[Page 507]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to call the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply to order. The time is 4:18 p.m., and at this time I would like to call upon the honourable Minister of Justice to offer some opening comments. I would encourage the honourable minister to introduce his staff so that we could all have a knowledge of who we're hearing from; it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
Resolution E13 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $281,490,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Estimate.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. ROSS LANDRY: Thank you, good afternoon. Before I begin I will introduce my staff because my notes direct me, so it's all covered. From the Department of Justice is Deputy Minister Marian Tyson; the Executive Director of Finance and Administration, Clarence Guest; and behind me is Martin Herschorn, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Paul MacNeil, Director of Business Affairs; from the Human Rights Commission is Krista Daley; and from the Privacy and Review Office, Dulcie McCallum.
I would like to take this opportunity to say how wonderful it is to be a part of this government. Of course this is my first experience as a Minister of the Crown to discuss the budget and initiatives within the Department of Justice, and let me say that it is both humbling and an honour to be here. In the past few months I've been very privileged to meet with the staff at the Department of Justice and I'm very impressed. They are hard-working and thorough, and I will greatly appreciate their assistance as we answer the questions presented to me here today.
[Page 508]
As a former police officer for over 35 years, I've worked in the larger justice system and I greatly value the importance of public safety. I have the utmost respect for the law and how it is administered. Nova Scotia is a great province to raise a family in, and I believe we are very fortunate to live in a province that is safe and secure - I know it to be true as someone who has once patrolled the streets in Nova Scotia - I'm confident we have a very strong justice system to uphold public safety.
There were times in my career when I was very proud that we apprehended the person committing a crime; it's our job and what is expected of us as officers in the business of public safety. I am now very fortunate to be in a position as Minister of Justice where I can see things from a different perspective and take the big-picture approach to issues.
Being the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice in a new government is challenging and it is a responsibility that I take very seriously. All of us within the justice system must ensure that those who break the law are accountable for their actions - how we do that must stand up to public scrutiny. For the next few minutes I will share the highlights of the Justice budget and then I will highlight some of the initiatives from other agencies I'm responsible for.
I would like to start by noting that the Justice budget has increased by a significant amount. It is increasing by $19.3 million - from $262.2 million a year to $281.5 million. The Justice Department mandate is committed to fair and effective administration of justice and excellence in service to the people of Nova Scotia, and to accomplish its mandate the department provides many services in the following major divisions: Public Security and Safety, Court Services, Correctional Services, and Legal Services.
We have a staff of approximately 1,600 who work across the province in our court houses, our correctional facilities and, on the front lines, as probation officers. Crime is at the forefront of our mind when it impacts individuals. Crime hurts all of us - individually, as families, and as a community - in a variety of ways, and there is no question that crime hurts us economically and hinders our social prosperity. Preventing crime and combating crime is one of the key priorities of the Department of Justice. Combating crime includes strategic law enforcement, safe and secure custody and supervision of offenders, offenders rehabilitation programs, and programs for preventing crime in the first place.
One of our areas of focus is on the public safety and security programs. Through this division we provide oversight, governance and advice to police, private security services and firearm licence holders. I am pleased to inform the members that this budget has increased by $4.6 million. In this year's budget we are planning to enhance the services offered by this division to address the increasing public expectation. Take for instance the oversight of tasers - we have taken positive steps towards monitoring the use of force by the province's law enforcement officers and in our facilities. In this budget we have hired a use-of-force
[Page 509]
coordinator to track the use of conduct energy devices and to oversee policies and set standards for training that reflect up-to-date knowledge.
A justice system that is properly administered and cost effective, with a focus on increasing transparency and accountability. We are also exploring the possibility of an independent investigative unit later this year so police are no longer investigating police. While I am not in the position to share the details today, this is an idea which I've been discussing with my fellow Justice Ministers in Atlantic Canada. Our Policing Services section acts in an advisory role to all police services in managing contracts with the RCMP and the First Nations policing, which will continue.
Nova Scotians want to know that we have the right amount of law enforcement officers on the streets, and I want to reassure Nova Scotians and their families that at 199 officers per 100,000 population we have more than the national average.
While the responsibility for local policing lies with the municipal police agencies, who do an excellent job, there are target areas the province can and does play a role in this funding. I want to reassure the members our department will continue to fund the 150 officers who have been added to the streets of Nova Scotia in the past two years. These officers have helped bring Nova Scotia to a level of service that is higher than the national average. Crime rates are dropping, but there is still more work to do. We must strive to have crime rates below the national average, and we'll make progress by working in a collaboration with our partners.
In the weeks ahead we will determine where we need to strategically place more resources for policing and public safety so they benefit all of Nova Scotia. I believe that a collaborative policing effort has the greatest potential for success when it comes to fighting crime. One of the best examples is a unit that was started up in April to seize proceeds of crime - the provincially funded officers have begun sending a strong message to criminals that crime doesn't pay. This unit, which covers the entire province, is funded in the public safety budget. We are also planning to step up our action in monitoring prolific offenders - they are committing too many crimes that disrupt neighbourhoods and clog our system.
Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act. Our public safety investigation unit under the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act is demonstrating great success. The Act improves community safety by targeting and, if necessary, shutting down residential and commercial buildings and land that are regularly used for illegal activities. This Fall that unit, which is made up of former officers, will investigate its 500th complaint from a resident or business that feels drugs or other illegal activity is ruining their community. We have also in this budget taken over from Halifax Regional Municipality the funding for a drug investigating officer who works to combat drugs province-wide.
[Page 510]
These are all positive steps that will enhance public safety, and finally I want to say that we have dedicated funding for three officers in this province, this capital City of Halifax, where a downtown bar scene and late-night crime has put an extra strain on the municipal police force. I am pleased there's a role for the province to play.
We are also funding Halifax's first crime prevention coordinator as part of our support for Mayor Kelly's Round Table on Violence. I feel it's important to highlight the need to invest in preventing crime. When it comes to crime prevention, an important first step is recognizing that fighting crime is a shared responsibility - we all have a role to play. We will be asking Nova Scotians to apply for community grants under the new Lighthouses Program. These one-time grants will provide youth in the communities an opportunity to participate in pro-social recreational and educational crime prevention programming, and there is a budget of $280,000 towards intervening and preventing crime and keeping our youth out of the justice system.
Our Court Services Division provides civil law, criminal law and Family Court services. These services include court administration and management, small claims, bankruptcy law adjudications, security and transport of prisoners to and from court, and justices of the peace. The department operates approximately 34 court locations comprised of 14 full-service justice centres and 20 satellite locations. Every year our courts are expected to handle more cases - and we all have heard about the court dates that are taking too long to get on the docket. We need to improve our service, and we will.
[4:30 p.m.]
I'm happy to announce that there is additional money for the Public Prosecution Service and for Legal Aid. The Budget Estimates we have tabled will also show that we've invested in building maintenance and are now operating two brand new justice centres - one in Yarmouth and one in Bridgewater. In the upcoming year we will seek innovative ways to address some of the challenges. Video links from jails to courts will get underway, and this budget contains money to do that. Not only will this be more efficient, it will also reduce the movement of inmates from correctional facilities to courts - resulting in greater public safety. This is a very positive approach and one that we will monitor closely with the judiciary to ensure that these modern techniques benefit the entire system. This budget also contains funding for those employees, whether they be sheriffs or court staff, who are no longer casual employees - they have been converted to part-time or full-time staff.
Another major initiative that I'm very impressed with is the opening of the new Mental Health Court on November 2nd of this year. This budget allocates $1 million to open the doors of the court and offices in Dartmouth, and hire the professionals who will assist those Nova Scotians suffering from mental illness who come into conflict with the law. This specialty court is a pilot and in this fiscal year and in one that we, along with our stakeholders, will monitor closely.
[Page 511]
This year marks 20 years of Victim Services at the Department of Justice. The Victim Services Division was created in 1989 to reduce the effects of crime on the people of Nova Scotia, and last year the Victim Services Division helped more than 6,000 Nova Scotians. We work with justice partners in the community to deliver programs that address the needs of crime victims. Direct services for victims are provided through four core programs: the Provincial Victims Services Program, the Criminal Injuries Counselling Program, the Victim Impact Statement Program, and a Child Victim/Witness Program.
In this budget the province is doubling the amount of money and extending the amount of time available for counselling for immediate family members of homicide victims in Nova Scotia. Under the Criminal Injury Counselling Program the maximum counselling award has been increased from $2,000 to $4,000, and the amount of time to use it is also increasing from within two years of approval to one year beyond the date of completion of the court process.
Improving public safety and security through effective custody-based corrections and community-based corrections. There are approximately 8,000 court-ordered admissions to the community and custodial correctional services annually. The Correctional Services Division operates five adult offender and two young offender correctional facilities. The key function of correctional facilities is to provide safe and secure custody, direction and control of offenders, and programs that address the criminogenic factors to assist with the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.
The department's five adult correctional facilities are: the Antigonish Correctional Facility; Cape Breton Correctional Facility; Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility; Cumberland Correctional Facility; Southwest Nova Scotia Correctional Facility; the Nova Scotia Youth Facility in Waterville; and the Cape Breton Youth Detention Facility.
In Halifax we are pleased to fund the Halifax Youth Attendance Centre, which treats high- risk students through programming and educational support. The division also operates 22 corrections offices.
We are all aware that there have been challenges in our correctional facilities, and this budget reflects the hard work that is being done to address those issues. I have visited three of the five facilities and can see the dedication and commitment of the staff who work in these facilities. They are very committed, I must say. I hope to visit our Yarmouth and our Cape Breton facilities before the end of the year.
This fiscal year we will increase spending in our correctional facilities by $4 million. Roughly half of the amount is set aside to address the issue that stemmed from the independent audit that was done last year.
[Page 512]
I visited the Burnside facility and met with the staff. They deserve to be treated with respect and given the proper tools to do their job - they play an important role in keeping the offenders secure and the public safe. I am pleased to say this budget includes money for us to purchase 300 new protective vests that will allow our public service employees to do their jobs with the extra protection that they felt was needed.
I felt it was important that our government be presented with a well-thought-out business case to help us determine whether it is necessary to build one or two new correction facilities. We are entrusted with taxpayer money and we will make sound business decisions that will serve Nova Scotians well into the future. We are already halfway through a fiscal year and our departments have spent much of their operating dollars. We're setting aside $1 million - once we determine whether we're building one facility or two facilities, that million dollars will be applied to that project at that time. This is the responsible approach; it is the right approach.
One of the positive changes for Nova Scotia families will be the implementation of the Personal Directives Act, which clearly gives individuals the legal power to direct the kind of care that they want to receive in their later years. The Public Trustee will see her role positively impacted by this law and her budget has been allocated $300,000 extra funds to manage the increase in health care decisions that she could possibly face.
In my role as Attorney General, I'm also responsible for the Medical Examiner's Office. This budget provides money for the new staff Dr. Matthew Bowes requires to investigate and complete autopsy reports. I am also pleased to share with my colleagues that we are now in discussions to purchase land for the new forensic facility, and money has been allocated in this budget to start construction of that project - the Office of the Medical Examiner is essential to an effective law enforcement system.
We will welcome a new deputy chief medical examiner and now have three forensic pathologists enabling us to improve services to Nova Scotians. We are also investing $525,000 to begin the design of a new forensic science facility here in Nova Scotia - we have also chosen a site and are in the final stages of preparing to purchase it.
We are also working to ensure Nova Scotians have access to legal aid services when they need them, regardless of their financial situation. In the past two years we have invested an additional $2.7 million for legal aid services, and these funds will help hundreds of Nova Scotians gain access to legal aid. This investment is another demonstration of our commitment to legal aid in this province.
Another critical service provided in Nova Scotia is the Maintenance Enforcement program. This program began in 1996 to address the difficulties experienced by spouses and children who are not receiving their court-ordered maintenance payments. In 2007 the Auditor General reviewed the program and the Department of Justice has made significant
[Page 513]
progress in implementing all 18 recommendations. The system that is now in place is far better for Nova Scotia families than it was in 2007. We have improved access to client files so that they can go on-line rather than direct their inquiries to our telephone lines and, in the first three months alone, more than 1,000 individual recipients used our Maintenance Enforcement Program on-line, and that continues.
I'm also minister responsible for a variety of other agencies providing important services to Nova Scotians. These include: the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service; the Human Rights Commission, an independent government agency charged with administering Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act, and under the authority of the Act, the commission focuses on two core business functions - resolving complaints of discrimination and public education and outreach; and I'm also Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, an independent agency that operates separately from the Workers' Compensation Board - the tribunal hears appeals on the final decisions of hearing officers with the board. It is the final level of appeal within the workers' compensation system.
One of my other areas is the FOIPOP review office. As you will know, we took an important step as one of our first acts of government to reduce the costs from $25 to $5 - this will open the process to those Nova Scotians who may not have had the ability to afford it in the past. We also proclaimed a new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which will ensure we balance access to information with an individual's right to privacy in this area of the Internet.
In closing, I appreciate this opportunity to review some of the activities of my department and to present the highlights of this year's budget. I, along with the department staff, look forward to an active year as we work with our partners in ensuring Nova Scotians can be confident in the safety and security of their communities. I'd like to close my remarks of this portion by thanking the staff of the department. Each person has an important role to play in making sure we provide high-quality service. I have been impressed - and I mean that sincerely - I've been very impressed with the dedication and enthusiasm I've witnessed since becoming Minister of Justice.
I look forward to the members' questions and comments, and I welcome the opportunity to share information once again on our program and services.
I do have another document to read from - this one is on public prosecutions. The Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service, they work hard for the people of this province, representing the public interest in criminal proceedings. Let me remind you that the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service was established in 1990 under the Public Prosecutions Act as the first independent prosecution service in Canada. It employs approximately 90 Crown Attorneys and has a total staff of 160 in 20 offices across the province. Our Crowns handle some 45,000 Criminal Code charges each and every year, on average. In 2008-09, these
[Page 514]
included more than 70 murders/attempted murder cases, almost 400 robberies, about 300 sexual assaults, more than 1,000 break and enters, and about 3,500 thefts.
In addition to prosecuting all Criminal Code offences in Nova Scotia, the Public Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting cases involving violations of provincial Statutes, and in 2008-09 the Public Prosecution Service prosecuted about 5,700 such cases. The Public Prosecution Service also appeals decisions made by the courts in indictable proceedings where it determines that the court has made an error of law, and in 2008-09 the PPS was involved in 37 appeals. Since this was established more than 19 years ago, the PPS has prosecuted cases that have garnered national attention. As a service, the PPS delivers quality front-line prosecution services, and continues to sharpen these skills and experiences in major and complex cases.
With regard to our hard-working team of Crown Attorneys, I remind you that in February 2000 we saw a labour relations milestone - an agreement was reached with the Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys Association on the salary-setting mechanism. That agreement most recently resulted in an arbitration award which has set a salary increase for the Crown Attorneys from April 2006 through to March 2009 and negotiations will soon get underway for the next salary agreement. Continuing education for all time and per diem Crown Attorneys as well as support staff remains a priority in order to enhance the level of expertise within the PPS and the resulting quality of public prosecution services.
[4:45 p.m.]
Significant funds were spent on education and training during the past fiscal year. Specifically, the PPS funded the attendance of Crown Attorneys at the Federation of Law Society's National Criminal Law Program; funded the Crown Attorneys Conference and the Public Prosecution Services Support Staff Annual Seminar; funded the participation of several Crown Attorneys at the Ontario Crown Attorneys Summer School Program, a valuable professional development opportunity made available to the Public Prosecution Service through the kind co-operation of the Ontario Minister of the Attorney General; continued to train Public Prosecution Service staff in the use of prosecution information composite systems; continued to provide training to all Crown Attorneys on youth criminal justice matters at both Fall and Spring conferences; continued additional training as required on the new PPS policies; provided training to Crown Attorneys on the government's Family Violence Initiative; and supported the requirements of the Education Development Committee to ensure that the PPS staff received required training.
The PPS staff also participated at the national level - the Director of Public Prosecutions continues to meet regularly with Prosecution Service heads of jurisdictions across Canada to share information and to collaborate on common initiatives. As well, the Director of Public Prosecution participates in meetings of deputy ministers responsible for justice.
[Page 515]
Let me turn now to the challenges facing the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service. Major cases require extensive work by Crown Attorneys preparing the cases for court - there are often complex charter challenges to the proceedings; there are dozens of witnesses to be interviewed and prepared for the experiences of giving evidence in court; and there are also expert witness reports to be studied and digested.
More and more often DNA evidence is introduced in courts, requiring extensive preparation by Crown Counsel. Major cases are complex and high profile, and public safety and the public perception of the justice system are influenced by the outcome of these cases. The PPS makes it a practice to assign at least two Crown Attorneys to each murder case, at least one being a senior Crown Attorney - this is essential in order to professionally respond to the demands of these difficult cases. Some major or specialized prosecutions are handled by members of this service's Special Prosecutions Section, and such prosecutions include complex fraud cases, historical sexual assaults, cyber-crime cases, child pornography cases, provincial regulatory offences, and Aboriginal law cases.
The Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service has a Crown Attorney dedicated exclusively to the prosecution of provincial regulatory offences. This initiative was designed to enhance the expertise of the Public Prosecution Service in provincial regulatory prosecutions. This Crown Attorney concentrates mainly on occupational health and safety offences and serves as an in-house resource for other Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys involved in occupational health and safety and other regulatory offence prosecutions. The Crown Attorneys in the Special Prosecutions Section do not have regular court assignments and thus have the time necessary to devote to such prosecutions.
The permanent staff complement of the Special Prosecutions Section entails a Chief Crown Attorney and eight Crown Attorneys, but this complement can handle only some of the major or special prosecutions conducted each year. When such cases are conducted by the Crown Attorneys, other than those in the Special Prosecutions Section, they cannot also be responsible for the demands of regular court responsibility.
This difficulty necessitates backfilling the Crown Attorneys in the regular court schedule for days, weeks, months or even years, as has happened in the past, therefore this service must use outside counsel hired on a per diem or term employment basis to backfill in response to the major case.
With regard to day-to-day operations and the need, historically, for regular per diem assistance, the Halifax region has experienced success in dramatically reducing the need for per diem Crowns. This has been done with an innovative approach to court scheduling and has resulted in significant cost savings in Halifax.
The Prosecution Service policy of assigning at least two Crown Attorneys to all major cases, that ever-increasing number of major cases, as well as additional police officers in the
[Page 516]
Boots on the Street program, is adding to the volume of prosecutions and requiring additional resources.
The province's Justice of the Peace system operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and continues to demand that Crown Attorneys be on duty after hours and on weekends. A weekend bail court pilot project has just concluded. The project requires Crown Attorney resources, and if the weekend bail court becomes a permanent program it will continue to require Crown Attorney resources.
