[Page 375]

HALIFAX, TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2004

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

2:03 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Mark Parent

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Liberal caucus has 20 minutes left.

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was questioning the minister with regard to the different agents doing investments for the province of Nova Scotia. I believe the minister indicated that he would provide further detail on that. Is he able to do that today?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Finance.

HON. PETER CHRISTIE: We will have that very shortly and I will get that to you as soon as it's completed and ready.

MR. MACKINNON: Before the day is out?

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, before the day is out, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay. There are a number of issues. Number one, with regard to the government's 10 per cent tax break. Obviously when the government would make a policy decision of that calibre, he and his colleagues in Cabinet would have received some advice from officials within the Department of Finance. Would the minister please outline as to what advice officials within his department gave on that particular issue prior to the decision being made and what are the implications of the various options?

375

[Page 376]

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, my recollection of the events surrounding that was the fact that we had, as I indicated yesterday, gone through the budget process, we had set out the priorities where we solved the spending needs, and then we were looking at the revenues and how that was going to flow out. What we would have asked the Department of Finance officials to do was look at the opportunity to find a way to close that $90 million gap and that was the proposal that came to us, that we eventually chose.

MR. MACKINNON: Was there any advice given in written from, memo form or otherwise, e-mails?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'll check with them, but mostly it was presentations made to Cabinet, that they would come and make presentations to Cabinet. I don't recall written forms going back and forth.

MR. MACKINNON: Were all their presentations just oral? Were there any slides? Were there any charts?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think my recollection would be that on one day there was slides but most of the time it was looking at opportunities and looking at options that they would make in verbal presentations to Cabinet.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes. Those slides that you referred to, are they available within the Department of Finance?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised that those slides that we were speaking of would be advice to Cabinet so they would have to look at whether those can be made available or not under the regular rules.

MR. MACKINNON: That's correct, but the decision has already been made, so that would be an after issue.

MR. CHRISTIE: Certainly, I'm advised that they'll look at it in the context of the decision having been taken, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: So you are confirming there's at least one presentation in written format?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think I used the word slides.

MR. MACKINNON: Slides. When a decision of Cabinet is made like that, as I understand, there are generally various options laid out and the implications, the benefits and the negatives to each of those options, did you present such an Order in Council to Cabinet?

[Page 377]

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I did not.

MR. MACKINNON: No, so it was a policy decision that was made based on those slide presentations and general discussions from officials within the Department of Finance?

MR. CHRISTIE: Most of the meetings leading up to the issue as I indicated were done verbally, but I do recall one set of slides relative to . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Who made those presentations?

MR. CHRISTIE: Generally, it would be the Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. MACKINNON: Who else?

MR. CHRISTIE: Normally the assistant deputy minister was there and sometimes Mr. Hennebury was there. My recollection would be the three of them were there in most cases.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, now at any point in time did officials within the Department of Finance recommend against the 10 per cent tax cut?

MR. CHRISTIE: Let's be clear, are you asking me the question, did they recommend against doing the tax cut at any point in time?

MR. MACKINNON: Did they raise concerns about what the implications were for the bottom line of the province in terms of number one, balancing the budget; number two, reducing the debt and so on?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, certainly they would have looked at a lot of options, but their challenge for this year was to look at how to close the gap that had been created by the total of expenses we were going to have and once we had established the federal revenue. So that was the challenge they were working on this year.

MR. MACKINNON: Obviously, there's been some backtracking on that 10 per cent tax cut, so it's obvious that the government did not achieve its goal that it ultimately set out to achieve. What advice did the minister receive going into his budget that would rescind part of the 10 per cent tax cut, and was any of that advice given at the time when the 10 per cent tax cut was put on the table last year?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, I have a disadvantage, I wasn't there last year, so I'm not able to speak to that.

MR. MACKINNON: No, but you were a part of government.

[Page 378]

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, indeed.

MR. MACKINNON: And you were in Cabinet.

MR. CHRISTIE: I agree to that.

MR. MACKINNON: And there was a slide presentation before Cabinet.

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, the slide presentation we were speaking about was this year.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, and even last year if they proposed it, you were part of Cabinet, they would have made a presentation.

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, and they . . .

MR. MACKINNON: So there were two presentations to Cabinet?

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, indeed. We're talking about two different years. There certainly were many presentations to Cabinet. I think your question was, what did the Finance officials recommend? Well, Finance officials last year looked at the way the tax reduction would be structured. In terms of this year, the challenge they had was to look at finding opportunities to close the gap that we had between the projected expenditures and the revenues we had projected.

MR. MACKINNON: Let's put it in layman's terms. Did anyone in the Department of Finance indicate considerable concern about the fact that this 10 per cent tax cut and this $155 rebate was not going to be in the best interests of the province before the decision was made? That it was better to play it safe, get control of the debt, pay down the debt, keep the budget balanced and so on?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes. They did not make it when I was present.

MR. MACKINNON: So what you're saying, Mr. Minister, is everyone in the Department of Finance favoured this initiative?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I said they didn't make that known when I was present.

MR. MACKINNON: I see. Do you know of anyone or anywhere within government that that concern was raised?

MR. CHRISTIE: Nobody has said that to me in my term as Minister of Finance.

[Page 379]

MR. MACKINNON: But do you have any knowledge whatsoever that there may have been concerns?

MR. CHRISTIE: In recollection, over the last six or seven months, there have been discussions about that being an option and the timing. Since the decision was to move forward with it, most of the work of Finance has been to support that decision and to move forward. Indeed, what we asked them to do was look at opportunities for closing the gap between revenue and expenditures this year.

MR. MACKINNON: The operative word is most, but not all. You said most within the Department of Finance but not all.

MR. CHRISTIE: What I also indicated is nobody has come and said to me, I think that was a mistake and therefore I think you went in the wrong direction. If there is anybody, they haven't identified themselves to me.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay. It's just that I find it so perplexing that the government was going 100 per cent in one direction with great fanfare and less than a year later, it's made a reversal, conceding that the government is going to have a shortfall in revenues forcing up user fees, which many would argue are tax increases, and then rescinding part of the tax break. I'm just wondering, what was the advantage? It would appear - forgive the cynicism - as if it were only for political advantage, which backfired.

MR. CHRISTIE: I take a different view of it, obviously.

MR. MACKINNON: You have to, you're on the government side.

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, but I think I'll share that view with you also. The view I take is that you have to look at the priorities that you're dealing with at that particular point in time. I mean, it's no question we were very clear on the fact that we, as a government, felt tax reductions would help the economy, it would put money back in people's pocket to allow them to spend it. As we've indicated, we still view that. Yes, we had to rethink a part of that decision this year to enable us to close the gap in the priorities we set. That's the view I take of it. I'm not quite so cynical as you are.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, you gave it to them in one hand, but when they came out the back door, you siphoned it out of their back pockets. That seems to be the suggestion.

If I could switch the initiative just slightly. In 1999, the government, under the Provincial Finance Act, made an amendment with regard to the SAP program. I think it's down towards the bottom part of the Financial Measures (2000) Act in that particular year. I don't have the actual wording or the section, but it was effectively to put all the various departments, agencies, boards and commissions of government on-line with what the

[Page 380]

provincial government had put in place. After that bill was approved - I believe the honourable Neil LeBlanc was Minister of Finance at the time - a directive was issued to all on-line departments and also to school boards and municipalities that they commence processing - at least begin a process - to go into the same computer system as the provincial government. That's the SAP program.

[2:15 p.m.]

Obviously, the minister and his department were contemplating a saving. What was the long-term objective? Is it to eventually start reducing the human resources component at these various levels so as to generate efficiency and government expenditure?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think the major objective is to make all of the government reporting consistent, to attempt to make more consistency and to make it better and more accurate. I think having read that report you'll know that when you consolidate the DHAs or the school boards, using different methods creates some issues. So the overall objective was to get everybody on the same reporting basis.

Part of that, also, had to do with the fact that we needed to make those reporting changes because we were moving to GAAP and GAAP requires certain things to be done. We had to ensure all the systems did that.

MR. MACKINNON: Was there a report prepared for the Department of Finance that contemplated a reduction in human resources, either at the provincial level, municipal level or school board level?

MR. CHRISTIE: In our recollection, there was no report that indicated reduction. The reports and the objective were more for the efficiencies in terms of achieving efficiencies.

MR. MACKINNON: So what would the $3.5 million be for in expenditure within the Department of Finance for SAP Canada Inc.? I would imagine every year there's been quite an expenditure on that line item.

MR. CHRISTIE: There's a variety of things, but licensing agreements would certainly be one of those as we license additional users and, obviously, as we move to additional training, to provide training to the various agencies and boards that are going to come onto that, we would require people to do training. You'll notice if you go into the Provincial Building on the third floor, you'll notice it says the SAP training room where people come down. It requires people to come in and requires training monies.

MR. MACKINNON: How many of the 55 municipalities now have the SAP program?

MR. CHRISTIE: The number that people can recollect is around seven.

[Page 381]

MR. MACKINNON: Seven out of 55?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: And all 55 were directed to move towards the SAP program?

MR. CHRISTIE: As to the municipalities, that was going to be voluntary. That was volunteering of the situation for them to come. The direction was to the other, closer, organizations and we referred to, say, Sherbrooke Village or a number of places like that.

MR. MACKINNON: Were all school boards given that directive as well?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised that the school boards would tender on that process, they would tender in terms of what system. They voluntarily chose to come towards the SAP system and they're starting to move in that direction.

MR. MACKINNON: Were they not given a directive in August 1999 to move to the SAP program by the Department of Education because the Department of Education was given that directive from the Department of Finance?

MR. CHRISTIE: The school boards were encouraged but not directed to take on this product. They had gone to tender and found out that it would be an expensive proposition, so at the time the province encouraged them to come towards the SAP system and we indicated we would, for example, provide support, training and so on if they moved in that direction. That's a voluntary choice of theirs to start and come in this direction.

MR. MACKINNON: So it's voluntary now, but in August 1999, it was a directive, was it not?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised it was not. I'm being told that nobody's aware of any directive, but certainly they were trying to through moral suasion but there was no directive that says you must.

MR. MACKINNON: How many of the school boards in the province are now with the SAP program?

MR. CHRISTIE: All of them are now.

MR. MACKINNON: All of them. What about all the housing authorities in the province?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised that there are not many, but the majority of things are working towards payroll and HR systems with them.

[Page 382]

MR. MACKINNON: Why that particular issue and not some of the other issues?

MR. CHRISTIE: Obviously, that was the issue they identified they wanted to move with first. That was what they viewed as their highest priority.

MR. MACKINNON: The housing authorities identified finance as the issue that they wanted to go to the SAP program?

MR. CHRISTIE: Your question is did they indicate they wanted to go to the SAP program?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: They chose to move. As I indicated, on the human resources side, they are on the payroll. We do not have them lined up to come on the SAP program at this point in time. That's not to suggest they won't. But in terms of our priorities, the priorities they identified were working on payroll and HR portions of the SAP system first.

MR. MACKINNON: Would the minister be kind enough to table the directive that was given to the individual line departments back in July/August 1999 with regard to this particular issue of having various government departments and agencies of government to move to the SAP program?

MR. CHRISTIE: We will locate any initiatives that were in the Summer of 1999, regarding the SAP program to the line departments and certainly table those, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: I think the minister may find there is some rather enlightening detail there that he may not be aware of.

I want to go back, because I know the minister has indicated he's going to provide the detail on the investment portfolios. Some of the investor companies, the money managers were relieved of their duties because the government didn't get the value for dollar that it wanted, and so on. How many of those were relieved of their duties? Was it just that one that he referred to yesterday?

MR. CHRISTIE: Over the last couple of years, it was just the one.

MR. MACKINNON: Just the one. Did that company consistently not do well?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the time is up. Please answer the question, then we will move on.

[Page 383]

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated to the honourable member yesterday, what had happened through 1996, that company was given $50 million. It was placed, in 2002, on the watch list for poor performance. In December 2002, it was terminated because their performance wasn't reading the target of the other companies. But your question was, was it only the one and the answer is yes, over the last couple of years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the government caucus?

The honourable member for Hants East.

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Just a couple of issues for me, and whether or not that will mean a couple of questions, I'm not sure but I think it will at least mean two. I have a question around the teachers' pension plan. It's my understanding that in 2003 there was to be a review of that plan and that that never occurred. So can you tell me if it ever happened?

MR. CHRISTIE: Did you suggest that that had not occurred?

MR. MACDONELL: I suggested that had not occurred.

MR. CHRISTIE: Because I am advised it's still ongoing. It started and it's still ongoing, that review. They meet every couple of months surrounding that issue. Obviously, as I indicated to the member for Halifax Fairview yesterday, they have their guidelines that they have to look, and I indicated to him I would submit one of those guideline documents so you can see what the committee's performance targets are. But our pension people have been meeting with them regularly in terms of monitoring their performance and the discussions of the administration of the plan. I am just advised there's an additional part of that review, that Schedule B payments are part of the discussions that are ongoing too.

MR. MACDONELL: Say that again, the additional part . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: The Schedule B payments. That's part of the discussions they've been having too.

MR. MACDONELL: I guess two questions from that. One is, who is the they that have been meeting to discuss this?

MR. CHRISTIE: They is the Teachers Pension Partner Board that was set up in the late 1990s, they have been meeting with people from Finance - I'm sorry, it was set up in 1993. I am corrected on the dates.

MR. MACDONELL: This board was set up in 1993, and has this board been meeting since 1993?

[Page 384]

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: I don't think that's where I was going, but it might be where I'm ended. I was under the impression it was another body that was going to do this review in about 2003, 10 years after the province had looked at the unfunded liability. So is there supposed to be another body looking at this? Reviewing it?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, I am advised that you're correct on the 10 years, but this is the same body we are referring to as doing it.

MR. MACDONELL: The Schedule B payment, is that a known amount?

MR. CHRISTIE: It's something that's in the process of being calculated. If you look at the 1993 agreement you will see the calculation formula that's in there. That's being worked on as we speak, and that's part of what the group is meeting to to look at.

MR. MACDONELL: You didn't answer my question. Is it a suspected amount then, if not known, are we talking about a ballpark range, $300,000, $700,000?

MR. CHRISTIE: I am advised that that Schedule B, were payments that were going to be - as you realize payments were going to be made in that period of time - so, as that occurred, now they come to the period of time and they have to calculate what's left of the liabilities against the pension fund. That calculation is in the works, so we don't have that number. The actuaries are doing it. It's not the people in this fund, it's the actuaries. The people in the group are being supportive of the actuarial calculations.

MR. MACDONELL: Have you budgeted for that in this year? The possibility of that payment?

MR. CHRISTIE: Those payments have been being calculated out over the 10 years, and the terms and conditions of what's in that agreement will be met under the pension contributions plan that we have.

MR. MACDONELL: What's your timeline on having the calculation made, or coming to some final conclusion or resolution of that?

MR. CHRISTIE: We could suggest a timeline but, quite honestly, as you know, this is a joint board of the Teachers Union and us. So for us to say we'll be done there would be to make the assumption that the Teachers Union would be ready. Quite honestly, we're moving in concert on this.

MR. MACDONELL: Are you saying that the Teachers Union is not suggesting any timeline?

[Page 385]

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I'm just suggesting I can't speak for the Teachers Union.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not asking you to. But if you were to say the teachers wanted it done yesterday, then I assume they're not the problem. Are you getting any indication from the Teachers Union when they would like to have this finalized?

[2:30 p.m.]

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised that this process has been in the works for about a year and a half. Neither group is lagging or anything, but the completion will be as soon as they can, based on the fact that they need the evidence to work with and get the actual report. Your question is, when will it be done? As soon as they can bring it to a conclusion. I am advised both sides are very willing participants and they want to draw this to a conclusion, but I'm not able to project a date at this point.

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure that retired teachers are so keen to see this drag on. I want to thank you for that, I appreciate it.

The other issue I want to raise is around Hurricane Juan. If my memory's right, the province budgeted $10 million for disaster relief after Hurricane Juan?

MR. CHRISTIE: That was the first number we posted. As you recall, you were required to indicate to the federal government what level of participation was going to be involved so we indicated the $10 million was what we were funding at that first instance.

MR. MACDONELL: Did you make a second funding indication? I wasn't aware of it.

MR. CHRISTIE: We'd have to refer you to EMO and TPW for that. We didn't make a second one, but the final claim numbers and so on would be with EMO.

MR. MACDONELL: But EMO was funded by the province, the Department of Finance would . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, indeed. The $10 million would be the negotiating point they would start with the federal government. Initially you had to respond at the time with the dollars that were going to be available so you could match them with the federal government. Then you discussed or negotiated the percentage they were going to have. What I'm suggesting to you is that was done by EMO. I wasn't involved in that, but clearly the $10 million we put up was so we could react to that.

MR. MACDONELL: So are you aware of what the uptake was? Have we spent the $10 million, have we spent $5 million?

[Page 386]

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm just going to look at the Public Service estimates which will show us the amount they had. I'm using the figures on Page 15.7, which is the Emergency Measures Organization, and the amount that was used for this fiscal year ending 2004 was $13.014 million. I'm giving you a net figure, after salaries and all the various others chargeable to other departments, but that's the figure - your question was, how did you do on the $10 million? The answer is about $13 million.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, so you're saying you did $3 million more?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, that's right. It cost $3 million more at the end of the day.

