[Page 543]

HALIFAX, FRIDAY, MAY 7, 2004

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

9:23 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Mark Parent

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Good morning. Yesterday when we were having discussions, we were still focused on the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and I don't see Ms. Neumann here which is okay. I did have a couple of questions regarding the Public Service Commission. In the past few years when we've had an opportunity to talk about the Public Service, specifically the Civil Service I guess within the Public Service, I've always been very interested in getting information around the implementation of the affirmative action policy of government.

Madam Minister, you will be aware that the Province of Nova Scotia has had an affirmative action policy since, I believe, 1975. Three years ago in a document from the Public Service Commission there was a stated objective to have each government department and agency, board and commission develop a three-year plan to implement the affirmative action policy of government and as I understand, based on a presentation of the commission in front of the Human Resources Committee, very few, if any, departments have complied with the development of a formal plan. As I understand it, there are some informal attempts to address those objectives, but the absolute letter of the strategic directions for the commission have, in fact, not been carried out. So I want to discuss this with you and I want to ask you, first of all, what are you going to do about that situation and when will we see some formal written conforming to a three-year plan of action in the various departments and the ABCs to actually implement affirmative action which has been in this province since 1975?

543

[Page 544]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Human Resources.

HON. CAROLYN BOLIVAR-GETSON: What I can tell you, you are correct that this has not been accomplished in the past, but I can tell you that as part of my mandate it will be completed in 2004-05. We are undergoing consultation now with the various departments. The workforce survey is ongoing and new employees are asked to complete the survey upon appointment and by doing this they self-identify and it's so much easier to categorize so we do have the numbers that we are looking for to see where we stand within government now. A review of the affirmative action practices is underway and, again, that will be completed and the departments will have that information back to the Public Service Commission in 2004-05. So that review will be carried out.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Can the minister tell us why it hasn't happened? What was it that prevented this from happening in the time frame that it was supposed to happen in?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: With the restructuring within the Public Service Commission, resources seemed to be a problem at that point in time to focus directly on this. It is a priority of this government to move this forward and it will be carried out in 2004-05 and staff have been very busy with moving different parts of the affirmative action policy forward.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I know that based on the context that I often have with people in my constituency and from outside my constituency that there is a fair degree of frustration I would say, you know, in the disability community, in the African-Nova Scotian community and other designated groups under the Affirmative Action Program, that government hasn't placed a high enough priority on the implementation of affirmative action and this is, I think, reflected in what the minister has just had to say about the lack of resources and the focus being elsewhere. I think it's quite disheartening to think that we've had affirmative action policies for so long yet the concrete implementation and the plan from that report in 2000 in the various departments actually hasn't come to be.

So, I guess I'm trying to express some of the frustration that I encounter from the public who frequently call me, people who have been submitting applications for jobs in the Civil Service, but also people who are looking for services from government and they don't see themselves reflected in the various departments they're dealing with. I think that this is really a very serious problem and it's one that does deserve the utmost attention and some priority and the allocation of whatever resources are required. I know that if there's anything that the minister can accomplish in her tenure in this position to move that forward, it would be I think a significant accomplishment, given how long it has been that we're waiting for concrete action.

[Page 545]

[9:30 a.m.]

I want to ask the minister about young people getting into the Public Service. When the Public Service Commission was in front of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, if my memory serves me correctly, the graph, the chart that we were shown indicated that probably less than 5 per cent of the current employees of government are under the age of 29. This is a staggering situation in terms of the implications I think for young people coming up through the ranks, getting entry level opportunities, and what this means for the future of public services.

I want to tell the minister that as MLAs, we get to hire one person to run our constituency office and more than three years ago, I guess probably close to five years ago, the person who I had initially as my constituency assistant went to work in Alexa McDonough's office and I hired a young man who was in his last year of political science at Dalhousie. He worked in my office for three years. He came in with very little work experience, but an enormous capacity to grow. I mean his abilities were obvious right at the outset although his experience was pretty limited. At the end of three years in my office he applied to Columbia University in the Master's Program in Public Administration and he's going to graduate in two weeks' time. He's now in the position of looking for employment and he wants public sector employment obviously. He really loves the kinds of opportunities and the whole idea of government providing services and being a force for positive activities in the lives of citizens.

However, it's very doubtful that there will be any opportunities for this young man, even in our own province, which concerns me quite a bit to lose someone of this calibre. He also happens to be from the African Nova Scotian community as well. He has many talents, but yet we don't seem to have the political will to create the opportunities to keep our young people, like this young man, here in our province. Sadly, he will end up working perhaps in some place like Washington, or possibly some other part of the United States, or maybe even, you know, if he can get back to Canada, he certainly would like to do that.

Now, I know that the province has this very limited program in the Summer months and sort of an internship kind of program for a very small number of young people, but I want to talk to you about the plan to expand this, the plan to look at some year-round internships inside the Public Service. Where is the plan to offer these opportunities to the young graduates from our own province who have so much to offer? If we don't do that, we're going to lose these young people.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: One of the programs that we do have within the Public Service is the Post Secondary Internship Program and this is to allow our young people to come into the Public Service and to experience the work environment there. It has been a one-year program in the past. This is a program that started back in 1998. It's something that

[Page 546]

we are working towards making into a two-year program so they can get a wider perspective of what goes on within government.

Now, if we look at the demographics within government right now and realize that the average age inside is 45 and management is 47, the opportunities that are going to be available in the near future are far-reaching. There will be a large number, more than 2,000 civil servants will be eligible for retirement in the next five years and those will open the doors for these young people to come in. The baby boomers are moving through the system and over the course of the term and with the hiring freezes that were on in the 1990s, it definitely is reflective of the number of individuals that we have in that 30 and under age category, but our goal is to definitely increase the number of young people and that's, again, one of the things that I hope to be able to accomplish.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, we'll be holding the minister to that commitment, you can rest assured, because this is something that we all need to take some responsibility for, I guess. I know that my time is probably getting close to the end and at least one of my colleagues has a question. So I'm going to turn the remainder over to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have seven minutes left.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, I really just have one particular focus I wonder if we could pursue and it has to do particularly with gender parity within the Public Service. I thought I understood you to say that some revisions had been done to attempt to regularize pay scales and the position of people in the pay scales, but what I'm wondering about is the basis on which that occurred and it seems to me that it's no more than a starting point to find that men and women ought to receive equal pay for the same job. What I want to know is whether in implementing gender parity you also operate on a principle of equal pay for work of equal value?

Just to explain what I mean, it seems very clear that if a position, say that of an engineer, was being filled by a male in one department and a female in another department and they were both of equal seniority and equal professional qualifications, then of course they should be expected to be paid the same amount. What I'm wondering though is whether your examination of gender parity and pay has gone beyond that and I'm wondering whether you have looked at comparing job classifications that are often traditionally predominantly filled by females compared with those that are often traditionally predominantly filled by males and tried to weigh up whether the general pay scales for jobs that might be seen to be of equal value, are also being paid in the same way. That's what I meant by equal pay for work of equal value. Have you pursued that principle and, if so, can you tell us how? Can you give us some details?

[Page 547]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Public Service Commission did meet the legislation back in the 1990s, that was applicable to the pay equity. We're not aware of any particular problems within that now. Two of the projects that are currently underway are the bargaining unit classification review and also the MCP review. In that, one of the parameters around that is the concept of equal pay for work of equal value.

Traditionally, if you look at the makeup of government right now and you look at the percentage of females and the percentage of males in different categories, when you look at the clerical profession, they're still 93 per cent female and 7 per cent male, which we still have. Now, in the MCP level, which is a number of 1,100 individuals, 44 per cent of those individuals are female and 56 per cent male, so it does seem in the professional field 51 per cent are female, 49 per cent male.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm aware of the fact that some different categories are, of course, dominated by particular genders. That's, indeed, what prompted the question. Madam Minister, you're telling us that you have now built into your classification review the underlying idea of equal pay for work of equal value?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, we have.

MR. EPSTEIN: That applies to all the classifications? That is, you're going to try to compare all classifications to each other?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, that was part of the review that was carried out. It's not quite complete yet.

MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. Fine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We'll now move to the Liberal caucus and it is 9:43 a.m.

The honourable member for Preston.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: I have a couple of questions. In the total workforce in the province, how many people are Black?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There are 156.

MR. COLWELL: What percentage is that of the total workforce?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It's 2.2 per cent. The policy objective is for the Civil Service to be reflective of the Nova Scotia community, and the Nova Scotia Black community is 1.8 per cent of the total population.

[Page 548]

MR. COLWELL: How many of those 156 employees are in senior management positions?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Those were numbers that were asked for yesterday and those were numbers I said I would bring back. We do not have those before us today.

MR. COLWELL: Okay. How many are men and how many are women?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That's a statistic that we could request, but we don't have it broken down that way.

MR. COLWELL: Okay, could you possibly get that for me, if you don't mind.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, we can.

MR. COLWELL: The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a wage watch recently and in that research found that federal government employees enjoy a 15.1 per cent wage premium over private sector. When you put in the non-wage benefits it's actually 23.3 per cent, that's a federal issue. The provincial one is quite similar at 9.1 wage per cent premium over the private sector in the exact same positions, and 14.8 per cent with non-wage benefits are included.

When you look at those numbers, what negative effect do you think that has on the economy when you have the Civil Service making more money than the private industry that actually generates the taxes to operate the province?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm not aware, to start with, of the report that you're mentioning, I haven't seen those statistics. The Public Service Commission is very competitive in some positions, but we're also quite a bit behind in a lot of the other positions that we did mention yesterday.

MR. COLWELL: Okay, could you give us a list of those that you're behind or above on? If you're behind on some of them, there must be some way out of line.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Those comparisons we can get for you, based on statistics that you do have there, but we don't have those before us right now. We do know within the market, we are competitive in some positions, but we do lag behind in some others.

MR. COLWELL: I'm really interested to see it because when you look at the stats of the different wages at the different levels, there must be some positions that are way underpaid and some that are way overpaid. With government employees enjoying that much of an advantage in wages, which I don't argue with, there has to be some people who are drastically underpaid and some that are probably overpaid compared to private industry.

[Page 549]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: If you could volunteer a copy of that report, it definitely would help in our analysis as we get those figures for you.

MR. COLWELL: I will give it to you at the end if that's all right?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That would be fine, thank you.

MR. COLWELL: There's actually some very good information. I'm sure you will find it very useful.

I'll let my colleague ask a few questions now.

[9:45 a.m.]

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Good morning, Madam Minister. Number one, I'd like to go on record as saying that I'm a very strong advocate of women's rights. I see, according to the figures, that the women's centres are funded to the tune of $100,000 each per year?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, each women's centre across the province receives $100,000 a year.

MR. COLWELL: My problem with that is that there's been no increase for five years. Something as important as women's centres, and most of the people, all of the people who work in those centres, can stretch the money like it's made out of elastic. They can make dollars go further than anyone else, yet for five years there has been no increase. There's no flexibility in the budget system for them and yet, I'm referring to yesterday in the House, you defended giving the bonuses to people in government who did a real good job and what I'm wondering is, what about these centres, why aren't they given an increase?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The $100,000 that has been provided has been stable funding over the last five years. Yes, if resources were available, I definitely agree that there probably would be room for more funding in these areas. There are a lot of programs that are funded by the Department of Community Services that could definitely use more money. The funding that is provided for this individual group, they have been able to meet the demands of the market out there and, hopefully, we'll be able to continue to do that, but I do realize that if there was more money available that, yes, there should be more money going into this area.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Madam Minister, I disagree in that over a five-year period a job rate with the same amount of funding brings me to a saying that I've heard on numerous occasions. In this instance it appears to be that the reward for the winning horse

[Page 550]

is more work, five years with the same funding, and it has always seemed that this is a group, and it reminds me that it's an area of the department that really doesn't have the clout or receive the clout or respect for consideration that it deserves. Board workers do what they can with what they have, but what I'm wondering is, are there any specific projects that have come out of the Status of Women that they can say because of the Status of Women we were able to do this and this and this?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again, yesterday one of the comments that we made was that the Status of Women has the right to publish reports. They've published a number of publications. One recently was the report on common-law relationships. There have also been different programs and one specific program that we are going to follow through on this year is a women's campaign school. This is something that I hope to have up and running by Fall, and Making Changes: A Book for Women in Abusive Relationships was also provided - 15,000 copies were provided. We do work co-operatively with the libraries when we're releasing this information and we've actually recently taken a stand on the maternity leave benefits and different things and it's definitely government's avenue to get women's issues to the forefront and the Status of Women do a very good job of doing the research and bringing that information to me as Minister responsible for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Let me take an adversarial approach. If I'm an abuser - I will use myself as an example so nobody can point any fingers at anybody else - and there are 15,000 copies of a brochure that I don't care about because women produced it, what has anybody put in actual law or clout that if I am convicted or I'm a known abuser, or convicted of abusing, what's the penalty there for me other than just give me a brochure to read?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: One thing that this government did put forward was the Domestic Violence Intervention Act and also the pro-arrest/pro-prosecution policy was put forward, too, and that was a direct result of input from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Could the minister explain the pro-arrest policy to me, just give me some information on it? Explain it to me in the terms that I'm the abuser and because of this pro-arrest policy, what would I face, what penalties would I face because of doing what I've done?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, if you are an abuser and you do physically hurt someone, you are going to be arrested and prosecuted. It's as simple as that.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I see that what has come forward is an election program for women. Has that come from the Status of Women?

[Page 551]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Status of Women held a series of workshops across the province to get women who were interested in becoming members of ABCs, municipal-provincial-federal politics, to come out and take part in these workshops. There was one held in February here in Halifax with 50, I believe, in attendance and we had to actually close the doors. There were quite a few individuals on a waiting list. The demand for this type of program is significant.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a women's campaign school in Vancouver in which we took part in a variety of workshops and functions and my goal in going to that workshop was to see how they were run because my intent was to come back to Nova Scotia and be able to set up such a workshop or school here. We are in the process of partnering with organizations and facilities now and getting people onside to do this so that we can initiate a campaign school and, hopefully, encourage more women.

The Nova Scotia Legislature has the third lowest amount of female representation in the country and third only to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. So the 12 per cent that is represented in the House here is quite startling to say the least. So we are going to encourage people out. I think that we need to work with constituency associations and try to see to it that bylaws are put in place in those constituencies so that they allow and they seek out females to run for political office because a lot of times that isn't happening across the province now.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Could I ask the minister where this workshop was held - locally in metro here or where in the province was the workshop held?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There was a workshop held in Port Hawkesbury, Sydney, New Glasgow, Amherst, Halifax and Yarmouth.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: And the funding for those workshops was provided by?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So that came out of their $100,000?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes, it did, or not the $100,000 budget, the Status of Women has a $756,000 budget and 7.8 full-time equivalent employees.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So the funding was additional funding given to them for this new venture or it just came out of their existing budget?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That came out of the regular budget.

[Page 552]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Is there any initiative through the Status of Women to encourage immigration, females who are maybe not qualified professionals, but just ladies with families or children, or just people who would like to immigrate?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Status of Women did take part in the multiculturalism strategy. We are also partnering with Saint Mary's University researchers to see what can be done to facilitate immigrant women into Canada.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So that is ongoing?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That is ongoing and there are members of the Status of Women who participate within those two functions.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: How long has that been in place?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The multiculturalism strategy is a partnership with the Department of Tourism and has been underway since January. The partnership with the SMU researchers has been ongoing now for the last two years and the funding became available this Winter and will proceed onward.

