[Page 609]

HALIFAX, MONDAY, MAY 10, 2004

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

2:48 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Mark Parent

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. We will call this meeting to order. We will continue with the estimates of the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. It is - to give you the exact time according to Sympatico Aliant - 2:48 p.m. and we will start with the NDP caucus.

The honourable member for Dartmouth North.

MR. JERRY PYE: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Halifax Atlantic, who is the Critic for Municipal Relations and Service Nova Scotia, for giving me the opportunity to question the minister in an area of the portfolio that I think needs some background information. I'm glad to be able to bring this through Budget Estimates.

This is an area that requires a great deal of attention, particularly around residential tenancies because I represent a constituency where there is a high number of multi-unit residential developments. If you can bring yourself, Mr. Minister, and your colleagues - and I want to thank your colleagues for being here today as well - around residential tenancies.

As you know, particularly in the metro area, there has been a huge out-migration from other municipalities into Halifax and an in-migration into the Halifax area. As a matter of fact, it has upset what I consider to be a reasonable or sensible balance with respect to vacancy rates and units in the province. I do know that in 1998, there was a position paper that was put out looking for direction, and shortly after there was a summary paper that followed. The summary paper that followed brought a number of the stakeholders together who participated in that study, to recommend a number of changes with respect to the Residential Tenancies Act.

609

[Page 610]

On November 1, 1999 - and Hansard will report this in the subcommittee of the budget - I did bring this forward to the then Minister of Finance, whose portfolio it fell under at that time, Minister LeBlanc. He indicated to me that, in fact, there would be an issue to address this - I shouldn't say an issue but there would be an attempt to address this - by bringing legislation in in the Spring of 2000.

As you know, in 1999 there was a September election and that is why the November - just in case, Mr. Minister, you are not aware of why - the subcommittees had met, the subcommittees came back to discuss the budget in November. Then he did say that it would be the Spring of 2000 or the Fall of 2000. My question to you, Mr. Minister, is where is the report and what is happening with respect to the overall Act?

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

HON. BARRY BARNET: I appreciate the question. With respect to the matter of residential tenancies, we have looked at a number of areas, particularly as it relates to complaints and concerns that have been brought forward to us as government. One of the things that we have embarked upon recently is with respect to mobile home tenants. The committee may or may not be aware but there has been the opportunity for an advisory committee to advise the minister with respect to residential tenancy issues and tenants in mobile home parks, within the current framework and legislation that exists right now. But for one reason or another, that committee has never been struck, never been structured. As the minister, what I asked my staff to do and what they have done, is begun a process of moving forward with the provisions within that Act to establish that advisory committee, to the point where, I believe, at the Agencies, Boards and Commissions ad that went out the last time, and again, subsequent to that, we have received a number of applications with respect to people who have expressed interest. I expect that at the Human Resources Committee's next meeting, we will see those particular appointments come forward. That is just one initiative. As well, there have been other things with respect to the complex arrangements and disputes that exist between tenants and landlords.

Last year there were over 3,000 disputes registered of which almost 300 of them are appealed. We have continued to work with the current Act, with the exception of the minor changes that we've made with respect to residential tenancy matters being heard through small claims court, and we believe that it's working relatively effectively now. With this new committee, particularly with respect to mobile home parks, I think that will be an improvement, the fact that we've been able to expedite hearings and stuff, I think that will be effective. Currently, as it stands, we intend to leave the Act in place, as it stands right now.

MR. PYE: Mr. Minister, I might say to you that that simply isn't good enough. We know that there are over 15,000 mobile home owners in the province and you have recognized that you're going to address their issues, particularly with respect to lot

[Page 611]

management and the whole issue around mobile home owners. There are 100,000 residential units, apartment dwellers, in the Province of Nova Scotia, many which have not seen this Act change in approximately 10 years, many who have been waiting to have their day before government to talk about amendments and changes to the Residential Tenancies Act, amendments and changes that are made to bring up the current environment within the residential tenancies. There is a very serious need particularly in parts of the province where mega-growth is taking place; where in fact population shifts are taking place; where there is a need for multi-unit developments, all, Mr. Minister, which fall under your purview to address. Unfortunately, that is the problem.

I don't know if there is or if you are aware of - you said that you had over 3,000 complaints but I know there are a number of complaints around how people get tenancy with respect to the investment property owners using EquiFax, as a matter of fact, as a way of doing evaluations on individuals, going through a credit check, in order to see if they're going to be appropriate tenants or not to get into those units. Housing shortage in this province is a very serious matter to the people on social assistance and low income people who may have bad credit ratings, never get the opportunity to get in, and there is a crisis situation building as a result of that. We need to know if that is the type of thing that can be legislated into the Act or if it can't.

Since I don't have much time, Mr. Minister, to go through a whole process, what I will do, because my colleague has been kind enough to give me some time, and our time is very short here, I want to go, No. 1, how do you look at addressing that issue? No. 2, as you know, people used to say in this province there used to be rent controls. There was never such a thing as rent control, there was never such an animal. There were rent reviews, and that was shifted by the Savage Government when they got elected in 1993, and it came into force in 1995, when rent reviews were removed. There needs to be a way to justify the rental increases to people. Now a landlord can go out there and do whatever he or she wants that justifies the increases and there's no market force or no legislative force to prevent them from doing that. So that's No. 2. One was with respect to how we view people and what application process it is going to take for people to become tenants? No. 2, is there a possibility to at least have rent review in this province? No. 3 - once again, the reason I said I was speeding this up is due to the kindness of the member for Halifax Atlantic for giving me the time - what obligations do landlords have with respect to tenants' personal property?

If a tenant is asked to be removed from a unit and the tenant has no means or wherewithal, particularly those who are working poor or disadvantaged, and they know the finite day has come, the end of the day has come for them to leave, then the landlord in turn throws their personal property out on the sidewalk, their furniture and whatever little bit of belongings they have. Is there any obligation under the Act to protect individuals with respect to their personal property, because I cannot find it? So that's No. 3 right off the cuff, and I do apologize for bringing them in this manner. Under the normal budgetary process I would

[Page 612]

have asked them in sequence and in separate questions, but because time is of the essence here, I don't have that, Mr. Minister. Thank you.

MR. BARNET: I appreciate the questions and I understand the passion that the member feels when he deals with these types of issue, we all from time to time have issues like this. I will say this, government must always be careful whenever we try to interfere with the free market system that exists right now in the Province of Nova Scotia, particularly as it relates to supply and demand of any type of service or product and what tenant and landlord relationship exists in those parameters.

As well, with respect to the ability for a landlord to put personal property out of the premises, I would not profess to be an expert in that particular law but I would suspect that there are provisions within that law that require people to deal with it appropriately. If you can just give me a second, I will double-check with the deputy. He replied to me that he believes that is in the law right now. We can confirm that for you, honourable member, and we will try to get that to you in writing, in terms of which provision of the current law requires that an individual's property be protected. I will endeavour to get that for you and get it to you.

[3:00 p.m.]

MR. PYE: I greatly appreciate it and I want to say to the minister, though, you're right. There comes an area whereby there is seen by government to be meddling in the private sector, but there also is the responsibility of government to deliver a balance, and to make sure that things are seen to be done fairly and if they're not being done fairly that's the reason why government introduces legislation all the time. Government introduces legislation to protect its citizens and that's often what legislation is for. I would say to you, Mr. Minister, the time has come to look at the Residential Tenancies Act, and to see if the legislation in that Act is current for today and if in fact there needs to be tinkering and amendments to sections of the legislation, which I firmly believe and a number of citizens bring to my attention and I'm sure to your attention as well, Mr. Minister. I'm pleased to hear that you're talking about reviewing the mobile homes issues, but to me I want to say that's not enough, and hope that you will take under advisement what I have said today during budget estimates and certainly have a look at how we can better do it.

You made the comment with respect to small claims court and you believe that's being seen to be effective. It may be seen to be effective by the government but there are a number of people who are apprehensive about taking their issues to small claims court, so many of them don't enter that kind of an environment and I want you to be aware of that as well, Mr. Minister. Finally, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Halifax Atlantic, for giving me the opportunity to pose such short questions to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

[Page 613]

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Thank you for taking the questions again. I wasn't really going to engage in that part of it, but I should just follow up on what my colleague was saying in regard to the Residential Tenancies Act. I think it's particularly important when you look at the Auditor General's Report on the Department of Community Services, which makes the comment that there is no kind of, even an auditing procedure for the kinds of rents charged in the market for people receiving rent subsidies, so if people are receiving rent subsidies as opposed to being in public housing, they're in that free market and they are truly vulnerable. The other thing I would say, a similar thing, I would be interested to know what protection there is for tenants' belongings, well not even on an eviction actually, but just on nonpayment of rent because I certainly have encountered some pretty tragic circumstances and whether or not there is something in the protection, something is needed in the way of enforcement. There's a lot of fear about invoking the protection that is there.

I guess I should, just very quickly, I had a few questions. One of them, I hope you don't mind going back to a couple of years ago, comments of your predecessor, Minister MacIsaac, on the subject of equalization. When the NSBI grants in lieu began to be supplemented by equalization payments, he made the comment that the government was not going to prop up a unit which isn't viable. I would really like to know, I mean given the fact that the population of HRM is expected to increase by almost exactly the same amount that the population of CBRM is projected to decrease, according to the population forecasts three or four years ago, I'd really like to know, what exactly is the threshold of viable, or at least by what reference, what standards are used to determine what is viable?

MR. BARNET: One of the things that we want to ensure is that municipalities, to the greatest possible extent, operate on revenues that they receive from their own municipal unit. Bearing in mind that we have a tremendous population shift, particularly from rural to urban Nova Scotia. Bearing in mind that we've had a number of decades of decline, particularly in the resource-related industries and I'm talking about fishing and farming and forestry. There are and will be times when the province will have to assist and we have assisted through that particular program, to help smaller municipalities continue to offer a comparable level of service. To define viable, I guess for my purposes I would say viable is a municipality that meets the challenges and needs of its community to the greatest extent that it can. I don't know if there's an actual definition of viable.

I can tell you that to my knowledge, there has not been a municipal unit in Nova Scotia that has been deemed not viable. There are a number of them that struggle. I know that in other jurisdictions, particularly I read recently of Dawson City, Yukon, the Minister of Municipal Affairs there was forced to a position where he had to suspend the operations of the town and the mayor and council, and the territory took over that jurisdiction. We, for the most part, try to work with municipal units to ensure that doesn't happen, but when it does happen, one of the things that we will do is make sure that particularly budding municipal units that may participate in a solution, whatever that solution is, are aware and are willing partners and that those people who live in the towns or municipal units that are involved in

[Page 614]

that are fully aware of the circumstances, and we have had some challenges in the past, particularly with some municipalities and we will continue to work with those units to the best that we can to ensure that they continue on to be a viable unit.

One of my beliefs is that viability doesn't necessarily mean you're financially viable. I believe that towns are more than just the bureaucrats that work there and the people who are elected to serve them. They're greater than that and the definition of viability for a town may not mean necessarily the structure of the town or the municipality itself or the people who work there. It means the community. That's what we really have to focus on to ensure that those communities exist and they exist as a vibrant and important part of Nova Scotia.

MS. RAYMOND: So when you say that those revenues should be coming to the greatest extent possible, there is no fixed percentage, that you would say it's to the greatest extent, it's to some degree, dependent on circumstances and as you say, if - implosion, I think is the word used by HRM - in the face of that, then at least municipalities need to be willing partners in change? Is that what I understand?

MR. BARNET: I would say that to the extent that's possible. There will be, probably at some point in time in the history of Nova Scotia, times when for one reason or another we'll have to make decisions that may not be completely supported by a town or it's council or municipality or it's council, but what we always try to do, first and foremost, is put the interest of Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians in advance of that, and that we ensure that of particular importance is that they are operating within the Municipal Government Act, first and foremost, and that they follow the rules that we've placed in front of them and that they all understand that municipalities can't live beyond their means. In other words, they can't borrow money to operate. They have to operate off the current year's revenue. That has created challenges for certain municipalities and for the most part, we've been able to work through those challenges, but when a challenge comes and one of the things, as minister, that I intend to do, is to ensure that we take into consideration first and foremost, the viability of the community and of the people there and that we put that first.

MS. RAYMOND: I guess that when you talk about the protection of the public and so on, I think one of the other concerns that I have and that a number of members of the communities do have, is about the length and somewhat variable content of public consultation procedures. Is there any look toward having specific timelines for reporting back and so on in decision making?

MR. BARNET: With respect to planning decisions?

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, and particularly the word public consultation, I think. It seems to be elastic.

[Page 615]

MR. BARNET: It does. It's a relatively new phenomenon for municipalities from what I understand. Since 1993, when I was first elected municipally, it virtually didn't happen. It has been something inserted into municipal planning strategies to allow for the public to have greater say in what happens and the decisions that affect them and their communities. I think it's an excellent opportunity to better shape and mould communities so that they reflect what the people want.

The problem that I and other municipal politicians have discovered is that people have utilized public participation as a dilatory tool to delay or forestall inevitable change, and I think that is always a bad thing. We do from time to time amend the Municipal Government Act to allow municipalities a greater ability to reflect what it is they want in their planning documents and how those things work. As you know, we have Municipal Government Act amendments in this session. I think pretty near every year there are Municipal Government

Act amendments. What I have said to municipalities is if you bring these things forward we will look at them seriously and we will make adjustments where they make sense and if we believe they don't make sense, we'll tell them why. If that is something a municipality wants to bring forward in terms of an amendment to the Municipal Government Act to allow for greater certainty over how this works, we'll look at it.

MS. RAYMOND: You don't mean though that amendments to the Municipal Government Act are purely a reactive thing, do you, only when they are brought forward by municipalities?

MR. BARNET: No, in fact, I'll say this, that a recent amendment to the Municipal Government Act that we're looking at now is to enable private daycares to be charged residential rates if municipalities want that to happen. That was not brought forward to us by municipalities, it was brought forward as a result of inquiries by daycares and the staff of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I would say it is probably a mix and sometimes we find slight areas where we can adjust on our own.

MS. RAYMOND: I have two minutes and two questions because I'm sharing my time with my honourable colleague, the member for Victoria-The-Lakes. The first one actually is on the subject of consumer protection.

Given the recent federal changes in the use of corporately gathered information, is this in fact being reflected in the security policies of information gathered at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations? We were talking, I know, about electronic security and so on but in general, have there been moves to reflect this?

MR. BARNET: This is an answer that would take much longer than 30 seconds. What I will commit is that it is an important answer and maybe you and I can sit down and talk about it. We have made significant steps and we've been in contact with the federal government to ensure that we comply with federal legislation as well. There are lots of things

[Page 616]

that we're doing, particularly in our consumer protection area that many people don't know about but we can share with you later.

MS. RAYMOND: One more question, very simply, which has been an issue for me and I see there is a related issue even in today's paper. Also consumer protection as far as the Registry of Joint Stocks goes. I have had encounters with more than one group having the unfortunate experience of incorporating; you pay your $35, you get the certificate and you're on the hook for any amount of liability, you need not have any kind of training whatsoever. Even this article in the paper today talks about groups leaving thousands behind in bank accounts.

Is there any consideration - I know in the new credit union revision, there is a requirement for regulations at least to prescribe some kind of training for directors - given to accompanying the certificate of incorporation for a non-profit with some minimal level of training, information, orientation, testing, anything, just for the sake of these people who can literally not know what they're getting themselves into?

MR. BARNET: We do require that when they incorporate they file their annual meetings and follow a regular process and as well, Revenue Canada does too . . .

MS. RAYMOND: That's down the line though, that's not at the time of incorporation.

MR. BARNET: . . . maybe there is something we can do in terms of a public relations thing to better ensure the public is aware of their obligations.

MS. RAYMOND: I just put in my 15-second plea that please, a lot of the people who are most dependent on these kinds of organizations for achieving their aims are, in fact, not fully aware of what they're getting themselves into, until the time comes when they haven't filed the proper reports, so it could be a very minimal kind of thing.

MR. BARNET: That's right. Many of them think they only have to file once and that's it.

MS. RAYMOND: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you are sharing your time there are 23 minutes left in the hour.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, before I forget I will first ask a question on behalf of my colleague, the member for Richmond. He states that a couple of years ago it was highlighted by the department that the department was unable to issue documents with accent symbols on their names. This was especially a problem for drivers' licences and birth

[Page 617]

certificates. This was especially troubling for those with French names and people of other ethnic backgrounds.

[3:15 p.m.]

The minister of the day, Neil LeBlanc, said it was a computer problem that would be corrected. I'm just wondering if the minister could indicate whether this problem has been resolved and if not, why not?

MR. BARNET: On birth certificates we do provide the accent symbol but until we are able to replace, particularly a component of our driver's licence mechanism, we won't be able to do that. So with respect to your answer we are half and half and we expect that at some point in time we will have to make that technological investment, to enable us to do it, particularly with the ID and the driver's licence.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So birth certificates are already being done that way but drivers' licences will have to come in the future.

MR. BARNET: Yes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Thank you. As time is of the essence I will try to be as brief as I can with my questions and move forward as much as we can in a short time.

In keeping with the commitment to ensure that rural Nova Scotians have equitable access to the services provided by the government, your department said you were announcing within the next 12 to 18 months that every county in Nova Scotia will have access to one-stop shopping for a wide range of government services, everything from government tender information, to a licence renewal, to registering a new business. That was in the Budget Address on April 11, 2000. I'm just wondering, has that promise been fulfilled or is there a person in each county, or is it an Internet service?

