR. LEBLANC: The low rate would be 9.77 per cent, the middle rate is 14.95 per cent, and the high rate is 16.67 per cent.
MR. DEVEAUX: At what rate does 9.77 per cent kick in (Interruptions)
MR. LEBLANC: It is in our tax returns, it is not a problem. I can make sure I can get that to you.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just for purposes of comparing it, I want to get a sense of where those numbers come in. I have a couple of specific questions I wanted to draw upon.
MR. LEBLANC: We have the deputy getting his tax return out to see what the rates are, so we will get that out.
MR. DEVEAUX: Does the deputy want to table that?
MR. LEBLANC: We will probably all know how much money he is making, I don't think he wants to table it. I will ask for his assistance. (Interruptions) It is too low to show. (Laughter)
MR. DEVEAUX: I am sure. Then you have to move over to Health, I think the deputy needs a transfer. (Laughter)
Back in, I think it was the Auditor General's Report, I am just looking at Section 3.8, I think it is this year's Auditor General's Report. I am just going to read from this, it is talking about user fees. "Government has made efforts to achieve balanced budgets by reducing expenditures and containing rising costs. Government has also been considering initiatives for increased revenue generation and we were informed that attention is being given to this matter in individual government departments. The government's Business Plan Guidelines for 2000-01 requested that suggestions for new revenue raising opportunities be included as part of the department business plans."
I guess I want to know, is it possible for you to table the 2001-02 Business Plan Guidelines so that we have an opportunity to see whether that is also being done for this year?
MR. LEBLANC: I just want to make sure I understand the question, you want to have the guidelines on how the reports will be prepared?
MR. DEVEAUX: According to the Auditor General, in 2000-01 your Business Plan Guidelines for the department told them to seriously look at ways of increasing revenue. I want to know whether, in the Business Plan Guidelines for 2001-02, you make that same suggestion?
MR. LEBLANC: I am listening to staff, the guidelines didn't change. I think we are looking within government, and we have said this before, whether there are some opportunities for imposing cost recovery or whether people like to use the other terminology, user fees, whereby a recovery is justified when you look at fairness; the fairness of the person paying it and the fairness to the taxation to people, the taxpayers.
I will use a good example. When I was Minister of Business and Consumer Services there was an indication that people wanted to have electronic transcripts. We have a lot of insurance companies that want to insure people, but they also want to know, first of all, before they insure an individual, that they know where he has been, in other words what is
going on. They were making requests for information based upon approvals by the individual that they could get access to their transcripts, their driving records. The situation was that some of the major companies were batching them together, sending a batch over to the department and it was being run. The information was compiled and it was sent back.
I am giving you a long spiel just to give you an example. We came up with an on-line system with security provided whereby people could get that information instantaneously, and we increased the fee. We paid more to do it, but we also increased the fees. The industry basically felt it was well served.
Other things are not so much improving the service, it may be the fact that we are providing a service basically at no charge and we are saying, how much does it cost? The Auditor General says that we haven't looked at - I think some of the comments were - what the costs of the provision were. I can only speak from my experience. We have looked at it within the departments that I had, mostly in Business and Consumer Services, because it doesn't apply very much to Finance. We don't deal that much with the public.
We looked at what the cost of the service was when we determined what the fee would be. I would use the example of the handbook. People were picking up handbooks. To be candid, we were providing more handbooks than there were people writing the exams. I think a lot of people didn't treat them very seriously, it didn't cost them anything. So, we put in place a fee. I am giving a long answer to a simple question by giving some examples.
MR. DEVEAUX: My question was, can I get a copy of the business plan guidelines for 2001-02?
MR. LEBLANC: I will ask the question. Unless there is a reason for not disclosing it, which I can't anticipate, I will provide that to you. I just want to go to the ranges. Why don't you mark these down? I finally have them, we have a very competent staff. They got this out of the deputy's income tax.
MR. DEVEAUX: Very competent. Everyone has copies, right?
MR. LEBLANC: The low rate goes up to $29,500, and that is 9.77 per cent; the middle rate goes from $29,591 to $59,180 . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: $59,180?
MR. LEBLANC: Yes. And over that would be the higher rate. (Interruptions)
MR. DEVEAUX: Program review. One of the programs that was reviewed and cut that was considered critical was in your department. I believe it is the only program that was considered critical and was cut, Strategic Research Group. I have a copy of what we fought
for under freedom of information that identifies what the program does, the Strategic Research Group. It identifies medium and long-term initiatives to improve the province's fiscal position and leads inter-departmental implementation teams for these projects. It was eliminated. It was the only one that was considered critical. Can you explain why, in the end, if it was critical, this program was cut?
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, this was a group of people who were brought together by the previous administration specifically for one initiative. It was in line with the port, in regard of the port proposal for the Maersk Sealand proposal. There was a group of people brought together in the Department of Finance to spearhead this initiative. Most of the people who were there were seconded, as a matter of fact I think they were all seconded, brought in and basically put into this one specific proposal. When we did the review for ourselves, a lot of the initiatives that are there, we felt would be better served, I would use the example of Economic Development or even Transportation, and as such, though I don't disagree that the work they did was critical, it also comes in as to whether or not this workload could be done in other parts of government by staff already in place. For ourselves, it is a matter of making choices. I don't argue that the work they do is critical, that doesn't mean the work doesn't get done. The answer is no, it still does, but it didn't get done within Finance in this category.
MR. DEVEAUX: I find it interesting, though, I appreciate that explanation. Under the category, Comments, you can check a box. It is actually quite an interesting sort of bureaucratic process of sort of checking boxes with regard to categorization of things. Anyway, (1.c) says, if this particular program was not in place at present, would it be created in its present form now? The box is checked, so I presume that means yes. I am not clear on why you would disband a program that if it wasn't in place you would create. Or, are you trying to tell me it is an ad hoc thing that was no longer needed, and if tomorrow there was another port proposal you may put it back together?
MR. LEBLANC: Well, I think that for ourselves if you look at the circumstances of where it was created, the bid process began. I think if you look at it there was almost a rush to make sure that the bid would be prepared for Halifax, because we did want to be considered for the new post-Panamax proposal. Obviously, yourself being a metro MLA, you know how important the container business is to the city. For ourselves, it was created specifically for that.
I am not arguing the suggestions you put forward, but for us as Ministers of the Crown, it still comes down, a lot of times, to making decisions. The recommendations that come forward, sometimes we agree with them and there will be times we won't agree with them. But for ourselves, within the infrastructure of other departments, and I go back to either Economic Development or Transportation, who were basically, to a great extent, the leads following the decision not to award the post-Panamax contract to Halifax, it still comes into the long-term plan for what we are going to do with the port, and that is more
appropriately located in those two other departments. It was felt that, for ourselves, it was time to disband the group.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to take you to restructuring costs. The forecast for last year was $74.6 million; this year $53.7 million; 2002-03, $53.7 million again; 2003-04, you are expecting to go up to $73.1 million; and then in 2004-05, $117.2 million. Obviously those increased numbers two and three years from now must be based on something. Can you tell me why you expect those numbers to go up at that time?
MR. LEBLANC: Restructuring is one line in the budget that I don't talk about, because, obviously, there are provisions in here not only for restructuring and reorganization of government but the majority, of course, is in regard to contract negotiations. We are making provisions here, but we also talk about the compounding effects that happen. When you are looking forward, the increases in salaries will be shown in this rather than in the departments because we haven't apportioned them to the departments.
MR. DEVEAUX: This year's $53.7 million, I believe, any increases with regard to salaries when you negotiate them with the NSGEU or the Nurses' Union or any of the other public sector is to be covered in that $53.7 million, isn't that correct?
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: Do you have any inclination as to how much 1 per cent increase in salaries across the board for unionized workers would come to, with regard to millions of dollars?
MR. LEBLANC: It is $22 million, $23 million, that is what I recall that refers to.
MR. DEVEAUX: For a 1 per cent increase.
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: That is based on, what, a $2.2 billion salary, and that being a 1 per cent increase. That being the case, is that the only cost that is really in the restructuring, or are there other things that you expect out of that line item to have to be covered, other than salary increases?
MR. LEBLANC: The other things that are encompassed within restructuring are some severance costs that would be in there. There would be some workforce adjustments, and also some restructuring costs, if those types of events take place.
MR. DEVEAUX: How much is that costed at?
MR. LEBLANC: I am not going to divulge that. Those components can't be divulged because of the fact that there are negotiations in this. The department received an opinion, because of the fact that this part of the budget involves monies that are held in negotiations and if you start divulging components of it, it leaves the money behind that you are talking about negotiating with, which puts the government in the position of basically having everything on the table.
MR. DEVEAUX: I respect that. I want to talk about debt servicing a little. Given the state of the economy in North America, and now even more on a global level, is it your sense that your department expects interest rates to go down in the next year, go up, or stay relatively the same? I know you have a number in your assumptions, but that is the number as of the day, relatively close to the day that you produced your budget. Do you expect the number to go down or up?
MR. LEBLANC: Our indication is that we made our projections as of the time of the budget, and your point is well taken, you have to make assumptions because otherwise you will never prepare a budget. If the changes go on in the year, they will reflect in our forecast. I will just see whether or not there have been changes, I will talk to my expert on my right here to see whether there is. No, they are still comfortable with that. I should point out that within our debt we have approximately 15 per cent which is floating, which is basically more on two- to three-month terms.
Most of our debt is in the long term, so basically even if there are fluctuations it doesn't affect us now, it is more over a long trend. The changes that have happened over the last year is that interest rates in the short term have decreased, which has been positive. Some of those things, obviously, are from Greenspan in the United States trying to stimulate the economy. There have been reductions in interest rates, which has also had a positive impact for the province; the U.S. exchange is another issue for another day.
MR. DEVEAUX: You have actually been fairly conservative in your estimate of the Canadian dollar. I think you have it at 63.6 cents or something like that, which is much lower than the estimate that you were assuming last year, closer to 68 cents or 69 cents I think, right?
MR. LEBLANC: What we had last year, I think, was 66.57 cents - no, I am sorry, it was 68.4 cents last year. The actual turned out to be, in the end, somewhere around 63.55 cents. The average is about 66 cents, somewhere in between; obviously, our forecast on the U.S. dollar last year wasn't that accurate.
MR. DEVEAUX: Unless the dollar collapses through the floor, then your numbers are much safer this time.
MR. LEBLANC: This is anybody's guess.
MR. DEVEAUX: I know.
MR. LEBLANC: Obviously, hopefully the situation will change. The other thing I should point out, as a province, often a lower Canadian dollar has helped our exports, so it is a Catch-22. When it goes down it hurts us in certain areas, but it also stimulates the economy quite a bit.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go back to the income tax system. Now that we are based on our own tax on income, is it possible to have - and I am not expecting this right now - your department provide me with some form of detailed provision with regard to personal income tax, the differences between the federal system, both rates, basic tax credits, exemptions, and how they compare between the two?
MR. LEBLANC: I wouldn't have any problem, actually I think we prepared one last year when we brought in TONI, that was adjusted a bit at that time.
MR. DEVEAUX: But now that we have our federal budget . . .
MR. LEBLANC: . . . we would have to update it again, that shouldn't be a problem.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go on to Acadian Affairs; I have a few minutes left before I am going to hand it over to my friend from Halifax Fairview.
We had an opportunity today to meet - I don't know if you did as well, and you were very kind to the Acadian Federation with the use of the board room. My only question is with regard to, having talked to them they were bringing up the whole issue of Nova Scotia being the only Maritime Province that doesn't have legislation protecting linguistic rights or helping the French communities in Nova Scotia provide services in French. I guess I was wondering, as the Acadian Affairs Minister is that something that is being debated, is it even on the radar screen in your government, is it something you expect to see happening, are there reasons why your government is or is not interested in moving in that direction?
MR. LEBLANC: Two things. First of all, we have to look at the makeup of the Maritime Provinces. You did mention Maritime because Atlantic, Newfoundland, has not moved on this issue very much.
MR. DEVEAUX: They have a very small French population.
MR. LEBLANC: And in New Brunswick, of course, being a bilingual province, this is not an issue. In Prince Edward Island, they have brought in legislation which brings about certain aspects of government in delivering services in certain areas of the province that they would designate as, I don't know if it is Acadian regions or francophone regions. They have brought that in in conjunction with Heritage Canada and have received a considerable
amount of funding, I think it is 75 per cent. Most every other province in Canada, outside of Quebec of course, receives funding from Heritage Canada. My understanding is that it is usually always 50-cent dollars.
Prince Edward Island went a little further. Prince Edward Island also has an advantage, it is a relatively small province. They have a relatively concentrated Acadian population in the Acadian region that you are aware of, and also it is in close proximity, most of that, between Charlottetown and Summerside. It affords efficiencies that we have problems with here in Nova Scotia.
I just want to point out for the member's edification that if you look at Cheticamp, Isle Madame, Pomquet, Clare, Argyle, the metropolitan area here, and we have pockets outside, we are as far-stretched as this province can be. Really, as much as it gives us a lot of that identity, because people from Cheticamp are different than the people I represent and they are similar in many other aspects, but also separating us has hurt us. It has hurt us in the fact that assimilation has taken hold much quicker, because the bigger the population is the more interaction there is with more francophones; and the more divided you are, the more you are going to have to do business outside of your community, which means in most cases that you are going to have to do that in English. It happens in my community, and I am not alone, Clare is the same area.
We have talked about looking at the legislation that is present in P.E.I. We have talked about, and we will take a look at it to see whether or not it could have some application here. We are not prepared to make a commitment. We did indicate that the other issue we would look at is whether or not we can expand services into regions or make services available in French to areas that would be predominantly French.
I will give you a good example. I have a committee that I meet with that is across this province. They come in and have very good ideas. The gentleman who represents the area of Isle Madame was talking about the speech pathologist. In his region, they are not available in French, and he brings up the point that they were available - up to the time they go to school - from the Health system, then they go into the CSAP, which is the Acadian School Board, and then we get into a situation. Well they want to hire a speech pathologist, but they can't find one. So should the Public Health speech pathologist be made available, traditionally that is given through the school boards. In those discussions we are trying to see how we can expand it. Those are the types of issues we are trying to work on, and whether or not it will take legislation, I can't commit.
I should point out one thing - you are a lawyer and so is your associate to your right, as you reminded me yesterday in questioning - the French lawyers are trying to increase access to services in French. We have indicated to them, and I have spoke to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to see whether or not we can start to make some movement in this category. Heritage Canada is very interested in doing this. We have said, if we can start it,
maybe we can start off in Family Court, because that is probably the one aspect of the justice system that would perhaps be best served for those who are in need, those ones perhaps have more difficulty speaking outside of their mother tongue.
We think we are making some progress. Even this year, in some of the things that we fund with the federal government, we have made some movement in making more and more information available in both languages, which is a positive. As a government, one of the things I would like to do is designate positions in areas, whether we could consider French, even if they are not designated bilingual, can we designate that French would be asset, whereby we would have more people available for it, and whether we can go beyond that I can't speak on behalf of government here today, because obviously that is something they would have to weigh.
MR. DEVEAUX: I will just finish with a comment and then pass it over to my colleague. I guess one of the things I perceive about the Acadian community in Nova Scotia is that compared to New Brunswick the language is much more thriving because you have an urban centre in Moncton where they can go and still have their language. The places you have named, Pomquet, Cheticamp, Isle Madame, Clare, Pubnico, Wedgeport or any of those, what you have are places where they are smaller communities. It is always the big lights and the big city that will draw many people to an urban centre.
In Halifax we don't have the ability to provide the French services that can ensure - I see it in my own community, I see it in various places, I see people who have Acadian roots but the next generation, because they have moved here for work, have lost it. If there is a way in which the services can be maintained or promoted, you may even be able to reverse assimilation to a great extent, that would allow for people in metro to be able to maintain their language. I look at something like Carrefour, it is a great example of what you can build a community around, but it is only a start and there is so much more that can be done. I will leave it there, and I will pass it over to my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview with our remaining five minutes or so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Minister, I just wanted to pursue a purely factual line of questioning in the few minutes we have left. I was wondering if the department has a breakdown of any kind as to how much Nova Scotia tax is paid by Nova Scotians. For example, there would be x number, x percentage who pay none, x number, x percentage who pay 0 to $1,000. Is there any kind of breakdown along those lines that the department has or could generate?