[10:00 a.m.]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Are there any statistics, it doesn't have to be exact, but is there a rough number of those who have immigrated because of the program? Do you have any results?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There is statistical information that will be available and there will be a handbook comprised and put out in June with this information in it. So that will be available.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Okay. In Cape Breton, what women's centres are funded through the Status of Women?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Status of Women do not fund any women's centres or transition houses. They're all funded through the Department of Community Services, but I can tell you which ones, one in Sydney and one in Port Hawkesbury.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: They're funded through Community Services. What I'm wondering, my riding in particular, which is not unlike other rural ridings in Nova Scotia, there's a large geographic area and what I'm thinking of is North of Smokey in Cape Breton. If you have a situation, the transition house is in Sydney. It could be Wintertime. The roads are not the best at the best of times, but given bad weather in the Winter, and a mother and

[Page 553]

children are in need of assistance - I know there's protection involved at the transition house - what does that family do when they're three and a half hours away from that transition house?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, I'd like to start by the Cape Breton Interagency on Family Violence and their partners are developing a plan to deal with the issue of violence and crime, but having said that, there is a crisis line that women can call and they also can arrange transportation by calling the police, to the transition home in the area. I realize that is quite a distance, but that is made available to them by making a phone call.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I was going to mention safe houses, but apparently the province has moved away from safe houses?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That concept has not come up from the transition houses group, to have the safe houses.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Didn't we have safe houses at one time in rural areas, or other areas?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: There were some on the Eastern Shore, some 10 years ago. They were never provincially located across the province. There is also the issue of a safe house with the individual that they're staying with and the security that they would have provided to them. So there are a lot of issues around the whole concept.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: If a mother and family in need pick up the phone and call the RCMP - I'm just referring to North of Smokey because that's one of the areas that I cover - and there's other criminal activity going on that the RCMP are involved with, is there any law or what is the status of that phone call? Is it mandatory that the police take that mother and children to the safe house over and above going to arrest some guy for walking down the road drunk or something?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It definitely would depend on the situation of the nature of the call, but the pro-arrest program would come into play, the policy that's there for that. Also there is the Domestic Violence Intervention Act, that the RCMP - I don't know if they have town police in that area - would have the option of removing the violator from that home, and like I said, depending on the situation, they would have the option, yes, to take that individual to a transition house, or issue an emergency protection order against.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: It always appears that the mother and the children are the ones who have to leave and the abuser seems to be the one who's allowed to stay there. Why not haul him out and put him in jail?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Emergency Services Protection Act does just that. It allows the woman to stay in the home and the man to has to leave.

[Page 554]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The funding for transition houses. How much are transition houses funded? Do they have a blanket coverage, like we were talking about the $100,000, or are they individually funded depending on where they are?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I interrupt for just a moment with the member's indulgence? We just want to welcome guests to our Red Chamber. We have guests from the metro region immigrant language schools. Representing - I think it's quite impressive, the countries represented - Taiwan, China, Indonesia, France, Jordan, Colombia, Iran, Vietnam, Belarus, Pakistan and Hong Kong. Welcome to you all. We're in the middle of estimates and they're going through the budget for the Status of Women. I think three hours on it, which is the first I understand on the budget for the Status of Women, which is a good move, I guess. Welcome to all of you and we'll continue on, sorry to interrupt.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I too, would like to welcome the group here. It's very nice to see.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Department of Community Services would be the funder for the transition houses and it's based on a formula that they use and it's a per diem rate. Now it would depend on the individual transition house. It's not a blanket amount across the province. The number of beds come into play that each house would have and that ranges from Bryony House, with having 24 beds, down to Leeside House in Port Hawkesbury, with nine beds and Autumn House in Amherst with nine beds. The rest being somewhere in between. There are nine transition houses across the province.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Could you just tell me how many beds are in the one in Sydney?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Cape Breton Transition House has 20 beds. They have nine full-time people, four part-time and three relief.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: That's the staff?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So there's 12 staff in all. What's the amount of funding for that individual transition house?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I do not have those figures before me, but the Department of Community Services could provide that for you. I do have some, but I don't have that one.

[Page 555]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Judging by the formula that you're using that so many beds and whatnot, each individual transition house would have a separate amount of funding, has there been any increase in that funding in the past number of years or has it been basically static, the same as the $100,000 for the others?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That question would have to be referred to the Department of Community Services. I'm not aware of that answer whatsoever, but they could get those details for you.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Programs in transition houses, are there any programs in transition houses or statistics that you can tell me of successes of a family that has gone to the transition house, what happens when they're there? When they're there, what do they do or is there any training, is there any input other than keeping them safe that when they have to leave that situation, they're better prepared to go back into the situation that they've left?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Transition houses across the province do several levels of counselling. They provide child care. They work to transition the individual either to go back to their home or to go back into the work environment, to make sure that they have some type of safe environment to go to, that they have alternative plans put in place. There are a lot that I have talked to over the course who have been counselled into seeking educational degrees and programs so that they can further their studies to go out into the workforce as transitions put into place for them to do this. Counselling is the major part of what would go on within, as well as the definite safe protection that the transition house does provide.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So the focus would be on the mother and the counselling of the victim, the mother?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: In the transition house, yes, and the children.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Because that's what I was coming to, the children are probably as much or more affected than the mother, seeing the mother being distraught and abused, and then as a child feeling helpless, I was just wondering is there any focus on the children because those children could grow up to be the direct opposite of what they want to be or being exposed to that is bound to have a negative impact on those children.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Every transition home has an individual on staff who deals with the children and to be able to supply that support staff to the individuals who are there at that time, but there definitely is counselling and support staff for the children.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: That's about it for me. I will turn the time back over to my colleague here. Thank you for your answers.

[Page 556]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Through you, Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on what my colleague was asking, one of the commitments in the Tory blue book, Strong Leadership . . . . a clear course - I believe the minister may be a little bit familiar with it, it predates her entry into the House of Assembly here. However, I think she'll be familiar with this particular commitment - "Establish a Registry of Sex Offenders that will include the names and locations of all convicted sex offenders, as well as those who have been found criminally insane. This information will be shared with police authorities to be made public;"

Now, I realize to a certain extent, that's in measure a Department of Justice issue, but what specific action has the minister and her department taken, you know, as her responsibility for the Status of Women, to ensure that that initiative has been enacted? First of all, has it been enacted and, number two, what action has she taken to support it?

[10:15 a.m.]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The Status of Women is generally supportive of the initiatives going forward, but this is something that is definitely Department of Justice and I'm not sure what the status of this is at the current time.

MR. MACKINNON: Has the minister made any representation to the Department of Justice on this issue?

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

MR. MACKINNON: Why not?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It has not been brought forward to me at this point in time.

MR. MACKINNON: Has it not been an issue of concern by the Status of Women body?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: The issue that did come forward to me from the Status of Women was the rights of the victims and the offenders to be able to definitely look at that to make sure that there are procedures in place to see that the balance is there.

MR. MACKINNON: But have they not made any submission to yourself or to your department asking that this particular commitment be enacted?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No.

[Page 557]

MR. MACKINNON: I'm a little surprised at that to be honest. If I could switch just momentarily, I would like to go over to the issue of the Public Service Commission on salaries and this is the Public Service Commission, not the Public Service, so we'll be speaking specifically of your department. We'll go to Page 116, I guess. The very first one is Effie Anderson. Her salary is identified as $58,890.30. The previous year it was $53,885.30. That's approximately a 10 per cent pay increase. What's the reason for that?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Again I will give you the same response, I definitely will have to go back and look at the individuals to see if that's how they progressed through their pay scale, if they've been moved from one job classification to another, and see where that is.

MR. MACKINNON: Is Ms. Anderson part of a collective agreement or is she in management?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: She would be an MCP.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, then perhaps what I'll do is I'll just skip through a number that I would like to bring to the minister's attention and she can package them.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes. Maybe something that I should bring to your attention before you go any further, no one in the Public Service Commission would be in the bargaining unit and part of the collective agreement. These would all be MCP level employees.

MR. MACKINNON: At the risk of sounding a little naive, could you clarify in layman's terms the difference; MCP, what does that acronym stand for?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: What the MCP does stand for is the Management Compensation Plan and it does include line managers and non-bargaining unit support staff.

MR. MACKINNON: Do you have any detail on any of these employees like how long they've been in service? Do you have any of that detail with you, is that all back in the archives?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We would have to go into the system and get that information and we could provide that to you.

MR. MACKINNON: Okay, in that case what I'll do is, there are a number that I've highlighted and we'll just package them and I'll ask a series of questions on them as a package and you can give an undertaking as to whether you can provide the information or not. Is that okay?

[Page 558]

The first one is Ms. Anderson. The second one is Barbara Ellen Baldwin, her salary increased from $53,133.55 up to $59,003.13. The next one is, Shelagh Campbell, her salary went from $43,647.27 up to $79,702.60. Heather Chandler, her salary went from $48,449.75 up to $54,632.22. The next one that caught my attention was Jason C. Clow, from $49,617.14 up to $54,654.87. Isabel Hache, $52,021.04 up to $58,270.90. Then Marlane Hiltz, or Molly Hiltz, went from $35,641.10 up to $39,075.84 and then Sheila M. Landry went from $67,584.54 up to $73,328.36. Kim L. MacDonald went from $25,057.48 up to $31,617.70 in one year. Anna McCurdy went from $35,641.10 up to $39,075.84. Margaret Mary Melanson went from $54,870.65 up to $60,969.93 and Sandra Parker went from $35,641.10 up to $39,858.96. Lisa Rafuse went from $26,083.18 to $30,234.68. The remaining two, Darlene A. Smith-Spears went from $44,822.62 up to $51,322.28 and Enid Brenda Stout, $58,234.77 up to $63,464.28.

All those seem to be somewhere in the vicinity of the 10 per cent raise give or take, which generally I don't think the salary increase is comparable with the collective agreements. What does that go up, 2 per cent, 3 per cent a year? For the sake of discussion, 2 per cent. It's five times that amount. That's why it stuck out. It wasn't to pick on these particular people. I don't know these people from any other names, it's just that they stick out as quite a few of those in there and I've skipped over some others as well. I guess my question is, number one, why that significant increase in pay in one year? Number two, how long have each of these employees been in the employ of the province? Because if they are relatively new and it doesn't appear that some of them are, I could understand them working up to the max of their pay scale or that job description that's been referred to.

Can the minister confirm, without mentioning names at this point, because we've debated that, how many individuals within the Public Service Commission have received this bonus or award, or whatever term you want to use, performance-based achievement?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yesterday I did agree to undertake providing that information to the member by department. The individuals again, I can tell you that there's 1,100 in the MCP category and I believe 731 was the number that did receive pay for performance.

MR. MACKINNON: Sure, I mean we don't have a considerably large number of employees here. Is there anybody in the department there who has any knowledge as to how many?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, that information could be provided to you, they don't have that available with them at this time.

MR. MACKINNON: Has there been anybody, has there been at least one that received that?

[Page 559]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: We could get that information for you.

MR. MACKINNON: So the minister can't indicate whether anyone has received a bonus or not, out of her department?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Given the calibre of people within the Public Service Commission, I believe you probably will see that there are individuals there, but again that information will be provided to you.

MR. MACKINNON: Is the minister saying that she doesn't know at this point if anyone in her department has received a service award, like this bonus?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That is correct.

MR. MACKINNON: That's really surprising, to be honest. The next issue, which has been debated a bit, is with regard to the number of young Nova Scotians in the employ of the province and I don't want to go back over that because it's been raised by a number of members, including myself, except in terms of futuristic issues.

[10:30 a.m.]

I understand that if a job becomes available and is then posted on the Web site or through some other public notice, people will apply. The powers that be, either within this department or other departments, make a decision, well, we're only going to interview so many. Let's say there are approximately 100 who apply, and they make a policy decision to pick, out of that group, the best 12 or the 12 who we think are the best candidates to do an interview with. That's fine. What effort is the minister's department making to ensure that as many persons under the age of 30 as possible are grouped into that 12?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: When someone fills out their job application and they qualify to come in for the interview, or even before that point in time, we do not know the age of the individual applying for the job. What we are doing is encouraging people to come into the Public Service and to government departments with our Career Starts program, but the age of the individual when they file their form is not provided. That may be an area that we need to go to, but age is not something that is relevant on the forms that they are filling out when they're filing on-line or their applications.

MR. MACKINNON: Generally they put their date of birth, don't they? Oh, that's all done away with. At one time it was part of the package.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They can put their date of birth on there if they choose to do so, but most do not - on the resumé.

[Page 560]

MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps this is an opportunity to change the policy a bit, so as to try to achieve that. Even with the doubling of this youth apprentice program that has been referred to, not only in the blue book but in the government's commitments to double the number of youth being hired, you're still only going to less than 5 per cent - 3 per cent. At that rate, we are going to have a human resource deficit, within the next five to seven years, of considerable measure. I would think it's an opportunity for the minister and her government to try to address that now.

What I'm hearing from many young Nova Scotians is that it's almost not even worthwhile bothering to put an application in, because they don't even hear back. Many of these individuals are university graduates with tremendous skills, computer literacy skills, their academic and vocational backgrounds, training and so on. They're just not given an opportunity to even get an interview. I would ask, perhaps, if the minister would give an undertaking to review this policy, and make an effort to insert that criteria there, not to make it an absolute because, obviously, you have to have a balance of experience and looking into the future as well. You're not going to get all experience with youth, but there's a tremendous amount of lost potential there.

If the minister were to do that, even a certain percentage of the number of ones who are called for the interview process, whether it be only one-third or whatever, I think it would be a step forward from what's being done now. Maybe the minister can indicate that perhaps there are efforts to deal with that. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Some of the comments that you have put forward are very good comments. One of the mandates of this government will be to increase that number from the 3.4 per cent that we currently stand at for the under-30 age group, and it will be something that I will be working diligently on, to see to it that we can increase those numbers over the next couple of years. Something that we also have to be careful of within government, and when we say that we would like to change the forms to get people's age, we have to look at the discrimination factor, too.

We cannot discriminate against anyone based on age. We definitely can encourage individuals to put their age on there, and this is part of the self-identifying process with the affirmative action policy and so on that we're looking into. Again, individuals have to be willing to provide us with that information so that we do realize, on the forms, but we cannot discriminate on age alone.

Part of the Career Starts program, again, is moving into a two-year program, which will allow individuals to have two years of experience within the Public Service and hopefully within that time frame we would be able to, if they chose to stay here, place them within the system. We're also going out to universities and to high schools, their career days, trying to encourage and promote the Public Service as a place where you would want to come to work and that does hold a future for young people in today's environment.

[Page 561]

MR. MACKINNON: Perhaps, if I may make a suggestion, if it were inserted on the application process, an optional section in there, that if they wished to put their date of birth or at least their age, those types of factors in there, because it's an opportunity, as well, to address a lot of the anomalies, the imbalance on the gender issue. In time you would like to get a fair balance between female and male management at the high-end level. There seems to be a deficiency there.

It's futuristic and it's long-term planning, but if you try to achieve a goal of at least - I think realistically you would almost have to get up to 25 per cent or 30 per cent to try to address the problem over the next five to seven years, to make sure that deficiency is not there. Even if you got it up to 10 per cent, you aim high and you come in low, it's a lot higher than where you're at now. I would urge the minister, if she would do that, to have her staff look at that.