MR. BARNET: We now have, particularly in Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, somebody in every county, with the exception of Richmond County. In Richmond County we have a service office that provides the service in Port Hawkesbury which is nearby. In addition to that we do, through the Internet, provide a wide array of services where people can now access through the Internet, on-line, and we have been improving that almost on a monthly basis, where we continue to look for options and alternatives to actually coming in and visiting us at our sites. What we're finding is it is getting good uptake, people like it, it's easy, safe and provides a service almost instantaneously in many cases.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: But there is a person in each municipality, except Richmond?

[Page 618]

MR. BARNET: That's right.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Just to go back to the language question, people from other ethnic origins other than French, say Chinese, Arabic or something like that, is there an effort being made so those people who are now Canadian citizens would have their driver's licence or birth certificates or anything in their proper language and with the proper symbols associated with it also?

MR. BARNET: No, and I'm not certain whether we even have a demand for that.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Because I was going to ask you, if there was any intention to try to move toward a multi-language production of documents in people's proper language with the proper spelling?

MR. BARNET: I think the difficulty would be in trying to develop a system that would enable the variety of alphabets to be utilized within our current framework and whether or not we would have staff - particularly front-line staff - that would be able to do that. We receive a lot of immigrants, particularly at the Service Nova Scotia branches, who come in looking for a piece of photo ID, sort of a foundation document so when they come to Canada they have something that proves who they are. Often, they convert their names to an English spelling and are satisfied with that.

I don't know of any case where someone has brought to our attention that they would like to see it spelled in a different language. I'm not certain whether or not we could even acquire the process, particularly whether or not it would be a reasonable expenditure.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So it's just the other official language, French, that you're moving towards adopting. Recently, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations examined the ups and downs of the volatile fuel market, and the department, supposedly, is working to help consumers understand the factors that affect the cost of gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. What I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, is, what's the department doing to ensure that Nova Scotians believe that they're getting a fair price for gas? I paid 97.9 cents per litre when I fuelled up last night, before I left home. The supreme was over $1 per litre. I'm just wondering, what is the province doing about high gas prices?

MR. BARNET: We anticipated, a number of months ago, that this could possibly happen and, in that anticipation, directed our staff to move forward with an analysis and review of what is occurring in other jurisdictions. Staff, I believe, visited Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and, as well, they did some independent research to determine what other jurisdictions have done with respect to bringing forward measures to protect the consumers. In addition to that, they consulted with a variety of stakeholders to determine what they believe might be the approaches to be taken. We expect to bring forward measures in the near future to protect Nova Scotians to a greater extent.

[Page 619]

Having said that, I've authorized a letter to be written to Minister Lucienne Robillard, the Minister of Industry Canada, expressing to her some of the concerns that have been brought to my attention and some issues around what may be perceived by many Nova Scotians as unfair market practices. Industry Canada, in Canada, has the jurisdiction of dealing with those types of matters. I've asked her to investigate. I understand, as recently as today, that they intend to look at this particular file.

Back in January, when we started, it was my hope and expectation that this may be an initiative that we wouldn't have to move forward with, but as the prices rose and we got closer to the Summer, it appears as if government has to do something to protect Nova Scotians' interest. I ask members to stand by.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: So you are planning on doing something for the consumers?

MR. BARNET: Yes.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, thank you. Two-thirds of the province's municipalities have lost population, and in 2001 versus four years previous, of the 31 towns, three-quarters are losing population. Half the rural municipalities seem to drop in population. What plans does the department have to help alleviate the burden faced by municipalities with declining population and a declining tax base?

MR. BARNET: This is a complex issue that faces every province in this country. I can tell you that it consumed a great deal of thought and discussion at the Ministers of Municipal Affairs meeting held in P.E.I. earlier in the Fall. It will continue to be an area of discussion and concern for all Canadians. It's of particular importance here in Nova Scotia. We want to ensure that we're able to maintain the level of service in remote and rural parts of Nova Scotia. Without a population base to support that, it makes it difficult for governments, particularly municipal governments, to do that.

One of the things that we have been trying to focus on, and have had some success, is particularly with respect to economic development initiatives. We've seen a number of key successes lately. I'll say this, I was very pleased when I heard on the radio this weekend that Stats Canada has reported, for three consecutive months in a row, an increase in new jobs created here in Nova Scotia. Many of those new jobs were created in rural Nova Scotia. We

put a genuine focus on trying to have companies locate in rural Nova Scotia. I can point to the success we had with some 400 jobs in Cornwallis and another success in Queens County with several hundred jobs.

So there are successes, and we have been stepping forward. I believe, when you look at Nova Scotia and you compare us, nationally, to the same problem that exists in other jurisdictions that we're doing very well, but there's still more work to happen. Obviously, as

[Page 620]

the larger cities get bigger, it draws from somewhere and that somewhere happens to be rural municipalities. It's an issue that we have seriously looked at and have put in place some measures to protect.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: But you will continue to raise this at your Cabinet Table on behalf of rural municipalities?

MR. BARNET: Absolutely.

MR. GERALD SAMPSON: Mr. Minister, at this time I want to share the remainder of my time with my colleague, and hopefully leave a few minutes for you to wrap up.

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

MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on CBRM, with the issue of declining population. One thing that I've noticed since the inception of regional government in Cape Breton is that the budget continuously increases for that municipality, property taxes continually increase, and we have a shrinking population. What has your department done to bring to the attention of CBRM officials that if we're having such a substantial decrease in population - and I know the issue of services doesn't necessarily correlate with population trends - what has your department done, specifically, to have CBRM reduce the size of its bureaucracy? The bureaucracy has not shrunk one iota since regional government came in, and it's defeating the entire purpose for which it was stated.

MR. BARNET: I appreciate the question, and I want to point out that I don't think it is necessarily unique to CBRM that we've seen increases in budgets, even after the amalgamation of municipal units. I know from my own personal experience that Halifax Regional Municipality, on its first annual budget - and I'm going by memory - I believe the combined annual budget was $325 million, a lot of money. It was almost something that, as a municipal councillor, you couldn't imagine how you bring the three together or four together and get that large of a budget. Now, I believe their most recent budget is over $500 million, which is a substantial increase, $175 million over that period of time. That's just from memory, I might be off by a bit.

One of the things with amalgamation, I don't believe it was ever the intent, or if it was the intent, maybe it was some incorrect assumptions, that there would be substantial savings as a result of that. It didn't happen. What we've done, though, as a department is we've brought forward a number of initiatives to provide opportunities to municipalities to partner with us in the department and to develop strategic arrangements between municipal units and the department to provide for savings that can be utilized in either enhanced delivery of services or reduction in their operating expenses. In some cases there has been uptake, in some there hasn't.

[Page 621]

MR. MACKINNON: Would the minister be kind enough, perhaps I can take it on notice, a 30-day notice, to provide me with a list of those particular strategic initiatives?

MR. BARNET: I can tell you one example that the . . .

MR. MACKINNON: No, would you be kind enough . . .

MR. BARNET: Yes. Sure.

MR. MACKINNON: I realize we have only so much time, and I'm trying to address some rather pressing issues. In Sydney River, the minister is familiar with the water problem, fecal contamination in the groundwater, that's been an ongoing problem for going on two years now. Still nothing of any material substance has come out of it other than studies and analyses and advisories of what to do, not to do, all that sort of thing. Is there anything contemplated for providing a central water system for that affected area of upwards of 600 homes, in this fiscal year?

MR. BARNET: The practice that we have used for moving forward with those types of programs, we've asked the municipalities themselves to bring them forward.

MR. MACKINNON: Have they done that?

MR. BARNET: No.

MR. MACKINNON: That pretty well answers the question, then. You can't do anything until they bring it forward.

MR. BARNET: Well, we expect the municipalities will be able to identify, within their jurisdictions, the priorities, and in some cases the priorities don't always match even our own expectations.

[3:30 p.m.]

MR. MACKINNON: But the short answer is they haven't done that.

MR. BARNET: They haven't done that.

MR. MACKINNON: I've had meetings with municipal officials there, and I was led to believe that it has been raised with the province and you're telling me differently. That's fine.

MR. BARNET: We may have expended money through . . .

[Page 622]

MR. MACKINNON: Studies, but no application for a central water system.

MR. BARNET: I understand the local councillor himself has made that request, but not council as a whole. Really, those types of requests have to come from council.

MR. MACKINNON: Yes, that's correct. Would you be able to provide a copy of the documentation of the request by the councillor?

MR. BARNET: Yes, we will.

MR. MACKINNON: Also, in Floral Heights there are approximately 500 homes there. There's an elementary school with about 450 children, there's a volunteer fire department, there's trucking operations and a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic, and there's not one piece of sidewalk, except for just in front of the school, extended maybe 500 feet, 600 feet of sidewalk. From along Tomertary Drive, which is the main corridor going in there, which by the way is on a street where two young persons were severely injured several years ago in a pedestrian-motor vehicle accident, of which one is now a quadriplegic, he would be about 20 now, but there is no sidewalk.

I've made this plea to your predecessor and predecessor's predecessor and so on. We had it contemplated in the 1999 budget, just to address that. Provincially it would cost approximately $157,000, maybe $160,000, one-third share, to be able to address this main infrastructure problem. Like I say, with 450 children walking around that subdivision and no sidewalk to walk on, it's very dangerous. Have you received any request from the municipality on that issue?

MR. BARNET: Not that we're aware of.

MR. MACKINNON: Well, we can't fault the province on that. The other issue, with regard to the mobile home parks, I have the single-largest mobile home park on Cape Breton Island, Heather Mobile Park. In 1999, we empowered municipalities to be able to develop zoning regulations and bylaws governing mobile home parks. Up until the new Planning Act had come in under, I believe it was, Tom McInnis, the honourable Tom McInnis was Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time, we always had regulations governing mobile parks, and then that was done away with. Since then I've been trying to have the municipality develop a new set of regulations.

Presently there's no requirement for how wide the street has to be. There's no requirement for the quality of the roadbed, or the setback requirements for the mobile home from the street line. There's no sideline setbacks or the minimum size of the lot. There's no regulations even requiring recreational lands. In this particular park, there was quite a questionable activity of a considerable amount of money that was expended, municipally, provincially and federally, to develop a park in there. After it was developed, after the 10-year

[Page 623]

lease expired, the developer refused to renew it. There was somewhere in the vicinity of $60,000 lost, and now they've just put a street through the ballfield and they have more mobile parks.

I listened to the exchange between yourself and the member for Dartmouth North. Has the province, at any time, directed municipalities to have all these zoning regulations, these regulations governing mobile parks, in place? I know in CBRM, since the MGA was approved, there have been no regulations adopted, despite numerous efforts. I believe that is negligence on behalf of the municipality. It's just as well you talk to a piece of stick out on the side of the street as to try to get through to some of the officials at CBRM on this issue. It's very concerning. There are water problems there, there are sewage problems there, overflows, it's not a healthy situation, to have upwards of 300 mobile homeowners in this situation.

Has the province directed, or what's the issue on that? I know what the legislation speaks to, but . . .

MR. BARNET: We have not issued a directive to municipalities. These things, particularly as they relate to planning issues - the ability rests with the municipality to do what it wants to do in terms of how they intend to address these things. I can tell you that . . .

MR. MACKINNON: If I could interject . . .

MR. BARNET: Okay. Are we running out of time?

MR. MACKINNON: Well, we're getting close. The issue is, given the seriousness of the situation, as I've outlined to the minister, would he undertake to write to his municipal counterpart or someone in his department on-line with the appropriate officials, whether it be Mr. Foster, the Director of Planning, or whoever, to indicate to them that I've raised this once again - I've raised it on numerous occasions, at budgets, in the House, and so on - and that this concern is not subsiding? It's not going away, it's getting worse. It's an issue of health and well-being. I would ask if perhaps you could use your moral persuasion (Interruptions) I know that MGA allows for more self-autonomy and so on. I can appreciate all that, but this is an issue of, in my view, absolute neglect.

MR. BARNET: We'll write that letter.

MR. MACKINNON: That's all I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any closing remarks that you would like to make?

MR. BARNET: Sure. How many minutes do I have left, just a few minutes is it?

[Page 624]

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have as many minutes as you want.

MR. BARNET: Well, they're going to start. There were a number of undertakings to get information, some of which we are working on, one of which was with respect to recovery of the amount of money from each municipal unit for assessment. I think it was yourself who asked for that, somebody asked for it. We'll leave this for everyone.

I'll close by simply saying that Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, as I said in the beginning, touches a wide variety of issues that deal with Nova Scotians, including consumer protection. I was pleased that there were questions with respect to consumer protection here today. It's an important component of what we do. As well, I want to say, as I said in the beginning, we have 880-some dedicated employees who work for us. They do an excellent job. Particularly with respect to the review of the work they've done, we get very good remarks back from Nova Scotians who received the services of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Affairs.

I can tell you that in some of the analyses that we've done with respect to assessment services, we've seen increases in customer satisfaction, year over year, to the tune of 25 per cent. If you're in the private business, that is amazing, so considering that we're in government and we're getting that kind of year-over-year customer satisfaction improvements, I think that's excellent. It speaks well to the hard-working people at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

As well, I want to thank the members who provided questions with respect to the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs. It's a new office for the Province of Nova Scotia, new for Canada, and it's one that we're very excited about, that we believe will have tremendous beneficial impacts to African-Nova Scotians and to all Nova Scotians as we move forward in addressing concerns and the agenda of African-Nova Scotians.

As well, many times when we move forward with initiatives that benefit municipalities, and I can point to examples of providing opportunities through the Internet, as well through our support and continued operation of the Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program. To date, we've funded over $167 million in projects, which is phenomenal. In the next couple of days there will be another series of announcements of municipal projects. Many of these are in rural Nova Scotia, many of these deal with, particularly, the health and safety of Nova Scotians around the safe provision of drinking water and disposal of sewage, as well as community recreational facilities.

Something we didn't get into that our department does that's very important is the whole area around providing grants to community accessible transportation programs. Last year we provided a number of new grants to groups and organizations who started up new operations. I'm very pleased when I get the opportunity as minister to go out and meet with

[Page 625]

those individuals, and bring them a cheque and get them started. They do excellent work in Nova Scotia, particularly in rural Nova Scotia.

As well, our department provides accessibility grants to facilities. As you work your way around the province, members will find that they'll see ramps and wheelchair accessible washrooms that have been installed by community groups and organizations, and many of the capital dollars that you see being spent are cost-shared by us in our department. These are worthwhile initiatives that go a long way to making the services that Nova Scotians receive accessible to all Nova Scotians. It's good work that we do at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I want to thank the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you read the resolution into the record please?

Resolution E14 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $15,300,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate of African Nova Scotian Affairs, $428,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E30 stand?

Resolution E30 stands.

Shall Resolution E14 carry?

Resolution E14 is carried.

Maybe it's appropriate to take a "Baker break" while we wait for the Minister of Justice.

[3:40 p.m. The subcommittee recessed]

[3:46 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call the estimates of the Department of Justice.

Resolution E10 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $99,626,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. MICHAEL BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I will be extremely brief at the beginning. It's my honour to present the estimates on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, Treasury and Policy Board, Voluntary Planning, the Freedom of

[Page 626]

Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office, the Human Rights Commission, the Nova Scotia Police Commission, and the Public Prosecution Service. As was agreed earlier, I have no opening statement to make, other than to open the floor to questions. We'll attempt to answer those questions that members have with respect to these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those are your opening remarks?

MR. BAKER: That's it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've never heard you be so brief in your life. (Laughter)

MR. BAKER: That was part of the arrangement, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's very kind of you. (Interruptions) I think that must have been arranged before.

The honourable member for Halifax Citadel.

MR. DANIEL GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Official Opposition for their forsaking this first hour and reversing the order of our time. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing today. I see that you have Mr. Beckett, one lieutenant, to your right, but there are others in behind who may share in some of the responses that may come. My questions, perhaps as no surprise to you, will relate to your role as the Attorney General and as the Minister of Justice. This is an area that I have long had interest in and some history with your department, I would like to put on the record a very positive history, with some of the people who are in the room here today. My experience, I can say, with the Department of Justice has been a particularly positive one for me, and I hope that some of that could be said in return, although I won't presume a thing in response.

I would like to start my questioning, really, with a general sort of comment. I'm going to foreshadow, hopefully, everything that I say. I would like to enter into a discussion that is broad, I would like to have a discussion that, for lack of a better metaphor, and it's an overused one, flies up to 10,000 feet and asks questions about the purpose of the criminal justice system and what direction, what reforms, what renewal, what kinds of things you see happening in the justice system to address what many in the public consider to be a problem that is removed and distant from the everyday concerns of Nova Scotians.

Ultimately, our criminal justice system is expected to reflect and reinforce the values that we all share. Unfortunately, many Nova Scotians feel that it does not for a variety of reasons that perhaps are worth exploring. It is one thing for regular Nova Scotians to have concerns about the effectiveness of the justice system, it's quite another - and I appreciate that for some of this you might not have all the background - for an Auditor General to come out and provide comments about it. Your system in Nova Scotia is connected to the broader

[Page 627]

federal system, the federal Department of Justice and the Solicitor General's office, Corrections, and all the rest.

About three years ago or so, as I recall it, the federal Auditor General, having done an audit of the Justice and Corrections system generally, asked a very general question: what value are we getting for the money that we're spending, doing the things that we've been doing? Which brings me back to something of a metaphor that I've used in the past, and I'm sure that some of the members who are with you, Mr. Reid in particular, whose longstanding experience in the Prosecution Service, would recognize the phrase of an assembly line, that the justice system is something of an assembly line that finds people who have challenges, for one reason or another, as a youth, end up in the hands of the police, then on to the courts, then off to Corrections, in one fashion, either probation or in custody, and then back out into the community.