MR. MACDONELL: I notice today the insurance industry had said they paid out $113 million, although that includes Prince Edward Island as well as Nova Scotia after Hurricane Juan. They're not indicating that's all they think they're going to put out and that claims are up about 40 per cent from what they were predicting. Without knowing how much of that $113 million was actually claims in Nova Scotia, but it would seem to me that if we made the assumption that all that money got spent on repairs, et cetera, plus the fact there would be money the people spent that wasn't insurance money - it was their own money, they didn't have things insured or the insurance didn't cover enough or whatever. I'm just wondering has your department put any notion to what the government may have taken in from that spending in terms of tax, HST, after the hurricane?

MR. CHRISTIE: So, your question is, through a stimulated economy because of repairs, tree cutting, et cetera - no, we don't have a number on that.

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. I was thinking, 15 per cent of that number is about $17 million - of course, not all of it applies to Nova Scotia. I think the number is probably greater than that so it would seem that disaster relief really wouldn't have cost the province much.

MR. CHRISTIE: I suspect that's the case, but I think the other thing you have to take in and if the Minister of Transportation and Public Works were here, they would indicate to you there were a lot of uninsured things that the government had to undertake in terms of road repair and others. You recall very well from the floods back in the Spring of 2003, there were bridges and roads and so on that weren't covered as part of that relief. When you build that in, I don't know if I think having a hurricane or flood is going to be a cost driver.

MR. MACDONELL: Not having one would be the preference, but . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: I think we all agree on that.

MR. MACDONELL: It's my understanding the province has made a claim to the federal government on those disasters. So, any idea where that is?

[Page 387]

MR. CHRISTIE: I'd have to refer you to the Emergency Measures Organization. They're handling that file, we don't have that.

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you. I appreciate your response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.

MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Minister, I'm sure you will agree with me that each line item in your budget is made up of a number of smaller items and they're rolled up into one item. Correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: In a lot of cases, yes.

MR. STEELE: So, for example, if I asked you if you could give me a list of all the individual items that go into, for example, the Controller's budget, that I could have that? In principle.

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. STEELE: Similarly, if we took another line item out of your budget - let's say, Debt Servicing Costs - that's made up of a number of individual items that add up to a grand total and that in principle, if I wanted to have that list, I could have that list?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, that's true.

MR. STEELE: Okay. Now let's go back to the restructuring line item. You said in the paper today that it's a line item like any other and it's subject to the same amount of scrutiny as any other line item. Mr. Minister, you know and I know that's not the case. What I'm going to do now, I'm going to tell you what your answer is before I ask the question - your answer is going to be no. My question is, will you give me today a list of each individual item making up the restructuring line item?

MR. CHRISTIE: You're correct. The answer is no.

MR. STEELE: Okay, so how can you say that it's a line item just like any other?

MR. CHRISTIE: What I said is that it's a line item subject to review by the Auditor General, as is any other line item.

MR. STEELE: So, the quotation attributed to you in today's newspaper is incorrect?

[Page 388]

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm afraid I don't know what the quotation attributed to me was. What I do know and I indicated to you yesterday, I don't recall discussing with the press, but in a discussion you and I had yesterday, I indicated that line item was subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor General, as were all other lines.

MR. STEELE: I know that's what you said in here, but you're quoted in the paper as having said something different out there.

MR. CHRISTIE: I didn't have a discussion out there with anybody in terms of this. Obviously, they picked it up from here. I talked about other things out there. I did not have a discussion with anybody about this particular line item. I had no discussion with any reporter or any newspaper person other than the discussion you and I had in here.

MR. STEELE: So if there's a quotation in the newspaper it must be something you said in here which I don't remember. You may have said it, I don't remember.

MR. CHRISTIE: I can only attribute it to that. I recall my discussion with you yesterday was that this was a line item subject to review by the Auditor General, as is any other line.

MR. STEELE: But you'll agree with me it's not a line item like any other item in the sense that when I ask you for a breakdown your answer to me is, no I can't have it.

MR. CHRISTIE: I would agree with you. It is a sensitive line item, it is probably one of the more sensitive line items in our budget. There's a whole history of logic as to why that isn't open for public scrutiny and debate. We've all gone through that. In terms of the Auditor General, there's no lock on that line item, the Auditor General reviews it as he does on any other items.

MR. STEELE: Let me move on to another subject that we touched on yesterday that I want to go back to and that's the question of HST. Speaking of newspaper quotes, you were quoted last year as saying that there were discussions going on with other provinces about the possibility of taking HST off children's clothing and home heating fuel, and as we heard over in the other Chamber today, the other partners in the agreement were quick to say that no such talks had ever been held. So which is - I hesitate to use the word "truth" but which is the truth? They're contradictory, they can't both be true.

MR. CHRISTIE: I can only speak for what I know. I am not able to speak for the other provinces. They'll have to speak for themselves, but at the time there was, obviously as I indicated yesterday those groups were meeting on the sharing arrangements and the other things, and so there had been some discussions in terms of the possibilities, in terms of the mechanics and the possibilities. From my perspective, that is discussion on those items. If

[Page 389]

that's not discussion on those items from their perspective, then I'm not able to speak for them.

MR. STEELE: Your colleague in New Brunswick issued a news release saying that there were not, had never been, discussions on removing certain items from the tax base. It was pretty emphatic, it was unmistakably clear, he said, there are not now and there never have been such discussions. So what are the people supposed to believe? How far in your view, in Nova Scotia's view, did the discussions go? Who was talking to whom? How could the New Brunswick Minister of Finance issue such an emphatic denial that any such talks had ever been held?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I say, I can't speak for the Minister of Finance of New Brunswick. I can indicate as I indicated then, there had been preliminary discussions amongst officials, and that simply was to talk about more of the mechanics, but as you're having those discussions you talk about some other options. Obviously they didn't progress and obviously the Minister of Finance in New Brunswick has indicated as he indicated, but I'm not able to speak for him. I can only speak for this province.

MR. STEELE: Is it the current position of the Government of Nova Scotia that HST should be removed from children's clothing?

MR. CHRISTIE: What the current position of the government is, is what you see in the budget today and it is not included in the budget. We looked at establishing our priorities and that's what's laid out in the budget. In the future will the government consider that? Certainly we will look at that option, but as we presently stand it's not in our budget and our budget is our priority right now.

MR. STEELE: That's a masterful evasion of the question I actually asked you, which is whether - I know it's not in the budget, which means that conclusions with the other provinces haven't been concluded, but in discussions with the other provinces is it the position of the Government of Nova Scotia that HST should be removed from children's clothing?

MR. CHRISTIE: It's the position of the government that we should look at some of the opportunities under the HST. Quite honestly, more representations have been made to this government and to me about removing HST off fuel than children clothes . . .

MR. STEELE: We'll get to fuel in a minute, but what I'm asking, is it the position of the Government of Nova Scotia that HST should be removed from children's clothing? It sounds like a yes or no question.

[Page 390]

MR. CHRISTIE: I guess at this point of time it is not the position of the government to remove it because it's not included in our budget. So I would have to say, I guess from our budget it is not our position to do that.

MR. STEELE: I know it's not in your budget, Mr. Minister, but is it something that you're taking to the table with the other HST promises?

MR. CHRISTIE: I have no doubt that there will be discussions on it. I guess your question is, are we going to go and be the lead province on that and assist the other provinces?

MR. STEELE: Don't rephrase my question, Mr. Minister, it's not what I asked you. I asked you, is it the position of the Government of Nova Scotia, that HST should be removed from children's clothing? I didn't ask whether we're the lead province, or follower province or anything like that. Is that something that our government is currently taking to the other provinces?

MR. CHRISTIE: At this point in time this government doesn't have a position on that particular question.

MR. STEELE: Okay, now let's move to home heating fuel. Is it the position of the Government of Nova Scotia that HST should be removed from home heating fuel?

[2:45 p.m.]

MR. CHRISTIE: We don't have a position on that particular thing. We have indicated we are prepared to talk about it, but we don't have a position that says it is our position that it should be taken off.

MR. STEELE: When is the next meeting of the HST partners scheduled?

MR. CHRISTIE: It hasn't been scheduled but it will probably be, and normally those occur, late Summer, early Fall.

MR. STEELE: Has an agenda been set or is an agenda in the process of being set?

MR. CHRISTIE: That would happen later on in the Summer, as the lead province starts to poll other provinces as to what they want to have on the agenda. That would occur some months ahead, probably about a month ahead. In the normal flow of things, officials would talk and they would look at indications, what issues different provinces have and they would start to build the agenda from the officials. Normally after that the deputy ministers meet and they finalize the agenda from the provinces. They look and see what issues there are

[Page 391]

and what to bring together and then after that they have the meeting of all the provinces with the ministers and the deputies.

MR. STEELE: And will Nova Scotia be seeking to put on the agenda the removal of HST from children's clothing?

MR. CHRISTIE: At this point in time that's not on our to-do list. It's not on our agenda, so as of today that's not on our to-do list. When we look out at the meeting, obviously the caucus and Cabinet will be talking about those things over the Summer and as we start to get ready for next year's budget and it very well could be, but at this point in time it's not on our to-do list.

MR. STEELE: What do you think it would take to get it on your agenda?

MR. CHRISTIE: To get it on the province's agenda?

MR. STEELE: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, obviously it's something that our caucus and Cabinet have to consider and in terms of looking at the priority items, they would set the priority items and that would then develop our agenda and to get it on our agenda from the province's side of things.

MR. STEELE: Do you have a personal opinion on it?

MR. CHRISTIE: In terms of moving in that direction? Sure, I think from people looking at that, that's something that would be nice to work toward. However, you know as a government, we have to be able to deliver a whole myriad of services and we have to be able to find money to finance them.

MR. STEELE: Do you have a personal view on the removal of HST from home heating fuel?

MR. CHRISTIE: I don't as much as that one because any time that I've had discussions on home heating fuel, the telexes and calls I get say it should be, you just can't isolate oil, there should be propane, there should be wood and there should be electricity, if you're going to go into that. That one is much more unclear in terms of the definition.

MR. STEELE: I didn't say home heating oil, I said home heating fuel. Do you have a personal opinion on that?

[Page 392]

MR. CHRISTIE: No, that one in terms of looking at children's clothes, that's something that certainly has a lot of advantage, but from a personal perspective, I don't have a view on that one.

MR. STEELE: Okay, let's talk about the question of HST fraud, which is, as I define it, HST that is lawfully owing but is unpaid because of business activity. Activity that would normally attract tax that goes unreported, for a variety of reasons. Of course it's impossible to put an exact estimate on the amount of money lost to HST fraud because if we knew exactly where the fraud was we could stop it. It's kind of like the Guinness Book of World Records listing the 10 best art forgeries of all time and number one is always the one that hasn't been discovered yet because if the forgers were really good, we wouldn't know they were forgeries. It's the same with fraud, we don't know how bad the problem is but I think we can all agree that it's a substantial amount of money.

The difficulty we have in the Legislature though is that it's impossible to get straight answers out of the government about what it's doing. In particular, when we're talking about the Canada Revenue Agency, they simply refuse to talk about it. They will neither confirm nor deny that they are investigating any particular matter. They will not talk about any particular matter or the nature of its enforcement activity even in general. Basically, when you ask them what's going on, it's a wall of silence. Whenever we ask your Department of Finance what they're doing about it, we get referred to the Canada Revenue Agency, which refuses to answer any questions of any kind about HST fraud.

So what are we to make of this? Do we have a problem? Is it being tackled properly? Does your department know what's going on but feels that it can't inform the public, or is your department as much in the dark about what the Canada Revenue Agency is doing, as everybody else?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, I don't think we're in the dark. I've had an opportunity to meet with the Minister of National Revenue to talk about that issue and my recollection was that the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations was there. I guess, and I'm sure the joint CCRA provincial underground economy committee that's been set up, is one of the initiatives that's going on, and it's tasked with the challenge of looking for ideas and opportunities as to how to be able to capture some of this. You mentioned in the first part of your question about the issue of defining the scope of the problem and the scope of the problem is, I'm sure, larger than anybody anticipates and I have no doubt that the Canada Revenue Agency has some numbers nationwide that they don't want to share.

I think in terms of some of the initiatives - obviously I mentioned the joint provincial CCRA committee - there's the town visitations with CCRA held at the tax service office in the visits they do; there are initiatives within Service Nova Scotia in terms of the gas tax and the tobacco tax and some inspections and some audits that they're working on there. There are initiatives taking place; whether it's enough or there should be more, I don't dispute the

[Page 393]

fact that there should be more. But I suggest to you that people should know that there are initiatives going on and that we do view it as a major problem.

MR. STEELE: Does your department have a working estimate of the amount of money that is lawfully owed but goes uncollected because of under-reporting?

MR. CHRISTIE: I have a rough estimate that the department takes and that's somewhere between $10 million and $15 million and that's for 2002, is the rough estimate.

MR. STEELE: I just want to make sure that I understand that because that, based on any other estimates that I've ever seen, is considerably low. I just want to make sure I understand, $10 million to $15 million of HST that goes uncollected because of fraud?

MR. CHRISTIE: For foregone HST due to the underground economy in Nova Scotia is estimated at $10 million to $15 million in 2002.

MR. STEELE: I'm sure you know the Government of Quebec has taken some pretty aggressive steps against sales tax fraud in that province, and that their estimates of the amount of money on a per capita basis, if the problem's the same there as it is here, would be substantially higher, not just a little bit higher but substantially higher like in the order of, if I remember right, $60 million to $80 million. Why would our estimate be so low? Do we just have more honest people than Quebec does?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, if you look at using part of the estimates that Ontario made and if Ontario and Quebec are similar, between $128 million and $192 million was the forecast they were making in 2002, but it has to do with relative size and obviously the provincial portions of HST that you're calculating to be lost and obviously the position in the country of the opportunities for doing things and obviously in Quebec they have a challenge that they've identified, but what I am suggesting to you is, your question was do we have a forecast, and I'm giving you the numbers that we have.

MR. STEELE: So is that $10 million to $15 million the foregone provincial share of HST or foregone HST?

MR. CHRISTIE: That's foregone HST.

MR. STEELE: So the provincial share would be only like . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm sorry, I'm corrected, it's provincial.

MR. STEELE: Okay, so the actual loss of HST would be roughly double that?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, that's correct.

[Page 394]

MR. STEELE: So what are we doing? Tell me the top three things we're doing to collect HST that we're not collecting now.

MR. CHRISTIE: In terms of the major initiatives, I would refer you to Service Nova Scotia in terms of the tobacco tax and the gas tax initiatives that they're undertaking. That's where those particular audits are housed and that's the challenge that they're doing. As I indicated to you, we're working on those, along with Service Nova Scotia, on those committees, to look at opportunities, as is the provincial underground economy committee. I think a more substantive answer would be through Service Nova Scotia and the initiative they're undertaking.

MR. STEELE: Why would I ask Service Nova Scotia about HST?

MR. CHRISTIE: Fundamentally because they're dealing with the CCRA on the collection of it and they have the collection of the gas tax and the tobacco tax housed within their department.

MR. STEELE: Okay, but I'm not talking about the tobacco tax or the gas tax. I'm talking about HST.

MR. CHRISTIE: Why you would ask them is because they're the administrative wing that the government has set up to look at the collection and to look at the initiative. We're involved in the broader picture, if you will, and looking at some of the initiatives, but on the ground, and the programs and so on that are going through, are done through them.

MR. STEELE: So when people talk about construction going up in Clayton Park West, where a lot of people - not just a few but a lot of people - are working for cash, working under the table, working in the black market, whatever expression you want to use - you hear about whole apartment buildings going up HST-free because they're just not reported on - that I should talk to Service Nova Scotia about that? Is that your answer?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I can indicate to you that in the construction area, since you've raised that area, is one of the priority areas of CCRA. It's part of the rollout of the committee that we're looking at and how they're going to identify those situations that you mentioned. What I was attempting to suggest to you is that there is a body of expertise in Service Nova Scotia on those two taxes that I was referring to.

MR. STEELE: You know, Mr. Minister, I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but sometimes when I ask you questions, I just get the feeling that even the simplest questions you're dancing around, I'm getting the dance and I have to try to follow you around and bring you back to the question I'm actually asking. What I'm asking to me seems fairly simple, and yet you've said, oh go ask Service Nova Scotia about the tobacco tax and the gas tax and then I raised a particular example and you say, oh, no, that's one of CCRAs initiatives, which

[Page 395]

is kind of what I asked you in the first place. I'm asking what I think is a very simple question. What is the Government of Nova Scotia doing, name three things that we are doing, to tackle the problem of HST fraud? I don't want to be pointed over here, pointed over there, because you should know. I just want to know what they are. What are the top three things that we are doing to combat HST fraud?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated, we are working with the CCRA on those committees that I indicated to look. We are looking at the audit procedures and some of the areas where they're targeting in so we can work, and we are bringing in additional resources so that government departments can zero in on those. Those are the three things that we're working on.

MR. STEELE: Zero in on what?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, first off, we're zeroing in on things such as education, I mean there are a lot of opportunities to educate the public and businesses as to what their requirements are and the effects of the underground economy on taxpayers. As I indicated, we're doing increased enforcement to allow us to be able to target those areas and particular sectors and I mentioned one. The other top thing that we're doing is information-sharing between the provinces so we can know what trends are happening in one province or the other.

[3:00 p.m.]

I guess your question was, what are the top three? I would say to you, those are the top three.

MR. STEELE: Education, information-sharing and what was the second one?

MR. CHRISTIE: Education, enforcement and information-sharing were the three.

MR. STEELE: Then what are we doing in the enforcement field? That's really what I'm getting at - what are we doing?

MR. CHRISTIE: That's what I indicated to you was that additional resources were being hired to be able to complete more on-site field inspections. I indicated to you those resources were housed at Service Nova Scotia.

