[Page 561]
HALIFAX, FRIDAY, MAY 13, 2005
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
9:30 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Mark Parent
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could have your attention, we'll start the meeting. The NDP has a half-hour left. We'll turn it over to the Justice Critic for the NDP.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister and his staff for coming back today. It was very nice of you. (Interruptions) For the record, I know staff work hard on your speech, and you did a wonderful job presenting it, you know I said this to you yesterday. We were prepared to have all of you out of here yesterday, if the speech had been tabled.
HON. MICHAEL BAKER: We could leave now.
MR. DEVEAUX: Unfortunately, we still have a few questions. I want to take you back to the sheriffs for a minute, because there's a couple of things that my colleague, the member for Cape Breton Nova brought up that I wanted to touch on. They're doing a reclassification right now, they applied in December of last year, that's my understanding from yesterday, correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Justice.
MR. BAKER: I believe the date is December 22nd.
MR. DEVEAUX: At some point, the Public Service Commission asks your department for its opinion or its advice on whether they support the reclassification, I assume.
[Page 562]
MR. BAKER: They will talk to the department about it, but it is their decision.
MR. DEVEAUX: Do you have to provide a written submission with regard to this application, or is it all verbal?
MR. BAKER: I'm anticipating it's mostly conversation.
MR. DEVEAUX: From your perspective as minister in your department, do you have any problem with this reclassification? Do you see any reason why your department would, in its verbal conversation with PSC, say that they were opposed to it?
MR. BAKER: I guess what I can indicate is that our position would be that we want to see those employees fairly compensated for their efforts in an appropriate manner, in accordance with the collective agreement. I've said that to some of the workers who I met here at the Legislature, and that remains my position and the position of the department. Clearly there are issues which that process will work out, but there are issues around retention and all those kinds of things. Obviously we want to see them fairly compensated. It's just not the job of the Department of Justice to set the compensation levels. If you want to put it that way, they work for the Public Service Commission. So the level of compensation is just not something we control.
MR. DEVEAUX: Would you agree with me, though, that they are better trained and a more professional service than they were in the past?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And that the responsibilities that they take on and the issues of safety that they face are greater than they would have been in the past?
MR. BAKER: Certainly to the extent that in the entire criminal justice system, I think it's fair to say that while the number of offences has actually dropped, sometimes I think there's a legitimate perception that the seriousness of some of those people has increased.
MR. DEVEAUX: You mentioned yesterday eight new full-time deputy sheriffs.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's good news, but there are 120 casuals. Has your department actually done a full review of the use of casuals and determined that eight is the only number that you can transfer over into full-time equivalents? Is that what you're saying, that out of 120 casuals, eight is the maximum number you see being able to create into full-time jobs?
[Page 563]
MR. BAKER: My understanding is that what the department has done is indicated that we're going to do eight full-time positions, we're going to review the workload at that point in time, and I guess it's fair to say that we'll review that and if there are further full-time positions required, then we will make the appropriate requests, from a budgetary level, to accommodate them.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to turn to a slightly different subject. I understand your department is responsible as legal services for the different departments for handling arbitrations for the government, is that accurate?
MR. BAKER: I won't say in every situation, but we do a lot of arbitration work for the Public Service Commission and other departments.
MR. DEVEAUX: There have been a heck of a lot of delays, a lot would say, in the arbitration process, the time it's taking to get arbitrations heard. Some would suggest it is partly a result of - I don't know if it's a lack of staffing or what have you from the Department of Justice. Can you fill us in on your perspective on that?
MR. BAKER: I think you need to talk about individual situations. I know that, for example, the Department of Justice is a classic law firm, and we provide legal services to departments, like any client, that they're prepared to pay for. For example, certain departments will pay for one solicitor, two solicitors, three solicitors or fractions thereof, and obviously that's a decision for the department in question. I can tell you that I'm quite confident that our staff in the Legal Services division are not in any way knowingly participating in any delay; however, they represent a client in effect, the department, and any lawyer can only do so much at any given time, no different than the Bar that would be representing the union, for example, could only do so much.
MR. DEVEAUX: I know you're choosing your words carefully, Mr. Minister, but can I understand from that comment that the individual ministries, the individual departments recognizing that they had delays and grievances were willing to invest in more legal services from your law firm than we'd probably be able to expedite some of these arbitrations?
MR. BAKER: At individual departments, obviously it's a question of resources, and that's up to the minister and the deputy in that department. I should, however, say that, and a good example of one where we're totally involved, which would be with respect to Local 480 - Local 480 is correctional workers and we're the Department of Justice, so it's completely in-house. We offered dates in December, and the solicitors for them asked to have the matters put off until February.
So it's not always - I want to make the case quite clearly, that in any adversarial process, sometimes council for one side or the other is not always available. I certainly don't blame anyone for the fact that they weren't available until February, but there can oftentimes
[Page 564]
be a perception from a worker who is negatively affected by that that his or her case is obstructed by an unwillingness of the department to proceed. I think there were 21 arbitrations that were involved in that particular file. So it gives you an illustration of the fact that in a matter where it was within our complete control, we were more than anxious to move those matters forward to their natural conclusion.
MR. DEVEAUX: You mentioned, and I always get the title wrong, Domestic Violence Intervention Act - is that the one we passed a few years ago?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is a review going on right now?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And what's the mandate of that review, and who is doing it?
MR. BAKER: Just before I answer that question, I should give a fuller answer to the previous question. There is an increase of four additional lawyers for 2005-06, requested as a result of departments requesting additional staff. I just thought you might be interested in knowing that.
MR. DEVEAUX: It's always good to see more lawyers being hired.
MR. BAKER: It is good to see that. At least you and I can agree on that, for sure. My understanding is that the contract has been awarded to those individuals who will be doing the review. The review is not limited in scope. It's determined to see how the Act is working, and if there are any improvements in the system that could make it work better. Really, what we're trying to do is to be proactive. We passed the legislation out of a sincere desire to try to assist people. So we want to see where it's working, maybe where it's not working, where it can be improved, so that we can make the changes necessary, either administratively or in the Statute.
MR. DEVEAUX: How many orders have been issued under that legislation?
MR. BAKER: The approximate number, I understand - per year, because it's been for two years - is 180 applications in a year which is roughly one every two days.
MR. DEVEAUX: Right.
MR. BAKER: And there's about 140 orders in a year. Those would be situations whereafter reviewed by the JP an order is made.
[Page 565]
MR. DEVEAUX: And if you're someone who has an order against you, you have the right to appeal that to a Provincial Court Judge, I believe?
MR. BAKER: A Supreme Court Judge.
MR. DEVEAUX: How many of those orders have been overturned at that level?
MR. BAKER: We'll have to provide you with that number and apparently I underestimated the number of orders issued to date. It was 458, that's at least of the date of this piece of information.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's 458 orders issued?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: In two years or three years, two years?
MR. BAKER: Effective April 1, 2003, so two years.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's 458 in two years?
MR. BAKER: In two years. So there have obviously been people who felt that it provided a remedy or at least a partial remedy for them. So, hopefully, it has helped the people in those situations.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to talk a bit about correctional facilities. Do you have any plans? I was looking at the different facilities, there are a number of them obviously. We've reduced the number in the last few years. Do you see any closing of any facilities in the near future?
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. DEVEAUX: With regard specifically to the Antigonish Correctional Centre, have there been any reviews in the past year or two as to the feasibility of that facility?
MR. BAKER: Well, I mean clearly we have two correctional facilities that, more than any others, are older facilities and I know staff would prefer that those facilities weren't as old as they were, because Antigonish is an older facility and so is Cumberland. In fact, in many ways they're quite similar because they're both attached to the superior court building, would obviously have been built by the municipalities when they were responsible and, quite clearly, no capital has been appropriated even for plans. So at this point there are no plans to replace either facility.
[Page 566]
MR. DEVEAUX: And replace is a choice of words, but you can close and, depending on the numbers, there may be an opportunity to close those and create a more central facility whether it's in New Glasgow, or Truro, is there any intention to do that as well?
MR. BAKER: There are no plans at the present time.
MR. DEVEAUX: You mentioned I think in your remarks, since I was taking copious notes, of the Family Court Division, Supreme Court, you suggested that there's going to be a move to make sure everything is unified into a Family Division?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can you explain in a little more detail when you see that happening?
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. BAKER: I actually would love to and I'll try to keep it brief because I would like to talk at greater length. There have been for many years concerns because the range of services that are offered in Cape Breton - the area of Cape Breton, not just the county but the entire Island of Cape Breton - and HRM are different and, frankly, better than the services provided in the rest of the province with the Family Court system.
What happened was when the Family Division was created, the savings in salaries because, of course, they become federally appointed judges, the province has committed and in fact has used to enhance support services to families in crisis. So that's how we've paid for a lot of the extra services that are provided for as a result of the creation of the Family Division. I will say since I've been minister, and I think I am quite accurate in saying that, we have been advocating, pressing, complaining, doing whatever we can, in conjunction with the judiciary I might add, to try to have the Family Division created and I've spoken to at least three federal Justice Ministers about that now.
My understanding is that their legislation is either, I don't know if it has been introduced or not, but it's certainly contemplated being introduced by the federal government because they have to amend their Judges Act. The structure is already in place in Nova Scotia under our Judicature Act, but they have to amend their Judges Act to increase the number of Superior Court judges in Nova Scotia. After, I won't be inclined to call it dithering, but after much consideration of this, we understand that they're planning to do that.
However, it's fair to say that Justice matters are not moving at great speed through the House of Commons these days and so we are somewhat concerned that it may not move as quickly as we would hope, but I can tell you that everyone is anxious to extend the Family Division in Nova Scotia. We believe it's in the interests of Nova Scotian families, the justice
[Page 567]
system. There are other parts of the country where the provincial government is much more worried about issues like who appoints the judges. My concern is not about who appoints the judges, but that the judges are there to provide services to the public. I will say this, that I believe the federal Minister of Justice, the present one, is supportive of this initiative, but I also believe that, you know, there's some great difficulty in getting bills through the House of Commons these days that you all may have heard of.
MR. DEVEAUX: I think I heard that.
MR. BAKER: Yes, I thought you might have.
MR. DEVEAUX: What would happen to the Family Division and Provincial Court Judges who are there now?
MR. BAKER: There is an ordinary rule of thumb and I believe it's at least 50 per cent of the judges would ordinarily be elevated, if they will take elevation, to that. We already have legislation on our books in Nova Scotia which permits the merger of whatever is left of the Family Court Bench and the Provincial Court Bench to create a single Provincial Court and, of course, the Provincial Court presently has jurisdiction not only over adult criminal matters, but over youth criminal matters. So the youth criminal jurisdiction of that Provincial Court, the judges would be in that system.
MR. DEVEAUX: You wouldn't see setting up a separate youth division, it would all be one Provincial Court?
MR. BAKER: One single Provincial Court. Now, you may have judges who specialize, it's a question of administrative - which really is what's going on in the Supreme Court right now because quite a number of the people who are actually serving permanently in the Family Division actually have superior court appointments, you know, the general superior court appointments. So administratively the Chief Justices or Chief Judges oftentimes will parcel up duties.
MR. DEVEAUX: My colleague, the member for Richmond, I think yesterday brought this up in Question Period, but a couple years ago when you announced the closing of Shelburne, and I think you mentioned in your statement about some money being transferred to the community of Shelburne and that the facility would become sort of an economic development opportunity, and that's wonderful for Shelburne, but there was money that must have been saved in the closing of Shelburne.
I recall at the time you specifically putting on the record - or I thought, maybe it was just my suggesting you do it, I don't know - that some of that money should be at least going into community-based programs. If we're not going to be taking those younger youth who have particular behavioural problems and incarcerating them when they commit serious
[Page 568]
offences, then there has to be something for communities to deal with and I'm wondering, can you respond to that as to what type of funding from the savings at Shelburne has been used for community-based programming?
MR. BAKER: Yes, I didn't have the numbers with me the other day when I was answering the question for the honourable member for Richmond, $890,000 has been added to the community corrections budget from the Shelburne Youth Centre and it was used to enhance programs and services for youth, including eight new youth probation officer positions across the province. So it was enhanced services, including the addition of those new . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: What else has the money gone to? You say $890,000 into community corrections. What does that exactly mean? What's the mandate of community corrections?
MR. BAKER: In addition, eight other staff were assigned to youth corrections, for a total of 16. There were assistant probation officers hired who are contractors to assist these. The reason for that is we've gone to what's called an intensive program which provides much more low caseloads to these probation officers so they can maintain a much greater degree of connectedness to those young people. The idea being, of course, to provide a much higher level of service, hence - hopefully - a much better outcome than might otherwise be possible.
I should also mention that yesterday as well, talking about savings, because it literally costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to maintain the existing Shelburne Youth Centre.
MR. DEVEAUX: In the vicinity of $500,000.
MR. BAKER: Yes, that's right. As a result of the fact that soon the transfer of the title of the property will be made to the municipalities in Shelburne County, the budget for the department for this year will be positively affected by that transfer. As a result of that decision, the money that's left over will be diverted into programs for youth. An example of that was the one that we spoke of, the so-called young offenders, meaning those who were under 12 years of age. I know that was something you had spoken about before, looking at a program to assist those young people who technically can't be guilty of an offence because they're under 12 years of age, but who are at risk, obviously when they turn 12, to be in conflict with the law and so we're hoping to use that savings.
We anticipate sometime through the Summer, hopefully sooner than later, that title will be transferred and therefore the department will no longer be responsible for maintenance, keeping the lights on, security, grass cutting, all those kinds of things.
[Page 569]
MR. DEVEAUX: It's interesting. You mention $890,000 for community corrections. It's $532,000 noted in the budget for - I assume - basic maintenance right now. That comes to $1.4 million, which is a handsome sum. When I actually look at the Supplementary Detail, Page 12.4, in 2003-04 which I assume is the last year that Shelburne was open as a full facility, you were working on a $3 million budget. So my math shows me you've actually as a government, by closing Shelburne, presumably by the end of this year, if you transfer it, you're going to be saving over $3 million. Yet, you've told me at the end of this year, you'll be happy to provide $1.4 million in new programs. I'm wondering where the other $1.6 million . . .
MR. BAKER: There's more. There is an additional $600,000 added to restorative justice programs. Other youth facilities for program improvements and the like, which in this case is either largely Waterville but would include Cape Breton as well, is another $500,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: You still only have $2.5 million, do you want to keep going?
MR. BAKER: I think that's it.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. I would encourage you, as some of us did at the time - these are very good programs, don't get me wrong. I'm happy to see this money go into these things, these are important. You know as well as I do that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. I envisioned at the time, potentially in the closing of Shelburne, some money being directed.
It may not be your department that's operating it, but some money being directed, whether through CAYAC or some other group that would allow that to be on the ground - let's face it the place where this is going to impact the most in the communities is in our schools. You and I see it every day where in our communities we have kids that maybe used to go to Shelburne or maybe were provided with some intensive secure treatment, are being left in the community and are going to schools and causing some serious problems. I don't know how we get around that.
Let me start by asking, with my limited time left, your department's part of CAYAC, right?
MR. BAKER: Yes, we are.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. Instead of being reactive always on the corrections side, I guess I want to get an understanding as to what your department is doing with regard to being proactive and trying to address some of these at-risk youth before they get in conflict with the law, or do you see that as some other department's job?
[Page 570]
MR. BAKER: We do provide $50,000 to CAYAC annually. But not to make too fine a point, the Department of Justice is a justice department and certainly that's prevention, there's no question about that. For example, you see that with the 10- and 11-year-old program that I think is a great program. It's designed to technically help young people before they reach the age when they, technically speaking, can be - but I think it's a proactive program, it's a great program. But as I made the point the other day, the education system itself is clearly where many of these initiatives need to lie.
While we work in CAYAC, there's no question that obviously the department whose main job is to deal with educational issues is the Department of Education. I'm not trying to live in a silo, but the reality is that the schools are the responsibility of the Minister of Education. But I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact - I know these are obviously young people who have already had problems with the law. But they are very high risk and the Intensive Supervision program actually takes probation officers into the schools and those kinds of things so they are attempting to assist those young people who are at risk in the school environment to do just what you suggested.
I can also tell you that I think we all recognize that those youth need a lot of help oftentimes. They have family problems, they often have addiction problems, sometimes mental health issues. It is not a single solution for those young people. Community Services obviously has a large measure of the - so it's not a single department. I just don't want to make it sound as though the justice system can be all things to all people.