MR. LEBLANC: Staff tells me that is available, I am not sure if they have it here, but it is something that could be provided.
MR. STEELE: Is it something that you are prepared to make available?
MR. LEBLANC: It should be okay, I wouldn't see that being confidential, as long as we talk in categories.
MR. STEELE: Exactly, I see it as just a factual thing. Do you know offhand, Mr. Minister, or do any staff know how many Nova Scotians file tax returns but pay zero Nova Scotia tax?
MR. LEBLANC: That shouldn't be difficult to ascertain either.
MR. STEELE: That is all I wanted to ask. I know we have a few minutes left, but I would never be one to fill time for the sake of filling time.
Mr. Chairman, if you are finished with your phone call (Laughter) I am prepared to pass it over . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: You do have 5 minutes left.
MR. STEELE: I know.
MR. LEBLANC: He indicated that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEELE: The minister was so helpful with his answers that I have nothing left to ask.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your generosity. Time now for more questions from Mr. Don Downe, the honourable member for Lunenburg West. You now have the floor, and the time is 2:58 p.m.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I would like to cover a couple of areas. One I want to start off with is on this restructuring. I know there were some questions, but I wasn't really paying a lot of attention and I was out of the room so I missed some of the discussion.
Out of the $55 million, first I think it was last year that you projected the restructuring would be about $107 million or over $100 million allocated for this year, last year in your budget numbers. This year you have gone down to $55 million, and your rationale is that while we are not going to be letting as many people go in the Civil Service and the restructuring process would be taken up by attrition and moving staff from one department to another department, things of that nature, is there anything else in that some $50 million differential that you had from last year to this year?
MR. LEBLANC: The issue that also comes in here is that there is compounding when you are projecting out; the number that we included for this year for restructuring, since we couldn't apportion them to the departments it went into restructuring. This year, when we prepared our budgets, the wage increases that were given last year go into the line departments rather than restructuring, so that would account for part of the difference that is there from the ones that we presented last year and the one that we tabled this year. I don't know if I have made myself clear or not, but hopefully I have.
MR. DOWNE: Are you saying to me that you have given the departments' budgets enough to handle those changes internally?
MR. LEBLANC: As we are projecting forward with wage increments, if you look forward you would have the line departments, you would have the revenues, you would have the service costs, you would have the restructuring going across. The restructuring would go for negotiations that are going to happen. As they happen and we get into the next year, if they are apportioned to the department they would be taken out of restructuring and put into the department, but when we are giving more than one year's projection we have to include the compound effects in the same account. As we move forward, it would be removed from restructuring and put into the line department, because we know the number and that is where it should be.
[3:00 p.m.]
MR. DOWNE: Last year's numbers were not accurate then? Obviously they weren't, they were $50 million out.
MR. LEBLANC: I go back to what we were saying. First of all you will estimate them every year when you start, because some of the contracts that you have settled, some of the provisions that you made in the years to come would be for contracts that you estimate that you will be able to reach with unions, have not yet taken place. As we get into that year, as we move forward, whatever has been settled this year will show in the line department rather than that. The numbers are still accurate, but it is shown differently as we move forward because it is moving off the restructuring line and into the department. I go back to what I am saying, and I am not sure if I can be clearer than what I am saying here. That is, in essence, what has happened.
MR. DOWNE: Last year, Mr. Minister, you had restructuring costs going out over a five-year period. This year the number would have been over $100 million in restructuring, where in fact the number this year is $55 million in restructuring. There have been some changes somewhere to the tune of some $50 million compared to what you projected 12 months ago to what you are now stating, and subsequent years out are reduced as well.
MR. LEBLANC: I just got a note here from the deputy, trying to see if I can make it clearer. He points out, again, once the contract is signed the restructuring expense is reduced and the department increases. As we project for the next year we have to look at how many unions and people and contracts we have to renew, and the estimates that we will put in there for what we expect to reach agreements. There are other issues that we referred to before, issues such as severance, workforce adjustments and also restructuring costs, that if you wanted to change some departments, that we would put in place. This is basically why the numbers will keep changing in that account, because of the fact that the costs are being realigned.
MR. DOWNE: You are saying then that the $55 million in the budget this year, and using your term, you do the calibrations based on what you feel you will be required for negotiations each and every year, so out of the $55 million, how much have you allocated for the negotiations that are currently underway in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. LEBLANC: I indicated that before. Actually I am surprised you asked the question, this is something we are not in a position to divulge because if you do that, if you put it on the table, your unions would know how much you have allocated for negotiations, which would be their starting point. That is why we had an opinion received in Finance that this information would not have to be divulged because it would put the province's bargaining position in peril.
MR. DOWNE: So the maximum it would be is $55 million? Obviously, because that is what is in the restructuring. What else is in the restructuring, what else does it do besides the pay raises? It has to do with severance and then studies, is that accurate?
MR. LEBLANC: No, there would be workforce adjustments, some severances, and there would be some provisions in there for some small restructuring costs, but as to the breakdown of that, as I indicated to a previous member, the member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, even those provisions I am not prepared to release because, if you do that, it also leaves the number behind that you are dealing with for negotiations.
MR. DOWNE: Let's just say that those particular costs, maybe they cost nothing, and just leave it at $55 million, does the minister feel that $55 million would cover the wage settlements in the district health authorities this year alone?
MR. LEBLANC: You are asking me to speculate as to whether or not the provisions are going to be accurate. Obviously we have put forward estimates that we feel will bear fruit in the negotiations. That is still ongoing, but we feel that the provisions that we have made here will be adequate in dealing with those negotiations.
MR. DOWNE: In the event, Mr. Minister, that they aren't enough, because you have a number of union negotiations underway, if they are not enough then how are you going to pay for it? What is the process that you will follow then?
MR. LEBLANC: I go back to your comments that we have to live within our means. We are determined that we will do so. We think that people deserve an increment, and we have done that consistently since we have taken office. We have signed some contracts with some of our unions. It doesn't mean that there is basically an open chequebook in order to meet every demand; at the same time we think there has to be room here for increases.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, how many people will be retiring from government this year?
MR. LEBLANC: I don't know, Human Resources could provide that. I don't have it here, how many people are actually retiring. Staff tells me that the average age is 44. That is a very good age, by the way, that is when people are at their exact prime. I can tell you, I have about four months left to go, then I am over the hill. However, that is an indication that probably the number will be sizeable. I can get that information, but actually it would probably be best to ask the Human Resources Department, they will probably have it at their disposal, more than I would here in Finance.
MR. DOWNE: Would it suffice to say that there is a severance rate somewhere between 5 per cent and 6 per cent of the population of the workforce?
MR. LEBLANC: I would be guessing here, I would be speculating. I am sure Human Resources would have that information for you.
MR. DOWNE: Well, if it is about 5 per cent, it doesn't leave an awful lot for union negotiations, and you basically capped yourself off somewhere around $35 million to $40 million maximum for negotiations. If, in the event, you are not going to have enough to deal with nurses and teachers and everybody else in this system, what does that do for the budget?
MR. LEBLANC: I should point out that people who leave don't get a severance, they would get Public Service awards, which is not the same situation.
MR. DOWNE: In your severances for those who are leaving without retirement, there is no . . .
MR. LEBLANC: No, you referred to all the people who would be leaving because of the fact that they are retiring. That would not come under this category, that would come under the Public Service awards.
MR. DOWNE: The severance dollars that are going to be paid out for severance, what would that be?
MR. LEBLANC: What would that be? Again, I am not prepared to divulge components of the restructuring fund. I have been told not to and I am going to respect that advice.
MR. DOWNE: Can you answer the question then, Mr. Minister, if the $55 million, if there is nothing going out for anything else, isn't enough for all the negotiations that are currently going on, and this number is about $50 million less than what you projected last year, where are you going to find the money? What is your process for getting the money to cover the negotiations, unless you are saying that, no matter what, this is the maximum amount of money they are going to get no matter who is negotiating, is that what you are saying?
MR. LEBLANC: What you are asking me is to speculate as to what is going to occur. I do know that we are having negotiations. Your point is well taken that we have to live within our means and that we have to come up with negotiations which respect both the ability to pay and also have some increments for public servants, because of the fact that over a long period of time they have had very few of those increases. That is why, basically, we are in negotiations today.
MR. DOWNE: So you are saying that it is not a matter of absorbing a higher deficit or debt, and you are not going to put it to the debt, you are going to say that no matter what you have a number that the government has as the maxed-out number with the negotiations and no matter what happens that is just the way it is going to be with the negotiating process.
MR. LEBLANC: We have provisions in here for negotiations with our unions . . .
MR. DOWNE: But you have no provisions in here for over and above the $55 million.
MR. LEBLANC: We have provisions in here for what we expect will be honoured. Obviously, the only way we will find out is through negotiations, but we expect them to be sufficient. I realize that the member would like for me to speculate as to what will happen if it doesn't, but I remain confident that it will.
MR. DOWNE: We will soon find that out, Mr. Minister. We will watch to see exactly if $55 million will be enough or if it is too much, and see where you go. I do hope that we do find solutions in our negotiations that will be fair for all participants and that we aren't forced into a strike position, especially when it comes to health care workers and district health authorities this year.
There are a couple of other key areas that I want to get into, one of which is the issue of Atlantic Lottery Corporation. We haven't talked about that for awhile. The other provinces, I understand we now have a $4.9 million agreement per year. I understand that the so-called better deal has never had the detail released to the media, as to the agreement, is that accurate?
MR. LEBLANC: My understanding is that information is available. I am not sure whether or not anyone has made any request for that information. Two things I said: I said once we had the deal signed we would make it public; and the other thing we said is that if people would request the previous studies that we would also make that public. That information is available from the Gaming Corporation.
MR. DOWNE: As I understand it - I could be corrected, Mr. Minister - there hasn't been a detailed media release outlining the details of the agreement, more or less the 30,000-foot elevated view of the agreement, but not the details of the agreement.
MR. LEBLANC: No, I disagree. I think the details were put in place; I am pretty sure about that. I am being informed that actually your caucus has received a copy of the agreement. Maybe I stand to be corrected, but you could just check that. If you haven't, we will provide one.
MR. DOWNE: We have that, but I understand that there wasn't a detailed discussion on the ALC. The Alcohol and Gaming Authority annual report indicated Nova Scotians, in 1999, had bought $22.2 million more in lottery tickets than in 1996, yet the province collected $2.5 million less in revenue. I understand, under the agreement you have, there is no retroactivity to that agreement. Is that accurate?
MR. LEBLANC: No, I think there was some provision for some retroactivity. I used to know this like the back of my hand, but I have forgotten some of it over time.
MR. DOWNE: That is what happens when you turn 44 I guess.
MR. LEBLANC: It went back as far as April 1999. It was $500,000 a year that was received from the Province of New Brunswick, so that was $1.5 million that we received over and above the changes in the operating results of the Gaming Corporation, which is approximately a $5 million improvement that we had from the previous deal. Of course that was due to the fact that the arrangement that had been negotiated had some oversights in it and was penalizing Nova Scotia because we were paying a disproportionate amount of the costs.
MR. DOWNE: Do you agree, Mr. Minister, that we were not getting a fair deal from ALC?
MR. LEBLANC: No one disagreed with that, we didn't disagree with that before.
MR. DOWNE: Now the Auditor General was very specific in his review of ALC and indicated a number years previous to 1999, I think it was probably back in 1996, 1997 . . .
MR. LEBLANC: I think 1997 rings a bell.
MR. DOWNE: If I recall correctly the AG did a very detailed analysis of ALC and indicated then that we were not getting our fair share in 1997, nor in previous years, to the pay out. The retroactivity was based on the disclosure by the AG that from 1997 forward we were not getting our fair share, although we could have argued back further. You are telling me now that the retroactivity that you ended up getting was really one year, 1999, retroactivity, even though the AG indicated in 1997 or 1996, whenever that came out, that we were not getting our fair share to the tune of $2.5-plus million a year, and that had been going on for some time.
MR. LEBLANC: Actually, I think it was going on prior to 1977. If you look at the comments, the Auditor General said that - I re-emphasize again - Nova Scotia was paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of ALC based on the business we were generating and, as such, we were losing revenues, because obviously we are paying more of the cost and we were receiving less money than we should. I go back to the point that the decision from the previous administration was to remove itself from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and to set up a stand-alone lottery. The reason you did that is that you could not negotiate a new deal with the proponents who were there.
Subsequent to the change and subsequent to the change in the makeup of the board, because I think the faces changed at the board level especially for New Brunswick, there was a change in the Government of New Brunswick - I think there was a little more co-operation. I am not arguing that it was difficult to move this agenda forward. I think the people who were there before were very adamant that it shouldn't change, and the negotiations were difficult. I know I spoke to the acting chair, Dara Gordon, who was saying how difficult it was to move this forward, and they were adamant that it wouldn't.
I don't for a second argue that the negotiations were difficult to get moving. Our big concern was that moving forward with a stand-alone corporation had sizeable risk that we would have to assume. A lot of these assumptions that were put forward, in our opinion, were very risky, and if they didn't occur then we would basically be putting ourselves in a very difficult position.
What we negotiated is an increase and a change in that formula, which basically gives us approximately $4 million to $5 million annually increased net revenues. We have put in place a dispute resolution process whereby if we get in the same situation there is a way to resolve it. Before we couldn't, because it took unanimity amongst all the partners in order
to do it and we could never do that. There was always one province that wouldn't agree to it. We talked about putting forward an agency agreement. This was one of the major concerns of the former chairman, that Nova Scotia should have more input in how it deals with its gaming activities because of the fact that we had built up expertise here and we felt that by doing that we would be more efficient and we would be more focused. So overall, for us, it was the other aspect of the regional co-operation that if we could stay together in this and have those advantages it was an advantage to do so.
Now we were fortunate that the acting chairman continued in her role in negotiating for that, and I want to thank her publicly for her efforts, she did an excellent job and I want to go on record as saying that. But we brought about some of these changes that were not there before when you made the previous decision. For us, this was a much better deal for all the points that I just emphasized overall.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, if it was just a matter of going back one year and after what we have been presenting to the other partners, I dare say that you probably would have said we failed if we collapsed to only going back one year. Would the minister request the Auditor General to conduct a follow-up analysis and audit of Atlantic Lottery Corporation so Nova Scotians will know if in fact we got a fair deal? That is really the issue here. We were working under the basis of what the AG had recommended to us. Since that agreement was signed, the Auditor General has not done an overall audit of Atlantic Lottery Corporation to know whether or not the benefits have been, in fact, fair for Nova Scotia and I am requesting, based on your recommendations that you are getting a good deal, that the Auditor General follow up so all the shareholders and the shareholders of Nova Scotia, which is the public of Nova Scotia, will know if we got a good deal. If we got a good deal, I will be the first one to congratulate you.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, I guess, in a sense, I have to look at, first of all if I make the request, I know the Auditor General has been asked to do a lot of work. The issues that he was concerned with regarding the Atlantic Lottery Corporation were the ones that we dealt with. One of the provisions that was a problem, if I remember correctly, is that under the old system of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation the Auditor General didn't have the permission or didn't have the latitude to do an audit of an agency, didn't have the permission to even examine the books of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to see whether or not we are getting a good deal.
Now, my understanding is that changed and that changed during your administration, I think due to pressure not only from Nova Scotia, but some of the other provinces saying look, it is our money, why can't we at least look at the books? I think that that change was very good. I can say here today that for us, if the Auditor General wants to look at the books, that is fine, but I don't think I am prepared to ask him to do the audit because, right now, I know from the work that he is doing, and we are asking him at the same time to do the financial statements of the province, that if he has the latitude and he has the time to do it,
I have no problem, but I don't think I am prepared to make a recommendation that he do it now and, then again, it would actually be binding on him to do it, taking into consideration that we have made these changes already. But if he wants to make that audit, then I would be supportive of it, but I don't think I am prepared to make a request that he do so.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, I appreciate where you are coming from to a degree, but notwithstanding the fact that the Auditor General did an audit and said that we were not getting our share, you went back to the table and negotiated, hopefully, a very good deal for Nova Scotia, yet we, as Nova Scotians, still don't know if we have a good deal. If you feel that confident in the decision that you have gotten, and the players around the table have changed to the degree that there is the ability to be able to find a solution - and I compliment you for getting that far - my question is why wouldn't you ask the Auditor General to consider doing an audit on ALC so that all Nova Scotians would be able to turn to you and thank you for doing a great job?