Other new initiatives for the Public Prosecution Service includes a proceeds to crime program and responding to the prosecutorial needs of the new Mental Health Court scheduled to open in November.
As you can see, there are many, many challenges facing Nova Scotia's Public Prosecution Service this year and in the coming year, but I'm confident that the Public Prosecution Service will be able to meet those challenges. The continued contribution of public safety made by the Public Prosecution Service can never be taken for granted or understated.
Those are my comments.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, honourable minister, is that the end of your comments for your presentation?
MR. LANDRY: Yes, Madam Chairman, other than I'm happy to be here.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The time is now 4.51 p.m. and at this point we will open the floor to the Official Opposition for one hour of questioning.
The honourable member for Richmond.
HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and hopefully the minister still says he is happy to be here when we're finished with today's round of questioning.
Mr. Minister, I'm curious, what staffing changes have taken place in your office since you became minister?
MR. LANDRY: Just the regular turnover.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, what is the regular turnover?
[Page 517]
MR. LANDRY: Well, I know there were some media people who were assigned that have now moved on. I sign a number of documents continually for people for backfills - that's on a regular basis. So there is continual movement, with 1,600 employees . . .
MR. SAMSON: No, let me be more specific. In your minister's office, I take it that you have a new executive assistant - do you have any senior advisers or anything that have been brought in who were not previously with the department who are now working in the minister's office? That would be my question - who are these individuals?
MR. LANDRY: I have an executive assistant, I don't know if that is new or if the previous minister had one or not.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, you do only have one executive assistant.
MR. LANDRY: Correct.
MR. SAMSON: And who is that individual?
MR. LANDRY: Linda Moxsom.
MR. SAMSON: So that would be the only political staff that you have in your department since you have become minister?
MR. LANDRY: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: One of the issues that's on the minds of Nova Scotians, and let me preface this with this remark - I don't think the minister would be shocked if I suggested to him that many Nova Scotians are concerned as to the views on crime of this new government. I think it's safe to say that people have been concerned in the past that the NDP has been seen in some of their statements as being a bit soft on crime. Again, only time will tell whether that's the case or not. Never having had an NDP Government in this province, it's difficult to judge this government compared to other NDP Governments, but as far as this province is concerned.
One of the issues that has come up and has been very public involves the actions of your MLA in Dartmouth North, and I know the Premier has indicated that he would not have made the same decisions that were made by the member for Dartmouth North. The facts that have come out are basically that this individual was offered a conditional sentence and violated some of those terms, and the Crown Prosecutor was seeking a jail term for the remainder of his sentence to send a strong message of the importance of abiding to the terms of a conditional sentence.
[Page 518]
The interventions of your colleague, the member for Dartmouth North, have basically kept this individual out of jail and allowed him to continue conditional sentence under, apparently, the member's supervision. We've heard from the Premier on this and, I'm just curious, as the Minister of Justice for Nova Scotia, what are your views on the actions of you're the member for Dartmouth North with regard to Mr. Kosinsky?
MR. LANDRY: Thank you very much for that question. I see there are a number of points that you made there and I hope that we'll get to all of them.
I first want to start off by saying that this government is not soft on crime, but I think the spin doctors in the past history have done very well to try to paint us that way. As the Minister of Justice, I believe in accountability and I believe in having a system in place that is accountable - not just the public, but the system itself is accountable and that we're going to hold criminals accountable and we're going to hold ourselves accountable.
We are hard on crime and I'm very happy to be the Minister of Justice with a staff that's so motivated they're putting forward key ideas and new initiatives and new ways of looking at how we make our justice system more effective and efficient, especially when we have dwindling dollars.
On the issue of my colleague in Dartmouth North - there are 52 ridings in Nova Scotia and each one is managed by an MLA, as we all know, and we manage it in our own way. I've heard many, many positive comments, and read a number of them in the paper, on the actions that he has taken, for having compassion for somebody who is a constituent in his riding, and in not being judgmental of the person's past behaviour but trying to provide support and services.
I may not have handled it the way that he has handled it, but I respect the fact that he made a decision, took action - and he took it from his heart - and he believed in his mind that he was doing the right thing for his community and I respect that.
If it's being suggested that there's any less respect for the victims in this situation, absolutely not, and we have to be very cautious at all times, whenever people are exploited or victimized in society that we protect them - that's a duty and responsibility of government that, as Justice Minister, I take seriously.
MR. SAMSON: I'm curious then, if that's the case is it the position of the Minister of Justice that people who violate the terms of their conditional sentence should simply pick up the phone and call one of your colleagues in the NDP caucus to supervise them for the rest of their term, or should we be supporting our Crown Attorneys, your staff, who are actually seeking jail sentence for the remainder, to send a message - so which one do you support, Mr. Minister?
[Page 519]
MR. LANDRY: As I gave in my answer a moment ago, I may not have handled that the way that my colleague in Dartmouth has handled it and I don't think it's the position of our Party. You're mixing the words - and the words are that I think everybody deserves to be heard and every case needs to be measured on its own merit, and each case is individual.
MR. SAMSON: Was Crown Attorney Roland Levesque wrong in trying to pursue a jail sentence after Mr. Kosinsky had violated the terms of his conditional sentence?
MR. LANDRY: I support our Crown Attorneys in the actions they take and the decisions they make. We have a number of them across the province and each case is individual. The justice process is a process and the court decides how the outcome will be.
MR. SAMSON: As Minister of Justice, do you recommend to your colleagues that they should intervene in these types of matters, when people have violated the terms of their conditional sentence, or should they allow the justice system to run its course?
MR. LANDRY: I respect the justice system; I also respect the right of each case as individual on its own; and I respect the fact that each MLA has a right to determine how they do business in their own area. As I said earlier, I probably would have handled that differently myself.
MR. SAMSON: Is it the position then of you, as minister, and your government that people who violate the terms of their conditional sentence should be faced with jail time for the remainder of their sentence?
MR. LANDRY: Each case is determined on its own and I respect the decision that the court makes in each and every case, and in this case the court made a decision.
[5:00 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: On the issue of the new jails, you said in your comments that $1 million had been set aside, and it seems to me to determine a couple of things. Whether new jails are necessary, I think that was one of the conditions, but in your comment I seem to have understood where you're also looking at whether two new jails are necessary, being one for let's say Cumberland County, as I know there's a debate as to which community it should go in, and then the Antigonish facility. So am I correct in understanding that you are not committed right now to building new facilities to replace both the Antigonish facility and the existing facility in Amherst?
MR. LANDRY: You know, I really want to thank you for the question and I do apologize if there's any confusion from the number of times I've answered this question. I will try to work harder in this answer to try to communicate what I've been saying from day one. There's absolutely no question in my mind that we need a new housing facility for our
[Page 520]
in-custody population. Both the Antigonish and the Amherst site, which I visited very early in my taking of this post, and I communicated through the media sources, I thought very clearly that they are archaic and they have to be replaced.
The issue that we're faced with today, when we have a $600 million addition to the deficit, is that as a government we have to be very conscientious and make sure that if we're going to make a decision that meets our short-term needs, and we also need to be looking at what our long-term requirements are going to be. So to arbitrarily, as a new minister, come in and say, yes, we're going to build two facilities there and try to make an argument as to why that should happen, it would be negligent on my part. I need additional information.
What I asked of my staff was to do a review and research the information because it's not certain whether we can build two facilities or one facility or where we stand on that. Before I present a position forward to my colleagues as to what we should be doing, I needed the additional information.
I also think that the taxpayer in Nova Scotia has a right - that a government comes in and takes that kind of conscientious approach to ensure that we manage our dollars wisely and put forth a sound option that meets the needs today and into the future, and is the best use of our tax dollar, while respecting the demands on our correctional staff that they have the proper type of facilities and security for them to do their job.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I always find it ironic when a new government comes in to hear those kinds of comments, because the staff sitting around you would have been part of the decision-making process, so it's quite rich to hear a new minister asking the staff, who would have been part of the recommendations to build two new facilities, now be asked to basically justify the initial decision.
Anyway, what you have confirmed for me is you're not committed to a new jail in Antigonish and a new jail in Amherst. I just wanted that confirmation because that's a bit of a surprise to me, I thought that was a given, but you've made that clear that it's not a guarantee, that you're still looking at it.
There is $18 million that had been set aside in the budget for these two new facilities. Are you aware whether this - we now know this money is no longer in your budget - was this money just transferred over to another department or did it just disappear off the books completely, is the minister aware?
MR. LANDRY: I want to first clarify, we are committed, I am committed to building a new facility. On the issue of staff, between the time that the previous announcement - and there's only one announcement for one jail and that was where there was a commitment to it and that was in Springhill - is that the economic picture and understanding of the environment in which we were in has changed.
[Page 521]
So given that to be the case, we came in as a government saying that we're going to be fiscally responsible and accountable to taxpayers in Nova Scotia and when we make decisions we'll make decisions in the best interest of this province, and that when we focused on that the staff were given that new information and we wanted to know exactly how the decisions were arrived at and what the data was, and I wanted to know, to understand and that's what I'm waiting for - so there is a commitment to build facilities.
On the issue of $18 million, the issue of where that $18 million goes does not fall under my purview as minister, it goes under the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal as to who manages those dollars.
MR. SAMSON: One of the issues of the previous government, I believe they had submitted the new correctional facilities as part of the review that was being done by - I'm trying to remember the name, but the company out in British Columbia, let's call it that, that was doing a review of a number of projects as to whether they should be financed by the province or whether they should look at the public-private partnership. Your Party in the past has certainly made it clear it did not support public-private partnerships - I'm curious, is that still being looked at as part of your review of building a new facility or has your government indicated that there will be no public-private partnerships under its term as government in Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: Once again, thank you for that question and it's an excellent question. I think part of the overall review and advice to be given to the government is that very issue of how we're going to fund it, what will the cost be. What is the cost of one facility versus two facilities, and are there savings to be made there?
All those factors of financial accountability are to be looked at. We're government, and I'll probably stress this throughout our discussion, we want to be accountable to the taxpayers of Nova Scotia and make sure that we're spending our dollars wisely.
MR. SAMSON: So, Mr. Minister, you'll agree then that your statement is that the possibility of public-private partnerships and the construction of a new correctional facility in Nova Scotia is still potentially on the table?
MR. LANDRY: I can say I don't know whether it is or it isn't. I'm waiting for the report to come forward and we look at how it's going to be financed and then present that information to the government and then that's something that would have to be developed.
From where I sit, I kind of don't want to draw lines in the sand on issues, and I want to keep all doors open so that I can take a peek through. So I'm not sure which way to - that as a minister, that's the way I look at the world.
[Page 522]
MR. SAMSON: People in Nova Scotia can only hope the rest of your colleagues think the same way, Mr. Minister.
One of the issues you raise is the fact that Crown Attorneys had their salaries settled by way of arbitration. It was an unfortunately lengthy process that caused a lot of grief and, I would submit, probably cost this province a couple of very capable Crown Attorneys who just had enough and left this province.
I'm curious, you've indicated that negotiations are going to start soon - could you identify whether funding for any potential increase would be coming from your department or is it coming from any other department, and have you set aside any monies in this budget to deal with any negotiated settlements with the Crown Attorneys of our province?
MR. LANDRY: Any increase in spending will come from the central fund, so there's nothing in our budget for that purpose.
MR. SAMSON: Part of that global fund that we heard about in the budget for H1N1, possible salary increases, natural disasters and everything else, so I think it's safe to say you don't have a specific figure that you can identify in the budget as to what has been set aside potentially for the Crown Attorneys of Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: No, and as you're probably starting to see, that global fund has to be spread around quite a big area.
MR. SAMSON: There's no doubt of that and I would certainly hope, Mr. Minister, that we don't have to see our Crown Attorneys have to go to arbitration again and take almost over two years to finally reach a settlement on what their benefits are going to be.
One of the things I've noted in looking at some of the postings that have gone out for Crown Attorneys and some of the notices that have come out from the minister and from the Director of Public Prosecutions about new Crown Attorneys, what really struck me is the - I want to say this in a positive term - the relative, and I don't want to say the word "newness" but there seems to be limited experience for these new Crown Attorneys. It's shocking to me to see Crown Attorneys who have far less years at the Bar than I have - and I still consider myself to be a relatively new member of the Bar - I'm just curious, is that something that your government considers to be normal?
And it's great to see young people taking such positions, but I've seen people who have graduated, I think in 2005, and I think I even saw one who graduated in 2007, being named Crowns. I'm just curious, is that something that you're comfortable with, or are there any efforts underway by your department when it comes to the issue of recruiting Crown Attorneys here in Nova Scotia?
[Page 523]
MR. LANDRY: Thank you for that question. First off, on the issue of arbitration that you raised, I want to make it clear that I trust and hope that the negotiations go well. I have the utmost respect for the Crown Attorneys - they do a very difficult job, in fact, a lot of pressures. I've worked with a lot of Crown Attorneys over the years.
On the issue of experience and what's normal, I'm going to turn it over to my partner here in a minute, but I do want to talk about experience. I'm excited with the young people who are coming forward today - and we're in a transition. All industries are in a transition for young people today, and bright minds. So that's occurring, whether it's in policing, whether it's in corrections or whether it's in the courts or any other sector within our society - our aging population and the demographics with that is dictating that those shifts will be there. So it is normal when you put in the overall context of what is happening in the broader part of society.
On the issue of mentorship, I'm going to turn that over to my partner here.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: If you could introduce yourself, please.
MR. MARTIN HERSCHORN: My name is Martin Herschorn, I'm the Director of Public Prosecutions for Nova Scotia.
Just picking up where the minister left off we have, following the lead of many legal organizations moving towards a new mentorship program, acknowledging that we are in the phase - every organization is in the phase of succession planning and recruitments to renew staff as some of the staff with grey hair, like myself, are moving towards retirement age, there's a need to replenish the ranks and the reality of recruitment is that we are most usually able to recruit younger, less experienced lawyers.
We provide those lawyers with extensive training and mentorship, both by their supervisors, and we are moving towards a mentorship program where a peer will be designated for lawyers who have less than one year's experience, to provide mentorship and assistance so that those lawyers can become as best as they can at their skill level.
MR. SAMSON: Where do we rate, on average, the salaries for Crown Attorneys in Nova Scotia, as far as the national average?
MR. HERSCHORN: Our salaries are, as I understand it, currently at the highest of the four Atlantic Provinces and roughly in the middle of the range of salaries across Canada. The leading jurisdiction in terms of salaries is the Province of Ontario.
MR. SAMSON: One of the local issues which I wanted to raise with the minister is the situation with the Arichat courthouse, which has now been closed for quite some time because the sitting judge decided that this facility, because of a number of deficiencies she
[Page 524]
identified, would no longer hold court there. This leaves Richmond County as the only county in Nova Scotia without any court services in our province. This has been underway for quite some time and the residents, and I know the warden and councillors, are looking for an update as to what the status of this is. I wonder, could the minister advise where we are with resuming court services in Richmond County?
MR. LANDRY: The Arichat situation is unique in and of itself and one of the conflicts that we are trying to deal with is that the judge refuses to sit in the present facility because of a number of repairs that are required, which are around approximately $1 million to fix and then, still at that point, I'm not sure if it clears up the security issues that are at hand there.
[ 5:15 p.m.]
It is an issue that is important to our department because I know when I first came in, we were looking at the court issue and that issue came forward to us and I was assured that it is being worked on and looked at. But I share your concern, if it is the only community without a court, what are our options and how do we spend the best dollars to get the most out while respecting and serving the community at the highest level possible that we can.
MR. SAMSON: Has the minister and his staff set aside any monies in this budget as far as reviewing and proposing options as far as resuming court services in Richmond County in this year's budget?
MR. LANDRY: The actual budget for that $1 million has not been set aside at this time. There are a number of things that we are doing. We are in consultation with the mayor, we are looking at the option of video, we're looking at what other sites may be possible there. But we need good consultation, good collaboration of a variety of stakeholders to look at what our options are there. We welcome recommendations and suggestions on that matter.
MR. SAMSON: Well, I certainly offered my assistance both to your predecessor and to the deputy minister in trying to work out a solution here. Richmond is like many other counties in this province but we are also a bit unique in that we are a designated protected riding under provincial electoral laws as an Acadian riding and we are also home to the Chapel Island First Nation and there are some cultural concerns and language concerns that would apply to our area which, I would submit to you, are not addressed by moving the court services to the Town of Port Hawkesbury, which is not an Acadian region and does not have a native population.
This has been an issue for, and I don't have the exact dates in front of me here, and I'm sure the deputy probably has a better sense, but needless to say, it has been a long time and patience is starting to wear thin and the fear in the community is that the longer it takes, the chances of resuming court services are going to be lessened all the time.
[Page 525]
So I would urge the minister to look at this as an emergency situation. People have a right to be judged by their peers, they have a right to be judged within their community, both their cultural community, both their linguistic community and that is not taking place right now. So I would submit to you that the justice system in Richmond County is not working the way it should be and it has been far too long now to suggest that we're going to continue having discussions. Decisions need to be made.
I would suggest to you, in fact I know the former minister had even made a suggestion of an alternative facility that could temporarily be used which I think would meet the needs identified by the judge in question, but it doesn't appear that has been pursued or even any discussion has taken place with the operators of that specific facility. I'm wondering, would the minister commit today to giving this priority and to immediately bringing together the stakeholders involved? I would be more than happy to assist in that regard towards finding both a temporary and permanent solution to restoring court services in Richmond County.
MR. LANDRY: Thank you for that question, and I want to start off my answer by saying that I agree fully with you that each community deserves to have their hearings as close to home as possible. The Acadian and First Nations are unique groups within our society, both culturally and linguistically. They require a unique set of services and support systems and I want to go on record to you personally that I have a sensitivity to that issue and that I'm quite prepared to work with whoever and to hear your suggestions or anyone else's.
I understand there is a report already completed on the concerns you have raised. My deputy or I haven't seen it yet, but it goes in conjunction with my inquiries earlier upon taking the post here with the Justice Department as to what we were doing on that. I'm assured the report has been completed, but I want to acknowledge to you that I am sensitive and caring about the Acadian affairs, the First Nations people and the uniqueness of the community of Arichat.
MR. SAMSON: Will the minister commit today to providing myself and the residents of Richmond County with a copy of the report once he has had a chance to review it?
MR. LANDRY: I don't see that as a difficulty and I would be glad to - and I do want to extend, since we're here in this communication, as a government, this government will listen to what you have to say and concerns to this issue, this is important.
MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, and maybe you don't have an answer to this, but being that this has been discussed, is the Department of Justice leaving it to the municipality to build a new facility or to make the renovations to the facility and then they will rent it from the municipality, or are you also looking at the possibility that the province will build its own facility and restore court services in Arichat - are those two options being looked at?
[Page 526]
MR. LANDRY: We'll look at the report, but in the first blush of your answer, to build a new building is around $20 million or so, and so I don't see that in our budget this week - and I don't mean that rudely, I'm being very direct.
What I am prepared to commit to you is let's look at the report, let's find out what it is, and let's have some dialogue on it - I'll even meet privately with you. To me this is an important matter and the issue in Arichat to you, as the MLA for the area, I know it's a priority. In respect of that, let's make sure the lines of communication are open and let's work together to find a positive resolution to this important issue.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, and I will certainly provide you with correspondence and I look forward to your response as to how we can move forward.
Just on a side note, media reports of a book that was authored by one of the Crown Attorneys, or a member of Public Prosecutions, in your department, regarding the Marshall decision - I believe the author was Mr. Alex Cameron - I believe your comments were that you hadn't read the book yet so you didn't have a reaction to it. Have you had the opportunity to read the book and as the Minister of Justice and the employer of said individual, what comments do you have in that regard?
MR. LANDRY: Well, I haven't read the book. I've asked for a copy so somebody is working on getting me a copy. When I made that comment to the reporter, that was just last week and I've been rather busy, so I haven't read it.
I do respect the fact - in fact, I encourage employees that if they have interests, academically or artistically, or whatever their interest or passion is to follow it. What we have here is an individual who followed an interest and a passion that they have in relation to the law, and as I understand the facts, he has prepared a document on his off time. So I respect that; I encourage it. Whether I agree with it or not is not necessarily the issue at this time - I haven't read the book, so I won't comment on that part of it.
I respect the court's decision made at the time and at the time that law was made. We've been following the principles as laid down by the court. But time, things, change so let's see where we go from here.
MR. SAMSON: And I would never be one to suggest suppressing opinions, but when you have an employee of the Department of Justice who writes on how government, in his view, misinterpreted the decision, a decision which, Mr. Minister, I'm sure you should be aware, caused a great deal of division in this province and a great deal of division in communities with First Nations communities, and to hear an employee, a lawyer of the Department of Justice, reopen this issue and reopen the divisions that occurred is not just an employee expressing an opinion or being artistic, this is an issue which caused a great deal
[Page 527]
of conflict, conflict that involved the police, a conflict that tore some communities apart and still has lingering effects in many communities, including mine.
So in that regard I'm concerned that I don't think you seem to appreciate the impact that this is having in reopening this whole issue and renewing that sense of conflict again. We know what happened as a result of the Marshall decision and the police involvement in many cases because of the conflicts that existed so, again, I'm just curious if the minister is not concerned that an employee of his own department can be seen as throwing fuel on these flames which, I must say, in the last couple of years seemed to have simmered quite a bit.
MR. LANDRY: Thank you for that question and I'm glad that you've asked that here this afternoon. First off I want to say that anyone who's traumatized by the whole experience and the history, my heart goes out to them in that regard.
On the issue of an employee, I'm not about to tell an employee how they're to think or what they should write or shouldn't write. I believe in academic freedom and expression and I encourage people to be free with their speech and with their ideas. If you're in some way making a connection with the fact that the person is an employee of Justice and that they, therefore, shouldn't have free thought outside of their work environment, I question that. If you're trying to make the connection that within Justice that we support his position, that's not our case. I haven't read the book, so I won't comment on it. I support the court's decision; I respect the court's decision. It's my job to ensure that that part of justice is supported and that we have appropriate resources to carry out the court's decision, and that's what we've done.
MR. SAMSON: Well, the fact that the minister hasn't read the book yet, I guess I find it a bit difficult for the minister to say that he's not overly concerned about what's in it when he hasn't read it but, anyway, it's another opportunity to create conflict which, I would suggest, we just didn't need in this province and certainly didn't need to be coming from the Department of Justice.
Mr. Minister, you've talked about the Maintenance Enforcement Program and you've talked about inquiries available on-line now. What I noted of interest is that you did not talk about any new staff or any new funding for the Maintenance Enforcement Program. Would you please advise whether you are planning on hiring more staff to deal with the massive caseloads that the staff in this division have, and have any monies been set aside in the budget for that?
MR. LANDRY: Before I answer that question, I want to clarify it - if I heard you correctly in your comments over my last answer saying that I'm not overly concerned, I am always concerned for people and how their lives are affected in Nova Scotia. My job as the Attorney General and Minister of Justice is to make people safe and feel secure and I take that seriously. So if you've read that from my answer, I apologize in that regard, but let me
[Page 528]
be clear, I support the court's decision; I respect an individual's right to academic freedom and expression of their points of views; and at the same time if people are traumatized in a community we need to ensure that they're getting the support necessary to help them through that trauma. So if there are issues there, we should bring them forward and address them.
On the issue or question at hand, we have a policy coordinator hired. The financial director approved it, it's in the works, and we have a new director of Maintenance Enforcement - Judy Crump.
MR. SAMSON: Who is the new director?
MR. LANDRY: Judy Crump.
MR. SAMSON: So you have no new staff dealing with the actual caseloads and the everyday cases of Nova Scotians involved with the Maintenance Enforcement Program?
MR. LANDRY: We're hoping with the designation of the Director of Maintenance Enforcement, Ms. Crump, that will help with efficiencies and if there are gaps in the service delivery that she'll identify them in the process, bring them forward, and we'll look at how we address those concerns.
MR. SAMSON: Is the director going to actually be handling cases?
MR. LANDRY: No.
MR. SAMSON: No, okay. With all due respect, Mr. Minister, and I know you are new to this department and I've been Justice Critic for far too long, the employees in Maintenance Enforcement are dealing with a tremendous, overly burdensome caseload. With all due respect, you don't need a new director to tell you that, your department knows that, it's a complaint that has been there for years, for a long time, and families continue to be continually calling upon Members of the Legislative Assembly for assistance, because of issues with contacting their caseworkers and having decisions made regarding their particular cases.
I have the utmost respect for the people who work in Maintenance Enforcement. I can tell you I have had a very good working relationship with some of the regional coordinators, both in the New Glasgow office and in the Sydney office, they've been great to work with. But there's just simply not enough people working on the files in that office. That is the criticism - the lack of staff, not the work they do.
Again, to say a new director is going to help you determine whether you need staff - you don't need a new director to tell you that. Let me put the question to the minister, are you
[Page 529]
prepared to advocate, with your colleagues around the Cabinet Table, for increased funding to hire more staff in the Maintenance Enforcement Division?
[5:30 p.m.]
MR. LANDRY: Let me start off by saying that any individual who is adversely affected by the Maintenance Enforcement Act and inefficiencies or whatever in the system, that may be real or perceived, I have compassion for their situation. The reality that we're faced with today is that we're now up to full staff, caseload per worker has gone down, there's more dollars to take with outstanding arrears, so there's been significant changes occurring there, so the number of files have actually been reduced.
The concern that you're raising, I think as long as the discrepancies are still there that we need to work harder, and I don't think that's an issue that we could say now it is fixed and we can walk away from it. I hear your point, I respect the fact that you brought it forward, but there have been significant improvements. If it's not enough, then we'll revisit it and look at how we can put more.
MR. SAMSON: I think it's important to point out, when someone says the files have been reduced for staff, they have fewer files, one always has to wonder, does that mean they had 50 files, now they have only 40, or they had 25, now they have only 15? I think it's very important that you point out, Mr. Minister, if you could be specific, how many files, on average, are each of the staff in Maintenance Enforcement dealing with?
MR. LANDRY: In 2006 there were 798 files per enforcement officer, today they are down to 521. To me, that's a significant drop of almost 270, or whatever it is. It is a balanced average across the country.
Can we do more? Should we do more? Well that's the big question, isn't it - how do we get more out of the dollars we have? But we can never lose sensitivity to the people who are being affected, so we shouldn't rest on our laurels, that we're in a good spot here. Maybe next year we'll have it down below 500 - reasonable goals.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, and I thought it was important to point out because I always find it amusing to hear a minister say that 521 files per staff person is a good caseload. It's daunting, to say the least. Again, I have the utmost respect for these individuals, but no one can be expected to properly handle 521 files, it's just not realistic.
In this province it is a serious problem; it affects a lot of families. Unfortunately, for the most part, it is women and children who are impacted by this. While our province has undertaken some measures to try to strengthen the enforcement side of it, with penalties, taking away their driver's licence, their hunting licence, again, the maintenance workers themselves are still left with a tremendous amount of files. So yes, that's a drop, but 521 is
[Page 530]
still an unacceptably high number and I would suggest to you that, while it is an improvement, it's a hard thing to sell to a mother with three children who is not getting her support payments and hasn't been for many years. So I would encourage the minister to continue to strive to do better on behalf of the families that are most impacted by that.
You have indicated that there have been some improvements made to Legal Aid funding in the last couple of years, but I did get the sense that you are indicating that this budget is increasing funding for Legal Aid, so I'm wondering if you can clarify that for me as to whether this budget is actually going to put more money into the Legal Aid Division of your department.
MR. LANDRY: Legal Aid's budget went up by $1.5 million in this year - but before I finish I just want to flip back on that last question so I don't leave a great point here hanging. I just want to point out, it's not just about governments putting more money on the issue of maintenance into the program, that that's going to solve the problem, we need education, broader communications, and a social conscience within the community.
There needs to be a little bit of a shift within certain communities and our overall social justice in the community that this is a requirement and a duty, so though our education systems we have to allow people to know that that is their responsibility. So it is not just about government putting money in there, it's us, as MLAs, going out and talking in our communities and promoting the importance of that.
Coming back to Legal Aid, it's a $1.5 million addition to their budget.
MR. SAMSON: And what is that $1.5 million meant to do?
MR. LANDRY: Did you ask what the $1.5 million is going to do, was that your question?
MR. SAMSON: Where is the increase going? Is it going to salaries for the Legal Aid lawyers, is it going to increase the cap for people who qualify - what is the $1.5 million meant to do?
MR. LANDRY: It's for staff, it's for wages and it's for the per diem lawyers.
MR. SAMSON: So there is no additional Legal Aid staff being hired, and the cap to qualify is not being changed, is that correct?
MR. LANDRY: Concerning staffing issues, the Legal Aid requirements go into that; their committee determines their needs and they bring that forward.
MR. SAMSON: I didn't hear that.
[Page 531]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could you repeat that, Mr. Minister?
MR. LANDRY: Their committee, the Legal Aid committee, determines the staffing issue for Legal Aid. So they got their money. There are some areas where we're looking at Legal Aid - I'll say that here, I know it will come up in another question of where I'm looking to extend, but at this time that hasn't happened.
MR. SAMSON: One of the issues, and it's one that I've raised again for far too many years, it's the cap that people have to meet in order to qualify for Legal Aid. That hasn't significantly changed - the cost of living has gone up, wages have increased, the cap doesn't move, and because of that too many people, if they are working and earning any income at all, they are over income.
I'm wondering, could the minister tell me right now, where does the cap stand to qualify for Legal Aid services in Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: On the issue of the cap - thank you for the question - the Legal Aid Commission in this is looking at that in this current year and will be bringing forth a recommendation to government in the very near future.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, so at this point in time you can't give us any indication that your government intends to move to increase the cap for Legal Aid?
MR. LANDRY: At this time, no.
MR. SAMSON: One of the issues, and it's a difficult one, and as a lawyer I'm not even sure how you would start to deal with it, but I'm curious whether your department, or as part of this review being done, is sensitive to this - I have a situation, it's an unfortunate family situation where the parents have split apart and there are two daughters and they have been into a custody battle.
The father stopped working and qualified for Legal Aid and the mother, who does have a full-time job, obviously did not qualify for Legal Aid. Basically they have filed motion after motion and it's to the point now where the mother is facing bankruptcy because she just can't keep the legal battle going, whereas the father can sit back with Legal Aid representation that's not costing him a cent. Is there anything that's being done within your department or as part of the review of Legal Aid to see at what point the balance of equality amongst legal parties is just no longer existent, when one is not having to pay and the other is having to pay when you're dealing with very lengthy court battles such as custody of children?
MR. LANDRY: On any issue dealing with children, we would hope that the parents would always put the child first, instead of the conflict that they're faced with. In a lot of
[Page 532]
these cases the separation happened because they couldn't communicate well or didn't wish to communicate well and they're in conflict.
The situation you point out is sad whenever that happens, because the children are adversely affected by that, and that's why I encourage and I help to promote and am trying to promote within all our departments within Justice to try to increase the use of mediation where parties have to sit down, lay out their issues, and where there's separation or differences that those differences can be worked out.
Should the system change to be more efficient and effective? You raise a very good point there about what we need to look at in that whole process, and I'm committed to working on that issue. Things take time, I don't have a solution in my hand and I know it will take time. I thank you for your question.
MR. SAMSON: I raise that because I believe you've tabled legislation dealing with vexatious litigants, which is something the Law Reform Commission has been looking at. I can tell you in my area, in legal circles, that in many cases it is considered these vexatious litigants are being represented by Legal Aid, and the fact there's a sense that the client is continually pushing for more motions and more legal work to be done on the basis of knowing the other party is paying - and in this case the fees for an experienced lawyer are anywhere from $200 to $400 an hour. It just comes to the point where parties - it's unequal and it gets to the point where the strategy just seems to be to wait someone out and bleed them to death to the point where they just simply cannot afford to keep pursuing the matter.
I would encourage you to raise that with your staff. Unfortunately, I cannot offer a solution because I don't know how you draw that line, but it is an issue that's out there and it's obviously not equal in our legal system when you have that type of a situation.
One of the concerns that I've raised before is the previous government increased the amounts that could be brought to Small Claims Court - I believe it's up to $25,000 now - and one of the things that I asked at the time was that a review be done maybe a year after the increase, especially talking with adjudicators and those involved in the Small Claims Court process, to determine if $25,000 is the appropriate figure - did it go too high, should it go higher, should it be lowered, and are you bringing complicated matters in front of a court that was meant to be user-friendly when it was first set up?
I'm just curious whether such a review has been done and what the position is of your department now that it has been a couple of years now since that increase has taken place in Small Claims Court jurisdiction.
MR. LANDRY: It is $25,000 and the good news - if there's good news in these situations - is that the staff is monitoring it closely and there is a reduction in the load.
[Page 533]
I want to come back to your point about one of the solutions. I really think if we make the systems primarily based on adversarial positions, it'll continue to escalate in cost and in pain. The more we can resolve things down to the mediation - and I don't know how we're going to get there fully, but I think if we start to make a mental shift amongst all parties and help bring that forward to more mediated approaches and accountabilities that significant advances will be made and reduction of costs will occur.
MR. SAMSON: I've heard you say that a few times, so let me ask the question, what is being done right now to increase mediation services and alternative dispute resolution services? I think you talked about it earlier for the Family Court issue I raised; now you're talking about it again for Small Claims Court. It sounds great in theory, but what is being done to explore that or implement it as a reality in this province?
MR. LANDRY: In order to change a culture, the first thing you need to do is change the language - it's the primary foundation in cultural change. So one of the things that we're looking at within Justice and so on and in these types of forums that we have here, by the very discussion of it and in our approach to dealing with funding issues, department budgets, in asking people, when there are conflicts within the departments, are they looking at ways to mediate issues and change that culture and make it go throughout all government departments - and I think that will take time.
So we are taking steps, we are looking at those issues. It's only early in our approach since I've been there.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Honourable member for Richmond, you have seven minutes remaining.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Again, it seems a good concept, but it appears it is more of a concept in the minister's head than it is an actual plan that is being put forward, so I do hope that the minister will take it from the conceptual stage and actually put forward an action plan that we can review and see the results of it.
Being we're talking budget, I'm curious, is there any increase in the fees administered by the Department of Justice that are taking place as a result of this budget?
MR. LANDRY: Just the consumer price index increases, that's the only increase there will be - in proportion to the consumer price index.
[5:45 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: What is the consumer price index?
[Page 534]
MR. LANDRY: Caught us flat-footed on this one - we will check that and get back to you with the answer.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. All right, we're talking budget and we don't know what the increase is going to be.
MR. LANDRY: We're human.
MR. SAMSON: This is an increase across the board for every fee administered by the Department of Justice, is that correct?
MR. LANDRY: Generally speaking, but there are very few exceptions.
MR. SAMSON: Will the minister commit to providing us with a list of all the fees administered by his department and the subsequent increases in every one of those fees that are taking place as a result of this budget?
MR. LANDRY: Yes, we can provide them, there are hundreds of them. If you want that expense to go there, we will incur it.
MR. SAMSON: Well, Nova Scotians, I think, will really like to know how much more money is going to be taken out of their pockets, and I think as legislators it is important that we, if we're asked to consider a document, have a full understanding exactly what fees are going up and the purpose of them going up.
So I don't think it's unreasonable to be asking for that type of information for the members, because I know some of your colleagues, Mr. Minister, were quite adamant while they were in Opposition that any of these fees should be debated on the floor of the House of Assembly before even being proposed. So obviously, in this case, we're being told after the budget is tabled what fees are going to take place rather than having a full debate on the issue beforehand. But, then again, we found out about the increase to people in nursing homes today as well - fortunately, you're only the consumer price index and not the 9 per cent that they're going to be faced with.
Are there any new fees that are being administered by your department as a result of this budget?
MR. LANDRY: There are no new fee increases, but we had a few reductions.
MR. SAMSON: Well, now, what would those reductions possibly be?
MR. LANDRY: Access to information, from $25 to $5.
[Page 535]
MR. SAMSON: Yes, that is true, and one of your former colleagues, Kevin Deveaux, had joined me in basically, I could say, sponsoring a bill that called for the removal of that fee. I'm curious as to whether the minister supports his former colleague, Kevin Deveaux, and my call for that fee to be removed entirely.
MR. LANDRY: I don't know Mr. Deveaux, but that's another issue. At this time, the reduction is $20, we'll start with that and we will always be looking at how we make the system more fair and accessible to Nova Scotians. We believe in access.
MR. SAMSON: One of the issues with that, now that you've pointed that out, is the cost of the review of a decision under freedom of information, and I am wondering, could you tell us whether there are going to be any reductions in the cost of the review for a decision under freedom of information?
MR. LANDRY: When you say review, what do you mean?
MR. SAMSON: It would be once you've received a decision and you're not happy with the information that's been provided or the reasons given, you have an opportunity to ask for a review, which I believe there's another fee involved for requesting a review after that initial decision. If I'm not mistaken, that fee is anywhere from $25 or more and has been seen as being prohibitive of people pursuing that, so that's why I'm asking whether there was going to be any reduction in that fee.
MR. LANDRY: I'm not aware; I'm not clear on that.
