HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

2:01 P.M.

CHAIRMAN

Ms. Becky Kent

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Good afternoon, everyone. At this point I will call the Subcommittee on Supply to order. We are now dealing with the estimates of the Department of Justice.

Resolution E13 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $289,487,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Estimate.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The time is 2:03 p.m. and we'll begin with opening remarks from the Minister of Justice.

The honourable Minister of Justice.

HON. ROSS LANDRY: Madam Chairman, thank you, it's great to be here today and to my colleagues on my right and on my left, good afternoon.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce my senior staff who aren't here right now, but when they do come in I will acknowledge them. With me this afternoon, just for the record are: from the Department of Justice, Deputy Minister Marian Tyson and Executive Director of Finance and Administration Greg Penny; from Prosecutions, Martin Herschorn, director of Public Prosecutions; from the Human Rights Commission, Krista Daley, director and CEO of that agency; and from the Privacy and Review Office, Dulcie McCallum. When they come in I'll acknowledge that they're here. We are a little ahead of agenda this afternoon with the House finishing up earlier. My staff were advised of a 2:30 p.m. start, so they should be here in a few minutes anyway.

425

I would like to take this opportunity to say how wonderful it is to be here as part of this government for the past 10 months. I've learned a great deal and I believe I've also brought experience and knowledge to the Department of Justice in the province. I am so proud of the hard work and dedication of the Department of Justice staff. They show perseverance with long-standing programs. They also show continued innovation with the new ideas for old issues and progressive thinking necessary for tackling new issues in these changing times. I am looking forward to discussing the budget and initiatives of the Department of Justice. I will greatly appreciate their assistance as we answer your questions here today.

As a former police officer for over 35 years, I have worked in the larger justice system and I greatly valued 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 and I believe we are very fortunate to live in a province that is safe and secure. I know that to be here as someone who once patrolled the streets of Nova Scotia, I am confident we have a very strong justice system to uphold public safety.

My experience in policing in Nova Scotia stems from patrolling the streets in 1974 right up to 2008, with a stint in between across the country. This is not to say that there are times when we will be challenged, as we currently are in the Halifax Regional Municipality area where a spate of shootings has caused public concern, but we are able to respond professionally and with adequate resources. Just last week I met with the Mayor of Halifax, the Chief of Police, and the Commanding Officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which provides federal policing services and provincial policing services in the province.

I am now very fortunate to be in a position as minister where I can see things from a different perspective, the big picture as it were. Being the Attorney General and Minister of Justice in this new government is challenging and it is a responsibility that I take very seriously. All of us in 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.

In addition to the public safety responsibilities, we also have a responsibility to taxpayers to use tax dollars wisely. As a government we have to be mindful of our campaign commitments, as well as how we invest and spend taxpayer dollars. The financial challenge we face is undeniable. To do nothing is simply not an option. We will take on the hard work to get our finances back to balance and live within our means by the 2013-14 fiscal year. Our four-year plan takes a balanced approach: reducing government spending and growing the economy while also increasing revenue.

We know it is important for government to support our people in communities in taking charge of their own futures, and this is why we want to make the right decisions for Nova Scotia families using a thoughtful, careful, and measured approach. The phased approach will allow time to make adjustments to programs and processes to minimize disruptions and ensure we continue to deliver quality service in priority areas.

In 2010-11 our department budget will be $289.487 million. This is an $8 million increase over the 2009-10 budget, which was $281.490 million. Department costs increased partially due to the implementation of a long-standing commitment to casual conversions and position reclassifications, as well as increased RCMP costs, which I'll explain more later when I talk about public safety.

Our department has been affected by what is known as casual conversions. Under the advice of the Public Service Commission, we have been able to give part-time employees government benefits. They will now have the benefit of other full-time employees and will be more competitive for job placements and advancement within the Public Service. We did reduce some costs through a combination of elimination of vacant positions and administrative efficiencies. We believe we can achieve these reductions without significant impact on our programs.

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.

An overview. The mandate of the department: the Department of Justice is committed to fair and efficient and effective administration of justice, and to excellence in service to the people of Nova Scotia. To accomplish this 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 about 1,600 who work across the province in our courthouses, our correctional facilities and on the front lines as probation officers.

Crime is at the forefront of our minds when it impacts individuals. Crime hurts all of us - individuals, families and communities - in a variety of ways. There is no question that crime hurts us economically and hinders our social prosperity. Preventing and combating crime is one of the Department of Justice's key priorities. Combating crime includes strategic law enforcement, safe and secure custody and supervision of offenders, offender rehabilitation programs, and programs for preventing crime in the first place. Public Security and Safety - one of our areas of focus is on the public safety and security programs, we want to focus clearly on these areas. Through this division we provide oversight, governance, and advice to police, private security services, and firearms licence holders. Due mostly to RCMP salary increases, this budget has increased $1.28 million.

In this year's budget we are planning to enhance the services offered by this division to address the increasing public expectations - a justice system that is properly administered and cost effective, with a focus on increasing transparency and accountability. The public expects accountability of their police. We are ready to move forward developing a program to bring our justice system to the level of accountability that Nova Scotians have asked for. That is through an independent investigative unit. This year you will see a new model to ensure that the police are no longer investigating themselves when a serious incident, such as the loss of life, has occurred. After consulting with other provinces and our stakeholders, in 2010-11 the Department of Justice will establish an independent investigative unit through our Public Safety Division.