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, I guess, more than one thing, the big problem with the Auditor General was not only how the costs are being shared, but the structure, a lot of different issues that have been addressed here. If you go back to the concerns that the Auditor General outlined in his report, I think if you look at what has transpired, it addressed most of those concerns, if not more, because we actually brought some things over and above that I think, even in regards to the agency agreement, which is not something that the Auditor General was talking about at that time. I will relate to the Auditor General that you wish for this to be examined. It will be at his discretion as to whether or not he has the resources and the time to do it, but I will make the commitment that I will write a letter saying that you would like to have it examined and it will be for his discretion as to whether or not he has the staff and the time to do it. I will endeavour to do that and I will draft that letter shortly.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, I have written the Auditor General requesting that myself, but it would be appreciated if you would put in that letter that you would support my request to do the audit and, that way, you are not demanding him to do anything. It is up to him to make that choice, but don't you agree that it would be great to do that audit so that that particular piece of information would be, to 900,000-some shareholders we have in Nova Scotia in our partnership agreement within ALC, that we got a good deal. I am sure that you have worked hard at it, as I know my predecessors, the Minister of Finance and myself had worked extremely hard trying to negotiate a better deal. So I am really out here trying to make you look good, Mr. Minister.
MR. LEBLANC: I know you have my best interests at heart. I know that. I just want to say that . . .
MR. DOWNE: Unless you are scared that he might find something you are not going to be happy with, which I doubt if he would do that.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, I am not scared whatsoever, but I do want to indicate that we have now made the Auditor General the auditor of record for the province and that is a lot of work for him to do. The more tasks we direct him to do, the more staff he requires, the more resources he requires, and that is my concern in this regard, whether or not the Auditor General has the time and resources or whether he feels that it is appropriate. But if he wants to do the audit, I am more than prepared to do it, but I leave it to his discretion as to what staff time and workload that he has. I do know that he has a huge workload and especially because of the fact he is now auditor of record.
MR. DOWNE: I know he has a workload and I know he has, I think, additional staff now and things of that nature. I am sure he would love to turn back to the day of reviewing it, back in 1996-97 - or whenever that review was - to be able to five years later do another evaluation and audit to make sure that, in fact, everything has been done. There are benefits and everything else that are part of that process and the jobs are in New Brunswick. Premier Lord was able to secure those jobs for the province and, of course, P.E.I. basically goes for the ride because they are so small they need the co-operation of each other and I prefer to have co-operation. So, anyway, Mr. Minister, obviously, your negotiating ability is pretty tough because I can't even get you to agree to something that is going to supposedly make you look good.
MR. LEBLANC: I think I learned from Dara Gordon.
MR. DOWNE: We will let it go at that, Mr. Minister. I think we have realized that you are nervous to do it, but I appreciate the letter going in support of my letter and I would appreciate it if you could possibly put on the bottom that you would support that initiative, because there is nothing wrong with that.
I would like to move to tobacco, Mr. Minister. I know that Mike Rainer told me that I can't be too late here today because they all want to go home and relax.
MR. LEBLANC: Mike, did you say that?
MR. DOWNE: No, he never said that.
Turning to tobacco. Now that we know that the letter is going to go the AG and there is a request for an audit of ALC to make sure that we have value for money, I would like to move to tobacco. Mr. Minister, you are going to receive $20 million in tobacco tax. The budget came down on March 29th and the tax at that time was projected to be $5.7 million or $5.9 million. We didn't know how much it was going to be; we knew roughly how much it was going to be, but we didn't know when everybody would agree to it. There was an agreement, I think it was last week, that announced that there was an agreement by all the participants in the tobacco tax. The date of that agreement was what, Mr. Minister?
MR. LEBLANC: The agreement was announced on Thursday of last week. That would have been April 3rd, or something like that, if I remember correctly.
MR. DOWNE: So on April 3, 2001, and a local corner store down in Pubnico had a shelf full of tobacco that day, or is it the next day that they charge the increased cost of tobacco?
MR. LEBLANC: It would have been effective midnight of that day.
MR. DOWNE: So any inventory they had bought prior to the tax increase they would have had to retroactively pay back to the government the tax increase on that tobacco?
MR. LEBLANC: That's correct.
MR. DOWNE: So all tobacco sales, whether they purchased the tobacco after the announcement or prior to the announcement, that is their responsibility to pay the provincial government the additional tax?
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, the $20 million, it's a nice round number and I am sure that there are lots of people who want their roads - $20 million would help with the potholes and the bushes along the side of the road. Gosh, you know, agriculture could use it. So, you got that a year or so ago with a 20 per cent reduction. The list goes on, health care workers, education.
Mr. Minister, can you tell me what you're going to do with this $20 million tax, which I might say our caucus has been very supportive of that initiative of the $20 million tax on the tobacco because it is the right work, if it can be a deterrent to stop people from smoking, albeit your caving in to the interests of the smugglers is beyond me, but besides that this $20 million is a deterrent, hopefully, to stop people from smoking. What are you going to do specifically with the $20 million, Mr. Minister?
MR. LEBLANC: Well, I will answer two questions because you really had two questions. One was a comment, which I think I should deal with. The other one is with regard to the funds. The funds will go into the revenues of the province under the tobacco tax revenues. The indication from Health is that they are planning a smoking cessation strategy that will unfold in the fall. The details of that have not yet been finalized, and so that amount will be finalized at that point in time.
I should point out two things, one of which is I have heard it said, well, why didn't you include this in the budget. I indicated before that this has been ongoing since January of last year, there has been talk for a long period of time. We felt that during last year the
discussions were moving on. We felt that it would happen perhaps early in the fall. The federal government, I believe at that time, had other things on its mind, other focuses on its mind, and it held off. We kept waiting for it to happen and you have a lot of people who want to get together and do this in unanimity. Even the day I tabled the budget, I can honestly say that I didn't know when this announcement would happen. I was very pleasantly surprised that it happened so soon after because, with all the delays that happened, I was beginning to wonder whether it ever would. So that's one issue.
In regard to the enforcement of the tobacco side of it, I should say first of all that I made some enquiries as to how this came up and the recommendations are coming from Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and the collection agency there is saying that they have been in Provincial Court and that they have ruled them out of order. These are the provisions whereby there was a minimum fine. If I could say, the judge basically refused to put in place the fine and these recommendations came out of that tobacco enforcement section, and that's where the recommendations come from. They were not prepared by my staff in Finance. They were prepared by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and I guess it's outlined in how they were structured. They are basically to ensure that there are progressively worse fines and also, if you look at the quantities that were in there, there were fines for less than 50 cartons, over 50 cartons; the severity increases with the quantity.
You mention the fact that there is a $250 minimum fine and, I go back again, that is for where something is not specifically prescribed in the bill. So, in other words, if there is something that would not have been outlined specifically, it gives the latitude of a judge to go from I think $250 to $5,000. So, some latitude that a judge would have that he did not have before.
[3:30 p.m.]
MR. DOWNE: The latitude he had before was from $10,000 to $50,000. What you have done now is said to the smugglers, we're not going to take it to you too hard, we're only going to charge you $250 to $5,000. I knew you didn't write that piece of legislation. I mean nobody in the department would write that unless it was directed by - I mean it is under another group. Here's the old Act.
MR. LEBLANC: I know.
MR. DOWNE: Here's the new Act and it is very clear, Mr. Minister, when you read it, you have gone from $10,000 to $50,000, to $250 to $5,000 and that's how I see it. Here are the old regulations. Here are the new regulations.
MR. LEBLANC: I go back to the point, the $250 is for things which are not prescribed in the bill, things that may not have been contemplated coming forward. That gives the judge the latitude of doing it, at least placing some fine from a range of $250 to, I
think there's $2,500 on that, my note is in front of me. The other issues in regard to smuggling related to smuggling of tobacco products under 50 cartons and over 50 cartons is very specific as to what the fines are and they are higher than the $250 you talked about.
MR. DOWNE: The minimum fine of $250 to a maximum of $5,000. I guess the only concern I have is that you're telling me that the Department of Justice people, or the actual judges themselves are the ones who are saying to you that we refuse to implement this legislative Act, this directive by legislation to impose a penalty on smugglers to that tune, that's what you're telling me, and so the way around it is to reduce the fine. That's what the judges in the province are referring to. Is that accurate?
MR. LEBLANC: I would say that's relatively accurate, because what has happened is that the judges in this country, whether you agree with it or not, a lot of times are deeming the provisions for fines to be without any latitude and, as such, are refusing to enforce them. I don't speak for the judiciary of this province. However, that is the case and I would much rather have a progressive penalty whereby we can deal with that, plus the tax they should have paid; I think it is three times the tax they are going to pay plus the fines if you look into the specifics that we talk about, the under 50 cartons and over 50 cartons. The increment of this would add up to considerable amounts. It gives, I believe, the judge some latitude in sentencing and I think that is part of the problem that was not present there before, actually having these things with no punitive provisions whatsoever.
I don't think the honourable member, himself, or anyone in the House would like to have someone go to court and have basically no fine imposed on people who smuggle. I don't think that serves the interest of the Province of Nova Scotia.
MR. DOWNE: Anyway, I am not going to get into a debate on that. I am more interested in what you are going to do with the $20 million. Can you tell me, you talk about smoking cessation, how much are you allocating for smoking cessations?
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, first of all, we're talking $15 million because there were provisions already in the budget for 5.7 per cent of this. So I want to clarify.
MR. DOWNE: It is $20 million overall?
MR. LEBLANC: No. Its increase overall is $20.7 million. Within the provisions of our estimates, we had estimated 5.7 per cent. So we are talking an increment here of $15 million, just to make sure that everyone understands that. So, even in this budget, one of the issues that we've put in place for a deterrent in regard to smoking, giving monies to community health boards, part of those funds will be used in smoking cessation programs they will be putting in place. I just want to point out that issue.
In regard to the $15 million, that is something that exceeds our expectations, and I am pleased with that because I believe that the price increase will have some effect especially on our young smokers because they seem to be the most problematic thing that we face, and for some strange reason it seems to be more problematic with young females. I don't know, I can't explain that. However, that seems to be the truth. The Department of Health has indicated, already, that they will be putting forward a smoking cessation policy that will be unfolded in the fall, and as for the final details of the cost of it, I am not privy to it, and the Department of Health will have that and will be prepared to announce that in the fall.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, my concern is that the additional $15 million of the $20.7 million that is going to be part of the revenue stream of the Province of Nova Scotia, doesn't go into the consolidated revenue stream, it just doesn't go into that general slush fund for you to be able to do a row here or there, or whatever you're going to do with it. I mean, unless, of course, it is Lunenburg West, but I doubt very much if that will happen. I have been told that it probably won't, so I don't know. We supported the $20.7 million overall, that you are going to collect this year from tobacco, over and above, with the increased fee. We supported that for the purpose of health and education, and I want to know, Mr. Minister, are you going to commit it 100 per cent to the benefit of those people trying to quit smoking, with programs, with assistance in cost of buying the different pills that they take and patches or something like that. Is it there to help people or are you going to just take the $5.7 million that was in the budget and the other $15 million and throw it into general revenue? Because, if you wait for the Department of Health to come out with a plan, you could very well be 11 months and 28 days from now before that gets rolled out.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, the funds received from the price increase in tobacco will go into the general revenues. That is where it will be. There will be a smoking cessation program put forward by the Department of Health in the fall. I do not know the degree or the latitude or the size of the program that is there. But I do want to point out the number of e-mails and letters that I have received from many Nova Scotians supporting the increase in smoking, especially dealing with youth, and we have brought that forward. We did that in conjunction with a strategy to not have smuggling increase. That is a real concern that we have.
If you look at the mid 1990's and the problem that we had and why prices were reduced at that point in time, there were many different factors which had an impact on that and, obviously, one was that a lot of the tobacco products were being exported out of the country and also reintroduced through different means. Some of that has changed and that is very positive. Our problem is doing this in conjunction with other provinces whereby we don't get interprovincial leakage. That is why we felt it was very important that we do that along with, basically, our Atlantic Provinces.
I know that I speak for the minister in New Brunswick. He was concerned that it be done in conjunction because, obviously, he borders on Quebec, which has lower prices already, and if New Brunswick were to have made a move prior to Quebec signing on, the differential would have been even greater, which would have caused some real problems for them.
MR. DOWNE: I know all that stuff, Mr. Minister, and I appreciate that and I support that. The bottom line here is you are going to take $15 million, or a percentage of that $15 million, and put it in general revenues. Is that true or false?
MR. LEBLANC: The answer is true.
MR. DOWNE: You have no problem doing that?
MR. LEBLANC: No, I don't.
MR. DOWNE: Well, I have a problem with that but we will look at it later on. There was a colleague who was going to share some time with you, Mr. Minister. Everyone is lining up to want to talk to you.
MR. LEBLANC: I am a pretty popular guy sometimes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You still have 20 minutes remaining in your time.
MR. DOWNE: I am fully aware that I have 20 minutes left in my time.
MR. LEBLANC: Maybe we can ask the Page to have your colleague sent in?
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Chairman, I have already done that. Is there any other helpful advice you want to give me? Do you want to throw a question my way to ask the minister or something?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on with the next question then.
MR. LEBLANC: It has gone very smoothly this year. Let's see if we can finish it this way.
MR. DOWNE: I am not going to give up any time. I want to move on to the issue of your pension investments and how we are doing. I realize the staff, the high calibre of individuals we have with the money that we have invested, can you, Mr. Minister, give us an idea how we were doing last year with the funds as a percentage of growth? I understand we had phenomenal years, the last two years, actually.
MR. LEBLANC: The last actuarial report we had the Public Service Superannuation Fund at 106 per cent as of March 31, 2000. That is very positive. My information shows that the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, at the same time, was in the range of 90 per cent. So we made remarkable improvements, especially in the Nova Scotia Teachers Union. However, I am being cautioned by staff that people should not make assumptions that things will continue as they have been. Obviously, a lot of it is subject to earnings going forward and being prudent and careful in making projections.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, when we took over in 1993 from a previous administration, the unfunded liability in the teachers' fund was somewhere in the vicinity of $1 billion.
MR. LEBLANC: It could be.
MR. DOWNE: Well, it was. Because of the good, solid work and prudence of previous administrations and great staff we are now at 90 per cent. This fund will be actuarially sound in a very short period of time. Is that correct? Are we in a good position on the teachers' fund, at this point looking out for the largest percentage of retirement in the next five years, do we look like we are in fine shape on that or have we still got some concern?
MR. LEBLANC: Obviously, we are always concerned when we are still underfunded. I think the provisions that were put in place by the previous administration, I think it was $30 million - but they go back to 1994. The provisions that have been put in place, basically, we feel will achieve that. We are being, I guess, cautious as to whether that will happen ahead of time or on schedule, but I can say the progress is considerable, it's ongoing. I want to say that the Investment Committee, which is made up of a lot of different people, have done an excellent job. It has worked very closely with Doug Stratton and his staff and we feel there is a good line of communication. So, basically, we are very optimistic about it, but we are also being cautious.
MR. DOWNE: The 106 per cent in the other programs, Mr. Minister, and you were very complimentary of myself and staff and I appreciate that. I hope that is noted in the minutes here. I am sure it will be. It's not very often that happens with you. But 106 per cent, at some point I think it is 120 per cent where you are actually in penalty, around 120 per cent . . .
MR. LEBLANC: Once you get over 110 per cent, you are supposed to come up with a plan. Once you get over 120 per cent, then you are going to get into the penalty provisions whereby you would not be registered with the federal government. So then it would be like the emergency plan. So, obviously, we have to start planning at 110 per cent, but at 120 per cent, we have to take immediate action.
MR. DOWNE: At 106 per cent, you are soon there. Would the minister, in the event that we get to the 120 per cent, or near that 120 per cent be receptive to a holiday?