MR. STEELE: So the enforcement for the collection of HST is housed in Service Nova Scotia. Is that correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: A portion of that, for different product lines, yes.

[Page 396]

MR. STEELE: Okay. In that case, when I last wrote to you on this topic, why did you refer me to the Canada Revenue Agency?

MR. CHRISTIE: Because the overview and the overall initiatives are through the Canada Revenue Agency. The structures and the initiatives are through the Canada Revenue Agency, which we participate with and then we do the enforcement and we do these other initiatives in the province.

MR. STEELE: You've succeeded in completely confusing me. When I have a question about HST enforcement, who do I talk to - Department of Finance, Service Nova Scotia or Canada Revenue Agency? Who do I call?

MR. CHRISTIE: In most cases, you would call Canada Revenue Agency.

MR. STEELE: Okay, then why did you just refer me to Service Nova Scotia?

MR. CHRISTIE: In those cases of the product lines that I was talking about, the enforcement is over there. We would look at it and try to determine where your question was best appropriately answered and try to direct it to the most appropriate place.

MR. STEELE: Are you privy to all the information that Canada Revenue Agency has, or do they keep information confidential from you as well?

MR. CHRISTIE: We don't have all the information, but on occasion we can get it on request. Can we get it all, just go carte blanche to them and the answer would be no, but we can get specific questions answered at times.

MR. STEELE: Let me go from what I find terribly confusing and I would say almost deliberately confusing answers down to a specific case to see if I can get at it this way. There's been a specific issue raised which I'm sure you're aware of, of an individual who has a retail store down the South Shore in the constituency of the member for Chester-St. Margaret's. His main competitor is a retail store on a nearby Indian reserve. The Indian reserve is not charging HST to people who do not live on-reserve. They should be, but they're not. Because they're not, they can compete unfairly with the off-reserve retail stores, much to the detriment of the non-Native retail stores. The owner of that store has on numerous occasions, over several years, tried to get someone - anyone - to talk to him about this issue, to confirm that they're aware of the issue, to confirm that they take it seriously, to confirm that they're doing something about it.

At every turn, the owner of that store is told that he has no right to any information. Canada Revenue Agency will not confirm that they even consider it to be an issue. They will not confirm whether they are or are not taking any particular action against this particular store. They've basically told him to buzz off. None of his business. It's confidential. Even

[Page 397]

though this store owner has essentially - although it's not entirely clear, he's either lost his business or is on the verge of losing his business. He is being told by the responsible government agency, namely the Canada Revenue Agency, that it's none of his business to know what's going on. So, if a citizen has an issue with HST collection, who will talk to them about it?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, initially, at the end of the day, they're going to have to talk to CCRA.

MR. STEELE: CCRA refuses to talk to him about it. It doesn't involve HST at his store, it involves HST at a neighbouring, competing store so they refuse to discuss it with him. What are we supposed to do? This fellow, who's lost his business or is on the verge of losing his business, can't get anyone to talk to him. We, the MLAs who are aware of this issue, including the member for Chester-St. Margaret's, can't get anybody to talk to us about it either. They say it's none of our business. I write to you, the provincial Minister of Finance, and you say talk to them, CCRA, who refused to talk to us.

What's going on here, Mr. Minister? Nova Scotians are on the verge of losing their businesses here over HST fraud, the people who are trying to report honestly and above-board are competing against people who are not. Their government refuses to talk to them about it, so what are we doing about it?

MR. CHRISTIE: That particular case that you've referred to, I know that the flow out of that one would be to get the information from CCRA. Now you indicate that CCRA won't provide that information. The issue that we are aware, that CCRA is saying you're not requesting information for your location, you're requesting it for another location and that seems to be the circle that we get into.

What is that person to do? I think that person - I accept the fact and I understand it, as we all do, that CCRA considers a lot of these things private. What should we do? Well, I suppose we could say to ourselves, we don't want to go that collection system, we can set one up ourselves so that we're not restricted by their conditions. But that's not practical.

I guess in terms of that, I would say rather than trying to think that situation through right here and coming up with a non-thought-through answer, I would undertake to think that answer through and provide you with a response of how I believe it should go.

MR. STEELE: One last question on this point. If you ask CCRA to inform you on that specific situation, would they tell you?

MR. CHRISTIE: I would have to do it to find out. There are certain things they won't tell us, but I haven't asked them on that question, so I can't say to you that the answer is yes or no.

[Page 398]

MR. STEELE: Are you troubled at all by the fact that we have aspects of the collection of the sales tax that we have no right to know about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking for a point of privilege?

MR. JOHN CHATAWAY: A point of privilege. Is CCRA not coming before the Public Accounts Committee? Have they not committed to coming before the Public Accounts Committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that's a question.

MR. STEELE: I don't mind answering the member. I know this is a matter of a great deal of interest to the member - the answer is no, not yet.

MR. CHATAWAY: No, not yet. They have been invited and they have not said no, is that correct?

MR. STEELE: We're negotiating with them on the timing of their appearance. Not so much whether they'll appear, but the timing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to have to interrupt and bring this back.

MR. STEELE: I can use my time however I want. Right? If I want to have a discussion with a member across the way, I'm entitled to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He's not entitled to do that until this question period's over.

MR. STEELE: Remember, he's on your side. Okay, the question. Are you satisfied with a sales tax system where aspects of the collection, the enforcement of which, we, the province, have no right to have information?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I think as part of the sharing agreement, as part of the agreement of the revenue-sharing part, that's something that all the provinces have worked towards, having some more access to it. So your question was, are you satisfied? No, I think there are improvements to be made.

MR. STEELE: One more question, Mr. Minister, one more question and then I'm done. It's a relatively minor point. On Page B34 of the Budget Speech document, there's a reference to what I will refer to as Crown Agency Loans and that is where various units of government, for example, the Workers' Compensation Board, loans money to the government. Perhaps you would want to take a minute to find that reference - Page B34 of the Budget Speech documents, it's toward the bottom as I recall. I don't have it just in front of me here.

[Page 399]

I will tell you what my question is, Mr. Minister, and give you a chance to look at the answer. My question is simply this. The reference there is to the fact that various units of government loan money to the central government and the question is, are those loans on commercial terms or are they at a favourable interest rate that effectively represents a loss to the loaning agency?

MR. CHRISTIE: I will check that for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you want to share some of your time with the member . . .

MR. STEELE: Do I want to share, no, I think I will wait until his turn comes around if he wants to pursue that point. Mr. Minister, I'm quite content if you undertake to find that answer.

MR. CHRISTIE: I certainly will. It appears it's going to take a few minutes, but I'm certainly willing to get you that and we have undertaken to get other material for you, such as the pension.

MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has undertaken to provide me with that answer at a later time. So on that note, I'm done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You do have a few more minutes in your hour, but you're finishing up early - okay, 3:12 p.m., we'll go to 4:12 p.m., the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. MACKINNON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I notice there are eight employees within the Department of Finance that when you add their salaries together, it comes up to $1.03 million. Now, I notice one of the individuals was the former Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Hogg. Who's the present deputy minister for the record?

MR. CHRISTIE: Vicki Harnish.

MR. MACKINNON: Is there an assistant deputy minister?

MR. CHRISTIE: Liz Cody.

MR. MACKINNON: When did Ms. Harnish take over as deputy minister, for the record?

MR. CHRISTIE: She started January 1^st of this year.

[Page 400]

MR. MACKINNON: January 1^st, so it would be four months let's say, three months. So we would be looking at around $1.4 million and then there's expenses. Who determines the pay scales for senior public servants?

MR. CHRISTIE: The Public Service Commission does that for deputy ministers, for all.

MR. MACKINNON: Have any of these senior employees, Ms. Cody, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Kevin Malloy, Roy Spence, Doug Stratton, Kalyan Sunderam, Andrew Tambone, or Peter Van Loon, received bonuses?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised that the people in the Investment section have been receiving a bonus structure since 1996.

[3:15 p.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: The figures that are reflected in the Supplement to the Public Accounts here, do they include the bonuses?

MR. CHRISTIE: They do.

MR. MACKINNON: Would you be able to distinguish between their base salary and their bonus for us? There just seems to be quite a range here, like Doug Stratton, his is $186,110. What amount of that is bonus and what's his base salary?

MR. CHRISTIE: The base salary is $130,000 and the bonus was $41,170, are the numbers I have.

MR. MACKINNON: Roy Spence, what's his bonus?

MR. CHRISTIE: The figure I see is, the salary is $112,000 and the bonus was $26,253.

MR. MACKINNON: Kalyan Sunderam, is that her base salary or is there a bonus there?

MR. CHRISTIE: It would be a combination. I don't have those numbers, we will provide them.

MR. MACKINNON: What about Peter Van Loon, what did he get for a bonus last year?

[Page 401]

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, we know his base is $112,000, so whatever the difference is there.

MR. MACKINNON: And I would presume the other ones are pretty much base. William Hogg, was there a bonus for the deputy minister?

MR. CHRISTIE: If you're looking at the figure of $116,000, there is no bonus included in that.

MR. MACKINNON: Did he receive a bonus subsequent to that?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, subsequent to that.

MR. MACKINNON: How much?

MR. CHRISTIE: I don't have that number.

MR. MACKINNON: Will you undertake to provide it?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think the Treasury and Policy Board has indicated they are not going to provide that number and I think the minister has indicated that in the House on a couple of occasions.

MR. MACKINNON: Why would you want to conceal the expenditure of public dollars, as to who received those dollars, particularly if they're public servants?

MR. CHRISTIE: The Minister of the Treasury and Policy Board indicated that as a privacy issue they weren't going to release those numbers.

MR. MACKINNON: Why are they releasing the salaries and expenses of 7,000 other public servants in the province and not these?

MR. CHRISTIE: These ones are within the department and the performance appraisals of the deputies and so on and the bonuses, is what the minister indicated that he felt fell under the privacy condition, so he wasn't prepared to release it. So the difference here is you're asking me about specific departments and not the deputy minister's performance analysis and that's why we're providing those numbers because this is a plan different than the performance plan in terms of deputy ministers which you referred to under Mr. Hogg.

MR. MACKINNON: What you're saying is you have a plan to reward certain civil servants for achieving certain objectives that the government feels is what they would like to achieve, but you're not going to tell the taxpayers of Nova Scotia how much you're going to reward those selected civil servants?

[Page 402]

MR. CHRISTIE: The terms of the measurement as set out in the manual, Manual 500, which is certainly available to the public, the total dollars are released, but in terms of the individual allocation of those dollars, as I indicated, the Treasury and Policy Board has indicated they have made the interpretation that for privacy reasons they're not going to give out those individual numbers.

MR. MACKINNON: Do you personally support suppressing the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars to public servants and not disclosing those amounts?

MR. CHRISTIE: I support releasing the amount of the total dollars. I think in terms of the privacy and the other measurements, not releasing the individual amounts, I think is reasonable.

MR. MACKINNON: You think it's reasonable to pay public servants in the Public Service with public taxpayers' dollars and not tell the people of Nova Scotia who receives those dollars and for what purpose, other than to say that they're being rewarded for doing a great job?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated, the total dollars are given out to Nova Scotians, the total amount of dollars, but the individual analysis, it has been interpreted that that should remain as a privacy matter.

MR. MACKINNON: At the risk of sounding really naive on this process, because I really thought that when you spend taxpayers' dollars, particularly my tax dollars and the tax dollars of everyone in this room and on the streets of Halifax, and in Nova Scotia in general, they have a right to know what's happening with their tax dollars. Given the fact that the government is saying it's open, it's accountable, it's accessible to the people of Nova Scotia, why would the government want to suppress some basic fundamental information about how it's rewarding its civil servants for the service that they provide to the people of Nova Scotia? I mean what's the philosophy? Why the secrecy?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated, in terms of the total dollars, they're not being withheld, the total dollars are known, but there are issues surrounding the privacy issues.

MR. MACKINNON: Maybe if I could, through you, Mr. Chairman, what specific privacy issue is it that commands the government to suppress bonuses for public servants, how much of our tax dollars are being expended to public servants for a job that they were hired to do in the Public Service? What privacy issue is there that says we'll tell you how much their base salary is, but we're not going to tell you how much their bonus is, but yet you've been able to tell me the bonuses of some of your own public servants? This is a double standard.

[Page 403]

MR. CHRISTIE: One of the interpretations of your question is why would you not put out a specific dollar amount for a specific individual. Under the structure that presently is there, if you did that, then people would be able to look and see what the performance analysis is and what the job rating would be and it's that part of it, the rating between the employer and the employee, that is felt to have privacy matters and be held in private.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, with all due respect, that's hogwash because the employer is the Government of Nova Scotia and if we are to determine whether we, as taxpayers, are getting value for dollar, we deserve to know how all public servants are being paid and how much they're being paid. To suggest that we can tell the people of Nova Scotia the bonuses of senior civil servants, such as Roy Spence is getting a $26,253 bonus, Douglas Stratton is getting a $41,170 bonus, and Mr. Peter Van Loon is getting approximately a $29,000 bonus, and the rest of the public servants, oh, no, I'm sorry, we can't tell you because that would determine how good or how not good a public servant they are, that's what you're telling us?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes. Also what I told you was that the Supplement to the Public Accounts would show for those individuals the total base salary and the bonus combined.

MR. MACKINNON: But we wouldn't know who they are, it just gives the bottom line. If I hadn't asked for that information with the employees in your department, I would never have known that because it doesn't make that distinction, but you're telling me that because other government departments do it, that's okay, it's okay to keep it a secret from the people of Nova Scotia. Why is it the people of Nova Scotia are only allowed to know that certain public servants get a bonus and others do not? It's a basic policy question of fairness.

MR. CHRISTIE: I think we initially started with Mr. Hogg on the list there and you asked the question, is that his base salary, and the answer was yes, and the answer was because the bonus hadn't been paid to him, so it wasn't included in that year. It would be included in the next year. What I'm saying to you is that the bonus and the salary, the combined total that people receive is listed in the Supplement to the Public Accounts.

MR. MACKINNON: But you've indicated Mr. Hogg is getting a bonus, but that would be outside this window?

MR. CHRISTIE: That would be in the next fiscal year.

MR. MACKINNON: You can't tell me how much, but you will tell me . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: What the Supplement to the Public Accounts next year will show on . . .

MR. MACKINNON: So you will tell me the bonuses of one, two, three, four public servants, but you won't tell me the bonuses of the rest because you say it's confidential?

[Page 404]

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm telling you what the Treasury and Policy Board has indicated its policy is, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Who's on the Treasury and Policy Board?

MR. CHRISTIE: The Chairman is the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Transportation and Public Works, the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education, and myself.

MR. MACKINNON: So you are a part of the Treasury and Policy Board?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, I am.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, so you have expressed support for suppressing this public information as to how much our public servants are being truly paid?

MR. CHRISTIE: I suggest to you that we're not suppressing it, we're printing it in totality, that shows the total amount of money they have received.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, that being the case, has the Deputy Minister of Community Services received a bonus?

MR. CHRISTIE: I simply don't have that information.

MR. MACKINNON: Would you undertake to provide it?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated, the position of the Treasury and Policy Board is that they print the salaries and things in totality, but in terms of the bonuses, the amount and so on, those are not released.

MR. MACKINNON: But you've just released the bonus information for the other public servants in your department.

MR. CHRISTIE: That's correct.

MR. MACKINNON: And you've indicated you're going to provide the bonus for the former Deputy Minister of Finance, but now you won't release the information for the Deputy Minister of Community Services. What's going on over there? I mean I will be honest, it just doesn't add up. Why do certain public servants enjoy executive privilege from the people of Nova Scotia and other people don't? What kind of a government is it that we can't even find out how much our public servants are being paid?

[Page 405]

MR. CHRISTIE: We indicate to you in total, in terms of total, how much the bonuses are to deputy ministers. So that's certainly available to the public.

MR. MACKINNON: The Deputy Minister of Community Services' salary here that we referred to, because ultimately it comes back to the Minister of Finance, is $82,163.79. Does that include the bonus?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm sorry, I didn't catch what you . . .

MR. MACKINNON: The figure I just gave you for the Deputy Minister of Community Services, does that include a bonus?

MR. CHRISTIE: There was no bonus shown in those numbers in 2003.

MR. MACKINNON: So this reward system came after the fact?

MR. CHRISTIE: The amounts paid were after that fiscal year closed, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, so we have approximately 7,000 public servants, would that be correct? How many do we have in the Public Service altogether?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, 6,500 to 7,000.

MR. MACKINNON: Let's say 7,000. How many public servants, without listing names, have received bonuses?

[3:30 p.m.]

MR. CHRISTIE: In 2002-03 or the current year we're in?

MR. MACKINNON: Both.

MR. CHRISTIE: I think in terms of the number, if you look, for example, at people who are listed, probably about 1,100 would qualify for pay for performance. The number is not a small number, there is quite a number.

MR. MACKINNON: That wasn't my question. How many did receive bonuses?

MR. CHRISTIE: I guess we will have to undertake that. In terms of the deputy ministers and in terms of our department, we would have to look at other departments. Your question is how many people in total did receive bonuses and we just don't have that number right off.

[Page 406]

MR. MACKINNON: Would the minister undertake to provide that information?

MR. CHRISTIE: To get a number from the Public Service Commission as to how many people received bonuses on top of salary. That was your question?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: Sure, we can undertake to provide that information.

MR. MACKINNON: What particular goals would a public servant within the Department of Finance have to achieve - or goal - in order to qualify for a bonus?