MR. DEVEAUX: I think you know that I'm aware of that. I have one or two minutes left. I want to ask a quick snapper about - I see Private Security down as an item. It raised with me the issue - a couple of years ago, I understood there was some talk of an Act regulating private security and/or bouncers. There were a couple of incidents in the metro area that I think had people concerned. What's the status of that legislation?
MR. BAKER: Staff are working on that legislation. We're trying to look at ways in which public safety can be enhanced and the professionalism of people who provide security can be enhanced. It may be as early as this Fall, but certainly I would think within the next reasonably short while that you'd see legislation coming forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for the NDP caucus is finished.
The honourable Leader in the House of the Liberal Party.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on the last topic, I think what you've been hearing from us as Opposition, from Justice Critics is that we don't expect the Department of Justice on its own to undertake programs to deal with youth crime prevention. Yes, education certainly has a great role to play, but I don't think any of us would
[Page 571]
argue that our education system and administration has quite a numerous amount of tasks to do on a daily basis.
[10:00 a.m.]
I think what we're suggesting to you is with the expertise you do have in your department and the access to resources that you have, I think we'd like to see your department play an active role in working with the Department of Education. At the end of the day when you look at some of our youth who do get in trouble with the law, I would question how many have any idea of some of the consequences, in the long term, of having a criminal record and what they can be.
I think all elected members continue to see people who come into our offices with applications for a federal pardon because they're entering either the education system or entering other professions. Clearly, they're embarrassed by the fact that they do have a criminal record, they don't want it to be known and many of them are now aware and have been painfully made aware that their travel, in many cases, is restricted because they do have a criminal record.
How many of our youth graduating from our school system have any idea that these are some of the consequences and what the long-term effects of getting in trouble with the law can have on a person? I think that is why you're hearing from us that there is a role to play in Education, in services, to try to make sure our youth are clearly aware of the dangers of getting into trouble with the law and the long-term effects. I certainly believe there is a role for your department to play in that and to show leadership in working with the Department of Education. I think you've clearly heard from both Opposition Parties, certainly our support in working with your department on that issue.
One of the things I wanted to point out, you indicated you've listed a number of items that you said was as a result of the closing of Shelburne. I'm wondering if the minister could prepare that list for us, rather than us trying to take down all the notes here, the minister appears to have figures in different places. Could he just provide a letter to both myself and Mr. Deveaux that would give that breakdown?
MR. BAKER: I'd be glad to do so.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You'll recall even prior to the closure of the facility I raised a number of questions about it because we were certainly hearing from the community fears that the facility would be closed, and lo and behold that did happen. One of the things we continued to ask for, even prior to the closure, was that the minister undertake to do a consultation, an economic development study with the community to see what role the community could play and what beneficial role this facility might have for the community
[Page 572]
of Shelburne. I'm wondering, could the minister table with this committee today any sort of study that was undertaken with the community regarding the Shelburne youth facility?
MR. BAKER: I'm sure I can provide it but it's really the Minister of Economic Development who paid for that. Perhaps I could just give a brief history for the member's benefit.
Team Shelburne is an organization that was created as a result of the closure of the Shelburne Youth Centre. Team Shelburne included representatives from the Department of Justice, Economic Development and other government departments, the municipal units of Shelburne County and the Regional Development Authority. Team Shelburne came to government, wanted a study done and the Province of Nova Scotia - if my recollection is correct, I'm sure it is in this case - has paid for a study that was prepared on behalf of the community to look at opportunities in Shelburne County for economic development. This was one of the things I attended meetings with Team Shelburne, this was what the community asked for and it was complied with.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: There's a bit of debate now as to what the nature of that study was. Was it truly a study to look at the economic development impact, or was it a facility study looking at the facility itself, the cost of running the facility, that it was more facility-oriented, rather than the traditional community economic development-type study of seeing its economic role there? The concern that has been raised with us is there was a study but it was what is better known as a facility study, rather than a community study. I guess if the minister could answer that and my second request would be for us to obtain a copy of the study that was undertaken.
MR. BAKER: I'll certainly talk to my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, who would have that, and provide it. I don't see any difficulty. I can tell you one thing I do know about the process, because we're now getting into the area of economic development and not directly to justice, it's my understanding that the study was a study approved by Team Shelburne, which included municipal units in Shelburne County.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: We're getting a different understanding so I guess they will answer for that themselves. Can you tell us right now, the facility being closed, there is no one being kept at the facility, how much does it cost to run that facility as a closed facility right now?
MR. BAKER: Between $300,000 to $500,000 a year, as a mothballed facility.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How much money have you set aside for the community, this Team Shelburne, as part of the transfer to take this facility?
[Page 573]
MR. BAKER: They've agreed with us that $600,000 - and they get that full amount of $600,000, I think they've actually gotten that full amount - and the transfer of the title is in the legal system, as they say.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So when do they assume responsibility for that?
MR. BAKER: As soon as we can transfer title to them.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So $600,000 in essence will be maybe a year's worth, a year and a half, of the cost of running that facility as an empty facility?
MR. BAKER: I think there's some confidence on the part of the community that they can divest themselves of that building much sooner than that.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I guess the question becomes, why couldn't the government have done that if the community is just going to get rid of the facility?
MR. BAKER: Because the community wanted to have control of their destiny and we supported that.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And you believe that $600,000 was a fair amount of money to give them for an empty facility that runs between $300,000 and $500,000 a year to operate as an empty facility?
MR. BAKER: That was the amount of money that was agreed upon by all parties. I'm satisfied that we were being more than fair in dealing with the municipal units.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So it's a fair deal in your view?
MR. BAKER: It's also a fair deal in the view of all the municipal units in Shelburne County. They have all endorsed it.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Time will tell on that one, I guess. I have no doubt and it's difficult for us to predict what time will bring on that but certainly the term "white elephant" is one that has been brought as a concern from members of that community and again, time will tell.
On the courthouses the question was raised before and as you know there is a new facility under construction in Port Hawkesbury that we're certainly pleased to see and it's going to be a great service to the Strait area as compared to the "old dungeon" I guess you could call the former facility which certainly was a hazard to everyone involved with that, especially for the sheriffs and police in that facility. One of the concerns - and you know I've raised this before - is the impact on both the Arichat and Inverness courthouses once the Port
[Page 574]
Hawkesbury facility is up and running. So to put all of our minds at ease could the minister reaffirm his commitment that neither of those facilities will be negatively impacted once the Port Hawkesbury Justice Centre is up and running?
MR. BAKER: There is absolutely no plan to diminish the availability of either courthouse to their communities. We've indicated across the province that the purpose of building new court facilities is not to centralize or close other facilities.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So for this fiscal year we can rest assured that there will not be any sort of reductions in the court times that are currently taking place at both those facilities?
MR. BAKER: Well, all court times are dependent upon demand, but there are no plans to do anything of the kind. We are going to be sitting satellite courts in Port Hood and in Arichat.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm very pleased to hear that and I'm sure the minister will recall a few years ago where quite a significant amount of rural court facilities - or that were being used as court facilities - were closed. So there's certainly a history of concern there from rural communities.
MR. BAKER: We can all talk about Liberal and Progressive Conservative Governments in this regard . . .
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: True enough. I guess in this case you're the one with the most recent history so that's why . . .
MR. BAKER: Well, we can all dwell on our own part of history.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: True enough but you were minister then and you're still minister now, so I guess that's why we raised that concern again and we'll certainly use the opportunity to reassure our good residents in those areas of the commitments today. One of the other issues the minister will know that I've raised with him in the past in both the estimates and in correspondence is having sheriffs who are able to provide bilingual services in designated communities around the province. Can the minister indicate what sort of progress, or lack of - hopefully not - that has been made in that regard?
MR. BAKER: Perhaps I can begin by indicating to you that I had a meeting with the francophone jurists, we have agreed to do an annual meeting with the minister. There are roughly quarterly meetings between department staff and that organization. When I met with them about a month ago, they seemed pleased with the progress they were making.
[Page 575]
Our department is putting a plan in to the Office of Acadian Affairs to indicate our plans in the justice system for French-language services. Our department is very supportive of French-language services. Obviously, some of them are constitutionally mandated, as the member would be very well aware, but we want to go beyond what is constitutionally mandated to provide enhanced services to francophone Nova Scotians in all regions of the province, particularly in Acadian regions of the province, or in regions like the HRM where there are a large number of francophones. In just one second I'll give you a more specific answer on sheriffs.
We're working where there is a probation officer position already created, we're looking at doing a designated court reporter and after that we're going to begin to look at the sheriff services. What we're trying to do is to enhance the level of support and I think the next logical thing after probation and court reporters is probably sheriff services.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I appreciate the minister indicated about the current review taking place with Acadian Affairs overall in government, but this is a matter that I've raised with the minister for the last number of years. Can the minister tell me in the last year how many sheriffs have been hired who can offer bilingual services as part of their employment?
MR. BAKER: I guess we'd have to provide you with that information and we'll undertake to try to do so. I can indicate that we've tried to target our effort - if you want to call it that - in accordance with the French jurists' requests and as I said, the next logical thing is the sheriffs. I think the member has a very good point and we'll undertake to get the information for you.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm wondering, would staff be aware as to whether any sort of job postings have gone out in the past year that would have a bilingual requirement to those postings?
MR. BAKER: There have not been any that required bilingualism and that's one of the things we're looking at I might say. The Acadian Affairs review is a comprehensive review across government to determine where bilingualism is very important. I'm certainly prepared to review the issue relative to sheriffs again.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And I appreciate that, I guess it just brings out my concern of what you have been doing for the last two or three years when we've had this discussion each year in estimates about designating certain communities. I've made the point very clearly that it wasn't an issue of displacing any of the current workforce but if there should be any openings in areas such as Port Hawkesbury, Sydney, Halifax, down on the French shore, that it would be made a requirement that the person applying be able to offer French-language services. So you haven't displaced anyone, plus you get almost two for the price of one because they can offer services in both languages. I'm not aware of an increased pay
[Page 576]
that comes with that, unlike the federal government, where it does, but I guess I'm a bit frustrated.
I hear what you're saying about what is taking place now but I'm just curious, why wasn't something done in the past two or three years in this regard when you certainly indicated your support for those initiatives when I raised them over the last number of years with you?
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. BAKER: As I've said, over the last year we've added four positions that have been advertised as bilingual positions. There's a provincial coordinator and three other positions that are being advertised at the moment.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So there are none that have been filled that were posted in the past year?
MR. BAKER: Yes, there is. The probation worker position in Yarmouth was posted as a bilingual position and obviously filled by a person who is bilingual.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: What about the other three positions?
MR. BAKER: They are being posted this year and they will be filled this year . . .
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Those are sheriff positions?
MR. BAKER: No, those are court administration positions.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So as far as sheriffs there are none right now being posted or under review to be posted?
MR. BAKER: I can certainly take that under review but we have eight new positions for sheriffs that are going to be created and we'll look at that. Those are the eight new positions I referred to earlier in questioning by Mr. Deveaux and Mr. Gosse.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I can think of no better opportunity than to use that one to introduce bilingual services there. As you know yourself, having been a lawyer and being around the courts enough, the sheriffs are your first line of contact with individuals in court. They are the people to whom the accused say, what did the judge say, what did the Crown say and what did my defence lawyer just say . . .
MR. BAKER: Sadly, that's true.
[Page 577]
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So in many cases the problem becomes, I know in my area, I've seen in court where the accused would come up to me and ask me in French if I could explain to them what was going on because the sheriff was English and whatever he said makes no more sense than what the judge, my lawyer and the Crown just said to me, and that's the frustrating part. I hear what you're saying about court staff and probation officers but as you know, probation comes on the back end whereas the sheriffs are the ones at the front end. I'm sure you'll appreciate that when you're an accused going to court to start off with is not a pleasant experience, it makes one very nervous - at least one would hope people are nervous when they're accused. Not being able to have someone communicate in your own language that you use every day is extremely frustrating.
As I've said all along, it's not a matter of suggesting people be laid off or not being given positions, it's where there are opportunities to hire new staff you can put the requirement in that they be bilingual and all of a sudden you have bilingual staff. I'm aware of one sheriff who had told me he has been sent all over the place because he is bilingual. I think he's based centrally in the province but he's been sent all over to deal with certain matters because of the fact that he is bilingual. I'm sure that it's handy to have him offer that service, I'm sure at the end of the day it's not cost efficient to send someone all around the province for that. There being eight positions, I look forward to seeing those postings and hopefully, seeing that if they're based in areas where there is a significant French community, that those positions will have the requirement to be bilingual.
One of the other questions is - I know that my other colleagues from the Official Opposition have raised these, but I'm going to raise them as well - is the situation with our Sheriff Services and their current salaries and the collective agreement they are under.
It's my understanding that you, personally, did meet with representatives on April 27th, is that correct?
MR. BAKER: I'm not going to play the cross-examination game by giving you a date. I met with people from Sheriff Services at the Legislature in the last several weeks, but I won't test my memory by date.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I won't play the cross-examination game of saying, was it on or about April 27th but we at least have an answer that you did . . .
MR. BAKER: It wouldn't be tremendously fruitful for either one of us.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: No. You do at least agree you did meet with them so that's good. They got the sense from that meeting that you were supportive of their concerns of the fact, as we heard yesterday, the professionalization that has taken place of Sheriff Services. I think any Nova Scotian if asked, have you seen a change in the role of sheriffs would certainly agree to that and I know the minister has indicated that as well. With those changes,
[Page 578]
other than some of the uniforms that they have and the gear that they have, comes certainly a risk with the job that they do. They are certainly pretty much using a lot of the same protective gear and same defensive devices as our police use so therefore, with the professionalization has come the reality that their job is one of extreme sensitivity and there is a danger element to it.
We've heard about the correction officers getting a significant increase - well due, I'm sure - 6.9 per cent, 2.9, 2.9. Why are we still stuck without a new deal for our sheriffs?
MR. BAKER: First of all, it was only officially raised by the union on December 22nd, that might be one reason. The difficulty, of course, is that sheriffs are also civil servants, not just public servants like the members of Local 480, but they're civil servants. They are in the same bargaining unit as the staff who work at your Service Nova Scotia location, the clerks over here at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, and people who work in all sorts of different functions in government, including the people who work on highway weights and measures and those kinds of enforcement officers with the province.
Because they're part of a very large bargaining unit, as opposed to Local 480 which is a specialized bargaining unit for people who do really all the very same thing, therefore it's part of the collective bargaining process, the union would not negotiate typically for a dramatically higher increase for one member of that bargaining unit, it would be a reclassification issue. That's why it's being handled as a reclassification issue as opposed to a stand-alone issue, it's not lack of sympathy.
I have talked to the sheriffs and certainly the impression I got from our conversation with the individuals I met with was that they weren't interested in leaving the civil service bargaining unit, they wanted to remain members of the civil service bargaining unit just because of the opportunity it gives sheriffs as part of that bargaining unit to move into different lines of work. So that's why it is a reclassification and my understanding is it's only a reclassification request that's roughly four months old, which is not that old as reclassification requests go, sadly.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Can you give us an idea on how much longer they should expect?
MR. BAKER: I couldn't tell, and I say that with all due respect, it's not my department it's the Public Service Commission. Obviously, I hope that it's not that long.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And what sort of input are you having with the Public Service Commission when it comes to the nature of these types of negotiations?
MR. BAKER: They would ask us questions around what the duties of the position are, what the requirements of the position are. Obviously they would be well aware with their
[Page 579]
own information of what other people in equivalent duties make in government and elsewhere, but we would indicate what their duties are, what the level of responsibility is, risk, training, all those kinds of things. There has been a huge professionalization of that group of workers.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: What's the nature of the discussions right now, as far as you're aware? Where are we at, are you talking back and forth?
MR. BAKER: There's a meeting later this month between the union and the Public Service Commission, I believe. Obviously, I'm not the minister responsible but that's my understanding.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Can we expect to see a resolution of this possibly before this House rises?
MR. BAKER: I won't presume about what the process would be other than to say I understand the purpose of the meeting is to explore the arguments and issues, to try to understand exactly their arguments for what the correct level of pay is. I have a sense it may be roughly an argument about rough comparability but there are other people in government who are peace officers, and I just illustrated two good examples, and they would clearly be the people who do the weights and measures enforcement on the public highways and the correctional workers in Local 480.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: They've certainly raised valid concerns with us. I think we're all agreed on the professionalized job that they do and the fact that we're told they haven't received a raise in the last 10 to 15 years, I think, certainly is cause for concern for all of us. Hopefully, these discussions will be able to wind up sooner rather than later.