MR. SAMSON: I was just about to say (Interruption) My colleague has reminded me I've been in Opposition too long and he's right, I really have. Unfortunately I think as the minister said, you administer hundreds of fees so you'll have to forgive me if I don't have each fee, but it is my understanding that there is a fee for a review decision and that was one of the concerns that was raised - it's not just your initial application fee, but the review fee as well. Following that, there were calls to either reduce it or remove it, but I will do my best to get back to the minister as to what those fees are. There are a number of fees involved, and hopefully we'll see some reductions in that.
Where am I for time, Madam Chairman?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: You have about one minute.
MR. SAMSON: I'm going to be back for another round, so I certainly appreciate the answers and we'll have a few questions once I return.
I'm happy to pass it on to my good colleague, the member for Cumberland South, who might have a bit of experience in dealing with this department as well.
[Page 536]
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The honouable member for Cumberland South.
HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I want to thank the minister and his staff for being here tonight. I listened to the minister's opening comments, particularly around the department and especially around the staff. I can tell you, my time with the Department of Justice was something I'll remember forever. You have a tremendous responsibility in this province as Attorney General and Minister of Justice. I believe the staff you have in the department, from the deputy on down, share that responsibility as you do. I think you're blessed, actually, with the staff you have. You have dedicated staff who have seen some very challenging times - most of those challenges were out of the control of the staff of the department, in fact, of the minister himself.
Ultimately it always comes back to the minister to answer for things that happen in the province, but I do concur with what you said and I appreciate what you said about your staff because you do have a tremendous, dedicated staff, very professional, and they are people you can rely on on a daily basis for whatever issue may come before the House or even for yourself as minister. I just wanted to be on the record as saying that I appreciate very much the time I had there, and the staff you have. I think, Mr. Minister, as time goes on you're going to appreciate even more and more as you have an opportunity to work with those individuals with regard to the responsibilities.
Some of the things I may ask you about, the honourable member for Richmond may have already asked, but I hope you'll bear with me.
I want to begin with probably a place where you didn't think I would begin, with Corrections. Surprised?
Three years ago the Department of Justice, when I went into the department, there was certainly a lot of talk and a lot of desire to address the issue around the bed capacity in Corrections in this province, around safety issues for officers and for inmates. As you well know, we have two remaining jails, as they were at that time called "jails" - they're not anymore, but those two that are left, I believe they're jails because they certainly don't offer the opportunity for the type of supervision or incarceration, I believe that staff would expect today, nor would inmates or society.
The department was very keen on replacing those facilities. As much as it may be suggested currently or maybe in the future, there was every indication that both those facilities would be replaced in the communities, generally speaking, where they represent now. My first question to the minister. Over the last few weeks I've asked the minister with regard to his intentions, and we're really interested in the Premier's intentions in regard to commitments he made during the recent campaign in regard to honouring previous commitments.
[Page 537]
I guess what I wanted to ask the minister first of all is that in the House you had suggested that there's a review of those decisions by a previous government underway. I wonder, can you just kind of update me in regard to what that review means?
MR. LANDRY: Well, upon coming into Justice, I recognized that the correction facility was an issue and Corrections in itself was an overall issue. I asked my staff to arrange for me to go to Amherst and then to Antigonish to get some type of a conceptual framework on which to go from. There was absolutely no question in my mind that we needed to replace those facilities.
I then got a request from you to go down and check out Springhill because all the talk going on about being down in Antigonish, people started to draw conclusions and assumptions. I asked my staff, I said given the information that I know and the financial constraints in this province, that if we're going to build two jails and if I'm turned down for two jails, what if it's only one - I like to do my homework before I make a presentation. You know how the system works; you were there.
The difficulty Springhill is in right now is, is it a done deal? At no time have I ever said that it wasn't, nowhere on the record, anywhere, anything that is printed and in our conversation with you going down to your community, nothing has changed. What I need to know is if we're building two jails, what size, what type, what type of a need is it going to meet and does it meet the short- and long-term goals and expectations of Nova Scotians and the taxpayer?
I also want to look at, and said, what if it's presented to me that we only build one facility? I want to be prepared for that question because if we can't build two, where do we build it and what type do we build and where are we with that information? So I thought I was prudent to go and do the research on the issue and look at what our options are and lay out a business case. As I understand, it is coming near completion and it should be within our hands in the next couple of weeks or so.
At that time, once I review it, I will then present it to my group and put forth recommendations. At that time we'll make an announcement or make it known within the community.
I don't know what the recommendations are that are going to come back or how that is all going to shake out. So if your question is, did anybody cancel out the jail in Antigonish, or did anybody cancel out a jail in Springhill, that's never been part of my dialogue. Ask any of my peers here in this room, we've never had that discussion - to the contrary. So I hope that gives some clarity on the issue and I'm looking forward to reading the report and then we'll make a decision based on the dollars we have, the needs of Corrections and the needs of Nova Scotia as a whole.
[Page 538]
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Would the minister agree - I hear, I've listened very closely to what he has just said - the decision had already been made prior to this government taking office?
MR. LANDRY: Now your question can be boxing, but I'm going to frame it in this way - it could be construed that it means that it's in Springhill. The answer that I'm saying is that if we're building two facilities, it may very well be that's the decision. If we're building one facility, that may very well be the decision, or it may be something different, given our economic times and the situation that we're in.
It would be inappropriate for me to define it one way or the other without first seeing the report. Times have changed since the announcement was made. I haven't ruled it out; I haven't ruled it in. It is inappropriate for me at this time to rule in or out - I want to see the report and we'll make a decision that is in the best interests of all Nova Scotians, based on the monies that we have to operate and in the interest of Corrections as a whole for Nova Scotia.
Springhill is a beautiful community. I had a nice visit and I want to go back there, but that's where I am with it.
MR. SCOTT: With all due respect, the only thing that has changed since the announcement in April is government. You keep saying, what you've said over and over again is to "review the decision." So I guess you understand and appreciate the fact that the decision had been made and now your government is considering whether you're going to honour that commitment, that decision, or whether you're going to change it.
I'd like to ask you, who is doing the review?
MR. LANDRY: Staff within the Department of Justice.
MR. SCOTT: Who are the staff who are doing it?
MR. LANDRY: Diana MacKinnon is the lead in that.
MR. SCOTT: Just one person?
MR. LANDRY: She is the lead. Whether she has a team working with her, it's left with her - she is managing it.
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Minister, this is a very important issue for me, for my community, I think for this province, and for your department. I think there's a lot hanging in regard to credibility, based on what the Premier had said. So I would like to know who is actually - Diana MacKinnon is heading it up, and I'm wondering who else is on her team - are they
[Page 539]
people who are with the department now, are there outside people who are involved in this, and is there other expertise that you are seeking? I'd like to know who is on this team.
[6:00 p.m.]
MR. LANDRY: I guess we can get the names of the people who are working with her and get it back to you.
They are doing an historical review on what has transpired over the years in the development of the previous decisions, and she is consulting with a wide range of stakeholders and gathering the information that she deems appropriate, that would be of interest to us, to this government, in coming to a decision.
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Minister, I wonder if you could tell me if there has been any correspondence. I am particularly interested in written correspondence between the Department of Justice and the Premier's Office on this issue.
MR. LANDRY: I don't really know of anything written to the Premier's Office in regard to this matter. As I said in my earlier answer, when I made my visit to Amherst and I made my visit to Antigonish and I knew that you had a request in, I knew that there's a lot of unknown there and that I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here coming into a situation which I knew was going to be a little bit of a political hot potato, and I knew there were a lot of issues, and I know that it's important to you.
I had the opportunity to sit at that table - thank you for that invitation - with the people from your community and I see the importance and to its economic well-being, so I asked for that review to be done and to get that information so that I can make an informed recommendation, so that when I'm speaking with my government I have knowledge, background, and I have information.
With all due respect, Mr. Scott, I wasn't just going to take the fact that the decision was made there and say, oh, the decision is made there, we don't have to do any looking or thinking about it - I mean that in no disrespect, I want to know so that when I'm talking on it, I'll have information.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I guess you can understand our - I'm going to say "frustration" on behalf of the community. I don't know of any government that has come in, for example, and I'll use the schools as an issue, where a site has been selected, an announcement has been made, the design is underway, ready to move on site prep and have the government come in and say, hold it now, we don't think we'll build that school there anymore, I think we'll go somewhere else - maybe, maybe not, we're not sure, we'll review that.
[Page 540]
So I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Minister, the anxiety it places on a community and the fact that the community is a little bit skeptical now as to why this decision by your government has been made in regard to reviewing a decision that they were very much part of, that your department was, that announcements were made - money was actually allocated in TCA in the previous budget, which obviously didn't pass, but nevertheless close to $18 million on some projects that would involve this one as well. So I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that the community is considerably upset over this, and I hope you can understand why.
Can you tell me how much it's costing to deliver your review?
MR. LANDRY: Well, I want to come back - I'm going to answer the first part of your question, but I'll answer the second part first. The salaries of the individuals who are working on it, they are already employed, so the costs of administration.
I want to come back to your point about your community and saying that they are disappointed in what we're doing here. Times have changed - it would have been nice had your government put the money in the budget for the two facilities and that they were started, but you didn't, and what we're faced with right now is that if we're building the second institution or if we can only build the one, what changes and modifications? Maybe we're going to end up building a bigger one, if it's in Springhill.
I don't know those answers, but in order to do that we need the additional information. So one can play politics with it - and there is an election on in a couple of ridings - and say this is that, but when I first asked for this review I didn't know that there was a by-election going to be called. I had no access to that information and neither did my staff, it was just called a few weeks ago.
So I have to respect the time that they're going to take to do that. It's quite possible that the jail does go ahead in Springhill and that it's bigger than initially planned for, if there's one. I don't know those answers. What I don't want to do is walk in and make a decision without having all available information and then consult with my colleagues as to the overall impact and where we're going as a government, when it comes to correctional services.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. So you're saying there was not $18 million in TCA that was going to be allocated for these two facilities? I believe $17.1 million was the actual number.
MR. LANDRY: Well $17.1 million won't build two facilities, that much I did know and establish so . . .
MR. SCOTT: It would be in this year's budget, 2009-10.
[Page 541]
MR. LANDRY: There was $18 million in a budget there that was removed, and that's not saying that it's not going to be put back into next year's budget - and there was no need to leave it there if we weren't going to spend it here this year. So that comes back to Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, it is their responsibility. But you didn't make the decision on Antigonish - there was talk, the money wasn't put in there and so that changes the equation a little bit, plus we're in a different economic situation than we were.
I want to get the information so that when I'm talking to my bosses and my peers, I can talk with some type of credibility and understanding that I've been in the communities, that I've consulted with the people, that I've met with the MLA in the area, that I met with the mayor, and that I met with the people and I looked at what the costs were.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you for that, Mr. Minister, and I just want to go back to what you said a moment ago - you said it was too bad that we didn't identify money in the budget for construction of these two facilities. What I said was I believe the number is under $18 million - I think it's $17.1 million - that we identified for capital for this year, 2009-10, the majority of which was going to go to Springhill; in fact, the land would have been under preparation this Fall.
So the decision that you're talking about reviewing - there's been a lot of time, money, a lot of resources spent on bringing it to the point it is now to have this government say, even after the Premier made a commitment during a campaign he will honour commitments, but that seems now not to be the case.
You can cut it any way you want. There was money in there for TCA, on the red pages, there definitely was money allocated for Springhill and there were definitely plans in place, an announcement - I can give you lots of paperwork to show you, and you've seen it already, Mr. Minister. I will say and I do want to say for the record, I really appreciate you coming to Springhill to meet with the mayor and council. You agreed to do that and I really appreciate you doing that, so they could hear from you, first-hand, as much as you could tell them at the time the status of that project - as you said here today and as you've said in the House as well. But you know, again, the government can find $60-plus million to buy land, but can't find money to pay for correctional facilities, which I think are very, very much needed in this province.
You've been fortunate since June, if you look back over the last couple of years what staff in the Department of Justice had to face with correctional facilities in this province, some of the issues and, again, as I said in my opening comments, not any of the doing of the department, it's just things that have happened outside that are not under control of the department, but we're very fortunate in the last three months, or four or five months, that you haven't had to face some of those - but you will, no question about it, given enough time, some of these issues will come again and then you'll really understand and realize how important it is to have facilities built as soon as possible, because whether it's overcrowding,
[Page 542]
whether it's double-bunking, whatever the issues will be, there will be events that will happen that are out of your control and the department's - you'll sit by yourself and know that those facilities and those beds have to be built, and the sooner the better.
Can you tell me what the mandate was? You said Diana MacKinnon is heading up the review of the decision of the previous government about Springhill and Antigonish - is that right?
MR. LANDRY: Well, first I want to clear up a number of things that you're saying there. You know, politics, as I'm learning, is an interesting game of strategy and talk, so words have to be chosen wisely, I think, in a lot of cases. There was $18 million in the budget and no matter how you cut it, whether you want to gab on about the university money or whatever, all that there, I understand that people see the world differently depending on where they're going - I'm talking about in the House here, not you, with all due respect to you, not you personally gabbing on, but what was said in the House there about the money, they keep going on, and I'm not looking at the other (Interruption) Although there's a slight movement over there, but no disrespect.
The debt has changed the way we look at the world, I don't care how you cut that, and it's going to impact. As a government we see the world differently. We may, on this point, end up at the end of the day being at the same point - I'm not saying one way or the other, but we are going to review this issue. We're going to look at the dollar costs of where it is - and if we're only building one facility, what are we doing? If we're building two facilities, what type of facilities are we doing and are they in the best locations where they can be to best serve Nova Scotians?
Timing is everything, and times change. This time last year we didn't know we were going to be in one of the worst economic turndowns in our history - the world changed overnight. I looked at following the dollar there yesterday - just a few months ago we were 70 cents on the American dollar, and we're just about at parity. So there are a lot of things that can change in a global world economy. The point I'm getting at is, as a government, we just can't react to this expenditure blindly. We have to have it well thought out and move the issue forward. So I hope I've answered, or at least given you some understanding of where I'm coming from in regard to this question.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that. The minister had some words there for what the talk around, I guess in politics or whatever, but I think the minister will agree if there's one word, to me whether it's policing or politics, that has to stand true in your whole career - neither one I think can rest upon it - and that's "credibility." So if you say things or do things that aren't credible, in politics or policing, you know yourself the end result, especially in policing.
[Page 543]
I see this as a very clear issue for myself. This government has made the decision to spend multi-millions of dollars on land, but has decided it may not be able to have the money to spend for Corrections. Yes, you're saying if it's reviewed, and maybe it will be the same decision and maybe it won't be. I guess at the end of the day the decision that's taken by this government, the proof is in the pudding. So if you're making a change of location just for the sake of a change in location, then it will be pretty obvious to me why the decision was made. If you make it based on - you're talking about economics and the ability of the province to pay, and I guess we'll have to await your decision to see whether we think it's the right one or not.
I guess something else I want to ask about Corrections and that is in regard to - and again I said earlier I appreciate you coming to Springhill and I really do, Mr. Minister, you met with the councillors and you met with the mayor, and we talked to you that day about why we felt Springhill was chosen and why it's the right place for that facility, and there are many, many reasons I can give you; in fact, I think if you asked any ordinary person who's not really aware of the issue, if you outlined the case for Springhill, I think any logical-thinking person would agree that that's the place for it.
What I wanted to ask you was we talked to you that day at the meeting in regard to the possibilities, and they're only possibilities, but possibilities of some sort of arrangements with the federal government in regard to the fact that there's a federal institution there now, in regard to the fact that federal programs are offered to inmates that possibly are not offered to incarcerated provincial inmates, and I'll leave it at that. So my question to you is, is part of the mandate for Diana MacKinnon to explore one facility, two facilities, where is the best place, why not - is that part of the discussion someone is following up on in regard to meeting with Corrections folks?
I think I had mentioned to you that day that I spoke with them twice - the Minister of Public Safety at the time was Minister Stockwell Day, I met with him twice on this issue, and he was very encouraged by what I had to say and what the possibilities were and he encouraged us to follow up with the local staff, which we did, in Moncton with the assistant commissioner.
So I guess what I'm asking is, has Diana MacKinnon been mandated to follow up with the federal government, Corrections Canada, to see what opportunities there may be to save this province and your department very scarce dollars? As I heard you say, and I agree with you on that, there may be an opportunity to partner with the federal government and save dollars - maybe not so much at the outset in regard to capital, but certainly in the out-years in regard to operating. So I'm wondering if that's part of the mandate so you'll get a true picture at the end of the day of what is the right thing to do.
[Page 544]
[6:15 p.m.]
MR. LANDRY: You say quite a few things there, so I'll try to recapture the whole works of it here and I will answer that question at the end. First, I agree with you fully on credibility, it's important. How one sees the world and how one expresses it has an impact. On the issue of land and spending millions of dollars on it, I understand that the land was donated by the town to the province in regard to the land in Springhill - I stand to be corrected. So when we talk about millions of dollars being spent there, we're going to look at what the population base is, the case for the courts, the distances from the hospitals, the highways, the ambulances, the police, the court system, et cetera, water, how many dollars are already spent on the site and assessments - a number of things will be taken into that decision.
Moving forward to the question that you're asking at hand - I had done a quick review and tried to establish prior to going - and we did have a conversation in Springhill in regard to the partnership with the federal government, and my initial review of the file and information that I had access to didn't show me where there was ever any discussion and I think if I remember correctly, and I do stand to be corrected, that those were private conversations that you personally had, but notes weren't dedicated to file in regard to your discussions with the federal ministers in regard to possible partnership, and so there would be no way for me to have accessed that, and I think in fairness to the lady, Ms. MacKinnon, doing the study without access or directing her to that point, she would have no reference on which to make the connection.
If you're making the suggestion, I want to assure you that I am always looking for partnerships and ways to collaborate with other jurisdictions in service delivery. For example, at the recent Atlantic Justice Ministers Conference I raised that very point about what are some of the things that we can do collectively or collaboratively in regard to prisoners, to policing, to the way that we do business - how can we look at things differently?
Maybe in some small way the point that you're making was one of the triggers in the discussion in regard to that - so if it did have an impact there, I thank you for that input. But you're right about there are ways for us to work, and there's a saying that I've learned in politics: any time a federal dollar is there, that's a real good dollar if that's in the process. So to answer specifically your question, no, it's not part of her mandate because there's no reference point for her, but I'm not saying in the future here or in some part of the process that that's ruled out.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. So for the record, I'm asking the Minister of Justice for the Province of Nova Scotia to initiate discussions with federal Corrections Canada who are interested - and you'll have to take my word for it, I guess, because I don't have a piece of paper to prove it to you - who are very interested in exploring the opportunity of a joint facility, joint services with adjacent facilities at Springhill. Anyway, the honourable
[Page 545]
minister could have staff contact the assistant commissioner - I can get her name and number for you if you wish, in Moncton. Peter Van Loan is the new Minister of Public Safety. I've got a call in there now, and I'm hoping you would at least have your staff talk to them to explore the opportunities.