MR. LEBLANC: Well, obviously, we will have to look at some options as to whether or not it is a holiday or other options, but we will have to act on that. I guess where this is a speculative question, hopefully, we will continue to do well but that will depend on the performance of the fund itself.
MR. DOWNE: Mr. Minister, on transportation, your blue book talks about the fact that total revenues from fuel tax should be allocated to highway activity. When do you foresee that being a reality?
MR. LEBLANC: If I recall correctly, the commitment that was made, not only the blue book but also the Premier indicated an additional $31 million at that time. From the time we took office we have increased it $11 million this year and, in another two years we would see ourselves meeting that commitment.
MR. DOWNE: So when?
MR. LEBLANC: Two more years.
MR. DOWNE: Two more years and 100 per cent. That will be provincial money or federal-provincial money?
MR. LEBLANC: It could be provincial.
MR. DOWNE: Provincial money, and that will be strictly for paving and repaving or all transportation activity.
MR. LEBLANC: No, that would also be for transportation activity. You can't set aside the other work that Transportation does in maintaining our work because, basically, that is what those funds are for, maintaining our highways. A lot of that happens in the maintenance of it. Some of it also involves the paving that you are referring to. We also have bridges that we have to maintain. I know you being a previous Transportation Minister know we have a huge number of bridges which really cause a lot of problems here for the province.
MR. DOWNE: At least 26,000 kilometres of highways . . .
MR. LEBLANC: And 3,000 bridges.
MR. DOWNE: . . . and we have almost 3,000 - yes, we have the largest number of bridges in Atlantic Canada. If you add Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick together, we have almost as many kilometres as those two areas. We have a lot of work. We
have bridges going nowhere and everything else. So we have all sorts of things that we have to (Interruptions)
MR. LEBLANC: Not going there.
MR. DOWNE: Don't go there. Mr. Minister, on the overall numbers that you have for the debt in the Province of Nova Scotia, and we have kicked this around before, the term low balling, I think I have used it, I think the Official Opposition have used it and I know the analysis that I have, done by the branch, the modelling numbers that are used, are conservative numbers, are safe numbers, but there is a tolerance in there. When you are doing that modelling, you can take the low end of the tolerance scale or you can take the upper end of the tolerance scale but either one of them are conservative, they are prudent numbers. Have you directed staff to go to the lower level of the modelling formula in regard to revenue stream for the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. LEBLANC: No, I haven't.
MR. DOWNE: Have you asked staff in that branch or any branch to be more conservative than they currently or previously were?
MR. LEBLANC: No, I haven't. This is a very serious question because to try to have an impact on revenues and direct staff to go one way or another, I think, is highly inappropriate. I know, speaking as a minister, and yourself as a previous minister, to do that would be inappropriate, a very weak work in comparison to this because we have to have their professional advice in projecting those numbers. I just want to clearly emphasize that I have not given direction to staff to be either optimistic or low on some of their estimates to make the numbers come out the way they would like to.
MR. DOWNE: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I was happy to hear that response because that is what I would expect from a Minister of Finance to answer that way, and I appreciate the fact that you have taken that position seriously because it is an important one. I want to make sure that previously, when you were in another administration, there used to be all sorts of fooling around with revenue expectations. I am glad to hear there has been a born-again attitude toward reasonable expectations as what we have tried to live under. The professional staff you have working with you have always impressed upon me that if we have a surprise, we want it to be a good surprise, so just leave the modelling alone. That is the way it should be and it is a good program. So I am happy to hear that, Mr. Minister.
My colleague has arrived. He is itching to ask you a few questions, so with the few minutes left, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it over to my colleague, the honourable member for Richmond.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Richmond. Mr. Samson, the time is now 3:48 p.m. You have 10 minutes remaining in this allotment.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I wanted to ask you a few questions about the Acadian Affairs part of your portfolio. What is left of the Acadian Affairs Secretariat right now?
MR. LEBLANC: Are you speaking about staff or are you speaking about the funding?
MR. SAMSON: Both.
MR. LEBLANC: The staff today, we have not filled a position for the director general - I am trying to remember exactly his position - executive director, and that was Mr. Paul Gaudet, who was previously in that position. We are in the start of a process to bring about a full-time position to fill that capacity, and that probably will happen within a short period of time, I would say three to four months, something like that.
MR. SAMSON: What is your budget for the secretariat?
MR. LEBLANC: It is $110,000.
MR. SAMSON: And you have that budget again this year?
MR. LEBLANC: Yes, we do.
MR. SAMSON: Last year, you did not have an executive director, so I am assuming that . . .
MR. LEBLANC: For part of the year we did, not the full year.
MR. SAMSON: The money remaining in that budget from last year, where is that money gone?
MR. LEBLANC: That money stayed in the department and we used that money for many different things. But I would say some of the issues we wanted to trigger through l'Entente Canada, with Heritage Canada, we used that to fund some programs that people had made submissions for. That is information that I would be more than pleased to share with you.
MR. SAMSON: If you could. When you say that it stayed within the department, you mean Acadian Affairs, not Finance?
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct.
MR. SAMSON: Other than the executive director, there is no other staff in that department?
MR. LEBLANC: No, there is not.
MR. SAMSON: You appointed an advisory committee and, as you are well aware, I raised the concerns on that because of the process. I thought it was a very dangerous precedent to be setting, that a minister would hand-pick an advisory committee without allowing Nova Scotians from one end of this province to submit applications and to be able to be considered through the normal process. As you know, there is an advisory council to the minister on the Status of Women and there is an advisory council to the Minister of Community Services; those all go through the Human Resources process. Why did you not see fit to give every Nova Scotian, especially every Acadian, an opportunity to apply to be a member on this advisory committee?
MR. LEBLANC: Well, there are differences between the structures that you have talked about because they are legally constituted organizations. I think if you look at the Status of Women, it is set up by legislation; it has a very formal structure. This is an informal structure. When you speak about the people that we have chosen, I look at the people that were nominated. We took the individual who was president of la FANE, the Federation of Acadians of Nova Scotia. We took Mr. Allister Surette, who was a former colleague of many of your colleagues in the House, who is now the President of Collège de l'Acadie.
We had an individual called Monsieur Delphis Comeau, who is the Clerk for the Municipality of Clare. We took a student from the Université Sainte-Anne, who I got a suggestion from la FANE, I asked them for a submission of someone who would be interested in doing it and they submitted a name, Joline Larade, who happens to be from the constituency of Cheticamp; Yvette Aucoin, who is a representative of the Conseil scolaire acadien provinciale; and an individual from your riding who is an educator, Ben Samsom. There are another couple of individuals and my mind has gone blank. But I look at the suggestions that we have chosen, I think it was people who I felt first of all were from throughout Nova Scotia, representing regions that you represent, regions of Cheticamp, regions of Clare, Argyle, which are the major Acadian population areas we have here. We have representation also from the core, metropolitan city. Another individual who sits on the board is Vaughn Madden, who is the Executive Director of the program Congres mondial acadien.
So I look at the choices that I have made. I think all of them speak of the fact that many different organizations that are represented that Acadians serve on, or are represented by, think it was a good, diverse group we chose.
MR. SAMSON: How many times have you met with this advisory committee?
MR. LEBLANC: I have met with them two or three different times. I have to go back through my notes, but I believe it was at least two or three times.
MR. SAMSON: What action has been taken as a result of those meetings?
MR. LEBLANC: Well, two things have happened. One of the things we are asking for is local concerns they would bring in from the different regions that they represent and I think there has been a good dialogue. The other dialogue, I guess, is what they would expect from the Bureau des Affaires acadiennes, what kind of structure would they like to see in place, asking them their suggestions, asking them what they would like to see government deliver in services. So I guess those are the types of discussions that we have had. It was a sounding board. It was always meant to be a sounding board. This is not a group that will make decisions for government. It is a group that I can talk to on an ongoing basis, at least to hear what they have to say. People would say, well, why don't you just meet with la FANE? We could also do that. But I felt that this group was a good cross section of Nova Scotians across the province and, as such, allows me to have maybe an open and frank discussion, hear what they have to say.
Other issues they brought up were issues in your riding whereby people were talking and referring to the fact that speech pathologists is something that is required and that the CSAP is having difficulty recruiting, even though they are even offering to do training for people to go and take the course, they are unable to find someone to go take the training and provide that service. So I found there was a good exchange of views and a lot of those views have been forwarded on to my colleagues when I hear them.
MR. SAMSON: I appreciate hearing it from the minister. I guess one of the big frustrations, Mr. Minister, is that it is good to get information and it is good to hear these concerns about speech pathologists, about the need to discuss with Patrimoine canada different issues. The unfortunate thing is you have no executive director to do this work and to carry out the concerns that have been raised. We all know you are a very busy man, and I think the Acadian population in this province recognizes that. That is why in having an executive director you had someone who could be full-time addressing these concerns, making the necessary contacts and pursuing this. I guess it is safe to say now, that you gone one year or very near a year without an executive director.
MR. LEBLANC: About nine months, I think, in that range.
MR. SAMSON: Well, back where I come from, nine months is very near to a year, as I said.
MR. LEBLANC: I am just trying to be exact.
MR. SAMSON: I appreciate that, and I guess my curiosity begs the question, what are you waiting for? You have met with this group twice, they have made it clear there are issues out there, it is good that you are getting consultation. The problem is, there is no one acting on a full-time basis on these concerns. This morning, we did have the opportunity to meet with representatives of la FANE, l'èquipe l'acadie who are trying to pursue the different issues that they have. Unfortunately, right now, they do not have a full-time person in your government to address and to pursue these issues on their behalf, so, again, I beg the question, what are you waiting for?
MR. LEBLANC: As I indicated before, we will be moving and filling the position in the short term of this one here. As to exactly how quickly that will happen, I will probably have a better idea within the next two to three weeks. Some of the same things you are hearing from l'èquipe l'acadie and la FANE, today has been said to me, and we felt there was a change in direction required from within the bureau. We made some changes and now we are going to be making some more changes that will bring us forward. I don't argue that the position will be established. I welcome your support in that regard and we will be moving forward to filling this position. It has taken a lot of my time, which I don't mind whatsoever, the Acadian community is something that I hold dear to my heart. I have been working very closely, especially with la FANE over the last year and, I think, if anything, the fact that this position has been open has allowed me to spend a lot more time on this portfolio. However, your point is well taken that it requires someone full-time and I agree with you.
MR. SAMSON: If I could ask the minister, I know you have given some indication that you expect to do something in two to three weeks. Is it safe to say that the position of executive director will be an open competition?
MR. LEBLANC: The answer is yes. Although I will say as a caveat to that, it may be someone who will fill the position in the interim before the position is put full-time because that is one of the concerns that people have put forward. They would like to have someone at least acting until such time as the competition takes place.
MR. SAMSON: I can appreciate that minister. I guess my answer to that is that we would have liked to have seen an acting person nine months ago. That wasn't there. I think nine months is sufficient time. You have met with this group twice, they have made it clear what the issues are. I think, clearly, what the Acadian community is telling you is to get on with it. There is no need for an acting person, there is a need for a full-time person. Someone who is going to carry the ball, if I might say, and is going to be a constant person. To bring an acting person in now, to have all these organizations come in and make their presentations . . .
MR. LEBLANC: There is no one else.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Time is up, but I will allow you to answer the question.
MR. LEBLANC: On that issue, I will say two things. One is that you will go again because there is no one else to ask questions (Interruption) Okay, you probably will, Mr. Chairman. I have lost my train of thought now. In regard to filling the position, the committee has made a request out of the Bureau des Affaires acadiennes, my assistant and also staff there, Therese Coughlan who is also my secretary, and you may be aware, she is fully bilingual and it was a very positive move, I felt, to bring her into my office. It allows the Acadian community and francophones of this province to deal with not only a Finance Minister, but in my capacity as Minister for Acadian Affairs, in the language of their choice. I just wanted to state that. They have asked for us to do a quick review and to see what is in place in other provinces to see what we would be putting into this position. They made that request of me. We are doing that work now, and so that is part of the process of delaying, not a delay, but taking some time to do that.
I would like to point out to you though, I still share your concern that we should bring someone on stream quicker than that, barring this. There is work to be done. A lot of the work of the l'Entente Canada Nouvelle-Ecosse has to be done and a lot of that is being done by my assistant and also staff. We are doing the best we can, but we want to do justice to all the work that is there. I think if you ask all those groups, they have had excellent co-operation from our staff, especially from my assistant and also from my staff at the office. However, I share your concerns that we need someone there in a much more full-time capacity, and we will comply with that.
[4:00 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: I want to thank the minister for that answer. I guess I can't stress enough the need to put in a full-time, constant person. I can certainly attest to the fact that I know that your assistant, Chris D'Entremont, has done tremendous work. I know that many of the organizations I have spoken to have indicated he has been quick to get back to them and provide information. I know as members of the House, he has been very good at providing us with information on different issues, so I guess the problem still is, regardless of that - I know Phyllis has been great also - but there needs to be a permanent person that the community knows is going to be there on a long-term basis. To bring an interim person in now to do all the consultation with all the groups, learn about all the groups, only to know that someone else is going to step in in two or three months time is extremely frustrating and it is going to delay and hamper this process. I can't encourage you enough. It has been nine months, there has been no official acting person. I know in many ways Chris has been the acting person, but there needs to be someone that the community knows is going to bring this forward.
The other pressing thing, why there is an absolute need, not only for an executive director, possibly even more staff, is with the upcoming summit in 2004. I am curious, as Minister of Acadian Affairs and as one of the, I would say, most important ministers in this
government, what has your department done and what is your government doing to prepare for the Acadian summit in 2004?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to advise you that the time allotted to the Liberal Party is finished. The NDP advise that when they are finished with the Finance Minister, unless a certain particular gentleman from Sackville comes in, I understand there might be a question from the PC caucus, so after you finish this question, I will allow the PC caucus to ask one question and then go back to the Liberals if they wish to have further questions of this minister.
MR. LEBLANC: If I could just answer the question on the Congrès mondial acadian, the World Acadian Congress. I should point out there is a strategy being developed within the Department of Tourism. That is in conjunction with Heritage Canada having a very obvious interest in making sure that this is the showcase for Acadians that we all want and deserve. I think this is not only a cultural event, it is also an economic event. For many of our communities this is the chance to build up tourism and also show ourselves as a people. We consider ourselves Nova Scotians, very proud of our province, and I am sure you share my concerns with that but, at the same time, we look at ourselves as a people who have survived adversity, persecution, deportation and it was a difficult time. The past is the past, however, we, as Acadians, hold that very dear. That perseverance is something that led us through many years of hardship and our faith and our religion is something that I think will be showcased in this World Acadian Congress, but we also have many different cultural aspects that I think we can benefit from. It is important that it is a success.
I want to thank the honourable member and the previous administration for taking the initiative to make application to be the host. When we became government one of the first things I did when I was made the new minister, I was asked if I wanted to go to Louisiana to represent us at the World Acadian Congress there. The fact of the matter was that I had to prepare a budget within a few months and had a million things to do, I couldn't go, though it was with great regret that I had to say no. I would have loved to have gone, however (Interruptions) he went, I don't want to hear this anymore. He and Wayne Gaudet went.
Anyway, I am sure you did a good job representing us, but the fact of the matter is that we were successful, so we have to make it work. We are prepared, as a province, to make the investments financially, and I am not saying there is a blank cheque with regard to it, but we are prepared to make the investments required to make this happen. It has to be successful. This is not only going to be beneficial to Acadians, we are estimating 100,000 people coming to this province to take part in the Acadian congress in a two week period - 100,000 people that probably wouldn't be here. So, the economic benefits to this province will be huge, and the good part about it, Mr. Chairman, though you are a metro member, is that a lot of it will happen in rural Nova Scotia, let alone the capital region. Many times, these major events happen in the metropolitan area, a lot of the Acadian regions are spread
out across this province from Cheticamp, Richmond, Clare, Argyle and Pomquet, so a lot of those communities will see some of those benefits and I should point out there are many other communities who have French lineage, Grand Pré, Port Royal, Annapolis Royal. We also have Lahave, Port Mouton, it goes on and on. I think a lot of them will also take opportunities to take part in this and take advantage of it. We all hope they do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just thought to clarify with the minister, there are also Acadian communities here in metro of West Chezzetcook and Grand Desert.