MR. BAKER: I want to correct that. That was, up until recently, the casuals. The sheriff workers would have received raises regularly over that period of time, along with all civil servants in Nova Scotia. I think it's fair to say that over the last 10 to 15 years there would have been dramatic increases in the level of compensation. What you're talking about is a reclassification, that may be true, but I can indicate that with casual workers - there was a very legitimate grievance when I became minister - the rate of pay for casual sheriffs was abysmally low. We've worked to correct that problem.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How much are they paid now? Just out of curiosity.
MR. BAKER: It was $10 an hour, it's now $16.30 an hour and that's a pretty dramatic increase, way above the level of inflation.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Since 1999, how many casuals have become full-time?
[Page 580]
MR. BAKER: One of the problems is that the existing collective agreement requires that we hire people from the bargaining unit before we hire casuals. For example, if I work at Service Nova Scotia and I wanted to transfer and become a sheriff, the potential existed because they're in the Civil Service bargaining unit, so one of the issues that we have to work out, and it was one of the discussions we had with the workers who were here, was the ability for us to hire, by preference, casuals. The existing system actually puts casuals at a disadvantage relative to other people in the Civil Service.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I can appreciate that, but having worked at the Registry of Motor Vehicles myself, I'm not sure how many of the clerks inputting data to give you your driver registration at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations are interested in becoming sheriffs. I'm not sure just how much weight that argument holds because to be a sheriff, it's quite an undertaking and quite a duty. I'm not sure how many within the existing Civil Service are interested in moving over and becoming sheriffs, knowing the professionalization that has taken place and the role and duties of that.
MR. BAKER: I know of one example in my area of the province where a person who is a sheriff now had worked in another area of the Civil Service before that.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Let's get that figure then, since 1999, how many casuals have become full-time sheriffs?
MR. BAKER: We'll have to get that information.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So you don't have that, but you will get that for me, okay. Let me go to another area. How many probation officers do we have working in the province? I have 48 in mind, but I could be wrong.
MR. BAKER: I think it's higher than that - 82 full-time.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And they're spread throughout the province?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: You don't have any casuals who work as probation officers, do you?
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. BAKER: We have assistant probation officers who work on a fee-for-service basis.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How many of those do you use?
[Page 581]
MR. BAKER: Approximately 30 to 40.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I guess you could say that they're private, you bring them in when you need them?
MR. BAKER: That's right and the number varies depending on the workload demand on the system.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How many people in the Province of Nova Scotia are currently under house arrest?
MR. BAKER: Approximately 150 to 200 is the information I am given. It fluctuates, obviously, but that was the number that was estimated to me.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: There are 150 to 200 serving house arrest in Nova Scotia?
MR. BAKER: At any one time. Conditional sentence is what we're talking about.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's right and now you are including all conditional sentences, federal, provincial, youth, that's the figure? The figure we got from Statistics Canada is quite a bit different than 150 to 200, so that's why I'm just asking again because someone is off by quite a bit.
MR. BAKER: That's the house arrest number, yes.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Let me change the question to conditional sentences.
MR. BAKER: We'd have to get that for you.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I believe that that's where the number gets quite significantly higher. I believe I did ask the question to the minister in the House and while I don't have the exact figure in front of me, it was well over 1,000 for 2003.
MR. BAKER: We can get that for you.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: With both house arrests and conditional sentences, it does require the guilty parties serving these to be in contact with probation officers?
MR. BAKER: They would be under supervision, yes.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Is it your position as Minister of Justice that we have a sufficient amount of probation officers in light of the courts in the last number of years preferring to issue both house arrests and conditional sentences?
[Page 582]
MR. BAKER: My understanding is that our caseloads in Nova Scotia are comparable to other jurisdictions in Canada. However, we are always looking at reallocating resources and we're anticipating adding three additional individuals to the probation officers complement to continue to meet the demand that is in the system. I should also say that it's important to realize that when judges sentence people to conditional sentences or house arrest, we make it quite clear to the court what the level of supervision is that we can provide, so that it is not being in custody. We do not have somebody to watch the house every minute of every day, but we talked about, for example, a pilot project around bracelets with the GPS. We are constantly looking at ways to enhance the level of supervision we're able to provide.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Would you prefer people be sent to jail rather than house arrest?
MR. BAKER: I would prefer that the courts sentence people who are appropriate to house arrest, to house arrest and people who are appropriate for jail, to jail.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I think you've indicated that what you're telling the courts is that you have limited abilities in enforcing house arrest, is that right? When you say you tell the courts, what do you tell them?
MR. BAKER: We provide information to the courts about what the services are that Community Corrections provides. It's not a question of being in favour of one or the other, we provide certain services in the community which we believe are comparable to the services provided elsewhere in Canada. The court has to make a decision under the Statute about whether or not the most appropriate disposition for that individual is in custody. In custody, of course, they have intermittent sentences as an option, we also have people who get sent home on temporary leaves of absence, it's not all black or white. The court is aware if somebody is a security risk, a high risk to reoffend, quite bluntly, they probably aren't a great candidate for sentencing in the community.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How much does it cost to keep someone incarcerated for a year in Nova Scotia?
MR. BAKER: The per diem rate is about $120 a day.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: What's that in the run of a year?
MR. BAKER: It's 365 times $120, I guess, I'm not sure. It's $43,000.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's interesting, because a GPI Atlantic study in 1999 said that it cost approximately $44,000 and I'm a bit surprised to see that we've gotten more efficient knowing the cost of living has certainly gone up and everything else has gone up. How is it that that figure has actually gone down?
[Page 583]
MR. BAKER: The construction of the Burnside correctional facility has been a major boon. It improved services and it has consolidated services.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's the most complimentary comment I've heard from the minister about the Burnside facility, but it's good to hear that the facility is actually saving the government money.
We've talked about the cancellation of Operation Shadow. Who is watching people on house arrest between Friday at 6 p.m. until Monday morning at 8:30 a.m.?
MR. BAKER: We do phone checks on weekends, we have probation officers who are available on weekends to make checks as well in certain circumstances. The police themselves are eyes on the street to determine whether or not people are complying with orders. We're meeting with Chief Edgar MacLeod from the Cape Breton Regional Police Service next week, I believe, to talk about in his community, for example, because remember, Operation Shadow was unique to that community.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Just on that point, you indicated that and we've had indications that it actually had been started to be implemented here in HRM as well and that they had started using it shortly before it was cut by the government. One of us is in error there by saying it was only a CBRM pilot project because our information says that HRM had started to adopt it as well, prior to it being cut.
MR. BAKER: There may have been some small start in the HRM as well, but it was primarily a Cape Breton project.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Again, can the minister indicate why that program was cut?
MR. BAKER: Because of concerns about officer safety.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Now, that's where we are a bit confused. What do you mean, for probation officers or police officers?
MR. BAKER: Probation officers.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: My understanding is that with Operation Shadow the probation officer was actually accompanied by a police officer, so I'm quite curious. The whole idea of the program was not to send the probation officer to a home on his or her own, but to have a uniform police officer with them because there might be cause for concern. So where is the safety concern coming from if there was a police officer accompanying them?
[Page 584]
MR. BAKER: The concern was that the police could obviously not make a commit-ment to us - meaning the provincial government - that they would not respond to other kinds of calls when they had a probation officer with them. The difficulty is our probation officers are not trained police officers, that's not their function. The difficulty is, for them to respond to a potentially hazardous situation with a policeman - and there's obviously a great deal of danger in police work - was considered putting them at a risk that wasn't appropriate given the level of training that they have is not that of a police officer.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Let me just get this straight, a probation officer and a police officer show up at someone's door, go inside, they're checking, they're talking to the individual. The police officer gets a call, saying you have to go, there's a robbery down the road. Is that what you're referring to?
MR. BAKER: That's right, because . . .
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: But if that's the case, common sense would say, the probation officer, well, if you're going, I'm out of here as well, I'm leaving with you. If they came in the same vehicle, hop in the same vehicle and go. You don't expect the probation officer to get out at the scene where the police officer is going, but to stay in the car. There seems to be a common sense solution to the concern you're raising, and I'm not clear. I don't see a situation where the probation officer is going to stay back on his or her own if the police officer is leaving. In the situations where that might occur, well, just have the probation officer leave at the same time as the police officer, that would be the common sense solution to the concern you have raised.
MR. BAKER: I guess in short the concern was around the safety of probation officers going to those houses in those situations when they didn't have the level of training, the bulletproof vests, all of that kind of training that a police officer has. So you've got the issue of them going to other violent crime scenes and also going to houses when they are not trained police officers.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: If that's the case, how does your answer make sense, to suggest that community members need to be playing a more active role in the enforcement of house arrests and conditional sentences, if you've said that you feel it's too much of a danger for your probation officers, with their lack of training, to put them in those kinds of dangerous situations?
MR. BAKER: I think it squares quite well. I'm not suggesting that the neighbour go in and knock on someone's door to see if they're home. I'm suggesting that if you're a neighbour in the neighbourhood and you see someone leaving the house who you know, or have a very high belief, is on a house arrest order, you can call the police. You're going to be protected, because you're not, obviously, going into that dangerous environment. I wasn't suggesting for a moment that I expected a person from the community to go knocking on
[Page 585]
someone's door. When you go into someone's home, and some of these homes are less than ideal, you're placing yourself in considerable risk. Tragically, there has been a situation in another part of Canada where someone was killed, a probation officer. It's not a risk that is hypothetical, it's a real risk.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Basically, other than phone calls, there is really no one ensuring that people serving house arrest . . .
MR. BAKER: No, there's another method which is used, which is quite effective, and that's simply where you pull up in front of the home, in a car, the person is required to come to the door, you see them - obviously they're there because you can see them - and you're satisfied that they're in compliance.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Who's doing this, who's driving the car?
MR. BAKER: A probation officer.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: At what times are they doing this?
MR. BAKER: Staggered times, evenings, daytime.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Friday night, Saturday night, Sunday night?
MR. BAKER: As needed.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: How many probation officers work weekends?
MR. BAKER: They work staggered hours, and I guess it's as needed. It's a shifted thing that's done as required by the supervisor.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So here in metro, could you give us a breakdown of how many probation officers are going to be working this weekend?
MR. BAKER: We'd have to check to get that information.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: But you do have that figure?
MR. BAKER: I assume we can get that.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So out of the 82, maybe you could tell us how many of those 82 full-time . . .
[Page 586]
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. BAKER: There's not 82 in metro.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: No, 82 full-time around the province. How many of those 82 full-time are working weekends?
MR. BAKER: We'll try to get that information for you.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Who made the decision to cancel Operation Shadow? Was it CBRM, or was it the Department of Justice?
MR. BAKER: It was the Department of Justice.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I guess the question becomes, what is the possibility of using Sheriff Services to do some of this supervisory work?
MR. BAKER: Well, the sheriffs aren't armed, and certainly we don't plan to arm them. I think that one of the reasons we're having a meeting next week with the Cape Breton Regional Police is to identify - because we have a mutual interest. It's not that the Justice Department is responsible for the entire justice system at an operational level or that the police are. We have an interest in coordinating. If somebody is not complying with a court order, we want to find out about it, and so do the police. Typically, when they're not complying with court orders, they're oftentimes doing other things that they ought not to be doing.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: There's no disagreement there. The mixed message is that both your blue book in 1999 and your most recent one in the last election did make quite significant statements on crime and getting tough on crime. With the cancellation of those kinds of programs and the issue that there isn't the level of supervision that is taking place on weekends and at other times raises the concern that we're getting mixed messages here, get tough on crime but if you're under house arrest, you're not necessarily being supervised at the level that you should be, to give everyone the sense of comfort that those sentences are being fully carried out and that the communities can rest assured that they are safe because of the supervision taking place.
MR. BAKER: Well, this is an interesting piece of information, we have a higher-than-average number of people in Nova Scotia who are actually incarcerated for failing to comply with court orders, which would indicate that through whatever mechanism there's a higher-than-average ability to catch people who don't comply with court orders.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Do you keep any stats as to how many are under either house arrest or conditional sentences who do commit crimes and are caught for it?
[Page 587]
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, we don't keep that stat.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Does anyone keep that stat?
MR. BAKER: The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics apparently has a pilot project - and the Deputy Attorney General of Nova Scotia is chair of that - in Saskatchewan that is looking at that kind of information. Assuming that that pilot project works, then there's the opportunity to roll that kind of program or analysis out across the country.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I look forward to seeing what those numbers might show. Court fees, any intention to have any of those fees increased this year?
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: With the new land registry system can we expect to see fees increased more than what they've already been increased?
MR. BAKER: I don't do the land registry system, that's the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I will not comment; I won't fish in his pond.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So you don't collect any of those fees?
MR. BAKER: I'm not privy to that, but I can tell you that in the areas that I'm responsible for there's no plan.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Have any concerns been raised with you on the new Land Registratrion Act from the basis that, my understanding is, financial institutions now will be able to do much more in-house work rather than having it done by members of the legal profession?
MR. BAKER: I think it's fair to say - I don't know if this is strictly Justice, but it's certainly lawyers - that long before the land registration system - and this is an area of law that I practised in - came in, large segments of banking were no longer being done by the legal profession, there was no involvement at all. It was being done by title insurance companies, and title insurance companies were doing entirely "refis", for example, in some parts of this province, and there was a great deal of concern about that. I think the Land Registration System has overall been a positive for the public and for the profession, but there certainly are changes in the profession. Those were taking place largely not as a result of the Land Registration System, in my view, but largely as a result of changes that were going on with title insurance, which was really a coming to Nova Scotia of what really was an American product.
[Page 588]
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: The additional money to legal aid, is that going to move the income cap as a result, or is that just meant to clear up some of the backlog of what's there right now?
MR. BAKER: The commission is reviewing the matter, but no decision has been made yet.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Any idea? Can we expect to see that that income cap is going to move higher, meaning more can qualify, or is this money meant more to clear up some of the backlog of what's in there?
MR. BAKER: Well, as you know and everyone knows, Nova Scotia has made significant investments in legal aid compared to the paltry investment by the federal government. The actual expenditure of legal aid funds is really an issue for the commission. We don't largely manage that, because there is always a balance to be made between certificates and making sure there is enough money for certificates that lawyers will do them, to make sure that you can pay the staff salaries, because legal aid is tied to the Public Prosecution Service, and not recently but historically there were some significant adjustments as a result of that. Really, that's a decision I leave to the Legal Aid Commission to best allocate the funds. I would love to see that, by the way.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: But you've made no representation one way or the other?
MR. BAKER: We leave them to manage the system. We've put a lot of money in the system, and we leave them to manage the system the best they can.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I guess my only side comment on the minister's reference of paltry sums from the federal government, maybe they put all that money into health care instead, based on the money coming from those areas. One of the other issues that I wanted to raise is Small Claims Court. What efforts have been undertaken to have Small Claims Court made available in French?
MR. BAKER: It's being run as a pilot in the Yarmouth County area, forms have been translated, the service is available in French. Unfortunately and somewhat disappointingly, there hasn't been a huge take-up on the service, but we would certainly be prepared to consider moving it elsewhere in the province, for example in the Strait area.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Have you made any attempts to publicize the fact that they might be made available if the demand is there? I appreciate you're saying there hasn't been any demand, but one often doesn't have a demand if one is not aware there's even an option for that service. In the Strait area, we know that the adjudicator clearly is unilingual, so naturally when people see that . . .
[Page 589]
MR. BAKER: We can always appoint additional adjudicators.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Well, let's answer that one then, how many adjudicators currently appointed can offer French-language services?
MR. BAKER: Is the honourable member interested in a little bit of work? (Laughter)
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I have enough on my plate.
MR. BAKER: You have a day job, do you?
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Yes, day, night and . . .
MR. BAKER: Well, it's night work, so I thought you might have an evening free you'd like to donate.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: This job keeps me busy enough at night, as well. How many adjudicators - do you keep track of how many actually could offer French-language services?
MR. BAKER: I don't have the statistic here, but we can find out.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: As the minister well knows, Small Claims Court is becoming the court of choice.
MR. BAKER: For good reason.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: As you said, for good reason, cost efficiency, the speed in which matters can be resolved, and certainly I think it's one of the better courts where people would be comfortable speaking French because it is informal and it's much easier. I would certainly encourage the Department of Justice to continue on that and put out expressions of interest and speak to the Bar in the Strait area and in other areas to see if there is an interest. It would be wonderful to be able to at least make it an option to clients, especially those who are a little older, that if they are to come to court they can actually speak in French and make themselves understood. I do encourage that as well.