In the course of all of what is done, there is not particularly good communication amongst those different sectors, there is not a focus on the needs of the people themselves, and the Auditor General, I believe, was also referencing - I stand to be corrected on this but the research is quite vast - reinforcing the notion amongst many that, for example, in Corrections, there's not good data that suggests that the Corrections system is ultimately creating a safer environment, except for, of course, removing people who are dangerous from the community, which is an important step forward for the Corrections system.

That's the foundation that I'd like to begin my remarks from. I would like to ask whether or not, in your department, there are initiatives underway - first, if you agree with some of those assertions, having practised law yourself, you would have a real practical sense of this, and whether or not there are movements afoot to respond to those problems?

MR. BAKER: I would like to thank the honourable member for his opening comments. Just by way of responding, an initial comment about the Department of Justice, while the time when the member was at the Department of Justice, it was before my time there, obviously, I can tell you that his time there is viewed very positively from a number of staff people who are still there, who have discussed that time and frankly discussed a number of matters that you were involved with whilst at the department. I just wanted to say for the record that you viewed it as a positive experience and others shared your view. That's always kind of nice to know when you're reflecting on past colleagues and their experience in the workplace.

To talk a bit about the high level vision of the Department of Justice for a second, particularly in the criminal justice area, there are many challenges that I think all people who are interested in that justice system face. One, of course, is the fact that many false impressions of what actually happens in Nova Scotia or in Canada are created by virtue of the fact that people watch television, and they get an impression of a justice system that is created by Law and Order or any other television program, and is not created based upon - in some

[Page 628]

cases, at least - the reality of what's going on in the courtroom, it's not created by the reality of what's going on with police officers, it's not perhaps creating an impression about what actually goes on with Corrections, and, frankly, it sometimes fails to appreciate the distinct differences that we have between our legal system and the American legal system. I think that creates some challenges, frankly.

I think there are also some challenges that occur around perception issues, and I'll talk for a second about one of those, and that's youth crime. There is a public perception that there is a skyrocketing increase in youth crime. Statistics, of course, do not bear that out. In point of fact, there is a decreasing number of individuals who are engaged in that, and the number of people who are actually guilty of committing violent youth crime is pretty constant, it has remained pretty constant over a long period of time. So that, for example, we see the manifestation of that around the Shelburne Youth Centre and its closure.

In point of fact, there have been some changes in the way that young people are dealt with by the criminal justice system, which are not a reflection, as some would think, on being 'soft on crime', but as a result of perhaps better ways of dealing with young people, and as a result of the actual empirical reduction in the amount of actual offenders. Again, that would - I think if you talked to people on the street - be news to them, because they would believe that the number of young people committing crime has skyrocketed over the last number of years.

A number of other, I guess, challenges are to explain, and our federal legal system has many virtues but one of them is not simplicity. We have, for example, a system wherein the federal government, of course, legislates with respect to criminal law and most criminal procedures. The provincial government is responsible for the administration of justice, and then you have the hodge-podge which is Corrections. In point of fact, our correctional institutions in Nova Scotia, as the member would obviously be aware, are an amalgam. We have people who are either awaiting trial, or who have been convicted and awaiting sentence, or who have been sentenced and are awaiting their appeal period's expiry, in provincial institutions, convicted of very serious crimes, murderers and the like.

In those institutions, as well, we have people who are sentenced to relatively short periods of incarceration as a result, generally, of committing less serious crimes, and certainly having less serious sentences, because, obviously, any sentence of two years or more, cumulatively, will put you in a federal institution. Then, thirdly, we have still some individuals who are sentenced on intermittent sentences. They pose another special challenge in our correctional facilities as visitors, for weekends, generally, to institutions. So that provides a special challenge.

[Page 629]

Explaining to people the difference between the kind of programming that will work in a provincial institution, where you may have someone there for 30 days, and the kind of programming you can offer in a federal institution, where you may have somebody there for 10 years, is quite a difficult situation.

I can tell you that one of the things I'm very proud of is the fact that both on the legislative and policy front, the department has staff who are dedicated to both those functions. Those functions, I think, are particularly important. The idea of having a policy person - the honourable member would be aware of Kit Waters. Kit, I think it's fair to say, was a very well-respected person with respect to criminal justice policy, and we now have someone who's doing that job, as well, and they provide the kind of policy advice that I think is important. Obviously we also have people like Jennifer Pavlov, who provides the legislation advice, and also provides policy advice.

I think the department is well-rounded. I suppose in a perfect world you could always wish for more, but the department has made some real effort to have a vision. Part of the vision is also internalized in sections. For example, in Corrections, I think they're really trying to have a vision of what both adult and youth corrections can be and should be, within issues of victims counselling and to try to assist victims of crime in dealing with that. So there are a number of areas where the philosophy of the department, the attempt to be more socially responsive are integrated into the department.

Finally, I think it's important to say that we have also advocated, as a government and as a department, in areas where we believe the criminal law will have a good initiative but where changes need to be made to prevent an otherwise good initiative, a positive initiative, from going the way of the Young Offenders Act. I will give you an illustration, it's around conditional sentencing.

[4:00 p.m.]

I believe conditional sentencing, properly used, is a wonderful tool in many ways and not just from the point of view of letting people off easy. I think on the contrary, properly used it can be a very effective deterrent, a very effective part of rehabilitation. I think, however, there are certain crimes, and those are crimes involving death, particularly, and harm to children as well where they are so socially repugnant that the public need and request for denunciation - and denunciation does serve an important role in criminal justice - it means that conditional sentences are not appropriate.

I think we can all think of situations where, in a criminal negligence causing death situation where a conditional sentence for someone who may have ended the life of one or two or three other individuals, really undermines the otherwise positive aspects of that kind of sentencing. I think one of the things that we're trying to do is to be more refined in our approach so that we have a more visionary approach of what certain types of sentences can

[Page 630]

do and should do. So I hope that gives you a bit of a response to the member's question and I look forward to any more particular suggestions he would make

MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think we both made up for your brief opening remarks, we've each done it. (Laughter)

I appreciate your comments on a number of fronts that you just laid out, in particular the issue with respect to youth crime. The perception versus reality around youth crime is an issue that I have been beating the drum about for a long period of time, and it's not well understood that according to most studies, youth in Canada are incarcerated more often than in any other country in the western world. It's a far cry from the perception that exists out there. I would like to get to the question of the therapeutic aspects of corrections, but if you could, going back to the first question, I described the sectors within Justice and Corrections - community, police, court, corrections and then the community again - and how there is a perception that those work too much in silos.

From a political perspective, we're talking about trying to make Justice work with Education, work with Health, work with Community Services types of issues. We're not going to get there if, even within small sectors like Justice, they're working within sectors inside that sector.

I'm wondering what sort of vision pieces are being worked on and what broader initiatives - recognizing limitations, nobody is expecting the world to be lit on fire - are being advanced inside the department and does this at all connect to the concern expressed by the Auditor General that we spent a lot of money on this and we should find out whether or not there is value for money?

MR. BAKER: I will give you some examples. You have community corrections and of course you have the issue around custodial corrections, particularly youth corrections. For example, we now have Intensive Support and Supervision, a program designed to provide support either to people who are sentenced to probation, or young people who are released after having served, and who then have an opportunity to in fact serve part of their sentence in the community, to provide them with a really seamless kind of supervision that will make a difference.

I know the member is aware of how that works but it's important to realize that these programs are designed to have very low caseloads, so that that young person can receive help and assistance in all of the aspects of their life they may need. Most of those young people are very troubled, as everyone would be aware, and they may need help with education, often financial support and frankly they often have very poor home environments which is an element of potentially finding a home for them to stay. Intensive Support and Supervision is an attempt to integrate a response with respect to those young people.

[Page 631]

I can also tell you with respect to the Public Prosecution Service, while the Public Prosecution Service has obviously an independent role, there has been a real attempt to consult and integrate with the Public Prosecution Service, vis-à-vis criminal justice policy and our response to, for example, when we go to national ministers meetings, to make sure that there isn't just a Department of Justice perspective, for example, but that there is a Public Prosecution Service perspective and that all of those perspectives enlighten how we respond to the issue.

I'm just trying to think of other issues that would involve integration of the silo approach, and I know what the member is speaking about by silos. Obviously, Victim Services is not tremendously connected other than through restorative justice. Restorative justice is something I'm not going to try to even presume to tell the honourable member about, but restorative justice is a very positive program and I believe for many young people, it is a real awakening for them. I have had occasions to be involved both as counsel involving a young person who went through the restorative justice process and saw a very positive outcome, and also someone who actually had something stolen, who was nominally the victim and appeared and went through the restorative justice process, and I was very impressed with the young people who committed that crime. They certainly owned up to what they had done and I think overall the experience for them was one that was quite positive.

MR. GRAHAM: I wasn't intending to touch on the subject of restorative justice, except for one question that I had, and since you raised the issue I will probably knock if off right now if you don't mind.

MR. BAKER: Sure.

MR. GRAHAM: When the program was originally put in place it was intended to be phased in, and I think Phases 1 and 2 have been completed, first with youth and then it would ultimately expand into the adult field. Restorative justice - while it's something that needs to be understood, and I think that the people who have driven the program inside your department understood the subtlety around making this work - it is not something that just pops out of a cookie cutter. It has been effectively used in many jurisdictions, most jurisdictions for adults as well. This program was originally intended to ultimately grow into adulthood as it were and I'm wondering whether or not that is still part of the plan and if so, when would that begin?

MR. BAKER: Certainly, it is something that I believe is important. One of the things that we're trying to do at the present time is to deal with more serious youth crime and get that flowing through the restorative justice system. The other factors that we need to be sensitive on, and I've had meetings about that, are around certain types of criminal offences. I've met with women's organizations, for example, and trying to both educate and be educated by those groups with respect to their concerns around the victims and revictimization. I think it is fair to say, with respect to that particular program, we are hopeful

[Page 632]

it will grow into an adult program as well. There are diversion programs and some of those diversion programs have elements of restorative justice, although they may not be quite restorative justice, but there are elements of restorative justice in diversion programs for example, that are being used by the PPS, as well.

I think it is fair to say that we're attempting to grow into those programs and into that area, although there is certainly more work to be done. One of the things we are quite sensitive to is the fact that we need to work with stakeholders to make sure that the good of the program is not misunderstood and that we're sensitive to the concerns of community organizations around issues of revictimization and inequality of power.

MR. GRAHAM: I would like to shift my focus to the notion of therapeutic responses or approaches in the criminal justice system. Again, springing from the foundation that I laid out in my opening remarks, an image that's often used with respect to the criminal justice system is that it is a backstop, after somebody has been abused, neglected, forgotten, suffered abuse and are involved in substance abuse themselves, they ultimately end up on the doorsteps of the police station, the courthouses and the correctional facilities. The system is not particularly well equipped, as it exists right now, to address the many years that have brought that person to the problem that they face when they arrive in the criminal justice system.

In particular, I note the youth correction system. In youth facilities, both in Shelburne, when it was up and operating, and particularly in Waterville, where they've had a much more substantial population, the approach has been almost entirely therapeutic, despite the fact there was no meaningful distinction between open and closed custody under the Young Offenders Act, it was essentially closed custody. In a closed custody province which is what we essentially were, we did a pretty good job of dealing with the therapeutic problems that the young people were faced with. I know this certainly from experience, having had dozens of clients who went through that system, and then ultimately I've had hundreds of clients who have gone through the adult provincial correction system in this province.

The contrast is like night and day when it comes to the treatment or the attention to the challenges and the problems of an 18-year-old as opposed to a 16-year-old or 17-year-old. When somebody becomes an adult in the correction system in Nova Scotia, they essentially - this is perhaps overstating it - become virtually forgotten, contrasted with the kind of attention that they receive in the youth facility. I know that we have a new adult provincial corrections centre in the metro area that serves a broader population, but - you're familiar with the term warehousing.

Because people are sometimes only in for weekends, only in for short weeks, only in perhaps for a few months, but sometimes they are there for a year or more, in the adult correction system, it seems to be accepted that at the corrections level, it's okay to warehouse our inmates, and in the youth facility we seem to be doing a pretty effective job of at least

[Page 633]

trying to turn them around. Do you agree with the position I've just put forward? If you do, what's being done to address that problem?

MR. BAKER: Certainly I would agree with the proposition that you indicated, insofar as that there's no question that a very high level of effort is put in youth facilities, in therapy and working with young people. I would also agree that, certainly, there's always room for improvement with respect to adult corrections. I will say, however, that there have been a number of improvements. One of those improvements, I think a real improvement, has been the addition of the forensic hospital to Burnside. I believe that singlehandedly, the opportunity to have that Burnside facility co-located with a hospital provides access to medical personnel, particularly psychiatrists and the like, that many of the people previously incarcerated in our correctional facilities lacked. As you would know, a number of people incarcerated in institutions suffer from varying levels of mental illness, not just sufficiently typed to have you found not criminally responsible, but mental illness that needs to be addressed. I think that is an attempt, for example, to try to treat those needs.

I think also the improvement in, for example, new correctional facilities - we just built one in Yarmouth - those facilities have rooms for counselling, for group meetings, to try to provide more than warehousing for individuals who are sentenced to custodial time. I think there is a real attempt to begin to enhance the experience that's being offered in our institutions. Could more be done? Probably. One of the things we're looking at is as we get more modern institutions - as you'd be aware, having been in other institutions, some institutions, the physical layout makes it very hard to offer much programming. I've been in institutions where there are inadequate meeting spaces, where there are inadequate rooms for counselling sessions and those kinds of things.

[4:15 p.m.]

Certainly in our new institutions, there is adequate emphasis put on those kinds of physical plant issues. So I think there are improvements being made. I know that correctional workers now see themselves as more than jailers, and I think that's a very positive thing.

MR. GRAHAM: I would agree with you with respect to the advantage that has been realized from the forensic hospital being located with the corrections centre, and I know that the population has increased. I think that's a reflection of the relationship between mental illness and crime. It's an unfortunate relationship; it's one that exists. But I would still assert, just for the record, that the contrast between our therapeutic approach in the youth system and the warehousing that is done in the adult system is stark, and we are doing far too little to address those problems. If we're going to have safer communities, then we need to do more when we have a captive audience, as it were, with the adult population of inmates who are in the provincial institutions.

[Page 634]

MR. BAKER: Just by way of illuminating my previous answer briefly, the average stay in a provincial institution is around 40 days. There are, for example, programs that we offer now, programs around literacy, anger management, and some skills training. One of the difficulties is that remands, in particular because they're not sentenced offenders, are a real challenge for us. I might also say that intermittent sentences, the so-called weekend offenders, are a huge issue, because you can't provide much in the way of any kind of programming. Frankly, unfortunately, some of those people show up having used alcohol or drugs, and they're there for three days, and the first 48 hours of a three-day weekend is spent dealing with issues around that.

Point well taken. I think one of our limiting factors, however, is the length of the stay, but you're right, there are some individuals in institutions who are sentenced for 18 months and who serve, in many cases, a year in an institution, and around those individuals, there's more that can be done. I also can tell the honourable member - just leaving the one subject, because I don't want to take too much of his time - there used to be a lot of very positive things that were done in communities, and I think it helped to give people a sense of self-worth. For example, I can remember when the Lunenburg County correctional facility was open, young offenders would come, and I remember being on the board of directors of a daycare facility, where people who were sentenced came and mowed the grass, painted the building and did odd jobs. I think that gave those people a sense of personal worth that was very valuable.

Unfortunately, issues around drugs and security have made those kinds of programs very hard to do, simply because of problems with individuals bringing drugs back into institutions. I personally would like to see some work done to try to enhance the ability of appropriate individuals to do those kinds of community things.

Oftentimes individuals will have very low self-esteem, and I can't say enough about literacy. I can tell you very briefly that I remember going to one of the last services that was held in the Lunenburg County correctional facility, and people were reading passages from the Bible, very simple passages from the Bible, at this service. There was one young man who was 23 or 24, from appearances, a very simple passage, and, frankly, he could barely read this passage. In this day and age, to have that kind of literacy level would be very problematic from an employment point of view, and would not bode well. That's why I think literacy - not that you can teach someone to read, necessarily, in their period in the institution, but you may be able to kindle enough interest in literacy that they'll continue it after they're released.

MR. GRAHAM: Along the lines of the therapeutic responses, I was intending to touch on Probation Services, but in the interest of time I'm going to skip over Probation Services, just with a comment and invite you to respond, if you wish, when I ask questions on the next line. My comment is that Probation Services in theory is intended to be therapeutic, working well could be one of the most effective components of the entire justice and corrections system, because it ensures that somebody who came into the justice system

[Page 635]

as a result of difficult times doesn't get dumped back into the environment that gives them difficult times in the first place.

Oftentimes people end up having a wasted experience, a wasted opportunity, even if you had good therapy in the corrections system, because they're dumped back into the community. Often I hear from probation officers who remark to me that what they're doing is soft policing, that they are enforcing breach of probations and meeting with people for short periods of time instead of actually dealing with the kinds of problems that they have, making sure that they become connected to the services that they require to get to their underlying addiction, challenges, find employment, those types of things. There's just not enough resources in the system.

One might argue that there will never be enough resources in the system to do it properly. Frankly, my most recent assessment, and I don't think things have changed substantially, is that we're essentially using probation officers for soft policing, they become enforcers, and too often they end up with a position where they are off-side with the person who they're supposed to be helping in the first place. That's the part to respond to, if you wish.