I receive calls from young Nova Scotians, some are constituents, some are not, some I've never met before, and they're constantly calling when they graduate from university and saying, well, I can't even get an interview, I can't even get anybody on the line to find out where my application is and that sort of thing. There's a real problem there, it's almost as if the issue of perception and reality are starting to align, and it's on the issue that it's perceived to be a closed shop. I'm not suggesting that's the case, I'm just indicating that's the feedback I'm getting from many of the young Nova Scotians that I speak to who try to at least get their foot in the door, get some experience, at least just get to the interview level.

They don't want a guarantee. They don't appreciate calling a politician. It's not like years ago - the old-style politics. They're very proud young Nova Scotians and they want to do it on their own, but they need a helping hand to at least open the door, say, can I get in and I will sell myself, I can prove to them that I'm the best-qualified candidate. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but at least they want to get in there, and they can't get to first base. That's the primary basis of concern.

Maybe there is a policy to deal with that, and I realize there's a lot of expertise within your department, but there seems to be a growing concern among young Nova Scotians that the doors are closed even before they get to the other side.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: My guess, again, the whole process of applying for jobs, we may need to re-educate the general public in how we're doing things. Resumé writing alone, most individuals do not put their date of birth on a resumé. A lot of the information that we get back to government and within the Public Service Commission for people wanting to apply for jobs is through the resumé-writing criteria so that the resume is submitted and we keep these resumés on form. They do apply online also but, generally speaking, most people do not put their age on there. Sometimes you can do the math and go back and figure out when they graduated and so on but, as a general rule, the date of birth is not put on these.

[Page 562]

It's very good information that you have provided and we do realize the concern that is out there and, again, those numbers are something that we will be working on to try to change over the next years to come. I think that you will probably see that again with the aging population that we have in our workforce and the baby boomers, as they move out of the system, will make room for a lot of these younger individuals coming into the system but, again, we definitely have to watch out that we do not discriminate based on age of any individual who would like to enter the Public Service.

MR. MACKINNON: I can appreciate that, but I wouldn't see it as discriminating so much as addressing a global problem within government and that is that our human resource base is aging and we're not replenishing and regenerating. It's an evolutionary thing and I would be pretty sensitive too, let's say if I were mid-50s or early 60s and had a lot to offer and then said, well, no, you can't because of your age and I understand all that, but there's a balance that can be achieved without going there.

You will never make everybody happy, but I think in some way if the government started to put the word out, you know, we're encouraging more young people to apply, you are our future leaders, and it's only optional, but at least psychologically it will plant the seed within the department, not just your department but all departments, that perhaps, let's say we have a dozen engineers over at TPW who are retiring within the next five years and we have no new talent coming up behind so we have to start planning now. These are the types of administrative and policy decisions that should be collaboratively worked at. So that leads me to the next question, what specific initiatives has the minister taken to deal with her on-line departments on that issue? Has there been any communication back and forth that we can refer to?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our time is finished for the Liberal caucus. We will conclude with the response to this question and then we'll move to the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: I wonder if we could return to the question of the highway workers. Do you need to switch personnel?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: Madam Minister, I just want to see if I understand correctly what the current state of play is with respect to the negotiations with the highway workers and my focus here is not on the issue that was discussed the other day, which is the appropriate piece of legislation, what I'm wanting to discuss with you just at the moment is where things stand with respect to the negotiations now. So first I want to check to see whether I understand correctly what the current state of play is. My understanding is that the contract that's in place expired perhaps a year and a half ago, October 2002, is that correct?

[Page 563]

[10:45 a.m.]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Correct.

MR. EPSTEIN: So this is a full year and a half since the contract expired and my understanding is that under the existing and prevailing legislation that controls the negotiations, certain items can go to arbitration and be dealt with in that fashion. I gather that the board or commission that's set up under the Statute took the view that there was a range of items that they could legitimately deal with. Now, if that was the case, this would have set the stage for either progress in negotiations through the parties talking to each other, or for the use of a dispute resolution mechanism that could have set a contract.

Now, the interest of the parties is normally in getting a contract in place and yet, as I understand it, what has happened is that the department has chosen to go to court to challenge the jurisdiction of this tribunal to deal with the list of items that they thought they could deal with. Is that, in fact, the current state of play?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They have taken it to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

MR. EPSTEIN: They being you, the department?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Yes. The Department of Transportation and Public Works is the employer here. They have taken it to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to see if, in fact, this is something that is arbitrable. The department has one view and the highway workers at this point in time, or their unit, have another view on this and it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide, I guess, who has the right in this choice of what is arbitrable and what isn't.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, that's right. That's what we pay judges for. They make decisions if the parties can't themselves. However, the focus of my question is, why is this in court anyway? This seems to me to be a very peculiar approach to negotiations. For years I worked as a labour lawyer and I have to say that nothing gets up the nose of workers and unions, and more often I would say employers, than when they get the impression that the other party is ragging the puck and rather than getting on with the business of negotiating a settlement, which it's open to the parties to do, if what are widely seen as delaying tactics are invoked, then this becomes problematic and counterproductive in terms of good ongoing labour relations between the parties.

Labour relations is a matter of ongoing history. It's not one event at one time. It's a process of building trust, of building faith in each other, and actually coming together to work out problems. Things that don't seem to have a clear rationale are very puzzling. Now, you know, when I said I practiced labour law, it was primarily labour law on behalf of unions

[Page 564]

although I've done some management-side labour law as well, but primarily it's unions and it will be no surprise to the minister that in my Party we have close links with the union side.

CUPE is the largest union in Canada. If the department, the employer, the government, wants to engage with a union in court, then CUPE is well able to respond to going to court. They can hire the lawyers and they can deal with that. That's fine in a way, but it's not productive to good ongoing labour relations if it's seen as an improper delaying tactic. Now, I'm puzzled as to why this has gone to court. You said it's a question of whether these matters are arbitrable and indeed that's my understanding but, you know, it seems to me peculiar that this case is going to court at this stage or at all. The reason I say that is that it's not usually seen as beyond the powers of a statutory decision-making body to decide whether it has jurisdiction, that is to say to decide for itself.

There are some questions that do frequently arise in that context that have gone to court and, not surprisingly, for example, the Martin decision, with respect to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal on Charter jurisdiction, that's an example of something that's a contested area of law. Does an administrative tribunal of some kind have power to deal with the Charter? Well, that's something that's argued all the time. Does an administrative tribunal have power to deal with certain administrative questions that preceded what went on before a question arrives on its table? That's a dispute that sometimes goes to court.

But there's a third category of questions, which can arise at an administrative tribunal, which is a standard question. That question is, does this tribunal have jurisdiction to deal with the matter that arrived in front of it? When that's not a Charter question, when it isn't a narrowly-focused procedural administrative law question, then it's standard administrative law that a tribunal of any sort has the power to decide its own jurisdiction. That happens all the time.

If, later, one of the parties decides that they want to question that, because they think it's wrong, that can go to court, at some point, but it's very unusual to see a challenge, early on, before a decision is even made on the merits of a case, on that aspect of jurisdiction. An administrative panel, it's usually said, has jurisdiction to decide its own jurisdiction. So, I'm puzzled. Why is this case going to court at all?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, I guess, in the view of the employer, which is TPW, the March 22^nd decision of the Highway Workers Employee Relations Board is seen as going beyond the jurisdiction of the board, as provided in the Highway Workers Collective Bargaining Act.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, Madam Minister, this is, I have to emphasize to you, something that has real potential to cause a non-productive labour relations climate with respect to a significant segment of the group of public employees that the provincial government has to deal with. The perception is that this is an unnecessary delaying tactic, and I'm sure you can

[Page 565]

understand that for a contract to be outstanding for such a long period of time without resolution is bound to be frustrating for the workers involved. I would urge you to rethink this. Dealing with any professionals, doctors, accountants and lawyers, it's useful to take a skeptical view of the advice that you're given.

What I'm inviting you to do is consider the position. If this matter is going to court just because your lawyers are coming to you and saying that they doubt the panel absolutely has the proper jurisdiction here and they think it might be interesting to see what the court has to say, if that's the case, and I'm only guessing, I'm encouraging you to be skeptical about this and think strategically about the labour relations aspect of it, and consider the use of the law only as a tool, a tool that might advance good labour relations or might retard good labour relations. I hope you consider that, if it's within your bailiwick or urge it upon your colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Public Works, if the two of you discuss this.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I do thank you for the advice. Highway workers are valued by this government and TPW. They've been and continue to be an integral component of the Public Service of Nova Scotia. The employees and their union have the right to pursue interest arbitration, and we respect that. The appeal is not directed at the employees or their union, but as a board decision which we feel went beyond its defined legal authority. In the end, this is why we're where we're at and the decision has been made to go to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, for them to make a decision on what is arbitrable and what isn't. Again, having said that, I do respect your opinion, and will take it under consideration.

MR. EPSTEIN: Let's hope this is settled very quickly. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're finished with questions from the NDP caucus. Are there any questions from the government caucus? Not at this time. Are there any more questions from the Liberal caucus?

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, just quoting from some of the blueprint book here, it says in the Premier's message, "As a government we've worked hard to put in place the fiscal, economic and social conditions to help move Nova Scotia forward." Can you describe to me some of the social conditions - we'll go back to the Status of Women - to improve their conditions, since you've taken power? Just below it, he says . . .

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Could you repeat that first part again, please?

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I'm just reading from the blueprint book, the message from the Premier, he says, "As a government we've worked hard to put in place the fiscal, economic and social conditions to help move Nova Scotia forward." He follows up by saying,

[Page 566]

"Today our financial situation has never been more secure . . ." That leads me back to the first question that I had previously asked about why the women's centres were locked in, for the last five years, at $100,000 in funding. I'm just wondering what social conditions have come about to improve the plight of women over the past number of years?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: From the social perspective and the Status of Women, one of the largest areas is the increased employment. There are more Nova Scotians working today than at any other time, including Nova Scotia women. The ability to be able to seek help and to be able to go to transition houses and so on, where in the past it was frowned upon, it's a more open concept, it's more socially acceptable for women to be able to do this. The increased employment, that women are actually out in the workforce, are more socially accepted within that profession or different professions across the province, and it definitely has boosted the numbers within this category. Again, in relation to the transition houses, just the ability to be able to seek help, without being frowned upon, is a huge step forward.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Do you think the employment statistics are a direct result of any programs that are being put forward by transition houses?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They definitely do counsel people and try to transition people back into the workforce. I'm not sure what the statistics are on those numbers, but I'm sure they are available. Any statistic, one is a lot in these situations.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: But the actual support for these transition houses is counselling only, there's no actual training that a person who has visited a transition house could enter a specific program and be trained and, as a result of the training, receive employment.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Transition houses are not training units, but they would put the individuals on the right paths, so they could pursue careers - whether it's upgrading with GED or whatever, they definitely would steer them in the right direction to have this at their fingertips so that they are able to achieve these goals.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I see here also that it says, under the title of Safer Communities/Streets, you're going to increase support for the Domestic Violence Case Coordination Program. Has that been done? Is it ongoing?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That would be with the Department of Justice, and that's ongoing.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: It says here you funded new programs and services to support women and youth with addictions. Could you describe some of that for me, please?

[Page 567]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: I'm not sure what the funding level is. It was a program that was administered through the Department of Health, which put more money into Addiction Services in rural areas in Nova Scotia, for women and youth.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: If somebody landed in a transition house, they wouldn't be treated there, as such, would they? Would they receive that treatment or support there, or would they be counselled to go somewhere else?

[11:00 a.m.]

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: It would depend on the individual's specific needs. Every case is different. It's hard to say which way they would be at that point.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: But if somebody were to land there who was addicted to drugs or alcohol, there must be some specific programs in place that would steer these people or help them while they're there?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: They would be linked to Addiction Services. They could live at the transition house and acquire the service for Addiction Services through another department.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: It also says here about where you introduced new community-based programs through family resource centres to support healthy child development. Would that come under your jurisdiction?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: No, that would be under the Department of Community Services.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: What about the opening of daycare spaces? It says opened 400 full- and part-time daycare spaces.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: And, again, that would be the Department of Community Services.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Community Services, okay, I will move off that topic. I see it says, "Create a 'Kids N Care' navigation system for children and youth with emotional and behavioural problems . . .", so I guess that would come under Community Services also?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Those are all Department of Community Services' initiatives.

[Page 568]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Okay, I would like to just touch on the highway workers. This appears to be a group that is doing good work, but living and working under rather stressful conditions. We've all received a letter asking for support for the highway workers which I signed and returned because there seems to be an initiative to phase out the highway workers and replace them with private contractors. This has been going on for quite some time and there appears to be little or no hiring anymore in the Department of Transportation and Public Works. Does that come under your realm under the Public Service?

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: That would be TPW where that would fall.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I was just thinking of the Public Service. Well, that concludes any questions I have for the minister and I want to thank you for that. That's it for me, Mr. Chairman, I've concluded my questions of the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Government caucus, I assume has no questions. The NDP caucus, you're finished. We will take a two-minute break since the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is here and we'll move on to that department. Oh, closing remarks, I'm sorry.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Does the resolution get read at this point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you read the resolutions and any closing remarks you wish to make.

MS. BOLIVAR-GETSON: Well, I would like to thank all the members who asked the questions and, hopefully, we were able to provide as many answers as we possibly could. Any information that I have said that I will get back to you with, we definitely will provide you that in a timely manner. I would like to thank all the Public Service Commission employees and the Status of Women staff who followed me around for the last few days. I definitely appreciate having them here and at this point in time I would like to read the resolution:

Resolution E19 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $756,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We stand adjourned for three minutes, if possible we can keep it that short, just to change staff.

[11:05 a.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[11:09 a.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

[Page 569]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the subcommittee back to order. We're now dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

Resolution E30 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $92,352,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, pursuant to the Estimate and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation be granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

HON. BARRY BARNET: Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that I'm looking forward to answering questions on the budget estimates for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs. This will be the first time for the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs; as members would know, this is a new initiative for the Province of Nova Scotia.

With me at the table is Acting Deputy Minister Greg Keefe and the Manager of Financial Planning and Budgeting, Greg Sewell. As well we have with us today Wayn Hamilton who is the interim Executive Director of the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs, Jane Fraser from the Municipal Finance Corporation and Joyce McDonald is a budget officer as well. The Acting Executive Director of Municipal Services, Nathan Gorall, isn't here, okay.

I will start by saying I'd like to tell you a little bit about Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, but first I want to touch on a few budget highlights. By comparing the estimates of the funded staff from last year to this year, you will see a difference of about 50 staff. The majority of this difference is explained by the fact that 37 vehicle inspection and compliance positions were transferred from Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to Transportation and Public Works.

Another line that should be explained is the distinction between the gross funded staff estimate and the provincially funded staff estimate. The first number, 885, refers to the total number of full-time equivalent positions in the department. Of those 885 FTEs, about 162 are funded by outside organizations. Virtually all of these positions are in the Assessment Services Division which undertakes property assessment for municipalities. These positions are appropriately funded by municipalities. The lower number, 772 refers to the positions funded solely by the Province of Nova Scotia.

Our department is an interesting mix. Virtually every Nova Scotian at some point in their lives has direct contact with our department - from registering the birth of a child to registering the ownership of a car to filing a deed to a home, all of these major milestones involve contact with our staff. This year our staff will have about 2 million interactions with

[Page 570]

Nova Scotians throughout our network of offices, the call centres, assessment services, Access Nova Scotia branches, the Registry of Deeds and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. We view our role as one of making every one of these 2 million transactions as easy and convenient as possible.