MR. CHRISTIE: They would have to obviously meet their performance targets that were set for them. Each one would have individual performance targets, whether it was on the investment side or whether it was on other sides. They would have performance targets set for them and they would have to achieve those, or partially way through.

MR. MACKINNON: If I understand, through you, Mr. Chairman, there are different criteria for different divisions within the Department of Finance, is that correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: You used the word department, I would use the word positions.

MR. MACKINNON: I said divisions within the Department of Finance.

MR. CHRISTIE: I would still use the word positions within because it's based on . . .

MR. MACKINNON: On job descriptions.

MR. CHRISTIE: Exactly, that's what we're talking about, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Do you have a form for each of those job descriptions that you could provide to members of the committee?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, there are mandate letters for all of those different positions and they're evaluated on those, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Will you provide those to the members of the committee?

MR. CHRISTIE: Which ones are you looking for?

MR. MACKINNON: All of them.

[Page 407]

MR. CHRISTIE: Within the Department of Finance?

MR. MACKINNON: Sure.

MR. CHRISTIE: I can only undertake to provide the ones in Finance and I can't commit to anything else.

MR. MACKINNON: That's fine.

MR. CHRISTIE: If your question is the performance of some of those in Finance, we'll be happy to provide those evaluations.

MR. MACKINNON: Half a loaf is better than no loaf. It seems that's all we're getting today, a half loaf anyway, but one step at a time.

The individuals we have identified there, the one, two, three, four individuals that we have identified with bonuses within your department, are there any other individuals in your department that received bonuses?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think there are probably eight or nine in total but your question was can you provide us with a list of the goals and objectives, so all of those people . . .

MR. MACKINNON: This is a different question. That was the other question.

MR. CHRISTIE: I was going to suggest when we provide you with those, those will be the total number of people getting bonuses because each one would have a particular evaluation structure for them.

MR. MACKINNON: Now, you've provided the bonuses for these individuals, will you provide the names of the individuals who received the other bonuses in your department?

MR. CHRISTIE: The names of those people?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: Sure. You will probably see the name in terms of the evaluation report but if what you're looking for is the name and the evaluation report that goes with it, that's . . .

MR. MACKINNON: No, the evaluation report, I presume there may be some detail in the individual reports that may be confidential and I can appreciate that.

[Page 408]

MR. CHRISTIE: I understand, but we were talking about getting the analysis, the forms that people were analyzed on.

MR. MACKINNON: No, I wanted the form, the actual form. But you've indicated there are another four or five who have received bonuses. I presume you would have that at your fingertips, the names of those within your department?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Could you provide the names and the amounts of those bonuses?

MR. CHRISTIE: We will undertake to do that, to make a list of the names and bonus numbers, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: You can't do that now?

MR. CHRISTIE: We can if we take a moment, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure. It's not an overly big staff within the Department of Finance compared to some of the other departments.

MR. CHRISTIE: I can give you some of those names and numbers if you wish.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure.

MR. CHRISTIE: Jennifer Grabmann, $53,234.35, bonus was $2,871; Tracey Anne Hardiman, total salary is $87,962.50 and bonus was $19,087; Doug Stratten we already talked about; Kalyan Sunderam, a bonus of $28,688; Andrew Tambone, $16,310; Stephen Thompson, $8,141; and Peter Van Loon, we had talked about earlier.

MR. MACKINNON: And that's it?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Sounds great. I would like to draw to your attention a commitment that was made when the John Hamm Government was elected, or ran for election. You probably heard of the Tory blue book.

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm familiar with that document.

[Page 409]

MR. MACKINNON: It's a nice glossy book with a picture of the Premier inside with a nice warm, cuddly message. On Page 19 there is a section called Making Government Accountable. "Nova Scotians expect their government to conduct the people's business in the open and to provide the public with effective opportunities for input. We expect our elected officials to be accountable to their constituents, ensuring that decisions are always made in the best public interest." Then, of course, it goes on to say, "During its first mandate, a PC Government will . . .", and one of the issues of commitment, "Base a significant portion of compensation for senior bureaucrats on performance;"

Would the minister not agree that that policy commitment, or statement in no way implies suppressing the payment to public servants for public service?

MR. CHRISTIE: That suggests that the government is going to be open and accountable, yes, that's exactly what that suggests.

MR. MACKINNON: That would mean that we should know how much our public servants are being compensated for their service to the people of Nova Scotia?

MR. CHRISTIE: And you certainly do. You see, in total, what they're paid and that is listed in the Supplement to the Public Accounts.

MR. MACKINNON: That being said, why is the government suppressing the bonuses for the other public servants?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated to you, it was the decision of the Treasury and Policy Board that for privacy matters, that information would only be reported in total.

MR. MACKINNON: So out of a possible - oh, I do apologize. You indicated you would get back to us with the number of public servants that received bonuses.

MR. CHRISTIE: That is correct, we did undertake to do that, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Let's fast-forward on to Page 62 of the Supplement to the Public Accounts. There is a line item there, Aurion Capital Management Inc. for a payment of $293,125.50. Could the minister please indicate what that payment was for?

MR. CHRISTIE: They are an investment management service.

MR. MACKINNON: What do they do? What did they manage? Besides money.

MR. CHRISTIE: They managed Canadian large capital funds.

MR. MACKINNON: How much?

[Page 410]

MR. CHRISTIE: It was $77 million.

MR. MACKINNON: So they managed $77 million and what was the rate of return?

MR. CHRISTIE: I don't have that number right here . . .

MR. MACKINNON: But that's their commission, the $293,000 . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: That's right. That would be their commission plus their fee for managing that. The $77 million is what they have now. This book that we're talking about is what was paid to them in the year ending 2003, but they're in that $77 million range.

MR. MACKINNON: Is that the amount that was given to them or is that the end product, the $77 million?

MR. CHRISTIE: That's the amount they have under portfolio.

MR. MACKINNON: Is that how much the province provided to them at the beginning of the portfolio?

MR. CHRISTIE: I would certainly hope that they made some too, I would hope that it would be less than that, yes. Otherwise, as we indicated, the people that didn't, we have asked them to terminate their employment.

MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps if the minister could indicate how much was provided to this investment company to invest and how much they have presently, if possible, or at least at the end of the fiscal year.

MR. CHRISTIE: We can provide that number and what you would like to know is how much that particular company got on day one and what they had at the end of 2003?

MR. MACKINNON: Sure. Like if it was myself, if I had $50,000 in your . . .

MR. CHRISTIE: The question is, how did they do?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: Okay.

MR. MACKINNON: Barclays Global Investors Canada Limited. How much did they invest for the province?

[Page 411]

MR. CHRISTIE: How much did we give them? We will have to take that under advisement too.

MR. MACKINNON: How much do they have in the portfolio now?

[3:45 p.m.]

MR. CHRISTIE: They have $973 million.

MR. MACKINNON: That's not quite $1 billion dollars. Do we have any indication as to what the rate of return was that was generated in the past fiscal year?

MR. CHRISTIE: For the Barclays one?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: We will check that. They have four different mandates so we would have to provide for each one of those, so . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Can you provide the detail on that? I can take it on notice.

MR. CHRISTIE: Absolutely, yes. They have the U.S. index, U.S. index, enhanced alpha, the e-tail strategy, and the Canadian small caps. Each one of those divisions - if you will - would have a different rate of return on them.

MR. MACKINNON: Before I keep going, these companies when they invest, if they achieve a certain rate of return do they get a bonus? Do they get a higher payout?

MR. CHRISTIE: The way they are compensated is a percentage of assets, so if their assets increase through performance, then they would achieve more. The structure is started at the beginning, so it's not a bonus - if you will - or a pay for performance, by increasing the asset base they achieve more dollars.

MR. MACKINNON: Baseline Business Geographics Inc.?

MR. CHRISTIE: That was census data, so they're not an investment firm. That was for census data along with the statistical division.

MR. MACKINNON: Given that particular issue with the census, I understand that we receive transfer dollars from Ottawa - correct me if I'm wrong - you get so many dollars, approximately $2,204 for every Nova Scotian, for transfers, is that correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: If you're saying equalization then that's correct.

[Page 412]

MR. MACKINNON: Now I understand in those dollars, in the calculation, the total numbers include the Native community of Nova Scotia, correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: But yet the province does not provide any service to the Native community. Is that correct?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, I wouldn't say that.

MR. MACKINNON: What services do they provide? If you take the total number of dollars, $2,204 per person and there are how many Native folks in Nova Scotia? Are there 16,000?

MR. CHRISTIE: I would be guessing, I don't know.

MR. MACKINNON: Let's say 8,000 maybe. So you are looking at about $16 million, so what does the province provide in terms of that $16 million, in generalities?

MR. CHRISTIE: Certainly health care . . .

MR. MACKINNON: No, the province gets a payback from the federal government, does it not, for the provision of heath service?

MR. CHRISTIE: Not full compensation, no.

MR. MACKINNON: What percentage?

MR. CHRISTIE: I would have to look up those numbers from the Department of Health.

MR. MACKINNON: Would the minister undertake to provide that to the committee?

MR. CHRISTIE: Sure. Your question is what percentage of money is paid back for Native Canadians through the federal government for health care expenditures?

MR. MACKINNON: Well, on that particular issue but globally, I'm trying to get a handle as to what value for the dollar is the Native community of Nova Scotia getting for the $16 million, or whatever it is, from the federal government? My understanding is they can't even get the provincial government to enter into an agreement for infrastructure in Native communities, for example, in Eskasoni. The Native community there, the Band Council had to go with the federal government because the province refused to go in as a one-third partner because they said it wasn't their responsibility. So that's the type of minutia that we are

[Page 413]

focusing on, as well. I can take that on notice, unless he has something a little more specific to offer at this point.

MR. CHRISTIE: No, we can have a look at those numbers.

MR. MACKINNON: Burgundy Asset Management. How much money were they provided to manage for the province? And who are they and where are they from?

MR. CHRISTIE: Burgundy Asset Management is in Toronto, they manage $83 million worth of Canadian large cap funds.

MR. MACKINNON: Of course, I think I asked you yesterday about C.A. Delaney Capital Management. They received $480,539.28 commission. How much money were they provided to manage?

MR. CHRISTIE: The initial amount was $50 million. Then $25 million was removed for profit-taking, and, as I indicated to you yesterday, in May 2002 they were put on the watch list because their targets weren't achieving what others were. They were terminated in December 2002.

MR. MACKINNON: So altogether they were provided $75 million, or $25 million was pulled out?

MR. CHRISTIE: The $25 million was pulled out.

MR. MACKINNON: Because they weren't doing well with it?

MR. CHRISTIE: At that time the committee decided to do some profit-taking and take it out, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: The committee?

MR. CHRISTIE: Our investment group, yes. The Investment Advisory Committee.

MR. MACKINNON: From the Department of Finance?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: And who is on that Investment Advisory Committee?

[Page 414]

MR. CHRISTIE: Our current makeup on that committee, it's chaired by Vicki Harnish, Bill Hogg is on that, Dave Peters from the NSGEU, Greg Blanchard from the NSGEU, Bill Redden from the NSTU, Jim Kavanaugh from the NSTU, and Cameron MacKinnon from the retired members.

MR. MACKINNON: We'll fast-forward down to James Evans and Associates Limited. Who are they and what were they paid $514,998.68 for?

MR. CHRISTIE: That's a licensing agreement for computer software for the administration of the pension system.

MR. MACKINNON: That's the program, is that compatible with the SAP program?

MR. CHRISTIE: I know that would be a separate program. Would they be compatible? I'm advised they aren't right now, but as part of the e-merge project, that is undertaken now through the Department of Finance, they will be at the completion of that.

MR. MACKINNON: Why wasn't that done prior to that? If the directive was issued in 1999 to make all these systems compatible, why is the government still spending money on systems that are not compatible?

MR. CHRISTIE: The systems will be compatible over a period of time. Certainly the administration of the pension fund and the administration for all of the retirees is something that had to be ongoing. This system was to provide that, and in the future it will become compatible with that system.

MR. MACKINNON: But this is five years later, since that directive was issued. This is a current expenditure. It sounds to me like somebody in the computer world is doing fine and dandy off the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, thank you very kindly, for a system that's not compatible with the major engine drive of managing the affairs of government, the SAP program.

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, it was compatible with the payroll portion of it, but . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Who recommended picking up James Evans and Associates? Who recommended this contract? Was this a tendered contract?

MR. CHRISTIE: There was an RFP in 1998, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: How many competed?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm advised two bids were received on the RFP.

[Page 415]

MR. MACKINNON: When was the closing tender? When was this contract awarded?

MR. CHRISTIE: February 1998.

MR. MACKINNON: But it's just being paid now?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, this is ongoing. There are yearly fees for this, for software licensing and so on.

MR. MACKINNON: If the instruction was changed in 1999, why would you continue paying for something that wouldn't be compatible?

MR. CHRISTIE: It was compatible with the payroll system. Obviously, as we talk about the school boards and other ones, you just couldn't shut down every system because it wasn't compatible, you had to keep (Interruptions)

MR. MACKINNON: Jarislowsky Fraser Limited, $864,591. Who are they and what were they paid that amount of money for?

MR. CHRISTIE: They are an investment manager.

MR. MACKINNON: How much were they provided to invest?

MR. CHRISTIE: I'm just looking. The size of their mandate as we speak is $1.7 billion.

MR. MACKINNON: They have $1.7 billion in an investment portfolio for the Province of Nova Scotia?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, that's correct. That's pension . . .

MR. MACKINNON: That's pension funds?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: What kind of rate of return are we receiving there?

MR. CHRISTIE: For the last year?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: We have a number that we have to provide you, and we will add that one to the list, to go from the rate of return.

[Page 416]

MR. MACKINNON: They're not on a death watch or anything like that?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, they're not. If they were, that amount of money would be reducing.

MR. MACKINNON: I assume they're doing okay if you've provided them with $1.7 billion. That's out of the Public Service pension fund?

MR. CHRISTIE: Both the Public Service and the teachers. The committee that I just referred to a few moments ago would have made that decision.

MR. MACKINNON: Where is that firm from?

MR. CHRISTIE: That firm is located in Toronto.

MR. MACKINNON: Another Toronto firm. Knight Bain Seath & Holbrook.

MR. CHRISTIE: A special equity fund, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Where are they from?

MR. CHRISTIE: They're from Toronto.

MR. MACKINNON: Another Toronto firm, $889,843.83. How much is in their investment portfolio?

MR. CHRISTIE: The figure I show as of today is $123 million.

MR. MACKINNON: That's all? And they're paid a commission of $889,000?

MR. CHRISTIE: There are different fee structures, but some of them we indicated were paid on the size of this figure I'm giving you today, the numbers that we have here, that particular one is unique, because they're managing indexes. They're an active manager, so their fee structure would be a little bit different. This number I'm giving you is what they have in their portfolio at the present time, and the numbers you have are for the end of 2002-03.

MR. MACKINNON: It just seems a little odd that Jarislowsky Fraser Limited would have $1.7 billion - is it?

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, that firm, Jarislowsky Fraser is $1.7 billion, yes.

[Page 417]

MR. MACKINNON: They have $1.7 billion and they're getting $864,000 commission, and the other firm has $123 million and they're getting $889,000 commission. What special talents do they have that Jarislowsky Fraser Limited does not have?

MR. CHRISTIE: As I indicated, we're looking at different rates of return.

MR. MACKINNON: I appreciate that. Whether it be segregated funds, mutual funds or what have you, what specific package do they have that Jarislowsky does not have? What is it?

MR. CHRISTIE: What qualities do they have?

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, what are they offering? What are they managing for us that the others aren't that would allow them to be paid a higher commission?

MR. CHRISTIE: The reason that they are on the list is because they manage special equity funds as opposed to just the assortment of blue chip stocks which we referred to in Jarislowsky and those other ones. So they are . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Are these high-risk?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, but they require more in-depth knowledge and they require more research and so on. So that's why the committee has taken them on, because they have particular attributes.

MR. MACKINNON: Do you have any sense of what the rate of return is on this portfolio compared to, let's say, Jarislowsky?

[4:00 p.m.]

MR. CHRISTIE: We'll put that on the list. I don't have the numbers here and I'm advised . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Some of your Finance people must - any of the people who are familiar with these portfolios, are they here? It doesn't have to be exact, but it would be nice to get an idea - is it 4 per cent versus 12 per cent or 10 per cent or what?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think, as opposed to taking some guesses or approximates, what they'll undertake to do is give you a tracking of their performance over a couple of periods. That will give you an opportunity to look.

[Page 418]

MR. MACKINNON: Just so the minister will know where I'm coming from, it would suggest to me that perhaps if we're spending a lot of money, time and energy on a portfolio that's not yielding a great rate of return, you may put it into a more balanced and somewhat conservative - small "c"- portfolio that in the long term would yield a greater rate of return for the people.

MR. CHRISTIE: I did indicate to the member for Halifax Fairview yesterday that we would provide a statement of policies and goals that the committee's operating under. Obviously, perhaps that would be something that could be included in your package also to give you a sense of the overall requirements of the committee.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay. Perigee Investment Counsel Inc. Who are they, where are they from and why are they being paid $425,770.76?

MR. CHRISTIE: The new name of that firm is Legg Mason Canada from Waterloo, Ontario.

MR. MACKINNON: Another Ontario firm.

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: And how much money did they manage?

MR. CHRISTIE: They managed $460 million.

MR. MACKINNON: TD Quantitative Capital - I presume that's an extension of Toronto-Dominion?

MR. CHRISTIE: That's correct, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: And they were paid $284,333.40. How much money did they manage?

MR. CHRISTIE: They managed $431 million.