MR. LEBLANC: That is right. Mr. Chairman, I just couldn't list them all, but I want to thank you very much for that information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to make sure you have them all. Anyway, I understand there is a question from the PC caucus? Mr. Langille, the honourable member for Colchester North. You time is 4:05 p.m., just for your information.
MR. WILLIAM LANGILLE: I just have a couple of short ones and just for some clarification. I think 52(a) and 53 under the Provincial Finance Act, is where I am going with this one. You stated earlier that you have a floating fund of 15 per cent of the budget. Is that correct?
MR. LEBLANC: Would you say that again, please?
MR. LANGILLE: You have a floating percentage of 15 per cent . . .
MR. LEBLANC: That is the amount of debt that we have. We have a policy in the Province of Nova Scotia for debt management, it will go between 15 per cent to 35 per cent and we follow that. A lot of times it will be determined by staff as to whether it is to our advantage to have short-term debt rather than going to long term at that time. We are looking ahead, weighing our options and so forth, and at the present time we are at the low ebb of that range and we are at 15 per cent.
MR. LANGILLE: So this 15 per cent is money that is not locked in, is that correct?
MR. LEBLANC: That is correct. Most of them are in three-month Treasury notes.
MR. LANGILLE: Now, Mr. Dodge, I believe, next week will be lowering the prime rate again - we hope - what percentage over prime are you paying?
MR. LEBLANC: Over and above prime?
MR. LANGILLE: Yes.
MR. LEBLANC: I am being told that we don't pay directly related to prime. We pay relative to bankers' acceptance - that is the terminology that I am just learning as I am talking to you here. We are usually about 5 basis points, which is 0.05, a per cent below that.
MR. LANGILLE: Now, your floating rate would be - what are we talking about, $1.6 billion? Are we talking about that much?
MR. LEBLANC: About the amount of debt?
MR. LANGILLE: Yes.
MR. LEBLANC: You are probably talking somewhere about $1.6 billion, $1.7 billion or $1.8 billion that is in the floating rate right now. I should point out that in our forecast, on A57 of my estimates, we are talking about three-month Treasury bill rates being about .45 per cent and so these are the estimates, these assumptions that we are using. So that gives you an indication of what our short-term borrowing rates are.
MR. LANGILLE: Now, taking into account that if the rate is lowered next week, would it still be wise, do you believe, to keep this 15 per cent floating rate or lock it in for a term?
MR. LEBLANC: The policy is that, basically, we follow the policy of having 15, we don't usually go below that, but I should point out one thing. We can have short-term borrowing rates, but we can also have long-term borrowing rates or even 5, 10 or 30 years. Those rates, oftentimes, aren't consistent with the short-term borrowing that we will have.
The other issue is that we are still turning over a lot of debt, and we have a sizable debt borrowing program this year. It is very important that we stay on track for where we are in regard to deficit reduction, because a lot of people are looking at Nova Scotia relative to other provinces and how they are doing and as to whether or not they want to buy our bonds. So for us it is important that we do that. But to go back to your point, you are saying that if the rates were to go down, maybe we should lock everything at the 15 per cent that is floating into that. Our policy is to keep at least 15 per cent floating at any one time and we have been following that for a considerable number of years; it has served us well.
We will have other debt that is coming due, debt that is going to rotate this year. We have about $1 billion of debt that is going to rotate that we are going to have to borrow. So we have a sizable borrowing program that we are going to have to do anyway, but the long-term borrowing would be higher rates than this. If I was to predict what a 5-year or 10-year borrowing would be, I would probably say 5.6 per cent, in that range. If you want to go to a 30-year borrowing, you are probably getting into 6.5 per cent. So those are the types of things that you look at. We have to look at today what the rates are, and then we have to look at the
realities of the market, what people would want to invest for that period of time, and those rates differ.
MR. LANGILLE: Just for clarification, when you do have to borrow after the other money has become mature, it will be $1 billion, will you be borrowing in Canadian funds?
MR. LEBLANC: The answer is yes.
MR. LANGILLE: So I guess your long-term goal is to have a debt all in Canadian funds? Is that correct?
MR. LEBLANC: No, it is not. We have, in legislation, a provision that mandates us to redeem - when foreign debt becomes due, that we will change that into Canadian currency. So what that does is if we do nothing, if we just let debt come due as it comes due, by the year 2004, we will be down to 20 per cent. If you look at the last year, we have exceeded our expectations because during the year there were some opportunities, the circumstances were right that we could exchange some of our debt for Canadian, and we did take advantage of that and now it is down to about 30.8 per cent and that is considerably reduced from when we first took office at 51 per cent and in comparison when the previous administration took over and then it was about 72 per cent. So we have changed that and it is very positive in getting it down.
You may ask, why do we want to keep it at 20 per cent? Well, when we get to that point we are going to have a discussion as a government; we will review the whole policy. But as the people who are in charge of the investment - Mr. Stratton, to my right - we will also be receiving royalties, which will be in American funds, which will have a natural hedge against fluctuations in exchange rates. We have not had that latitude in the past, not that luxury, so that is something that is new. When we get closer to the 20 per cent as a government we will look back and we will be prepared to review this and ask, should it be lower, should it be maintained? At least we will have a much different situation in that we will be receiving considerable amounts of royalties in U.S. funds.
MR. LANGILLE: I just have one more question and it is not in relation to the monies and the debt, but rather Atlantic Loto. As you know, New Brunswick might have a referendum on the Atlantic Loto in relation to VLTs. Now if they vote to remove the VLTs from New Brunswick, how will that affect our agreement with the Atlantic Lottery Corporation?
MR. LEBLANC: It won't.
MR. LANGILLE: It won't affect it at all?
MR. LEBLANC: They will still be part of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation in other capacities. They have other issues. They have all the 6/49s and the lottery tickets and so forth that they have.
MR. LANGILLE: So they will be diminished to tickets only?
MR. LEBLANC: You are asking me to speculate, but my understanding is that it would probably be along those lines.
MR. LANGILLE: The reason I say that is because they don't have a casino and they wouldn't have VLTs, so it would mean tickets only. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions from the PC caucus before I transfer time back to the Liberals? The honourable member for Richmond. Your time is now 4:13 p.m.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Minister, how much money is in this year's budget for Congrès mondial acadien 2004?
MR. LEBLANC: I will have to look at it. Mr. Chairman, this year we have not yet received the submission from the organizing committee in regard to this, so it is yet to be determined as to what level of funding they will be receiving. I should say that there is an agreement between Heritage Canada and Nova Scotia whereby the promotion of the French language is encouraged and also supported by the federal government; there is a multitude of different projects supported through that. I should point out that community centres that are located in the Carrefour, I think Beaujolais, are being supported already. Those are basically enshrined. They don't change every year. Heritage Canada continues to fund those. Over and above those, there are many submissions every year that are considered.
I should point out some of the ones that were considered this year and accepted. There was Grou Tyme, which showcased Acadian talent here in metro, and I am sure that you took advantage of some of the events that were there, but other ones that were there were also the Acadian World Congress and some of their funding, which was cost-shared also with the federal government. So their funding is there. We have not yet received the submission coming from that committee, so as to how much will be spent out of this budget, I can't tell you as of yet.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, then, I am very curious. Where is that funding? Where is the provincial share? If the organizing committee comes tomorrow and says, Mr. Minister, we need $1 million between the province and the federal government, what department and what funds are you going to go to get your provincial portion of that funding? That is the question I have, how much money is in that fund?
MR. LEBLANC: Funding has been provided through the Department of Tourism for different issues that will be dealt with through the l'Entente and the provision that is there is $200,000. Besides that, I should point out that there are different proposals that different departments will make submissions for, that they will also weigh project by project. So other departments of government will probably also have submissions that they will make through our Office of Acadian Affairs for consideration. All of these things are aimed at promoting the French language. It would be a multitude of different projects, whereby there might be translation of material into a bilingual state or a French state. I am trying to think of some other examples. When I give you a listing of what happened this year, which I promised you I would, you will see many of the different examples that were supported this year, and all of them are good community-based organizations that are basically promoting the French language.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, I guess it comes back down to the question, what is the dollar figure that is available? That is the big question.
MR. LEBLANC: I am sorry . . .
MR. SAMSON: What is the dollar figure that is available this year? Do you have money in a fund, in one specific fund, or do you have a total dollar value of what is available out there right now?
MR. LEBLANC: I do know there are funds which have been made available through the Department of Tourism which will allow for many of these projects to move forward. A lot of them are related to Tourism and Culture, as I am sure you are aware. Until we get the specific requests coming from Congrès mondial acadien I can't tell you at what levels they will be looking for funding because we have yet to receive it. There are funds there which we feel should meet the needs that are there, but until I hear the submission I can't tell you what the exact number will be.
MR. SAMSON: Well, that creates a bit of confusion I guess. In one sense the minister says there is money in the Department of Tourism and Culture allotted for this, he doesn't know how much that money is, and then on the other hand he says we will have to wait to see how much is needed and then we will decide.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, just for the member's edification, there are monies put in Tourism and Culture to deal with submissions that will be made to government in regard to the promotion of the French language. It is $200,000 that is put there. That will be considered for different projects which will come forward for matching funding from Heritage Canada. Maybe that makes it a little clearer.
As proposals come forward, they will be assessed and they will be brought forward for consideration by Heritage Canada. As of yet, that list has not been finalized and the submission has not been received. I just want to point out, if you are asking me how much money will be given for the World Acadian Congress, I can't tell you that because until the submissions are received and they are weighed, I would not be privy to that information.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. Well I have that $200,000 figure, so that is more than I had before. Is that the same amount that was there last year in the Department of Tourism and Culture?
MR. LEBLANC: I am sorry?
MR. SAMSON: Is that $200,000 figure the same amount of money that was allotted to the Department of Tourism and Culture last year for this program?
MR. LEBLANC: Yes, it was.
MR. SAMSON: So it is safe to say that - knowing the amount of requests there have been in the past, this budget has been used to fund projects - your government has not allotted any additional funds for this program in light of the fact that the Congrès mondial is coming in 2004?
MR. LEBLANC: No, I wouldn't agree with that because a lot of the projects that are under Heritage Canada consideration don't get funded indefinitely. They are started and they are weighed, and after a year or two the funding disappears and the groups are supposed to find the funding either through other government departments or continue on their own. I do want to point out that Congrès mondial acadien has a very important stature in the province's plans going forward. Also, not only for the province, but also for Heritage Canada and, as such, will basically be a priority of government over the next two to three years - I shouldn't say two to three years, three to four years because it is going to go on basically from 2003 to 2005. Beyond the Acadian Congress, there are other events happening here in the Acadian community which preceded and will also come after.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Knowing that the Congrès mondial is coming, I would certainly hope that this $200,000 is not going to be eaten up by the Congrès, which would then stop other community projects from taking place because of the fact that this is going to eat up a good chunk of it. We know the size this is, the minister seems to have recognized that. The unfortunate thing is I would have thought that the government would have had the foresight to put additional funding in place to deal specifically with the Congrès, and yet still allow this $200,000 fund to stand as a fund available to community organizations throughout this province for their continuing work and their continuing efforts on projects to promote the Acadian culture in this province. It is unfortunate that, in light of the importance of this, your government hasn't seen fit to
specifically put aside an amount of funds specifically for le Congrès, which will not eat into existing programs available for other community organizations.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, I assumed the member knew how it worked. This money is over and above; there is still money that will be coming out of different departments. I will use an example. The Department of Education will probably have some submissions that they put forward. They will be making funding available to be matched by the federal government to provide - and I am supposing here, because in the past Education has always made submissions for different aspects of projects, and they may be just for translation of different documents which they would like to have available, community groups would do that, the Department of Education may agree with that and, as such, would ask for funding through the agreement with Heritage Canada.
So, over and above this, there are still going to be submissions made by departments. We feel very comfortable that the funding that is here will meet the needs of the CMA, and will also meet the needs of other submission groups. I can only go by the demands that we had last year. We felt that we were more than reasonable in addressing the concerns. Does it mean we address every concern? The answer is no. Is it more than reasonable? I think the answer is yes.
MR. SAMSON: I guess history will judge whether it is reasonable or not. I certainly hope our government in this province doesn't get caught flat-footed on the organization of this and run out of money and not have properly budgeted for it. Mr. Minister, you said that there is an organizing committee working on this from the Department of Tourism and Culture. If I asked you today, if I have a question from Nova Scotia's perspective, about le Congrès mondial acadien, who do I call?
MR. LEBLANC: Well, I say right now, the organization is more at the ministerial level, but the strategic plan will be worked on. That should probably be done by the end of April. I am having discussions also with the Minister of Tourism and Culture that there should be a full-time person, and some of the suggestions coming out also from our committee is that a full-time position should be established within the Department of Tourism and Culture because of the coordination that will be required. This is all part of the planning process of Congrès mondial acadien, making suggestions to government that that would be the best way to proceed.
We are still in the growing phases of this in the sense that things are moving along, the organization is coming along very well. I have to give a lot of compliments, especially to Vaughn Madden for all the work she has done on this, because actually she has brought a lot of expertise, and I think things are proceeding very well in getting the communities organized, which is a very big challenge, to get people to work together.
MR. SAMSON: I am pleased to hear it in that sense, but I can't encourage the government enough to get moving on this, put the right people in place, have the contact people in place on the government Web site, so that tourists can already start tapping into government resources to get information on this. That should be up and running as soon as possible, to say the least. I can't encourage you to move quickly enough on that.
One of the other issues which is being discussed more and more throughout the Acadian community and concerns are being raised - and I know this is a bit of a touchy subject politically - it is the issue of the upcoming boundary review that is going to take place here in the province. There is concern that there may be some issues relating to changes made that will be affecting Acadian communities throughout this province. For an example, Richmond County is one where concerns are being raised, and it was raised this morning that 51 per cent of the residents in Richmond County are of Acadian descent and consider themselves to be Acadian and French-speaking.
Last review, there were some concerns. A proposal to include Port Hawkesbury in with Richmond County, which clearly would have thrown those numbers way out of whack and it would have reduced the Acadians from a majority to a significant minority. I am curious, is the minister aware of these concerns, and what representations is he making, or what does he see as Minister responsible for Acadian Affairs as his role in representing the concerns of the Acadian population in this province in light of that review?
MR. LEBLANC: The review is moving forward in a sense that time is going by. There is a mandated review, I think it is every 10 years. It will happen, whether we, as representatives of relatively small constituencies, and I am not sure how small yours is, but mine is relatively small and well-defined - it will occur. I have not yet seen the terms of reference, it hasn't been brought forward. In my capacity as a rural member and also as Minister responsible for Acadian Affairs, it would be my intention to say that some consideration should be given linguistically.
Whether or not, in a sense, that will be adhered to depends on how the final report comes out. I do know they gave some consideration to that last time, and that is probably, in effect, why some of our ridings were still maintained, though they are small in comparison to many of the other ridings, I would say, especially metro. I would say that I probably get a lot more calls than the honourable member for any one of these metro ridings, and I use Mr. Epstein here as an example. In our ridings, everybody knows you. When you go door to door, it's hello, Neil, it's not Mr. LeBlanc or who are you, everyone knows you, which means that there is more of a chance they are going to call you for any little thing. I don't mind that, but the workload actually increases. I don't know if I would want to have two or three more times the population in my riding, I am not sure I could hack it.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, ironically, as overworked as you might be in your riding, Richmond, which is still considered, population-wise, a small riding, is actually almost exactly double the population of your provincial riding, and geographically we are about 10 times the size of your riding. It is extremely challenging for us also. I guess that is the commitment I am looking for from the minister. I know there were considerations given the last time, in fact your riding and the riding of Clare were specifically created in order to recognize the interests of the Acadian community in this province, as was the riding of Preston created to recognize the Black community here in the Province of Nova Scotia.
I guess I am just hoping that when those terms of reference are developed, as Minister of Acadian Affairs, you will make representation to make sure that the concerns of the Acadian community in areas throughout this province, Cheticamp, Pomquet, Richmond, and everywhere else, down the South Shore, will be part of the considerations that will be taking place. I am pleased to see that the minister is aware of that, and that he will make those representations.