Our staff also play an important role in the development of communities. We foster strong municipalities with information and advice and with financial support. We also provide property assessment data to municipalities and over 500,000 property owners each and every year in Nova Scotia. Municipalities use that assessment roll for the levying of property taxes, which are the foundation of municipal finances. Through the Registry of Deeds, the department provides a vast array of geographic information and property registration services.

Like every government department, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations has wrestled with a significant challenge. Our costs were increasing, yet we had to keep the lid on spending. We are very pleased that we've been able to meet this challenge without significant reduction to front-line service operations. After all, this is the core of our department.

We will continue rolling out the new land registry system into more counties this year. We will also accelerate the migration of land parcels into the new system in 2004.

At this time, I'd like to go over some of the highlights of our business plan for this year. Part of our mandate is to help municipalities offer quality services to their residents as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are encouraging municipalities to share and adopt each other's best practices. For example, our department is hosting a workshop in Pictou County next month. The purpose of this workshop is to explore ways in which all six municipalities in Pictou County can improve efficiency and deliver programs through shared services.

We are leading an effort to expand the quality and the number of e-services available to municipal residents. A report with recommendations for further actions will be completed this year.

Earlier in my remarks, I had mentioned we had a plan to expand the new land registry system. This system will transform our 250-year-old paper-based property registry into a state-of-the-art electronic land registration system. This is a major undertaking in our department. Once fully implemented, it will benefit property owners for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the many areas where Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations employees will be acting on behalf of Nova Scotians throughout this fiscal year. Every day the employees of this diverse department go all out to help and serve their fellow Nova Scotians. They are fine civil servants and I am proud to be their minister.

[Page 571]

[11:15 a.m.]

As you know, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is one of my portfolios. A much smaller operation, but an equally important responsibility is the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs. I am very fortunate to have two very capable people helping me to get this office up and running - Wayn Hamilton, the interim executive director and Evangeline Williams who is the support staff there. We plan to add more staff this year which will enable us to move forward with fulfilling the mandate of this important office.

The creation of this office was an important step to advance the interests of African Nova Scotians. I have learned a lot throughout my regular briefings with staff and with my meetings with African Nova Scotian community leaders throughout the province over the past nine months. One thing is certain - we have a lot of work to do. I look forward to making more progress on issues facing African Nova Scotians over the coming year.

I'm sure the committee has some questions and with the assistance of my able staff, I'll be pleased to answer those questions. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your opening remarks. We'll begin with the Official Opposition.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's overview of the department because, as he said, it's a large and very diverse group of concerns. Many of them are coming to the forefront in different contexts, obviously. There's a complex and changing relationship between the province and the municipalities and I know that facilitating that is one of the most important aspects of this that you have.

Perhaps I should begin by saying that the Municipal Government Act no longer includes one of the areas in which I'm very interested which is the Heritage Properties Act. I realize that's now under Health Promotion, but I don't know whether you've continued to have dealings with that at all?

MR. BARNET: To the extent where, from time to time, municipal councils or councillors or wardens or mayors will bring issues to me or to my attention. There haven't been a great deal of those brought to my attention but when they are, it's more of a facilitator to work with the minister responsible for heritage. Often, we're able to use the relationship that the minister and I have to assist municipalities.

MS. RAYMOND: Do you consider that actually an appropriate division at this point, that the heritage aspects of the towns and counties of Nova Scotia should be dealt with purely as a tourism promotion thing rather than as an essential element of the planning structure?

[Page 572]

MR. BARNET: What I would say is that although heritage has a significant role or factor to play in the promotion of this province from a tourism point of view, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Heritage has another role, which is to protect the heritage of Nova Scotia. It's a significant entity within that division. They have significant expertise from my perspective, with the expertise that they have and the fact that they're responsible for the Public Archives, I think it's the appropriate place to be. There will be times and occasions, like in all departments, where issues will transect more than one ministry and it's my hope and expectation, and it has been our practice, that when that happens we work well together and we're able to ensure that ministers are aware, and the appropriate actions are taken in the event any action is warranted.

MS. RAYMOND: I will probably come back to that because certainly, there's heritage promotion and there's heritage protection. I would argue that the built heritage of the province is, in fact, an important part of the infrastructure of the province and it deserves more than a passing recognition, it's one of those things, it's a non-renewable resource in essence.

I guess a lot of the questions right now are things that have been happening most recently and given that the province does have to deal with municipalities on the issue of funding and so on. Property assessments, both commercial and residential seem to be a real irritant at this point. Can you tell me - and initially I will be a little topical here - the question that is being asked about the provinces becoming involved in the assessment of the Imperial Oil Refinery and the bill that was introduced involved LNG, are there likely to be other instances that you can see coming up where the province would look at commercial property assessments?

MR. BARNET: It is difficult to predict the future but during the bill briefing earlier today what I did say was that it is our intention to move forward with a review of industrial/commercial assessment, to determine what would be in the best interest of Nova Scotia, and how we could best portray ourselves from a competitive point of view. It is an issue that has been out there in the forefront of municipalities for a long time. There had been a wide variety of one-off fixes, where they simply fixed one assessment or developed a mechanism to resolve one issue.

My belief is that we need to look at the entire picture and we need to do that in consultation with municipalities. We need to do that with the mind that we have to protect municipalities' ability to grow, and to support the services that they pay for through assessment. But we need to do that in a way Nova Scotians, as a whole, will benefit. I expect in the future - and I have said this - we will be moving forward with an initiative that will examine how we can first of all prevent issues like Imperial Oil from becoming an issue, and second to provide some level of predictability and stability for businesses that are contemplating locating here in Nova Scotia, so that we can be seen, from a geographical point of view, as an equal opportunity as our competing jurisdictions.

[Page 573]

Having said that, I wouldn't point to the future and say this industry or that industry will be the next. I think the best approach for government is to begin the process of understanding what the problem is, and put in place a resolution that is beneficial to both the Province of Nova Scotia and the municipalities, and more importantly, the people who live here.

MS. RAYMOND: I know that in some jurisdictions the assessment system is less of a blunt instrument, we have basically commercial and residential assessments. I think it is in Manitoba where they actually have a fairly sophisticated stratification of types of properties. Were you looking at that at all?

MR. BARNET: What we will do as part of this process is examine the practices elsewhere. I think it is important to find out what is being done in other jurisdictions. It will enable us to first of all have a look at how we compete and how we are from a competition point of view with our neighbours. Right now we do have a system that enables us to charge different rates for residential and commercial and I know that - you said, Manitoba, I'm not completely aware of what they do - in other jurisdictions, they have a variety of assessment types. While in Nova Scotia we have basically only the three: resource, residential and commercial and that maybe - I wouldn't want to prejudge - the outcome of a review of this may necessitate us looking at an approach or a model that's done elsewhere.

MS. RAYMOND: I think it is really a very important element of what is going on at this point because, philosophically, I think we need to be looking at the uses of property as much as anything. As you know, there is a great deal of friction around the property assessment issue and so on, when use as an income derived from property hasn't changed in the least, yet taxes do, due to external influences.

Looking at that, I know you said the individual municipalities are among the external agencies which are funding the assessment agency. Where would I go to find out which municipalities are, in fact, paying which assessment rates?

MR. BARNET: For the assessment division itself?

MS. RAYMOND: Yes.

MR. BARNET: All 55 municipalities contribute toward assessment and the formula is based on the number of accounts within a municipal unit and the overall value of the assessment. A municipality's bill would depend on, for example, if a town had 500 houses and x amount would be a calculation of the total cost to operate the assessment division with those two factors, depending on how much that particular town's bill would be.

MS. RAYMOND: So that formula does, in fact, take into account the actual value of the assessments though, does it?

[Page 574]

MR. BARNET: That's right, it's a combination of the two.

MS. RAYMOND: That could be a slightly conflicted relationship I would think. So where would I find those actual figures, of the recoveries from the individual municipalities for the assessment service?

MR. BARNET: We don't publish that information in any of our reports but we can produce that information. If you are interested we can provide you a copy.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, I would very much like to have that. One of the other issues that actually comes up particularly in my constituency which is, I'm sure you know, partly urban and partly rural - and has not had the service exchange agreement reviewed actually since the time of amalgamation - is the issue of road maintenance and so on. I'm just wondering when, particularly with the HRM, we could expect that there would be a review of those responsibilities?

MR. BARNET: There were two agreements that actually were entered into with the HRM and the Province of Nova Scotia. One was a service exchange agreement where the HRM simply exchanged services that they were providing for services that the province was providing. Generally speaking, it was roads, community services, there were other things as well. I think what you are probably talking about more specifically is an agreement that was reached between the municipality and the province, specifically around roads and the jurisdiction of who owned which roads.

A regional municipality is different than a town and it's different than a rural municipality. The HRM entered into an agreement in 1997 or 1998, in fact, I moved the resolution in council at the time. There has been some ongoing discussion between the Department of Transportation and the municipality about amending that agreement, I believe it has been amended once. There is discussion around developing a new relationship that would see a different arrangement than what's there right now, an arrangement that's more practical for both levels of government, and would be a mutually agreed to decision.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, sorry. I have to go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Needham.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Thank you, my colleague had to leave for a few minutes so she has turned the microphone over to me. I would like to ask the minister some questions about the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs.

I want to start by saying I believe that the government has allocated a little more than $3 million - is that correct - to the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs for this year?

[Page 575]

[11:30 a.m.]

MR. BARNET: No.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: How much has been allocated? Maybe I'll just start with that - what's the budget for your office for this year and what are the full-time equivalent staff that will be in that office?

MR. BARNET: The allocation is $428,000. The full-time equivalent is 3.5. Bearing in mind that because we're an office that's under construction and we're just developing this now, we will be more than partway through the overall budget year before we are in a position to fully staff that.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You started off by saying you will be adding to the staff so I guess I want to ask you, how many people will you be adding to your current complement? When will you be adding them and what will those positions be?

MR. BARNET: Currently we have simply Wayn as the interim executive director and we have Evangeline, who is the administrative support person. In the 2004-05 funded staff formula we have an administrative support, and these are 0.5: a clerk, a policy analyst, deputy minister/CAO and an interim executive director. So that's 5 halves and one full.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: The government has also created the Office of Health Promotion and has introduced legislation before us that actually defines what that office will do. I'm wondering, is it your intention to introduce legislation that will define the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs and place it inside the Public Service Act as is the case with the Office of Health Promotion?

MR. BARNET: I don't think we've actually contemplated that at this point in time. It's something we could take into consideration. What we have been doing is developing a business plan or a go-forward plan on how we develop the office and determine its complete role and mandate within government and how it will function within government. It's something that I'll take under advisement and consider. At this point we've been so busy trying to consult with stakeholders and to just do the initial groundwork of developing the office, getting it up and running and determining within government what our role and mandate will be that we haven't had a great deal of time to focus on an issue around whether or not we believe it needs legislation to give the office its mandate.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: That brings me to my next question, which is, how have you defined the role and the mandate? I think this far I certainly haven't seen anything that says this is our mandate, this is our role, this is the remit within which we've been given the responsibility to operate. I think that, certainly, I have a lot of contact with people in my community and from other communities and a question they're constantly asking is, what is

[Page 576]

that office going to do? I keep saying, we haven't heard how they have defined their goals and objectives.

MR. BARNET: It is a legitimate question that has been asked of us. In fact, one of the things that we began early on after being appointed as minister was a round of extensive consultation with key stakeholders to get advice, input and guidance in terms of feedback from them to help us develop exactly how they see this office benefiting the community.

The last thing I wanted to do was to come in and set up an office that may not completely mesh with the desires or the wishes of the community. We began a process of actually going out and meeting with individuals, groups and organizations. We started this almost immediately after being sworn in as minister and it's been a process that's been ongoing for the last nine months.

Literally, myself and my administrative assistant, and Wayn as well, have criss-crossed this province. We've been to nearly every single African Nova Scotian community in Nova Scotia. We've met with groups and individuals - both organized and not organized. We've sought out associations and groups on a variety of fronts that affect Nova Scotia. We've met with groups and individuals involved in social work, justice, youth justice, policing - including the RCMP and others. We've met with groups and individuals involved in education, both the public school system and post-secondary as well. We've met with groups and individuals involved in housing initiatives, heritage, tourism and culture, economic development, community development, nearly every facet of life; we went out and tried to do as broad a based consultation as we possibly could.

The concept was that I would go out, talk to them, tell them about the concept of what the office looks like from an initial blush and then ask for their input and advice and feedback. From that advice and feedback, we've been in the process of developing the actual role of the office. One of the things that we received very early on and consistent throughout the process, they didn't want an office that was simply going to sit and study issues. They want an office that would be able to bring action. They wanted a minister who would be at the Cabinet Table when key decisions were made. They wanted access, to be able to provide input to that minister for those types of decisions. They didn't want the office to replace existing programs that are being offered within government, particularly the Province of Nova Scotia, but as well, they specifically said they didn't want the office to step in and take over initiatives the federal government was doing around community economic development.

So, with that, we've been in the process of developing our mandate. It's loosely defined around a number of topics - community outreach, interdepartmental relationships with the African-Nova Scotian community, negotiate and discuss with African-Nova Scotians how government can support them through the variety of departments and services that we offer. As well, communication, education and public awareness around things that we do here in Nova Scotia. I guess the most important element is to be able to bring a voice or have an ear

[Page 577]

to the community at the Cabinet Table so that when decisions are made that will affect African-Nova Scotians, that there's an opportunity for their views to be reflected at that decision-making process. It's our hope and expectation that we'll be able to do that.

We've also begun a process of working with the other departments within government. We've sought out those groups and organizations and divisions within the government to seek their advice and support and to let them know that we're here and there will be times when we will come to them, looking for support.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: At the moment, do you have a draft of your goals or objectives, a mandate?

MR. BARNET: We're drafting and drafting and redrafting. At some point in time, in the near future, we intend to finalize our business plan - what we're calling now our business plan - which is loosely our mandate and what we intended, how we intend to see the office working for African-Nova Scotians and for all Nova Scotians. It's my expectation that will be in the very near future. It's been a task that Wayn has been working on diligently. It will guide the administration and the ministers in the future. So for that reason we want to do it right, we want to have it effective and efficient.

When we have it complete, if we're in session, it's my hope to table it in the Legislature. If we're not in session, at the next earliest and most convenient time, we'll do that. As well, if we're not in session and it becomes complete, we'll provide the critics with copies, and we'll start distributing it to the community members, so that they're aware of what we see as the role of the office and how it will work.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I appreciate that. As you know, I represent the constituency in the North End of Halifax where the Black United Front used to have its head office. Over the years, as a social worker and a community worker in the North End of Halifax, I certainly had a lot of contact with various people who worked at the Black United Front. I remember, very well, when funding was lost to the Black United Front, and I often say to people in my constituency, in the six years that I have been the MLA, I sometimes felt like hanging a shingle outside my office where it says, Maureen MacDonald, MLA and it would also say Halifax Regional welfare rights, the Black United Front of Nova Scotia, legal aid services and what have you.

I have seen so many organizations that were really important to different groups in my community and other communities lose funding during those 10 years of government restraint. The loss of the Black United Front, in particular, has meant that that kind of front-line, grassroots organization that so many people relied on was no longer there and was never really replaced, and still hasn't been replaced. This isn't to suggest that that's what your office should be doing, but this is something that definitely having an office now that can look at services in the reorganization and the reduction of government services and moving to a

[Page 578]

model of having core services and others providing services that aren't defined by core. What has been lost - for example, the African-Nova Scotian community - in that process? Who's there taking up the slack? Where are those resources that people need to develop new housing initiatives and get access to federal-provincial housing initiatives, initiatives around business development, initiatives around training and education?