Capital is one thing always with government, but operating in the out-years is always the big concern and I understand that. I think there is tremendous opportunity. If you're going to give this a fair assessment, then you can't just look at community A and community B and say if we build it here it's going to cost that much, but if we build it here it's going to cost that much and, by the way, it's so far to go to court. The federal institution at Springhill is taking inmates to court - I won't say on a daily basis, there may be days they don't go, but there are many days in the week federal inmates are being transported to the court in Amherst and I'm sure that those vans have lots of room in them.
I guess what I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I think there are lots of opportunities if this government is serious about a decision the previous government made, in exploring it - and I understand what you have said here tonight, which you have said the last couple of weeks, if you're serious about exploring whether this is feasible or not, there are many, many things that have to be taken into consideration, and one is the opportunity to partner with the federal government, because they offer services, as I said earlier, at the federal institution that you don't offer provincially.
We were criticized over the years because inmates don't have access to - and I'll give you an example - psychiatric service. Now there is some level of service, I think, available on a need-be basis, but I don't think as such is available at the federal institution at Springhill for example - or around addiction or all types of programming. There is an opportunity to look at, in regard to the operating, laundries, maintenance facilities, kitchen facilities, and I know those in themselves cause some concern because it means you have to deal with contracts and all of that, but it's worth looking at because if you can save money in the coming years, why won't you look at that?
As was mentioned to you the day we met, the issue on geothermal. We have companies in Springhill that are taking advantage of the geothermal heat that is only available in mining communities when it is using mine water, which is about 15 degrees warmer than groundwater - for example, the Ropak plant is saving about 40 per cent in energy costs. Now, I would think that someone would want to take a look at that and say is that the right thing to do - should we look at this or should we not? If you explore that - and, by the way, I spoke to some engineers who have been to Springhill over at the community college and I think that you will find there is probably ample water that is seeping from the mines very close to this location that you could probably take advantage of geothermal.
So there are tremendous, tremendous opportunities. You know full well the Executive Director of the Atlantic Police Academy, Edgar MacLeod - have you, Mr. Minister, ever
[Page 546]
spoken to Edgar about the possibility of partnering with policing training here in Nova Scotia since you have become the minister in June?
MR. LANDRY: The deputy has expressed that she has, but I haven't had the opportunity yet. I'm hoping to get over to see Mr. MacLeod.
I want to come back to correct an assumption that when you talked earlier about your word and about speaking it - I don't question that, that you had those conversations, your integrity around that issue, in no way do I doubt it nor do I question it. My reference point was that I didn't have any notes or anything for me to refer other than the time that you introduced it to me when we were in Springhill. So to expect somebody within my staff to explore that, no, but I did give you credit in the sense of you dropping the seed in that collaboration when I was at the ministers' conference which was subsequent to our meeting and that I am looking at that. I think any time that we, as governments, can find ways to reduce our costs and bring partnerships in, that we have to explore that further.
At this point, for me to go and make partnerships or to explore, I first want to get over that review. I'm hoping that within the next couple of weeks or so that I'll have it in my hands, and then the next month or so that that part of the decision is made and is before my peers and within the government system to get some decision made and then move forward. I agree with you that anytime we can partner or we can find a collaborative relationship to reduce our costs and increase our efficiencies, that's the way to go. It also helps our carbon footprint - the simple thing of moving prisoners is a good example.
MR. SCOTT: I guess I'm getting more concerned now because if I understand right, you have determined that someone in your department is going to look at the review of the decision, but they're not following up on the possibility of partnership with the federal government - are they looking at the issue of geothermal?
MR. LANDRY: Yes. I want to caution you a little bit - you're heavy on the review of the decision in Springhill. It is a review of the decision of building - of whether we can only build one jail, where is it going to be built, does it meet our needs, or do we need to expand one. Given the logic that was presented here earlier by yourself, if we went ahead and built the facility based on where we were last Spring, and we're not able to build a second facility, then one could reasonably assume that maybe we need to make modifications - so how do we get to that point? You need to look at the overall texture of the question and the issue in its broader concept and that, hopefully, is what we're going to be doing. So let's wait and see where we get from there.
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, what I'm getting at here, if I recall right, three years ago when I was in Justice, it's pretty hard to justify building a new facility in Cumberland County just to replace what you have now with the same number of beds. When you look at what it will cost for the capital construction and the fact that when that jail was built in downtown
[Page 547]
Amherst 100 years ago, all it needed was the space that it sat on, but now with the buffer zones that are required and all the other issues around a safety net, you know when you require possibly 30-plus acres, it is pretty hard to justify replacing an existing facility with a facility of the same size. So how do you build a facility in a community, in a county, keep that service there - justify building that type of facility?
What was readily identified was the possibility of a partnership - that's what lead to looking at the size, which we talked about here lately, we talked about location, exchanging services with the federal government, programs that are available, and even talking about training. The federal Government of Canada, which I think is probably unique in itself, has just finished their second core training, correctional training, in Springhill at the community centre because there is no other place to do it. So they just ran two core training programs at the community centre and I have had discussions with the federal government about the fact that the federal government owns a fairly new armoury in Springhill, it is very much underutilized, lots of classroom space, it has a gymnasium and it has an underground firing range - now, the firing range hasn't been used in the last few years, three, four or five years, I forget, but it would probably require some upgrades.
So back to what I was saying earlier, to build a case for a replacement facility in Cumberland County and given the fact that it's pretty hard to justify just replacing the existing one with the same number of beds, how do you go bigger and make it justifiable - then you have to look at other opportunities, and I think those opportunities are with the federal government. I agree with you, if there are federal dollars available, they've run two of those core programs at Springhill because Springhill is one of the most credible federal institutions in Canada. Don't take my word for it, ask Corrections Canada where they rate Springhill. It is a very dedicated workforce and welcomed by the community - just about every organization in Springhill supports it.
I can go on about all kinds of things. There is a place called Springhouse, it is run actually by the Catholic Church and it's a place that actually accommodates families who come to visit. I asked the chairperson of it, within the last two weeks, that if there was a new facility in Springhill, provincial, would they consider allowing families who are there to visit loved ones at institutions provincially, would they also allow them to use that facility. They said absolutely yes. The community fundraises on a regular basis for this service in the community, and there are addiction services in the community.
I can go on and on, Mr. Chairman. I know what you're saying, Mr. Minister, wait for the review, but I'm afraid now from what I've heard tonight that the review is going to be a very light review. If you're not looking at the federal government - you said you're going to be looking at geothermal, and I'm glad of that, but if you're not going to look at what opportunities there may be, and if nobody has spoken to Edgar MacLeod at the Police Academy, he told me within the last two weeks that he would be very interested in partnering with someone here with the Province of Nova Scotia and the feds with regard to training -
[Page 548]
they do correctional training as well. They're all the time reviewing their curriculum or whatever with the federal government in regard to meeting their needs as well.
There is a tremendous opportunity, Mr. Minister, and I hope that we don't lose that opportunity by doing a review that is just enough so we can say that we did the review and then move on to something else, when there was tremendous opportunity here for all kinds of reasons to partner and to actually address the issue around operating costs, and look at occupational health and safety issues around inmates and staff, and to enter a community that is very welcoming and really looking forward.
Let me go back to what I said earlier. The decision had already been made so to review what you're doing now is to review to do something different, not what was already done.
MR. LANDRY: I want to start by saying that I'm finding this whole issue of politics and being the minister and so on, and sitting in the House, is quite a learning experience. There are some very artful and skilled people - and I put you in that category, being artful and skilled - and I'm learning some things. But I want to make something clear to you, that when we keep using the word about the review that it means the end of your facility - it's like what I read in the paper on the weekend where the interim Leader of the Opposition made a comment that the government is not going to build the jail in Antigonish - the more that you put that out there, maybe it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy, because that's not in my mind. All I'm trying to do is get some information about the issue so I can constructively talk with my peers and my colleagues in regard to what to recommend and what we're going to do when we start looking at what dollars things take, and I'm going to be informed.
I guess if people say it's not going to be built there, or that the government has made their mind up, I learned a long time ago about the concept of self-fulfilling prophesy - you say it enough times it will come true. Hopefully my mind is open, and it's still open on the issue - all I want to do is get the information, read what the report says.
[6:30 p.m.]
I thank you for reiterating the conversation we had before. I want to acknowledge that I know this is a very important issue to Springhill; I know that it's a very passionate issue with you personally and that it goes to your heart - I can see that in your language, both your body and your verbal language. I hear you, and we can talk on this issue until the cows come home, but until I read that report from day one that we spoke on this until the day I start to read that report, my position and concept will be the same.
I do agree with you - any time that we can look at federal partnerships or any partnership, or energy benefits that are green, that's important, and I haven't lost sight. I think those are key factors.
[Page 549]
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I guess just a last question around that issue, then we'll go on to other things. Will the minister at least commit to ensuring that as this review is unfolding - and I think I heard you say it should be ready in a couple of weeks - that all the things I've talked about with you, with the Premier, that we've talked about here tonight in the House, all those issues will be given full consideration before a final decision is made?
MR. LANDRY: Absolutely, and I want to reiterate my point about skillfulness in the House and people's ability to get their point across - you're very skilled at it, I hear you clearly.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you for that, I really appreciate it and I can tell you the mayor and council in the community that I represent will appreciate you giving them the consideration you've just said.
I just want to change it a little bit in regard to the Province of Nova Scotia and obviously the minister even understands this way better than I do, and that's the issue around contract policing in the province, municipal versus RCMP, and I know that 2012 is quickly approaching. I wonder, could the minister tell me what communication his department has had with the RCMP in regard to discussions about 2012 and if there is anything you can enlighten me on in regard to what we possibly may see happen over the next two years?
MR. LANDRY: As you know, within the brotherhood, being a former police officer, policing is important. Once you're a police officer and you've been out on the front lines, you never lose sight in that the colour barrier of the uniform comes down. One of your colleagues made a comment about the municipal relationship or not supportive of municipal police - I was a municipal police officer and I'm totally dedicated to policing and to police officers, so I want to just make sure that that point is clear. I met with all the chiefs of police and heard a number of points that are of interest to them. I met with the RCMP and we talked about 2012; in fact, I met with Deputy Commissioner Madill from Ottawa and I also met with the commissioner and voiced the concerns that, as a province, having a provincial police force is critical to the overall security of Nova Scotia.
At the present time, the RCMP is the provincial police force and to be able to maintain our funding cost arrangements, without getting into too much detail about overall contract issues, I express the importance of trying to maintain some of our present relationships on dollar costing. I recently met with Mr. Van Loan from the federal government and reiterated our point to have contracts maintained and the importance of this relationship. I also had discussions with the chiefs of police asking them that if they had any alternative approach to policing, of how it can be more cost effective, we're open.
Decisions are going to have to be made within the next year, but I am open to looking at any option that improves the security of Nova Scotia, that allows us to align our partnerships from a national and international perspective, it is vital to the ability of this
[Page 550]
province to be protected as a whole and to ensure the economic commerce and stability of the province to be competitive, and to ensure that we align ourselves with NAFTA arrangements and the global community. So those are critical elements in dealing with the RCMP from a federal level, that they're vital, and then from a provincial policing, if they end up being our provincial police force it's very important that we have very clear communications and that we have a very good understanding that this province is going to align itself with our national partners and international relationships.
MR. SCOTT: Could you explain the 70/30 funding formula and how that works in this province?
MR. LANDRY: Well, if I understand it correctly, there are a number of different arrangements but in some communities, predominantly those that are on an historical contract, that they have a 70 per cent relationship, they can maintain the 30 per cent, but I think all populations under 5,000 have a 70/30 relationship right now.
What's at issue is in the Halifax Regional Municipality area we have the RCMP that in some areas it's 70/30 but after the amalgamation of the region, now that it's part of the Halifax region, it creates some legal concept about whether or not those percentages can still be maintained. So one of the negotiating points, or discussion points, is on whether it's 70/30, 90/10 or 100 per cent, and if you start to look at those factors, it can have an impact on any contractual arrangements, so we're discussing those.
MR. SCOTT: Maybe the minister can't tell me this, but I'm wondering, has there been any suggestion from the federal government to do away with that 70/30?
MR. LANDRY: My understanding is that those places that fall in a certain population range that the 70/30, as I understand it, is on the table. Now of course until the paper is signed, no contract is worth its weight unless it's signed or the verbal contract is not worth its weight.
I understand that the 70/30 is still on the board. The real issue comes down to the Halifax Regional Municipality area where we have a centre core mass of resources that are important to the stability of the province as a whole, and that's a critical element in this negotiation.
MR. SCOTT: In regard to policing, the previous government had announced that, I believe, an additional 35 positions this year, both between the RCMP and municipal - can the minister tell me what the status of that announcement is? I believe I'm right, I believe there were 35 . . .
MR. LANDRY: The number is 33.
[Page 551]
MR. SCOTT: Okay, 33 . . .
MR. LANDRY: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't finish my answer - I'm a little slow tonight, I'm fighting a bit of a bug, so I'm not quite as quick on the answers, my thought process - we are going to fill the 33.
MR. SCOTT: I thank the minister for that, that's a great answer.
MR. LANDRY: You may want to follow up.
MR. SCOTT: No, you just said you filled the 33 positions, that's all you said.
You should take some Cold-FX for that, it will fix you up.
We have heard in the House, over the last couple of weeks, mention about some positions in your own community and some positions in Cape Breton and I think there was some discussion about whether they were actually officially announced or commitments made. I know there have been some questions in the House over that, so would those positions in Cape Breton and Pictou, for example - and by the way, I want to say that when I was in your position one of the first policing communities that came to me in regard to the Boots on the Streets program or the safer communities issue that needs to be addressed were in fact the RCMP and the Municipality of Pictou, chiefs, and I believe they're doing a phenomenal job with the additional resources they have been given since that time it was announced, three years ago, I guess by the former government.
I guess my question, Mr. Minister, was that you said those 33 positions would be filled, and does that include the ones in Cape Breton and the ones in Pictou as well, that we've heard talk about for the last little while?
MR. LANDRY: I think it would be very negligent on my part as the Minister of Justice to turn around and say that we're going to put 33 police officers on front-line policing. I think that if we're locked in, where the positions go, that decision hasn't been finalized. We need to be strategically focused, and when I talk about that in regard to policing, as you might have recalled from my opening statement, if you were here for that, Nova Scotia is at 199 police officers per 100,000.
We also know that Internet crime is on the increase; we also know that we need, as I mentioned in my report here, the potential for some police officers who investigate police officers, they want a change in that - they want an independent investigative team; we know that there are outstanding warrants and backlogs and are clogging the courts up and causing extra costs to police officers; we know that we have to have a stronger partnership with our provincial police forces and municipal police forces and they need to integrate their services more; and we know that Prosecution Services is under tremendous strain, because of Boots
[Page 552]
on the Street, to deal with some of the crimes that are occurring - especially as we look at the proceeds of crime and other complex fraud cases that come forward, aside from the money laundering cases.
I met with the chiefs of police and they outlined a number of supports that they would like to get from the Department of Justice in regard to crime prevention.
The RCMP outlined a number of concerns in strengthening their support with civil forfeiture and co-operating with the municipal police to have more of a collaboration on crime.
I've also read a number of books lately concerning where policing is today and where policing needs to be for tomorrow, and one of the key questions is do we have the leadership within policing right now - and I'm coming back to your question within Justice - do we have the leadership in policing today to take us to where crime is today and where it is going tomorrow, or do we still want to invest in leadership of yesterday and the thinking of putting a police officer in a patrol car to drive around the streets or to walk up and down the streets as the security?
Our threat is greater from outside than inside, so when we start to look at these 33 positions, we need a Minister of Justice who is looking at where we're going to go and how do we take these positions and focus them where we need it, in crime prevention and civil forfeiture and the support mechanism, and be looking at organized crime.
I mentioned earlier about national and international partnership. If we are focused on the singular unit of the well-being of a police force, then we're going to fail - we need to look at the province as a whole. We need the chief in Cape Breton, the police commander in Yarmouth or the chief of police in New Glasgow, or in Halifax, or the policing commander in Pictou County, or wherever, they need to be focused on the same direction of that infiltration of crime, and the small-town police department can't deal with crime that's dealing with cyber-based crime, organized crime, because they're coming into our communities.
So the answer on the 33 positions, it would be negligent of me to put 33 police officers on the street without taking all those other considerations, and that's what we're looking at right now. I'm hearing Justice, I'm hearing Legal Aid services - because the impact that this has had on Legal Aid, it has been profound. The question was asked earlier, are we increasing resources to Legal Aid? Well, I've got to find some resources there to help deal with that. There's a poverty issue in Nova Scotia and that's one of the ways to address that issue.
When we look at drugs in Cape Breton, we need to put officers in there to help address that. Is the drug domestic or is it external, is it prescription done by a medical base or is it organized crime drugs? Two different types of approaches. So I'm talking with the chiefs. As
[Page 553]
far as the positions for Cape Breton, we're looking at how we meet their needs and their expectations, and in Pictou County, an interesting question that you raise there - as the commander there we asked, for four or five years, I asked for an extra body for the reserve.
[6:45 p.m.]
The high schools - I get calls from them, the MLA who's now the chairman here and the MLA for Pictou West, asking what you're doing about getting resources in our school. Is there a disproportion of resources in one police community? As the MLA for Pictou Centre, put them all there. As the Minister of Justice, I have to be more constructive in saying what's in the best interest of the province as a whole and what are the interests in the other high schools that are there. It's not just a simple answer and, let me assure you, I support the chief in New Glasgow, I support the municipal police officers in Pictou County and the hard and difficult job that they do, while at the same time I recognize the needs of that other school in Alma to get a school resource officer there when one school already has two resources and one has none.
As the Minister of Justice, I have to look at those questions. So to specifically answer your question - they're being reviewed. So to say whether the two positions are going there yet, I'm not sure, but I know the next time I see the chief of the reserves she's probably going to whisper in my ear: when are we getting the other position for the reserve when we've got one that's going in the school? Well, a proposal to put one in the school, maybe we should let the chief make a contribution to that decision. So there are some interesting shifts there, but I want to assure you that I'm committed and I'm excited about that.