MR. MACKINNON: Have we missed any other investment or is that pretty well all? I know that would be pretty much the lion's share. Are there any others?

MR. CHRISTIE: Seamark. Did you mention Seamark earlier?

MR. MACKINNON: No, I don't believe.

[Page 419]

MR. CHRISTIE: Seamark Asset Management is the one in Halifax. It's a large capital amount, it says $129 million under its charge.

MR. MACKINNON: Is that the only Nova Scotia firm?

MR. CHRISTIE: No. Roycom Inc. in Dartmouth is another one. It's a real estate manager.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, and how much were they paid?

MR. CHRISTIE: They have $31 million under asset management.

MR. MACKINNON: It's just that it doesn't show here.

MR. CHRISTIE: No and I suspect these ones have come on since those ones. This is our current list and these were the ones at the end of 2003.

MR. MACKINNON: And you'll provide those as well? How many other Nova Scotia firms do you have there?

MR. CHRISTIE: I just have two on the list here.

MR. MACKINNON: Just two. So the majority of your investment portfolios are held out of Ontario.

MR. CHRISTIE: They're held in Ontario and parts of the U.S., but the majority are held in Toronto, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: There's another line item there, Sun Microsystems of Canada Inc. I would imagine perhaps that would be for computer systems of some sort?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes. That's a services support agreement for our computers and networks.

MR. MACKINNON: So there is an agreement with this private firm, is there?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Would you be able to provide a copy of the contract with that firm?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes. Certainly. We'll make a note of that.

[Page 420]

MR. MACKINNON: So we have a total of $3.998 billion in the investment portfolio, or is there more?

MR. CHRISTIE: No. We would suggest the total under investment is $6.9 billion.

MR. MACKINNON: The figures that you've provided add up to $3.998 billion.

MR. CHRISTIE: Okay, those firms that you've picked out and you added up, obviously there are other . . .

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, would you provide a list of the other firms that manage the other amounts and the commissions?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, we've already undertaken to do that.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, great. Any of those other firms, can you highlight the other $3 billion - where is the lion's share of that money being managed from? Is it Nova Scotia, Ontario, Taiwan?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, it would be Ontario and New York.

MR. MACKINNON: Where?

MR. CHRISTIE: A number would be in New York and some more in Ontario - Toronto - but when we indicated we would provide a list, we were going to provide a full list and then you would make the determination of where they were. That's what I was under the impression you wanted to get.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes. I guess I want to get a sense of the investment agencies here in the province. I know the government would certainly support "buy Nova Scotia first". Is it because they have limited capacity to be able to manage such large amounts of money because we don't have the market to deal with, or is it a lack of expertise or what's the situation?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think we should correct that because, of the $6.9 billion in funds, a fair amount of that is managed within the department - approximately 40 per cent. You referred earlier to people in the investment area and commissions and bonuses they get, it's because of their performance managing some of these funds. We were talking about the ones that were paid out to other people, we will provide you a list of them, but if you get a list of these fund people and you try to add it up to get the $6.9 billion, you won't because a number of them are managed within Finance.

MR. MACKINNON: So about 40 per cent of the $6.9 billion is managed in-house?

[Page 421]

MR. CHRISTIE: That's correct.

MR. MACKINNON: By the committee that you've referred to earlier?

MR. CHRISTIE: By the investment staff we were talking about earlier, yes.

MR. MACKINNON: Now, what percentage of the total $6.9 billion is pension fund?

MR. CHRISTIE: All of it is. There are two funds - the Public Service and the teachers.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay. I know with the Teachers' Pension Fund, if you do very well, if you go over a certain mark - whether it's 105 per cent or 110 per cent - then something has to be done with those additional revenues. Either go back to general revenues or something has to be done to pay out to the stakeholders. Have we had any instances in the last year where our portfolios have done well, that money has gone back into general revenues?

MR. CHRISTIE: The answer is no. The numbers of the monies in the fund are not of that magnitude, of the 100 or 105 per cent. The funds, as I indicated to the committee yesterday, are about 82 per cent and 86 per cent.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay. Those questions have been asked, so I won't go into it. I notice in the latest annual report of the community college system - I believe I may have just given the minister the heads-up on this a little earlier today - the unfunded liability is up in excess of 60 per cent. What is the plan to deal with that unfunded liability? It would appear to me that's separate from the Teachers Union, the unfunded liability.

MR. CHRISTIE: Following that question that you had posed to me, I'm advised that prior to 1996, the vocational school instructors were included as members of the NSTU. Prior to 1996, the Adult Vocational Training Centres were members of the Public Service plan. In 1996, when they created the Nova Scotia Community College, the members voted to join the Nova Scotia Teachers Union pension so they're included as part of the numbers we were talking about just a moment ago.

MR. MACKINNON: I guess I know my time is getting a little tight here, we can always come back. What's the average rate of return on all the investments? Can you give us an overview?

MR. CHRISTIE: Over the last number of years, 10 years, it's been about 9, 9.2 to 9.5 per cent - that's compounded, obviously.

[Page 422]

MR. MACKINNON: How does the rate of return on the portfolios managed from within house compare to those that are contracted out to the private sector? Which group has done better?

MR. CHRISTIE: When we talk about comparing them, you have to talk about comparing fixed - essentially they've been about the same.

MR. MACKINNON: Has there been any thought given to or maybe beyond the department and the government's capacity to do so if they're comparably the same, why wouldn't the government manage all and save themselves all these millions of dollars?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus is finished. We'll respond to the question and move on.

MR. CHRISTIE: I think, as I indicated, we would provide the honourable member with a list of the criteria for the setting of the asset mix and the goals and objectives of the committee and the issue that committee is looking for balance, looking for balance and as secure as possible. I suspect rather than try to quote to you from that report, I'll provide that for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do the members of the government caucus have any questions?

The honourable member for Chester-St. Margaret's.

MR. CHATAWAY: I don't intend to take an hour by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly was very interesting, the talk that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Steele, brought forth and basically I'm not sure, the CCRA has a responsibility with all Aboriginal things, collecting the HST and then submitting that at some time in the future to the provincial government, and that's their job. Giving the example Mr. Steele brought forward that basically CCRA has not committed to coming to the Public Accounts Committee, they responded to your letter in what respect, yes or no? I'd just like to hear it.

MR. STEELE: It's under discussion with them. They haven't said no, they haven't said yes, we're discussing with them the timing of their appearance.

MR. CHATAWAY: . . . come there on time or whether they will come or not come?

MR. STEELE: It's all open. They haven't said they're refusing to come. It's under discussion.

MR. CHATAWAY: But first you're discussing time and second you're discussing whether they're going to come or not, is that right?

[Page 423]

MR. STEELE: It's all connected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. If you want to continue with the questions let the minister . . .

MR. CHATAWAY: I just wanted to get it straight. The truth is what we have to do and it's very important, because here's the background and I don't want to spend an hour. Convenience stores are very important and most convenient stores are run by people who are very dedicated, at least 12 to 14 hours to keep the store open and all that stuff.

The problem is on the South Shore, and I don't think it's unique necessarily, is that you can go on the reservation and you can buy your cigarettes at about $1.50 less a pack. That's no problem at all. The Aboriginal people go on for years about how poorly treated they are over the years, but the thing is, I think most people have a card saying I'm an Aboriginal person and all that stuff and they can get it, but it's very infuriating for many people who just go in and they buy cigarettes for far less than that. I think that has to be straightened out, and of course everybody could go on for hours too that cigarettes are not good for your health and stuff like this and if we don't collect the taxes, the poor person who sells cigarettes at full market prices is working very hard to do that, having his business not do as good, everybody has to be treated fairly.

[4:15 p.m.]

Mr. Finance Minister, would you ensure that the next time that you are getting into discussions with other provinces and things like this about this Aboriginal thing to try to ensure that the CCRA, if they say they will do this and they will do that, because of the agreements and things like this, that they have to insist that they do it accurately. Do they ever insist that they will do it accurately, that is their facts and their figures jibe with reality, or do they ever talk about that?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, to a limited extent. Our involvement with them is through the tax sharing agreements and the other procedures and things. If your question is, will you continue to raise this with them, certainly, we will do that and continue to keep raising these issues that we want to see a little more information-sharing and we want to ensure that this particular segment of the underground economy is being taken care of.

MR. CHATAWAY: From what I understand the reservation around Truro, they're fine. You have a card, you can do that much, they have the ticker-tape thing that you get there, it has HST calculated on it. It wouldn't be any great expense to do it. Thank you very much, it's very important to us all and I'm sure you really appreciate that as well too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Thank you very much. Any further questions from the government caucus? Okay, we shall move to the Official Opposition.

[Page 424]

The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.

MR. STEELE: I have no further questions for the minister, we're ready to move on to the next department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll now move to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Preston.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: Okay, I'm going to ask a few questions about VLTs to start. I guess about two years ago there was a move toward removing VLTs from Legions. Is that still underway or have many VLTs been removed?

MR. CHRISTIE: I interpret your question to be as part of the efficiency operation to determine whether VLTs were meeting a target performance. They were being shifted around. That program is not active anymore.

MR. COLWELL: So you stopped that program, which I'm glad to see because it seemed like the government was chasing more revenue through VLTs which was definitely not in the realm of trying to stop people from compulsive gambling. So that program has stopped?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, we are not doing that program now, no.

MR. COLWELL: At the time when you were doing it, were there any VLTs and if so how many VLTs were removed from Legions to a more profitable location when the program was on?

MR. CHRISTIE: You'll recall a part of that program had to do with issues surrounding non-profits, so your question is, how many were moved out of Legions under that program? We'll have to get you that number. We don't have it here right now.

MR. COLWELL: So some were removed?

MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, there would have been a few removed, yes.

MR. COLWELL: Okay. What about the VLTs on reserves? How many are on the Native reserves now and how many were there last year?

MR. CHRISTIE: The actual number on reserves is 615.

MR. COLWELL: That's now?

[Page 425]

MR. CHRISTIE: That is now, yes.

MR. COLWELL: What about last year, how many were there?

MR. CHRISTIE: There were 48 additional ones in that number than there were the year before.

MR. COLWELL: How many has it grown this year as compared to other years, say two years ago, how many were there then?

MR. CHRISTIE: There are changes made each year, but the number I indicated to you, the 48 number increase, was increased in the year 2003-04. So now your question is, what number were added in the year 2003?

MR. COLWELL: Yes, 2002-03.

MR. CHRISTIE: I don't have that number right here, but we can get that number. You know, as part of the agreement with the Aboriginal Affairs Department, they're constantly looking at those numbers and looking as bands' agreements come up, they will make adjustments in those numbers, but we will get the numbers that correspond to the year prior to the 48 that happened last year.

MR. COLWELL: So the province sort of licenses or gives them permission to operate so many in the province, is that how it works?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, we have a set number operating within the province. Now, the numbers that are included in the bands' totals are indicated under the agreements with the First Nations under Section 2 of the Act and those are outlined as not being ones that are under the moratorium restriction that was set out in the legislation.

MR. COLWELL: So the revenues from the ones in Native bands, the province has no revenue from them at all?

MR. CHRISTIE: No, there's a nominal administration fee that's charged. For example, yes, there's about $56 a week, in that range.

MR. COLWELL: So it's $56 a week per machine?

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.

MR. COLWELL: Now, what steps have you taken to ensure that there are no more than 615 Native bands?

[Page 426]

MR. CHRISTIE: That's why Aboriginal Affairs and the First Nations have agreements to work out those details.

MR. COLWELL: Does anyone physically go and check to see how many are out there?

MR. CHRISTIE: Not from the Gaming Corporation, but Aboriginal Affairs, obviously, they're working with them on a variety of different issues and so they would be there to look at those.

MR. COLWELL: Over the past five years, what positive steps, or even the last couple of years, has the government taken to help prevent the problem of addiction? I know it's a big problem with VLTs. What positive steps have you taken?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, a number of things. Obviously, one of the major initiatives that you take is the education process and trying to work and educate people as to how they need to react. The other initiatives have been pilot projects. You will see pilot projects in different parts of the province in retail locations indicating to people about being cautious and showing restraint and, of course, the other issue and the other part was the introduction of machines that limit your time and cashed you out at certain points in time. So those are the major initiatives.

MR. COLWELL: How effective have those been?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, I guess in response to that, research and some studies indicate that three out of four of those features on the VLTs that I referred to indicated that they had advantages to people as to limiting their playing and doing some of the features and some of the initiatives they had hoped to do.

MR. COLWELL: Are you planning or discussing the possibility of taxing lottery winnings?

MR. CHRISTIE: What I do know about lottery winnings is that they indicated in Ontario that they were going to introduce a bill. We have not researched that. We have not studied that and at this point in time it was only an idea that was floated in Ontario. Now, a number of people have indicated to us that it is something we should consider, but at this point in time we are not actively researching or following that initiative.

MR. COLWELL: So you have no plans in the next couple of years?

MR. CHRISTIE: Nothing is on the schedule to go towards that.

[Page 427]

MR. COLWELL: Well, I guess this is a good thing, the next thing I'm going to ask, the gambling revenues are on the decline which is always a good indication, hopefully fewer people are gambling. You're estimating a 3.2 per cent reduction this year over last year in the growth. What do you attribute that to?

MR. CHRISTIE: I think, as I indicated to somebody on the committee yesterday, a lot of the issues surrounding this have to do - the Gaming Corporation people tell you that the products are becoming dated in terms of the lotto machines, in terms of the tickets, in terms of others, that people are finding that they're not new and exciting the way they once were. So that's one of the reasons. The other areas are, obviously, there's Internet gambling, and there are other opportunities for people to direct themselves to, so that's probably taking some away from our revenue and our gambling here in the province.

MR. COLWELL: In 1997, about seven years ago, the Auditor General audited the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and found that we were being shortchanged by about $4.5 million a year. When is the minister going to request an audit again of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to see if we're on-line, underpaid, or whatever the case may be?

MR. CHRISTIE: Well, since that time the procedures have been set up so that they're being checked annually and they're being checked as to some of those issues that were raised by the Auditor General in terms of the amounts coming in and, more importantly, the allocation between the partners.

MR. COLWELL: In early 2000 the Premier indicated there had been a new arrangement made and Nova Scotia would get an additional $4.9 million annually from this. Has that been happening?

MR. CHRISTIE: Sorry, with Atlantic Loto?

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

MR. CHRISTIE: What you're referring to is the change in the profit agreement and, yes, it has been to our advantage in the range of $3 million to $5 million for the different years since then.

MR. COLWELL: If I look at the 2002-03 numbers here, it shows that the lottery ticket profits went up by $4 million in New Brunswick, $1.3 million in Newfoundland, $1.7 million in Prince Edward Island, and declined by $1.5 million in Nova Scotia. What's the reason for that?

[Page 428]

MR. CHRISTIE: What we would attribute it to is the reduction in the sale of tickets to offshore. You will recall that the Gaming Corporation took an active pursuit of eliminating that and so it's their belief that that would have had some effect and be influencing these numbers to a considerable extent.

MR. COLWELL: Those are all the questions I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The government caucus has no questions as they're not here and I assume the Official Opposition, you have already indicated no further questions. So any closing comments and, please, read into the record your resolutions.

MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the committee for their interest and for the good questions that we had and to exploring a number of these possibilities. I do want to reiterate my thanks to all the department staff for their co-operation and their work today to get us here and to get all of the tasks that are done. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will read the following resolutions:

[4:30 p.m.]

Resolution E8 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,007,112,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Debt Servicing Costs, Department of Finance, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E16 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $7,890,000 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 $56,474,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Restructuring Costs, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E34 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $10,000,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Debt Retirement Plan, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E35 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $250,000,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Capital Purchase Requirements, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E36 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $111,187,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Sinking Fund Instalments and Serial Retirements, pursuant to the Estimate.

[Page 429]

Resolution E38 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission be approved.

Resolution E39 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation be approved.

Resolution E42 - Resolved, that the business plan of Rockingham Terminal Inc. be approved.

MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Chairman, those are my resolutions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will recess for five minutes and be back here at 4:38 p.m. sharp with Human Resources, I believe.

[4:33 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[4:38 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the subcommittee to order with opening remarks by the minister and perhaps you could introduce your staff who are with you as well.

Resolution E14 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $15,300,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate.

HON. CAROLYN BOLIVAR-GETSON: Mr. Chairman, it is an honour to be here today to address the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply as it considers estimates for 2004-05. As Minister of Human Resources, I will be speaking today about the Public Service Commission which forms a portion of Resolution E14, the Executive Council vote. I will also be speaking to the budget for the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Resolution E19.

Joining me at the table are several of my staff members from the Public Service Commission - Rick Nurse, Public Service Commissioner; Jackie Ross, Budget Officer; Gord Adams, Executive Director of Planning and Coordination; Brigitte Neumann - I believe she's in the room - Executive Director of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is also in the room should any questions of a technical nature come my way on the Status of Women; and additional members of staff are also attending on behalf of the Public Service Commission.

My colleagues here today, like the dozens of other staff who come through the hallways of the Legislature at this time of year, are fine examples of the many hard-working civil servants out there across this province who make up our Public Service. I am depending

[Page 430]

on the Public Service staff, along with the broader human resources community across government, to help me make human resources the priority it should have been for governments in Nova Scotia sometime ago. I can also tell you that the small staff at the Advisory Council on the Status of Women work very hard to make a difference in the lives of Nova Scotia women in a variety of ways.