One of the really important functions that the Black United Front played besides doing a ton of case work, I remember Frances Mills from the Black United Front, everybody knows Mrs. Mills, who's long been retired, but she was an amazing advocate and case worker. She carried huge case loads, and she was always working with families around issues, if their kids were having a difficult time in the school, she was there. If there were child welfare issues, she was there. If there were income assistance issues, she was there, if there were housing issues.

So, for many of the field workers with the Black United Front around the province, that's what they did. They were trusted advocates that did a ton of advocacy and case work, they went with people to court if they were trying to get custody or access of their children or maintenance. They helped them understand and negotiate systems that sometimes weren't all that friendly, weren't open, where, maybe, people from the African-Nova Scotian community didn't find themselves reflected in the personnel. All of these kinds of things that those field workers did, but then, beyond that, the Black United Front provided a place where leaders from various communities could come together and articulate and organize to be able to make their voices heard.

[11:45 a.m.]

When you're less than 2 per cent of the population in a province, that can be a challenge, when everybody else is clamouring for health care dollars, for roads and bridges, how do you, when you are such a small percentage of the population, get your issues treated with the importance that they deserve? The Black United Front played that important function, and I think its loss has been profoundly felt throughout the province. There hasn't been a vehicle for very dispersed communities to come together and make their voices heard.

I give the minister full marks for the program, for going around and meeting with people in communities. I've sat back and watched this process that you've gone through, and I know that you've probably had to handle some criticism for consulting. You know we've had reports, we've had all kinds of things, and the last thing we need is more, we need action. My observation is that you've been sincere, you've approached this very thoughtfully, and I think that's very important.

The next thing I would say is to focus on those reports. We have had quite a few reports in the area of education. We've had reports with respect to Blacks in the justice system in Nova Scotia, primarily the research that was done coming out of the Marshall

[Page 579]

Inquiry. We certainly have had several task forces and reports coming out of the ending of the Black United Front out of Community Services. There have been reports around inner-city education and a number of other studies. I think there is some sense in the Black community that there have been a lot of studies, a lot of reports, lots of consultation, lots of recommendations, but very little action and very little movement.

I wonder if there has been an attempt to consolidate all of the studies and the reports and the recommendations to really get a handle on what has already been done so that there isn't a revisiting or a recreating of what's already in existence and to really look at, how do you build an action plan on the existing foundation of studies and reports? Is that part of what you have done or you've thought about doing? I wonder if you could speak to that. Also, speak to the issue, how from a ministerial office you can build in or facilitate or find a way to continue to build community capacity to advocate for itself.

MR. BARNET: You've asked two very important question on points which we've been working extremely hard at over the past number of months. One is with respect to the reports and the recommendations and petitions to government. We've done some analysis, petitions to government date back to 1859 when Inglewood residents petitioned the Government of Nova Scotia for services. They worked through a series of reports, the Cooper Report, the Stevens Report, the Black Man in Nova Scotia Teaching Report from St. Francis Xavier University, the Human Rights Commission was established in 1967, in 1991 Nova Scotia responded to the Report of the Nova Scotia Advisory Group on Race Relations. There are and have been a number of reports that have been developed for government and it is a sad thing to say and to report that many of the recommendations have not been followed through on. Part of my task, as the minister, will be to develop a sense of good faith and goodwill with the community and the only way that I can see that we can develop that good faith and goodwill and to get complete buy-in about the benefits of this office and having this office work for them is if we start making some tangible steps forward.

One of the directions that I received from the Premier early on, and I heard it over and over again as I went through consultation, there have been a lot of reports done, Minister, dust them off, prioritize them, and get to work. That's, in essence, what we've done. We've developed a fairly comprehensive list of areas that have been identified throughout a variety of reports, including recommendations on health, employment, youth, education, community services, urban and rural services, community well-being, justice, tourism and culture, economic development, civic education and infrastructure, and those recommendations will be imbedded within our final report and become not just a business plan, but a work plan and a process where we can step forward.

We have analyzed this to death. The old saying paralysis by analysis applies. It's now time to get to work and that's what our office is about. We don't intend to spend a lot of effort redoing the work of others. We do intend to spend time ensuring that it's prioritized right and we make the right logical steps in a positive direction.

[Page 580]

With respect to your question on how we intend to continue to get advice and feedback, we've talked about this and one of the issues that I've spoken to the community about, and we've been talking about it in the meetings that I've had, is how I can, as the minister, continue to get the ear and the advice of the community and continue to have them involved in the decision-making process through me. We provided them with a variety of options. One of the options that seems to be coming to the top in terms of an approach is the use of primary reference groups as an opportunity to identify a number of key stakeholders who from time to time we will go to and seek advice and input on specific issues or on a variety of issues.

This is an approach that's used in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions that works very well. It is similar to Voluntary Planning and these types of things, where you have a list of key stakeholders who you can go to and receive advice from but, at the same time that we intend to do that, I see it as a primary role, as minister, to continue to stay in touch with the community through a series of consultations and through community meetings. The process of actually going out and meeting with community groups and individuals began nine months ago and will continue as long as I'm the minister and I expect the next minister will continue to do that.

I think it's a part of government, a part of good government, and I think it will enable us to at least ensure in our minds that the direction we're going in meets the approval of the community or at least the community is aware of it and is able to provide us with some advice before we make some key decisions. So I hope that answers your question.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: It helps for sure. In the last couple of days I've had an opportunity to talk with different ministers from different departments within your own government. I think just last week the Public Service Commission came in front of the Human Resources Committee, I think it was last week, and we invited them because we were really concerned about the implementation of some of the affirmative action policies of government. The Province of Nova Scotia has had an affirmative action policy in place since 1975 yet there isn't one government department that has put in place a three-year plan to implement affirmative action which was a directive that came from the Public Service Commission three years ago.

In their business plan they had an objective to have every government department and every agency, board and commission develop within the directives and guidelines of the Public Service Commission a plan of action to move forward with affirmative action and this has not happened. Now, I've had a chance to talk with the minister and to talk with the commissioner about this, as other members of the committee have, but I think about an office like yours and where it can have the greatest impact, and it is in trying to make other government departments, or I shouldn't say make, but to work with other government departments to ensure that the priorities and the resources are directed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of your office.

[Page 581]

So I wanted to know if, as minister, are you aware of this particular fact that not one government department has followed through on that specific directive and, if so, have you had anything to say about that and, if not, is that something that you will take up?

MR. BARNET: I will say this, that I am aware, the Premier and I have spoken about this specifically. He has expressed a deep concern that we haven't as a government moved forward far enough on this issue and that he has asked for our assistance in any way that we can to ensure that government moves forward on this directive. I can assure you that Nova Scotians will begin to see real progress on this matter and, you know, it's something that the Premier himself has taken a special interest in. I think it's one of those things that we, as government, have recognized and intend to do something about.

MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I'm just going to end by saying that I would be very happy to involve myself in any of the initiatives that you're working on. This is not something I have any expertise in whatsoever, but I have worked at the grassroots level for a long time in quite a few diverse communities - First Nations' communities as well as in Black communities. I mean I think it's incumbent on all of us to make this office effective and a success and I think we're probably unique in the country in terms of having this office.

I think that we've seen the Disabled Persons' Commission, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, some of these offices, they have quite often fairly limited resources and huge expectations and a considerable challenge in terms of the extent of what needs to be done, and so all of those things make it tough sometimes to be as effective as you want to be and you need to be in a short period of time. So I do believe it is incumbent on all of us, and not just members of the government, to make this initiative successful. I want it to be successful and if there is anything I can do in my limited role in that, I would be delighted to do that. So I just wanted to say that to the minister and we'll continue to have conversations around this, I'm sure.

MR. BARNET: I appreciate the offer. I will say that we are unique. In fact, we are the only province in this country that has an Office of African Affairs. This has generated a great deal of interest from other Canadians. I have spoken to Canadians in many jurisdictions who are watching very closely the benefits and the work that we do here. I appreciate the offer of assistance and I can assure you that there will be times when I will call upon you for your assistance.

[12:00 noon]

I agree that with the work that we do here in the Legislature and the work that this office will do and the work that needs to be done that it's incumbent upon all of us as legislators to move forward with these initiatives. They're worthwhile initiatives, there are things that have to be done and it will benefit Nova Scotia greatly when we're able to begin

[Page 582]

a process of checking off recommendations and seeing real successes and positive steps forward.

Having said that, I can see a point in time in the future when this office will no longer be necessary. I think that we should look forward to that day, when we're able to go through the list of identified recommendations to government and say, we've done what we need to do so that government now is open and accessible and benefits all of our constituents, when everyone feels they're part of the process and everyone feels they have a say and everyone feels that it's not just the government in Halifax, it's the government for them.

So I do see that time, unfortunately, there is a lot of work to do between now and then, but I want to say as well that this is a portfolio that I asked for because I saw that in the beginning and I recognized it by the constituents that I represent that there was work that needed to be done. I appreciate that comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: We were talking about the HRM agreement and the central core area. I found since then it was HRM 01 in 1996 which provided for future expansion of the central core area with the Department of Transportation. It was to be reviewed in 1999 and then again every third year after, but the service exchange, the review of the rolls and so on, precluded that. The Department of Transportation thinks they might be ready to do that, but does Service Nova Scotia have any kind of a coordinating oversight role to ensure that these sorts of standing agreements between departments are in fact reviewed as is appropriate?

MR. BARNET: We are involved to the extent where municipalities work through our department to ensure that other departments that may affect them are involved at the table. HRM 01 was an agreement that did have provisions for review and if I recall correctly, part of the rationale behind that was because of increasing development and the responsibility of roads inside and outside the core boundary. The idea of having a review would be in an effort to try to have a better approach to delivering the services. In other words, it would make more sense, particularly in the areas that are closer to the core - the core be expanded rather than have HRM out plowing one street in Dean or Upper Musquodoboit. So, those types of reviews are necessary and are ongoing.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, this is the difficulty, that it has really fallen between the cracks and as you know, in a number of areas, urban cores are either growing or shrinking as the case may be and certainly here. Has there been any kind of an inventory of what standing agreements there are between departments? That could be a reporting thing - you don't have to do it - it could be required of the provincial departments to report and ensure that there is in fact a schedule of review that really is followed. It's been a lot more than three years - it's been six years.

[Page 583]

MR. BARNET: In respect to this particular agreement, there has been discussion and review and I can tell you that in the constituency that I represent, there are negotiations and discussions between the municipality and the Department of Transportation now to look at how to best implement the next step forward. It may mean HRM taking over some of the local roads. But in the big picture, as to an overall inventory of existing agreements that are out there, I don't think we have such a thing. There aren't a lot of them that I am aware of.

MS. RAYMOND: Good.

MR. BARNET: In many cases these types of agreements primarily benefit the municipality. So when there is an opportunity for or when they see the opportunity for a change in that benefit, they're quick to bring it to our attention. We try to respond as best we can.

MS. RAYMOND: I guess there aren't many, but you want to be sure it's all of them. I guess I would just say that's a place because one of the things that I've become aware of is that there are a lot of irritants and so on in those changing and growing areas, particularly. Because the relationship is not stable, obviously, we're looking at it in the assessment place as well. When it comes to the provision of services, which I know is done through the Department of Transportation and Public Works, but, even so, this department is involved in coordinating municipal relations. I would say that really does need to be done. Predictability, I think, is the one thing that, in fact, will smooth those relations.

MR. BARNET: If I can just comment on one thing you said about the relationship. Although there seems to be a great deal of effort and some media attention around what some would describe as an unstable relationship - particularly between me and the mayor or us and HRM - I don't see that. I think it's the opposite. In fact, I have a good relationship with council and the mayor and our staff too. But, often, we get to a point where fundamental differences of opinion will prevent things from moving forward, primarily around our own responsibilities and roles. We try to work through those and for the most part we do.

Inevitably, there'll be issues where we just won't have agreement. I guess in life that happens and from my point of view, I think it's beneficial. Particularly, when those disagreements occur that we agree to disagree and then we carry on because the interests of our constituents, the people that elect us, the people of Nova Scotia and HRM and all municipalities should be first and foremost. I think that's pretty much the way it works.

MS. RAYMOND: I would disagree to this extent - constituents who feel - perhaps this is in the aftermath of amalgamation - that they have been forgotten in the spots where this has been happening. This is around road maintenance and so on. Just real down and dirty, ordinary stuff. So I would say that perhaps the department has a place to put some structure and say, okay, not only will we negotiate, we will reach a conclusion if not an agreement. I don't know what structure that would follow but I would hope that is, in fact, happening.

[Page 584]

MR. BARNET: Can I just respond to that? I agree with you to the point where I would say that I probably share similar types of calls that you get because I have constituents both inside and outside of the core. I think primarily it's around the fact that there are two distinct and different levels of services that are being provided. What happens is you have people that drive over one level of service and into another one and that's where the issues are, that are brought to your attention, I'm sure, and mine as well, that we see on a daily basis. Somehow, in some way, we have to find an opportunity to have a seamless level of service, through negotiations and discussions with municipalities around HRM 01 and subsequent renewals of that. Hopefully we'll see that.

MS. RAYMOND: I know that the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities as well has some other concerns around this, but one of the other things which is about service agreements as I understand it, involves the various costs of policing - the RCMP agreements. They seem to be quite widely variable and I wondered if you could explain to me how that works.

MR. BARNET: That's a good question. It's probably one that would be better situated for the Minister of Justice who hasn't spoken yet, who hasn't appeared here yet, but there is a formula that structures what they pay for and who pays for what. There have been issues, particularly around policing about the huge cost particularly with respect to DNA.

MS. RAYMOND: DNA?

MR. BARNET: Yes, believe it or not, if there's a criminal incident in the municipality and the RCMP are involved in an investigation that requires DNA testing, that's extremely expensive and if a crime happens in a small town through no fault of their own, then they are the ones who are footing the bill for this very expensive DNA testing. That has been an issue, particularly in small towns, but it's my understanding that the Department of Justice has developed an approach that would see new technologies and the expensive technologies being shared by all municipalities, because crimes don't stop at one border and end at another. So the whole structure of police funding is something that's an ongoing discussion. I know the Minister of Justice appeared at UNSM last Friday and spoke to them about these issues. It's part of the ongoing dialogue that we have regularly to talk about these things.

Just for the purpose of the committee and yourself, there are different arrangements that exist between jurisdictions. Some towns directly contract with the RCMP to provide services. There are examples where towns that had their own municipal police force looked at a business plan and made a decision to contract with the RCMP to provide that service and I can point to an example, like Berwick. For others, the province hires the RCMP officers, pay the bills, and then pass the bills on to the individual municipal units. So there are different arrangements in different cases.

[Page 585]

MS. RAYMOND: Even with those though that are through the provincial policing agreement, there is a fairly wide variance. So I will address that to the Minister of Justice then but, again, nothing to be done with that one.

Something that I was wondering about also in the issue of jurisdiction, there is at least one precedent and I'm just wondering what your position is of a municipality requesting exclusive jurisdiction from the federal government over, in this case, an area of saltwater, what is the province's position there?

MR. BARNET: Can you ask that question again?

MS. RAYMOND: Yes. With a municipality going to the federal government to ask for exclusive jurisdiction over saltwater, I mean how does that happen?