I do want to also come back - that I'm also doing a number of consultations. I'm going to take the chance in the next little while to talk to a number of academics, and I've talked to the director of the Canadian Police College since coming into my position about policing trends and where do we need to be looking and how do we need to be deploying the resources so that we're getting the best bang for our dollar, while at the same time increasing the highest level of security we can in policing for this province. We want to be a leader. I see us being a leader, and having the director of policing that we have, and his staff, I put them second to no one in that they're prepared for this task. So there are some exciting times here.
I hope I've given you a lot of information that will add for future discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, I was going to give you a five-minute warning but the Justice Minister's answer was quite long, so you have about two and a half minutes left.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the minister and, you know, I enjoyed his answer actually.
[Page 554]
I don't want you to jump in and answer yet because I want to finish off, but what I was trying to ask was you had said 33, and I just wondered if that encompassed those 10 and two positions - I guess 10 in Cape Breton and New Glasgow as well - those positions, or those requests for positions, are in the 33? Those aren't over and above, they're not above the 33? They're not 12 more above the 33, I guess is what I was asking?
MR. LANDRY: They're included and they're in there - and I just want to add we put positions in Halifax.
It's important that we start to look at policing differently. If we're focused on a singular community, we're in trouble. If a particular community has a particular need - for example, there's a high ratio of drug distribution on prescription drugs in one of our communities - how do we approach that, what resourcing do we do? - and we can target on that.
Also, I want to just reassure you, we're going to invest greater in education and crime prevention and that money is not going to go directly to the police, it's going to go to the communities and the communities are going to work with the police departments. We need that partnership and that collaboration. We can only police those - and you know this all too well - who wish to be policed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: One last question, please.
MR. SCOTT: More comment, and I will save some questions I had for later, I guess.
I think if I remember my days in the Department of Justice - B.C. was the province, I think they did some sort of a pro-rated-type effect that additional police officers on the street, what effect it had on justice, courts, judges, probation, legal aid, the legal community and probation, all the way through. I think B.C. has already done that actual kind of impact study to see what an additional officer means in the system - maybe your staff have already looked at that.
The other thing I wanted to mention to you as well that they shouldn't forget. I heard what you said about the international, looking at globally, outside of our province, but I hope you don't - the minister has been around policing even longer than I have so I'm sure you'd appreciate that I remember back when two and three joints being sold to a young person at high school was very important to both local forces and the RCMP and the drug section members at the time . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Time has expired.
MR. LANDRY: I want to give an answer, if I may.
[Page 555]
MR. CHAIRMAN: It will have to be very brief because the time has expired for the caucus.
MR. LANDRY: The Mexican cartels are coming and if we're worried about the joint in the school, it's over. That is an issue for local schools and communities and it's important to the police from one level but we need, as a government that's responsible for the Province of Nova Scotia, to focus on the integrity of our province as a whole and our borders. We can talk more on it, I look forward to that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now recognize the Liberal caucus for one hour, from 6:50 p.m. to 7:50 p.m.
The honourable member for Richmond.
HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is good to see you in your position.
Mr. Minister, you announced that, I believe, either we have or we're just about to hire a new Deputy Chief Medical Examiner. Is that correct?
MR. LANDRY: That's correct, but just before I move away from that answer, on your earlier point about the consumer price index issue, it's 1.3, just so you know, so I don't forget that.
MR. SAMSON: Okay, it's 1.3.
Going back on the issue of the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, are you saying we have hired one or we're about to?
MR. LANDRY: We've hired one and we're about to hire a third person to work in that facility.
MR. SAMSON: The other thing you mentioned is that there has been $525,000 set aside for design of a new facility - I guess a couple of questions on that. First of all, is that $525,000 in your department or from the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal?
MR. LANDRY: The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal has the money.
MR. SAMSON: They have the money, okay. What exactly is planned for that new facility? Is it going to be forensics and a morgue as well, or what is the plan with that specific facility?
[Page 556]
MR. LANDRY: The plan of action for that facility is to accomplish both goals, as you outlined there. I also want to state that we want to modernize. We're in a global environment and when you look at the trends, when we talk about H1N1 and other types of transferrable diseases that are occurring, we're going to need to modernize our morgue facilities in this regard to deal with potential issues down the road and ensure public safety, and so we're committed to that.
MR. SAMSON: I had the opportunity with the previous minister, along with the Leader of your Party, now Premier, and the deputy minister, to visit a couple of the sites in Miami-Dade and to see what services they have both on the forensic side and on the side of the morgue that they had, the work that was being done there. We then had the opportunity to see what we have here in Nova Scotia and especially what we have here in the city. I don't know if you've had the opportunity yet - and I would encourage you to do so - but I can tell you it was embarrassing what we have here, both embarrassing for the families and embarrassing for the doctors and the medical examiners that we have here.
I commend the minister at the time and the deputy for having both myself and the now Premier there, because I think obviously it's going to be a significant investment by our province, but certainly it brought to light to us an issue that we don't regularly talk about or we don't regularly think of in our everyday lives, but certainly it's an important aspect of law enforcement, it's an important aspect of determining what has caused fatalities in our province, and in the services that are available to the families. So it seems that I heard the minister say that you have chosen a site and you're about to purchase the land. I'm just curious, I'm assuming that site is somewhere within the Halifax Regional Municipality?
MR. LANDRY: It's in the Dartmouth area and I want to just reiterate that I agree with you about the embarrassing facility and the impact on families, and that's one of the things that this government wants to try to do, of course - we marketed ourselves on being here for today's families and that's just another principle, and it's not just one thing that we need to do in government, it's across the board, and this is one area, especially for those who are affected in a very difficult time.
MR. SAMSON: Just so I understand correctly, what I recall from the time is that right now when it comes to any sort of ballistic analysis, residue, everything else, for the most part we send everything up to the RCMP lab in Ottawa, as I think the other Atlantic Provinces do, and one of the discussions at the time was whether Nova Scotia could be a regional centre to do that work here and keep it here rather than sending all the work up to Ottawa and the time frames involved and everything else. Just so I understand correctly - are you looking at establishing that type of service here in Nova Scotia or are you just looking at enhancing the facilities that we currently have here in the province?
MR. LANDRY: We're looking at enhancing the services that we do here in the province. As to whether or not we would bypass the federal labs that are there that are well-
[Page 557]
established with an expertise, I'm not sure you would want to move away from the RCMP lab system that they have. I mean, you have people who get transferred and moved across the country, and they're highly developed and skilled in their areas - although if I thought there was an opportunity to reduce costs and market something or make a buck for the province, I would be open to it. But with the regional labs that specialize in certain areas, it's pretty hard to compete.
MR. SAMSON: And I think that's what the discussion was at the time, whether there was a cost benefit to us establishing something here in the province and feeding with Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, that we would be able to provide that service here rather than having to send it all up to Ottawa. So I would certainly encourage the minister to continue pursuing that opportunity to see if it does make sense here.
One of the issues when the minister was talking about crime prevention, he mentioned as far as youth crime the establishment, I think you called it the Lighthouse Program, and I think you said there was $250,000 available through that. Could you just provide us with - is this a new program, is it a continuing program? What exactly is this and, more importantly I guess, as members of this House, how do we get our hands on applications for this program?
MR. LANDRY: It's a grant-based program and whether it's new or not, the whole Lighthouse concept for me, personally, is a bit of a - it throws me off here in Nova Scotia, but I can see where the name came from and some of its history when I read up on it, but it's a grant-based program where each program will get a basic $12,000 and then in some areas we'll look at some unique situations and try to provide support funding.
What I have on crime prevention, one of my goals as the Minister of Justice is to try to increase our commitment to crime prevention and have communities come forward with recommendations and potential solutions to problems that are in their communities that are unique to their area and to work with them to find solutions. There's an application process for this money and the criteria will be out shortly - and it will be on the Internet.
MR. SAMSON: One of the challenges with these programs is that often members - and if members aren't aware, one can presume it's more difficult for community groups to be aware as well of some of this funding that's available. If I understood correctly, you're saying it's maximum $12,000 available per application. I'm curious, is there a cost- sharing to this or is this a $12,000 grant that's available to community groups or organizations that put forward a proposal under this program?
MR. LANDRY: Yes, it's roughly $12,000.
I want to come back to your earlier point and it's in direct grants - the communication issue and I think that's like when we're dealing with putting it on the Internet, but if you're finding that in here - I know a number of my colleagues have come to me and asked me about
[Page 558]
programs for their own areas and I say, well look, touch base with this office here, get the information, get back to me if you're having difficulty. I don't care where the MLA sits, if they have issues when it comes to crime prevention in their community and they're having difficulty, I'll take their call and I'll follow up on it.
MR. SAMSON: Is this Lighthouse Program similar to the Safer Streets program that was available under the previous government, or is this a completely new program?
[7:00 p.m.]
MR. LANDRY: This program is modelled after Manitoba, they had one there and that's where the term "lighthouse" - but to me it had more of an effect out in Manitoba because it's not like in Nova Scotia, but we kept the name, so it's following that Manitoba model.
MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, could the minister give us an example of what types of projects you see being funded by this program?
MR. LANDRY: I think you're limited by your imagination as it relates to the issues that your community is faced with, and if it's community-focused on the needs of your community then I encourage people to have an open mind, be creative and come forward and be able to demonstrate how they can be effective. It's crime prevention, that's what we're after.
MR. SAMSON: So it is crime prevention, not youth crime. It's not a youth crime initiative, it's just an overall crime prevention initiative.
MR. LANDRY: Yes, it's overall, and I'm going to keep repeating this when we come to crime prevention. This government, this minister is committed to community programs and crime prevention within the community. Youths are a particular area, but the senior, as a market for potential crime, that market is expanding as the senior gets older. Cash flow changes to more credit card and bank systems - the criminal is coming after them so we have to have programs in place, and education.
MR. SAMSON: That's another issue I want to raise because the Safer Streets initiative certainly tended to have a focus on youth-type of programs. I know my own riding benefited from funding for the Chapel Island First Nation for a youth centre that they were putting in place, and we also had some funding for a skateboard park in Arichat that was going to be installing some lighting and video surveillance, which were, again, important initiatives to encourage young people to stay active and not become involved in crime.
Right now is it safe to say that the only funding available in your department for community groups for crime prevention would be through this Lighthouse Program?
[Page 559]
MR. LANDRY: No, that's not correct.
MR. SAMSON: Would the minister be so kind as to advise us what other funding is available for community groups within the Department of Justice?
MR. LANDRY: Right now we have $180,000 - got a project?
MR. SAMSON: I missed something there. You have $180,000 for what?
MR. LANDRY: Additional funds in crime prevention. The Lighthouse Program has $240,000.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. So it's $240,000 for the Lighthouse Program, and now you're saying another fund of $180,000. What is that fund for and, again, how do you get applications for that fund?
MR. LANDRY: The applications are being developed and will be out shortly. I want to stress to the honourable member that I encourage each and every one of the MLAs in the 52 ridings to be looking at ways we can actually reduce crime in their area. But as a government, as well, we're going to look at programs that affect certain regions more than others and try to invest in that as well.
MR. SAMSON: If I'm not mistaken, under the Lighthouse Program, if you have a $240,000 budget with a maximum of $12,000, you've got a potential of 20 projects for the Province of Nova Scotia under that program. Now you're saying that you have another program you're developing, I think you said the budget was $180,000. What is the name of that program?
MR. LANDRY: It's just money that is there in crime prevention, it's not a program. It's just monies that we have in the budget for community development when it comes to issues of crime and, whether it's seniors or dealing with youth, there is no shortage in demand. Advertising, education - there's a program that's dear to my heart, for example the Adopt-A-Library program and the great work that's being done there. I wanted to expand in that area and have already asked for further involvement, and we're going to expand that program, as one example.
MR. SAMSON: I don't know if I'm the only one confused here, but you're saying you have $180,000 for a crime prevention program that has no name, has no applications, but everyone's invited to apply for it. Do you understand my confusion here? You don't have a name for this fund and you don't have any applications for this fund, but it's $180,000. It sounds great, but can you provide more clarity as to how community groups can access this funding?
[Page 560]
MR. LANDRY: First off I want to say that if you're confused we'll try to clarify that a little bit. We're in the process of developing a protocol for applying for that money, but that money is there. If you came in today and said look, is there any money for crime prevention within our community, we would say, yes, we've got money in there. We're developing actual criteria of which to spend it on, but we would look at whatever requests came in.
We're getting a request, as I gave the example, the Adopt-A-Library came forward. I went to the department and said do we have monies for such programs? They said, yes, we have $180,000 here, we're developing the criteria, let's get it together and go back and tell them we'll try to get something done there. The same as the Crime Prevention Committee, the community group in Pictou County, for example, they are delivering a lot of services throughout the county, and of course the major part is rural, 26,000 people living in the rural area versus the 20,000 in and around the four towns, and their vehicle is falling apart. We said let's look at a way that we can help support you with your programs and we'll go from there. So the criteria are being developed.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister would appreciate that it is pretty difficult to encourage community groups to apply to a program that they don't know what the criteria are, they don't know what the name of the program is, and they don't know what the deadlines are or anything else. I'm hoping that's going to be done quickly because obviously we all have groups that could possibly benefit from that, but it's a bit difficult now to encourage them to put applications in for something that even we can't really describe what it is, other than saying it's $180,000.
You said there was a cap of $12,000 on the Lighthouse Program. Will there be a cap on this crime prevention funding of $180,000?
MR. LANDRY: I'm going to answer that question, but I'm going to take a few other points on this.
It has been said in the House a number of times - you have your 50 days in, your 90 days in, now we're up to 100-some days, why don't you have the world changed and everything done? We are a new government and the very question you asked about why don't we have this all established, well nothing could be established until the budget was put in. So I was told there are monies there, we've got the budget, the budget is now in. So only a few days - and the budget is actually not in yet, so once the budget is finalized, we're in the process now of putting the criteria together and we'll get that information out.
I do understand where you're coming from and I am sensitive to where you're coming from, but we're in a unique year where we had an election, the previous budget was held off and we're now at this stage of the game. This is where we are.
[Page 561]
MR. SAMSON: Well, we could debate this point all night, Mr. Minister, but I believe that some of the frustration you've heard in the House is because some of your colleagues who were in Opposition may have left Nova Scotians with the impression that somehow an NDP Government would be able to perform miracles and, unfortunately, I think we're seeing now, as per your answer, that that's not the case. So I think that's why. Unfortunately there may have been unreasonable expectations on you and some of your newly elected colleagues that, again, are unreasonable, but I would recommend that you talk to your colleagues previously elected as to why there may be that kind of impression amongst Nova Scotians.
You indicated you're purchasing 300 new protective vests for the correctional workers in Nova Scotia. One of my questions is that your Party, while in Opposition, criticized the practice of double-bunking at the Burnside correctional facility. I'm curious as to whether as Minister of Justice you intend to continue the practice of double-bunking at that particular facility and other facilities in Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: Before I answer that question, I'm just going to come back to your previous point where you ended the last part of the discussion there - that's politics, the expectation on this government, but I will assure you as the minister that if you have an issue and you come to me personally, I'll try to work constructively with you in a positive way in the best interests of your constituency and every one of the 51 other constituencies in Nova Scotia to ensure that we have quality service and that we're reaching the expectations of the community.
On the issue of the 300 vests and the double-bunking, I see two different issues. That's a security issue, a safety issue for workplace safety, and we see that as a valuable asset in the protection of our most-prized resources, our human resource, within the correctional facilities. On the issue of double-bunking, I'm against double-bunking - I will pull no punches on that.
We're faced with the present situation where we're taking over from a government that I feel that it's long overdue, the issue of addressing Corrections. They had 10 years to get it done. It's not done, and we're now faced with the issue - to come in and address the issue of jails. I'm not against double-bunking if the facility is designed for that purpose or with that purpose in mind and that you have appropriate staffing levels in place to meet the demand of what that would do in a facility. So if the building is not designed for that, I'm against it. If it's designed for it and you have appropriate staffing levels, then I think that would be acceptable.
MR. SAMSON: Does the Minister of Justice believe that the Burnside correctional facility was designed to allow for double-bunking?
MR. LANDRY: Well, I had the pleasure to go through Burnside and I saw some of the facilities and we both already know the answer. It wasn't designed for that purpose and I don't like what I see in there, but I have to respect the fact that we're working with what we
[Page 562]
have. I do want to comment though that I truly respect and value the employee who has to go in there and work in those conditions. I also have an understanding for the client who's housed in the facility and has to reside there.
Now some people in the community are probably saying too bad, so sad that they don't have it, but I don't think that in a humane, democratic, respectful community or society that that's the way to deal with our prisoners. So I think that changes need to be done and I think that for being in a job for just over 100-some days, I've been pretty active in getting up to speed on this issue and consulting with a wide range of stakeholders and people affected by this issue, to get my knowledge level up, and we're going to take some action and it will be done soon.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not surprised by the answer about the double- bunking; we were of the belief ourselves that it wasn't designed for that purpose. Unfortunately, a number of your staff have publicly stated that the Burnside correctional facility was designed with the purpose of double-bunking in mind, and tomorrow we'll go and get the research and get the media comments that have been made regarding that.
So I just want to ask again, is it the minister's belief that it's not designed for double-bunking or are his department officials now agreeing that the Burnside facility was never built for double-bunking purposes?
MR. LANDRY: You may be correct in saying it was never designed or built for the purpose of double-bunking - I'm not really sure about that. I understand that looking at the facility I would say that's probably the answer. I think what we're faced with here is that whether it's double-bunking or not, we know that two people in there don't have the space that's required, I don't believe. As I say, when I went through the place, I didn't even find it safe for people working in there or people residing in there, to the level that it should be, so as a government, we're going to try to address that in a most timely manner.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, Mr. Minister, I didn't say it wasn't designed for that purpose - it has always been my belief, but I have nothing to back that up with. Initially in your comments, which I wrote down here, you said the Burnside facility wasn't designed for the purpose of double-bunking. That's your statement you made, and that goes against the statements that were made publicly by members of your staff, I believe, the head of Corrections. Again, our researchers will obviously be more than happy to get all that for me and provide it to you as well. That's why I was surprised to hear you say that Burnside was never designed for double-bunking, compared to statements that have been made in the past by some of your staff.
[Page 563]
[7:15 p.m.]
In your last answer you said that I suggested it wasn't built for that purpose. Well, I have no proof of that, other than my own beliefs. I'm just going to ask you again, is it your statement, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that the Burnside facility was not built and designed for the purpose of allowing double-bunking?
MR. LANDRY: Let's go back and clarify that. I thought you were saying that earlier, but when I looked at the facility when I went through it, it doesn't appear to me that it's designed that way. That's because there's one single bed in there - that's not saying that the building doesn't have the capability of putting a bunk in there and that would be consistent - if that's what the perception is, that would be consistent with previous staff.