I would like to turn, more fundamentally, to the issue of therapeutic courts. You are familiar with the notion that is growing across this country that in order to respond effectively to the challenges that are faced in the court, we need to develop more therapeutic courts. Domestic violence courts have been used, tentatively, fortunately, because I don't think anyone would support the notion of quickly moving forward with domestic violence courts unless we understand fully what it is that we're doing, and that we have properly-trained personnel around that, but it's clearly a step in the right direction.

We also have drug courts in some jurisdictions. You know that Ottawa is ready with money right now to set up drug courts or - as I understand it - to fund, almost completely, drug courts in Nova Scotia for a period of time. I'm aware of the apprehension that one might have about entering into programs that Ottawa funds for short periods of time and then leaves someone hanging at the end of the day. But if drug courts are a positive step and the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, whether it's sponsored, even initially, by the federal government or not, if it's a positive step, why aren't we moving more quickly toward the use of drug courts?

MR. BAKER: I guess I'll begin by saying an initial comment, and the honourable member addressed it, one does have to be cognizant of sustainability issues, because we have had a number of initiatives which everyone present would be aware of, where we took up offers that were too good to refuse, and perhaps in retrospect we could have refused.

[Page 636]

Having said that, I can tell you that I don't have a temperamental aversion to the idea of a drug court. One concern that has been expressed to me is around the actual number of offenders that we have, while we have too many, the question is whether we have enough offenders to justify a dedicated drug court. That has to do, I think, with the, perhaps, rural nature of Nova Scotia, because, of course, we have trials taking place in a large part of Nova Scotia. Obviously drug courts and the kind of specialized programming around drug courts does have value, as I do believe domestic violence courts may have as well, with the appropriate programming around them.

I will also say, however, that my experience from the Family Division of the Supreme Court has taught me some concern to make sure that we have all of the adequate resources, both human and financial, in place, because in order to make something work and make sure that you don't turn off - that's the best way of putting it - people on a concept. You have to make sure that you have it all thought through and that there is sufficient funding to make the process work. I do have some apprehension, only around making sure that when you start something that it works effectively. Honourable member, I can tell you that I personally have no problem with a drug court. I know it's being looked at, it has been looked at by the department.

MR. GRAHAM: Can you tell us how much money is available from the federal government for this?

MR. BAKER: At this point there is an interdisciplinary group involving members from HRM Police, the judiciary, Health and the Department of Justice meeting in an attempt to put together a proposal that would be submitted to the federal government for funding for three to five years. They are working on that proposal, as I understand, at the present time. Obviously the proposal has to be submitted, and then once submitted it would have to be approved, both of which are going to take some time. The attempt is to at least make a proposal that would work.

MR. GRAHAM: But I am correct in my understanding that the money is essentially available there for the funding of this court from the federal government, and it's available to all of the provinces, provided various criteria are met.

MR. BAKER: My understanding is that if you qualify for the criteria, funding may be available. I'm not sure of the level of the funding, whether it's 100 per cent, 90 per cent, but it's a very high level of funding, as I understand it, yes.

MR. GRAHAM: Just to be clear, I take it from your remarks that you are supportive of the idea of going forward with this kind of move.

[Page 637]

MR. BAKER: I am certainly interested in seeing what recommendations come forward from the working group, and assuming that we believe it would be effective, we would certainly look at it quite carefully.

[4:30 p.m.]

MR. GRAHAM: So if the working group comes forward with a recommendation to go forward, it's quite likely, in your view, that this is something that your department would undertake?

MR. BAKER: It's something that we would look at very seriously because obviously, if we believe it would be effective in any way in dealing with drug offences, it would be a very good thing to do.

MR. GRAHAM: Especially if it is largely free money?

MR. BAKER: That's right. I'm always very concerned that I don't fall into a trap, but yes, it's great when programs are federally funded, because obviously, the provincial resources are limited.

MR. GRAHAM: If I could put my oar in the water concerning the utility of this, it's not a panacea but it appears to be a step forward, generally, with respect to the downside of not going forward and changing people's expectations. This is a five-year program as I understand it, and if for some reason the federal government pulled out, then if it's working well and it's serving the needs of Nova Scotians well five years from now, one would expect that we should be in a position to pick up something like that. Even if we didn't, it's hard to imagine, certainly from my experience of having represented drug offenders, people who are addicted and having trouble with drugs over the years, there wouldn't be a substantial hue and cry about their plight at the end of the day. I would expect that it would go with a whimper, if we ended the drug court use at the end of the day. Again, my oar in the water.

Still with the theme of therapeutic approaches and responses in some respects, you mentioned the innovations that have come under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Again, not all of those are panaceas. Perhaps the most effective youth justice systems in the country are in British Columbia and Quebec. The thing that each of those jurisdictions appears to have in common is that they have housed the questions of youth justice, at least the response in the youth justice area, in family and community services in some circumstances. It has allowed them to respond more subjectively to the challenges of the people who are coming into their system.

To give you an example, there are concerns amongst some practitioners that in a system as we have it in Nova Scotia, where the youth justice system has such a dominant Justice culture, that if you have a young person who is in a transition house and who is

[Page 638]

misbehaving, it's easy to define very light misbehaviour, frankly, as criminal behaviour. If that system, oriented in Community Services, is simply looking to get rid of someone, then calling the police is the way they sometimes manage to do it, frequently on breaches of probation.

If the problem was theirs at the end of the day, if the response wasn't a Justice response but was, in fact, a Community Services response, and if our Community Services Department had responsibility for attending to people's problems, it's the belief of some in the system that we would be dealing with the problems of the young person more effectively than we do in the Justice model that we have in Nova Scotia.

I would not expect you to have knowledge of the systems in other jurisdictions, but I raise this as a question of whether or not there are any discussions going on about where the youth justice stuff should be housed - Justice or Community Services?

MR. BAKER: I guess this is an area where I fundamentally believe that while I'm sure there are many things we could do better - I know there are many things we could probably do better - that housing youth corrections in Justice and indeed all of corrections with the Department of Justice, is the right thing. I think you talked earlier about silos and I believe that in appropriate response, there are issues, as you said, when someone becomes 18 years old, that the Justice system should not cease to have any interest in them.

I believe that there are always going to be boundaries between departments but hopefully we are doing, with multi-disciplinary approaches, things to break those down. I will give you an example, education. It is probably easy for schools in certain circumstances to say well, a particular young person is a justice problem because they break the law. I think in an appropriate world we look at that young person as having an education component, a community component and a justice component, but ultimately all three - at least those three - need to address that person. I don't know if breaking out youth corrections - and I'm always subject to being convinced - from the rest of the Department of Justice, would be wrong.

The second part of that, of course, is with respect to new federal legislation. There is certainly a greater degree of emphasis on a more traditional criminal justice response in some ways, to some serious crime by young people. For example, the idea of preliminary inquiries for young offenders, with those kinds of ideas the legislation is moving in many ways towards some traditionally Justice-related values.

Having said that, I do believe that it is appropriate to coordinate both the Justice response, Community Services and Education, because a young person needs to live in a community, a young person obviously needs to be safe and have sufficient resources to keep them, and they have to have an educational program because frankly, without education, I know where most of those young people will end up as soon as they become adults.

[Page 639]

It was pointed out to me that particularly in Waterville, we are partnering with the Capital Health District in providing psychiatric services, particularly with Intensive Support and Supervision, and that that is a partner with schools and with Community Services, to make sure that we provide a complete response to the young person's needs, and that it is not just a Justice response.

The criticisms you made with respect to adult corrections, where there is a bit of a policing role, obviously, there is always a bit of a policing role in the sense that you need to make sure of compliance with court orders. I think it is much more than that, particularly in the young offender area.

MR. GRAHAM: I would like to turn my attention, and yours, to the processing of people through the criminal justice system. I just have a few questions in that regard. I have - and I'll just provide it to you - a letter dated October 31, 1991, which is the cover letter of the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission from Mark McCrea to then Minister Joel Matheson, Q.C. In that at Section 6.2 you will see that the eligibility guidelines for Nova Scotia Legal Aid are set out. The other document that I have is the eligibility criteria for 2002-03.

Just to be clear, this eligibility criteria states what the gross revenue on a monthly basis a person should have or less, in order to qualify for Legal Aid services. You will see that since 1991 there has not been an adjustment. The capacity of the government, I'm sure, has perhaps even doubled in that period of time, since 1991, I don't know what the overall budget would have been and I appreciate that the Legal Aid budget has gone up from time to time. My concern for those people who might be on social assistance is that if we're not adjusting up according to inflation, the people who are eligible for Legal Aid services, are we not creating a quiet way to defeat the purpose of the legislation over time, because a smaller population is qualifying for Legal Aid services?

I'm asking whether or not this effectively is a quiet way of shrinking the population that is eligible for Legal Aid services, because we are not adjusting it according to inflation?

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much for your question. Legal Aid is one of those subjects on which I could wax long and eloquent. Having had an experience as a practitioner under certificate work and did a fair amount of certificate work for Legal Aid, frankly, as much for any reason as because I felt it was part of my duty as a service. At the then princely sum of $55 an hour, every hour I spent doing Legal Aid work was frankly not very productive from a financial point of view.

Federal funding for Legal Aid is quite simply the problem. It was pointed out to me by staff that over the last two years, the federal funding for Legal Aid has not changed. In the meantime, the provincial cost, of course, has gone up dramatically. Quite bluntly, the chart that you've just shown, we have put what I think were tremendous inputs of provincial financial resources and the federal government has not.

[Page 640]

I remember the Deputy Prime Minister, when she was Minister of Justice, when being questioned by all provincial colleagues - this was one of those situations where provincial governments of all stripes, whether they were Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat, or in that time as well, Party Quebecois - they had requested more funding for Legal Aid.

The situation is quite simple, the federal government has not put adequate resources into Legal Aid and the reason why this chart has not moved is not because of any desire on our part to limit the program, but it's because of financial resources. The other side of this program, as the honourable member would be aware, is you have staff lawyers and you have to continue to increase the cost of their salaries or other overhead items and of course, we also have to pay those private practitioners, who provide legal services on certificates.

We have managed to avoid, at least at this point, some of the difficulties other jurisdictions have had by increasing, modestly, the amount of remuneration, because I might have been able to tell the honourable member that those numbers in 1991, for what counsel was paid under the program, $50 for five years or less, $55 for five years or more - with the exception of murder cases and a few other types of cases which were paid slightly higher, had not changed as well. We would have reached a critical point in our system if we had not increased the rates for lawyers, we would have had no counsel to do the work.

MR. GRAHAM: I'm familiar with the reduction in federal funding and as a former member of the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission, I was around the discussion and I assume that things haven't changed significantly over the last period of time. I know that there was an additional $20 million injection back in 2002 or so, from the federal government, I don't know how much of that ended up coming to the provincial coffers to help the system, but that was a response. I don't know how much more of a response they have provided since that time, and I would also reiterate a point that I think you've at least alluded to, that the staff at Nova Scotia Legal Aid - both administration staff and the lawyers who work in courts - are doing yeoman service.

I see your agreement and I can recall when I worked as a lawyer with Nova Scotia Legal Aid 10 years ago or more, we did a subjective analysis of the number of files that were being done by the average Legal Aid lawyer. We were closing, on average, between 300 and 400 files per year. On a survey of active, full-time practising criminal lawyers across the province, there wasn't a single person who closed more than 100 files, which gives you a sense of the pressure that those people deal with on a regular basis. I think it is widely recognized, even in the Public Prosecution Service, that the Legal Aid system - and I appreciate that there has been additional funding - continues to be a system under stress.

There are delays in the court system. A recent report suggests if one were to commit an offence now, today, and seek Legal Aid, you would be well into the Fall before you had an opportunity to enter a plea, and that's the result of delays that are happening at various

[Page 641]

points along the system, not the least of which is the over-stressed situation at Nova Scotia Legal Aid.

I'm aware of the time. I would provide one final comment with respect to the eligibility criteria that I've put before you and that is if it hasn't changed since 1991, recognizing the concerns that you've raised, this is one element of where the resources need to go in Legal Aid. There has been an increase in staff and I know that's long overdue, the adjustment settings for lawyers at Legal Aid - and I suspect staff - have been brought up at least closer to a market level, not really at a market level but certainly at a level that allows for the retention of more of those lawyers. But at the end of the day, if the job is to service the mother with three children and she's bumped out of the category because there has been no adjustment since 1991, our explanations don't count for much.

[4:45 p.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have reached the end of the time for the Liberal caucus. We will allow you to respond to that question before we move on. A short response, please.

MR. BAKER: Very short, Mr. Chairman. Just interesting statistics that in the 2002-03 estimates, the federal recovery for the Department of Justice for Legal Aid was $3.056 million. This year it is $2.913 million, which is a reduction of about $100,000 over two years. At the same time, as a matter of interest, the provincial contribution to that same system is up $3 million.

I would agree with every comment the honourable member made about the staff at Legal Aid. I know that both the quality of work that they do and the level to which they work, their salaries are tied to the Public Prosecution Service. There is an arbitration process, as the honourable member is aware, with respect to the Public Prosecution Service and in my view, that provides at least a reasonably fair method of determining their remuneration. I would like to thank the honourable member for his questions because I know he is very interested in these matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have a lot of lawyers around the table. We should get out our legal jokes here.

MR. BAKER: I would point out to the Chair that this is probably the department that is going to tend to attract . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are going to need some divine aid here with all of these lawyers. (Laughter)

The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.

[Page 642]

MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to stay with Legal Aid if I can because it is a specific issue. I must admit, I don't have a lot of dealings with Legal Aid, at least not since I was a prosecutor. I actually think it's not bad, the number of cases they close because you know why they're closing them.

I have someone in my constituency who called me and she was with Legal Aid for the purpose of a divorce, the separation and the child custody. But she had a property dispute that wasn't being resolved and the Legal Aid lawyer said, I can't deal with that. I'm trying to clarify that within a property situation in the middle of a divorce, that the Legal Aid lawyer was telling her - now I haven't spoken to the Legal Aid lawyer directly so I'm assuming that's the case but what I'm hearing from my constituent is - they couldn't deal with the property dispute to negotiate some form of settlement with regard to the property and the assets within the marriage. Is it your understanding that that is something that is beyond the scope of Legal Aid?

MR. BAKER: In fact, to the contrary. I remember, both as a lawyer under certificate and as a counsel on the other side dealing with Legal Aid lawyers - that is staff lawyers - who were representing parties in divorce proceedings, or in separation proceedings, on many occasions dealing with both property matters and custody access, all the typical other matters. My view is that there is no separation.

There sometimes are issues where Legal Aid will say, and I have seen that, where there will be very valuable assets and then say that you can get outside counsel because there will be sufficient funds coming to pay the fees. I obviously don't know the situation, but my experience is that Legal Aid should and does cover property issues that are collateral, oftentimes the ownership of the house, the mortgage payments are integral to that process.

MR. DEVEAUX: It has been a few years since you have been involved with the Legal Aid system so policy-wise there has been no change in the past six, seven years?

MR. BAKER: Absolutely, I'm not aware of any policy change and that is what staff advises as well.

MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. At least I can tell my constituent that.

I want to talk about court services. How many courts do we have in the province now?

MR. BAKER: Are you talking about court buildings?

MR. DEVEAUX: Justice centres, whatever you want to call them.

MR. BAKER: There is a difference.

[Page 643]

MR. DEVEAUX: A justice centre is a bigger . . .

MR. BAKER: A justice centre typically has a staff presence. In some cases we do have some courts that are just simply courts with staff on-site but we really have three components: there are justice centres, which are the larger ones; there are some courts where there are staff on-site for part or all of the week but wouldn't qualify as a justice centre; and then there is the third one which is called satellite courts, which is where our staff travel for court from time to time.

MR. DEVEAUX: Are they actually courthouses, those satellites, because I recall in the past - not so much here but in Ontario - a lot of them were Lions Clubs or whatever?

MR. BAKER: We're quite proud of the fact that we've gotten ride of the Lions Clubs and bingo halls, but some of them are. I will give you a good example of one in Queens, there is a stand-alone courthouse in Queens which is purely a courthouse, and a very beautiful one I might add. On the other hand, for example, we have Barrington, where the Provincial and Supreme Court actually sit in what is the municipal building, so there is an amalgam of those kinds of institutions.

MR. DEVEAUX: I guess I'm leaning to that with regard to are you planning the closing, downsizing of any courts in the next year or two?

MR. BAKER: There are 11 justice centres and then there are four court locations here, in HRM. The short answer is there is no plan to close any in the next year or two, I might add the one exception being, the plans around what is going to happen in Lunenburg County, because there are plans to construct a new court facility in Lunenburg County but those plans are not solid yet.

MR. DEVEAUX: If they decide that, what stage are we at with that?

MR. BAKER: I've gotten a recommendation which is being reviewed of four different sites and we will then pick a site and go from there.

MR. DEVEAUX: Who makes the recommendation?

MR. BAKER: There is a courthouse users committee, a multi-group committee composed of judges, Crown counsel, probation services, it is the people who actually use and work in those facilities in that county.

MR. DEVEAUX: Is it a standing committee, or is it an ad hoc committee?

MR. BAKER: It's an ad hoc committee for each area where we are actually constructing a . . .

[Page 644]

MR. DEVEAUX: When was that committee actually set up?

MR. BAKER: It was set up when the decision was made to build a new facility in Lunenburg County, and I can't tell you how long ago that was but about two and a half years, I think, roughly.

MR. DEVEAUX: With regard to that, are you able to say what the four sites are they are recommending?

MR. BAKER: I don't think it has been publicly announced yet, the location of the four sites, that's because there are developers involved at some of the sites, some of the sites are publicly owned, so it's best we don't go there.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, I understand, commercial confidential information. You said a review, is there always a review whenever they make a recommendation?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: A review by your staff, or . . .