MR. BARNET: Well, I will say this, that in Nova Scotia, like in all provinces, municipalities are actual entities of the provincial government and for interaction and jurisdiction between the federal government and municipalities, there is no direct connection, it's supposed to happen through the province. I can tell you in some provinces, like Quebec, it's very strict. In fact, the federal government is not permitted to expend money in municipalities in the Province of Quebec.

In Nova Scotia we have worked with a relationship where we believe it's important to ensure that the constituents are put forward first and that their issues and concerns are addressed first. We're not so concerned about jurisdiction, but we do understand and they understand that in Canada the municipalities are entities of the provinces and that we encourage them to utilize the support and services and the staff and the people here at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and other departments to enable them to move forward with their initiatives and if it means working with the Minister of Fisheries or Natural Resources, or whatever department, on an initiative like saltwater access, we would encourage them to utilize those departments.

MS. RAYMOND: There are a couple of specific issues at Bedford Basin and in the Northwest Arm as well. As you know, there's the Halifax Harbour Port Authority and, of course, there's federal jurisdiction over the saltwater there. There is, however, a lot of infilling beginning to take place. Some of it is privately directed and other of it is, in fact, you know, municipally or otherwise directed, and I believe the municipality has, in fact, requested or is in the process of requesting jurisdiction over certainly the Northwest Arm. I don't know about Bedford Basin, but I guess I would argue that where the province isn't involved, these can be large and permanent shifts. The provincial Department of Environment doesn't seem to be engaging with this. So it seems, I mean, obviously it can't, but I would say that the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations really should be aware.

[Page 586]

[12:15 p.m.]

MR. BARNET: The navigable waters, the oceans, the bays and basins are the jurisdiction of the federal government.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes.

MR. BARNET: I guess if the municipality would like our support, we would encourage them to send us a letter. I can tell you that to my knowledge they haven't. We've not had any requests for intervention with respect to this. I do know somebody who lives in Middle Sackville near the Bedford Basin, near Mill Pond, that there has been ongoing discussions and concerns particularly with the infilling of Mill Pond in Bedford which is one of the areas that you spoke about, but I can tell you that it is a federal government responsibility and we expect the federal government to treat municipalities fairly and with respect. We would expect the municipalities, when they need our assistance and support on an initiative, they come to us and that we try to work with them and we will.

MS. RAYMOND: I don't know the current status of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Chairman, may I use some of this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is just about up, you've got a minute left.

MR. EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, I just want to try and elucidate this point just a little bit. You make a very good point. If the HRM hasn't come to you, then they haven't come to you. I guess all we're asking is that you begin to think about this problem a little bit because it is out there and, of course, navigable waters is a federal head of power which I don't think would go away. It's not a question of the navigable waters jurisdiction necessarily going away, it's a question of jurisdiction over territory covered with water and that's the problem of harbours under the Constitution and generally, of course, Halifax Harbour would be a federal matter of responsibility, but if they wanted to give up the jurisdiction to the province over part of it, assuming that the Northwest Arm would be that part of it, then I believe they could do so and that would then enable the province to give some kind of jurisdiction in turn to the municipalities if they wanted to. So I guess it would probably come in that format is the question of whether the federal government might be interested in relinquishing at least some of its jurisdiction as a federal harbour with respect to the Northwest Arm, but if it hasn't come to you yet, it hasn't, but probably it will at some point.

MR. BARNET: And when it does, we will consider it, but one of the things we do have to recognize with anything, we have to ensure that the provincial interests, the province-wide interest is protected as well. We will consider that at the time and we also are aware, and

[Page 587]

I'm sure you are aware, particularly with respect to waters and development on waters, infilling and all that kind of stuff, there are a wide variety of applications on how you work forward and step forward to develop these things.

I know from my past experience in real estate that pre and post-Confederation water lots were things that one was good and one was bad and I forget now which one was good and which one was bad, but they had different applications under the law in terms of how and what you could do. So when that comes forward, we'll have a look at it and we'll make sure that when we consider the provincial interests, we also understand the interest in municipality as well.

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

The honourable member for Victoria-The Lakes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing here this morning. I'm going to follow my first line of questioning along some of the priorities of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities and that's something that you would be familiar with. The UNSM Board of Directors have rejected the plan to create the municipally controlled assessment agency by the first of the year and they want to look at developing other models. In the assessment, as you're aware, you've introduced Bill No. 40, and I've received, apparently, a lot of negative comments in regard to the Act as such. We'll debate the bill down the road when it comes before the Committee on Law Amendments. I'm one for not reinventing the wheel if it's possible and what I have before me here is the Halifax Regional Municipality Residential Property Tax exemption form, which is already in the Act for tax exemption, in the Municipal Government Act, for tax exemption and tax deferral, and they have rather a very complete and concise way of doing what they're doing and it seems to be working reasonably well and I'm just wondering if the minister had time to look over what HRM is doing before proceeding with Bill No. 40?

MR. BARNET: I was involved with Halifax Regional Municipality as a councillor. I sat on the committee that developed that particular program, and I worked with my colleagues on council to provide a program that we could offer to constituents who found themselves in a situation where the tax bill increased through no fault of their own. That particular program addresses the issue of a number of people, particularly in HRM. Unfortunately, it's not offered in any of the other municipalities that I'm aware of.

Unfortunately, issues around increasing property assessment continue to come to my attention and because of the fact that municipalities have not addressed this, we as a government felt incumbent to protect Nova Scotians who found themselves in difficult situations that they were unable to address with their municipalities and with themselves. Therefore, we brought forward a series of approaches to resolving this. The most recent one is Bill No. 40. My guess is that there were three or maybe four other attempts to resolve this

[Page 588]

in other forms of legislation. Bill No. 40, is the most recent one and it's the one that we believe will protect Nova Scotians in need, families in need who have seen their assessment increase through no fault of their own and have found themselves with an unfair burden that they're unable to address and when the municipalities have not provided any form of relief.

What we have tried to do with Bill No. 40, is to provide that delicate balance. To protect those families in need who find themselves in that difficult situation and to continue to support and encourage and grow the assessment base of municipalities because the growth of assessment is necessary to provide services. So the balance that we're looking for is to find a rate or a cap that would meet that balance.

In November of last year, during the last day of the session of the Legislature, I tabled that piece of legislation and I asked the UNSM to come to the table, to help me develop those unanswered questions, like the cap and other things. Unfortunately what was brought forward was a different direction. a direction that I would point out that in many cases they can already do, but have chosen not to do. So because of their choice not to provide that form of relief that's offered in HRM, we were forced to act and we did. Nova Scotians, I can tell you, have written to me on many occasions supporting Bill No. 40 because they see the benefit of it and they see the fact that they can stay in their homes and that they'll be protected and their homesteads will be protected and remain in their families. After all, we're here, in my mind, to protect Nova Scotians and I see Bill No. 40 doing that. I wanted the approach of including municipalities, that's why we tabled that bill on the last day of the Legislature. Unfortunately, when I asked for their help, the help came but it was in a different direction. A direction that has been tried, unsuccessfully, and has failed in the past.

Having said that, the program that's offered by HRM works to an extent, but I can tell you this, that the program offered by HRM, if you're a family and you make $50,000 a year combined salary, which is not a lot, the husband and wife working, you happen to own an old home somewhere on Portobello Road, for example, and because the people around you have bought and improved their properties, your assessment doubled or tripled and your income hasn't gone up, that program won't help that person. That person is important to me and it should be important to you and to all Nova Scotians to ensure they get to stay in their home. Those circumstances do happen in HRM and I can tell you that there's not an HRM councillor that hasn't received a call from a constituent at some point in time over their term, who found themselves in that exact circumstance, where the program that's offered in HRM, because of the parameters around that program, it doesn't help them. What we were trying to address is those people.

There are a lot of those people from what I understand, particularly along the South Shore of Nova Scotia and as I move around the province and visit municipalities, I've discovered that they're elsewhere, too. We're finding, particularly, in places like Northumberland Strait, where more and more people are finding the same circumstance where the value of properties around them are elevating and the municipality does not have

[Page 589]

a program to address that. What we as a province have decided to do is step forward and say, you're important to us. We believe you should be able to stay in your home and this program will work for you.

At the end of the day whatever comes out of the Committee on Law Amendments, it's my hope and expectation that it's a bill that does what we set out to do and that is to protect those families who need our help, who through no fault of their own have seen assessments skyrocket and are finding themselves in a very difficult situation. I think that's what members of the Legislature are here to do.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Chairman, Leanne Hachey, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business approached me since Bill No. 40 was presented and she outlined just four or five concerns that they have, stating that the problem is not assessments, the problem is with the tax rates. Municipalities have not been decreasing the rates to offset the increase in assessments. Ordinarily that would be the case, the rates would drop, but there seems to be a continuous, don't want to use download, but for lack of a better terminology, there's always more bills that have to paid at the end of each and every year by the municipalities and so the assessments rise, the taxes rise. You go to lower the rates, but guess what? You need more money to pay for the essentials and to pay the province for new programs that are now being paid for by the municipalities, when in previous years they weren't. I've experienced that first hand. I suppose you probably have yourself, as a councillor also and when you're looking forward to lowering the rate, guess what? You can't.

I'll go back to the year when the $12 million cost of assessment was put onto the municipalities. The Municipality of Victoria had to assume $147,000. For a large municipality that's a very small amount, but when your total budget at that time was about $4.5 million, $147,000 was almost five cents on the tax rate for such a small municipality because one cent on the tax rate at that time generated $32,000. It amounted to five cents on the tax rate. Being very frugal and running a very tight ship, the municipality was able to absorb that, but what it did and does, is just totally restrict. I know when I was there as warden, there was no money left anywhere for capital projects. It consumed every penny that we had to stay on an even keel and you can only borrow so much. So if you come down with one of these one-third and one-third programs, if you don't have your third, you can offer me $10 for $5, if I don't have five cents, it's a monstrous thing to accomplish and this is where I find the disparity between municipalities, especially rural municipalities.

I go back to the point where when we were struggling one year when I was there as warden to make ends meet and balance our budget and do our things. That year in particular, that was back when we had our $4 million budget. That year in particular HRM put $37 million into the recycling and blue bag program alone, and here we were with a $4 million budget to run the whole municipality. So if you had 10 Victoria Counties, you would never even come up to making one little David against a Goliath. This is where I always fought that it has to be fair for rural areas and whatnot.

[Page 590]

[12:30 p.m.]

To get back to what Leanne Hachey was saying, for example, you and I live on the same street. Your home is comparable to mine, but I have a business out of my home. My assessment will go through the roof with tax rates, yet, as a businessperson, businesses are saying that they get less services than homeowners, simply because you have your garbage picked up, whatnot. They won't do that for a commercial entity, so you have to pay for that yourself. So there's a disparity there, and then, over and above, we'll get into business occupancy taxes after that. We live on the same street, in the same area with the same homes, but because somebody is running a business out of theirs, their taxes are double or more than what the person's next door is.

MR. BARNET: That would not necessarily be the case. As I understand it, depending on the size of the business, and in many residential areas businesses aren't permitted to be in the homes anyway, but in those where you have a home office, for example, where in the zoning, in a residential area where you can have up to 300 square feet of space, it's my understanding that it's taxed and assessed as part of your residential property. But I understand what Ms. Hachey brings forward.

I would point out, though, that at the point in time when government chose to follow with all the rest of the provinces in this country and have municipalities pay for the services that they receive, including assessment, that same year we also, as much as we charged municipalities the cost for that service, which was roughly $12 million, we also bore expenses to the province to the tune of $44 million for services that were ordinarily being performed or were part of services that were performed by municipalities.

So in terms of the overall impact on municipalities in that particular year, if you look at that entry year, municipalities paid an additional $12 million for services, and the province picked up $44 million for services, like Community Services and others. From that time until now, the province has continued to move forward with measures that would see municipalities get additional tax revenue from Nova Scotia Power, for example. As well, we have not moved forward with any initiative that would see municipalities be unilaterally downloaded in additional service or responsibility. We have not done that, particularly since the time I've been the minister.

In the case where the federal government provided relief for HST or the concerns were or the whisper mill was working overtime that the province would somehow claw back that money, we have not done that. In fact, we have told municipalities we have no intention of doing that, and that more money to municipalities means more services to the people that they represent who are the same people that we represent.

[Page 591]

In addition to that, I understand clearly the concerns faced by rural municipalities, particularly smaller ones when it comes to improving much-needed infrastructure. As a result of that, we have lobbied the federal government, long and hard, about an infrastructure works program that is not just efficient but effective, not one with just money but a way of meeting those concerns and commitments, particularly with respect to rural municipalities. As you're aware and as rural municipalities are aware, the federal government has announced an initiative for infrastructure for rural municipalities.

One of the things that concerns me greatly, and I've spoken about this to municipalities is the fact that in Nova Scotia, all municipalities but one are defined as rural municipalities, as Ottawa describes municipalities. The program was initially designed to help the small rural municipalities, and our fear is that the focus of that program is beginning to shift. We believe it's a very important program. A lot of the programs, the issues that you spoke about, like the small sewer and water projects, they can't fund those with the conventional program.

We'll continue to lobby the government to have a program that works for rural Nova Scotia. I think I can safely say that the other Ministers of Municipal Affairs who I've spoken to would say the same thing. They want a program that does what it was intended to do, and that is to provide badly needed infrastructure, particularly sewer and water, to small towns and communities that are in a situation where they have serious problems that need to be addressed.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, part of my responsibility, I believe, is to advocate on behalf on municipalities. I have done that in the past at meetings of the provincial ministers. In fact, I intend to do that again next Monday when I travel to Montreal to meet with my colleagues. The ministers are getting together for a one-day meeting, to talk specifically about this very issue. What I hope will come out of that is a clear direction to the federal government, in terms of how we expect and want to see these programs move forward.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: My colleague just asked me to ask, on his behalf, is that this Monday that you're talking about or is it the following Monday? Is it this coming Monday that you're meeting in Montreal?

MR. BARNET: Next Monday.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Next Monday, the Monday after.

MR. BARNET: This Monday, where am I? I'm here. (Laughter) You thought you were going to catch me out of town.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: We were adding up the numbers, Mr. Minister.

[Page 592]

MR. BARNET: The program I was referring to is the Municipal Rural Infrastructure fund.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The solution, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is that we need a property tax policy for the province. Is that what you're hoping that Bill No. 40 will become, or are you looking at an overall tax policy for the whole province, which as I say, right now doesn't exist?

MR. BARNET: We have a policy. It's rate times assessment, with the exception of those areas that we believe are of concern to Nova Scotians. As we're all aware, it includes the provisions of Bill No. 40, as well as the provisions with respect to the bill that was tabled today, this is an Act intended to protect the interests of Nova Scotians. The policy is rate times assessment, with the exceptions.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: To highlight the UNSM's recommendation on assessment, they're hoping that the province and the UNSM can work toward establishing a new advisory board to advise the minister and the UNSM on policy and budgetary matters of the Assessment Services Division. Do you go along with that?

MR. BARNET: As a result of the meetings that I had with the municipalities - during the time that I was out meeting with African Nova Scotians in their communities, I was also out meeting with municipalities - I took the time this Winter and last Fall to meet with all 55 municipalities. This issue was talked about at nearly every stop. I can tell you that as much as the executive may have a view, the membership is mixed on this. If I've ever felt like I was being pushed and pulled at the same time, that's one of those times.