I also want to just give clarity if there's any miscommunication by me on the thing about safety. I'm looking at optimal safety versus a safe environment from a workplace perspective. Burnside is a relatively new facility. It has its challenges and as it has been functioning for the last number of years, we see some weaknesses within the overall structure of the facility in its design when you deal with outside weekenders coming in and how they're seen by other prisoners, and what influence that can have on contraband or any other types of things coming into the facility. So in a new facility, we want to take those learned experiences forward.
On the issue of double-bunking, if previous staff were saying that, I could see where the cell could have another bunk up top and would accommodate people, provided you had sufficient staff to manage it, so I don't think we're inconsistent. I'm a new minister coming and trying to learn this information and, so if it has been said, I can see how that can be done there. My point is definitive.
MR. SAMSON: The suggestions that were made were that the way the cell is made it has one permanent bunk in it, but that it was very safe to put a temporary bunk in there as well. Your staff, whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for, but your statements really fly in the face of what they have said. It has been suggested to Nova Scotians and correctional officers that putting that temporary bunk in there was a safe practice - that's how the facility was designed, to allow for this temporary bunk to be put in there. Your statements are now that you don't personally feel that it's meant for that purpose, you've amended that now by saying maybe if they put a bunk on top.
But that's not what we've been told, and you've gone so far as to say that you've considered that the working environment with double-bunking to be very dangerous for the employees at Corrections. I'm just trying to get all of this straight here as to what you're saying, as the new minister, and what Nova Scotians and what members of this House have been told by Corrections staff and the Department of Justice staff in the past. So I don't know if the minister wants to review his comments or does he still stand by it, that it was never
[Page 564]
designed for double-bunking, putting a temporary bed in there is a hazard to the employees and to the inmates? Is that still your statement now?
MR. LANDRY: I thought I corrected it in the last answer that I gave. I think we're getting confused, or at least I am getting confused as to where he's coming from, and I apologize for that. The issue, and we have to talk about it in the framework of what I'm referring to - my answer to what you're assuming in yours from what other people said - when I went through the facility and I saw someone sleeping in a plastic basket on the floor as a double-bunk set-up, I don't think that is the design of the building to have it for double-bunking. If it is about putting another bunk - because you said that a temporary set-up could be set up and temporary bunks put in there, I can say, okay, that would work as double-bunking, and if you have the appropriate staff on then I think it would be quite safe from that perspective.
Is it ideal? I don't think so. Do we need to make changes in the correctional facility? That's why we're looking at building a new one - and you might have heard, and you weren't here actually when I was answering the previous member's comments about the jail and about a building, a facility, and just going ahead and building one in one location. This government wants to look at what our needs are right now. What do we actually know about the strengths and weaknesses about Burnside? What services do we need to increase in a new facility that will prevent some of the concerns that we have had with that facility? We have to be very methodical in how we approach this issue and strategically focus on the short term and long term within Corrections.
So you're raising a point about double-bunking and trying to narrow me down to saying, well, I'm in contradiction to the previous staff, I really don't know about that answer, I wasn't here then - but what I know now is what I know.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, I don't know if I got your response correctly, but I think you described it as sleeping in a basket on the floor - is that how you're describing the additional, temporary bunk that is put into the cells at Burnside?
MR. LANDRY: It's a plastic bed frame that is a frame and you put your blanket in there and the mattress and you sleep on the floor. To me, it is like a basket, but only for big people instead of little people. Well, it's a plastic container with a mattress in it. It is made for big people instead of little people, instead of a little basket, and it's on the floor.
MR. SAMSON: Do you believe that is inappropriate? Is that fair to say that in your own assessment of what you saw when you toured the facility that you considered this to be inappropriate accommodation for inmates at the Burnside facility?
MR. LANDRY: I don't think inappropriate - it is not ideal. I think if we're talking about a new facility, that is not how I would design it. The initial part of this question -
[Page 565]
because I think we're getting rambled around here - do I believe in double-bunking? No, unless the building is designed for that purpose and has appropriate staffing levels in place. Are the conditions in Burnside ideal? No, they're not. Do they work? Are they achievable? Yes, as long as you have sufficient staff on, they're basically safe enough to meet the Occupational Health and Safety guidelines. So I'm comfortable with that part, but I want to make changes and improvements to the system so that we're not faced that type of a situation. If we can accomplish that in the next year or so, I would be quite happy.
MR. SAMSON: All right, I want to see if I can summarize this up. The plastic bed frame that you saw at the Burnside facility, do you consider that to be double-bunking or do you see double-bunking as adding a bunk on top of the permanent one that is already built inside the cell?
MR. LANDRY: I think both can be construed as that, depending on how you want to look at it. If there are two people in a bunk, that's double-bunking. I don't care how you get there, whether it is another cell on the wall or one on the floor, if there are two people in there, that is double. I want to improve the conditions within the corrections facilities in Nova Scotia, that's one of my goals in this next four years.
MR. SAMSON: When you saw the plastic bunk on the floor, the plastic bed frame, you said like a plastic container, do you believe that the Burnside facility was designed to allow for that type of frame to be included in the cell along with the permanent bed that you saw in that cell as well?
MR. LANDRY: I've been in institutions across this country over my life and I've seen many different things about how they accommodate and meet the needs of the justice system in dealing with prisoners. I don't know the answer to your question; I wasn't part of the system beforehand. I just want to improve it today and make Corrections a healthy, bright, safe, prosperous, progressive area to work in for our employees and for inmates to come in there, to want to get out of there as quick as they can, to be reoriented back into society.
MR. SAMSON: I see we've gone all around this issue from the minister's first statements to where we are now.
There is double-bunking right now as we speak at the Burnside facility, yes or no?
MR. LANDRY: Yes, we know that.
MR. SAMSON: Have you increased the level of staff at the Burnside facility in light of the comments you've made previously, that you believe double-bunking requires additional staff?
[Page 566]
MR. LANDRY: Staffing ratios are in regard to the number of prisoners or detainees that are being held at any one time, and there's a formula that they use for that. I also want to note that we're also looking at the potential of hiring additional full-time employees as part of the solution here in this issue, so we're working towards that and looking at that staffing issue.
MR. SAMSON: The whole issue of the Burnside facility - and I'm assuming you would have been following along in this in the media - was that the correctional staff were saying there just wasn't enough staff to deal with the double-bunking issue. The previous government said there was enough staff and there were no changes made. You've now been in office for a hundred days, so I guess my question to you is, have you made any changes to the staffing levels at the Burnside facility since you've become government here in Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: Yes we have. The captain who is on shift has the opportunity that if they see that there are extra people coming in - and a lot of this is on the weekend, we have weekenders coming, these part-time prisoners coming in, or if there's an increase of clients who are highly volatile or violent or present certain risks to the institution, that the captain has the authority to take in additional resources. Of course you wouldn't staff those in the absence of those conditions because you're paying for services you don't need. So when the need arises, additional staff is allowed to be called in.
MR. SAMSON: Is it the minister's statement that this is a change that has taken place since you've become Minister of Justice?
MR. LANDRY: I'm not sure if it started when I came in, but it was a question I had asked and we'd had discussions, so it may have started beforehand, but the Justice staff were saying, no, we've got that under control. Staff complement has increased by 14.7 FTEs in the past year, I think, permanent staff so far. Further in my answer is that this very issue on staffing is a point that I have raised since I came in, saying that we have to look at those numbers - and I've actually had consultation with the union on this issue, along with management within Corrections and so the dialogue on how we're going to get there and what we need to do is ongoing - that is an ongoing issue that we're addressing.
MR. SAMSON: So the correctional officers union is content with the staffing levels at the Burnside facility right now, is that the minister's statement?
MR. LANDRY: To give you a definitive in that way I don't think is a fair answer to the question, or an assumption. You can assume what you want, but the answer I'm giving is that I've been in consultation with the union and we're dialoguing on how we get to the number of permanent positions and what's in the best interests of their employees, our employees, together, and make Corrections safe. So I've been in dialogue, I think I've had two or three meetings, plus my staff have had meetings with the union. We believe, I believe and
[Page 567]
my department believes, in having dialogue with stakeholders and when we're going to come to decisions we have consulted and addressed the issues. So the issue of staffing is an ongoing discussion right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, a shade more than 20 minutes left in your time, the Liberal caucus time.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Based on the minister's statements, is it the intention that as part of this review your government is going to look to put an end to double-bunking by having the appropriate level of beds available for Corrections in Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: Thank you for that question. I think when I talk in terms of the review that we were doing, it's that very part of the review in us looking and discussing as a government what type of facility we're going to build is how we impact and benefit the Burnside facility for example, how we benefit Cape Breton, how we benefit every other institution in the province. So if we make a decision today about building a new facility or facilities, how does that improve the overall service delivery and how do we respect the dollar that the taxpayer is putting in? So those factors are coming into account. So to answer your question specifically, are we looking to reduce, that's one of the goals or objectives that we're hoping to achieve.
[7:30 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: The new Yarmouth facility apparently, similar to Burnside, does allow for double-bunking as well. Is there any double-bunking taking place at the new Yarmouth jail right now?
MR. LANDRY: No, there's not.
MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if the minister could describe to us, being that your comments about the Burnside facility that double-bunking and the idea of double-bunking, in your view, would be actually putting another bunk on top of the permanent one, I'm wondering, what does double-bunking look like in the Yarmouth facility which apparently was built to accommodate double-bunking, or is there a second bunk in the cell or is it the same plastic crate that you referred to that's being used at the Burnside facility?
MR. LANDRY: I haven't had the pleasure to go there, but the whisper seems to tell me that there's only a single bunk in the facility.
MR. SAMSON: So if you had to do double-bunking at Yarmouth, would the double-bunking be the same plastic bed that's being used at the Burnside facility?
[Page 568]
MR. LANDRY: I would suspect on a short-term urgent matter, a situation, probably a basket would be used, but they've never had to do it. That's not saying that they couldn't add a double-bunk if that was the decision made or if that was appropriate. I don't know what decision would be appropriate there at this time.
MR. SAMSON: Unlike the minister, unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure of visiting any of these facilities. When I grew up, my mum prayed every night that I wouldn't have to visit any of those facilities, so I haven't had the privilege of going to any of our correctional facilities yet and, God willing and with my mum's prayers, that will continue to be the case - other than following the minister on a guided tour.
One of the issues I wanted to raise, as well, is the victim surcharge fee that's applied to fines here in Nova Scotia. Is it a percentage or is it a fixed amount per fine?
MR. LANDRY: While I'm getting some background on that information, I want to go back to your earlier comment just a moment ago. You became a lawyer so your chances of going - your mum saying not wanting to be in those institutions, they're higher. So I guess being a lawyer and a politician keeps you away from there, but you're welcome to come and visit the facilities and I would even go there with you. I'm quite comfortable in them, I've been in them many times, especially during hostile situations. It's an experience and it's an interesting one.
On the question at hand about Victim Services, the percentage of surcharges is that it's 15 per cent of the fine, it goes for the program.
MR. SAMSON: You said 15 per cent, correct?
MR. LANDRY: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: How much revenue did that 15 per cent bring in last year?
MR. LANDRY: It was $1.4 million and a little bit of change.
MR. SAMSON: How much do you expect - I don't have the books in front of me - what are you forecasting for the upcoming fiscal year?
MR. LANDRY: Just looking at this progressional chart here, you're looking, on average, around $100,000 progress per year.
MR. SAMSON: So instead of $1.4 million, it might be $1.5 million, okay. There was an issue a couple years back, in fact I think it was in the early stages of the previous government, I think in the early 2000s, there was an issue about where that $1.4 million was spent. In fact, I think at the time it was uncovered that some of it was being diverted to other
[Page 569]
programs that weren't directly Justice-related. We've been told that that has been corrected and that's not happening anymore. Could the minister quickly provide a breakdown of where that $1.4 million is being spent?
MR. LANDRY: My understanding of that money is it's reinvested within the Victim Services area and it goes to staff for development and for other service programs in the various regions throughout Nova Scotia. I'm hoping that it's balanced to meet both population and the diversities of different communities that may be unique in itself, that it's meeting those needs. We can provide you with those details.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, in fact, if you could provide a breakdown, because my question would be how much of that $1.4 million is getting into the hands of victims in this province? Are they actually getting any sort of financial return to them from that $1.4 million, or is that simply going to pay for services such as counselling or any other services that are available and is it just paying for staff within Victim Services to provide services to victims, or is there any actual cash making its way to victims of crime in Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: Yes, the answer to the question, and I think if you look at my comments earlier, if I can make this connection, is that victims' needs are very important and we mentioned in here about the homicide rates, we've increased the amount of time from two years to one year beyond the closing of the file, initial costs for counselling from $2,000 to $4,000. I suspect that those areas are part of distributions of dollars within the system. I should add here - it was just pointed out to me that the overall budget for that program is $3.2 million. So that's roughly a little less and it's about 45 per cent, 46 per cent of the budget is from that revenue.
MR. SAMSON: So the 15 per cent isn't funding the entire program, you've got additional funds . . .
MR. LANDRY: We've got additional funds - the breakdown and stuff, if you want that information we can get that for you. We can't do enough for victims, but we have to respect the budget that we have and that's the difficult choice that we have. That's the monies we have to operate with today.
MR. SAMSON: Just on that point, if I'm not mistaken, I believe you did announce an increase in some of the hours available to victims of crime for some of the counselling and that. I know my colleague, the member for Halifax Clayton Park, has raised this on a number of occasions with the previous government. Do you anticipate any additional increases in services available to victims of crime - and not only victims, but families of victims of crime?
MR. LANDRY: The ones that I just pointed out there were just recently announced, but I will assure you that as the minister I'm going to be continually consulting with my staff over time on are there ways that we can improve the quality of service, where do we need to
[Page 570]
expand, where are the gaps in the system, who's the most impacted, and is there something that we can do to address their needs? So that's a continual evolution and I know from where you sit that you will ask those questions in the future, and I would encourage that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A little over10 minutes remaining in the Liberal caucus time.
MR. SAMSON: Can we consider this the speed round, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask quick questions and get quick answers?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes indeed, and I'll be quick with the minister as well.
MR. SAMSON: Excellent. I think you indicated you're committed to the 150 new officers that was announced by the previous government, but I seem to recall that in your statement you were going to review where those officers were actually assigned. I'm assuming that the previous government had already made a determination as to where the 150 new officers would go. Is it fair to say that from what I understood from your statement that you are currently reviewing where those officers were initially committed and that there may be changes as to which communities will be receiving officers and how many officers those communities might receive? Is that a fair statement based on your opening comments?
MR. LANDRY: In part, the answer I think I gave to your counterpart, our counterpart there, was about 10 minutes, so I won't be that long. I'll just be brief.
I started out by saying to him that if we were to put 33 officers where they were alleging before, or put them straight on the street, that would be negligent of me as the Minister of Justice and of this government. The threat to Nova Scotia is not totally from within, the majority of our threat is from outside and so we have to ensure that we align ourselves with our national and international partners. We're a government that's looking at Nova Scotia in its totality and not in its parts by itself.
If we allow police departments to stay focused on their own personal needs and, as a government we encourage that, we're going to lose the game of fighting crime. It's just not going to happen, we can't do that in today's global community and a global economy. We have to be focused on organized crime, on terrorism; we have to be focused on where - and I'll use the example that I used earlier there about the Mexican cartels, they're coming, they're in Ontario now, and they're going to expand their roots in the drug distribution and trade. So if we're a police service or a province that allows just regional focus on policing, we're doomed.
I had the opportunity to meet with all the chiefs and I met with a number of people from the RCMP, and they outlined a number of pressure points that have occurred. An example would be that they want an independent police investigative team. Well, those resources need dollars. I had the opportunity of meeting with the Director of Prosecutions who
[Page 571]
very eloquently and very passionately presented an argument as to why they needed additional resources within Justice to deal with the complexities of frauds and other types of cases and the impact that Boots on the Street has done to front-line policing. That's a good thing, but it also put an impact on Prosecutions. At the same time, Legal Aid has an impact and we have a requirement to support that - you can't invest in one area of Prosecutions without investing in the other area.
Correction Services had pointed out that Boots on the Street has caused additional pressure points on their service. When we look at outstanding warrants in this province and the impact that that's having on police resources, so we're trying to look at an holistic approach to policing in the province, in trying to find ways to deal with some of the underlying and major issues that are involved in policing. To just put people out on the front streets, that's a whole other issue and so we are looking to be strategically focused and making sure we put resources in the appropriate place.
MR. SAMSON: I believe in your opening comment you said that Nova Scotia has 199 officers per 100,000 population, and I believe you said that that was the highest in the country. One of my frustrations with my good friends from the previous government is that - especially the Premier, he would always say we're the leaders in Nova Scotia and we're the best, and yet never provided the numbers to back that up. I believe you did say we're the highest in the country with 199 per 100,000 population. Would you commit to providing me with the numbers from all the other Canadian provinces in regard to that, just to show that we actually are the highest in the country per 100,000 of population?
MR. LANDRY: I don't recall ever making the comment that we're the highest in the country. I said that we're at 199 per 100,000, which is above the national average. I think the national average is around 196 or 197, I can't remember - I think it's 196. There are some areas in this province that are probably above the national average, when I looked at a couple of the numbers, but as a province that's where we are.
MR. SAMSON: So we're just above the national average, we're not the highest in the country.
MR. LANDRY: I'm not sure what the others are, I could look at that but when I read the figure, the national average is at 196 and we're at 199, then I would assume that we're above the average. The average agency across the country is at 196.
MR. SAMSON: Would the minister be so kind as to provide us with the national average documents that show what this rate is?
MR. LANDRY: We'll have someone go on the Statistics Canada site and get those numbers.
[Page 572]
MR. SAMSON: The issue of tasers has caused - even our caucus and your colleagues, the former Justice Critic who is now Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, called for a moratorium on taser use in Nova Scotia, especially in light of the fact that there was no global standard across this province, that different police forces were using different standards. Would today's Minister of Justice indicate whether he's in favour of a moratorium on tasers in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. LANDRY: I think that's an excellent question, especially since the federal New Democratic Party had made that comment in the paper as one of their points. I've had a number of discussions very early this morning with my staff in regard to this issue. The issue of tasers is one that we need to be very methodical in how we approach what we're hearing and what we actually know and what is fact. I've been assured by my staff today in consultation that given the information that we have as of this morning, communication has been made with each police chief and with the RCMP, and each police officer who utilizes the taser is being given a copy, about this shift in policy to not aim directly at the heart area - of course, the policy was always not to aim at the face - but to try to aim a little lower, in the stomach area or in the legs or back area, if that's possible.
[7:45 p.m.]