One of the last items is we've heard some discussion about the appointment of federal judges and the federal minister talking about some of the changes that have taken place to the appointment process, the transparency that has been put there at the federal level that they've been aiming for. Certainly Minister Cotler has spoken about this at length. I'm just curious, as far as the appointment of judges under your jurisdiction, what sort of changes have you looked at or adopted to make the system more transparent and to give Nova
[Page 590]
Scotians the sense of comfort that they are truly getting the best-qualified, independent individuals to serve on our provincial judiciary?
MR. BAKER: First of all I should say that I'm very proud of our provincial judicial appointment process. I believe it to be, and I think it's heralded to be, the most independent judicial appointment process in Canada, bar none, including the federal government judicial appointment process. We have a process that, for example, is very transparent in how you apply, it is very transparent in who serves on that review panel. It is not simply a creation of a list for the minister in the classic sense of the word. The people who are on that list are on a very short list of generally three to six names. Those three to six names are generally people of superb ability. I have heard no criticism of the quality of people appointed to the provincial court in Nova Scotia.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Basically what you're saying is that the system we do have is a sufficient system, and you see no need for improvement.
MR. BAKER: I think it's the best system in the country.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Has anyone else ever made that comment? Has there ever been a review of that? Or is that just a personal opinion by yourself?
MR. BAKER: Well, it is a personal opinion by myself, but I've spoken to many members of the Bar, I've spoken to members of the public. I'm very proud of the quality of appointments that we've been able to make. I believe that, to the extent possible, and ultimately I'm left with the list that I've given of three to six names, but that within that list we've been able to appoint people from different areas, with different backgrounds. I think we have a good system.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I know that some of your staff appeared in front of the Public Accounts Committee and this was raised, and I'm wondering if there's more information on it. A couple of years ago, probably three or four now, your department in conjunction with the Department of Community Services, especially under the Children's Aid system, which had been using private lawyers to represent the minister in many cases, decided to go with in-house counsel on the idea that it would be a cost saving. I'm wondering, has there ever been a review done, an outside review or an internal review, that you could provide us with that shows that at the end of the day money was saved and, more importantly, that there haven't been any complaints from either Children's Aid or Community Services staff about the level of service in changing from the private sector to in-house counsel?
MR. BAKER: We could certainly provide those statistics to you. I can indicate to the honourable member, quite simply, I believe it was the right decision to make. I think it has improved the quality of service. I think it has been cost effective. I'm sure there was a
[Page 591]
difficult adjustment period, but I know that a number of staff who work for the Department of Justice used to do that as private people, at private law firms. So with all due respect, I think that the service being provided, we have a number of lawyers who have left private practice to come work for the government and do this kind of work.
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Time has elapsed for the Liberal caucus. Do you have one last thought that you wanted to get out?
MR. BAKER: Perhaps I should finish Mr. Samson's question, I feel like I'm cutting him off. I'll just simply say that we'll provide that information to the member. I believe it was the right thing to do, it has been cost effective, and we now have people who specialize in that service and they do that kind of work.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now revert to the NDP caucus.
MR. DEVEAUX: If Mr. Samson just has two minutes he can have two minutes of our time, that's fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you. Those in-house staff, are they available 24 hours a day?
MR. BAKER: They carry cellphones and pagers and are available like any other lawyer.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So whether there's an apprehension order that's required at 1:00 a.m., these in-house counsel are doing this work currently?
MR. BAKER: They provide the same service that was provided before.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: So 8:30 to 4:30 does not apply in their case?
MR. BAKER: Not only doesn't 8:30 to 4:30 apply to them, it doesn't apply to Department of Justice lawyers generally.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Are they compensated an additional amount when they do put these orders together?
MR. BAKER: It's part of their job.
[Page 592]
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And it is still your position that at the end of the day it is a better service than what was being provided in the past?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And it is more cost effective?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: And you will be able to table figures that show that the previous cost compared to what you're paying now is, in fact, less. Is that still your position? I know I raised that before in the Public Accounts Committee and no one was able to give me those figures or make that argument, so I'm curious whether you are in a position to be able to make it now.
MR. BAKER: The deputy has indicated to me that we are now doing one-third of Children's Aid in Halifax and all the other three offices in metro for the same amount as what the private Bar does for two-thirds of Children's Aid.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Now, you have all those figures that you can provide that will show that? You'll indicate how many lawyers are working on that, what your cost has been, with administrative staff and everything else? I'm just curious, when you get a call to do an apprehension order at 1 a.m., who's typing them up, the lawyer himself or herself? What staff is doing it?
MR. BAKER: I don't know. It's obviously happening, I'm just not sure who's doing it, I can't tell you. We would have to talk with staff who do that work.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I'm sure you would know yourself that there is quite a bit of paperwork required when an apprehension order is going to be put together and nothing happens . . .
MR. BAKER: Apprehensions are very paper intensive. We've never heard any complaints about the ability to do that from the point of view of the Department of Justice, and I suspect the private Bar probably doesn't keep their secretaries in their office until 1:30 a.m. either.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: That's true because the private Bar stays up and does it on their own.
MR. BAKER: Having been in the private Bar, my experience would be that I wouldn't have had a secretary very long if I kept her at the office until 1:30 a.m.
[Page 593]
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Have you received any complaints from social workers, Children's Aid workers, or people involved in the system, that under the new system they are not able to get apprehension orders or other such required work done on as timely a basis as was being done in the past? If you have received those, other than asking for a freedom of information request, will the minister make those available to us, deleting any sort of privacy information that might be contained in them?
MR. BAKER: There were complaints from social workers at the time of the transition who had gotten used to dealing with a lawyer or law firm over time, but certainly our perception is that since people are now used to working with their new lawyers - and in many cases their old lawyers working for a new firm - that that has dissipated and the service is generally considered to be a first-class service.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Let me just ask you again, are you aware of any complaints that have been launched saying that because of the change to the service, either an apprehension order wasn't done on a timely basis, or that the system is not working . . .
MR. BAKER: I'm not aware of any specific complaints but there may have been complaints received by someone else in the department. I am certainly aware of the fact that the department considers that this has been a success story. There were a great deal of loyalties and people sometimes resist change, but all change is not bad.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Do you have any intention of increasing the amount of people that you currently have working in-house covering Children's Aid and the Department of Community Services work?
MR. BAKER: That's up to the Department of Community Services. As I was indicating to Mr. Deveaux, the staffing levels that a department gets - like any legal service - is a decision for the minister and deputy in that department to make. We will hire people as required to provide the services that the Department of Community Services requires.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Have you received any requests from the Department of Community Services or the deputy, recently, to see an increase in this program?
MR. BAKER: We'd have to check on that with the director. Our deputy will be meeting with the Deputy Minister of Community Services at 1:30 p.m. today, then we'll know more.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Do we want to call them back, Kevin, afterwards? (Laughter) I look forward to those numbers because I can tell you, within the legal community there is not agreement with the statements you have made and without seeing those numbers, it's difficult to be able to say it has been a cost-efficient change, when we've never been shown any figures to tell us there has been cost efficiency. I did raise this at the
[Page 594]
Public Accounts Committee, about two years ago, I didn't get any figures following that to show me that there has been cost efficiency or cost neutral.
I'm hoping that the request today will bring us results much quicker so that your statements actually are confirmed by the numbers coming out of the department, showing that there has been a cost savings here, and that the minister can check with his staff to confirm there hasn't been any recent complaints or incidents, where apprehension orders were not provided on a timely basis and that there were some negative consequences as a result of that. Certainly, some have been brought to my attention, that's why I've looked for confirmation and I've been told it's possible but not sure. Hopefully the minister can give us a definite answer on whether any such complaints have been provided to his department since this change took place.
MR. BAKER: Thank you. In closing, to the member, it would certainly be counter-intuitive, from my experience, to believe that the service would not be more cost effective. It has been demonstrated clearly that our adjudicator model in Nova Scotia, where we have largely staff lawyers working at the Nova Scotia Legal Aid Commission, is much more cost effective than the certificate system used in some provinces. Quite bluntly, it is more cost effective to pay people to work constantly at a task than to pay them to work sporadically at a task.
I remember speaking to the federal Minister of Justice and frankly - not the present but the former federal Minister of Justice - he believed that the model that more provinces should look at is the Nova Scotia model of legal aid, which provides for staff lawyers doing that kind of work.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: I don't disagree with that, I guess I would simply point out - and I'm sure the minister is aware - those who were doing this in private practice were pretty much doing this almost 100 per cent of the time, in some cases. It was their argument that, in fact, because of the fact they were doing it so much, they were able to offer you a much more favourable billing rate than what it would cost you going in-house. There's one way to settle this and it's for you to show us the figures of what it cost you before for the amount of cases that were being done and what it's costing you now. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that he was using your time, Kevin, for that. Any more questions from the Liberal caucus? Your concluding statements are in order and reading the resolutions.
MR. BAKER: Are you finished?
MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, if you don't have anything extensive . . .
[Page 595]
MR. BAKER: No, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. Thank you. (Interruptions) I'm going to be much briefer in my closing comments.
I want to say I appreciate the questions of both Mr. Deveaux and Mr. Samson and other members of the caucuses. I would like to thank all of the staff who have come in over the last two days to be here for the estimates, not just from the Department of Justice, but from Aboriginal Affairs, the Human Rights Commission, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal and other agencies that I'm responsible for. I know staff put a lot of time in preparing for this and they deserve my thanks and the thanks of all members because they truly do try to provide all the information and make it available for that.
I might also say it has been my pleasure working with both caucuses on what I think are sometimes very good initiatives that help make the system better. Thank you very much.
I should thank the Treasury Board staff, I knew I was forgetting somebody. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E10 stand?
Resolution E10 stands.
Resolution E14 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $22,254,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Executive Council, pursuant to the Estimate, for Aboriginal Affairs, $2,349,000; Treasury and Policy Board, $3,079,000; and Voluntary Planning, $446,000.
Resolution E15 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $254,000 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 $1,843,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.
Resolution E21 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $343,000 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 $15,680,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Public Prosecution Service, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolutions carry?
[Page 596]
The resolutions are carried.
We'll take a five-minute break while we bring in the Department of Natural Resources.
[11:13 a.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[11:19 a.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the estimates of the Department of Natural Resources.
Resolution E11 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $63,098,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
HON. RICHARD HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, committee members, this morning, first of all, I'd like to introduce some of my staff who are with us. I have Deputy Minister Peter Underwood; the Director of Financial Services, Weldon Myers; Laurel Russell, Executive Director of Planning Secretariat; Peter MacQuarrie, Director of Program Development, Renewable Resources; Dan Eidt, Director of Resource Management, Regional Services; Jo-Anne Himmelman, Executive Director of Land Services; Scott Swinden, Executive Director of Mineral Resources; and Mary Anna Jollymore, Director of Communications.
Mr. Chairman, this morning my remarks are going to be very brief so we can get on with the questions for my estimates. I just want to thank my staff for their dedication and commitment to the departmental goals over the past year. There have been challenges. As you know, we had Hurricane Juan, we had White Juan, and we had to deal with that, and we still wanted to deliver the main services to the citizens of our province. I think that we met and exceeded most of those goals. There are some areas for cleanup from Hurricane Juan. But we have a plan, and we're moving ahead to finalize that.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we've been dealing with the federal government about giving some assistance for the infested zone here in HRM. The province and myself, as Minister of Natural Resources, made an announcement last December on the Eastern Shore of $1 million to help the citizens. We've been lobbying the federal government since then and before then on numerous occasions to partner with the provincial government to assist the citizens of the areas that have been affected. We are not giving up on that. We're still proceeding in asking the federal government to please respond to us and deal with this issue.
[Page 597]
As you know, Mr. Chairman, a number of our parks were affected and devastated by Hurricane Juan. I would say 90 per cent of the parks are up and running for this season. Some were up and running again last season. But the one that had the most devastation was in Porters Lake, and that's going to be a bit late opening this year. I made a commitment in the House last year that that would open this year in June, and I'm very pleased to say that will happen. We have some issues on McNabs Island that we're dealing with. There's a community group that's very involved in McNabs, and we're working with all partners for our parks. With those few remarks, I welcome some questions from my colleagues. I'll do my best to answer them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: You know this is funny, because I'm the Critic for Justice, and my colleague who is the Critic for Natural Resources is in the other room doing Transportation. We may actually know where our hearts are, because I actually was looking forward to doing this one as much as I was doing Justice, because, and I'll admit, I have an unusual riding. I have five parks in my riding, if you include the trail system. You have the trail system, you have the Cole Harbour Heritage Park, you have Rainbow Haven Beach, you have McCormack's Beach, and you have McNabs Island/Lawlor Island.
It's funny because a lot of my colleagues talk about the amount of Community Services casework they have, I would have to say that a good chunk of mine is actually Natural Resources, as the minister would know from the number of times I end up sending e-mails to him compared to other ministers. So I wanted to talk for a while about some of the issues in my riding, and I also wanted to talk a bit about some broader issues around the off-highway vehicle report and the trail system.
Maybe I'll start with the trail system, because earlier this year there was some issue around insurance for the trails. I was hoping you could give us some understanding of how that has been resolved. There was some dispute, and I'll put it out as I understand it - and please correct me for the record if there's a difference - but there was one insurer for all the trails, part of the Trans Canada Trail system in Canada, and they said that they were going to change the conditions to prevent off-highway vehicles from being used, if they wanted to have the insurance. That obviously wasn't acceptable to a lot of the trail organizations in the province. As a result, there has been some agreement with the province to allow for some other form of insurance. I'm not sure exactly what that agreement is, so can the minister sort of briefly let us know exactly what agreement has been made?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, the lead department on this file is TPW, and I'm not trying to fling it off to TPW. The deal, to my knowledge, right now, the federation is the one that is going to be making the public announcement on it, and I don't want to steal their thunder, but I believe they've made an arrangement with the insurer that they will hold last
[Page 598]
year's rates, and the province will be partnering with the insurance and the federation on this proposed insurance.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it's your understanding this isn't going to impact the ability for off-highway vehicles to use those trails that they're currently using?
MR. HURLBURT: That's our understanding, honourable member.
MR. DEVEAUX: The trail system itself - and this is more of a broad question - how much of the former rail lines have been transferred over through management plans to various trail organizations?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I can't give the exact number here today, but I can tell the honourable member and all members that we are working with a number of trail groups in the province, and it's ongoing right now as we speak. I can tell you, as early as last week I met with two groups from the Valley area that are very concerned and want to get on with the trail. So we are working with the groups in different regions.
MR. DEVEAUX: With regard to the off-highway vehicle report, my understanding is that there is an internal committee of government that's looking at the report and is going to make recommendations to you, or maybe they already have. Can you give me an update on that?
MR. HURLBURT: What has happened is there are seven government departments that are involved in this - because it has impact in Justice, it has Transportation and Public Works, Health Promotion, Sport and Rec, our department - and that full report has not come back to my desk yet. My goal has been from day one that I believe enforcement is a key element to the success of off-highway vehicles, and I believe education is another factor that we have to promote to the very best of our abilities.
MR. DEVEAUX: What's your timeline for responding to the report?
MR. HURLBURT: Well, I hope to have something very soon, Mr. Chairman. I would not want to tie the hands of the working committee, but we are working on the file, very diligently. I hope that there will be some recommendations made to me in the very near future, and I'll be making public some of those.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you haven't received the recommendations yet?
MR. HURLBURT: Not 100 per cent yet. I've been briefed as it has been going through, but I do not have the full evaluation from the whole team yet.
[Page 599]
MR. DEVEAUX: What is your timeline for responding? I understand you have to wait until you get the report, but assuming the report comes in a matter of weeks, are we looking at June, are we looking at next December?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member, as he knows, we have to look at what the recommendations are, is there going to be legislation that has to come through the House, and if it is, we'll be looking at that aspect of it. If some of it's just through regulations, we'll definitely be dealing with it as it comes about. But a time frame, I do not want to tie the hands, as I mentioned earlier, of the committee. I think they're doing a tremendous job.