On the closing issue, Mr. Minister, I have spoken to you on numerous occasions here in budget debates over the concern of the French language services being provided by the Government of Nova Scotia. Last year, it was in your capacity as Minister of Business and Consumer Services and as Minister of Acadian Affairs to see what your government was doing to try to enhance more French language services. I remember when we left office, one of the things being done, especially in the Department of Business and Consumer Services now Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, I know the minister is here - one of the things being pursued was that any new openings in the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, especially positions which deal with the public primarily, that those positions - if not as a requirement then as a strong suggestion - be bilingual positions and, in essence, you would not be replacing anyone or firing anyone, but any new positions or replacements being done would have a bilingual component to it.
I am just curious if your government has adopted any sort of policy at all, or any working paper, or if it has made any strides, I guess, in trying to provide more French language services on the front lines throughout the Government of Nova Scotia?
MR. LEBLANC: First of all, I should say that I share the member's concerns. I remember when we were in government the past time, Guy LeBlanc, who was Minister of Acadian Affairs at that time and also Education, we made some strides at that time to try to give some preference to trying to move toward that. It is very difficult sometimes to keep your focus over long periods of time because you get back into your day-to-day activities. I have been making some enquiries basically along the lines of whether or not that could happen. I think your suggestion is one that is well taken. I think the displacement of people is a big concern. I don't think anybody wants to go, and I look at what you are saying, to try to move people out to move people in, but if we can do that, we will take it into consideration.
I go back to some of the changes we were talking about, even of trying to increase services in Family Court. That is an issue that we are trying to move forward with the jurists organization, if we could do that, hopefully, it would be a step forward, especially people going to that type of setting, if they can speak in their mother tongue, they may feel more comfortable. I don't think you can explain it until you have been there, especially a lot of our older people find it difficult to speak in English. Sometimes, if they could have that asset available to them, it would be appreciated.
I can say that I am prepared to look at it, I am prepared to see if we can move it along, but I don't have a report. I could say here today that we have made the progress that we would like to. Obviously, no matter what I say, it would be prefaced by the fact that I would also have to convince Cabinet that this is the direction. I think it is a reasonable request.
[4:30 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: I am pleased to hear the minister say that. Throughout, the minister has always indicated his support and endorsement of that and, I guess, I can't encourage the minister enough to start acting on that. It is a serious concern. For example, the government Web site certainly should be available in French and have that translated. Certainly, it wouldn't take rocket science to be able to do that. I know here, in the House of Assembly, for example, most of the literature is available in both official languages, so there are some steps being taken.
I am curious, would the minister be prepared to even commit to forming a striking committee of either senior civil servants or deputy ministers who could examine the Civil Service now, and even poll to see who is bilingual, who is not bilingual, see what the numbers are, see what positions are front-line positions, especially in Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Clearly, that is the one department that would have the most front-line positions in dealing with the public, and see what reasonable targets might be put in place to try to achieve that and, again, with the knowledge that the system would be a gradual one, based on new positions, replacements, and not in any way be, this position, suddenly overnight, became bilingual and we are going to displace the person if they are not bilingual. No one is encouraging that. I am certainly not encouraging that.
Every year we discuss this, but the question is is anything being done? I can appreciate if the minister can't answer that right now, it's a big government. But, will the minister commit to seriously acting upon this initiative and putting together a striking committee of government to address this and to try to see what steps can be put in place to address this problem or address this issue over the long term? Will the minister commit to that?
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure if I make a commitment that I honour it. I know we have made some enquiries, I am waiting for some information back from the Human Resources Department on this issue. The suggestion is not totally unreasonable, however, and I guess in a sense I will consider it, but I am not prepared to say today that we will move in that direction because we may want to do something different or we might have some progress without it. I will endeavour to weigh that option when we do it. Actually, we have had some discussions recently on this issue, trying to get a better feel for what kind of services are out there. I don't disagree, especially that Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is the one arm I think the people come in contact with, that is why it has sort of been consolidated there, because they are probably the department, most of all, that meets directly with the public, getting services, registering motor vehicles, Registry of Deeds, it goes on and on. I think a lot of times it would be very good if we could do that.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to thank the minister for that, and I guess I will serve notice now that, certainly, I will be pursing this and continue to encourage the minister to take action on this. I do hope he will bring it back to Cabinet. I don't think there is big money attached to this initiative, it is just a matter of making some internal changes and priorities that don't have a great dollar value attached to them. So at the end of the day it would provide a better service. I think if the minister is committed to doing it, it will get done. Mr. Chairman, the last issue is that we look forward to an executive director of Acadian Affairs, very soon.
MR. LEBLANC: So does Chris.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, and I am sure your assistant will be very happy to see a full-time person on that. With that, I want to thank the minister. I do look forward to those spending numbers you were going to provide me with, as to what funding was given from Acadian Affairs in the last fiscal year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Are there any further questions or interventions by anyone? Hearing none, the minister now has an opportunity for closing remarks before I call for the vote on the resolutions.
MR. LEBLANC: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all members for their questions. We go back into asking the questions about the estimates and sometimes we get into long speeches and I try to start off by having a very small speech, unlike some of my other colleagues who give long speeches to start off and then everybody has long speeches. This was more of an exchange and I want to thank the members for their indulgence, and obviously I will be moving on to let one of my colleagues come in. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The resolutions that are before us now to vote on are the following:
Resolution E7 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $12,867,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Finance, pursuant to the Estimate and the business plans of the Nova Scotia Government Fund Limited and the Nova Scotia Power Finance Corporation be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall it carry?
MR. SAMSON: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that all resolutions be stood for now and that they are voted on at the end. I know in the Chamber there are no votes taking place on the resolutions. The motion is that that resolution stand with a vote at the end on the entire resolution. So just on a point of order, I am not sure if this is the proper procedure being followed by the chairman in calling for a vote here. Technically, if you are calling for a vote, our parliamentary privileges do allow us to call for a recorded vote and ask for members to come in and all the other things that come with all that. So I would strongly encourage the chairman to look into this and not ask for a vote at this time, but move that the estimates that you read stand for a vote at a later date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will just read for clarification of the record, in the Rule Book, Page 69, Votes respecting Estimates, Subsection (3). "The Subcommittee on Supply shall not take any vote respecting the Estimates referred to other than a vote to (a) conclude its consideration of a particular Estimate." So we are finishing the estimates for that particular minister.
MR. SAMSON: That is right. Therefore we are not voting to approve the estimates. The motion usually is that the estimates shall stand. We have agreed to conclude discussion on that particular estimate, we are not voting on that estimate. That is basically asking us to vote on the budget and to vote whether we approve of this estimate or not. I can tell you, if that is what you are asking for, we are clearly not prepared to vote at this point and we will take the means necessary to avoid having to have that vote right now. So I would encourage the chairman to make a motion that this particular estimate stand, and then if they are all brought back to the Chamber together, in one, there is a vote that takes place at that point in time. We do not vote on the estimates of each department at this point in time because, basically, it is a vote on the budget.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member for Richmond, I will take it under advisement. If that is your interpretation of the rules, then so be it. Just to go further with today's proceeding, I will ask for each of the resolutions. I will read them into the record and ask them to stand. I am sure we will have concurrence of the committee.
I will have this matter clarified, because in the past five days I have been carrying a vote on every resolution once we have concluded debate on that particular resolution. I have been doing it consistently for the last 20 hours and I will check with the Speaker in regard to procedure.
Resolution E7, as read into the record, shall it stand?
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
The motion is carried.
Resolution E8 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,043,399,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Debt Servicing Costs, Department of Finance, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E14 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $13,055,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E16 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $6,488,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Government Contributions to Benefit Plans, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E33 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $186,960,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Capital Purchase Requirements, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E34 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $53,652,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Restructuring Costs, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E35 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $362,695,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Sinking Fund Instalments and Serial Retirements, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E37 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission be approved.
Resolution E38 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation be approved.
Resolution E41 - Resolved, that the business plan of Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. be approved.
Resolution E42 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Rockingham Terminal Inc. be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motions are carried.
That concludes the estimates of the Department of Finance. We will now move to the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, the honourable Angus MacIsaac.
Resolution E30 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $100,237,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, pursuant to the Estimate and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation be approved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I also understand that there may be questions, if you want to clarify this for the chairman, about the Department of Housing. I am just trying to get a clarification, if there is any discussion on last year's activities or any relations to the Department of Housing, it was in this minister's portfolio last year, but I am not sure if those questions will be held to this minister or to the Minister of Community Services. Could that be clarified for the chairman?
HON. ANGUS MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, I was responsible for Housing until the end of July 2000.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So could I ask for concurrence of all caucuses that this minister will just be answering questions on Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Any questions referring to Housing will be referred to the Honourable Peter Christie.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I guess everyone understands that it is with Community Services now. I wouldn't want to say no questions will be asked, in case there is an issue that did come up between our last budget estimates and during the period of time the minister was responsible for Housing. On the Housing estimates for this year and pressing issues, I would expect that our caucus will be questioning the Minister of Community Services on those, but I certainly wouldn't want to say at this point that no questions would ever arise to the minister, considering he did still have responsibility for the portfolio. I think it is safe to say that it is agreed that, in general, questioning on Housing will go to the Minister of Community Services.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it understood then? Do we have consensus? Thank you.
The honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Your time is 4:44 p.m., and just to advise the committee, our four hours conclude at 5:53 p.m.
HON. ANGUS MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want to say that I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present the estimates of the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Joining me at the table today is the Deputy Minister, Brian Stonehouse, Greg Keefe who is the Executive Director of Program
Management and Corporate Services, and Cathy Smith who is the Acting Director of Financial Services.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin and at the risk of members feeling that perhaps I have too lengthy a set of introductory remarks, I would like to remind the committee that we are dealing with a new department and, as such, I thought it would be appropriate to try to put in context as much as possible the services that are provided by the department. I do want to point out that in accomplishing that I may be a slight bit lengthy, but in order to ensure that I have used the words as efficiently as possible, I will, for the most part use a text and try to touch some of the high points of the department.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? If the minister has his opening remarks in the form of a text, surely it is more efficient for him just to distribute that and let us get on with the matter that we are here for, which is to actually question him on his estimates. I don't think we need to actually hear a text that is written down.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will take it under advisement to the Speaker because, out of habit, for the last 20 hours we allowed each minister to make opening remarks and I don't want to change the game rules halfway through the proceedings. I will allow the minister to carry forth on his introductory remarks and I will take it under advisement. If copies of his remarks could be circulated for them to have as reference material, so be it afterwards. Mr. Minister, please carry forward.
MR. MACISAAC: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is the estimates of the department and, as such, the department is attempting to achieve certain objectives with respect to the budget estimate that is being put forward. Inasmuch as this is a forum where there appears to be a written record of the proceedings that take place here, I believe that it is appropriate for the record to show what the department is attempting to accomplish and that opening remarks are indeed appropriate. The estimate process is in fact a process which is not a one-way street. It is an opportunity for departments to outline their proposals and their programs in the context of the estimates. I will accept your ruling with respect to this. I do intend to use the opportunity to have the record show what it is that the department is attempting to accomplish.
I am going to touch on a few of the highlights. Strong, effective municipalities, integrated, accessible and current geographic information; vehicle and driver safety; consumer protection; real and personal property registration; and business registration, are the priorities of this department.
We consider the creation of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations one of the most comprehensive service delivery restructuring projects of any Canadian government jurisdiction. Our plans and options are being designed with a great deal of thoroughness and
thoughtfulness. We are redesigning routine services for greater public choice and convenience. One of the reasons for this focus is that while the Government of Nova Scotia delivers products and services through millions of yearly transactions, we are increasingly considering this service delivery from a citizen perspective.
Consider some of the services we deliver - Registry of Motor Vehicles, Registry of Deeds, Residential Tenancy Board, consumer protection, tax administration, vehicle and driver compliance, land information, public enquiries, and municipal relations, to name a few. Today, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations successfully manages more than 2.5 million customer contacts a year. We have established customer service level objectives based on customer expectations, industry benchmarks, and affordability, and the result is an overall customer satisfaction rating of 85 per cent. This includes service levels on friendliness, efficiency, wait time, satisfaction with locations and more.
To give you an example of the sheer volume of customer contacts we deal with, let us look at our public enquiries group. Staff there field calls and provide information to more than one-half million callers every year; they provide information on dozens of departmental and government programs. On average, 80 per cent of calls are answered within 13 seconds; less than one-half of one per cent will get a busy signal. Staff are meeting and exceeding service level standards fitting of any private sector call centre. Obviously, we have done some good work in this area. We intend to build on that success and our budget reflects that. Today, sophisticated consumers expect and deserve quality in service delivery. We have thought about how we deliver service to Nova Scotians and have found ways to improve service.
Service Nova Scotia is exploring how to integrate these services and provide access through a variety of channels that would be available at the convenience and choice of the people. These channels include: Internet-based transactions for business registration and licensing; vehicle registration; land and property registration; and requests for marriage, birth and death certificates.
Service Nova Scotia Express - 22 self-service kiosks and 19 offices throughout the province. Expansion of front line Registry of Motor Vehicles service delivery in five counties. Co-location of services using existing resources. We recognize the need to satisfy the rapidly growing need for better access to government and that means equal availability for all citizens, no matter where they live.
E-government will be a boon for all of our regions. It puts them on an equal footing. At long last they can exercise their right to the same quality and level of service as their cousins who happen to live near government offices. This government's plan to bring e-government to Nova Scotians will also slash red tape. It will provide easy, hassle-free, one-stop shopping for government services. It makes it easier for businesses and citizens to deal with government. E-government provides citizens with a greater choice in conducting
necessary business with government. It eliminates duplication, reduces costs, increases speed and efficiency. We in government have to spend tax dollars wisely, so that is a pretty good incentive.
The land resource of Nova Scotia is the foundation of our economy and integral to the lives of all Nova Scotians. The current paper-based system of land registration is antiquated and the process of transferring and financing land must be streamlined if Nova Scotia is to be competitive with other jurisdictions. We have consulted broadly on the need for land registry reform through the Registry 2000 initiative and received the go-ahead to proceed from the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, the Association of Nova Scotia Land Surveyors, the Nova Scotia Chamber of Commerce, and the Nova Scotia Real Estate Association, as well as many others we have consulted with.
We recently introduced modern legislation to protect our land tenure system and we will begin a multi-year process to migrate this 250-year-old paper system into an electronic land registry to make possible the transfer and search of land records on users' desktops as well as at county based registry offices. This is part of our plan to help small businesses and reduce red tape by streamlining the process for transferring and financing real property. Over the next two years this government will further its commitment to provide the services Nova Scotians expect and deserve by improving access to integrated land-related information and developing an e-commerce environment for property transactions.
How can we go even further to improve services for Nova Scotians? The answer is the Nova Scotia Business Registry - NSBR. The NSBR is a big component of this e-government strategy. It is an award-winning resource that gives businesses the freedom to conduct their business with government whenever they choose - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week through PC and Internet. The old ways of dealing with government are no longer necessary; there is now more choice. The NSBR is modernizing the way we do things, leaving businesses more time to concentrate on what is important to them.
A year ago, to start a business, you had to visit the Registry of Joint Stock Companies office in Halifax to get incorporated, and register. Then, you had to visit the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency offices, of which there are only two - one in Halifax and one in Sydney - to register for their programs - like collecting HST and payroll deductions. Then you are still not quite done - 30 per cent of businesses are required to register with the Workers' Compensation Board to pay premiums to cover employees, and you still have more to do. You now have to go back to the Registry of Joint Stocks companies to get any permits you might need. There are over 30 types of licences and permits. Now you are done, but you had to do all of this running around between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday.
The Nova Scotia Business Registry will put an end to all of this. When the system is fully up and running this summer, you can get all of this done in one session over the Internet. The NSBR will help businesses become more efficient and effective. The new
service will not only make it easier for new and existing businesses to register for federal and provincial programs and services, but will cut the cost of compliance with tax and licensing laws.
Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is leading the charge on behalf of the provincial government to increase and extend on-line services through partnerships that make sense for Nova Scotians. We are committed to eliminating red tape, creating a positive climate for business, and making Nova Scotia the best place in which to do business.