We have to move carefully. We understand the position of the UNSM. Staff are meeting with UNSM this Wednesday to discuss go-forward steps. I will say this, that with respect to assessment, I understand clearly that municipalities pay the bill. When I sign off on initiatives to spend money with respect to assessment services, I take it very seriously. I sign it as if I'm signing off their money, and I believe that they should have a say in how that division works and because they pay the bill, they should have some jurisdiction and authority within that. I always feel a little bit uncomfortable spending somebody else's money, particularly not having the benefit of receiving their advice before doing so.

I know that staff give me good advice, and I understand the initiative that they bring forward, but I still think it's in everyone's best interest that if you're paying the bill that you be involved in it. Whatever comes out of this meeting after Wednesday, and in whatever direction it moves forward, I believe that the municipalities should have a significant role to play, in whatever comes forward.

[Page 593]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just to retouch on Bill No. 40, the UNSM has four or five reasons why they don't support the bill the way it is, and the first one is that it alters the market value system of assessment. I go back to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and that's one of its fears, moving away from the fair market value system, and they cited an example from Ontario where there are other municipalities apparently wishing that they had the system that we have here on the fair market value. I keep referring to the UNSM because rather than talk about individual municipalities, we might as well talk about all 55 and I'm taking this as their general consensus of which way they want to move.

I guess they're saying that first it alters the fair market value system; second, it assumes a problem as the result of dramatically rising assessments as opposed to high property taxes; third, capping assessments will create two assessment rolls and; fourth, the legislation raised a province-wide solution to a relatively localized problem. Leanne Hachey said it was like taking a maul hammer to squat a fly or something, it's a giant move to solve a small localized problem. I personally feel that regardless of where the cap is, you need some flexibility in there to allow municipalities to do what suits each individual municipality because HRM is not going to be compatible with CBRM, nor Victoria with Inverness, or go down to Shelburne or Digby or whatnot, that is their main source of income, this taxation, and they have to be able to be flexible to adjust to individual situations and apply different rules and they feel it's like the cookie cutter approach, you're putting this big situation together, one size fits all. Is there any way you can comment on that for me?

MR. BARNET: I would say that Bill No. 40 maintains the market value approach. We will continue to assess properties the way we've always assessed properties and we will continue to use the comparative approach to evaluation for residential property where we evaluate comparable properties, comparable neighbourhoods, and develop an assessment based on that. Where it varies from that will be in those areas and circumstances where, as I described earlier, someone sees skyrocketing assessments through no fault of their own, we will provide protection. I don't see it as a maul hammer to a fly. I can tell you that if the flies are the people who are being squeezed out of their homes, they need to be protected.

Bill No. 40 does that. Bill No. 40 protects those people who through no fault of their own find their assessment going through the roof. The municipalities had the ability to resolve this issue, but chose not to. People have come to us, as a government and legislators, and asked for our help. We have made three attempts. We've asked for the help and assistance of municipalities and this most recent attempt is the solution that we brought forward as an opportunity to protect those Nova Scotians. I make no apologies for our government trying to keep people in homes. We think it's the right thing to do. It may not be the strict rule of assessment times rate based on the comparative approach to market value, but we have to reflect on this, that no one ever said that necessarily municipal taxation in its form is the most appropriate way or the only way that you can tax people in Nova Scotia and we know that.

[Page 594]

You raised the example of Ontario. Ontario has a cap, as I understand it, on everything - 5 per cent. No taxation bill increases by 5 per cent in a year and from what I understand, it seems to be working fairly well in Ontario. We're not saying that will work here. We want to develop a made-in-Nova Scotia approach to a Nova Scotia problem and we want the assistance of municipalities. As I said to them on Friday at the UNSM meeting, it's not too late, you can still get involved. There is an opportunity in Nova Scotia at the Law Amendments Committee to appear to say your view and to shape this law so that it works for everybody and my hope and expectation, maybe it's a high hope and maybe I'm overly optimistic, but my hope and expectation is that we have a bill that works for Nova Scotians and protects those people some would describe as flies being squashed by a maul hammer.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just to let you hear their recommendation, it's that municipalities be provided with the legal means to address dramatically increasing assessments through amendments to Sections 69 and 70 of the Municipal Government Act and Section 14 of the Municipal Grants Act and, like I said, they do have a couple of options in the Municipal Government Act, but they're looking to amend that Act. Would you be in favour of that as a solution?

[12:45 p.m.]

MR. BARNET: One of the things that I said to representatives of the UNSM and AMA, the Association of Municipal Administrators, when they brought this idea or concept to me, I said if you are really serious about this, then your advice to me that allows or permits municipalities to do this, why wouldn't you say, instead of municipalities "may" do this, say municipalities "shall" do this, and therefore they're required to help those people who need their help. I can tell you the response was silent coming back and if they were serious, then they would make it a mandatory approach and then we can rest easy that Nova Scotians are being protected. At this stage, the provisions that they're asking for currently exist and they can provide some of that relief and some do. The Halifax Regional Municipality does. I believe Lunenburg did for one year as well and they chose not to continue.

You know when people continue to call us, and they'll call you and other members, it's up to us to act if we feel, as legislators, there's something we can do about it. I can tell you that's what government did and I understand that this is a difference of view between myself and our department and some members of the Legislature and the UNSM and municipal leaders. I can tell you it's not a difference that I will allow to get in the way of a positive relationship. I will continue to work positively with them and I think my track record speaks for that, but at the same time we understand that it's something that needs to be done, you know, it's one of those things that people have talked about for a long time and it needs to be addressed. The time for talk has stopped - the time for action has started.

[Page 595]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Maybe when things come to the 11^th hour, people begin to realize and you hear me in the Legislature all the time saying you can't change the past, but I'm wishing that possibly you were the minister back then. We did make municipalities, Victoria, Lunenburg and Chester, we did make three approaches to try to resolve and the resolution or the co-operation wasn't forthcoming at that time. I'm pleased to see that you do take a proactive approach and that's what's required.

MR. BARNET: Thank you.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I would like to move on to the business occupancy tax. It has been on the go at least 10 years. It's hard to collect it and you can't put a lien on properties or anything like that. The business sector thinks they're paying double tax and there again the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities is recommending through legislation the province provide one year notice to municipalities and businesses that the business occupancy tax is to be eliminated, followed by a two-year phase-out of the tax, and I'm just wondering if the province is ready to proceed with the elimination of the business occupancy tax or how does that sit with your department?

MR. BARNET: Last week, the week before last, we gave them the notice. We notified the UNSM officially in writing that our intention is to move forward. We are beginning a process of consultation with municipalities so that they understand what the impact of this is and how it affects them. It affects every municipality differently. It will affect uniform assessment. It will affect all aspects of taxation. So we want to make sure they know clearly what this is all about. On Friday I spoke to the UNSM and I spoke specifically about this tax. I believe, like the UNSM does, like many business people do, like the vast majority of people who've ever paid one of these bills, that it's an antiquated form of taxation and that there is a better approach.

I believe that we will find a way to move into a better future in terms of taxation in Nova Scotia. I think we have a solid commitment from the business community to step forward. You talked about Leanne Hachey earlier. She brought me a series of petitions that were signed by her members, literally thousands of them in boxes, to move forward with this, so we have their support. We have the support of the UNSM, who has been on record saying it's time to get rid of this tax, that it's an old antiquated form of taxation, and we have the support of the Government of Nova Scotia and me as the minister.

Now all we need to do is find a way to bring this all together and have this tax eliminated in a way that has the least impact on municipalities, taxpayers and everyone involved. I think it can be done. I don't think it's going to be easy. I think there'll be a lot of debate and discussion between now and then. I think it's essential. There are all kinds of benefits around eliminating business occupancy tax. I can tell you that one of the major benefits is the fact that federal grants in lieu of taxes will increase for some municipalities and surely we know that the federal government should be paying their fair share of taxes and in

[Page 596]

other jurisdictions where they don't have business occupancy tax, they pay those municipalities a greater amount. So Nova Scotia shouldn't be treated any differently than any other jurisdiction of this country. It's time we stepped forward.

I equate the business occupancy tax to be no different from the old poll tax that they used to have. It's the same. It's an antiquated form of taxation. It needs to be eliminated and I am committed as long as I'm the minister to driving this forward so that we do that. Having said that, there's one area of caution that I've been saying in my speeches and when I talk to Leanne, and others, I want to make sure that the business community knows - and I believe it's up to municipalities to help with this message and to drive it home until it sticks - that this doesn't mean they're going to lose a complete element of taxation. It's simply going to shift from one form to another because municipalities still need that revenue and it's a commercial tax and therefore it should be picked up by the commercial taxpayers.

I think the message is starting to get through. I noticed a couple of articles in the newspaper in the last few days as a result of press releases and comments that I've made and others have made. I'm starting to hear that they understand that and the meetings that are going to take place shortly, will enable us to make that next step. I think all members of the Legislature will support that and I believe so will all Nova Scotians in the end.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: On behalf of taxpayers, the first thing they are going to think of is oh, gee, if you're eliminating business occupancy tax, am I going to pay more tax? Is it your intention not to charge the regular residential taxpayer the difference, or is it going to be up to the municipalities?

MR. BARNET: I think it's a commercial tax now and it should be a commercial tax later. Those are things we'll be discussing as we move through this process, but I think for the most part, so do municipalities think that. After all, members of council have to go out and get elected too and they understand this will have an impact on the people who vote for them.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'd like to move to education and talk about the capping of the total mandatory contributions to education. The municipalities, through the UNSM, are suggesting that a cap or a freeze on the total province- wide dollar value of the current year's amount of $144.7 million. Apparently they struck a joint committee for roles and responsibilities a while ago and they would like the province to eliminate the use of municipal taxation as a means for it to fund education. Since 2000 the mandatory contribution went from $131.1 million to $144.7 million, which it is now. That's a 10 per cent increase. For smaller municipalities, I know it was the biggest or one of the biggest costs to the small municipality that I represented and to some of the municipalities it almost represents 30 per cent of their budget. Is there any move on the province's part to cap the cost of education? Because every time that assessment rises, each municipality's

[Page 597]

contribution, although it's a 90/10 split, because the amount is larger, that 10 per cent is more and more each year for municipalities.

MR. BARNET: One of the things that has puzzled me for a decade or more, since I've been involved in government, municipal and provincial, is the entire debate around municipal contributions toward education. I guess maybe I look at it differently than some, but I think investing in our children is an important thing. I believe that it's incumbent upon us, as leaders, to ensure that our young people have the best education system that we can possibly afford them. Like in all jurisdictions in this country, with the exception of Newfoundland, municipalities share in that cost, because the people who are municipal taxpayers have children who go to schools.

From my point of view, I believe that it's appropriate to use municipal taxation as a form of ensuring that our children get the education that they deserve. Having said that, what never gets talked about is how we compare to other jurisdictions. I can tell you, in Nova Scotia, the percentage of contribution is about 16 per cent. Saskatchewan, 40 per cent of the cost of education is covered by municipalities. In Alberta, one of the richest provinces in this country, it's 50 per cent. In every jurisdiction with the exception of Newfoundland, which has a completely different system, municipalities pay a much larger percentage than we do in Nova Scotia. I can tell you that most taxpayers will agree with me when I say, we need to invest in our children, and they care little about which level of government spends the money. They just want to know that our children have every opportunity we can afford to give them.

Now the question that you raised about rates. One of the things that municipalities said to me during meetings that I had with UNSM and others and some of the table officers is that they need predictability. When they go through their budget process, they need to know what it's going to be. Over the past while, because assessment has increased, we've lowered the rate itself. The rate, just a few short years ago, was 0.382, I believe. Is that right? Something like that.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I remember it at 0.39.

MR. BARNET: Yes, it may have been. It's now at 0.351, and what I have said since I've been minister, is that as minister, I will fight to ensure you get what you're looking for and that is predictability. That rate becomes predictable and that you know when you're setting your budget you're at that predictable rate, and that's where it is now. It's at 0.351.

The whole debate about people services versus property services, in my mind is irrelevant. It's about investing in our children. That's what we need to be talking about. Investing in our future. I agree with you when you say that we can't get lost in our past and we can't undo the things that have been done and when you told me that the first time I understood exactly what you said and I believe it's true and profound, but we can do something about our future and investing in our children, in my mind, is doing something

[Page 598]

about our children. I think municipalities have a role to play - albeit a smaller role than they play in all of the jurisdictions with the exception of Newfoundland - they have a role to play, and they should be proud of that role and they should find ways to encourage it and support what we do in the Province of Nova Scotia, to support our young people.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I believe they're probably coming from the point that education is a provincial responsibility, something else is a municipal responsibility and differentiating between the two.

MR. BARNET: I say education is the responsibility of Nova Scotians.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Another priority that the union had was a memorandum of understanding to be signed with the province and commit to immediately include discussions on the language of the guiding principles of the memorandum and work with the UNSM to have a document signed by the Premier and the president to basically work together to resolve the problems. I guess that hasn't been signed yet. Where does that stand with the department now?

[1:00 p.m.]

MR. BARNET: I think we have minor differences of opinion that I believe we can overcome, and I believe we will. One of the areas that the MOU speaks to, and I think probably the single biggest element of the MOU is the area of communications between our department and them. They talk about having these round tables and the discussion amongst the minister and the municipality, even without an MOU, I'm proud and I'm pleased to say that there has been more dialogue in the past nine months with municipalities than there probably has been in maybe the decade before that.

The very first meeting that I attended was an executive meeting of the UNSM. I went out there to meet with them, without staff, so that we could have a frank and open discussion about issues that face them. Since that time, I've met with table officers, I've met with select committees, I met with the UNSM at their annual general meeting, I met with them down, again, in White Point Beach last week, and I've gone around the province and met with each and every single municipality at least once, many of them twice, some of them three times, and one of them four times. In terms of dialogue with individual mayors and councillors and even the AMA, for example, because the Association of Municipal Administrators is important as well, I've met with them, too, and I will continue to do that.

To the point where discussion and dialogue is important, I think that it's critical that as the minister I understand the needs and the concerns of municipalities. With that, I have made myself completely available to them and completely available to mayors of municipalities to the point where it's creating some issues with myself, in terms of my own schedule. But we'll work around that. As well, we've also taken the opportunity to make

[Page 599]

ourselves available to other municipal organizations, like I intend to speak at the Annual General Meeting for Municipal Planners, to meet with those folks.

They've asked me to attend and to speak to them, and I will. Even without an MOU, I think one of the biggest issues that the UNSM was trying to have is dialogue. I think I can demonstrate clearly that that dialogue exists, and there have been many times where I've spoken to and met with the president, the past president and many of the table officers, even outside of all the framework that I discussed in the last minute and a half.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Since I can remember being elected, Nova Scotia Power was front and centre about taxes. The problem is the province continues to collect the tax and distribute the tax, but it appears that the power generation stations and Nova Scotia Power itself don't seem to be assessed the way that ordinary assessment rules are done. Then the province is collecting the tax, but you're using - the figures I have here - $2.8 million to offset the provincial reduction in the equalization fund, which is now partially funded by over $10 million from Nova Scotia Power. To me, the Nova Scotia Power tax should be in addition to - so if you have an equalization fund and I'm getting x number of dollars from the equalization fund, then Nova Scotia Power's tax comes into being, that's in addition to, but what you've done is taken a handful of money out of the equalization fund and taken a handful out of the Nova Scotia Power tax to replace it.