I also want to publicly thank the task force. They did a tremendous job for this province and for the citizens on the off-highway vehicles. It was a very difficult item for the task force, and they went out, they listened to the citizens of Nova Scotia and their concerns, and they brought in 39 recommendations. What my group, the interdepartmental group, is doing now is assessing those 39 recommendations to see if there are some we can implement through regulation, if there are some that maybe have no merit, or if it needs legislation. I'm not trying to just fluff this one off, I'm firm that I am going to be dealing with this the minute the recommendations come to my desk. We will be moving ahead. I'll be looking for the other two Parties to support the recommendations, and they will be briefed also.
[11:30 a.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to talk specifically about one group that I'm sure you're aware of, we had this conversation earlier. With regard to, for lack of a better term, dirt bikes, motocross, they're lumped in with everyone else as off-highway vehicles. They are off-highway vehicles, but it's a very different organization. In most cases it's done in a fairly controlled atmosphere, there's an organization, they do racing. I think up in Brookfield there's a large track, and I think there's one in the Valley somewhere. I'm not sure exactly where, it might be in my colleague's riding, Kings West - is it in Kingston?
It's all controlled, it's all very much sponsored and professionally organized, yet they're being lumped in with individuals who may be - not all of them, and I understand there are bad apples in every barrel, but with regard to ATVs, it's a very different approach. The funny thing around that is that an ATV is easy to get on when you're five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years old, because it's a four-wheel vehicle. Obviously the care and approach to learning to ride a two-wheel off-highway vehicle is much more challenging, and obviously because of that we've had, historically, until ATVs came along 15 years ago, a lot fewer children using them.
But they actually have a legitimate, professionalized approach for children riding these vehicles in controlled settings. I guess I'm just hoping you might be able to shed some perspective from your department as to whether you see and recognize that difference, and
[Page 600]
that there needs to be a different approach as to how they're regulated from how ATVs are regulated.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, the task force did recognize the difference. My group has looked at that, and they have also recognized that. But I can't give you the full details of that until I have my full report and we make some decisions. I will keep the honourable member and all members up to date on what's going on with the report.
MR. DEVEAUX: But you represent a riding where these sorts of vehicles, both types, are prevalent, like I do, so as an MLA, as a member of the Legislature, as an individual from a rural part of Nova Scotia, do you recognize that there's a difference between these two types of vehicles?
MR. HURLBURT: In my home community, if I may, Mr. Chairman, we have just one motocross and that's private. It's an individual who has it, and they do their own thing on private land. Yes, I do understand what you're getting at, honourable member, but again, until I have the full report back to me and the recommendations and I see what the other departments, like Justice, have to say on it, I would rather not comment on it until I have those remarks back from all the other departments.
MR. DEVEAUX: Then let me put my oar in the water for the record, as I'm sure you know how I feel about this, I think they are different, I think they need to be treated differently. My own personal support for whatever you are approaching in this matter would come with some recognition of that, reflecting that in whatever the decision of the government is.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has flagged this with me. He called me in my home riding a month ago, and I did mention to the member that, definitely, we will look at this aspect of it, but I have to have the recommendations from Justice, as I had mentioned earlier. We will give that due consideration.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to talk about McCormack's Beach, which is - I don't know how much you know - in my riding. It's a beach, actually only a couple of hundred metres from my office. It didn't exist until 1950, because it was actually created by the mining of another beach further down, Noonan's Beach. The submarine pilings that were put into the harbour to put up the submarine netting to stop the submarines from entering the harbour, as a result of the pilings, the sand, as they were mining further up the beach, ended up creating a whole new beach. And a boardwalk was built there by your department. It's a lovely boardwalk, well used.
But I raise this question every year, and I will continue to raise it. I get calls from people. It's used year-round. I understand that your department - I'm sort of anticipating your answer, Mr. Minister - does not maintain parks in the Winter. I understand that there are
[Page 601]
probably lawyers for your department who will tell you there are good reasons why you don't do that, but I'm here to say that that park is being used all year. And particularly in a time when we're trying to promote more activity amongst people, it is well used by seniors, it is well used by the community generally. People are walking it year-round. No garbage is being picked up from October 15th to April 15th, and as a result it is sort of an embarrassment, a blight on the community. It's a beautiful boardwalk, well used in Eastern Passage, and it needs to be maintained on a yearly basis.
I understand that would be a derivation from the policy of your department, but I guess I'm here to ask, is there any chance that we can get your department to look at this as a unique opportunity, to see that this park is being used year-round and therefore would be maintained year-round? Look at it not only on the downside, but also on the positive side, of the activity that's being done, the physical activity being done at that boardwalk.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I can tell that member, yes - and the member has invited me over to the area. I've been in that area on a number of occasions. I especially love the seafood in the area when all the restaurants are open. I can tell the honourable member what we did in my own home community last year. We had a group that wanted to use one of our provincial parks for cross-country skiing. So we entered into an agreement with a community-use group, and they were liable for the garbage and the maintenance and the upkeep. My staff worked with them to make sure there was no disruption to our park.
That's what I'd suggest, Mr. Chairman. If there was a community group in the member's riding that would want to partner or look at something with my department, we would definitely be open to that. As the member knows, we are now going through our park strategy. We're looking at ways to improve and enhance our parks within the province. This may be a way, to work with the community group. I'm not saying that is the way, I'm just suggesting it. I can tell you it has worked very well in my community. My community is looking very favourably at enhancing the program they started last year. There was no cost to my department.
MR. DEVEAUX: That was my next question.
MR. HURLBURT: It was the community - the ones that embarked on this. We saw it as a move in the right direction. When you can partner and work with communities and enhance the infrastructure you have, I believe that's the proper way to go.
MR. DEVEAUX: Well, there is an organization, Fisherman's Cove, that is based next door. They do have a full-time person who actually maintains their property. This was my next question, wondering whether these are opportunities that can come up. So I think I will talk to them or some other organizations. How long do we see a process? I've seen some of your management agreements that can take years. How long are we talking about
[Page 602]
if someone was to, tomorrow or Monday, call your office and say we're interested in doing this?
MR. HURLBURT: Well, I strongly suggest that if the honourable member wants to meet with myself and a group, I could have my deputy and my parks director with us. We would definitely be more than willing to sit down and talk to him to see what we can come up with. If there can be an agreement found between the two parties, we would definitely look at that. Again, I want to go back and focus on the strategy. We're looking at the strategy for our parks here in the province and we're asking for public input, and we're asking the MLAs in the rural ridings of this province who represent parks to definitely have input into our new strategy that we're looking at and give us your guidance of where you'd like to see your parks go in the future.
MR. DEVEAUX: To be frank, until you mentioned it today, I didn't know there was a review going on. That's not to say that everything that crosses my desk doesn't go in one ear and out the other. What is the timeline for the strategy? Are there public meetings and so forth?
MR. HURLBURT: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, the strategy, we're just getting going on it now, as we speak. It's internal right now, and then we're going to be going out for public consultation and partnering and looking at different organizations and groups, and looking at ways we can enhance and improve our park system that we have here in the province.
MR. DEVEAUX: I will just put my oar in the waters on this, if you are going to hold public consultations that you seriously consider one in Eastern Passage, given the number of parks, given the amount of presence of your department in my area. I think it would be appreciated by many in the community, to have an opportunity. If you're doing one in the metro area, one in the Dartmouth area, then I would suggest that that would be the place to do it so that there's an opportunity close by to where you're actually involved. So I would just put that out.
I understand there are liability issues and everything else that need to be worked out with these things, but I guess I'm just trying to get a sense from you that if an organization was interested in June of a certain year, in trying to organize something for the Winter, is that a feasible timeline for them to be able to work out an agreement with your department?
MR. HURLBURT: I would say . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Are we talking a two-year or a six-month process?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member wants to take the lead role in his riding and get the community group together, and himself, I've made it very clear
[Page 603]
that I'm more than willing, with my department, to meet with you. I'm sure that if there's a partnership there and a willingness, that there's a willingness on our side, we'd be more than willing to accommodate the community and help out in any way we possibly can.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. I'll follow up on that. I also want to talk about McNabs Island. You mentioned that in your opening statement. I know it has been devastated, probably more than most other places with regard to Hurricane Juan. Can you give us an update on the cleanup of that island that's in my constituency?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, as he's probably already aware, we have had a tender out. All the trails, to my knowledge, have been cleaned up and are accessible for citizens. But there are a number of outstanding issues on McNabs. We are dealing with other agencies and trying to move ahead. We've received the environmental assessment from Pinchin LeBlanc, and we're looking at Garrison Pier.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can I ask you why there was an environmental assessment done?
MR. HURLBURT: There was a tank by the pier that was exposed during Hurricane Juan. We called the professionals in to do an environmental assessment of the issue so that we would know what we're dealing with, and deal with it in a proper manner.
MR. DEVEAUX: And?
MR. HURLBURT: And that assessment has been in. Yes, we have received the recommendations from Pinchin LeBlanc, the environmentalists that did the study for us. We are working now with Parks Canada to look at the funding for the removal of the soils and the tank that was exposed.
MR. DEVEAUX: So there was some damage to . . .
MR. HURLBURT: Yes, there was. That was only exposed, if I may, Mr. Chairman, unbeknownst to us that it was even there until Hurricane Juan.
[11:45 a.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: Maybe I saw something, maybe it was at the Friends of McNabs general meeting. There was a pipe - is that the pipe?
MR. HURLBURT: Yes, that's it.
MR. DEVEAUX: There was a management plan that was supposed to be developed with regard to this island. I remember two years ago speaking with the previous Minister of Natural Resources, and at that time he was talking about it had gone through the advisory
[Page 604]
group, which has representatives from my community on it, produced a draft, went out for consultation, came back, they revised it somewhat and, quite frankly, I don't think it has gone anywhere since then. So the last I heard, and the last the people I've spoken to on the advisory committee for those islands have noted, is that they had sent back a revised draft management plan for the island parks. That was probably a year and a half ago, if not two years ago. The former minister, two years ago, suggested it was going to go back for a second round of consultations.
I'm just trying to get a sense of exactly what the holdup is, where we're at with regard to this management plan, and when are we going to see something that the people in my community in which the park is located are going to be able to - there's a lot of interest in my community about the potential for economic development from these parks, obviously. There was talk of opening up certain concessions with regard to canteens, with regard to trail management and those sorts of things, potentially even ferry services, in some form or another. I'm trying to get a sense of where this management plan is. I understand, obviously, that Hurricane Juan had a lot to do with that, but it has been two years now. So I'm trying to get a better sense of where we're going.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, we will endeavour to have that information for the member before the day is finished here in estimates. I can tell the member, and he's very well aware, that I did meet with the citizen group from McNabs. I know I've met with them at least once since I've been minister of the department.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is that the advisory group or the Friends of McNabs? It's two separate - Friends of McNabs are a big part of the advisory group but they're not the entire advisory group. That's what I'm just trying to figure out.
MR. HURLBURT: I can't answer that right now. I can tell you I have met with, I don't know if it was the Friends or the advisory group. The honourable member is definitely right, yes, there were setbacks due to Hurricane Juan. Then we found the environmental issue, and the health and safety of our citizens was paramount, and the environment issue. So we have been dealing with those, and we are trying to work with the group and to finalize the plan. I will try to have the member updated before we leave here today.
MR. DEVEAUX: At this point I would suggest, whether or not it was ever part of the original timeline and though it may take a little longer, it has been so long it may be important to get some form of feedback again. That's the only thing I would suggest. I would be glad to talk to you more about this at some point, because I think it is crucial that we have that plan so that we can move forward. Again, I understand Juan set things back, but there is still viability there, and I think there are a lot of people who would have a particular interest in that. You mentioned Garrison Pier, can you explain to me exactly what work is being done on that?
[Page 605]
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, there have been engineering assessments done at Garrison Pier - that's what I was getting at - due to the storm. We have the assessments back, and we're hoping to go to tender within the next two months, for the repairs.
MR. DEVEAUX: And how much are we looking at for that?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I do not have that number.
MR. DEVEAUX: This is a particular concern to my community, and it's important that you understand this. There are two potential spots - and I understand Garrison Pier is the pier that has normally been used. It is on the Halifax side of the island. For purposes of the future of that island as a park, Wreck Beach and the Wreck Pier, as it's called sometimes (Interruption) It's on the Eastern Passage side.
MR. HURLBURT: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And let me be clear, this isn't just a matter of location - well it is location, geography, but for the purposes of that island park, if there were emergencies when that park is developed, the distance from the Eastern Passage wharf to Wreck Pier is literally a few minutes, and to go all the way around to the other side of the island, or to come from Halifax, you're talking at least a half-hour, if not longer. So there are obviously safety issues involved and there are other issues involved, and in my community the development of the Wreck Pier should become a priority and that's one of the things we want to see, through the management plan, identified. We think it's a great opportunity to make the connection that this is an island that is part of Eastern Passage which I think I have to keep reminding people - and I don't mean your department, I mean people generally - that this is not just an island in the harbour, it is historically connected and, indeed, the term "Eastern Passage" is defined by the water between McNabs Island and the shore.
So it is important that there be some reflection of that and at this point, without knowing what the status of the management plan is, I can't do much about it, but what I will say is, for the record, that the community of Eastern Passage is very concerned about promoting and reconstructing Garrison Pier - I understand it has to be done, but I would hate to see that be a priority over the development of a pier at Wreck Cove, so that there's an opportunity for access to the island from that side as well and, again, depending on where the management plan goes, that is something our community would be interested in working on as partners to help develop that, but until we know where the status of the plan is, everything is sort of on hold. If you could, I would be interested if you would provide me with some sense of - because it is my riding as well - the pier, what work would be done and the rough value that you're expecting for that to be effective. I understand you don't have that now, but if that could be sent to me as soon as possible, I think that would be helpful.
[Page 606]
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I think what might be beneficial to the honourable member - he has brought this up on numerous occasions to me since I've been the minister of the department - is come over to my department and I'll have staff give him a full briefing on where the management plan is and what the pros and cons are, and where we can go and how he could help my department with this community group to advance and move ahead with the plan.
MR. DEVEAUX: I appreciate the offer.
MR. HURLBURT: And if we can do that - if I may add - next week. I think we both have a very busy week, but maybe the week after that if the honourable member has time, we could slate in an hour in the morning and do that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Sure, okay, I appreciate that. Maybe I'll contact your assistant and look at that.
MR. HURLBURT: We will contact you, my staff is making notes . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Oh, don't call me, I'll call you.
MR. HURLBURT: . . . and we will contact you to get a suitable time so that we can do that.
MR. DEVEAUX: I appreciate that.
MR. HURLBURT: I think it is essential, the member has to answer to his community, and I think that if he's fully briefed on all the issues, like the environmental issue and the piers that you're speaking of, it would be easier for you.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. Before I turn the rest of my time over to my colleague, the member for Hants East and our critic for this - and he's going to get into more detail than I am with regard to the issue of the longhorn beetle and the infected area - my entire riding is in the quarantine area. As far as I can tell, I think I'm the only MLA whose entire riding is in the quarantine area and it's interesting to see how this has developed with regard to the cleanup.
I'm just trying to get a sense from you. I understand the one-year program through the, is it the Sustainable Forest Products Association? - I've had a number of people who submitted applications, but I'm trying to get a better sense from you as to how we're prioritizing, which ones, and some of them, I've been told, if they're not economically viable for the harvester, that they're just not going to do it. So that still raises fire hazard concerns and I'm wondering how your department intends to address that if these private contractors are not prepared to go in and do some of these lots because they're just not viable - maybe
[Page 607]
they're not large enough, maybe they're too inaccessible. I'm wondering from you, as the Minister of Natural Resources, you're still going to have to deal with potential fire hazards in these areas - and they're pretty serious in mine, I can tell you, over two years - so can you give me some sense of how you're going to deal with these ones that the private contractors aren't prepared to clean up?
MR. HURLBURT: There are a number of questions in there, Mr. Chairman, and I can tell you my department is doing everything in its power to work with the private contractors. We're looking at a mobile unit going into the infested zone. We had last year two contractors in the zone. One of them did not get certified by CFIA until very late and then the roads closed, and now the fly zone is upon us, but we are working with CFIA to see if we can extend one of the contractors who's already into the quarantine zone to work through the fly zone and that will help a lot - but, absolutely, it's economics. Some people like going into a residential area that maybe - and I'm only using the number, Mr. Chairman - a dozen trees are down, and I realize it is a fire hazard, but they still have to be addressed and we want to work with all the clients in that area to see what we can do and we are working very closely with CFIA.