This government sees these people and what they do as a true investment. Good people are the key to making sure Nova Scotians get good quality programs and services at a price they can afford. It's critically important in 2004-05 to recognize the demographic trends that are affecting the labour market today. Nova Scotia's population is not only aging, but we have a relative shortage of young people, particularly in the rural areas. This trend is growing. Nova Scotia's workforce is getting older on average and the Public Service does not have enough younger workers. Some 50 per cent of the workforce is between the ages of 45 and 65. The average age of a public servant is 45 and 47 for the management group. More people are becoming eligible for retirement and when they leave, they often take decades of experience and wisdom with them. Many are at the peak of their careers and can go on to new employment in the private sector.

Although it was not so long ago that governments were sponsoring early retirement programs to encourage people to leave government, now one of the biggest issues seems to be how to encourage people to stay and despite a percentage of high unemployment in Nova Scotia, government no longer can rely on a buyer's market for workers. In some employment categories the Government of Nova Scotia has to compete for employees who are lured away by higher pay and better incentives in other jurisdictions or in the private sector. At the same time we are battling a rather outdated perception of government work. People see these as good jobs, but not the place you would go if you were a go-getter. Hiring freezes have left younger workers skeptical about job security.

It's clear that we should all start seeing our human resources as an investment to be nurtured and protected rather than an expense. We must return to a shared understanding that the Public Service is a challenging and rewarding career path. In what better way can we seek to help Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians than by delivering high quality and responsive public services, delivered by skilled and dedicated public servants. That's why government has made a commitment to human resources that is stronger than any in the last 15 years.

[4:45 p.m.]

First we have made a significant investment in salaries and benefits for employees in this budget, as contained in every minister's estimates before you. One needs only to look to some of our neighbouring provinces to get a sense of the importance of Nova Scotia's commitment to public servants. This is not an easy thing to do in a time of tight budgets, but our government has done this.

[Page 431]

We have also invigorated the Public Service Commission with a full-time minister and a commitment to develop a comprehensive human resource strategy for the years to come. A 2002 internal review indicated the commission should focus on strategic leadership in human resources and improve the efficiency of HR administration by moving more HR transactions such as processing job applications and hiring to departments and HR corporate service units. Now, 18 months later, the commission has a new structure, some new staff to fill strategic priority areas and a focus on its new strategic direction.

As articulated in government's corporate plan, it's all about ensuring that government programs and services are delivered by skilled, responsive and committed public servants, that we have a safe and supportive workplace, and that we promote a learning organization. The PSC is working strategically to enhance the work/life balance of Nova Scotia public sector employees by creating tools, policies and programs to support a high-quality work environment.

Retaining our skilled workforce through competitive and progressive HR policies, programs and practices will strengthen our HR talent pool and enable us to be more competitive with the private sector. To do this, Mr. Chairman, the Public Service Commission is developing a corporate human resource plan. The plan will allow us to plan wisely to meet the needs and expectations of the citizens we serve. The intent of the HR plan is to support a safe and supportive workplace with a focus on employee wellness, learning and client service excellence.

Wise recruitment and retention is a key part of this. The PSC will consult with its stakeholders to complete the strategy and begin implementation in this fiscal year. There are a number of specific programs that we are developing and will start implementing in fiscal 2004-05.

The development of our corporate HR plan will be in part guided by the results of an employee survey conducted in February of this year. This survey was a unique opportunity for employees to express their opinions and the response rate was more than 50 per cent. It will provide information for government to access the effectiveness of the work environment. It will allow us to focus on critical human resource management, highlight what is important to employees and will be used in the future as a benchmark to measure our progress.

Raising awareness of the challenges facing our workforce, as perceived by our workforce, will allow government to begin addressing the challenges distinct to our workforce environment. Many employees' needs and expectations are related to doing meaningful work and being supported and valued in the workplace.

In recent years, the Public Service Commission has placed a higher and higher emphasis on workplace safety and in this, North American Occupational Health and Safety Week, it is vital that we commit to going beyond compliance with occupational health and

[Page 432]

safety legislation and standards to a stronger focus on safety and well-being in the workplace. The PSC has begun to implement 19 recommendations that came from an independent review of occupational health and safety in government.

We take our leadership role in occupational health and safety very seriously and have strengthened our capacity by adding a senior Occupational Health and Safety Manager to our team. We have also begun a pilot project to audit and evaluate occupational health and safety in all departments. The Public Service Commission participated in the pilot of this audit.

Government has provided $200,000 in funding jointly to the Public Service Commission and the Office of Health Promotion to support programming related to wellness in the Public Service. This builds on the strengths of both organizations. This new undertaking continues work by the PSC last year in researching best practices in the areas of workplace wellness and collaborating with local organizations such as the Atlantic Wellness Institute.

The Public Service Commission will continue to promote diversity in the workplace in 2004-05 through programs, initiatives and education. The goal is to promote equal consideration for employment, advancement and development opportunities within the Civil Service for people in designated groups. We will be monitoring the success of our diversity initiatives within government. Our goal of ensuring that our Public Service is truly reflective of the community we serve remains a key element of the 2004-05 business plan. It is critically important that all of us start to act as ambassadors for the Public Service. That includes not only the civil servants, but our own Members of the Legislative Assembly as well.

To attract new talent, we have to get out into the communities in person. The Public Service Commission is developing a Career Connect program to have government employees act as champions for the Civil Service. They will attend community events such as career fairs, university/high school career days and act as contacts for those interested in pursuing work in the Civil Service.

Career Starts is another program that encourages employees from diverse backgrounds and at early stages of developing a career. Career Starts is the umbrella for four different initiatives: the Post Secondary Internship Program, the Cooperative Employment Program, the Summer Female Mentorship Program and the Summer Diversity Program. Through the Post Secondary Internship Program, since 1999, we have created opportunities for up to 16 recent graduates to gain experience in the Public Service and leadership. In the co-op placement program, the Summer Diversity Program and the Female Mentorship Program, students can gain a four-month work-term experience in service and in their chosen careers, working for one of many government departments or organizations.

As you can tell by these titles, in each case their focus complements our goals in providing for our youth, women and designated groups in our community. We are making changes in the Post Secondary Internship Program to increase the chance of success for

[Page 433]

people to get permanent jobs in government after completing the program. The program will be moved to two years. This will not only allow them to compete for jobs posted as internal but will also provide them with benefits not applicable to casual positions.

Part of our commitment to recruitment has been the addition of a Senior Consultant for Executive Recruitment. This in-house capacity enhances the ability of the PSC to continue to provide excellent service to Nova Scotians by ensuring that we maintain a highly competitive and diverse executive.

Our innovative and growth division is home to government's corporate training and development courses. There are fixed costs associated with the delivery of training courses, including rental of facilities, training equipment, facilitators, training materials. All of these costs are paid for by the PSC and then recovered by the departments and agencies, boards and other commissions on a cost-recovery basis. This model is a preferred way of delivering courses to civil servants as it results in the lowest price and eliminates any duplication of services.

Government will continue to provide leadership, development programs for middle managers, front-line leaders and individual contributors and executives in 2004-05. More than 2,000 managers have participated in these programs which are considered very beneficial for employees. To support government-wide learning and development initiatives, the PSC will be investing $100,000 in a learning management system with e-learning and on-line registration capability for all government departments as well as the broader public sector.

This investment will see the conversion of the current paper-based processes to a more efficient, electronic management system with Web access registration to support all departmental training and development units. A significant responsibility for the PSC in 2004-05 will be negotiating the Civil Service Master Agreement which expired on March 31, 2004. This, along with other expired agreements, will place increased demands on the Public Service Commission's resources. A key priority is to complete the classification system reviews currently underway.

As well, the PSC is working with the HR community to ensure a smooth transition to the new SAP human resource system and has requested funding to support their efforts on behalf of the HR CSUs across government. As we move forward, we must also ensure that we measure our performance, monitoring, measuring and evaluating progress towards goals and making necessary adjustments along the way - components of a strong accountability and management framework. Performance accountability plays a key role in a strategic HR organization. Through the Public Service Commission's Evaluation and Audit Division, processes are being established to ensure consistent application of HR policies and procedures across government.

[Page 434]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that all these activities will be accomplished with a budget of $4.863 million. This is slightly down by about $77,000 or 1.6 per cent in recognition of government's efforts to contain spending. We were able to accomplish the decrease through a number of program and administrative efficiencies. Estimate to estimate, you will notice minor adjustments to the staff complement and salaries within the Public Service Commission. These reflect the completion of structural changes to enable the changes in our mandate. The movement from transactual orientation to a strategic orientation is now complete.

In earmarking the resources to ensure the continued development of a skilled, dedicated and responsive Public Service focused on service excellence, the Public Service Commission will continue to be guided by and pursue its key responsibilities: developing HR policies, programs, procedures, standards and practices for the Civil Service; consulting, advising and assisting departments in the conduct of departmental personnel activities; manpower and succession planning; staffing training and development; classification and benefits; recruitment; collective bargaining; workplace safety; and wellness.

In 2004-05, we will seek to deliver on the promise that restructuring by refocusing on such organization-wide HR issues as: development and implementation of corporate HR plan; coordinating and strengthening the occupational health and safety; HR development programs; succession management; audit and evaluation of key HR policies, programs and services; labour management relations; and employee survey reporting and follow-up.

Our priority projects for 2004-05 as outlined in the 2004-05 business plan: releasing the results of and responding to the recent government-wide employee survey; development and implementation of a corporate human resource plan; completion of project e-merge, an information management system which focuses on the transactional aspects of human resource management; continuing to respond to the Public Service Commission's occupational health and safety review, to ensure a safe workplace for our public servants. In the same vein, we will, in co-operation with the Office of Health Promotion, embark on a multi-year wellness program, focusing on Nova Scotia's public servants. Here, our intent is to set the example for all Nova Scotians.

Through our involvement in respectful collective bargaining and by other means, we will pursue positive employee relations, through the Public Service. We will complete the bargaining unit classification review and the review of MCP classifications as well in 2004-05. We will include a comprehensive succession management program in our corporate human resources strategy. We will continue to invest in our people through a continuous learning philosophy and climate. We will continue to pursue our diversity goals and our goals to attract more youth to the Public Service, and to see that women are not only represented in the Public Service but leading in the Public Service.

[Page 435]

Yes, we have much more progress to celebrate, but we have much more to do, also. These goals will be our focus as we continue to build a strong, skilled and responsive Public Service. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable amount of work underway at the Public Service Commission. I will now end my comments on the Public Service Commission budget, and move to that of the Status of Women.

The Advisory Council on the Status of Women works to advance equality, fairness and dignity for all women in Nova Scotia. Council members represent the diversity of Nova Scotia women. They are women living in rural and urban areas, who are of African or First Nations descent, who have disabilities, and women who have different educational and employment backgrounds. Council members demonstrate a high level of commitment to their work, participating in local events and speaking publicly about issues affecting Nova Scotian women.

The mandate of the Advisory Council is to advise government and to bring forward the concerns of women in Nova Scotia. Council holds various powers to fulfill this mandate. An important one and the one that reflects the most visible work they undertake is the power to publish reports, studies and recommendations. In the past year, Council has published a booklet on the rights and responsibilities of people who live common law, a background paper on HIV/AIDS and an op-ed piece on Bill C-22, recommending changes to better balance the rights of victims and offenders in crimes of violence. They also recently published an open letter on providing maternity benefits to women in a more effective and far-reaching manner.

In the coming year, they will report statistics on women's paid and unpaid work in Canada, with a special focus on women in Nova Scotia. Advisory Council members have defined four strategic goals for the agency. The first is to increase the participation of women in all their diversity in decisions that affect their lives, families and communities. Particular emphasis is placed on women who face discrimination, because of race, age, language, class, religion, disability, sexual orientation or various forms of family status. Second, they work to promote women's economic equality. Third, they work to reduce violence against women in communities, workplaces and families. Finally, they work to improve the health and well-being of women and their families.

The Council provides research and policy advice to provincial and federal governments on issues affecting women in Nova Scotia. They hold forums, prepare discussion papers and submit briefs to inform and advise policy audiences on a variety of issues that affect women's lives. In the upcoming year, this work will support the Council's four strategic goals. Research in 2004-05 will focus on best practices for women's transition to employment, women's recruitment and retention into trades, diversity, gender equality and social inclusion, young women's health issues, victims' rights and child care.

[Page 436]

[5:00 p.m.]

Council works to influence public policy through statistical analysis and research in many areas that affect women, and in 2004-05 will focus on women's political representation, Aboriginal women, and rural and urban women. As well, results of the Healthy Balance Research Program on paid and unpaid work and caregiving will be shared with academic and policy audiences, caregiver and community groups, and the general public in Nova Scotia and across Canada.

An important role of Council is to ensure that government policies and programs identify and reflect opportunities to advance the status of women. They will accomplish this, participating in groups such as Skills Nova Scotia, the sustainable communities initiative, the community development agency group, and the Interdepartmental Committee on United Nations Conventions.

Celebrating women's achievements and highlighting where work is needed for women to gain true equality are also important roles for the Advisory Council. They will do this by marking International Women's Day, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, and Women's History Month. This year the Council will increase awareness among young women of the career, family and health issues that affect them. They will develop and distribute a young women's resource handbook, coordinated with the Council's overall communications plan. A highlight activity this year will be the development of a Women's Campaign School. This non-partisan campaign school follows up participants' responses to the series of successful political involvement workshops held by Advisory Council over the last several years.

The budget for the Status of Women is the same as last year, $756,000. The Advisory Council functions with a small but dedicated staff of 7.8 full-time equivalents. Two half-time field workers provide outreach to the areas surrounding Digby and Amherst. They work with women's equality-seeking organizations and other partners in their areas to promote the work of the Council.

Mr. Chairman, that brings my opening comments to a conclusion. I know that our staff will continue to meet the needs of Nova Scotians we serve. We also recognize a need for continued fiscal responsibility. I am pleased to respond to any questions you may have now. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions by the government caucus? Not at this time. We will move to the Official Opposition.

The honourable member for Cape Breton Nova.

[Page 437]

MR. GORDON GOSSE: My first question to the minister is, on April 21^st, in a Statement by Ministers in the Legislature, you put a process for disclosure of wrongdoing. I was just wondering about your feelings on those regulations, on your own. Do you think that they're sufficient enough, or should we have whistle-blower legislation in this province?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I believe that we have the legislation in place, currently, under the Civil Service Act and the Public Service Act, to enable us to put forward what employees are asking for.

MR. GOSSE: So you think that we do not need legislation in the Province of Nova Scotia?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I think we have the legislative authority there to provide that right now.

MR. GOSSE: My first question on the PSC would be, what is the Public Service Commission doing to provide employment to visible minorities and people with disabilities in the Province of Nova Scotia?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We have an affirmative action policy in place right now within government, and within that there are a number of ongoing programs that we intend to move forward. Every department is responsible to do their part in ensuring that the Affirmative Action Policy is carried on within government.

MR. GOSSE: Would you be able to table a copy of that policy?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. GOSSE: I would also ask, can I have a list of the number of casual employees in the department, according to department, by agency, board and commission? The number of casual staff that you do have.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I don't have that with me, but I can provide that to you.

MR. GOSSE: Okay, so I guess my second question would be, what is the PSC doing to take the steps to provide the same rights and benefits of the casual workers - but I don't know the number of casual workers in the Civil Service . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I cannot tell you the exact amount, as I outlined, but I definitely can get that information - I don't know. That is a subject that is in ongoing negotiations with the NSGEU, discussions that we have been having as to the casual and of employees.

[Page 438]

MR. GOSSE: Do casuals get any benefits now, at all, within the government?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No.

MR. GOSSE: You had mentioned in your speech, to do with the classification that's ongoing right now with the government, the Civil Service classification, I was just wondering how that's progressing. Is there a deadline for that to be brought forward to the Legislature?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: What I can tell you is the initial results were released in October 2003. Employees and managers had until December to review and to submit any additional information that they wanted to provide at that time. There was an additional 1,200 applications that came forward at that time, with the revised facts on them or, I believe 250 new Job Fact Sheets were provided at that time. The employees had until April 30, 2004 to then look at those 250 that had put forward theirs, to look at, to see if they were in line with where they should be, or if they felt they needed to provide further information. The evaluation of the remaining Job Fact Sheets and change forms should be completed by the end of May of this year.

MR. GOSSE: Could the minister tell me if there's still a Classification Review Board, an appeal board?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, there is.

MR. GOSSE: Are there people named to it? Would we have those names, the people who sit on the appeal board?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, there is a board currently in place, and it is fully staffed at this point in time - that's what I'm being told.

MR. GOSSE: Would people who were dissatisfied, or anything else, with this, is that where they would go to appeal their . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No. They had the option of taking this to their superior or their manager within the organization.

MR. GOSSE: How much money are you prepared to contribute to implement the results of this Civil Service classification review?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The negotiated figures on this, it's something that the next round of bargaining will put forward. There's nothing in the budget for this review. This is a proposed classification that is being put forward, and I guess it will be up to them to bargain that into their next agreement.

[Page 439]

MR. GOSSE: The Transition Support Program, that was eliminated in August 2002. Is there any plan to reinstate that program?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, that was abolished in 2002. I think it was in effect for prior years due to massive layoffs that had happened or a large number of layoffs in those years. We don't anticipate any layoffs, and we feel that there's no need to have the system in place at this point in time.

MR. GOSSE: Last year there was a major legal review by a staff lawyer, it was done on the occupational health and safety within the government. What has been done with the results of this review, since the report was released?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That was part of my speech, I did say that we did accept all 19 of the review's documentation on occupational health and safety. We are in the process of implementing them.

MR. GOSSE: My question was, what was the result?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The result was 19 recommendations that had come forward for us to follow through on, and we are following through to do that.