MR. BAKER: A review, yes, by staff. Obviously, we need to make sure that in locating the site there are cost issues, there are access to transportation link issues, those kinds of things, so we want to try to make sure we make the best decision. If the experience is any indication, the decision we make will be the decision the province will live with for about 100 years, so we try to make the right decision.

MR. DEVEAUX: Like with a school, you get a list and it's the minister's choice as to which of those four?

MR. BAKER: It is the minister's choice - well, it's a combination decision between Justice and Public Works.

MR. DEVEAUX: Please understand, this is not meant in any way to impugn your reputation, but being from Lunenburg, do you feel the need to try to distance yourself from that decision?

MR. BAKER: Well, the difficulty is I have long ago learned that it's very difficult to distance yourself from those decisions because in point of fact, nobody would believe you even if you did, and I say that with all candour. The second issue is obviously, you are trying to look at what is best for the long range and there are all sorts of issues, both local and system-wide.

[Page 645]

MR. DEVEAUX: Would you say you have been lobbied by people in Lunenburg County with regard to this?

MR. BAKER: Everyone has an opinion on where it should be, yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: And they are more than welcome to give that to you?

MR. BAKER: They are more than welcome to give that opinion to me. I don't actually ask for it, it's volunteered freely. I can tell you, I haven't solicited such opinion, but it has been offered by mayors, councillors, the public, lawyers, court staff. Everyone has an opinion, that's the wonder of Nova Scotia.

MR. DEVEAUX: Well, that's one way of putting it. I want to go into correctional services because I have a fair bit of questions. I must say, I wish the member for Halifax Citadel was here just because I find it ironic that as a New Democrat I find myself to the right in the spectrum to the member for Halifax Citadel. I've been told that in the past that on some issues, the member for Halifax Citadel has a tendency to be more left-wing than some of us in the NDP caucus.

MR. BAKER: On some issues.

MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, and I might say particularly with regard to correctional services, I might note. I want to take an opportunity to ask you some specific questions in that area.

I will start with a throw-away question, do you intend to close or open any prisons in the next year or two?

MR. BAKER: No, because there is no funding approved for any more change in that regard. Obviously, at some point in the future we would like to construct newer correction facilities in some parts of Nova Scotia, but there is no funding approved for that stage.

MR. DEVEAUX: Restorative justice, I take a slightly different perspective from the member for Halifax Citadel, both from my professional career and as a volunteer, I used to do some of this stuff and a mediator. I'm trying to clarify some of the particular issues.

Let me start with this, in response to some questions he asked, you were talking about ramping up restorative justice with regard to - and this is how I quoted it - more serious youth crime. I'm trying to get a sense of what you mean by that? What are you hoping to bring into the restorative justice system that isn't there now?

[Page 646]

MR. BAKER: I think there are offences involving more serious levels of violence and actually involving post-conviction restorative justice. Restorative justice in many people's minds is a diversion kind of technique and there is obviously an availability, not just as a diversion technique, but actually attempting to reconcile the victim of the crime and the perpetrator of that crime. I think that traditionally in Nova Scotia, to this point, it has been used for less serious crimes and we are looking at enhancing that.

I will also say that I am particularly sensitive, however - and I referred to that in my remarks - to crime that involves imbalance of power. I have had meetings with some of the women's groups and others, who have concerns around that, so we have not proceeded down the road to doing any of that kind of work. I believe there has been a very consultative approach on that, in an effort to make sure that everyone is respectful of the concerns that community organizations have in that regard.

MR. DEVEAUX: Let's be clear, my recollection of post-charge restorative justice involves, potentially, at least summary offence sexual assaults and assault causing bodily harm.

MR. BAKER: There are no sex crimes presently being subject to restorative justice.

MR. DEVEAUX: I understand because you have guidelines that say that, don't you?

MR. BAKER: That's right.

MR. DEVEAUX: But I thought the guidelines were clear that in post-charge you were able to bring certain sexual offences in.

MR. BAKER: No, there is - it's an overused word but - a "moratorium" - is as good a word as any - that those kinds of offences are not being diverted into that stream.

MR. DEVEAUX: That's a moratorium that you, as Justice Minister, imposed.

MR. BAKER: Yes, exactly.

MR. DEVEAUX: There is nothing in the policy that if that moratorium was lifted, it would prevent those from coming in, I don't think - they are on the list.

MR. BAKER: They are on the list but the reason for the moratorium was to allow for further discussions with community organizations, to determine whether there should be some change to the list and that is the purpose of the list.

MR. DEVEAUX: You are talking about changing or increasing or adding, post-charge, certain offences that are currently . . .

[Page 647]

MR. BAKER: Yes, that's right.

MR. DEVEAUX: Why don't you tell me then, which type of offences do you mean?

MR. BAKER: I think it is fair to say that what I was referring to was as experience grows within the courts and the police there is a movement towards more serious kinds of crime being able to be dealt with - maybe like robbery or something of that kind that could be dealt with by restorative justice - so it is really based upon an experiential way of judging crime.

[5:00 p.m.]

MR. DEVEAUX: You said yourself that you are having consultation with community groups and I take it from some of your discussion that included women's groups and maybe THANS, Transition House Association of Nova Scotia. So you must be talking about more than robbery. You must be talking about certain crimes that might involve either a domestic situation or involve violence against women or children, are you?

MR. BAKER: There is no movement in that direction at the present time.

MR. DEVEAUX: So what type of discussions are you having with groups like THANS and others?

MR. BAKER: Around whether or not there is any way, for example, to describe any of those offences, whether any of those offences would be appropriate for restorative justice.

MR. DEVEAUX: So you are having consultations to determine whether or not certain violence offences involving either domestic situations or children could be in a post-charge restorative justice system.

MR. BAKER: Could be.

MR. DEVEAUX: You told me you are consulting with THANS about those charges, so clearly you are going to them to discuss whether or not they should be.

MR. BAKER: Yes, and they have concerns about why they should not be. At this point in time, we continue to, I guess, be engaged in a dialogue.

MR. DEVEAUX: But who initiated those consultations with regard to those types of offences, your department or THANS or any other . . .

MR. BAKER: They raised the issue with the department and the department has responded with discussions.

[Page 648]

MR. DEVEAUX: But you can uncategorically tell us today that your department's position is that offences involving women, children, domestic violence, sexual offences will not be part of the restorative justice system?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, I just want to catch the first part of your question.

MR. DEVEAUX: You can uncategorically say today that charges involving domestic violence, violence against women, violence against children or sexual offences will not be part of the restorative justice system?

MR. BAKER: I can categorically state that I don't anticipate that and at this point that is the policy of the department.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, but you are going through consultations for some reason on these charges.

MR. BAKER: Well, at this point we have accepted their concerns and that is why there is a moratorium on that.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, and you expect that moratorium to stay in place for another year, two years?

MR. BAKER: I expect it to stay in place for at least the foreseeable future and that would certainly be more than a year out.

MR. DEVEAUX: So why not just remove them? It's not legislation, I don't think, that creates those type of offences under the policy as a form of post-charge. I think I have asked this before, why a moratorium? Why not just remove them to give a certain amount of security to those who are involved in domestic violence issues and others?

MR. BAKER: I guess my understanding of the reason for not removing them would be that in the future there may be some opportunity for both sides to examine whether or not there is any room for any of those offences. It allows us an opportunity, at both levels, to re-examine the position because whether it is the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia or other community organizations, as public comfort rose there may be a decision on their part that they would believe that that would be beneficial, for example, for women or others in the system. I am trying to allow for an evolution in thinking on either side's part.

MR. DEVEAUX: Do you see, in the foreseeable future, the people of Nova Scotia accepting that someone who has been convicted of a sexual offence or domestic violence should be able to go through a diversion program after they have been convicted?

MR. BAKER: Personally, I find that very unlikely.

[Page 649]

MR. DEVEAUX: But someone in your department who gives you advice must think that this is something worth at least keeping the door open to, otherwise we wouldn't have a moratorium. We would eliminate those from the policy.

MR. BAKER: No, I think it is one of those things where I don't see the distinction. I think you are making a distinction between having it in the policy and a moratorium. I think at the point, if you said it was removed and could be added at some point down the road, I think maybe there is a distinction without a difference.

MR. DEVEAUX: You could legislate it too so that they are not part of the policy.

MR. BAKER: I think in answer to the concern, whether or not there is going to be a change in that policy in the foreseeable future, I see no likelihood of that.

MR. DEVEAUX: Good. I'm glad to hear that.

I want to talk a bit about Shelburne. You closed the Shelburne correctional facility. How much money was saved on an annual basis, $2.6 million or $2.5 million or something like that?

MR. BAKER: I thought $2.3 million.

MR. DEVEAUX: I am sure you are very familiar with the file by now.

MR. BAKER: For the current fiscal year $2.1 million.

MR. DEVEAUX: At the time I raised the point - and if I can just give you a bit of background because I've had a couple of issues come up around this. My first thought when I heard this was - and I understand, I'm not here to say that there is anarchy in the streets because we have youth crime. I understand that overall the rate is going down. I might argue anecdotally, if not statistically since I don't have the statistics with me, that the severity of the crimes being committed by 12- to 15-year olds maybe is going up. But my point is, because I have had two of them in my area particularly in the recent past, and I am not going to get into specific individuals but I see where 12 to 15-year olds who commit, could potentially commit a very serious offence, where do you guys see them going? Do you see them staying in the community no matter what because right now you don't have the facility to put them in, do you?

MR. BAKER: No, they go to Waterville.

MR. DEVEAUX: Now Waterville is meant for 16- and 17-year olds.

[Page 650]

MR. BAKER: It is meant for all young offenders at this point.

MR. DEVEAUX: Is there a separate building? Are they separated from the older offenders?

MR. BAKER: There are different pods or - I don't know the description for them.

MR. DEVEAUX: I have been there.

MR. BAKER: Cottages, I guess, is the technical term.

MR. DEVEAUX: It's a nice term.

MR. BAKER: Obviously based upon age, other background factors and the third factor, of course, would be gender, there is separation.

MR. DEVEAUX: So still there is a place to put them if there is a serious problem.

MR. BAKER: Absolutely and there are always going to be young people, unfortunately, who have committed crimes, whether it's through issues of denunciation and deterrence or protection of the public, who need to be incarcerated. Waterville is a very secure facility and designed, as the honourable member knows, to prevent those people from escaping.

MR. DEVEAUX: But still, because of restorative justice and other things, you see most of the people committing offences at that age or even under the age of 18 being dealt with in the community.

MR. BAKER: Yes, I do see them being dealt with in the community and quite frankly, most people, when you talk to them about offences, understand that sooner or later, that young person needs to be reintegrated into the community and whether that is initially or three years later, sooner or later, those young people need to be integrated and I think that an appropriate justice system determines when that should be.

MR. DEVEAUX: I guess where I am going with that particularly is that I have this incident in Eastern Passage, which I raised recently, where there was a 12-year-old who was committing violence against another 12-year-old in the school. At the same time, I had an 8-year-old who, in an elementary school in Eastern Passage, kicked out for the rest of the year - an 8-year-old - because they couldn't handle him. He's got mental health problems. I understand you are not the minister of mental health but I guess - and please try to avoid the word CAYAC if you can . . .

MR. BAKER: I haven't used it yet today.

[Page 651]

MR. DEVEAUX: No, you haven't. I suspect it's going to come up in this answer and I am hoping we can get an answer beyond CAYAC. I would like to get some understanding of what you see the role of the Department of Justice in, particularly, let's face it, if we are talking about the community doing more policing, the community doing community correction, what we are talking about, be honest, in most cases, is the schools are going to be doing a lot of that and they are not equipped for this and they haven't had the funding. One of the things I suggested when you closed Shelburne was, why doesn't that $2.1 million go into some programs for schools so that they are able, whether it is the special classes for children who have very severe issues who need to be dealt with, whether it is more resources in the schools for those kids who can stay in the classroom, I agree. They are going to have to be integrated into the community at some point but I would hope that justice would see a role in somehow addressing that in a preventive way. I guess I am curious what your comment is on that.

MR. BAKER: Just a couple of points. Obviously, with respect to those serious offenders, involving violence particularly, not just a question of age but also the severity of the crime, those individuals would always have ended up in Waterville. The reason for that is quite simple, the open campus-style venue that is Shelburne, if you had someone who was a risk to other individuals, you would certainly not be able to put that young person there for fear of what they might be able to do to others.

Obviously, as a result of a legislative decision on the part of the Government of Canada, anyone under 12 years of age is not subject to the justice system. I'm not passing the buck, I'm simply saying there is no function for me, as minister, or the department. Once, however, you are talking about someone who is in the stream of the justice system at 12 years of age, the Intensive Support and Supervision - which has a caseload of seven to 10, which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, exceptionally low - has lots of time to work with young people. Plus, they have assistant probation workers who work with individual schools who have young people in that school who are in the justice system, to ensure that the support that needs to be there for the school is there, and that, I guess, is how we are trying to address it, by providing the support to individual schools who have young people in their classroom, to provide them with support through the assistant probation officers, who are community-based probation workers.

MR. DEVEAUX: I guess my other question, just before I go on to something else in corrections is - and again, not getting too much into specifics - there are situations where there are youth out there - I would suggest, anecdotally, again - who are out on some form of probation or conditional sentence, and they seem to violate on a fairly regular basis and yet, there's nothing being done.

I guess I believe - and quite frankly, I learned this through the restorative justice system when I was a mediator - that people have to learn their consequences. At what point do we say that someone who is a serious offender - and I can think of one in my riding who

[Page 652]

last year had a lot of issues during the election, who previously had other convictions and is probably now, from what I'm hearing from people, violating parole, but what do we do, do we just let that happen? What's being done to say, at what point are we saying we're going to revoke it and you're going to go into Waterville? How much do we recognize the need that at some point - and I understand they are a small, small minority of the situation - sort of the carrot and stick, the carrot isn't working?

MR. BAKER: I'll try not to elaborate on my answers because this is one of those ones on which I could expound at great length. My experience is that the vast majority of individuals, whether young people or adults, will comply with court orders. There are, however, a small number of people for whom tough love is the only love that will work, that is my experience talking. There are those people for whom counsellors, probation workers, judges, policemen lecture them on the importance of living up to their obligations, being respectful of the courts and the orders that have been made, and who show disrespect for both authority and themselves, and for whom, I believe, the best option is to show consequences in hopes that by showing consequences they can be reminded that the reason those orders are made is to be lived up to. Ultimately, the decision is largely a judicial decision around what point the judiciary loses patience with them - and some judges lose patience at an earlier or greater stage than others in my experience, that's not critical that's just a fact.

While I don't believe in constantly violating people for trivial violations, and I'm speaking personally, I do believe that there are people who you need to show that the system can and does mean business, and that there are consequences involving their personal liberty. So I would agree with you, frankly, that for those people - and sadly, my experience has also been that some of those people are very slow learners.

[5:15 p.m.]

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm not trying to be glib about it, they may literally be slow learners, but that's a different . . .

MR. BAKER: Well, I know, I wasn't trying to be glib in my comment, I meant they are slow learners in the sense that they seem not to respond to even the initial - and sometimes the amount of custodial time that has to be imposed for those violations, needs to be quite extensive.

MR. DEVEAUX: That's fine. I guess I raised this with you only because I think it's something that should be raised. My observation - having been involved in the system to some extent - is that I don't always see that those ramifications are there for the parole, probation or conditional discharge violations.

[Page 653]

I want to go on to something else with regard to corrections in the time I have, which is a policy manual with regard to the rights of inmates. I think I raised a letter with you on this probably six or seven months ago. I'm just trying to - for the record - get some sense. Is there a policy and procedure manual with regard to administrative penalties for inmates within the Nova Scotia corrections system?

MR. BAKER: I would have to take that under advisement.

MR. DEVEAUX: There's no one here from Corrections who can answer that question?

MR. BAKER: No, there isn't.

MR. DEVEAUX: Then maybe this is something we could talk about.

MR. BAKER: Perhaps before your time is up we will try to find someone who might be able to provide some information on that.

MR. DEVEAUX: I think we'll have time to come back to it as well if someone is here. I understand, given it's 5:18 p.m., that may not be easy.

The Domestic Violence Intervention Act, the Manitoba decision, has anyone on your staff looked at that?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Do you see an impact on the Nova Scotia law?

MR. BAKER: I have received advice - and without going into the nature of the advice - we believe that there are significant differences between the Manitoba legislation and the Nova Scotia legislation, in many subtle but important respects, which we believe should make a difference. I have asked staff quite candidly that if there was anyone who felt a need, if there were legislative changes required that would enhance the effectiveness of our legislation, vis-à-vis the courts, that I was more than amenable to bringing that forward.

MR. DEVEAUX: I guess I want to go on to something else - same-sex marriage. Is the government applying for intervener status and the reference going to the Supreme Court of Canada?

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. DEVEAUX: So you're not take any position with regard to the . . .

[Page 654]

MR. BAKER: The position is it's the federal Parliament's right to legislate.

MR. DEVEAUX: And that's your position, the position of the Department of Justice?

MR. BAKER: That's the position of the government . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: It's a federal issue and therefore it should be the federal government who deals with it?

MR. BAKER: That's correct.

MR. DEVEAUX: Do you know if there has been any discussion amongst the Ministers of Justice in Canada at a provincial level, as to whether they wanted to have a consistent position with regard to it?

MR. BAKER: I haven't been involved with any such discussions.

MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. You guys meet every year, when are you meeting this year?