Nova Scotia is leading the country with this technology, delivering innovative, cost-effective programs that could potentially benefit businesses across Canada. This is a milestone in public service delivery and red tape reduction. Service Nova Scotia's goals are to provide better customer service and ensure cost-effective, integrated, citizen-focused service delivery.
There are more service improvements underway. Over the next four years we will bring 80 per cent of all government licences on-line; the remaining 20 per cent are ones that must be done in person, like driver's licenses. Recently, the first Nova Scotian renewed their vehicle registration on line. This new service has been available for less than three weeks, but here are some of the comments that we are hearing already: A great service; a wonderful convenience; you have saved me hours of time. Now Nova Scotians have four options to renew their vehicle registration. You can do it in person, by mail, by phone, or over the Internet, and 100 per cent of those who have already used the service said they would definitely use other on-line government services. I am happy to say Nova Scotians can look forward to more Internet-based transactions. Soon they will be able to apply for marriage, birth or death certificates through the Internet in a secure on-line environment.
Service Nova Scotia Express kiosks, self-service computer terminals, will be located in every county through Access Nova Scotia and Registry of Deeds offices, 22 kiosks in 19 office locations. Service Nova Scotia Express will allow citizens to obtain government services and products much easier than ever before. Through Service Nova Scotia's Express kiosks, more and more Nova Scotians will realize the benefits of the Internet. We are making strides to expand on maximizing these benefits by providing access to the necessary tools to do business with government.
Our emphasis is not solely on technology, it is on service. That means continuing to provide and improve the face-to-face, personal services Nova Scotians expect and deserve. As an example, in-person Registry of Motor Vehicles services are now available in three new locations. Residents in Liverpool, Shelburne, and Guysborough used to have to travel to other counties to conduct in-person business with the Registry of Motor Vehicles, now this service is offered to them right in their own communities. To bring these services to every county in the province, we have plans to introduce two more RMV offices in Richmond and Hants in this year.
You will see that our budget reflects our prudence as we have used existing locations wherever possible to expand and improve the way we deliver services. Registry of Motor Vehicles services and Service Nova Scotia Express Kiosks are located within existing Registry of Deeds offices.
Improving service also means making modern payment options available. Today, payment options for services are inconsistent at Access Nova Scotia centres and Registry of Deeds offices. This year we are going to fix that and make credit card and debit card payment options available for all services at these locations.
We will continue to deliver the high-quality services that Nova Scotians have come to expect from us. We are enhancing all levels of service, adding more ways to do business with government. We will have the right balance of clicks and mortar. We are committed to serving all Nova Scotians better and moving towards our ultimate goal - providing the services they need when, where, and how they need them. That also means exploring and leveraging partnerships that make sense. Service Nova Scotia will continue to work with other levels of government to improve services to all citizens.
[5:00 p.m.]
While I have talked a lot about service delivery, there are other aspects of the department that are also doing some very good work. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations supports communities. The department provides municipalities with information, advice, and with financial support. We also provide property assessment data to municipalities and to over 530,000 property owners every year. Municipalities use that assessment roll for levying property taxes which are the foundation of municipal finances.
We have already introduced legislation that will enable the creation of an arm's-length organization to deliver this service to municipalities. They have told us if they are going to be paying for this service, they want a say in how the organization is run. The structure of this new organization will be such that municipalities will have their say.
We are also continuing our effort to improve the safety of everyone in the province. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations recently began the civic addressing project. County by country, precise digital maps will be developed that will help police, fire, and ambulance teams respond to emergency calls with greater accuracy. These maps will also help municipalities plan and deliver services more effectively and businesses to operate more efficiently.
The project marries the art of cartography and technology to pinpoint an address to within two metres. Emergency services will benefit from this project regardless of whether they are answering a call in the heart of downtown Halifax or the open country of rural Nova Scotia.
Partial funding for the project comes from the Emergency Measures Organization through the 43 cent telephone surcharge. This project would not be possible without the ongoing teamwork and co-operation between various elements of the municipal and provincial governments. Last October, the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure agreement was signed in Halifax. With federal, provincial, and municipal contributions, this program represents a minimum investment of $195.8 million over six years. We are committed to building a dynamic Nova Scotian economy that will lead to an improved quality of life for all residents.
We are building strong communities where we can live and work and raise a family and we are providing Nova Scotians with opportunities to grow and prosper here at home. Together, the federal, provincial, and municipal governments will invest in the building and renewal of the fiscal infrastructure communities need to attract and support economic growth, beginning with the most basic of all of these - the infrastructure that provides us with clean water to drink and protects the air we breathe.
We recognize that no one knows the needs of the community better than the people who live in that community. Municipalities will propose the majority of projects to be funded by the program. We will be working very closely with municipalities to respond to the infrastructure needs of communities throughout Nova Scotia. The program provides a balanced approach to these infrastructure needs through partnership with all levels of government over the next six years, consistent with the criteria and priorities of overall initiative.
The Infrastructure Canada-Nova Scotia partnership takes a 21st century approach to municipal infrastructure. We will promote the use of the most current technologies and pursue best practices to ensure the best return on our investments.
The first priority is green municipal infrastructure; this reflects the importance of clean air and clean water to our quality of life in Nova Scotia. Other priorities of the program include cultural and recreational facilities; infrastructure supporting tourism; rural and remote telecommunications; local transportation; high-speed Internet access for local public institutions; and affordable housing. One program alone cannot meet all of the infrastructure needs of every community, but the Infrastructure Canada-Nova Scotia program will make an important contribution to our quality of life throughout the province, and is designed to respond to the top priorities identified by municipalities which fit best with the priorities of the program.
I would like to talk briefly about some of the other initiatives we have underway. After consultation with seniors' groups, the Senior Citizens' Secretariat, the insurance industry, driving schools, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is working on a program that will support seniors to enhance their driving skills and enable them to drive safer and longer.
Our rural and semi-rural inclusive transportation program will support community efforts that help Nova Scotians with transportation issues; for example, Nova Scotians with disabilities, low incomes and seniors. We will offer technical advice and assistance, as well as operating grants, to provide people with greater access to transportation services in the less-populated areas of the province. We will encourage partnerships with municipalities. While municipal involvement will be strictly voluntary, it will help to ensure the continued operation of these services.
This is the second year of the program to provide assistance to municipalities and not-for-profit organizations to eliminate barriers for people with disabilities. The Community Accessibility Program will provide grants for such items as automatic doors, wheelchair ramps, the sound loops, accessible washrooms, and other structural enhancements. Forty-two projects were supported through this program in 2000-01, using the full $300,000 budgeted.
This is only a snapshot of the work we are doing at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and it is by no means an exhaustive account. Mr. Chairman, I thank members for their attention and I look forward to the examination of the estimates as we attempt to achieve some of the objectives that we have outlined.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to advise the committee, our four hours will be up at 5:53 p.m. and the time is now 5:07 p.m. I will now pass the floor to the NDP caucus.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I really have to start by congratulating the minister. That could have been a lot worse. You could have read it slowly like the Minister of Environment and Labour, so it wasn't as bad as I had feared.
MR. MACISAAC: I was open to compromise, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEELE: I would like to ask you some questions about a news release - well it will start with a news release anyway - that your department issued on February 27th of this year. It is headed, Proposal Addresses Municipal Inequities, and it is under the heading Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I am sure you are familiar with that news release, Mr. Minister?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe I recall it, yes.
MR. STEELE: There was one thing about - well there is a lot that is unusual about it - one thing in particular for those of us who are students of government news releases that was very unusual, and that was the time of day that it came out. The time on it is 5:17 p.m., which is extraordinarily late for a government news release. I wonder if you could explain,
Mr. Minister, why this particular news release came out that late in the day, what was the chain of events that led it to being released at that point?
MR. MACISAAC: It was an extremely interesting chain of events that led to the release coming out at the time that it did. Maybe I could back up somewhat and try to put the whole thing in some context with respect to the subject matter of the release and the context in which the release took place. We had been meeting with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities since I have become minister on a process referred to as the roles and responsibilities. We encountered some difficulty in terms of achieving a conclusion to the roles and responsibilities process in as much as the financial situation of the province did not allow us to be able to move forward with all of the issues that were put on the table to be resolved. Four of those major issues were the issue of housing services; the issue of corrections; the issue of education funding; and the issue of roads in the province.
So given the difficulty that we were having in resolving all of those difficulties, we did make a commitment to the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities at their September meeting that we would attempt to bring forward a proposal that would address the outstanding issues, with the exception of education and roads, because at that conference it was made very clear to us by the membership of the UNSM that they did not want to see, at that stage, country roads moved to the municipal units. So in as much as the financial commitment that relates to roads and the financial commitment relative to education would be such significant numbers, those two items were, in a sense, removed from the process and we undertook to try to bring forward a means of dealing with the remaining items.
I apologize for the length of time in providing the background, but I wanted to put the whole process in context. We met with the steering committee of the roles and responsibilities exercise, which is made up of representatives of the UNSM as well as Cabinet members. The Minister of Education, the Minister of Transportation and Public Works, the Minister of Justice, and myself, I believe, are the provincial ministers involved in that. We met with them on February - whatever the date of that release is, 27th is it?
MR. STEELE: Yes.
MR. MACISAAC: We met with them and we put forward the proposal which is outlined in the release. Normally what has happened with those proposals is that they have gone from the steering committee, the UNSM would take them forward to their executive and there would be a discussion at the executive level and there would be some feedback. We recognized that the proposal was very significant and we wanted to provide an opportunity for the UNSM to be party to making the contents of that proposal public. We had suggested to them that we could do a joint release, or if a joint release of the proposal was not deemed to be appropriate to them, then they would make it known as they would have seen fit. The president of the UNSM was to get back to me later in the day to provide her suggestion as to how they would proceed.
I believe - and this is very much my version of events from now on, and I wasn't there so I can't verify exactly - that before the UNSM ever had an opportunity to actually discuss the contents of the proposal that some in the media were made aware of the contents, and at some stage in the day we realized that somebody from the UNSM was talking to the media - and I shouldn't say UNSM, but somebody who knew the contents of the proposal was talking to the media.
We still waited and wanted to hear from the president of the UNSM with respect to making the contents of the proposal public. I guess as time went on a couple of more people got involved, and so late in the day the decision was made, well, we are not going with a joint release, obviously, and rather than us having a press conference, which would have been the ideal circumstance, I think upon reflection anybody would look at the way the thing rolled out and would agree that if you were trying to script the worst-case scenario of how something could unfold, we would have been very close to the script in the way events unfolded.
It was very much a result of what I felt was protocol with respect to how things from the steering committee would be handled with respect to press relations, but that very much got off the track as far as we were concerned. The thing came forward, and we made the decision at that stage that we had better put it out. So, it came forward. Not the ideal circumstance, as I have said, in terms of getting something out, but that is the way it happened, in my view.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, I wonder, could you confirm or deny that over the course of the day reporters were called down to the Department of Municipal Relations for a briefing?
MR. MACISAAC: Reporters that appeared to have knowledge of the matter were, as I recall. When they called, if somebody called and had knowledge of it, then they were brought in and given our side of the event.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, will you confirm or deny that some reporters who had never heard anything about this proposal were called down to the department for a briefing?
MR. MACISAAC: I can't confirm or deny that.
MR. STEELE: Which reporters were called to the department for a briefing? Were they called in a group, or were they called individually? Which ones were they?
MR. MACISAAC: As the day unfolded and we responded to individual requests, once we realized that the story was being spread reasonably far and wide, we did make contact with individuals within the media as the day progressed.
MR. STEELE: Do you have any idea, Mr. Minister, who was spreading the story? Is it possible it was your own department?
MR. MACISAAC: Highly unlikely.
MR. STEELE: If I am to understand, Mr. Minister . . .
MR. MACISAAC: Certainly not with my blessing.
MR. STEELE: Okay, so not with your blessing, that is a little different.
MR. MACISAAC: It is highly unlikely. If there was anybody within the department who was spreading it, it wouldn't have been with my blessing. The emphasis is on the first part, that it is highly unlikely that it was being spread by people within the department.
MR. STEELE: At what time on February 27th was the meeting with the UNSM? What time of day?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe it was an 11:00 a.m. meeting. I think 11:00 a.m. was the time of the meeting; it probably concluded at about noon or shortly after noon.
MR. STEELE: So, if I am to understand the chronology correctly, between approximately 12:00 noon and 5:17 p.m., when the news release was issued on the government wire, your department became aware that the story was being spread around, called in selected reporters, some of whom appeared to know the story and some of whom didn't, gave them a full and complete briefing with background notes and spreadsheets, the works, but only to selected reporters not to all reporters. For example, I am not aware of anybody in the broadcast media having been contacted that day, only print media. All that happened in the space of about five hours. Is that your understanding of what unfolded that day?
MR. MACISAAC: Probably less than five hours, because a certain period of time would have elapsed before we learned that people in the media had been made aware of the contents of the story. I don't have notes, so I can't tell you precisely when, but I would suggest that it would have been less than five hours.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, if I suggested to you that what actually happened was that this was a planned and deliberate "leak" of information with a transparently political purpose, namely to further the efforts of the Conservative candidate in Cape Breton North, and to achieve some of the longer-term goals of the Conservative Party, and it wasn't an accident at all, it was far from being an accident, you would say that is just not the case at all? Is that right?
MR. MACISAAC: Exactly.
MR. STEELE: I was wondering if you could tell me then, let me get this straight, in less than five hours, at some time by mid-afternoon, the department realized that it was out there. I will assert - and I understand you deny it, that is fine - that it was spread to the media by the department or by political people in the government. I am not saying the Civil Service necessarily did it. Somebody did it. Somebody did it with the full knowledge of the government, that is my assertion and I understand you deny that. That happened in a few hours over the course of a Tuesday afternoon on February 27th. In that time a news release was written up and issued. Mr. Minister, who knew of this news release before it was being issued?
MR. MACISAAC: At 5:17 p.m.?
MR. STEELE: The 5:17 p.m. news release, who knew about it before it was issued that day?
MR. MACISAAC: To the best of my knowledge the Deputy Minister, Director of Communications, myself and perhaps the Executive Director of Municipal Relations. Oh, sorry, and Communications Nova Scotia.
MR. STEELE: Did anybody in the Premier's Office know about it?
MR. MACISAAC: I can't say for certain if they did or they did not. I wasn't in communication with the Premier's Office in the course of the day. In as much as Communications Nova Scotia was aware of it, people in the Premier's Office may have been aware of it. I can't say yes or no.
MR. STEELE: Did you or did anybody in the department or, to your knowledge, anybody in government have discussions about this topic prior to the issue of the news release with a gentleman by the name of Alfie MacLeod?
MR. MACISAAC: I did not.
MR. STEELE: What about the other people I mentioned?
MR. MACISAAC: Not to the best of my knowledge. The people here - my Director of Communications doesn't even know the name or who the individual is. I do, but I certainly didn't have any communication with him. If you really stop and think about it, if, as you suggest, this was politically motivated, then I would suggest to you that if I wanted to get some political mileage out of this I would have handled it much differently, because I would have gotten far better coverage if I had the electronic media present and I had everybody there and I had been able to contact all of the media in Cape Breton Island, if that
is what you are suggesting I did, and would have gotten a far bigger bang for the buck than we were able to get with the way things happened.
I can assure you that that suggestion is so far off the mark, and I can also tell you that it is so far from where we would like to have been that day, with respect to handling the issue, that it is a real stretch to go where you are going with it.
MR. STEELE: This is not the place, I am sure, for political media strategy, although I would suggest the strategy that was followed was perfectly planned and designed, in fact, to have precisely the effect that it did. For a relatively complex story the print media is exactly where you want to go. If you don't tell everybody, it is a way of spinning out the story in the media, because the print has it one day and then the broadcast media have to follow up, and it gives you a longer story. Did you or anyone in your department actually contact any of the media based in Cape Breton?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe we responded to enquiries from them, but I don't believe I had any contact with them that day. I believe the next day or subsequent day to that, I may have. I would have to check just to see precisely when those contacts were.
MR. STEELE: Okay, it is my belief that someone from your department initiated a contact with the Cape Breton Post that day. Is that the case? Not in a response to an enquiry . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I certainly didn't. I will have to check. I don't know. We had a number of meetings set up over two days that wound up being set up that day as a result of the way events unfolded. We would have to perhaps check our notes, if possible, to see exactly when those contacts took place.