MR. GOSSE: I would like to pass this off to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Dartmouth South-Portland Valley.

MS. MARILYN MORE: I just wanted to ask a few questions about the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We will do another juggle with seats here.

MS. MORE: You've described some of the sort of more informational-type activity that the Council does. I'm interested more in the action side. I'm just wondering, do you as minister or does the Advisory Council have the opportunity to screen new legislation or amended legislation for its impact on women in this province?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Any legislation that is put forward that would involve anything to do with women is looked at by the Status of Women. They have the opportunity to do that, and they put forward comments at that point in time, if they feel it's necessary.

MS. MORE: What about the next level of decision making, is there any opportunity to have input into policy changes?

[Page 440]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, we're consistently asked to provide input into policy-making decisions that affect women.

MS. MORE: I will give you a specific example, I would be interested to know if the Council had had any opportunity to advise on this, either when it was originally proposed or to look at its impact on women in the following years, and that's the change in Community Services policy whereby people on social assistance or income assistance are no longer able to be supported in that way while they attend university. This has had a tremendous impact, particularly on single moms, but a lot of women and men as well. I'm just wondering, is that a policy change that the Council might have been involved in providing any advice or follow-up analysis?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Council took the position of opposing that decision that was made by Community Services.

MS. MORE: I'm very pleased to hear that. Thank you.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: But we don't win them all.

MS. MORE: No. Does the Council have any intention of reviewing that decision and just providing some sort of information to the department and the provincial government, as to what the real impact has been, and how that has really set women back in this province?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The transition to employment paper will reopen this topic.

[5:15 p.m.]

MS. MORE: That's great. My colleague, the member for Halifax Needham, is going to be sharing with me, and perhaps the staff already have documentation about a study that was replicated from the States and Canada. It shows that the impact of not having a university education is much more severe on women than it is on men because women then are sort of forced into the low-paying job sector, so it might be something I could share with you if you don't have that information. I'm really pleased to hear that you're going to reopen that issue. Excellent.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I definitely welcome that input when you do have that information.

MS. MORE: Thank you. The other area in terms of action I'm interested in is whether the Council or you as minister are able to advocate on behalf of the community groups and the voluntary sector organizations and agencies that serve women and their families in this province. Are there ever opportunities to become their advocate? I'm thinking in particular around the financial difficulties that transition houses and women's centres have been facing

[Page 441]

in the last several years, but there are many other examples of groups serving women and children in particular who, because of their budgets from the provincial government not keeping up with the cost of living and other increased costs, they're actually taking, in effect, a cut and so they've had to either spread their services more thinly or cut back on their services. Do you ever have an opportunity to advise government in terms of those funding decisions?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: These groups speak with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women on a regular basis on their concerns and they are brought forward and through Brigitte there, brought to my attention. We do have that approach. Keeping in mind that funding to transition houses has not been cut, it's stable as it was last year. I know there is always room for more money and a lot of these programs - that being one, but there's several out there that definitely probably could use a lot more funding if it were available. But in a balanced budget scenario, it's hard to address all those concerns at one time. We definitely do have that corresponding and that dialogue with these groups.

MS. MORE: That's great and I would encourage you to continue to voice their concerns within Cabinet because a lot of the formulas are based on sort of outdated assumptions - one of them being that the per diem should be based on the number of beds filled and that kind of thing. It doesn't take account of the more outreach approach that many of the women's centres and transition houses are now taking, especially in rural areas where women find it very difficult to get because of transportation difficulties getting to those centres.

I'm just wondering - you've mentioned a couple of times that the budget for the Council hasn't changed. Neither you nor I go back very far so I'm not sure how long it's been in constant. I'd just like to ask that if there had been an increase in your budget, are there some priority areas that the Council would then be able to look at and consider more seriously?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm sure that with more money in any budget, people would look at programs and things that they could do beyond that. The amount of the budget that came forward from the Status of Women this year was for the existing budget. It wasn't for an increased amount, it was for the same.

MS. MORE: I realize that and I'm assuming most of your budget is staff-related because . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Staff-related and a few office supplies. Other than the staff complement, it's very little of anything else in that budget.

[Page 442]

MS. MORE: Right, because your programs are directly related to the number of staff so I guess I could just draw the conclusion that with more staff you could have more programs.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That would probably be a wise conclusion to make on any program, yes.

MS. MORE: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to pass this over to my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.

MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: I guess I wanted to take you through the whistle-blower legislation a little bit because you made an announcement in the House two weeks ago now, I think, with regard to the legislation. I'm just trying to get a sense - can you walk me through again exactly what you were saying at that time? I'm just trying to refresh my memory. We now have in place the regulations we need or is there a need for some new regulations under existing legislation in order to bring in an all-encompassing whistle-blower framework?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: What I said in the House was that we had the legislative authority in place under the Civil Service Act and the Public Service Act to proceed with regulations.

MR. DEVEAUX: So you are going to draft some regulations?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, we are.

MR. DEVEAUX: When do you expect that to be done?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: In the very near future.

MR. DEVEAUX: When would that be?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I can't tell you the exact day, but it will be in the very near future. We're working diligently on these to bring them forward.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, do you hope by July 1^st you'll have something for Cabinet?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm hoping that we have something in the near future. I cannot put a specific date on this but I can tell you the department and everyone else is working very hard to bring this.

MR. DEVEAUX: Can you say whether or not it will be this year?

[Page 443]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I would hope so and, yes, it will be. It can't be that complex.

MR. DEVEAUX: So there will be new regulations put in place.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It will be regulations put in place to enhance what's already there.

MR. DEVEAUX: Right, but that means there will be new regulations written. What do you see those regulations saying that we don't already have covered?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I think to meet the needs that the employees have asked for that they feel more comfortable with reporting illegal or wrongdoing within government, to make sure they can feel comfortable with bringing these issues forward and that there is no reprisal on their part if they do so. That's what I think employees are asking for.

MR. DEVEAUX: But they're in a union now. They have the ability to report wrongdoing and they can't be fired. I mean, that's not dismissal for cause for that - if you're in a collective agreement, don't they already have something in place to protect them?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There are different Acts that are currently in place now under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. There's things in place under the Ombudsman Act. There's regulations in place - this will strengthen what's there and enhance the Public Service Act and other regulations put there so that this can happen.

MR. DEVEAUX: So, the Occupational Health and Safety Act obviously deals with if you see an unsafe situation, I understand that you have the right to your job - I'm fairly familiar with that piece of legislation. But I go back to my question. The majority of the workers within the Civil Service are unionized, is that correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, they are.

MR. DEVEAUX: So, under the collective agreement, they have the right, if they see a problem to report it and if for some reason they were disciplined or fired for that, they'd have the right to have their job back?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, they would.

MR. DEVEAUX: So for those workers, don't we already have in place enough to say that the whistle-blower legislation, this framework is already adequate?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, but it's been brought to my attention that they're looking for more than that.

[Page 444]

MR. DEVEAUX: So you would say now . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They don't feel comfortable under the current legislation or the current regulation that is there now, so we're going to . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: So do we have whistle-blower regulations now?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, we have the legislation in place that you currently went through with the bargaining unit or with being in the union and so on.

MR. DEVEAUX: The collective agreement?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: And for people who aren't a part of a collective agreement right now, what is in place for them beyond safety issues, what would be in place for them under the Civil Service Act or regulations to protect them if they saw a problem? Currently.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Any employee within government has the opportunity to report anything to their superiors. That would be the order they would do that.

MR. DEVEAUX: You would admit to me though then in most cases it's the superiors who might be the ones that they have concerns with, wouldn't you agree?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes. That could be.

MR. DEVEAUX: So, what's the framework if they have a problem with their superior? What are they supposed to do?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: In the current situation they do have the opportunity to take it a level above that.

MR. DEVEAUX: Just one level above?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They can actually meet with the minister under certain circumstances.

MR. DEVEAUX: Is that in a section of the Act or regulation that you can cite for me please, or the policy, something that I can get cited?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It's a regulation under the Civil Service Act.

MR. DEVEAUX: Which regulation is that?

[Page 445]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I cannot give you the specific Act, but I can find that out for you and provide you with that information.

MR. DEVEAUX: You don't know which section then or the regulation either?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I do not.

MR. DEVEAUX: Under which circumstances is it that they are allowed to go to the minister? You said, under certain circumstances, so what are the parameters by which they can do that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I would say any matter that they felt they couldn't go to their manager or that line of staff going up through, that they could meet with the minister.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, I want to back up then because a few minutes ago you said under certain circumstances they could go to the minister and now you're saying it's any time they wanted to if they felt they needed to.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: If they felt they didn't have the recourse in that managerial level.

MR. DEVEAUX: So that's specifically what the regulation says, that any time a staff person feels they have a concern that their supervisor is not listening to, they have the right to go to their minister to complain about that? Is that what the regulation says?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I think that it is a little more item specific in relation to conditions of work and so on but, again, I can get that information for you if that is of importance to you.

MR. DEVEAUX: Oh, sure, I would like to see it, but I'm just trying to get a sense for the record. When you say it's work specific, or item specific, you don't know which items those are?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Not exactly, no.

MR. DEVEAUX: So clearly by building more regulation, you're saying that clearly there's a need to enhance what we currently have in place to protect the workers who want to report a concern?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm saying that employees are looking to enhance what's currently in place and this is an avenue to do that.

[Page 446]

MR. DEVEAUX: So, in your opinion as the minister, you would say that currently the framework we have now, legislative and regulatory, is sufficient?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm saying that there are channels there where employees can go through the system, but if they feel uncomfortable, which I have been told and it has been brought to my attention, that they don't feel they have that avenue, we will put more in place to see to it that they do bring forward issues that they feel are important to bring forward. This is an open government. They're welcome to bring the issues forward. That's what we're encouraging.

MR. DEVEAUX: Sure, I understand that. I'm just trying to clarify it though because you keep using the qualifier, what the employees want is more regulation. So I'm trying to clarify whether you, yourself, in your opinion, feel that you currently have a sufficient legal framework to protect workers who want to report something?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, I feel that I represent the employees and if the employees are asking for and require something that they feel is not there, then that's my job to see to it that they do feel a part of it.

MR. DEVEAUX: And that's an admirable position and I'm glad to see that you want to do something, but you keep using the qualifier, what the employees want, and I keep going back to the question, do you, yourself, believe that currently there is enough legal framework to address the issue of workers who have concerns being able to report them and being protected?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, I do.

MR. DEVEAUX: So when we talk about what they want as an enhanced package - I'm trying to clarify. So let's say there's an employee, you know, in department x and they see a problem - overspending. Actually I want to back up because in your statement I do recall you used the term wrongdoing.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: That where they see wrongdoing, they should have the ability to report it. What's your understanding of the term wrongdoing?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I think that definition definitely has to be defined and that's not finalized yet, that's a term that we definitely will work on, but it was actually illegal activity or wrongdoing was what was actually stated in those comments.

MR. DEVEAUX: So let's throw a few out for getting a sense of the parameters of this because right now you guys are working on these regulations, is that right?

[Page 447]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Right now the department is working on these regulations.

MR. DEVEAUX: Great. So are we talking about embezzlement, is that wrongdoing?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I would say that was an illegal act in my book.

MR. DEVEAUX: So you would say that's something that they should . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And, therefore, would be a wrongdoing.

MR. DEVEAUX: What about if someone is spending money in a way that isn't illegal, you know, is not violating any crime or Criminal Code, but maybe is overspending in a way that is frivolous and in some way isn't exactly, you know, spending the taxpayers' dollars the best, is that wrongdoing?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Assuming you're referring to gross misconduct of spending.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, what do you mean by gross misconduct? By using that term, I suspect you have some definition in a regulation where you mean gross misconduct.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, we still have to be responsible for the actions that we take within any department and have to be responsible for the taxpayers' money.

MR. DEVEAUX: Let's say that there was something that was extravagant, you know, not necessarily gross misconduct - well, let me back up. Do you say gross misconduct is a wrongdoing? Is that what you're telling me here today?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: And what do you think I mean by gross misconduct, or what do you understand to be the definition of gross misconduct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there's one out there.

[5:30 p.m.]

MR. DEVEAUX: Right, but you're the minister and you're the one who has to interpret this legislation and you're the one who will be taking to Cabinet exactly what we mean by wrongdoing. So I'm trying to get a sense of what you mean by gross misconduct and you've said it's a legal term. So I'm hoping you, by saying it, have some understanding of what it means.

[Page 448]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And, again, these are details that we are still working through. We have not finished the regulations that are in place.

MR. DEVEAUX: But you were quick to make an announcement on April 21^st and you say the regulations are being worked on?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, they are.

MR. DEVEAUX: And having worked in government and having drafted regulations, I know it's very rare that someone is actually drafting regulations unless they actually know what the parameters are of what will be in those regulations. So are you saying that you still don't know exactly what is going to be in these regulations?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm saying that the definitions are not finalized.

MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go on to something that came up a couple years ago when I was here and it actually happened out of the Liberals, I believe, but there was signed between the Human Rights Commission and the Public Service Commission, or whatever it might have been known as at that time, an employment equity accord, I believe is what it was called, but it was something that was a commitment from every department that they would meet certain criteria to ensure employment equity in the Civil Service. Are you familiar with that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Affirmative Action Policy?

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, I don't think it was a policy. I believe it was actually . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Affirmative Action Agreement, I believe.

MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, it was an agreement, was it, with the Human Rights Commission, is that right?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: What's the status of that right now?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That's something that we have been looking at, it is five years old, and it's definitely due to be renewed.

MR. DEVEAUX: I see, and is there a timeline in which it will be renewed or is there a deadline for when it would be completed?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It's in the work plans to go forward this year.

[Page 449]

MR. DEVEAUX: What, to be renewed with the Human Rights Commission?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: To be worked on with both departments to see to it that it is reviewed and renewed.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, I say renewed because at one point there was some discussion of every department coming forward with an action plan as to how they would promote employment equity, is that correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: And did any departments - maybe you can tell me which departments actually filed an action plan.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The requirement for departments to provide that has not been implemented.

MR. DEVEAUX: So no department has actually filed an action plan?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Through the review process - I'm not 100 per cent sure on that. (Interruption) Formally this has not been done by departments, but there has been work done within the departments to set out targets or policies and actions to move forward with this.

MR. DEVEAUX: You said there were targets. Do you support targets?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, because I feel that if we set a target, we sometimes move on to another category and think that we've satisfied that and we want to go above and beyond.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, how do you set a target and not go above and beyond? I'm not clear what you mean.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We look to have a workforce that is representative of the diversity across the province.

MR. DEVEAUX: Sure, right, but these action plans, when you signed them with the Human Rights Commission, there was a guarantee that there would be action plans produced, is that not right?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And that's, again, currently under review and we definitely will be coming forward with it.

[Page 450]

MR. DEVEAUX: What does that mean, review? The reviewing, to me, sounds like you're actually thinking about not implementing action plans. Are you saying you're definitely coming . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Absolutely not, absolutely not. Probably, if anything, it means the opposite, but we will be pursuing and making sure that departments do follow through on it.

MR. DEVEAUX: When you signed this accord five years ago with the Human Rights Commission, was there some timeline put in place in that accord as to when they were supposed to file originally their action plans?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There was never any formal timeline, but we have been going back to the departments now and trying to get outlines. They have brought requirements forward that we've been working on with those departments individually, but there was never a formal timeline.

MR. DEVEAUX: So it's your position that it was always expected to take at least five years to develop an action plan for each department and all departments?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Could you repeat that again?

MR. DEVEAUX: That it was your understanding it would always take up to five years or longer to develop those action plans, that was the intent of the accord?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We've been working on many parts of the Affirmative Action Policy. This is one that has not been completed and one that we will continue to work on with the departments to see to it that timelines are put in place.

MR. DEVEAUX: With all due respect, you didn't answer the question though, did you? Is it your understanding that it would take five years from the signing of that accord to get to the point where we would just be starting to get action plans developed?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We have definitely gone beyond the point of starting. We've definitely worked with self-identification within departments and encouraged Affirmative Action Policy throughout the departments.

MR. DEVEAUX: How long is the accord? Is it indefinite or was it supposed to be for a certain period of time?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The agreement was supposed to be a five-year agreement and after that time it was supposed to be reviewed and reassessed.

[Page 451]

MR. DEVEAUX: And within that five-year period there would be . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And that's where we are right now.

MR. DEVEAUX: So when is the five years up?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It's a little more than five years right now and we need to be doing that right now.

MR. DEVEAUX: So if the accord was for five years and part of that was that there would be action plans developed by each department as to how they would promote employment equity, then you're telling me that it should have been completed by the end of that five-year period, is that correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Ideally that would probably be correct, yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Most of the work of the accord is about implementing those action plans, would you agree with that, that each department has to develop that action plan before other things can permeate or trickle down from that? Would that be an accurate description?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, it was to act to work to encourage departments to do this.

MR. DEVEAUX: Encourage? I mean in the accord is the word "encourage" or is it expected that every department would have an action plan?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The language was "would".

MR. DEVEAUX: Within the five years?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go on to bonuses, something that came up in the House the last couple of weeks and before that. I had asked you a question last week in the House and I never got a direct answer so I'm hoping here today you might be able to clarify it. It's our understanding and, please, correct me if I'm wrong, that in your first term as a government - I know you weren't the minister then - but in the Progressive Conservatives' first term as a government in 1999 to 2003, you had in place a program where executive assistants to the ministers were eligible for bonuses, is that correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

[Page 452]

MR. DEVEAUX: Can you tell me if any executive assistants received bonuses during that four-year period?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I cannot tell you if they received them, I can tell you that, yes, they could have been eligible for them based on their performance appraisal and MCP employees are also eligible, they're government employees.