MR. BAKER: We meet every year and certainly it wasn't one of the topics that I recall being discussed at our last meeting, or formally discussed, to be completely candid. Somebody might have talked about the subject.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm trying to get a sense of policing. Within HRM there are RCMP. Is that completely within the municipality's jurisdiction?

MR. BAKER: The issue of the provider is largely within the municipality's jurisdiction. There are some notice provisions and those kinds of things, but largely municipal jurisdiction.

MR. DEVEAUX: So the question of where detachments are located or what contingent is in each attachment is between the service agreement between the municipality and RCMP?

MR. BAKER: That's correct. There are standards, provincial policing standards, and all municipal services in Nova Scotia are required to meet those standards, but decisions about how many detachments there are and where they're located, unless they were grotesquely out of line, would not likely attract . . .

MR. DEVEAUX: And by standards, do you mean number of police officers per 100,000 or per 1,000?

[Page 655]

MR. BAKER: No, they deal with crime statistics, response times, a whole host of things. Hours of response, for example, that used to be 18 hours, I believe it is a response time and that kind of thing.

MR. DEVEAUX: I want to talk a bit about maintenance enforcement. It's something I bring up every year I think.

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. DEVEAUX: Because it's an issue that I keep getting, I don't know about the other MLAs, I get more calls on this probably than I do on almost anything else except workers' compensation, but that's probably a professional courtesy. I am trying to get a sense, how many staff are there in Maintenance Enforcement right now? I should say caseworkers, I guess, people actually handling.

MR. BAKER: Forty-three in total.

MR. DEVEAUX: Caseworkers or all staff with Maintenance Enforcement?

MR. BAKER: That's all staff.

MR. DEVEAUX: Is it broken down, including caseworkers?

MR. BAKER: Twenty-two program administrative officers, 15 clerks, four regional coordinators, one secretary and one financial services officer.

MR. DEVEAUX: Do you have some sense of what the caseload is on average for each of those program administrative officers, or what the total number is? I can divide it by 22 if I have to.

MR. BAKER: No, I couldn't give you the statistic right off.

MR. DEVEAUX: Can you find that out?

MR. BAKER: We could and it would, obviously, vary quite a bit because some parts of the province are busier than others.

MR. DEVEAUX: I understand, because this is a major issue that I get, particularly with women who call me who, you know, in good faith sign up for the system on the basis that they hope that this is the best way of ensuring that they get their child support or alimony and what's happening is the system is letting them down. I mean in many cases it's a phone, not even an answering machine in many cases, or it's an answering machine and there is no returning of the calls. Now, I have mentioned this to you before so I'm not telling you

[Page 656]

anything you haven't heard, but I would be curious to see what the caseload is with regard to this to get some sense and if I could historically get some sense, I mean over the last four years if we can get a sense.

MR. BAKER: We'll try to get a trend for you as well. I will say that, you know, clearly enforcement of this kind of court order - and these are court orders - is a major issue. It is a constant struggle to enforce these orders and there are, obviously, many different remedies available to the staff enforcing these orders. I understand the very desperate financial plight of many people who are receiving income from, whether it's child support or spousal support, because that can be a problem and, of course, there are Matrimonial Property Act orders which can be very problematic when breached. I can assure you that I get a few cards and letters on the subject as well.

MR. DEVEAUX: I suspect you do.

MR. BAKER: And it is difficult. It's also very difficult to educate payers about the process because maybe it's as simple a thing as having a payer has a child who may cease to be a child of the marriage and educating them on the fact that they can't just stop sending cheques, that there is a judicial process, and that's a challenge because people understand what they believe to be the law, and don't understand sometimes that there's a process to achieve the result.

MR. DEVEAUX: I want to go to the Supplementary Detail book, Page 13.6 under Justice. There are two things on there. One is gun control which for some reason I take it you made money off last year and the year before. I take it that was from the federal government maybe and this year it's down as nothing. Is that because we pulled out of the administration altogether? I'm trying to clarify.

MR. BAKER: That's because it's simply anticipated to net out and this year it's zero. We don't anticipate making any money.

MR. DEVEAUX: It's in brackets because you were getting money from the federal government, I take it, right?

MR. BAKER: Yes, this is a flow-through program so that largely the cost recovery, there has been no significant change other than, obviously, the Province of Nova Scotia has elected to not expand into areas that the federal government would have liked to have us expand into.

MR. DEVEAUX: I thought we were getting out of administration altogether.

MR. BAKER: No, I think what we're getting out of is certain elements of the enforcement. That's the prosecution of offences and those kinds of things.

[Page 657]

MR. DEVEAUX: So what do we have left, just the person down in 5151 Terminal Road in the office?

MR. BAKER: Those are the people down there, the provincial Firearms Office, if you want to call it that. That's what we have for the program and it hasn't expanded.

MR. DEVEAUX: And was that there before the gun registration law came into effect?

MR. BAKER: There was a provincial Firearms Office that existed, as I recall, before the present federal Liberal Administration took office.

MR. DEVEAUX: I also see on that page Private Security which two years ago had no cost, last year it was $27.4, and this year you're budgeting $33.5. What exactly is the private security for?

MR. BAKER: It's the administration of the program around issues involving provincial civil constables, the security guards, those people who are not presently licensed, but there has, I guess, been some review of what may be desirable because we've got everything from campus security to bouncers, to other issues, and I think it's fair to say that we've tried to look at that area and see where there's more work to be done.

MR. DEVEAUX: I'm not going to steal the thunder of my colleague on this, but are they regulated?

MR. BAKER: Are you talking bouncers?

MR. DEVEAUX: Bouncers, private security guards?

MR. BAKER: No, presently they're not. Private security guards are. There is a regulation scheme for private security guards, but not for bouncers.

MR. DEVEAUX: Or campus security or what have you?

MR. BAKER: Campus security would not be.

MR. DEVEAUX: Do you see that coming at some point?

MR. BAKER: Well, it's certainly one of the issues we've been looking at and there are different levels of regulation in different provinces, as I'm sure honourable members would be aware and, you know, clearly it's an issue of some concern where to strike the balance between the appropriate level of public protection and costs to organizations.

[Page 658]

MR. DEVEAUX: Sure. I'm sure if there's a way you could find to charge a fee for it, you probably would.

MR. BAKER: Well, you still have to ask yourself whether you should be doing the service in the first place.

MR. DEVEAUX: We could have a lively debate about that.

MR. BAKER: It could be good.

MR. DEVEAUX: There are 20 minutes left, I'm handing that over to my colleague, the member for Halifax Chebucto, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Minister, I have two areas I would like to deal with. One is a Justice question that involves the Public Prosecution Service and the other will deal with your portfolio as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to deal with the Public Prosecution Service issue first, if I may. Minister, the question here revolves around an issue on which I've exchanged some correspondence with Mr. Herschorn and I have to say that I raise it here because I don't think it has resolved itself entirely and so let me just explain what the problem is.

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. EPSTEIN: This goes back to an unfortunate event on Christmas Eve of 1999. A man named Stephen Giffin was in a bar and was ejected by the bouncer using a choke hold and, unfortunately, he died. So this resulted in a civil action, but also in a criminal prosecution against two individuals. In the prosecution the two individuals were acquitted.

[5:30 p.m.]

Now, Stephen Giffin's father lives in my constituency and this is why I've become involved a little bit in this matter. Mr. Giffin came to me because he really had great concerns - of course, he was traumatized - because his son, who was an adult, 38 years old, was dead under circumstances that called for criminal charges. He was of the view that the trial was mishandled by the prosecutor and I have to say that when I had a look at the details of the file, in order to help Mr. Giffin frame a letter, I also came to the conclusion that there were a number of concerns.

Mr. Giffin's options were either to continue to have some discussions with the Public Prosecution Service or I suppose he could have filed a complaint with the Barristers' Society - not necessarily a desirable route but a possibility. Another is to raise it here. So, having

[Page 659]

helped him frame some questions, these were sent off in the end to the Director of Public Prosecutions and I don't think this has ever really been focused on with Mr. Giffin, Sr. in a way to his satisfaction.

So I raise this here with you now, Minister, to request you to try to familiarize yourself or ask your deputy to familiarize himself with the file to try to follow up with Mr. Giffin to have a face-to-face discussion about this particular prosecution and his concerns. I think it's obvious that nothing is going to bring his son back and yet, he seems to have identified some legitimate concerns over this. That's my main request, that perhaps you, or your deputy probably more appropriately, could review the file and if there hasn't been any completed follow-up, perhaps a meeting between the deputy and Mr. Giffin might be appropriate. I ask you to have a look at that.

The other part of it is I ask you to think about the options available to someone who has a complaint about the Public Prosecution Service. One of the options seems not to be to take the matter to the Ombudsman. As I understand it, it's not within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to deal with complaints about the Public Prosecution Service. I think this was one of the peculiarities that came forward to my attention when I was looking at this matter for Mr. Giffin, Sr. It just seems to be outside of the bounds of operation of the Ombudsman. I think the Ombudsman's office did decline to deal with it on that basis. I'd ask you to consider this and consider whether it might not be a useful step to add it to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman rather than to have it raised as a matter of estimates or as a matter of complaint with the Barristers' Society or to leave it 100 per cent for citizens to deal only with the Public Prosecution Service.

So two points arise from this. One is the particular case, the other is this question of whether it might make sense to think about remedies.

MR. BAKER: Thank you very much. I should begin by saying that at the time it occurred, I was made aware of, as much through the newspapers and then later through the briefings on prominent cases with the Public Prosecution Service that I receive, of the unfortunate events that led to Mr. Giffin's death. Obviously, there's not much you can do to replace the loss of someone's son and I can't even imagine the level of distress that would cause to your constituent, but obviously it's very considerable.

I do know that there have been at least written responses to Mr. Giffin's concerns. I think one has been drafted recently - whether it's been sent or not, I'll take it under advisement with Mr. Herschorn when he's available to see whether or not anything further in the regard you suggested would be appropriate. I can also say that I take your comments about the Ombudsman and I'll review those as well in the future.

[Page 660]

It is one of the most difficult jobs as Attorney General that you need to do because part of having an independent Public Prosecution Service is to not interfere unreasonably in matters obviously involving prosecutions - whether those prosecutions are currently underway or whether they're concluded - as you can appreciate, it's a very fine balance that one is trying to strike between proper oversight and supervision, for which certainly I am responsible.

Interfering in the conduct of matters, whether they're currently before the courts or have been finished with the courts is one of those very delicate matters that one is interested in. I can tell the honourable member for his benefit and the benefit of his constituent that the Public Prosecution Service, through manuals and a number of ways, attempts to set standards for decision making and standards for presentation of cases to do everything that can be done to make sure that every case is presented in the most professional manner possible with appropriate sensitivity to the role of the prosecutor, but also the protection of the public and sensitivity to victims.

Maybe more needs to be done, but I can tell you that it is a very difficult balance because as you can appreciate, you can't have an independent Public Prosecution Service if the minister is interfering on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, I am responsible to the public and your constituent to ensure the administration of justice in the province. It is a delicate balance.

MR. EPSTEIN: Very good points. Of course, at this stage, a couple of years later, it isn't a question of interfering with an ongoing trial, but not even remotely. It's a question of thinking about this particular prosecution.

Could I also just flag another aspect which was touched on by my colleague, the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, which is the regulatory regime for people who work as bouncers. This case, I think, is not by any means the only such civil or criminal action involving people being ejected from bars in Nova Scotia by bouncers which has resulted in harm to people. It seems to me that some focus on this occupation and standards that might apply to it, would be useful and I hope your department will turn its mind to that at some point soon.

MR. BAKER: I can tell the honourable member that some considerable study has gone on with respect to the question of regulation and legislation in the area. As I said, it's trying to strike the balance between protection of the public for which we're all concerned and obviously not to unduly burden businesses that also are trying to secure order and at a reasonable cost. But I can tell you that, obviously, we're all aware of situations where there has been injury and worse in the province. We are certainly looking at the matter.

[Page 661]

MR. EPSTEIN: I would like to turn to questions about Aboriginal Affairs, if I may. I wonder if you could just generally bring us up to date as to what's going on with the framework negotiations that were announced recently. I appreciate the briefing that was given to myself and to the Liberal Critic for Aboriginal Affairs back in the Fall. That was a very useful exercise for which I thank you. I'm wondering, now that the negotiators have been named for both sides, what progress has occurred. I should say that unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the press conference that was held to announce the process, but I did see the documentation out of it and I'm just wondering if you could put on the record for us what's the current state of play?

MR. BAKER: My understanding is they've met approximately eight times, that is the federal, provincial and Aboriginal negotiators, that those discussions have I think been characterized to me as having gone very well, that there has been very significant progress towards an agreement.

Now, for the benefit of the public, I want to make it clear that we're not talking about an agreement involving rights, we're talking about what we might describe as a menu agreement that would describe areas that would be subject to future negotiations, but that nevertheless the road map, that is the framework agreement, those discussions have been going extremely well and, from my briefings on the matter which are fairly regular, I think the parties found a greater commonality of interest than maybe they had even anticipated they would find initially.

It's always nice when that happens - when three levels of government with very different perspectives can do that. I think it shows a sign of goodwill. I can tell you that I have appreciated in a number of ways the goodwill that has been shown just simply by virtue of having this mechanism with Aboriginal leaders who have foregone other kinds of action as a result of the fact that there is dialogue going on between all levels of government and I'm hopeful that in the near future there may be some positive announcements with respect to the framework agreement. Having said that, obviously, we're not quite there yet, but we're making progress and I think it has frankly been a tribute to goodwill on the part of all parties involved and to the hard work of the negotiators for all involved.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm surprised to hear the term "near future" used in this connection at all.

MR. BAKER: Near future is something you don't often get a chance to use with respect to matters of Aboriginal affairs and negotiation.

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, that's precisely the point and I should tell you I have no expectation that many of these complex matters will necessarily be resolved in the near future although I wish you well in the endeavours. I'm wondering if you can tell me, is it still the case that there are some outstanding court cases involving Aboriginal rights in Nova Scotia?

[Page 662]

MR. BAKER: There are and, obviously, the most prominent one is the one in front of the Supreme Court of Canada at the moment. Again, there has been a very practical, and to the extent it can be, positive, approach to deal with matters that are outstanding and to treat them in a different way, I guess is a way of putting it, from those matters that may arise in the future. We all came to the table with matters at a certain stage of development and we're trying to deal with those different cases on a case-by-case basis.

MR. EPSTEIN: This is certainly part of what I'm driving at. It's certainly known that there were a number of court cases that had already been started at some stage in the system. What I'm wondering is whether there has been any attempt in the negotiations to reach an understanding that there would be no actions that would possibly result in charges and, therefore, future court cases while the negotiations are ongoing. Has there been any attempt to grapple with this problem?

MR. BAKER: I believe I understand your question to be, how to avoid this from happening in the future.

MR. EPSTEIN: In fact, the courts, I think, have encouraged the parties to negotiate rather than to litigate?

MR. BAKER: And I can tell you that the position of the Government of Nova Scotia has been very much that we would rather negotiate than litigate for all sorts of reasons. One of the reasons we are trying to work on our understanding with Aboriginal leaders is because, of course, some of these matters come up not because of the decision of Aboriginal government or the provincial government, or the federal government, because obviously there are Nova Scotians and Canadians who precipitate certain court matters and so we have to be somewhat flexible in dealing with matters which may not be officially begun, but we may nevertheless take on.

[5:45 p.m.]

So what we're trying to do is develop understandings on how we're going to deal with these matters in the future to the extent we can because we always know that individuals do things and, you know, the governments and Aboriginal leaders need to sometimes respond to things which are not commenced by any of us, but I think we're trying to develop an understanding on how to deal with that and we're also trying to deal with ways to make sure that there's discussion about the process before we all get carried away on a course of action that may be better negotiated than litigated.

It's particularly difficult because in quasi-criminal matters there are all sorts of legitimate Charter protections around the rights of individuals, which I have to be mindful of obviously as Attorney General, and so that whilst we need to make agreements as governments in those kinds of organizations, the Public Prosecution Service, for example, has

[Page 663]

a duty and I, as Attorney General, have duties not to do things that would in any way compromise prosecution standards. So this is a very, I might say, delicate process, but one where all of the negotiators have been extremely sensitive to our challenges and we have tried to be, I think, sensitive to Aboriginal leaders' challenges and, of course, the Government of Canada has not only Nova Scotia to deal with, but they have three territories and nine other provinces to deal with and oftentimes the approach of governments in those provinces may be different.

MR. EPSTEIN: I'm glad you're alive to this issue, Minister.

MR. BAKER: It keeps me quite animated.

MR. EPSTEIN: May I ask you about another aspect of Aboriginal Affairs, if that's the right term in this context. It has to do with Metis. Now, of course, Section 35 of the Constitution Act refers specifically to Metis and it was a surprise to me to learn recently that there are people in Nova Scotia who consider themselves to be Metis within the meaning of Section 35 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Powley decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and I'm wondering if you can tell me what engagement, if any, your government has had with people in Nova Scotia who believe themselves to be Metis and where do you see this going?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've reached the end of our time, so if you would please answer that question.

MR. BAKER: Okay, good, I was going to say I didn't want to leave with a pregnant pause. The short answer, and I will try to be brief in my answer, I've met with groups of individuals who consider themselves to be Metis. There have been discussions. However, the Powley decision sets out a number of criteria that affect whether or not one is Metis within Section 35 and those issues are not just questions of ancestry, but they're questions of community of interest and a bunch of other very much more complex issues. Suffice it to say that, obviously, we're always interested in receipt of information and evidence, but at this point in time we haven't received information which would lead us to believe that there are individuals in Nova Scotia who would meet the Powley test, if you want to call it that.