Presently, as of this moment, that's where we are with the policy. We are examining it as a province as to how this impacts and we're consulting with our counterparts across the country. We're also going to give some reflective thought in consultation on this issue but you raise a very good point. Less than just a couple of days since that report came out, I think we have taken the prudent action at this time but it would be very appropriate for us to have further discussion and consultation on this issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, you have three minutes remaining.
MR. SAMSON: I believe in your opening comments you indicated more monitoring was going to take place on taser use and I believe you indicated that you either were going to or you have hired a use of force coordinator. I'm wondering if you could tell us, who is Nova Scotia's use of force coordinator and what is their mandate?
MR. LANDRY: We have a use of force coordinator in place, it's Bill Darnbrough, I think, if I have his name correctly. His job will be that whenever there's use of force used across the province, to monitor that situation, to review the case and to ensure that they're following policies of the police department concerned, that they're aligned with the principles and guidelines by the Department of Justice, and to overall assess and make recommendations to the Department of Justice and to the police forces concerned.
MR. SAMSON: Who is this individual?
[Page 573]
MR. LANDRY: He's a retired Halifax Regional Police officer who has a long history dealing with use of force and a long career within the law enforcement community. He comes highly recommended and is very professional in his approach.
MR. SAMSON: Does he have a name?
MR. LANDRY: I'm sorry, maybe my voice - I said Bill Darnbrough. I've said that three times now so I apologize, my voice is a little soft tonight.
MR. SAMSON: My good colleague next to me tells me he didn't hear it either so I'm not going to have to go for hearing tests immediately. Is this individual actually the person who, if I had a complaint about use of force by a police officer, is going to be the one I would complain to, will write a report?
MR. LANDRY: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: That would be available, I'm assuming, for a possible prosecution because, with all due respect, this individual doesn't sound like they have any powers at all other than doing administrative reviews for internal purposes. I'm not quite sure what the goal is because if this individual is going to determine that there was fault on behalf of a police officer, will that be made available to the victims and will they be able to use those reports potentially if there was improper use of force by police officers?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Justice, a quick response, if you would please, and the time will have expired.
MR. LANDRY: On your question there, if somebody has a complaint against a police officer, that's not the route. If it's use of force, or whatever it is, there's a process in place for complaints. On the issue of this individual here, they review standards, the guidelines, and they can give direction when appropriate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. The Progressive Conservative caucus has 28 minutes.
MR. LANDRY: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed.
MR. LANDRY: I had thought we would be done by now, that's why I didn't take a break before my good friend, the member for Richmond . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you agree to a five-minute break?
[Page 574]
MR. LANDRY: I think we should take a break, 10 minutes is plenty. Now, before I go, how late are we going tonight?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We only have 28 more minutes remaining.
MR. LANDRY: Let's get it done. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Have we agreed to a five-minute break or have you changed your minds?
MR. LANDRY: All right, five minutes, we'll take it and then we'll come back.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A five-minute break - 7:55 p.m., please. Thank you.
[7:50 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]
[7:57 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, we'll resume with the estimates. The Progressive Conservative caucus has 27 minutes.
The honourable member for Cumberland South.
HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to share some questions again with the minister, where we left off. I wanted to ask in regard to, we were talking about policing and positions and all that earlier on - I think I'm right in saying this - I think normally the highway patrol, the RCMP highway patrol, there's x number of dollars per year paid through the Department of Justice, I believe, for positions and I think it's fair to say that a lot of these positions, particularly on highway patrol, run vacant annually. Can you tell me today how many vacant positions we would have with the RCMP on highway patrol right now?
MR. LANDRY: I had the pleasure of talking to the deputy commissioner responsible for staffing issues recently, and I'll come back to the Cape Breton issue of policing concerns that the chiefs had raised down there. Right now, across the province, we're about 95 per cent full and I think there have been some vacancies created, because some people went to - I think some of the Olympic positions are already out there. Overall, it's about 95 per cent, but I was given an assurance that once the Olympics are over, we should be up, fully, right across the province and that's one of the pressure points with policing.
Of course, we all have a responsibility, each province has a responsibility to that issue, especially if you're contracting with the RCMP, we have an extra burden in that regard.
[Page 575]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, we've added a minute to your time - it's at 8:26 p.m. that you'll finish.
MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What was the number again of vacant positions in the highway patrol today in Nova Scotia that we're paying for?
MR. LANDRY: Well, specifically highway patrol, I'm not sure, but I believe that it's 95 per cent full. But if you want specific numbers . . .
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister could tell me per position how much that would be per body, per year.
MR. LANDRY: Are you asking the average cost per officer?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. LANDRY: Roughly $116,000 per year.
MR. SCOTT: That's $116,000, so times the number of vacant positions, but we're not sure how many positions are vacant.
[8:00 p.m.]
MR. LANDRY: I'm going to talk on that issue a little bit because of my previous life and some experiences. It's not quite cut and dried that way, when you look at a vacancy, in that the cost is there. The administration portion of the RCMP is divided by the number of officers or positions throughout the province and that's how they formulate their administrative costs and so on. So a portion of that $116,000 is already being invested into the overall administrative structure of the force.
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked earlier by my colleague, the member for Richmond, with regard to new appointments to staff in the Department of Justice since you became minister. Are there any contract positions that are new since June?
MR. LANDRY: Not that I know of in my area immediately where there are any contract positions. I have an EA, that's the only position that I know of.
MR. SCOTT: No, I was wondering about any other position - I realize your political staff, but I was thinking about within the department itself. Have any contract positions been added since you've been there?
MR. LANDRY: No.
[Page 576]
MR. SCOTT: There was a review of the court security services that had taken place over the last couple of years. I wonder if the minister could update what the status of that review is and what kind of recommendations have come forward, what is the go-ahead action plan as a result?
MR. LANDRY: Right now there's a security committee in each court and they're developing the issues surrounding their concerns. In my first 100-and-some days of service here, that's not one of the primary issues that I've addressed. But I had some discussions earlier about court security with my staff and as the deputy just reminded me here, the committees are developing their issues of priorities.
MR. SCOTT: So as I recall - I believe it was a prosecutor, if I remember it right, that was assaulted in one of the courts down in the Eastern Shore somewhere, and that was probably two or three years ago now. As a result there was a review initiated and it was quite comprehensive, I understand. So you're saying that from that time to now there have been no recommendations in regard to court security that are being followed through on?
MR. LANDRY: Before I answer your question, there's one new employee and that's Dr. Mont, deputy medical examiner, and that's a new contract.
On the issue of security, I'm going to take a little dig here. On the floor here, we're being reminded how many days we're in service and how much can we get done. We are a new government and we are human but we didn't have 10 years to solve this issue, we've been here for just a few months. The issue of security is an important one. If it was three years ago that somebody was assaulted, it's sad that that happened in itself but that's a pretty good statistic to have if you've only had one incident.
Security in today's environment, in today's world, it's always an issue. Can we be all things to all people all the time? No. Should we be looking at ways of how to improve security? That's what the committees are doing to raise their issues, and then as a government and as a department we'll look at how we best meet those demands or needs that are in that individual area.
MR. SCOTT: I thank the minister. I thought I recalled where the review recommended in regard to things around metal detectors, some ongoing daily security in courtrooms and that and I just thought there may have been something you could update us on today in that regard.
MR. LANDRY: There's the court in Halifax that has the detector and if you're suggesting that there should be these facilities in each court, in an ideal world that might be nice to have. In today's economic climate, if we're going to make expenditures we've got to make those that maximize the security of the province as a whole and where the priority is. I don't want to take away from any court or any employee who works within a court to say that they're not important, they are absolutely important, their safety is important to us but if
[Page 577]
we've only had one assault and we have increased the sheriff's presence in the facilities - the sheriff has been made more aware about the security and the needs of their service in the courts.
To date I'm pretty confident - that's not saying something couldn't happen tomorrow, that we'd have to address that. But at this stage, to spend money on those - we're investing money, for example, on the ion scanner within the institutions so that we can detect drugs. That's a decision that the government made to purchase and I thought that was a wise choice.
MR. SCOTT: I just want to switch to the monitoring system the province has, the electronic monitoring system, which I believe we're one of the leaders in the country in regard to that issue around release of prisoners, and their commitment is that they have to wear the ankle bracelet and so on. I wonder, can the minister update us in regard to the program and the success of it, and what number of people are taking advantage of that program now?
MR. LANDRY: Well, we're getting the exact number there but I'll comment on the ankle bracelets. I believe in the ankle bracelets myself, personally, and I believe in them more so than the weekend arrest period for someone to come in, the weekend offenders where they're given time. I see a greater value in the ankle bracelets. They are costly. I see a benefit in the system and I would like to expand that, but once again we have to weigh and measure. You're building a new correctional institution, what impact does that have on the overall need? How many people would you add to the ankle bracelets? Do you have people to monitor the system outside of the electronic monitoring itself? I think it's an important area to explore. We have 50 right now on bracelet and 140 on voice.
MR. SCOTT: The 50 that are on the ankle bracelet, what does that cost the taxpayer per person?
MR. LANDRY: It's just under $15 per day per prisoner, which is significantly less than housing them, although you take the outside costs as well. There are some other potential costs to that, but the total program is roughly about $400,000. I like that program, I like the concept - if you build a jail you'll fill it.
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You actually have 16 minutes.
MR. SCOTT: I'm going to share some of my time with my colleague, the member for Cape Breton North.
The Safer Communities unit, which is something I'm very, very proud of, the previous government brought about. I believe in your opening comments you talked about the success it has had. Could you tell us what the plan is for the Safer Communities unit? I know there's
[Page 578]
a lot of demand on their time, they're requested province-wide. If my memory serves me right, when we first initiated that program, we talked about beginning with Halifax and then looking at the possibility of beginning another unit in Cape Breton and then maybe other parts of the province. Can you update us as to the status of that program and what your plans are for the future? Is there any additional money in this budget for the Safer Communities unit?
MR. LANDRY: Right now I'm pretty pleased with where they are. I'm not getting any complaints, actually, on the demand of their work. They're working hard, they're well employed.
I'll go back to the answer I gave you earlier. If you're talking with regard to the Safer Communities unit and commitment of those resources amongst the 33 officers on the Boots on the Street program, if that's where you're going, I'll speed up the process and say that the answer I gave you earlier about being strategically focused, and meeting the demands that the police chiefs raised with me - and I won't go into all that, my last answer took 10 minutes and we only have 14 left - I think the plan that we're approaching, the issue of officers in the streets will be well received by the chiefs of police and by the RCMP and will meet the needs of our community, in particular Cape Breton.
MR. SCOTT: No, I wasn't trying to move you into those 33 positions, I was just trying to substantiate, on the record, the fact that you support that program and that the department will continue to support it. I think it has done a tremendous job throughout the province wherever they've been called upon.
Just before I turn it over to my colleague, with regard to the issue of maintenance enforcement, would the minister know how many cases are transferred into Nova Scotia from outside the province in the run of a year?
MR. LANDRY: You don't stop amazing me. You've stumped me again. I don't know that answer but we'll get that for you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to time-share at this point?
MR. SCOTT: In a moment. I thank the minister for his candidness there. I would appreciate it if the department could find that out for me over the next number of weeks or whatever. The reason I'm asking is I'm aware of a couple myself, and it was brought to my attention about a young guy who - I'm sure we're seeing more people move back to Nova Scotia because of the economy out West and the fact that a lot of easterners have gone out to work and now they're moving back home. But a lot of them have gone out there and obviously made substantially more money out there and maybe some of the cases are decided upon their income out there and now they're coming back here and trying to get back in the system, trying to get the courts to look at their present financial situation.
[Page 579]
I'd be interested to know how many cases in the run of a year, or maybe the past year, have been transferred back into Nova Scotia. What costs are there when someone actually reapplies to get back into court to have their particular case re-evaluated? What does that cost someone?
MR. LANDRY: That's another good question. If they do it on their own, not so much; if they hire a lawyer, whatever the going rate is for that lawyer.
MR. SCOTT: What I was thinking about was, how much does the application cost? How many accompanying fees are there, and is your department looking at raising those fees this year?
MR. LANDRY: We'll get back to you with that answer.
MR. SCOTT: That's fair enough, that's great, thank you. I'll share my time now, Mr. Chairman, with my colleague, the member for Cape Breton North.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has about 11.5 minutes.
The honourable member for Cape Breton North.
HON. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, I do want to formally congratulate the minister here in estimates on his appointment, as well, now that we're in the session and I do know that he has a very good and stellar group of individuals to work with. The challenges always shift and change and they have shifted and changed in certain regards since June 9th. However, maybe since time is going to be limited, we'll start with a couple of questions I have that won't take that long to deal with, and then when we come back on Thursday we can continue with - we'll just adjourn and then come back and continue with some of the other questions.
Minister, one of the things that has been identified, and all Parties were part of the wider consultation and review, is, of course, the new forensic pathology centre and the establishment of a new morgue here. Can you give me an update on the status of the morgue, the planning and the construction schedule, and when you expect to have it on-line?
[8:15 p.m.]
MR. LANDRY: Well, as I understand right now, we're looking at purchasing the land. There's $500,000-plus that's dedicated for the design and development of that building. So once they secure the land, do the design makeup, a proposal will be made to government to move that issue forward.
[Page 580]
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, with the benefit of any staff, can he detail specifically where we are with the timelines of getting a new morgue or forensic pathology centre on stream?
MR. LANDRY: I just got the whisper that the architect has just been hired and that there's now $1 million in the design phase for the purchase of the land. That's moving along so I suspect that if the architect is in place and they get the land done, that should be done within the next few months, so I suspect construction early in the new year.
MR. CLARKE: Can the minister give us the number, assuming that the $1 million with regard to design and being in place, if that's coming forward, what the actual still-estimated capital costs for the completion of the facility will be?
MR. LANDRY: I think back to when you were sitting in the chair, the figure was around $6 million and that's a stable figure.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the answers on that. There's just another related issue that was outstanding here before and the only reason I raise it tonight, as we go back to the Chamber, is I suspect we'll be back into Bill No. 1 and that does affect something that is a matter of concern to some, especially our volunteer firefighters, and it just happens to be with the Chief Medical Examiner.
The minister from his own career would probably be appreciative of this, and that is where the concern is brought forward - and the bill itself, as we know, deals with emergency providers on the side of the highways, having people slow down and respect the scene. But there was the other ongoing issue with regard to any fatalities at roadside and the time it took to make sure that the deceased persons could be removed from that site, that oftentimes it was the volunteer fire departments, after the police had come and gone and did the reports, who were left on the site having to cope with either family or other citizens in dealing with those emergency situations.
So it's relevant to actually another bill going on, but I don't know if the minister can provide me with an update, if the Chief Medical Examiner - I know they were coming back with some response because the concern that was raised is that the body removal service is contracted out. However, as we know, once there is a deceased person, EHS cannot carry them in an ambulance so it has been left with the volunteer fire service predominantly around the province to have to secure those sites, deal with bereaving family and/or citizens and/or media and trying to get around that. Can the minister give me any sense of if there has been any movement to try to rectify that situation?
MR. LANDRY: As a former police officer, that issue was very prevalent in our discussions at different times. For the families that are affected, my heart goes out because it creates tremendous stress and strain, especially when the scene is trying to be secure.
[Page 581]
For the firefighters, or anyone else at the scene who has to deal with that, for some people they deal with it differently. There is always a potential trauma effect or compounding in post-traumatic that can generate from these situations. I'm hoping that we find a way that we could be more efficient and timely in removing a deceased from the scene. Part of that is an investigative issue to be dealt with. I'm hoping with the new facility, with the overall changes that need to be made - I hear where you're coming from on the issue.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know with the Chief Medical Examiner, because it resides within his shop, there have been challenges where we end up with volunteers, literally for hours on end, who are unpaid because they won't walk away from the job and, more importantly, they can't because once they've gone to the scene they have an obligation to stay there. As we can appreciate, most times if there is a fatality, it's rather more likely than not that it is unpleasant for people to deal with. So not only, as you mentioned, about any trauma that they have to deal with, but also the emotions around dealing with their friends and neighbours and having to keep them away from a scene, and the issues.
I guess one of the things that we're looking for is where the medical examiner was dealing with this, with his colleagues, to try to deal with either processing time, or in the instance of regions, if there's a backup plan in place. I would welcome an update of that and recognizing you probably have to talk to the Chief Medical Examiner to get that report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There's about five minutes remaining.
MR. LANDRY: I share your concerns, the department shares your concerns. I know that's an ongoing issue and dialogue is in there and I agree, further consultation and action needs to be taken.
MR. CLARKE: Just before leaving, with regard to the Chief Medical Examiner's Office, I do recognize that the deputy medical examiner, Dr. Mont, would have come on staff. Can you explain any other staffing status in terms of either additions or deletions of staff as a result of this year's budget?
MR. LANDRY: As I said earlier in my comments, and was just reiterated here, there is another medical pathologist who is coming forward and there's also the addition of an investigator who is coming forward as well, so that should help with some efficiencies in some areas. We'll look at that time as to what gaps are there and when there's further consultation going on, where we identify the gaps, we'll try to take steps to correct those deficiencies.
MR. CLARKE: Can the minister confirm if the investigator position is being classed
as a public safety or one of the policing officer positions?
[Page 582]
MR. LANDRY: I was just reconfirming because it could be from the 250 already, but I know it's not one of the 33 that are outstanding, that we have allotted. I have a rough schematic in my mind where those 33 are going, in consultation with some others, and that's not in those 33 so the positions there, I'm not sure if it's from the 250 overall (Interruption) A previous allotment of the 250 is what it's from.
MR. CLARKE: So it's a previously funded position but yet to be filled, is that correct?
MR. LANDRY: It's filled.
MR. CLARKE: When was it filled, for my clarification? Was it filled . . .
MR. LANDRY: The whisper mill has it that Cecil Clarke, the Minister of Justice, may have filled it. It may have been filled there.
MR. CLARKE: I'm just wondering when, I'm trying to get the timeline in sync, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have only about one minute left.
MR. LANDRY: Oh, I didn't mean that through disrespect, because there's so much going on with the positions.
MR. CLARKE: The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, as the minister well knows, I've been counting policing positions and where they come from, and that's really the reason for trying to get the clarity.
I recognize that timing is going to lapse for this evening, but I do appreciate that they're continuing to work on a very important area, which is with forensic pathology which is all part of an important mix.
As well, Mr. Chairman, in the brief moments, that's why all the other infrastructure-related supports have been part of a wider - which we would like to think as a former government - a thoughtful process, but we can come back to Corrections and policing on Thursday and that is probably best, because I think my time is running out.
So I will adjourn and we can resume on Thursday.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. With about 30 seconds left, we have completed our four hours.
[The subcommittee adjourned at 8:24 p.m.]