MR. DEVEAUX: I see, but executive assistants are not civil servant employees?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, they are departmental employees.

MR. DEVEAUX: And what does that mean - departmental employees?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, they're classified as management and, therefore, eligible for pay for performance.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm not clear on why you can't tell me if they actually did get any, is that up to each department, is that why?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, because I don't know which employees would have received them.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, that's my question though. So does each department decide which one of them gets it and that's why I have to ask each departmental person or, I'm not clear, as Human Resources, you develop the policy, but then it's up to each department to implement it?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That's correct.

MR. DEVEAUX: And is it your policy now that they are eligible for bonuses as well in this term of your government?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Pay for performance, yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: And what are the criteria for executive assistants to ministers to get their bonus if they are eligible?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The same as they would be for departmental employees.

MR. DEVEAUX: And what's that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Meeting or exceeding goals set by their immediate supervisors.

[Page 453]

MR. DEVEAUX: And, again, you can't tell me whether any have actually received since the last election?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No.

MR. DEVEAUX: And does your department keep those statistics?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We would only have them for the MCP level. We would not have them for the executive assistants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me just for one second. I think I'm going to call too many men on the ice right now, four NDP members, if possible, if someone would just sit, or is there a number? (Interruption) So do the Liberals have any problem with it, or yes? (Interruption)

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Although there's an agreement about committees and the number of people who are on each committee from each Party, that doesn't extend, I think, to the estimates' process. This isn't a committee. I mean it's kind of like the equivalent of what goes on in the House. People can keep asking questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll have to see who has more of an institutional memory than I do. (Interruption)

MR. DEVEAUX: Can the minister tell me whether her executive assistant received a bonus in the last year?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I cannot tell you that.

MR. DEVEAUX: You don't know if your own assistant got a bonus or not?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, who would know, if the minister or your staff who are with you today can't tell me, who has been signing the cheques?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: He only arrived in August and it's based on the prior year so I would say no.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, but you don't know?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: He wouldn't have gone through a performance appraisal.

[Page 454]

MR. DEVEAUX: Can you tell me if the executive assistant to the Minister of Human Resources received a bonus between 1999 and 2003, whoever that person or persons may have been?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We could only tell you the gross salary at year-end.

MR. DEVEAUX: And why is that? Why can't you tell me whether they got a bonus or not?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Because that's the accounting procedure that's in place, that it shows under the Supplement to the Public Accounts the total amount that the employee makes which does include, if they were to receive a bonus, that number would be in there.

MR. DEVEAUX: So you're telling me that your department does not keep paperwork in determining whether or not a bonus was ever issued to an executive assistant or any other senior staff between 1999 and 2003?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I'm telling you that the numbers that are published include those amounts.

MR. DEVEAUX: Fine, but I'm asking you, does your department keep paperwork when a bonus - when you do an evaluation, you have to determine whether a bonus is to be issued, there must be paperwork. Someone has to make that decision and put it on paper, correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That would be in the individual's file.

MR. DEVEAUX: I see. So are you telling me, I want to be clear about this, Madam Minister, are you telling me you're not going to tell me because you think it's confidential information or you do not know?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I'm telling you that the way that the recording is done, it's part of their performance appraisal that could give way to how an individual performed and that's why it is in a lump sum at the end of the year.

MR. DEVEAUX: I understand that there's a lump sum that you somehow . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And I'm not in a position to give individual bonus amounts.

MR. DEVEAUX: Why?

[Page 455]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Because, again, it's part of the performance appraisal and that's how it has been viewed.

MR. DEVEAUX: So, again, I want you to clarify, you can't release it because it's part of a performance appraisal?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Because it would actually say how that individual employee performed.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm not asking you to give me the performance appraisal, I want to know whether or not they received a bonus, that's all.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And that would tell you that.

MR. DEVEAUX: Great. So, you know, you talked about senior staff and you provided a list of exactly who those people were who got the bonuses. So I know who - I mean even if we can debate as to what the specific amount was, you have already released, or someone in the government a couple months ago released a list of who got bonuses among senior staff. So can't you even tell me whether an EA in your department between 1999 and 2003 received a bonus?

[5:45 p.m.]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The public is entitled to know in the full figure and that is in the figure in the Supplement to the Public Accounts that has gone forward, which would include any pay for performance . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: In a gross salary.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: In a gross amount.

MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go back to about a month and a half ago, two months ago when we sought, through freedom of information, bonuses to senior staff. We were provided with a list - either we were provided or you released a list - of which senior staff got those bonuses. Would you agree with me that your government did that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I believe the list was of those who were entitled to a bonus . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, there's a heck of a lot of staff . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: . . . or pay for performance.

[Page 456]

MR. DEVEAUX: I see. So it's your understanding that we didn't get a list of the people who got a bonus, only the people who were entitled to. That would be a fairly long list.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: My recollection is the list was not that long.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: If you would like to provide me with that list, I guess I could reaffirm that.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm glad I have to provide you with that list. I'm trying to clarify, again, what is the reason why you cannot provide us with a simple - I'm not asking for the performance appraisal, I'm not asking for any confidential information about the person's performance, I just want to know whether or not they actually got a bonus.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again, we consider that part of their performance appraisal.

MR. DEVEAUX: And therefore, what? On what rationale does that mean you can't answer that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And therefore that is not being provided separately, it is provided in a lump sum of their salary.

MR. DEVEAUX: Are you telling me that a performance appraisal is confidential and therefore I can't access whether or not they got the bonus? Is that what you're trying to tell me?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The details on the size of the pay for performance for individuals, yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Maybe I will do this another way. Between 1999 and 2003, how many executive assistants were employed as the Minister of Human Resources' executive assistant?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, it's a new department, so I will have to back up on that one. There wasn't a full-time minister and, therefore, there was not an EA.

MR. DEVEAUX: So there was no EA between 1999 and 2003?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No.

[Page 457]

MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go back to whistle-blower for a minute, if I could. I'm trying to clarify the process that you see occurring, because this is one of the questions that some of us had when you made your announcement. With regard to whistle-blowing, how do you see this - again, not having written the regulations yet - framework playing out? If an individual has a concern, where do you see the process going, from them saying, look, I have a concern about what's going on, where do you see it going from there?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I think the regulations are just being comprised, as I said before. There are places right now in place where that individual would go to their manager or take it one step above for that to happen, and I guess the employee is looking for something over and above that. But that's not finalized yet, so I can't tell you how that's going to happen.

MR. DEVEAUX: What if, instead, they just went to the media and said, I had a concern in my department, I went to my supervisor, he didn't do anything or she didn't do anything, so I'm now going to the media and complaining? How would your Public Service Commission see that? Would they applaud them, would they give them a plaque, would they say, wait a minute now, we have procedures internally that say you're supposed to go through certain hoops before you do any of that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I guess we're looking for something to be put in place, a better vehicle, for the employee, so they would not have to take that recourse, something that they felt comfortable with, moving up through the system, because I would think that that would not be the vehicle that people would be looking for.

MR. DEVEAUX: By people, you mean who?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Employees.

MR. DEVEAUX: I agree, I think in most cases employees would rather have something dealt with internally. They're loyal to the Civil Service, they're members of the Civil Service. But there may be circumstances in which they might feel that it's the only recourse they have. They have to go to the media, or maybe they have to go to an Opposition member of the Legislature. They feel that nothing is being done. What is your Public Service Commission's view as to how those people would be treated if they did do that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again, I guess that's why we're into this discussion, and we're hoping to be able to give them the vehicle so that this doesn't have to happen.

MR. DEVEAUX: I understand that. I understand that in the perfect world of Utopia that we would not have them leaving and going to the media. I'm trying to clarify whether your department, your Public Service Commission is going to build into the regulations some form of recognition that in some cases that might be necessary.

[Page 458]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It's very unlikely that that will be part of the regulation.

MR. DEVEAUX: So if someone in the government, who's an employee, recognizes a problem, goes through all the hoops that they're supposed to in the regulations, and in the end has still not had their issue addressed, and they went to the media, how would the Public Service Commission view that? Would they view that as insubordination?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We would have to look at each case individually, to see if that was the appropriate course of action for them at that point in time. But I would hope that the vehicle that we're putting in place would give the employee lots of room to move up through the system. Again, we don't have that vehicle finalized yet, so it's hard to say which way we're going, which way we're not going, and hopefully all the t's will be crossed and the i's dotted, and this won't be an issue.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, it will be an issue, because there are going to be times in which, no matter how you build the system for internal review, someone is going to feel the need to go public. Would you agree with that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Perhaps so.

MR. DEVEAUX: And in those circumstances, are you saying today that you will ensure that the regulations you bring to Cabinet for approval will ensure that members of the Civil Service who feel the need to go public will not be reprimanded?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It will depend on the circumstances.

MR. DEVEAUX: So in certain circumstances they will be reprimanded if they go public, is that what you're saying?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I guess if they breach a privacy or confidentiality, there are regulations in place now and so on, I think there are other things that would have to be looked at, rather than to answer that yes or no.

MR. DEVEAUX: So in some circumstances you will see them being reprimanded if they went public?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Will you make a commitment that there will be some circumstances in which they will be able to go public in the regulations?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again, when the regulations are finalized, I guess we will have all those details.

[Page 459]

MR. DEVEAUX: Right, you're the minister who's taking it to Cabinet, so in the end you're responsible for bringing it to Cabinet. Will you ensure that your staff puts into those regulations an ability for people to go public in certain circumstances, where it is appropriate?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We'll definitely make sure there is a vehicle in place that the employees feel comfortable with bringing their concerns forward, or there's an avenue for them to go, besides that.

MR. DEVEAUX: Besides what?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Besides the regular course of up through the steps.

MR. DEVEAUX: I see, and do you see that going to an Ombudsman, going to the Human Rights Commission, do you see it going somewhere else?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I see that as part of regulations that are not yet completed.

MR. DEVEAUX: I see, but again I'm asking you whether, as the minister who is going to take it to Cabinet, you're prepared to make a commitment here to the committee that you will ensure that there will be an ability for those civil servants to have certain protections in certain circumstances, where they feel the need to take it beyond the normal process that you're going to lay down in regulation?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Absolutely.

MR. DEVEAUX: That may still be an internal process?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, it may.

MR. DEVEAUX: It may also be that you will allow them to go public in certain circumstances?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It may, but, again, those details are not finalized.

MR. DEVEAUX: Do you deal with the highway workers, with regard to the fact that they have a separate piece of legislation that allows them to organize as compared to being part of the Trade Union Act? Does that come under your department?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Is it your department that is the one that's adamant about keeping them under a separate piece of legislation instead of allowing them to be organized under the Trade Union Act?

[Page 460]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: In 1997, yes, the highway workers did negotiate their unit with the Public Service Commission.

MR. DEVEAUX: Right now, there's a separate stand-alone piece of legislation that allows them to organize as the Highway Workers' Union under CUPE, is that right?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It happens to be CUPE right now, but yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, I understand. They've been wanting to get under the Trade Union Act, just so that they have to follow the same rules of negotiation and everything else that anyone else does, is that correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, that is the direction that they . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: And who in the government is opposed to them coming under the Trade Union Act?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I guess government in general has supported this concept of them being in this unit for some time.

MR. DEVEAUX: Has supported that they - sorry, can you say that again?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That they be under this specific group . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: Under?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Trade . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: The Trade Union Act?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: The Public Service Commission supports the highway workers . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The government in general supports and has supported in the past.

MR. DEVEAUX: That they come under the Trade Union Act?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Oh, under the Highway Workers Collective - sorry.

[Page 461]

MR. DEVEAUX: That's okay, that's why I wanted to clarify that. I have to ask the question, though, what is the public policy rationale of the government for wanting them to stay under a separate piece of legislation?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: To treat them like Civil Service and to give them legislation that would do that.

MR. DEVEAUX: So why don't they come under the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: In 1997, the government of the day chose to do that and put them under that.

MR. DEVEAUX: It's a different government now.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, it is.

MR. DEVEAUX: You're the minister. You know they even sent us a letter, to every member of the Legislature, I think last week, asking if we would support it. Do you remember getting that letter?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, I do.

MR. DEVEAUX: I guess I'm just trying to clarify, since it's not the same government, you clearly have either made a decision not to do it or to do it. I'm trying to clarify if your government intends to allow them to come under either the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act or the Trade Union Act?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The highway workers, right now, it was jointly developed by CUPE and government. It has only gone through three rounds of negotiations. It's not felt at this time that there is needed to be a change there.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm trying to clarify - based on public policy - I'm just trying to think this through logically - if you don't think they should be in the Civil Service - you're agreeing with me then, you're telling me that they shouldn't be part of the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act, correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They have their own bargaining unit structure, yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Right, so they should not be part of the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act, correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They do have their own.

[Page 462]

[6:00 p.m.]

MR. DEVEAUX: There is an Act called the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act, which they are not under right now. You're telling me that . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That is correct.

MR. DEVEAUX: . . . your government does not support them coming under that legislation?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: CUPE and the government decided in 1997 that they would fall under this Act.

MR. DEVEAUX: You're telling me today that CUPE is actually happy that they're still under the Highway Workers' Collective Bargaining Act?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, I'm not telling you that.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm still trying to walk through this one, so please bear with me. Your government doesn't support them coming under the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act, it does not support them coming under the Trade Union Act, so there must be some rationale why these workers are different than other workers in the Civil Service or in the general Public Service. I'm trying to get from you, on the record, what that difference is that makes them have to be treated differently than others.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: This unit that's currently in place is working and, also, if they chose to go with the Civil Service, it would be under the NSGEU and not under the CUPE agreement because CUPE does not represent . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: So it's your understanding that CUPE doesn't want them under the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act either, because they know they would have to become NSGEU workers?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I cannot speak for CUPE.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. But beyond the fact that they may have to affiliate themselves with a different labour organization, what is your rationale as the minister or your government's rationale for wanting them to be separate?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again, it's a model that has worked, it was only negotiated in 1997, and . . .

[Page 463]

MR. DEVEAUX: But one of the parties clearly wants it changed. They would prefer not to have a stand-alone piece of legislation. So there must be some rationale other than it's working, because I don't think there's anything under the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act that would make - well, maybe there is. What's under the Civil Service Collective Bargaining Act that's different that you feel shouldn't apply to highway workers?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They are not core civil servants, they are employees of the Department of Transportation and Public Works.

MR. DEVEAUX: I see. So, the secretary or the receptionist, when I walk into the Department of Transportation and Public Works, are they a core member of the Civil Service?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No (Interruption) Sorry.

MR. DEVEAUX: So, what's the difference between someone who is paving a road or patching a road in Italy Cross and someone who works in a downtown office in Halifax that makes the difference between being a core and not a core employee of the Civil Service?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The employer, being the Department of Transportation and Public Works, it's a model that's working, and that has been in place, again, since 1997. To maintain that, they are not core government employees, they are employees of the Department of Transportation and Public Works.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the NDP caucus has finished.

MR. DEVEAUX: Could we get a copy of the opening statement, if that's possible?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister - I want to be clear, you're saying that it's against the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to release the names and the amounts of those servants, for the bonuses that they received, correct?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No.

MR. MACKINNON: It's against privacy? There's a privacy rule?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It's between the Treasury and Policy Board and government . . .

[Page 464]

MR. MACKINNON: It's against government policy to release that information?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. MACKINNON: What are the consequences of someone leaking that information out?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It would be breaching the policy and we would be compelled to take disciplinary action.

MR. MACKINNON: Would it interest you to know that the Minister of Finance did that during his estimates by releasing the names of every senior public official in his department who received a bonus and the amount of the bonus?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I think there is a distinction here between pay for performance and bonus.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, he indicated quite clearly that these were bonuses.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And I'm indicating that pay for performance is different than a bonus.

MR. MACKINNON: Oh, pay for performance. Well, could you please distinguish? I'm just amazed by that statement.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There are senior officials in the Department of Finance - and I cannot speak for the Minister of Finance - who are associated with bonuses and not pay for performance. It's two different . . .

MR. MACKINNON: But you haven't distinguished - what's the difference? Why would you give a bonus? Because you like somebody?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I believe that falls under the Department of Finance.

MR. MACKINNON: No, clearly the minister indicated this was part of the government policy.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: What the Minister of Finance released was an incentive to the investment group.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, no, not all of them were on the incentive group.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I have no knowledge of any different . . .

[Page 465]

MR. MACKINNON: Well, I do because he has tabled the information. There are only two out of the eight who were on the investment group so why the contradiction in public policy? Why is it that some public servants can enjoy the executive privilege of confidentiality and others are exposed to the general public? You've indicated, Madam Minister, that you support "open government" and the Tory blue book initiative says that your government expects to conduct the people's business in the open. So why the double standard?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It was my understanding that those were all incentives for the investment individuals.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, the minister indicated quite clearly, and Hansard will show, they were performance incentives. In other words, they're bonuses based on the fact that they've done well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've reached the time, if the minister would care to answer this final question, our four hours for debate are through. Would you prefer not to get the answer now?

MR. MACKINNON: Oh, I would love to, I'm just intrigued. It's a double standard.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again, this here is a Department of Finance incentive policy, it has nothing to do with the MCP or the senior officials' pay for performance.

MR. MACKINNON: I see. So they're not pay for performance?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There are two programs.

MR. MACKINNON: They are paid for?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: This is not pay for performance or the MCP pay for performance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've reached the end of four hours of debate today.

We stand adjourned to meet again Thursday following Question Period and the Liberal caucus will have 56 minutes.

[6:09 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]