Instead of the municipalities gaining because of Nova Scotia Power's tax, you're removing it from one line, from out of the equalization fund, and replacing it with Nova Scotia Power's taxes, so that handful that you're taking out, the large amount that you're taking from the equalization fund is going into other programs or general revenue or whatever, and then you're taking the tax from Nova Scotia Power to replace that. Because of the way it's distributed, and there again I will point to Victoria County, which I'm familiar with, and of course Victoria-The Lakes does take in a large portion of CBRM, so there's two power generation stations there, and a person shouldn't make assumptions but after touring the Wreck Cove Power Generation Station, which I was wrongly stating that the assessment was $850,000 and I find out now from digging a little deeper that it's only assessed at $645,000.

I or any other resident would run right out, if Nova Scotia Power would sell us Wreck Cove for $645,000 - I would mortgage everything I could ever get my hands on to get that money, because the thing is worth $150 million-plus, when it was built, and it's state of the art. I refer to it as almost a freebie, now that it's built, because Mother Nature - there's no buying of oil or coal to generate that. It's the water and the snow that's collected through the streams and the lakes and the rivers and the dams, and it's just held there, it's free fuel. When we want it, a switch is turned on in Halifax, and away goes the water, it generates the turbine, then we have the power. When they don't need it anymore, they shut it off, the dam is closed, and then it rains or snows again, and we've always got a free source of fuel.

[Page 600]

Having said that, the last two years that I was warden was the first time ever - and that power plant was built in the 1970s - that any amount of money, which amounted to $39,000 for two successive years, went to Victoria County. That was the first and only, both times, that any dollars came into the coffers. It appears on the surface that Nova Scotia Power is getting a real generous ride - I won't say a free ride, but a real generous ride - with such a low assessment of Wreck Cove.

I'm assuming that the other two generating stations in Cape Breton are probably under-assessed also. What I'm wondering is if the province does have a plan afloat. I must say, when I spoke to Nova Scotia Power officials, they don't like the negative publicity either. I will refer to myself, if I receive a tax bill of $2,000, that's what I'm going to pay, but if my real tax bill should be $3,000 and you bill me for $2,000, I'm only going to pay the bill that I receive. They're receiving a bill, I think, for $31 million, in that vicinity, whatever the assessment figures should be. I believe they would like to see the day come that they get the proper bill for the proper assessment and get out of this negative situation that they're in, because there's always finger-pointing, ah, you guys from Nova Scotia Power, you don't pay your fair share. They don't want that, I don't think, and they don't need that.

At the same time, municipalities deserve the amount of tax dollars that should come, especially some of them that are small-budget municipalities. Any amount of money is a help. It's almost unfair, why should they as a large corporation be getting special consideration where other companies are taxed or assessed to the full value. I'm just wondering, can you give me some information as to the plans of Nova Scotia Power's taxation?

MR. BARNET: Last Fall when I met with the CBRM Council, I committed to them at that time, as a request from Councillor MacLeod, that we would look at the assessment of Nova Scotia Power assets. In my mind, it was with the view of determining the appropriate contributions towards the assets in their respective municipal units. Bearing in mind, if we increase the burden to Nova Scotia Power, that simply increases the burden to Nova Scotians. They will then, in turn, pass that burden on to the people who pay power rates. At the end of the day the taxpayers are also the people who pay power bills. They'll also be the ones who will receive that same burden.

With respect to the issue of the arrangement between Nova Scotia Power and the variety of municipalities in which our department provides tax payments to through a variety of programs, equalization, foundation grants, you name it, the programs that we offer far exceed the amount of revenue that we receive from Nova Scotia Power to fund some of those programs, far exceeds. We are committed to the programs we offer. This budget that we have here maintains those programs with one change; we increased Nova Scotia Power's taxation this year by cost of living and provided 50 per cent of that back to municipalities.

[Page 601]

The municipalities will receive that benefit at some point in time in the very near future, once we see the passage of this bill. That money will be used wisely, as I know municipalities do but, just like municipalities, the province has its financial commitments to meet and its obligations to fulfil, and if we were to simply take the equalization amounts, however much it is, $15 million, whatever, and fund it from provincial sources, I can tell you that there aren't too many sources that you can look for.

The next biggest budgets that you would be seeking to find those revenues from are Health, Education and roads. I know that those are also priorities of Nova Scotians, and Nova Scotians have told me, over and over again, we need to address our priorities. We, as government, don't make money, it's the taxpayers who contribute it, whether they're municipal, provincial or ratepayers from Nova Scotia Power. We have to deal with it in a responsible way. I know municipalities do, I know we do, at the province, and I know we do it with the priorities of Nova Scotians in mind.

If I were to go to the Minister of Education and say, look, Mr. Minister, we need an additional $14 million because we should try a different way of funding the equalization costs, instead of coming from Nova Scotia Power, we need it from provincial sources and, therefore, the good initiatives that you have around reducing class sizes for Grade 2, Grade 1, Primary, we should eliminate those and we should take away the 1 million textbooks we've bought over the past couple of years, and the money we spent on information technology, and find another couple of million dollars somewhere else, that we're going to do that instead of this, well, I think any member of the Legislature, if they were in our position, they would probably make the same decision.

It's important to invest in the priorities of Nova Scotians. We have to do it in a responsible and reasonable manner, and we have to understand the impact that occurs. We don't make this money, we just find ways to meet Nova Scotians' needs with their money. I think we've done a very good job with this budget, and I think municipalities do an excellent job, too. They are very frugal, and they are very understanding of their responsibilities, and they do very well. Any way that we can help them, we do.

This year we're helping them by increasing the amount of money they're going to get from Nova Scotia Power taxation. We're helping them by meeting our obligations with a balanced budget here, without having any appreciable impact on municipalities. I think, for the most part, as I've met with municipal leaders last Friday, they're very appreciative of what we've done, although at some point in time I would like to do more. I can tell you that the Minister of Education also has more things he would like to do, too.

Each year, on an annual basis, we'll go through those kinds of discussions, and hopefully the priorities of Nova Scotians will win out. Sometimes they'll include more support for municipalities. I appreciate what you're saying.

[Page 602]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: The perception for Nova Scotia Power is the fact that, well, there's three gentlemen at the table there, you all make the same amount of money, you all owe the same amount of tax, but because you're a minister or because you're Nova Scotia Power, you don't have to pay the same rate that those two guys have to. That's the burr under the saddle. Why are they given special consideration? The other people are saying, well, they owe them money, and the fear of putting it down to the people to pay more doesn't seem to resonate with the fact that they don't seem to pay their fair share of taxes. That's what I've garnered over the period of time that I've been involved with that. There seems to be a special consideration, and the people are against that.

MR. BARNET: I appreciate that. Just to point out, from Greg's and my perspective, Greg makes more than the two of us do. (Laughter)

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: I just wanted to put you all on an even keel, Mr. Minister.

MR. BARNET: Although we wouldn't mind getting his pay, right?

[1:15 p.m.]

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: We'll arrange to have Greg mugged sometime over the weekend. You mentioned about funding grants, and I would just like to go on to municipal grants for university residences. The total amount of the grant in 2002-03 was $932,284. That represents 40 per cent of the full taxes that would be payable if the property was not tax exempt. The percentage hasn't changed in 22 years. I'm just wondering - and the estimated cost to the province to move from 40 per cent to 100 per cent would be approximately $1.4 million annually. The suggestion is being made that 40 per cent is being paid now, what about a three-year phase-in period where you add another 20 per cent each year for three years until the full amount is paid for university residences? Is there any consideration being given to that?

MR. BARNET: The only thing I would say to that is that there are only two places where the province can go to get the money to do that. One is the students who pay tuition, and I know, after five years of being in this Legislature, that's an issue of great concern to members of this Legislature. Many people have said the students in Nova Scotia pay enough. The second source is through the revenue that we already receive, or tax more. I know that the efficient, hardworking staff of the Province of Nova Scotia, the people who work for us do very well in providing the high level of services they do. If we were to do that and we were to consider an approach like that, we would have to find some other service that we do now, that we're paying for now, and not do it, or increase taxes provincially.

[Page 603]

In essence, all we're doing if we increase taxes provincially is putting it in a big loop. The provincial taxpayers pay for something that the municipal taxpayers are paying for. When I first was elected to the Legislature, a constituent in the riding next to me who provided me with a great deal of advice from time to time, Ron Cox, said to me, Barry, I want to remind you of one thing, this is your first week in politics, remember this, that there's only one taxpayer, the same guy who pays municipal taxes pays provincial taxes and federal taxes. Whatever you do to balance your budget or do something, if you push it off on somebody else, you've not done anyone a favour. I think he's right. By us creating a change that sees one level of government pick up the tab, it's not really going to create any positive impact on the people we represent, because the other level of government has to pay for it out of its sources, increase the revenues or do something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired for the Liberal Party. The remaining 10 minutes will be passed over to the NDP.

The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: So many questions, it really is a huge department. They'll just be very quick questions at this point, I guess. One of the things that I noticed in the estimates, which really kind of surprised me, was that in 2003-04 there seems to have been a huge jump in expenses for senior management, beyond the estimate. I just wondered what that was about. It's on Page 16.2.

MR. BARNET: Included in this year's expense are the costs associated with the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs, which weren't contemplated last year in the budget. That answers the vast majority of that, I would say.

MS. RAYMOND: Are there other things, other parts of it that aren't answered by it?

MR. BARNET: That was primarily it. It's all that.

MS. RAYMOND: I thought that was done separately. One of the things that I was just curious about, too, in here is in Service Delivery, the general budget is down but I notice it particularly went down in the eastern region. Does that reflect any kind of a population shift? Is there any particular reason for that?

MR. BARNET: It's as a result of vacant positions, particularly in the Eastern region. There were six vacant positions and I think half of them were in the Eastern region during that budget process. That primarily explains the difference.

MS. RAYMOND: So they won't be filled again?

MR. BARNET: No.

[Page 604]

MS. RAYMOND: What sort of positions were they?

MR. BARNET: They were customer service representatives.

MS. RAYMOND: I'm sorry, I'm not even sure where that office is.

MR. BARNET: That would be an Access Nova Scotia centre.

MS. RAYMOND: For some reason then, it was decided in the Eastern region at any rate not to . . .

MR. BARNET: Because of business, that kind of thing.

MS. RAYMOND: Where is the office for the Eastern region?

MR. BARNET: Offices.

MS. RAYMOND: Offices, okay. So it's customer service reps. That was probably the only real quick question that I had. The other thing I was wondering about - you'll have to excuse me because I'm new to this - under Net Program Expenses, they seem to be down. I wondered, is that a function of lower costs or more fee recovery - how does that work? It's reported on a net basis.

MR. BARNET: The main reduction there is as a result of the change in the amortization policy. It's a reduction of $1 million.

MS. RAYMOND: And that's the government-wide amortization policy, right?

MR. BARNET: Right.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay. So that's the majority of it. I think you actually answered the rest of it while I was going through. I don't know how much time I have, I only have a minute or two, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have seven minutes left.

MS. RAYMOND: Great. I know one of the things that has concerned me is that there is a stated policy of delivering more and more services electronically. I don't know that all of those are going to be replaced with hard copy or personal service. First of all, can you tell me which services there are that may not be available in hard copy - paper form or person form?

[Page 605]

MR. BARNET: I will get to that, but one of the things that I believe and we believe, as a department, is to make the access to government service to the people we serve as efficient, easy and user-friendly as possible. Our department - probably more than any other department of government - works in a business type of environment around that. We believe that the people of Nova Scotia who use the services are our customers and that it's important for us to provide excellent customer service and to give the customers what they're asking for. As in the food service industry when the customers are demanding a product, we think it's essential that we provide that type of product.

With the change in technology, increased and enhanced security features around the Internet and around electronic business and the growing acceptance of use of the Internet and electronic business, we see this as an opportunity for Nova Scotians and for municipalities as well. We've asked municipalities to join with us in many of these initiatives. I can tell you that the experience that we've had is a very positive experience, that people generally like it. Like lending institutes, when people use the bank online, they like it, it's easy, it's effective, it's efficient and it maintains a connectivity of data so that we can go back and look.

It's one of the things in our department that we're extremely proud of - we're the department that developed hosts and the Ask Joe Howe program where people can go online and type in a question for Joe Howe and we find the answer for them. These are things that have been received very, very positively by people in Nova Scotia. We are continuing to look for these types of savings.

To answer your question directly, we will continue to offer services - electronically and in person - bearing in mind that there are people who, for one reason or another, will not be able to access electronic . . .

MS. RAYMOND: Exactly. That's what I'm concerned about.

MR. BARNET: No, we will continue to offer in both forms.

MS. RAYMOND: That is a commitment then, because that is a very real barrier to people of any age.

MR. BARNET: Sorry for getting off track there. It's a commercial.

MS. RAYMOND: No, no. I quite agree, I'm a big user and I'm a big fan of the Service Nova Scotia site except for the fact that I'm a Mac user and I can't get anything but source code, but they're working on it. So, anyway, there are accessibility problems of one sort or another. It does tend to be the most vulnerable citizens who are age-challenged, poor, not anglophone, whatever the case may be. I'm glad to know that there is a commitment to maintain those services as well.

[Page 606]

MR. BARNET: There is, though, in my experience, a tumbling of that wall of obstacles that used to exist between the demographics for older people who had a hard time with the Internet. I can tell you, there are a lot of older people who are now fully connected.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, but if you have more than one of those challenges, then you have . . .

MR. BARNET: Absolutely, so we'll continue to offer both.

MS. RAYMOND: That's very important, particularly given that the federal government, which certainly did provide a lot of the infrastructure through the Community Access Point programs which has enabled many people to use it, has not continued with any kind of core funding. I wondered if there is likely to be any kind of funding for, or at least to continue the operation of CAP sites, anything like that. Has there been any discussion with the federal government?

MR. BARNET: That would be the Department of Economic Development.

MS. RAYMOND: Economic Development, okay, that's fine. I don't like to start on this right now because I only have about a minute left - right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have about two minutes left.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, great. Lots of time, excellent. One of the things that I'm concerned about which has come to light a number of times is under the Municipal Government Act, the issue of development agreements without expiry dates. I am just wondering if there is any contemplation of amending the Municipal Government Act so it suggests to the municipalities - more than suggest - that when a development agreement is made, it should have an expiry date. These things lie dormant and it's one of those things that's a real irritant for a number of municipalities in that it is a planning issue, things come back to light once they are, you know, economic, geographic circumstances change around. They're pleading for that at the municipal level, but I think this is perhaps something the provincial government should be looking at as one of the parameters of an agreement. Have you any take on that?

MR. BARNET: We have no current plans to amend a provision around that. Normally what we do is follow the - I shouldn't say follow the lead - but we listen carefully to recommendations from UNSM and we haven't heard that recommendation, or at least I'm not aware of that recommendation. I was of the view that there are development agreements that do have expiries on them.

MS. RAYMOND: Some do, yes.

[Page 607]

MR. BARNET: But to require them, there may be circumstances where provisions within a development agreement, it might be beneficial to the taxpayers and the municipality and all involved that it be a perpetual clause where it continues on forever.

Having said that, if the UNSM or a member municipality brought forward an initiative like this, we would have a look at it. Much like we have with a number of the amendments in the Municipal Government Act that are proposed in the bill that we tabled the other day. Included in that are provisions to provide municipalities with greater strength and protection, particularly around development agreements. It's as a result of HRM and others who brought this initiative forward and we've listened carefully to what they had to say and amended the Municipal Government Act as a result of that.

MS. RAYMOND: There are certain issues around them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. Your time has expired. Everybody have a wonderful weekend and we'll resume again on Monday.

MR. BARNET: Thank you.

[The committee adjourned at 1:30 p.m.]