Obviously, we're always subject to receiving information because in this area it is an ever-evolving area, both from the point of view of the law, which seems to evolve at the Supreme Court of Canada level and other court levels, but also from the point of view of evidence because, you know, there is community evidence, a lot of other evidence that one has to be alive to, but the short answer would be that at this point we have not received sufficient evidence that would justify to us that there is a community that meets the Powley test in Nova Scotia. That doesn't mean the issue is dead because it's very much alive, but it just means that the state of where we are at the moment.

[Page 664]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Richmond.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm curious, the Legal Information Society, how much government funding goes to that society?

MR. BAKER: The Legal Information Society, our annual grant is $35,000, but I believe last year there was some special funding. Last year we made a special grant of an additional $35,000 to them as well.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So you gave them the $35,000 base, and then you gave them an additional $35,000.

MR. BAKER: Yes, to meet some challenges they had.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: What's your target this year? Are you open to another grant of $35,000 to assist them again this year? Having met with them, I have a funny feeling they're going to be right back at your door.

MR. BAKER: Well, they do very good work, and I never say never, because, in government, one needs to deal with requests when they're made and we would have to review their request when it was made. I never say never. I obviously hope they can live within that original allocation but, occasionally, we get requests and we'll judge it by our resources and their need at the time. They are a good organization, and I know we're both supportive of their work.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Very much. I would certainly be supportive of any initiatives to assist them again this year. I know they're in quite a situation and, unfortunately, they do provide an extremely important service and the last thing we want is for people to be turned away without getting the information they're looking for.

The victim impact fee that's imposed once people are required to pay a fine, how much money is raised through that?

MR. BAKER: That's a segregated fund.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: While you're looking for that, I'm assuming, just from having been in court the last few years, that that has been going up each year. It used to be a $50 flat fee, and now it seems to be more tied into a percentage.

MR. BAKER: Just for your information, the funds received in 2000-01 were $843,000-plus, the next year it dropped to $778,000; in 2002-03 it was $917,000; and in 2003-04 it rose to $943,000. That's the figure to February 29^th. So it would be short one

[Page 665]

month. There was a dip in there in 2001-02, but I think it's fair to say that with the exception of that dip that it's gradually, modestly on the rise by $30,000, $40,000 a year.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Where is that money being spent?

MR. BAKER: It all goes to Victim Services.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Explain that, what's Victim Services?

MR. BAKER: There's a Victim Services section of the department, plus there are programs as well. There are offices around the province, Victim Services workers, and they fund at least part of the cost of that program.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I don't need the answer right now, but do you have an actual breakdown of the spending, just for this particular fund, as to where the money has been going for the last four years?

MR. BAKER: The short answer is yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You can provide that?

MR. BAKER: Yes, we can.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Out of that, is there actually any money that goes to victims directly as funding to them, or is this only paying for staff?

MR. BAKER: There's counselling that goes to victims up to $2,000.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Okay, and none of this goes into general revenue?

MR. BAKER: No, it goes to the segregated fund and then it's required to be paid out of the fund, I think it's by Order in Council, if I remember correctly. There's always a determination that that funding be paid - the programs cost more than the actual program raises.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So you're spending more on Victim Services in 2003-04 than the $943,000 you expect to bring in?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You can provide that?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

[Page 666]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Great. Two or three years ago it was decided here in metro that as far as Children's Aid matters were concerned, and I think the Department of Community Services matters where the minister was involved, rather than using private law firms and private lawyers, it was decided to employ in-house counsel to take care of these matters. The idea at the time was that this was going to save the taxpayers money. Has any review been done in order to determine whether this has been achieved?

MR. BAKER: The answer is yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Do you have any documentation you could provide us with that shows there's been a comprehensive saving that has taken place here as to what the cost was before and what it is now under in-house counsel?

MR. BAKER: The answer is, I believe we can provide that information to you. My understanding is that it has saved considerable money.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: As part of the review that showed it saved money, was there any consultation with caseworkers through the Department of Community Services as to whether they had any concerns going from private counsel to in-house counsel?

MR. BAKER: I'm not sure of that. I would have to take that under advisement. I can tell you that I'm satisfied that the staff we hired at the department are more than adequate to be able to take care of that work. I believe that this is one of the most positive initiatives that we made. Quite bluntly, by internalizing the process, I think we've saved the government money and we've provided an adequate or better service to the agencies involved.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Are you aware of any complaints being made by any of the agencies since that decision has been made?

MR. BAKER: There were certainly concerns raised at the time, because I think a number of agencies and workers were very attached to the old arrangement, and that's understandable.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Since that time, are you aware of any recent concerns being raised about the availability of in-house counsel or any other concerns by agencies under this new format here in metro?

MR. BAKER: I can't say that I'm personally aware at the moment, but there may very well have been concerns raised to the Legal Services Division of the department.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You're not aware, as minister, of any of those concerns?

MR. BAKER: No, they would have been dealt with at the staff level.

[Page 667]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Is there an ongoing review that takes place of this program in order to ensure that the needs of the agencies are being adequately met and that there are no outstanding concerns that still exist?

MR. BAKER: I'm advised that the management at the Department of Community Services is very satisfied with the service that we've provided. There may have been agencies who raised concerns from time to time in individual cases. That doesn't surprise me. My experience would be that in all matters, and I'm sure there were concerns brought to partners in law firms in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were concerns raised in individual cases.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You're not aware of any consequences or anything in any specific cases due to this new arrangement?

MR. BAKER: No, I couldn't comment on that.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: The closure of the Shelburne Youth Facility, when did discussions begin on the closure of that facility?

MR. BAKER: What do you mean by discussions?

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Well, obviously, I'm assuming you didn't just walk into Cabinet one day and say we're closing the facility. I'm assuming there was previous discussions that were taking place, internal documents within the department, about the future of the facility. When would documents or discussions have started as to the future of the Shelburne facility?

MR. BAKER: I can't tell you off the top of my head. I can tell you, however, that with respect to the Shelburne Youth Centre, there probably has not been a week since I've been Minister of Justice that the Shelburne Youth Centre would not have been a discussion. There are so many facets to the Shelburne Youth Centre that it's hard to imagine. Clearly the issues around the trends for the number of young people in custody in Shelburne became more and more of a concern as we went through the last fiscal year.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Before Christmas, after Christmas, when were the discussions started about the actual closure of the facility, not the trends or anything else? Obviously you had been thinking about this for some time, as to finally closing the facility. I'm just curious if you can give us a time frame as to when those discussions were taking place?

[Page 668]

[6:00 p.m.]

MR. BAKER: There was never a plan to close the Shelburne Youth Centre, because frankly we had hoped and expected that it would be there for many years to come. It became obvious as fiscal 2003-04 progressed that there simply was not, at either an operational level or at a financial justification level, sufficient reason for the Shelburne Youth Centre to remain open.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm assuming that the savings being incurred are part of this year's budgetary process?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So it was part of the budget considerations?

MR. BAKER: No, these decisions occurred before any progress involving this year's budget; this was not a decision that was driven by any consideration around this year's budget.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's for all of us to interpret. February 10^th is when you made the decision?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm assuming it's safe to say that before Christmas discussions were underway for the closure of this facility?

MR. BAKER: I was talking to my staff and we were following with great interest the numbers at Shelburne. Obviously those numbers were of great interest and, as time progressed, I became more and more concerned about spending between $2 million and $3 million to house what became two individuals.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Were there any discussions with the Shelburne Municipal Council? The MLA for the area indicated, on the day of the announcement, that after you left Cabinet and announced the decision, that was the first he had heard of it. Are you aware of any discussions prior to February 10^th with either the MLA or the Shelburne Municipal Council about the closure of the facility?

MR. BAKER: Certainly, I mean the staff themselves knew how many individuals were not present. I say "not present" because it was painfully obvious that when you have two, three or four young people in a facility the size of Shelburne, there were discussions, people talk around the coffee room, they talk around the community - when there's those few numbers there. Clearly the member for Shelburne knew how few people were there through

[Page 669]

community discussions. I knew there were very few people there; anybody who was interested in the Shelburne Youth Centre knew there were very few people there, but ultimately, the decision on whether or not to close the Shelburne Youth Centre was a Cabinet decision.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So it's safe for me to make the statement that you as the minister did not have any discussions with the Shelburne Municipal Council about the closure of the facility prior to February 10^th.

MR. BAKER: I'm trying to remember if I got any calls from the warden, for example, before that, but I don't recall any.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Is it also safe for me to make the statement that you did not have any discussions with the MLA for the area about the closure of the facility prior to the decision made on February 10^th?

MR. BAKER: Certainly there were concerns expressed about the number and that if something didn't change, but there were no discussions about closure before February 10^th - February 10^th was the date of the announcement.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's right, and that's the day he publicly indicated that he had not been part of that . . .

MR. BAKER: Oh, okay. I understand.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: . . . had never been informed it was actually going to close on that date.

The Shelburne compensation package that your government announced, I'm curious, how many of the former employees have accepted that package?

MR. BAKER: You're referring to the workers who were laid off as a result of the closure?

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: No, you had offered some sort of compensation package for the wrongly accused workers, former workers . . .

MR. BAKER: Okay, yes, sorry, you switched gears there.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: . . . I'm not sure what exact title they were going by.

MR. BAKER: My deputy understood your question correctly, I did not - I'm sorry. About 50 per cent of the people who have responded have accepted offers.

[Page 670]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: What's the cost of that? I see here in the Supplement to the Public Accounts, Page 93, you have an item here, Institutional Abuse Payment, $1.5 million. Is that for the 50 per cent who have accepted, or what is that for?

MR. BAKER: I can't give you the exact figure, that would be through the Public Service Commission.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Okay, then maybe you can explain what that figure is in your own estimates here, Page 93, the Supplement to the Public Accounts. You have here, Institutional Abuse Payment, $1.5 million. I'm just curious, could you explain what that cost is?

MR. BAKER: The number you see there is the cost of the awards for the victims of institutional abuse, and that is the ongoing cost. As you're aware, there were decisions and agreements made with respect to the people who claimed to be victims of institutional abuse. Those individuals are receiving funds. Some of them are prorated over time, and that figure is that amount.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Just going back to the workers who've accepted, did you say 50 per cent of all eligible workers have taken it?

MR. BAKER: No. I said approximately 50 per cent of those who responded.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Let's just get the figures here. How many total eligible workers were there?

MR. BAKER: It was about 140, plus or minus.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Okay, 140. How many have accepted?

MR. BAKER: Of 140, about roughly 100 responded; others, roughly 40 have not responded in any way.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Of those 100, are you saying 50 accepted?

MR. BAKER: Roughly 50 per cent, yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Now, by accepting, have they waived their right to sue the province?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

[Page 671]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: None of them have any outstanding legal cases against the province?

MR. BAKER: They couldn't, because they have signed, with counsel, unconditional releases.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So that was part of taking the payment?

MR. BAKER: That's right.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How much was the payment?

MR. BAKER: It varies.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: It varied per worker?

MR. BAKER: From $5,000 to $40,000 would be the range that the awards could be. I don't believe anybody was quite as high as $40,000, but I couldn't give you the details of that because the Public Service Commission was dealing with that as an employee compensation matter.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Your government closed a number of local jails and courthouses. I'm curious, as part of this budgetary process and for your future plans, do you have any intention of closing any further jails or courthouses in Nova Scotia in the near future?

MR. BAKER: Well, I answered a somewhat similar question earlier, and the answer is quite simply that in Lunenburg County, obviously, there's a court facility that will be built over the next little while - that's been announced. Whether or not that will have impact on any of the buildings that are there, it's too early to say. With respect to elsewhere in the province, there would be no plan in this year to do anything else with any other court facilities - and with respect to correctional facilities there would be no plan at all.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: It's interesting that you raised the new facility, as you pointed out, in Lunenburg. There has been some concern about the location of that facility, which I'm sure you're aware of. I'll go so far as to say there have been concerns about possible political interference as to where that facility might be located. To give you an opportunity to address and put to rest any of those concerns, allow me to ask you, Mr. Minister, have you had any involvement in the site selection process for that new facility in your area?

[Page 672]

MR. BAKER: I can indicate that there was a Courthouse Users Committee that had recommended four sites to the department, and the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation and Public Works will be involved in making the decision about the location of any new court facility.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Will you be part of that process?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So it will be a Cabinet decision in the end?

MR. BAKER: Ultimately those are all Cabinet decisions in the end, the same way as all school construction decisions are Cabinet decisions in the end.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: It's normal that when a minister sometimes feels there might be a conflict, they will excuse themselves from certain Cabinet discussions. Do you have any intention of excusing yourself from the discussions of the new location of that facility?

MR. BAKER: No, and I don't have a conflict of interest. I stand in no way to personally gain from the decision. I do represent a community, but no differently than every minister in the government represents a community.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Of those three sites selected, how much work has been done on the costing and the pricing of each of those sites, or have they just been identified?

MR. BAKER: There is costing information. The committee, when they came up with their recommendation to government, looked at costing issues; there was a very elaborate site selection set of criteria and they used that too. There were six proposals put forward to government, and the committee reviewed those proposals and recommended four of those sites to government.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Did they actually break it down to one - here's what our top one is, or did they just say here are four, here are the different prices . . .

MR. BAKER: My understanding is there's a list of four sites.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And there is obviously some costing involved with each one.

MR. BAKER: That's right, and there are pluses and minuses, obviously, involved in each one.

[Page 673]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Can you provide us with that information?

MR. BAKER: I think some of that information would be privileged as commercial information, so I will have to take it under review to see what I can provide.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I would appreciate that. The new courthouse that's going up in Port Hawkesbury, one of the concerns going to be raised is the impact on the courthouse in Arichat and Port Hood. You made a commitment, I believe, a couple of years ago that, regardless of the new facility in Port Hawkesbury, your government intended to maintain the facilities in both Arichat and Port Hood. It's May 10, 2004, and as minister are you still prepared to make that commitment to both Inverness and Richmond Counties, that their facilities will not be impacted by the new facility in Port Hawkesbury?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Very good. Moving right along.

MR. BAKER: You don't need a longer answer on that one, do you?

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: No. We're moving along in great . . .

MR. BAKER: I haven't changed my mind.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Good. One of the concerns with the increase in the freedom of information costs is your government was adamant that the increase was clearly reflective of the cost of operating the program. Do you still stand by that statement?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to ask you to repeat the question, just to make sure I understand it.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: When you increased the fees, it was clearly indicated - although your government has continually refused to provide us with any numbers to justify this - your government has been adamant that the increase was to reflect the cost of administering the program, the idea being, apparently, that the previous fees were insufficient in order to at least meet the program costs. Therefore your government increased the fees, saying that these fees were reflective of the cost of administering the program - it was not a means of making extra revenue, it was simply a means of being able to recoup what it was costing government to administer the program. I guess my simple question to you is, do you stand by the statement made back when the fees were increased that it was an accurate reflection of the cost to administer the freedom of information system?

MR. BAKER: My understanding is that information has been provided with respect to a request, and I would be glad to provide the honourable member with that information.

[Page 674]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Okay, but back to my question. Is it still your position that the fees, when they were increased, the increase was reflective of recouping the costs of administering the system for government?

MR. BAKER: I'm not sure I understand your question exactly. I believe your question to be, do the fees that we're getting from the system, are they only necessary to pay for the FOIPOP system? Is that the question?

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Let me . . .

MR. BAKER: Not to suggest ulterior motives, but your question was loaded, I think.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And we were doing so well. What was suggested was that before obviously government was not recouping the fees needed to administer the system. That was the argument made, that the fees were too low, it was costing too much. Your government announced they were going to raise the fees, and the fees they raised are because this is what it cost to administer the system, here's why they have to put those fees in place. It's not being done to discourage people, it's not being done to make extra revenue, this is what the system is costing us. My question is, do you still stand by that statement, that the fee increase was to recoup the cost of administering the program and for no other reason?

MR. BAKER: I stand by the position that we took at the time and which I believe to be entirely true, which is that the fees that are charged today only recover a tiny percentage of the cost of administering that program.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So, right now, it is still your position that you are operating this program at a loss?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I take it then that based on your decision to withdraw the appeal fee and two hours of research that you're now going to operate the program at a further loss.

MR. BAKER: A greater loss, that's correct.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: At a greater loss. Okay. Even with the new fees you're still adamant that you're only recouping a portion of the cost of administering the system?

[Page 675]

[6:15 p.m.]

MR. BAKER: With the new fees, we'll be recovering even a tinier fraction of the cost to the system. The total cost estimate is apparently a matter of public record in the fuller court case file.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Can you provide that to the committee?

MR. BAKER: Absolutely. Glad to do so. I believe we can give you an estimate as well of the effect of the bill, once implemented, on the revenues to be received by government.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Have you figured out how much less revenue you're going to receive with the announcement today of changing the appeal fee?

MR. BAKER: The calculation for changes in these fees that I've received would be the total for last year - well the review fees would be entirely eliminated - would be $1,125. So that would eliminate that item completely. The processing fees, in total, last year were $17,155.56. This wouldn't eliminate all of that fee, but it would eliminate a portion of that. So when one looks at the cost of operating even the review officer's office and looks at the fees collected, it's a small percentage.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Why two hours and not three hours?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm trying to think of what the thinking process was involved in this, and what sort of financial calculations went into this - why two hours of free research and not three hours?

MR. BAKER: That's what the committee recommended.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So the committee only recommended two hours?

MR. BAKER: That's my understanding, the committee recommended two hours and that's what we agreed to.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: But the committee also recommended you drop the $25 application fee to $5.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Sorry, that was Mr. Fardy who recommended that.

[Page 676]

MR. BAKER: That's right.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Although I think that was one of the recommendations that not all members signed off on . . .