Again I must put my oar in the water that I have, personally, stood at the Halifax International Airport, I had a meeting lined up to meet with the federal minister and I stood with my Deputy and my Executive Director of Renewable Resources, we stood at that airport for an hour and a half waiting to meet the minister - no show. The minister also promised to meet me at the Toronto convention. I know he was very busy with other commitments and having to get back to our Parliament, but he made the commitment he would meet with me in Toronto and that never happened.
I have sent numerous letters, Mr. Chairman, to the federal minister requesting assistance to the citizens of this area who are affected. The federal government is the one that made the quarantine zone, not the provincial government. We have stepped up to the plate and we've put $1 million in place to help these citizens out. We believe that there is a need there, but we believe that the federal government has to step up to the plate and also help out. I have sent numerous letters to the previous ministers and to the ministers of the day, and to this day I have not had an acknowledgement of my letters. I've been to Ottawa with the member for Eastern Passage and the councillor from HRM. (Interruptions) Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: Eastern Shore.
MR. HURLBURT: Eastern Shore, I'm sorry, and we did have a meeting with his department staff and himself. We had that meeting and I asked at that meeting, please, could I have some response within two weeks. Well, that has been months ago and I've never received a response. I was in the Yukon at the ministers' meeting, and I put this on the table with all the ministers of this great country of ours and I have yet to have a response. So we sent a letter out. The last letter was a week ago, to the federal minister (Interruption) It's in
[Page 608]
my briefing book in the House and I will table that if the member so chooses, but here within two weeks I would say, Mr. Chairman, asking for the federal government to please step up to the plate or give us an indication, yes or no, are they going to help the citizens of that community or are they not.
I met with the MP, Mr. Stoffer, I had a breakfast meeting with the individual. I have never had a response from that member. I've had a meeting with Mr. Savage over at the Shubenacadie Canal Commission when we announced the funding for them and I pleaded with him to take that back to the ministers and please get a response for the citizens. He represents those citizens also and I have yet to have a response. I did have a copy, I did have one copy of a letter that the MP, Mr. Savage, sent off to the minister requesting some support. That's the only documentation that my office has received to date in that file.
MR. DEVEAUX: I pass the rest of my time over to the honourable member for Hants East.
MR. HURLBURT: But your concerns are our concerns and we do know that there are issues there and I can advise the member and all members that we take this very seriously and we're going to do whatever we can to accommodate the citizens.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and your staff, I appreciate the time and I'll just request if I could have copies of any correspondence. Actually I wrote you, I think in January with that request, and I may have a copy of the letter with me, and I haven't received anything from your department to indicate any correspondence to John Efford or, you know, whatever. So anything you have, I would be glad if I could have copies.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if I may, there was no correspondence back from Mr. Efford. That's why you haven't received any, but I can give you all the . . .
[12:00 noon]
MR. MACDONELL: No, but you said you wrote him, could I have copies of those letters?
MR. HURLBURT: Absolutely, I will table in the House, Mr. Chairman, next week, all the correspondence that has gone on, all the meetings that I've had, and potential meetings that we've set up with the MPs, both MPs, with the federal minister, and all the correspondence from my department.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They probably should be tabled here.
[Page 609]
MR. HURLBURT: Well, I do not have it here, but if you want me to leave the room, I can go over to my desk and . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, no, no, no, I don't mean right now, but we do have tabled documents here. So you will table those documents on Monday here and they'll be available for members of the committee?
MR. HURLBURT: Sure, whichever, Mr. Chairman, you choose, I will abide by your wishes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if we could have them by Monday, is that suitable?
MR. MACDONELL: That would be fine, thank you very much, and I appreciate the effort the minister has put into this.
I can't question the minister of this department without at least going down the road of sustainability of the forest sector industry as well. I see the two things definitely linked. I use this document, and Mr. Underwood can verify that I've made use of this, but this Nova Scotia Wood Supply Forecast for Nova Scotia 1996 to 2070, my understanding is that roughly every five years there's an inventory done to try to see where we are in these projections. This is 2005, so we're almost 10 years from when this document was put together and I don't think I have ever been able to find information from the first five years - you know, 2001 actually should have been the first inventory I guess after this document was put together. So I'm curious about the target of 2070, where are we, are we on track, are we harvesting more than this document would indicate, are we harvesting less, what does your department know?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, first of all, I also want to go on record. I want to thank the honourable member, he has been very vocal in trying to help the citizens of the Eastern Shore in the quarantine zone, and I know that you and your full caucus support what I have been trying to do for the citizens, and I know that the honourable member has sent letters off to the federal minister asking for support and I really appreciate that. I think that we all are committed to doing whatever we can to help the citizens in the area. So I just want that to go on record. I want to thank the member and his caucus for standing up and saying it's time that the federal government stand up to the plate and help out the provincial government. I think that we have taken the lead role on this and all three caucuses, I must say, have endorsed this fully and I thank you and your colleagues for that. The information, members, just give me one moment.
The regulation, Mr. Chairman, is that we do it every five years and it's this year and that will be forthcoming. But I also want to let the member know, and all members know, that we are doing forest strategy. We're having a review on our forest strategy and I'm asking for the member and all members to have input into the forest strategy as it unfolds, and we're
[Page 610]
going to be asking for a public consultation and groups to come out and express their views on ways that we can better enhance our forestry in the province.
MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, can you just tell me how much time our caucus has?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your caucus has 17 minutes left.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, 17 minutes. I'm going to have to speak more loudly to my colleagues I guess. You talked about the regulations every five years and this year you're doing an inventory. I've been doing this for seven years, so I'm wondering, is this the second one since I've been elected in 1998, or is this the first one since 1996 - where are we with that? It seems to me there are more than five years between 1996 and now.
AN HON. MEMBER: He's under the metric.
MR. MACDONELL: I didn't teach math, I taught biology, but it seems pretty clear to me.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry about the delay. This is the first one since 2000 and the regulations came in in 2000.
MR. MACDONELL: So there was an inventory done in 2000?
MR. HURLBURT: Yes, but not pursuant to the regulations, it was done in 2000.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, so it was done pursuant to what?
MR. HURLBURT: The policy of our department to do that.
MR. MACDONELL: So is it possible to get what the results of that 2000 inventory were?
MR. HURLBURT: Absolutely. Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may just for clarity for my staff and myself, any requests of the committee here today, do you want me to table it to you, or do you want me to give it directly to the members who asked the questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Table it with the committee and we'll have copies for them on Monday.
MR. HURLBURT: All right, so if that's agreeable, okay.
[Page 611]
MR. MACDONELL: Yes, that's great, thank you, Mr. Minister. Well, in the interest of time, I think I'm going to cut to the chase here. If you look at Nova Scotia, it's almost an island. We have about 6 million acres, that is what is referred to as the operable forests, which I understand to be the forests that we harvest out of. We harvest, at least the information you have in 2000 tells me something different, but we're harvesting 100,000 acres a year, I would say, and almost entirely all that is clear-cut.
So at that rate, if we were Europeans hitting the shore of Nova Scotia for the very first time and we were to harvest 100,000 acres a year, then we could cut that operable forest in 60 years. This doesn't strike me to be sustainable and it would seem that - actually my understanding is the department's view is a harvest about every 45 years. So if you consider all of the elements, all the values that the forest has, you're really only maximizing one of those and that's the biomass of the fibre side. I'm just wondering, does the department ever think about an annual allowable cut and trying to move to other harvesting methods and actually think about reducing the harvest in this province in the long term, any views on that?
MR. HURLBURT: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may through you to the honourable member, we had this discussion last year in estimates and I still believe that we have sustainable forest practices in this province. I believe with the practices that we have, we have a smaller footprint that we're harvesting in today. I believe that there's always room for improvement, absolutely, in everything we do in life there's room for improvement.
That's why, Mr. Chairman, we are going out with our forest strategy for a review and we're asking for input, but we do have sustainable forest practices in this province and I stand by that. I firmly believe that. I've seen it with my own eyes and I do stand behind my department and the industry is working very closely with my department. Environmentalists are working with my department and we do have a sustainable forest in the Province of Nova Scotia. We're the same as we were last year.
MR. MACDONELL: Yes, look, I'm willing to buy anything and if you can just quantify it, I guess. Can you say we have sustainable practices because here's what we're going to harvest, here's how long we think it takes to grow it, and we're growing x amount in volume, so therefore it's sustainable?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, all that information will be coming in the report that I mentioned earlier that is being done this year and also I can't emphasize enough here today how important the strategy review is for the industry and for Nova Scotians here, and I'm asking all members of this Legislature and the citizens of Nova Scotia to please have input into the strategy. That's why we're going out and we're consulting with the general population of the province and asking people to have input, and our forest strategy is a key one. The industry is alive and well in this province, but I think that we're doing it under real sustainable practices in the province. If there are ways that we can improve it, let's look at those ways.
[Page 612]
MR. MACDONELL: Well, that's fair enough. This document says here - Harvest Demand 1996 to 2000 - that softwood harvest is 5.4 million cubic metres and hardwood harvest is 653,000 cubic metres. So those two together are basically 6 million cubic metres, a cubic metre is roughly half a cord. I think in cords, I'm sorry . . .
MR. HURLBURT: That's all right.
MR. MACDONELL: I can visualize that pretty easy. So roughly we're talking about 3 million cords a year, and this is not your department's number, this is my own and this is the only number that I'll claim to be mine. When I talk to people in the industry, if I say the average across the province would be 30 cords to the acre, they say, yes, you can go with that, that would be appropriate - so at 30 cords to the acre, 3 million cords is 100,000 acres. That's where I came up with the 100,000 acres, but as far as the operable forest acreage and so on, those are all your department's numbers.
My impression of why we came to the sustainability fund and stewardship agreements and all that process was because the department deemed overharvesting on small private woodlots. Now, I raised this I think with Mr. Baylor one day and he said that we're overharvesting on small private woodlots and I said you can't separate small private woodlots out of the operable forests. In other words, you have Crown, you have large industrial, you have small private, and we're harvesting on all of that and that's the forest we harvest on, so if you're overharvesting on one part of it, you're overharvesting. He said we're growing about a half a cord per acre per year on the 6 million acres, so we're growing about 3 million cords per acre. I said, well, we're growing what we're harvesting so we're not overharvesting. Well, right. So I said why are you saying you're overharvesting on small private woodlots - and nobody has given me an answer to that.
If we're growing what we're harvesting, then we can't be overharvesting. So why was there this move with this emphasis that we're overharvesting on small private woodlots? Can anybody tell me?
MR. HURLBURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I missed the first part, who emphasized that we're over harvesting?
[12:15 p.m.]
MR. MACDONELL: Your department, actually that was the whole reason for the sustainability fund and putting more dollars back into silviculture. It was your department that said we're overharvesting our small private woodlots - large industrial was sustainable, Crown was sustainable, and small private was not sustainable.
[Page 613]
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure that all members are well aware, there are approximately 13 million acres in the Province of Nova Scotia and 3.5 million acres are Crown. The Crown is under my control.
MR. MACDONELL: Yes.
MR. HURLBURT: Before we put the systems in place, maybe there was overharvesting, but I'm not advocating that. What I am saying is since the new systems and the forest codes and sustainability have been put in place, I believe that when the report comes out we should just wait until the report is finalized, and then we can look at this and we can have that debate then, Mr. Chairman, but I think until that report is tabled, it's hard for me to make a statement on that. I would ask the member, the minute that that report is tabled, to look at the report.
MR. MACDONELL: How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have six minutes.
MR. MACDONELL: Well, what the minister is saying makes some sense, I'll go on the record to say that. I mean I'm not going to comment on a report that has not been published yet, but I guess the frustration I'm having is this is published. This is from your department. So if the department produces this, I think I should be able to read it and ask some questions, if somebody can answer them, and if the answer is going to be, well, we're going to do something else, we're not going to rely on that.
Back in the 1980s there was the Royal Commission on Forestry - around 1984 I think, but people in your department could correct me as to that date - anyway that commission report had three models that it indicated: do no silviculture; do a small amount of silvi-culture; do a large amount of silviculture. The only thing I could ever find in that was there was a dollar value for doing that, but it emphasized that with a significant amount of silviculture work we could get our harvest level up to - I think they used cords - 3.6 million or whatever cords by 2040. Well, we're pretty close to that level of harvest now and we were there in 2000, so we were 40 years ahead.
Now, some of that information actually came from your department, which was Lands and Forests at the time that made this submission, and it seems to me that if I look at that department's submission 20 years ago compared to now, I can't believe it's the same department. So it would seem that what they determined to be sustainable 20 years ago, that we're totally off the map in our figures for what we harvest today as sustainable. As a matter of fact we're 40 years ahead, and that's why when the minister says to me what we do is sustainable and can't really tell me with concrete figures why he thinks that, I get worried. I'm wondering if the minister is even aware of that commission report that was done in the 1980s.
[Page 614]
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member, I cannot answer what happened in 1980, I can't answer what happened in 1990, but I will tell you and all members of this House that I will answer during my watch as Minister of Natural Resources. I have a very, very dedicated staff in the Department of Natural Resources and they have all Nova Scotians' needs in mind, and under my watch I will answer for my department.
MR. MACDONELL: I appreciate that, thank you. Well, I'm going to move on.
I met with the people from Groupe Savoie in Pictou County, the mill.
MR. HURLBURT: Yes.
MR. MACDONELL: They would like to get a volume agreement, or an allocation of Crown, for their hardwood mill and can't, and I'm wondering if you could refresh my memory on the process because I think I may have spoken to Mr. Wright about that. I am just curious about Crown allocation. They use about 60,000 tons a year, and I think the mill that was on the Eastern Shore was using 400,000 tons, yet they can't get an allocation of hardwood. All the larger - Stora, Kimberly-Clark, or Neenah, I guess maybe now, they are not really in the hardwood business, yet this mill can't get access to hardwood. So how do they get over this hurdle?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I think that the honourable member is very well aware that there is a scarcity of hardwood, and they are looking at premium hardwood. As a government, we are definitely looking at value added. Right now they are getting approximately 10 per cent of their fibre from the Stora lands as we speak. Our department has to do an assessment of our Crown land to see what stands there are and if there are any available. We are not going to allow anybody to cut premature stands. So there is an evaluation that my foresters in the department have to do, and if there is availability of fibre, then there is a tendering process. I am sure the member is aware of it and he agrees that is the right procedure for us.
MR. MACDONELL: I agree with the minister to a point. I think the discussion went one other time to the idea that some of these larger mills, with their volume agreements, don't want particular species, so why not let other mills that do need them have them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Kings West.
MR. LEO GLAVINE: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to ask a few questions of the minister and his staff today. This is a new role for me, as critic, but I am getting up to speed and getting some good information from a number of sources, meetings and so forth. I will just start off with a small, I guess, local issue, but one that I'm discovering goes beyond the local area, and that is a recent development with the small picnic parks here
[Page 615]
in the province. Several of them have been without water for the past year or two years. My inquiry with the Department of Natural Resources in Kings County is that these sources of water will not be replaced. I am hearing from local groups that have annual picnics, monthly gatherings, at such places, they are very upset at this development. Part of the explanation that I had was that the new water strategy or the new concerns about safety of water was the driving reason and force behind this development. I'm wondering if this is now part of a policy from the Department of Natural Resources. Can we take a serious look at specific parks and see if there is some chance to have restoration put in place?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member again, we have a park strategy review ongoing as we speak. Since I have been in this department I have been going around the province. Our parks are key elements, I know, in everybody's riding. I know in my own home riding, Ellenwood Lake and Port Maitland Beach parks, are a critical part of the infrastructure in my community and to all communities the parks are a key element to their community, for tourism, just for economic growth within their community.
Mr. Chairman, what I have been trying to do over the past year, some of the parks that have been underutilized, I've been looking at partnering with local councils, local communities. As I mentioned earlier to the member from the NDP, we are always looking for partners and ways we can enhance our parks in this province and work with local communities. I firmly believe that local communities have a better handle on the needs of their community than perhaps I do here in Halifax or being in Yarmouth. I know the needs of my community in Yarmouth, and I try to get up to speed on all aspects of the parks across our province.
Again, I really believe that the park strategy review that we are undertaking as we speak - and I invite all members to partake in that - have input into that, and if the honourable member has suggestions, a way we can enhance the day park in his community, if there is a way we can partner with a community group or with his local council, my door is open and we would be very open to discuss that.
MR. GLAVINE: This particular one - and you are probably familiar, Mr. Minister - is Clairmont Park near Auburn, it didn't have water last Summer and it looks like it won't again this year. I'm wondering if this is extending to the provincial parks as well. Let's say, the riding of Kings North, for example, where you have the look-off provincial park, will this extend to that level of park as well?