MR. STEELE: Would you do that?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, we can.
MR. STEELE: My question, just so it is perfectly clear, is did you or anyone from your department or anyone from the Premier's Office contact the Cape Breton Post and, if so, was that in response to a call from the Post or was that initiated from within the government? That is the question. So let me ask the same question. Did you or anyone from your department or anyone from the Premier's Office initiate contact with the Chronicle-Herald over this issue?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: And was that initiated by the department or was that in response to an enquiry from the Chronicle-Herald?
MR. MACISAAC: We will have to take that on notice and get back to you as to whether we initiated or we responded to it.
MR. STEELE: Okay, and will you do that?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: Other than the people that you have mentioned, was anyone else informed that this news release was going to be issued before it was in fact issued?
MR. MACISAAC: At 5:17 p.m.?
MR. STEELE: Yes.
MR. MACISAAC: I believe, to the best of my knowledge, the decision was made to put it out. We debated as to the lateness of the hour and said, well, the way things have gone, it is best to get it out so that everybody has access to it. As I indicated earlier, it was the last sort of action in terms of a day that did not go exceedingly well.
MR. STEELE: Was a gentleman by the name of Cecil Clarke made aware of this before it was issued?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. STEELE: Was he made aware of the department's proposal before it was issued?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. STEELE: So, to your knowledge, the Conservative candidate in Cape Breton North had no prior knowledge of any aspect of this proposal before he read it in the Cape Breton Post on the morning of February 28th?
MR. MACISAAC: That is correct.
MR. STEELE: I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if you would be prepared to release all of your internal departmental e-mails related to this topic, just to satisfy me and anyone else who cares about this issue, that it unfolded more or less the way that you outlined and, in fact, that before Tuesday, February 27th, there was no plan of any kind whatsoever to release this information on February 27th? Are you prepared to release that information?
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. MACISAAC: Well, I think you have to go back to what I was saying before. There was, in fact, as a result of the meeting with the Steering Committee of the UNSM, a hope that we would be making a joint announcement with the UNSM with respect to this on that day or on a subsequent day, depending upon the results of the executive meeting of the UNSM. That would have been in keeping with our normal protocol. So within that context, the answer to your question is that there was no plan to release it other than in the normal course of events.
MR. STEELE: I just want to pursue that idea for a minute that this is the normal course of events, because my understanding is, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, that the normal course of events is, in fact, that a news release will be issued when agreement is reached with the UNSM, not when a proposal is made to the UNSM. Isn't that the case?
MR. MACISAAC: Well, the proposal that was made was a proposal to have consultations with the proposal that was put forward and that is what we sought from the UNSM on that day, that this proposal be put out for consideration by municipal units and the people of the province.
MR. STEELE: So that day, if it unfolded as you had wanted, would have been an announcement that there was a proposal being put out through consultation?
MR. MACISAAC: That is correct.
MR. STEELE: Is it normal that a government-initiated proposal that the UNSM had not actually previously seen would be announced as a consultation? Is that normal?
MR. MACISAAC: I am having some difficulty using the word normal because of the nature of this proposal in the sense that it was unlike any other that we had brought forward to the roles and responsibilities process. So to talk in terms of what is normal or not normal isn't really appropriate. What we did intend to do on that day is we made the proposal at the steering committee, that was to fulfill the commitment we made to the UNSM at their September meeting, and it was appropriate that that proposal, we believed, would go forward to the municipalities for their consideration, as part of a consultation process.
MR. STEELE: But it is not normal to issue a news release about a proposal that is being presented that very day to the steering committee, is it? I mean, the steering committee gets lots of proposals and you don't issue a news release.
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, but when you put forward a proposal that was the fulfillment of a commitment to the UNSM made in September, that was a proposal which was significant in terms of the contents and a proposal which was asking municipal units for their consideration and consultation, we believed it appropriate to be public with the document. As I said, our preference would have been for there to have been a joint announcement. As it turns out, it wasn't joint and the UNSM did in fact make an announcement that the proposal was out there. It was significant enough that it was appropriate for the membership of the UNSM to be aware of it. It was also appropriate for the public to be aware of it because there were significant matters for consideration within the proposal.
MR. STEELE: I don't want to keep running around the mulberry bush on this one, so I will just assert - and I know you deny it, but I will simply assert - that it is far from normal for a proposal, at this stage of the process, to be sent out as a news release, very far from being normal.
MR. MACISAAC: Again, I want to underline that what we did in terms of putting it out to public consultation and to put it in the media was an appropriate course of action, given the contents of the material and also given the significance of April 1st being a date where there had to be a level of consultation occur in order for the 12 month notice to be met. That was a matter which was very much front and centre with respect to this proposal.
For it to go out in the time frame that it did, I suppose if anyone were to criticize us, they should criticize us for not having had it out earlier than the end of February. That wasn't possible in the context, but once it was out there, it was appropriate, if the 12 month notice was to be respected, that consultation should begin and take place and it was appropriate for the public to know that that was happening.
MR. STEELE: All right. I suppose, if it had been released earlier, it would have been not quite so timely for purposes of a by-election. The municipal open line here says that on February 27th, a Steering Committee of the Roles and Responsibilities process met and received a government proposal. I want to pursue that line for a second because the government's information on this topic is shot through with a particular idea, and I am reading here from the government material: The proposal is a result of the joint roles and responsibilities review between the province and the UNSM. But that is actually not the case because the roles and responsibilities review never made this proposal. They discussed elements of it and they said that the status quo and the equalization plan is not satisfactory, but they never agreed that this package that the government put together was the appropriate way to deal with all of those issues.
That is why the government's announcement on February 27th met with a great deal of consternation from some municipalities who stressed - let me read just a line. This is a letter from Laurence Mawhinney, the Mayor of Lunenburg, which although it was a net gainer under this proposal, voted unanimously to oppose it. Here is a line from his letter: The
current equalization program proposal - that is the one that was released on February 27th - is flawed and varies greatly from that which the Roles and Responsibilities Committee first prepared.
Mr. Minister, I guess I will ask you, can you point to a single document, any document coming out of the roles and responsibilities review, that in any way suggests that that review committee was in favour of the proposal that was issued on February 27th?
MR. MACISAAC: I can point to a document, which I believe is dated February 22, 2000, in which an equalization fund was discussed and there were various proposals at that time which were suggested in terms of how that would be funded and one of those was through property tax. So it is something that had previously been discussed. The matter was brought forward and it is suggested that it flowed out of the Roles and Responsibilities process because the provincial government made a commitment to the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities that it would bring forward a proposal for dealing with the last items to be dealt with in the roles and responsibilities, that that would be brought forward for consideration by the steering committee and that commitment was made in September and it was brought forward for consideration in February 2001.
MR. STEELE: The only reference I can find is in a document that says approved by steering committee, February 27, 2001, which is curious, I think, because that is the same date the news release was issued. Do you know the document I refer to? This is in the package of material released by the province. It is Roles and Responsibilities Review, Equalization Grant, Version 2.0, February 2001, but the date at the end actually says approved by the steering committee on February 27, 2001.
Let me read to you what it says: Funding of equalization grant program. The program could be funded either through a municipally self-funded equalization program or a provincially-funded program or some combination. A provincially-funded program could be funded either through traditional revenue sources such as income taxes or federal transfers, or through other revenue sources such as property tax. That is essentially a truism. It is the equivalent of saying, well, the baby could be a boy or it could be a girl or it could be something else, which is not far from stating a preference. It just says, well, it could be this or it could be that. Well, of course it could be this or could be that.
This document, which according to this information, was approved by the steering committee on February 27th, the same day as this news release, is very much at variance with what the government is proposing. So I wonder if the minister is . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I would like to see the document because I don't recall that as having been approved at the steering committee. I believe the important matter for the committee to consider here is that there was a commitment made to bring forward a proposal
to deal with those issues and the proposal we brought forward in February was in fact to deal with those remaining issues.
MR. STEELE: I wonder, Mr. Minister, if you are prepared to acknowledge that the statements that you personally made to the media, and are contained in all the government information, namely that this proposal - which is very cleverly worded, I might add; well, I have just given it away - which is a result of the roles and responsibilities review is, in fact, misleading, that it is not, in fact, a result of that review, except in the most tenuous sense, that the Roles and Responsibilities Committee talked about it, but they certainly came to no resolution on it?
MR. MACISAAC: They did not come to a resolution of it, but it did flow from the process of Roles and Responsibilities because of the commitment that the province made to come forward with a proposal to deal with the remaining items under the roles and responsibilities, namely housing costs and corrections costs. So inasmuch as we made a commitment to come forward with a proposal, then it flowed out of that process. The commitment would not have been made had the process not been in existence.
MR. STEELE: Let me read the commitment that the province actually made. It was based on a resolution from the 95th Annual UNSM Conference, which I believe was held in September 2000. They passed a resolution on this topic. I will read it just for the record, just so you know what it says, and I won't read all the whereases, except for this one, which the department seems to have conveniently forgot:
Whereas the development of a new program and a distribution methodology will take a considerable period of time and should be completed in a consultative manner;
Therefore be it resolved that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities immediately petition the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs to appoint a joint committee comprising representatives of all classes of municipal units and departmental officials and to provide adequate resources to this committee to complete a thorough review and revamping of the equalization policy, distribution formula and applicable legislation within the 2000-01 fiscal year.
That is the actual resolution that you were responding to, Mr. Minister, and your response, dated November 3, 2000 is: The equalization grant program is currently being reviewed by a joint committee comprising representatives of all classes of municipal units and departmental officials. It is expected that a final report on this review will be completed by December 31, 2000. I guess my first question is, why that slippage, if on November 3rd you said you thought it would be ready by December 31st, why wasn't it ready by December 31st?
MR. MACISAAC: It was a difficult package to put together. It was not easy to put together.
MR. STEELE: Okay, so it wasn't ready on December 31st because it was a difficult package. The whereas says it will take a considerable period of time and should be completed in a consultative manner. Somehow the department or you, Mr. Minister, or the political staff - because I certainly don't think it is the civil servants' fault here, I believe this was driven completely by political people - decided that by the end of February this complex package, which the UNSM said would take a considerable period of time and should be completed in a consultative manner, you laid it on the table late on the morning of February 27th, because they had never seen it before, and later that afternoon you issued a news release with full background information, announcing to the world what was bound to be - and the government knew it had to be - very popular in Cape Breton and controversial in the rest of the province, particularly HRM.
What happened? How did that happen that the promises that were made resulted in a rushed release of a half-formed idea that was presented to the key stakeholders on the same day a news release was issued in a way that was bound to and, in fact, did set municipalities against each other, in a way that took gross advantage of the poorer municipalities and, in particular, CBRM, which was desperate for money and was quite happy to accept this proposal. How did that happen that you rushed this into the media on February 27th?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, the reference to the resolution on equalization that was passed by the UNSM should not be part of this discussion because the commitment that was made to the UNSM was a commitment on the outstanding issues relative to the roles and responsibilities process. That is the commitment that was being fulfilled, not a commitment on the details of the resolution to which you referred, so that when we brought it forward, it was brought forward as a proposal to deal with the outstanding issues relative to the roles and responsibilities exercise and that is the commitment that was made at the UNSM meeting.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, before the UNSM was informed of this proposal on February 27th - or in the words of the president, Anna Allen, the UNSM received a government proposal - did you or anyone from your department, or did anyone from any other part of the government, contact any mayor or warden to tell them the details of the proposal and to tell them not to criticize the government because some money was coming their way? Was anybody given that message?
MR. MACISAAC: I am sorry, I missed the first part of your question.
MR. STEELE: Did you or anybody from your department, or did anybody from the rest of government, contact any mayor or warden of any municipality to deliver the message to them that a proposal was coming down the pipe, they were going to get money and,
therefore, they should keep quiet and still any criticism they had of the government? Was that message delivered to anybody, to your knowledge?
MR. MACISAAC: I certainly didn't deliver it. To my knowledge, I believe that we did make efforts to make people aware of what was in the package and if they supported it, they were encouraged to show their support.
MR. STEELE: You made people aware of what was in the package before February 27th or after?
MR. MACISAAC: We tested the idea on some people prior to.
MR. STEELE: Who? When?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am supposed to advise that we have five minutes left in our time allotment today.
MR. MACISAAC: I didn't test the ideas myself with anybody, so I would have to ask the department as to who it was, but I do know that, for instance - I shouldn't say I didn't. I had a meeting with the President of the UNSM and suggested, in broad terms, as to what the proposal might look like that would be brought forward on February 27th.
MR. STEELE: When was that meeting?
MR. MACISAAC: Probably a week prior. I am just going by memory now. I don't know the exact date, but my guess is that about a week prior to.
MR. STEELE: Anybody else?
MR. MACISAAC: She is the only person that I met with and described the . . .
MR. STEELE: You are responsible for the department though, and you are aware of the political operations of the government. To your knowledge, did anyone else test the message with any other representatives of any municipality?
MR. MACISAAC: The answer is yes, others have. The details as to who and when, I would want to get and provide it to you.
MR. STEELE: Will you be able to provide that do you think, Mr. Minister, by the time we start our business on Thursday?
MR. MACISAAC: I would anticipate that would be possible, yes.
MR. STEELE: Is one of the people it was tested with Mayor John Morgan of CBRM?
MR. MACISAAC: I don't know. If you are patient, I can find out the details of that. I certainly didn't communicate with John Morgan on this, although I have to be careful, I have spoken to him on other issues. I don't think this was one of them.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, when I ask you, I am interested, to a certain extent, whether you personally did it, although I understand that you personally wouldn't have done a lot of this stuff, but when I ask about whether you know, I am also talking about the people for whom you are responsible in your capacity as minister, which would include everybody in your department.
MR. MACISAAC: That is what I have undertaken to find out for you.
MR. STEELE: I am also interested in knowing whether, to your knowledge, anybody outside your department was aware of this proposal and tested it on other people, by which I would mean, well, really, anybody, but some examples would be people from the Premier's Office or political staff, who knew about it and what they knew and who they tested it on.
MR. MACISAAC: Well, I can certainly account for who people within the department would have spoken to. I am not so certain that I can account for people in the Premier's Office who may or may not have spoken.
MR. STEELE: I will just take up my last few minutes by summarizing where I think we are. It is my assertion, and I understand the minister denies it . . .
MR. MACISAAC: Vigorously denies it.
MR. STEELE: . . . vigorously denies that there was a well-formed plan to release this information just prior to a pair of by-elections and that it had short-term and long-term political motives. The short-term motive was to assist their candidate in the Cape Breton North by-election, because they had already written off the chances of their candidate winning in the Halifax Fairview by-election, that it was precisely designed to set municipalities against each other, to the detriment of municipal relations in Nova Scotia because it was done with an almost entirely political motivation.
Probably the worst aspect of it is simply that this plan took advantage of municipalities who are in a severe financial crunch and I will mention, in particular, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, which has plenty of questions and very few answers about its financial future under this government, that the financial plight of CBRM was taken advantage of in order to push a plan that had short-term and long-term political objectives and rather than dealing directly and effectively with those needs, in particular of CBRM, but also of other municipalities . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wrap up, please.
MR. STEELE: . . . the government chose, and very deliberately, to release this plan in a way designed for maximum political advantage and the effect on municipal relations in Nova Scotia and on municipalities in a bad financial way was treated very much as secondary to those political motivations. So with that summary, Mr. Chairman, I guess I will move that we adjourn and I will pick up this line of thought on Thursday when we reconvene.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will reconvene on Thursday, April 12, 2001, at approximately 1:45 p.m. I hope we have the co-operation of all caucuses to get in here quickly after Question Period. At that time, with the continuation of questions by the NDP caucus, 14 minutes will be left and then we will have questions from the Liberal caucus. Can I ask both caucuses, do you anticipate that the honourable minister will be used for the remainder of that day, or should we have the Minister of Transportation and Public Works lined up for Thursday or tell him to wait until the following Tuesday?
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: That would certainly depend on what questions and answers are before the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired for today. I will allow the minister to answer that question on the following day.
[5:53 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]