MR. BAKER: That may be, but I'm simply saying what the majority reported on the committee, we accepted their recommendations.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: The bill you tabled today, is it your intention to have that bill passed this session?

MR. BAKER: If it were entirely my say, yes, that would be my hope.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So it will be called for second reading during this session?

MR. BAKER: That's what I expect.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I want to go through a few of the expenses here, just for a bit of explanation. The first one that you have, on Page 91 of the Supplement to the Public Accounts, you have 2089601 Nova Scotia Ltd., a payment in excess of $2 million.

MR. BAKER: What page?

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I have Page 91 in my book here. It's right after Grants and Contributions.

MR. BAKER: That's the property lease for the Sydney Courthouse.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Now you have here, Alderney CFF Ltd., $522,000.

MR. BAKER: That's the operating lease for the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Burnside.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have here, also, Atlantic Police & Security Supply Ltd., $171,000.

MR. BAKER: That's security supplies. That would be a combination of correctional services and policing services, different security items that they would have purchased.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have Banc Properties Ltd. for $696,000.

MR. BAKER: That's the Dartmouth Courthouse properties.

[Page 677]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You also have here Dr. V.F. Bowes, $202,000.

MR. BAKER: That's easy. That's the Chief Medical Examiner.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Bridge View Square Ltd., $398,000.

MR. BAKER: That's the New Glasgow Court facility lease.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have here the Clover Group, $132,000.

MR. BAKER: That's food, I'm sure, institutional food.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have here Combined Employees for Restorative Justice, $145,000.

MR. BAKER: That is legal assistance that we provided to help fund the cost of their legal counsel during the period when we were reviewing our response to the Kaufman Report.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So you were paying the employees' legal costs as part of their review?

MR. BAKER: During that period of time there were discussions going on between the government and the workers and we, during that period of time, in good faith, agreed to pay their legal costs.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Communications Nova Scotia - Publication Services, you have $323,000. What would that have included?

MR. BAKER: That would include pamphlets and those kinds of things the government would provide as part of its mandate - courts, corrections, any of those kinds of things.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: It would be $323,000 worth?

MR. BAKER: Yes, because there are design costs and all those kinds of things. It wouldn't just be the printing costs, it would be the other costs that would be involved in working on those.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Is that contracted out or done by Communications Nova Scotia?

[Page 678]

MR. BAKER: Communications Nova Scotia. Well, the printing wouldn't be done - they would go to tender on those matters.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Communications Nova Scotia charges you to do design work?

MR. BAKER: Absolutely. Communications Nova Scotia does what we do with many of our legal services - we charge them to the departments as a cost item and then they recover that from us.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have Crime Compensation Payments of $267,000.

MR. BAKER: That is the counselling cost for people under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. People who are victims of crime can apply for counselling costs; for example, if someone may be a victim of a sexual assault, they can apply for counselling costs up to a maximum of $2,000, I believe it is, we will grant them assistance to pay for that counselling cost.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So this would come from the fund under the Victim Fine Surcharge?

MR. BAKER: No, this is separate altogether. Although it certainly is quite legitimate - it could be charged to that - remember we indicated before that the program we ran, itself, exceeds the amount of money that the Victim Fine Surcharge produces.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So this is just coming straight out of government coffers?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: There are no levies or anything . . .

MR. BAKER: No levies, this is general revenue.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have $1.2 million going to the Department of Community Services. Why are you transferring money to Community Services?

MR. BAKER: That's a good question. It's an historic situation. Apparently there is a mortgage on the Waterville Nova Scotia Youth Centre, and this is an historic thing from the days when Community Services ran the young offenders facilities, this is simply through the federal housing program, and we were eligible for a loan to build that. The loan is processed and these are the payments on the loan.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have a payment here to a David Fisher, $155,000.

[Page 679]

MR. BAKER: The Bailey and Richards inquiries, David Fisher is with PANS - he's the lawyer representing PANS.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You had to pay his legal costs?

MR. BAKER: Oh yes, we did. He had standing before both inquires.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have here GSA Search Consultants Inc., $364,000.

MR. BAKER: It's IT consulting for various projects the department would have and would be tendered out through the ordinary tender process.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So they were providing you with some computer support.

MR. BAKER: Computer support for various projects - software development, largely.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So this involved actual product, this is not just labour costs or the cost of administering this, is it?

MR. BAKER: Labour costs for the development of the software.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You have OH Armstrong Ltd., $245,000.

MR. BAKER: Food costs, institutional food costs.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: To the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we're paying $61 million.

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How much of that is recouped from the municipalities?

MR. BAKER: The largest portion of that. Of that amount, roughly $45 million would be recovered from municipal units.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You also have here Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales, $456,000.

MR. BAKER: The majority of it would be for the Kaufman Report. It would be around employees' claims for compensation. They're the law firm representing the Province of Nova Scotia in dealing with those 50 claims that have been settled and the other claims that have not been settled but are still under negotiation.

[Page 680]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Why are you not doing that with staff lawyers?

MR. BAKER: The decision was made, largely at the request of the employee group, that they wanted to have an outside lawyer at that point in time, in dealing with that program, and we agreed to it.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Is Stewart McKelvey representing the province or representing the employees?

MR. BAKER: The province.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Who's paying the legal costs for the employees' lawyers?

MR. BAKER: Under that program, there is an amount provided - and I can't recall the exact amount - to pay their counsel to review that. I can't give you the amount, but there is an actual amount that each person would be entitled to receive to pay towards their getting advice. Remember, I indicated before, for example, before settlements could be reached, that those people would have independent legal advice, and we provide funding to allow them to pay counsel to review the matter.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm just curious, with Stewart McKelvey, did they submit a proposal to government or was there a bid that went out or any sort of advertising for this? How were they selected as the law firm?

MR. BAKER: I can't recall, frankly. That's largely handled through the Public Service Commission. The actual instructing agency is the Public Service Commission.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: But you're paying the bill?

MR. BAKER: The bill shows up simply because it's legal services. The accounting is done through Justice, the authorization is at the Public Service Commission.

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Just one last question. It's an issue I raised with you before, and I'm curious whether any action has been taken on it. One of the issues - and ironically this is a good year to talk about it again, with the 400^th Anniversary of the Acadians - is the issue of having bilingual guards and court administrators, in specific communities that are designated where they administer a large Acadian population, who can actually speak French. Sometimes the government strikes it lucky and gets an employee who can speak both languages, but the question is if any action has been taken to identify specific positions within your department that are front-line positions, that should be designated bilingual should there be any openings that come up, that any new postings would give that as a requirement.

[Page 681]

I'm sure the minister will recall I've written a number of letters to him, especially considering my area, the Port Hawkesbury Courthouse which services a number of Acadian communities, and the lack of both sheriffs and court administrators who can give instructions and speak in French. I'm just curious, since I first raised that with you, has there been any action taken on that front by the department?

MR. BAKER: Certainly there have been discussions with the francophone jurists, and we are certainly interested in enhancing services to francophones, not only in the courts proper, but in Corrections, because particularly in certain parts of the province there are a large number of individuals who would come in conflict with the law who would prefer services in French. At this point we haven't designated any positions as bilingual, although obviously we have the capacity within government to do all trials in French and provide those services in French.

[6:30 p.m.]

MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's true, but one of the frustrations, as you know very well, is if you're even going in to plead guilty to a speeding fine they rely upon the sheriff to give you the instructions as to when you're to pay the fine, how much it is and any instructions the judge may have given, and one of the frustrating parts is when the accused is not comfortable in English and is French-speaking, it leads to confusion and it makes it quite difficult. One of the other situations that is quite frustrating is when someone is in lock-up and the sheriff comes in to say, okay, it's time to go to court, here is what is going to happen and they don't understand what they are being told. So it's not just a matter of the trial itself, the administration of justice outside of trials and outside of actual court cases also needs to have this type of service from your sheriffs to your court administrators to the staff who work within the courts.

I just can't encourage the minister enough to identify specific positions. It doesn't have to be in every position throughout the province, that certainly is not what is being requested - and the second thing is it's not a matter of displacing people, it's a matter of when there are openings it's a golden opportunity to fill them with the people who can provide that service. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will give the rest of my time to my friends in the NDP caucus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.

MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Mr. Chairman, I will confine my questions to the area of the Human Rights Commission, but I will just, very quickly, to my learned friend, say I was very pleased to notice that the Human Rights Act is, in fact, published in French as well as in English but I hope that that implies that there is service through the Human Rights Commission in French as well as in English.

[Page 682]

MR. BAKER: Unfortunately not. I would like to have given you an answer of yes, but good question.

MS. RAYMOND: Very quickly, I gather that you receive about 200 complaints a year, or that was what the last year's . . .

MR. BAKER: Two hundred complaints, you mean?

MS. RAYMOND: Complaints, I believe, is what I had - excuse me, I'm sorry, 200 active files, complaints of discrimination, approximately 200 active files in 2003-04. That's what it says in the business plan anyway.

MR. BAKER: Yes, that would be correct.

MS. RAYMOND: The question that I had, actually, is whether you find that that caseload is going up or down on an annual basis?

MR. BAKER: That number seems to be staying quite steady.

MS. RAYMOND: Pretty stable, okay. I notice that your staffing is completely stable, although you might be able to tell me something about the difference between the estimates and the actual expenditures in 2002-03, and again in 2003-04 there was considerably more projected than was actually spent in salaries and benefits - now does that mean anything about actual staffing or how does that work?

MR. BAKER: I think your question, to make it clear, was has there been any change in the staffing levels at the Human Rights Commission?

MS. RAYMOND: That's what it is, yes.

MR. BAKER: My understanding is the level of FTEs remains constant.

MS. RAYMOND: The actual expenditure is only about 75 per cent of what has been estimated in each of the last two years, and I see that the estimate for this year again is around 100 per cent. I wonder if you, in fact, expect . . .

MR. BAKER: I guess the answer to your question would be that the staffing levels remain very constant over time and there have been some changes within the organization, some restructuring, but the FTE levels have remained constant.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, so the FTE levels are constant and the estimates are pretty constant, but yet in each of the last two years only 75 per cent of the estimate has ended up getting spent in salaries and benefits and I'm just not sure how that works.

[Page 683]

MR. BAKER: There were vacancies throughout the year and some of the vacancies weren't filled for one reason or another - that's the reason. For example, when a vacancy occurs it takes a certain amount of time, the results of staff turnover, to fill vacancies, those kinds of things.

MS. RAYMOND: Do you have a very high turnover, just out of curiosity? It must be pretty substantial.

MR. BAKER: There would be people transferring to other agencies in government, seeing other opportunities, and some of it has occurred as a result of people leaving, and looking for people with different skill sets.

MS. RAYMOND: Like speaking French. No, that sort of leads then into the other question that I had which is that in chargeables to other departments, in each of the last couple of years there is nothing projected as chargeables, but then there is a pretty significant recovery, and I'm wondering which departments you are actually getting - this is in training, I assume?

MR. BAKER: The reason for the recovery was because during the last fiscal year, up until December 31^st, the executive director was both Ombudsman and the executive director of the Human Rights Commission, so of course that stopped December 31^st and that was a recovery from the Office of the Ombudsman because she was doing both roles.

MS. RAYMOND: Yes, I'll get to that. Okay, so that is the only other department that we are involved with here, is it?

MR. BAKER: That would be the only recovery for them, yes.

MS. RAYMOND: The only recovery, okay. Fees and other charges includes workplace training, the workshops and so on, does it?

MR. BAKER: Yes.

MS. RAYMOND: Okay, so those are there.

One of the things I was wondering about, however, is I know you have this number of active files and then there is the question of assessments versus investigations, and I know the commission has the option of discontinuing on a public policy basis. It may discontinue at the assessment stage at which case the complainant may ask that the commissioners review or, again, it may be discontinued at the investigation stage. If it is discontinued at the investigation stage, the kind of reason it can be discontinued is it is not in the public interest to continue, or there is no reasonable basis to continue, and what is the appeal from that?

[Page 684]

What is the appeal from that and if, in fact, the Ombudsman is the same person as the Human Rights Commissioner, where do you go?

MR. BAKER: Well, first of all, there is no right of appeal from the commission. The commission makes the decision and it wasn't envisaged in the legislation that there would be a right of appeal. Obviously there is a process where if someone wishes to complain about the improper administration of the laws of the province, one can complain to the Ombudsman, but that is not an appeal. It is not an attempt to look at the decision and say is the decision . . .

MS. RAYMOND: But if the commission and the Ombudsman are staffed by one and the same person, there is a problem and this problem has arisen, I know that for sure.

MR. BAKER: I think the important thing to mention, of course, is at the present time the executive director is not the Ombudsman.

MS. RAYMOND: What about those complaints that arose during the considerable length of time when the executive director was the Ombudsman?

MR. BAKER: There was an internal process set up during the time Ms. Francis was both Ombudsman and executive director. That process was set up so that during that period of time, the Assistant Ombudsman would handle those matters that were raised.

MS. RAYMOND: And that internal process does, in fact, guarantee that that took place?

MR. BAKER: It did guarantee that and that process, of course, is no longer relevant because now, with the appointment of Mr. Bishop as the Ombudsman, that Mr. Bishop is obviously a separate individual and those internal processes are no longer required.

MS. RAYMOND: So there are at least two places now in which the decision of public policy can be made? Discontinuance is what I'm really concerned about.

MR. BAKER: I guess it's really a three-step process. Initially the staff person would make a decision that they believed the complaint should stop and if they were unsatisfied with that decision, then that decision would go to the next step, to the commission. The commissioner would make a decision which is final, other than the ability for that person then to complain to the Ombudsman who will then re-look at the decision to make sure that it was made appropriately.

MS. RAYMOND: I should leave my time at this point to my colleague. Thank you very much.

[Page 685]

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.

MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I really only have one issue, but it's around a constituent of mine who works for corrections, Mr. Michael Trask, and I think I've written you on that.

I was surprised to find recently that as far as he is concerned, nothing has really changed in the workplace around accommodations for his disability, which is dyslexia. I guess I want to press his case.

My experience as a teacher lets me know that this is a very real condition but I'm getting the impression from him that certainly the people he works with or who are his bosses, the decision makers, don't seem to recognize his disability as a real disability and don't seem to be willing to accommodate him. He's been trying to get a computer of his own at work to help him with his reports and so on and he seems to be getting nowhere. I'm amazed that in 2004, with all we know, that anybody would have to put up with this, I guess, in the workplace. I'm just looking for a response from you.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. I certainly do remember your correspondence about Mr. Trask. Corrections and corrections management staff have been dealing with Mr. Trask and obviously at this point - at least to this point - been satisfied with a response. All I can indicate is that I'm certainly aware of the complaint and we can take it under further review to see if there is any possibility for any further action that would maybe satisfy him.

MR. MACDONELL: How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have four minutes and then we reach the four hours.

MR. MACDONELL: My impression from your answer is that you think the staff have tried to accommodate him. My impression from his last correspondence to me is that they haven't, actually, things have gotten more difficult for him. So can you elaborate on what you think has been done?

MR. BAKER: My general recollection of the matter was that management staff felt that they had tried to accommodate his concerns; obviously, he's not satisfied with that response. Obviously there is a collective bargaining process involved, it's a correctional facility, it's a unionized workforce, and he may have options in that regard. Aside from that, I can indicate that clearly we're trying to be sensitive, particularly in corrections, around a number of issues and for what it's worth, I certainly would be more than prepared to take up with the staff to see if there is any further action that could be taken, that would help address Mr. Trask's concerns.

[Page 686]

MR. MACDONELL: I would appreciate that very much. I guess from where I'm sitting, the staff seem to think - I think they did put a computer in for the employees but not necessarily to accommodate Mr. Trask. It would be kind of like, when everybody else gets one, you will have one. I know there probably are union issues but I don't think the union is going to supply him with a computer to work with.

I'm not sure if it's written in black and white on anybody's piece of paper but it would seem to me that someone who suffers from any disability who could be accommodated in the workplace - we certainly try to do it for our students in school - if you are at all a progressive employer you would say, this man's work is impacted by his disability so if we can accommodate him, he works as well as anybody else. It appears as though when he actually did the interview for the job that he wound up second highest out of 150 applications, but that was when he was accommodated. He had failed the interviews prior, so this is someone I think has talent, likes the work and I think would be an asset to the province. I think he is actually being pressured hard enough to see whether or not he will go on his own and I think that is pretty unfair.

[6:45 p.m.]

MR. BAKER: I can tell you that we'll certainly review the situation to see if there's something further that can be done. I appreciate that you've got a constituent who has a concern about the workplace. I can tell you that we're very sensitive, certainly, in trying to look at issues around accommodation and we will see what can be done. I'm making no commitment other than that we will review the matter and see if there is anything further to be done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, the time has expired. If you have no more questions and everyone is in agreement, we will ask the minister to read his resolutions.

Resolution E14 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $15,300,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimates of Aboriginal Affairs, $2,229,000; Treasury and Policy Board, $2,742,000; and Voluntary Planning, $379,000.

Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $239,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the FOIPOP Review Office, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E17 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $1,764,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

[Page 687]

Resolution E21 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $299,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Police Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

Resolution E28 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $14,500,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Public Prosecution Service, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We have one minute left but if everyone is in agreement, we will treat that as the four hours.

The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. MICHAEL BAKER: Perhaps I will talk my time out anyway just by saying, I would like to thank the honourable members for their questions. I appreciate the succinctness with which they have dealt with the estimates, and we thank them for their interest in dealing with the estimates. Matters that were raised will be taken under advisement for further response. Again, thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We stand adjourned until tomorrow following Question Period.

[6:50 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]