MR. HURLBURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, would the honourable member be more clear.
MR. GLAVINE: Okay, if we are talking about this policy affecting the very small roadside picnic-type park, the park that I'm referring to, for example, is not an overnight
[Page 616]
designated park, will this also apply to some of our provincial parks, like the look-off that could find themselves without water?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I quite understand the question, but I will endeavour to try to answer the question. What I got out of the question was, is the review - it is all provincial parks - going to encompass all provincial parks, our whole province, and all the parks within the province, absolutely. That is why we are asking people to come out. We are going to have community meetings. We are asking councils, local councils, the MLAs, the RDAs, tourist associations, people who have parks in their communities and want to have input into how better we can serve the citizens of their community and visitors to our communities. That's what the review is all about. I invite the honourable member to please, when we are in his community, come out and express his views, if he has them, pro or con, that's what the review is about, so we can do a thorough overview of our park system in the province.
MR. GLAVINE: Maybe I can pursue the local issue with you another time.
MR. HURLBURT: Absolutely.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the growing areas of concern in the province is how we are going to be managing our coastal areas. There is certainly a very strong view that perhaps we are not at a level of even a few of our Maritime and Atlantic neighbours. I know Prince Edward Island has certainly made very strong initiatives in this area to protect their beaches, their coastal areas, access and so forth. I am just wondering, where is the Department of Natural Resources in developing a comprehensive management plan for our coasts?
[12:30 p.m.]
MR. HURLBURT: I have had numerous meetings, since I've been Minister of Natural Resources, with citizens groups, the Coastal Coalition Group, and I can also advise all members that we have partnered. I just announced a partnership with the Nova Scotia Nature Trust group here, Kingsburg Beach - I could name all the beaches across our great province. Absolutely, we are trying to secure more ocean frontage along our coastline, and Port Bickerton - Mr. Chairman, I believe that's in your riding - we just secured a large parcel of land in that area to make sure that that is for the benefit of Nova Scotians for years and years to come.
I believe the honourable member is aware that the province acquired Cape Split just a few years back, and that the citizens of this province congratulated the government of the day for doing that, securing that for years to come for citizens to enjoy. In all parts of our province we are definitely looking at our coastal properties, and I am going back to the Executive Council all the time asking for funding to acquire more of our coastal properties, to secure them for our citizens and for our guests who visit our province.
[Page 617]
MR. GLAVINE: I was hoping that you could outline a couple of areas that you are looking at. You gave the example of a large area that doesn't have a lot of accessible beach, the Cape Split example, which is a fine initiative to protect that area, it is truly a hiker's delight to go to Cape Split, but I'm wondering where we have such a small inventory of public beaches, is there in fact a plan that in the next 10 years the province would like to have a greater amount of public beach, a plan for that?
MR. HURLBURT: Under the park strategy review there is also the Beaches Act, a review that is also tied in with that and we're looking at that. I can also advise the member that it is the priority of this government to acquire coastal property - we've proven that since 1999, since this government came to office. That is our priority in the Land Services Branch right now, to stay on track with the coastal properties. As a matter of fact, I can tell the honourable member I met with a group from Mahone Bay, my deputy and staff from Land Services, we met with MICA - I think I have that right - the group, and we are looking right now at a partnership with those people because they have a strong desire to secure some of the islands down there that are being sold offshore, to secure them for the citizens of their community and for all citizens to enjoy. They want for them not to go in and put up these big buildings on the islands, so they've asked us to partner with them to secure these islands for years to come.
I can advise that we are definitely looking at that and that's the proper way for government, in my estimation, to move ahead - partnering. We've proven that in the past, I think we can strengthen that, and we're working to enhance that. That is why we're working with the Coastal Coalition, as I mentioned earlier, that we met with the Kingsburg Beach group that we have ongoing dialogue with, and now the new group, MICA, we are looking at partnering with those people.
I think that we do have a strategy to move ahead and to secure coastal properties. It is a priority of the Land Services Branch and a priority of this government to secure coastal properties for future generations.
MR. GLAVINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, I appreciate that positive aspect. Still, having access to our coastline is a growing concern and, as you know, with so many extensive areas in private property - we know that back a number of years ago Prince Edward Island made a real strong initiative that yes, there would be foreign buying and procuring of coastal stretches but they made provision to make sure that the residents of Prince Edward Island would always have access to beaches that were historically part of those communities and small rural areas - I'm wondering, what is your department doing to work towards greater access in determined areas where there will be access to our coasts?
MR. HURLBURT: I was just advised that Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations has been talking to the municipalities in a partnering agreement with those individual municipalities. We do the administration of Crown Land within our department
[Page 618]
and, as I've mentioned earlier, it is a priority of this government and of my department to secure as much coastal property as we possibly can. Naturally, there's always a limited resource of funds, so we have to prioritize as we move ahead, but working with the municipalities is another avenue that we have. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is leading that one with the municipalities.
MR. GLAVINE: In the HRM area we have seen some recent developments regarding the coastal area, the coastal communities: Oakland Wharf in the NorthWest Arm, Destiny Developments, and subdivisions proposed near Martinique Beach. I'm wondering, what process was put in place there and in such future developments that will guarantee that local residents have a major input? We always hear from developers - there's never a question that they will be well represented - but I'm wondering, what kind of mechanisms and processes will be in place to make sure that local residents have a full and adequate say in what will go on in their communities?
The ones that I have just referenced are typical of the great pressure that is emerging, and will continue to emerge, especially in the HRM. Does the department have a policy and a clear mechanism for local residents to have a say in whether or not this will be in the best interests of everybody? I know we have to go through this balancing act of making sure that development, total needs, and sensitive ecological areas are indeed protected.
MR. HURLBURT: For clarity, the NorthWest Arm is a federal harbour, we have no jurisdiction over that. The planning for Martinique Beach, under Crown lands we absolutely have 100 per cent control over Crown lands but on private land, that goes with the planning of the HRM. It's not up to me to dictate to the HRM in their planning, but I think there has been a warning shot go out to the HRM and they are now looking at their planning strategy. I suggest maybe the honourable member should speak to the HRM about it. I can tell you that we definitely do have restrictions and guidelines on our beaches under the Beaches Act and we fully enforce those.
MR. GLAVINE: To move to an area that I am delving into more. I had a very interesting meeting this week with Andrew Fedora from the Independent Woodland Association of Nova Scotia. He has worked for Stora and a number of other organizations in the province. He raises the very big concern about future viability of the forests, especially where, again, like our coastline, we have a disproportionate balance I guess you would say, in some ways, of private and Crown. Since there isn't as much a defined policy and so forth for the independent woodlot owners, do you have a full assessment of the biomass that is able to be cut properly, replanted, and managed as we go forward? In other words, is there a full, sustainable practice and program in place for the forests of our province?
We hear more and more people talking about - yes, a lot of it is personal observation, not scientific study and so forth, but that whole huge area, I know a forest strategy now is indeed underway or certainly creating a new forest strategy for the province and it's going
[Page 619]
to take probably a year or more for that to go on, so I'm just wondering, Mr. Minister, do you have concerns or do you feel that in many ways we are in a good state of affairs, if you wish, in regard to the biomass and the inventory of our province?
MR. HURLBURT: As I mentioned earlier to the other caucus, I truly believe that we have sustainable forest practices in this province, I have said that in the past and I say it again today. I am waiting for the report, Wood Supply Analysis and Forecast, which is being done now and the minute that is in my hands - I don't think I'll have to eat crow, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have the proper practices in this province and we're moving ahead.
As I mentioned earlier, that is exactly why we are doing our forest strategy review. We're looking at input and it gives us better insight into ways to improve - and there are always ways to improve, absolutely, no one is going to say that there's not - if there are ways that we can improve our forest practices, let's look at them, and if the status quo is working, so be it. But if there are ways to improve it, let's look at those ways. I really believe the review is going to look at that and I'm asking members to have input to that review.
MR GLAVINE: I'm certainly pleased to hear that review is underway. Could you outline a few of the practices that will go on during this 18-month period that will allow for full and meaningful input from all Nova Scotians? If you could just give me a sense of a series of meetings, is there a balance with all of the stakeholders here; in other words, how are you planning this, how will it be executed over the next period of time?
[12:45 p.m.]
MR. HURLBURT: It will be public knowledge. We are working in-house right now on the way to unroll this and get out and get public consultation and input, but we will be going across this province and we are asking for public input. Yes, we are going to be consulting with all stakeholders. It is now in-house, we're dealing with it in-house and the way to unroll our plan. The minute we have that at our disposal, we will be rolling it out and all members will be notified.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the groups living on North Mountain, Kings County, Nova Scotia, that I come into contact with is the North Mountain Woodlot Owners Association and a number of small independent woodlot owners. There are a number who are in the process of changing their practices. They are moving to restore some of the Acadian forest which, as we know, is the dominant type of diverse, mixed species that we have along the North Mountain; it's probably one of the more prominent areas of Acadian forest in the province.
However, when some of them try to obtain the silviculture credits to do such a forest plan, they don't seem to get the same receptiveness as somebody who is planting a full, 200- or 300-hectare spread of softwood species. I'm wondering, is there going to be a place for that kind of independent woodlot owner who wants to recreate, if you wish, the Acadian
[Page 620]
forest management style, which for a number of the woodlot owners is really a change in practice for them? In other words, they have reached a point where they are looking at things a little differently, and I'm wondering if that kind of woodlot owner will be accommodated in your plan.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I think that you accompanied me to the North Mountain, I personally visited the sites on North Mountain. I can also indicate to the honourable member I was there for the Woodlot Owner of the Year - approximately two years ago it was held on the North Mountain and I was very pleased to present the individual with a plaque from our department and from the province and to congratulate that person. I met with the concerned citizens that day up on North Mountain and we definitely want to have a fair policy across the board for all woodlot owners, regardless of their size.
We invite people to come in and if there's anything that I can personally do, or my department can do, please bring it to our attention. I'm asking the honourable member now, if there is a case at hand that I'm not aware of, please bring it to our attention and we will look at it.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the other questions that comes to mind here is that on the North Mountain we have some large stands that are, of course, being bought up by Irving, for example. Almost in my backyard I've seen a tremendous change in what has gone on with the clear-cutting on North Mountain. Part of the management is to obviously replant and come in a few years later and spray VISION to control the competing species.
One of the real challenges there is we also have a number of sugar bush operations that do want to keep to organic practices. I'm wondering, is the department going to work to try to find a balance amongst all of these private woodlot owners, not just in the area I represent and where I live, but also across the province?
MR. HURLBURT: There were a number of questions in that statement, but I will attempt to comment on a couple of them. I do not feel that it is my position as a Minister of the Crown to dictate to any private woodlot owner. If he chooses to sell his property to A or B, that's his choice. I can tell the honourable member that any lands that become available in the province that comes across our desk, we look at them and look at them very seriously to see if there are ways we can acquire the properties to enhance the Crown properties we have in the province. If the individual who the member is speaking about chose to sell his land to a corporation, so be it, that's his prerogative and there's nothing I can do about that.
I can tell the honourable member that any lands that come across our desk that we can acquire, we are in the buying mode. We want to acquire as much land as we possibly can to enhance what we have in the province now.
[Page 621]
MR. GLAVINE: Is the department taking a look at areas that are being intensively managed; in other words, where they are trying to turn around the cycle of the forests in as short a span as 30 or 40 years with fast-growing species? There certainly is an insatiable appetite for the softwood of our province, we know that, and we certainly don't want to lose the jobs in the industry - I'm certainly very much aware of how important the forest industry is. Is there some concern about that kind of practice, looking long term? Is the province looking at other jurisdictions, European countries where some change seems to be afoot in how they are managing their forests? I'm wondering if Nova Scotia, indeed, is at that kind of point where they are evaluating perhaps some of our practices.
MR. HURLBURT: I can tell the member that we are always looking at evaluating the practices in our province and ways that we can enhance and improve our practices of the day. Absolutely, we have staff going to seminars around different areas to see what other jurisdictions are doing. I try to keep myself up to speed as much as I possibly can.
Last Fall, I was in the Yukon at a minister's meeting, and I was looking at the practices they have in the Yukon. In every region it is different, B.C. is different than Nova Scotia, but we are looking at ways.
I know that the member is going to get tired of hearing this, but that's why we're doing the review on our forest strategy. I believe that if there's input that people want to have, here's a golden opportunity for individuals, groups, industry, MLAs, municipalities, to have dialogue with my department and have input right now while the review is ongoing and to give our department the information that maybe some communities have that is not at our fingertips. The review is a golden opportunity for individuals to come in and have input to my department.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the areas a number of people involved in the forest industry have mentioned to me is an annual allowable cut. I'm just wondering, will this review work toward that kind of goal, that kind of policy? That currently is not established for the province and, as my colleague mentioned a moment ago, we know in Nova Scotia the amount of acreage and so on that we do have and we have a good understanding of how long it takes for the cycle of our trees to be harvested. Why has that not been established and is it a goal that perhaps may come out of the strategic review?
MR. HURLBURT: I can tell the honourable member that on Crown land we do have an annual allotment but, as the member is well aware, approximately 75 per cent of the land mass in this province is privately owned and that's why we're waiting for the review to come in so we can look at it and assess the numbers that have happened in the last five years and to look at where we are. Again, I will emphasize very clearly that we do have sustainable forest practices in this province.
[Page 622]
The footprint of the harvest is a smaller footprint than it would be if we did not have the forest management practices that we have in the province today. I believe we are doing the right job and I believe that yes, we need input from communities and individuals and also from the industry. I'm really looking forward to this review getting on the road.
MR. GLAVINE: Does your department, not so much maybe allow, openly entertain a third-party audit, an organization such as forest sustainability certifiers, to take a look at Crown lands in Nova Scotia and indeed say the practices are in accordance with a strong sustainable future?
MR. HURLBURT: I can advise the member that Stora already has third-party endorsement for certification on their lands now and the rest of the industry is looking at that.
MR. GLAVINE: One of the other areas that I'd like to touch upon, as it is an area I believe very strongly in that perhaps we don't do as good a job as even some of our developing world countries, and that is gain the most from secondary industry; in other words, the direct export of our logs, of our fibre, so that the value-added process, we don't seem to gain as much, and one of the examples that I like to use is Costa Rica.
Costa Rica had turned around the management of their rain forests by not permitting any whole logs to leave their country; everything must leave in a secondary product. This has, of course, added to the number of jobs and, as you know, Costa Rica has the most thriving economy of the Central American countries. This is certainly one of the reasons, along with a number of others.
I'm just wondering, what is the Department of Natural Resources, your government, doing to signal that we are moving in a direction whereby we can gain more value added, more jobs, and perhaps greater control over the industry and over the future of our forest inventory in the province, by going a little stronger in those directions?
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. HURLBURT: I'm very pleased to inform the honourable member that when we do a tendering process on Crown land, a key component of it is value added here in our province for economic growth, for a finished product from our province. The raw fibre can only leave, with special permission, from Crown land in this province, and that's if there's no other mechanism in the province to deal with the fibre at whatever degree it is. I can tell the member right now there are demands on Crown land all of the time, there are demands for fibre products and we always look for the best benefits for all Nova Scotians. To my view, and to this government's view, value added is the best benefit, and if we can send a finished product from this province that's the best for this province. As I said earlier, there's only one way it can go out from Crown land and that is under special permission.
[Page 623]
MR. GLAVINE: One of the areas that has come up for discussion in the House in recent weeks has been the delisted area - we know that 13 were game sanctuaries and 13 were wildlife management areas. I certainly am pleased and applaud the minister for having made the decision to keep those as delisted areas; however, we know that cutting can occur on those lands. I hear from the Liscomb area that cutting is going on and people in that area do have some concerns that even through having regained a place on the list of wildlife management or game sanctuaries, that in fact they may be subject to a good degree of harvesting. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that, please.
MR. HURLBURT: I'm very pleased the member brought this to the table today. I'm very pleased that I made the announcement a week ago to all citizens that there would be no delisting of any of the sanctuaries in this province, but let's be very clear that the review is ongoing. We are asking for input from citizens from all across the province on the 26 existing sanctuaries, which I have very clearly articulated will not be delisted. If there are ways we can enhance and improve the sanctuaries in those areas, we will look at those. The review is ongoing until May 31st - I am waiting for all the information and I can tell the honourable member that our department is getting a pile of responses from citizens at large about the sanctuaries. I want to thank the citizens for being up front and bringing to the department and to my eyes and ears their message, loud and clear, to protect their sanctuaries and look at the nine new sites.
When the review is done on May 31st, we will analyze all the input we have and we will be making decisions on the existing sanctuaries. Again, I want to make it perfectly clear, there will be no delisting of the existing sanctuaries.
MR. GLAVINE: If I could check my time, Mr. Chairman, please?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have 18 minutes.
MR. GLAVINE: I was just wondering if the minister - talking about, I guess, added value to some degree when we talk about the Christmas tree industry, I'm just wondering if the minister could give a little account for the state or the health of the Christmas tree industry in the province, and any direction about where we are going or maintaining where we are. We know there have been a few little problem areas this year with some of the exporting. There was - you'll have to refresh me here as to what worm was in the trees - some rejection of one lot of trees. I just want a little overview from the minister about our Christmas tree industry.
MR. HURLBURT: I can tell the honourable member that the Christmas Tree Growers Association is alive and well in this province and they're doing extremely well. I had the great honour and pleasure of going to Antigonish with the honourable member for Guysborough-Sheet Harbour, and I was there with the new president of the Christmas Tree Growers Association at the university and I spoke at that event.
[Page 624]
I can tell you the Christmas tree growers did have a few hiccups along the way but I think they have overcome those. The issue here is cross-border and with Homeland Security. I think they have worked out most of the problems there and we are moving ahead. I can tell all members that the Christmas Tree Growers Association in this province is alive and well, and they're green.
MR. GLAVINE: Another diverse area under your department is the off-road vehicles, and I know the honourable member for Cole Harbour dealt with that a little bit earlier. In the interim, how is your department handling some of the complaints that come along in relation to farmland, to sensitive areas, especially relating to some of our stream disruption and so forth - I'm wondering, how is your department handling that?
I know that was one of the areas that a number of organizations were hoping that the Spring session of the Legislature would be addressing. I'm just wondering, is there anything in the interim before there is something decided legislatively, with the report that I know is still in its final presentation stage?
MR. HURLBURT: It's nice to finally get a question on the budget in my estimates. I'm sure the honourable member is well aware of the line item in my department's budget for enforcement for off-highway vehicles. I can tell the honourable member, and all members, that our department is dealing with the enforcement the best they can with the guidelines that are in place now. We are partnering with the RCMP and DFO, but if my budget is passed there's a certain amount of funding allotted there for enforcement, designated 100 per cent for off-highway vehicle enforcement. This has been a really hard file to deal with and it's a very sensitive file. There are many jurisdictions involved, from Justice, Transportation and Public Works, Sport and Recreation, to Health Promotion and we're dealing with all those departments and coming up with a plan.
There were 39 recommendations from the task force and, again, I can't emphasize enough the great job the task force did for the province, going around the province getting input from one end to the other.
We take this very seriously in my department and we are being the lead department in it. That is why we have requested from the Executive Council to earmark in our budget, monies for enforcement, which in my estimation is the key element to success on the off-highway vehicles - enforcement and education. Those are two areas I can assure all members in this House that if the budget is passed, I will push to the fullest extent the enforcement aspect of it and the education of it. Not putting aside the other recommendations from the task force, my department, with the other departments, is looking at all 39 of the recommendations and we will be coming out with our recommendations from the interdepartmental group very shortly. We have to assess it to see what parts can be done under regulations and what parts have to be done under legislation. We are doing this and we want to do it right. That is why (Interruption) Is my time up, Mr. Chairman?
[Page 625]
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Are you suggesting that this might be a good reason for the honourable member to support the budget? (Laughter)
MR. HURLBURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments and would suggest that all members of the House support a good budget.
MR. GLAVINE: He brought up that word "education", so that makes me shiver a little bit. In our caucus we have talked a lot about the area of enforcement, and certainly that is a key area. However, we are in our infancy here in Nova Scotia around this whole area and its potential. Some provinces have gained immeasurably from the tourist element around the off-road vehicles and I'm wondering, is there going to be some recognition of that, some development of that, as you come forward? I'm not asking for disclosure here of the final report and the intention of the government to move some of the recommendations, but is that piece being considered, because trail development, dealing with the challenges of working around or through some communities, as we know, to keep integrity of trails - I know even the trail down through the Annapolis Valley is a very well-used one, but has some immense challenges to go along with it. I'm wondering if that piece of long-range thinking and planning, a bit of a vision for the development of the industry around tourism and trail development.
MR. HURLBURT: The short answer is absolutely. The long answer is we are looking at this in the report from the task force, we're looking at it for the economy, we're looking at it for tourism, we're looking at it for protected areas, we're looking at it for the transportation safety aspect of it. There are so many aspects of this task force report, that's why there was an interdepartmental group put together to assess and make sure.
Let's be perfectly clear here today, we have to implement, absolutely, and if we have to legislate, we have to legislate, but we have to do it right. That's why I'm asking all three caucuses to stay focused on the file, have your input to it, and let's move ahead in the direction that is right for all Nova Scotians and for all visitors to our province, keeping the environment in mind and keeping public safety in mind. We have, as the member knows, 75 per cent of the land mass of this province that is privately owned, and we have to have due consideration to those individuals also. So it's a really delicate file and we are moving ahead, I believe, in the proper manner and you will be hearing some of the responses from the interdepartmental group very shortly on that.
[1:15 p.m.]
Again, I can't emphasize enough, the member has focused on a very critical move-ahead plan and I have to have my budget approved to move ahead on that plan, so I guess I'm looking for just a wink or a nod from the member that he is going to support the budget so I can implement the new task force for off-highway vehicles - I got the nod, yes, thank you. (Laughter)
[Page 626]
MR. GLAVINE: I can tell you right now, Mr. Minister, I think I will need this weekend to give long contemplation to your proposal.
One final question to let my colleague get ready to continue. I'm wondering, is there any desire or plan to further develop the provincial parks system of the province? I have had a few calls recently from privately owned parks who say probably we have sufficient capacity right now in the province for handling campers, tourists and so on who use the parks system. I'm just wondering, is there any further expansion of the provincial parks system planned for the province? There is, perhaps, a growing concern that maybe with the high cost of fuel and so forth, camping may not be as strong as we have seen it at times in the past, so they're worried a little bit about overcapacity. I'm just wondering if you could briefly summarize what may or may not be developing in that area.
MR. HURLBURT: I can tell the honourable member it is not the desire of this department, of this minister, or of this government, to compete with private industry, but we have provincial parks in our province that are, as far as I'm concerned, jewels in this province. If there is any way we can improve or enhance those parks, I definitely want to do that, but not to be detrimental to the private park owners.
Mr. Chairman, if I may for a moment, I want to move on to Porters Lake. Porters Lake was devastated by Hurricane Juan. That park will never be what it was. That park is moving ahead in a new era and it will be the premier provincial park for the province. We have looked at this, we did all of our assessment and analysis, and we have moved ahead. I'm very pleased to say that it's going to cost approximately $1 million to $1.5 million to put that park to the degree that it is going to be at when it opens this year. Again, I want to focus on "open this year". We made a commitment, I made a commitment in the House last year that park would be open this year and it will be open this year.
As many here are aware, we also had White Juan, and we have private contractors over there and they had to deal with the weather also. That community has told me loud and clear: Minister, get that park open, we need that, it's economic growth for our community. I'm being told further down the road, do not compete with private industry. You have to do a balance, but we saw the opportunity in our department - and hats off to my staff for taking the road we are taking. We are going to have the premier park of this province and it's going to be right here in the HRM, in Porters Lake.
We have had some real hurdles to get to where we are, but I'm very pleased and I think all members of the Legislature will be very pleased when they see that park the day it is opened. It is going to be the "Cadillac" park of the province. It is not to compete with private industry, but that community sent me a message loud and clear - get that park opened, we need that for the economic benefits to our community, for tourism in our community, and we are there.
[Page 627]
We are enhancing parks in our province. We put a new comfort station in Battery Park last year. It was long overdue. It was needed at the park. We saw it as a need for that community, and we had a three-year plan. We fast-tracked that plan so we could accommodate the citizens of that community. They pleaded with us. Last year in estimates, the honourable member for Richmond asked me if there is any way that we can fast-track that park. We looked at our budget estimates, and we did fast-track the park.
I was in Mabou approximately two months ago, and we just re-signed an agreement with the community for a management plan of the park in West Mabou - do I have the right community? - for an extended 10 years. That is what my department is looking at, honourable member. We're looking at partnerships and ways we can enhance the infrastructure we have today and not compete with private industry. I know I'm belabouring the answer. I just want to give you a clear picture of where we are with the parks in this province.
MR. GLAVINE: I just have a moment left, so I would like to thank the minister and his department for most of the responses that I received today. Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will turn to the Progressive Conservative caucus. Do you have a question?
The honourable member for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank.
MR. GARY HINES: A question, Mr. Minister. I was in the Yukon and one of the issues in the Yukon was the issue of wildfire. We have many communities, and my constituency is no exception, that are surrounded by forests. With global warming, one of the issues I worry about and constituents are starting to be aware of is the danger of wildfire. I know it probably falls under the EMO umbrella, it would also be somewhat under your umbrella, I would think.
I wrote to the fire chief from the Halifax Regional Municipality and talked to him about doing a pilot project with community awareness in the community of Beaver Bank. I didn't get any response back from the fire chief; however, I did get response back from the Beaver Bank fire chief. They would be very interested in doing a pilot project. I think it would be productive to us, as a government, if we did a pilot project to start to make communities aware. I know if anybody has seen wildfire on film, it is devastating and it's fast. The method for fighting fire is different in terms of fighting forest fires, as opposed to fighting home fires. I think we'd have room there for a project between municipal fire departments and our DNR resources and with EMO. Have you had any discussions along that line, or do you think that would be a worthwhile effort that we should be looking at?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the honourable member. The member is quite right, when we were in the Yukon we saw the devastation the fires had on
[Page 628]
the Yukon area. My department has been very proactive. They have educational flyers that are available, and I suggest all members have these in their constituency offices to give out to residents and help keep the awareness of what fires can mean to their home, their community, or the woodlands. By all means, we should be working in your area, Mr. Chairman, with the HRM and EMO to enhance the educational program in the areas, especially in the devastated area where Hurricane Juan went through. That is why we came up with the literature we have in our department to educate people of the fire potential in the area. I don't know if that answered the honourable member.
MR. HINES: It does, and I knew the answer before I started because I had some conversation. The only thing I'm saying is that sometimes the regional municipality is not receptive to my suggestions that we can make improvements in life. I wonder, after the session, if you and I might be able to approach the HRM regarding doing a pilot project in my area. Thank you.
MR. HURLBURT: By all means, there are staff with my department who would be willing to go with any member from this Legislature to try to up the awareness and to educate and help promote with the local fire departments, be it paid or volunteer, and the local councils of the community that represent where you are. I think it's a key element. I do not believe it is 100 per cent my responsibility, I think it is our responsibility, all of us, to do whatever we can and work with whatever mechanism is at our fingertips to do so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will turn to the NDP caucus, you have 10 minutes.
The honourable member for Halifax Atlantic.
MS. MICHELE RAYMOND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether these questions have been asked before, so please forgive me if I'm being repetitious. What I'm wondering, primarily, is my area of Halifax Atlantic has quite a lot of rural parts, it also has - as the name suggests - a lot of seacoast. What I'm wondering about is the Beaches Act and the responsibilities that the department has under that. I'm confused, because when I telephoned the department a few weeks ago to ask about the Beaches Act, the response was, oh yes, that's divestitures, which worried me a little bit. Do all beaches fall under the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources, or are there some excluded?
MR. HURLBURT: My deputy is going to get more information for me. Under the designated Beaches Act, they are under our jurisdiction, and below the high-water mark is under ours. The actual number, my deputy will get that for me.
MS. RAYMOND: Is it only designated beaches, or is it shoreline between the low- and high-water marks that you have responsibility for?
[Page 629]
MR. HURLBURT: From the ordinary high-water mark, below, is under our jurisdiction, and the designated beaches are under our jurisdiction.
MS. RAYMOND: Okay, so any portion of it. The thing that I had been wondering about when I was wondering about exclusions, I know that the Beaches Act gives you the power to order the removal of unauthorized works. I believe people have to approach you for permission, is that correct, if they want to do any kind of construction in that zone? Is there any precedent at all for works to be removed that have been constructed without authorization?
MR. HURLBURT: Absolutely, there has been. I can tell the member in the riding adjacent to my own home riding that there was a structure put in without the proper permits and I had to sign a letter to enforce our regulations and make them take the structure out.
MS. RAYMOND: There is no size limit or anything on that? One of the concerns I have is that all up and down the coast there are significant numbers of what are usually described as in-fills that are being constructed to basically extend land properties. There's a general sense that there are no orders forthcoming for the removal of those, even though they may be done quite without authorization of any sort. So you don't have a size limit, you don't have something that says, oh well, we wouldn't order the removal of something that was more than x cubic yards or anything like that, it's all subject to the same set of rules?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member has a specific item and she wants to table it or speak to me afterward in person, I would be more than glad to look at that issue and deal with that issue. We're being hypothetical here, and it's very hard for me to zone in, but if the member has a specific file she wants me to look at, I can assure that member I definitely will.
[1:30 p.m.]
MS. RAYMOND: That would be great. I will get the list of those to you afterwards, if I might. I wanted to be sure that you do, in fact, have jurisdiction in those areas as well.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, that's what we have to get clarity on. Is it a federal - so if the honourable member would bring it to my attention.
MS. RAYMOND: So you don't have jurisdiction if it's in a federal harbour?
MR. HURLBURT: No.
MS. RAYMOND: You have no jurisdiction whatsoever?
MR. HURLBURT: That's right.
[Page 630]
MS. RAYMOND: Okay, that may explain a couple of those, quite definitely.
MR. HURLBURT: Again, if the honourable member wants to bring it to my attention in person, after we get done here, I would be more than glad to look into it and get back to the member.
MS. RAYMOND: Thank you. I had one other question, and it's a more general one, it's about divestiture of Crown lands. I'm just wondering what kind of recording procedures there are when there are, in fact, swaps and trades of land from Crown lands to other departments and so on, how does the public locate moves? For instance, if something goes from Crown lands to in some cases I think it has gone to Housing, or various other things, or to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, how is that recorded?
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to let the honourable member know that the Crown is not in the mode of selling land, we are in the mode of trying to purchase more land in the province. If you need a right of way for a powerline, if you need to construct a road over Crown land, if you have a land swap that you want to make with the Crown versus private, there's a full IRM review that has to move ahead first and we have to wait until we get the results back from the IRM review. If it is indicated in the IRM review that, yes, it's to the benefit of the taxpayers of Nova Scotia, then we will proceed ahead, then the public can have it through the Crown records.
MS. RAYMOND: So if it does move between departments it's going to be in records?
MR. HURLBURT: Yes.
MS. RAYMOND: It's often just recorded as province and so on, when you look. I'll have to ask you more about that and how one really does find the details. I'm going to give the rest of my time to my colleague. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have one minute. Does the member want to take the minute?
The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. HURLBURT: You want to just thank me, right, John?
MR. MACDONELL: If given a reason, yes, I will say thanks to the minister and his staff. There are some other areas that I think I would like to pursue. One is around the issue of traps on Crown land and private land, the black-headed beetle - do I have that right? - and concerns about Coxcomb Lake in Mount Uniacke. So I'll pursue the minister afterwards. I wonder if you can tell me, has the deadline come up for applications for moose licences?
[Page 631]
MR. HURLBURT: I'm sorry, I should have that at my fingertips but I do not. I will get that information. I believe the draw is in June, up in the Highlands.
Mr. Chairman, before we do close, number one, I want to table my opening remarks, they were very brief, for all members . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt. Are we ending with the Department of Natural Resources? I wasn't clear if we were having you back on Monday.
MR. HURLBURT: We have one minute left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We're out of time. If you'd like to finish up your statement.
MR. HURLBURT: I just wanted to thank all honourable members for their questions, I appreciate their input into my department. We look forward to having the budget passed and moving ahead and doing the right things for Nova Scotians. The Off-highway Vehicles Act is a very key one, it's looking at implementing the regulations after it has been assessed by all departments. I do want to make a public apology to the honourable member for Hants. Last year I promised that member we would visit his site at Coxcomb Lake, I can assure that member we will be doing it this year. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E11 stand?
Resolution E11 stands.
We stand adjourned until after resolutions on Monday afternoon.
[The subcommittee rose at 1:36 p.m.]