The province is consulting with the other Atlantic Provinces, police agencies and interest groups to develop a model for an Atlantic or a provincial special investigative unit that is arm's length from law enforcement agencies. Many other provinces have independent investigative units that investigate serious incidents, including death or serious injury, or public interest concerns resulting from the actions of a police officer and possibly of correctional officers and sheriffs. We intend to have legislative changes to help make this unit a reality and will introduce those changes in the House during the Fall session.

This government and this department are looking for the kinds of investments that will make for a better tomorrow. I can't think of a better place to invest than in our kids. Through this budget we have been able to help our youth while still living within our means.

In February, 15 organizations involved in community recreational activities each received $12,000 from the province's Lighthouses Program. The Lighthouses Program helps community groups provide recreational, educational, cultural and life-skills programs for Nova Scotia youth. This is a program that we will continue this year.

Friday I visited the Whitney Pier Youth Club to meet kids who are benefiting from this campaign commitment from our government. I am proud to say that the department has invested $240,000 in this important program for this 2010-11 budget year. Even more community-based organizations will be able to fulfill initiatives through the Lighthouses Program. It is necessary for all communities, police and levels of government to get involved in addressing the root causes of crime in Nova Scotia.

Crime rates. For the fourth consecutive year crime rates have dropped in Nova Scotia, but there is still more work to do. We must strive to have crime rates below the national average. We will continue to make progress by working in a collaborative manner with our partners.

In the upcoming weeks ahead we will determine where we need to strategically place more resources for policing and public safety so that 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. This will be necessary for many department's initiatives. We are increasing concentration on youth and communities at risk. This includes prolific offenders, improved offender integration, and addressing the root causes of crime.

Domestic violence. We are also concentrating on developing a coordinated response to domestic violence because all families should feel and be safe at home. Work is underway by five departments and many government agencies to respond to the report, which contained about 100 ideas from domestic violence prevention committees made up of government and community stakeholders. We are working to improve on how government addresses the serious issues of domestic violence. This can't and should not be done by government alone, so we're continuing to work and consult with those on the front lines to ensure our response is the right one. In this fiscal year our department is proud to contribute $100,000 in new funding toward supporting these important efforts.

[2:15 p.m.]

I would like to acknowledge Mr. Penny and the deputy minister. I did explain that the delay was our mix-up by finishing up early. So you're not late, we were early, just for the record.

Our Public Safety Investigation Unit, under the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, is demonstrating a great success in two years since being proclaimed. The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act improves community safety by targeting and, if necessary, shutting down land, residences and commercial buildings that are regularly used for illegal activities. This unit, which is made up of former officers, has investigated about 550 complaints from residents or businesses that feel drugs or other illicit, illegal activities are ruining their community. These complaints have led to 107 evictions. These are positive steps that will enhance public safety.

Strengthening our courts. Our Court Services Division provides civil law, criminal law and Family Court services. These services include court administration and management, small claims, bankruptcy law adjudication, security and transport of prisoners to and from courts, and Justices of the Peace. The department operates 18 stand-alone courts throughout Nova Scotia, in addition to satellite courts in 16 communities.

I am happy to announce that this government is investing about an additional $3.9 million into the management of the court operations throughout the province. This is a long-standing commitment to the employees and we are pleased to be able to do this. We also need to reclassify some sheriffs. The funds will also be held with additional operating costs, such as the Child Victim/Witness Program.

You will also see through the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal's tangible capital asset estimates that we are investing $1.6 million into the Halifax Law Courts renovations and $2.3 million into the Pictou Justice Centre's renovations. These renovations are necessary to ensure the public have the appropriate access to justice and that our staff are working in a safe and healthy environment. Even with these investments, the Court Services Division is one where tough choices have to be made. The Barristers' Society and the department have had talks about requests for additional Family Court services.

The reality is, if we want new services, we need to find the money from existing services. This holds true for the choices we need to make in relation to all the needs in the justice system, whether it be additional services or new facilities. However, there is no doubt that there is more that we can do even in these challenging economic times. As Justice Minister, I have challenged my department to think creatively and to identify ways that we can improve our court services, as well as our justice system as a whole.

The Department of Justice is dedicated to improving access to justice in Nova Scotia. Every year our courts are expected to handle more cases. We've all heard about the court dates that are taking too long to get on the docket. We want to give people better access to the justice system and we want to complete their transactions faster, and this is no small task to achieve.

We are all working to do this through increased efficiencies. We are working with legal aid, the defence Bar, Public Prosecution Service, the police and other justice partners. We are tackling issues such as case management, disclosure, early Crown involvement, early disposition and access to legal aid. One way we are creating administrative efficiencies is by recently introducing changes to the Summary Proceedings Act. Pleading not guilty to summary offence tickets, such as speeding and motor vehicle infractions, will be easier for the public and administratively. This change will make our justice system smoother and more expedient. Access to justice is paramount and we continuously look at progressive ways to improve the system.

Currently, anyone who gets a summary offence ticket must appear in court for the first appearance if they intend to plead not guilty. The person must then return to court for their trial where many of the issues discussed at arraignment are, again, addressed before the court. Under the new proposed system, Nova Scotians will be required to appear in court only once. They will be able to go to the front counter of their justice centre at their convenience and receive a trial date from the administrator.

Video links from jails to courts are also underway. Video equipment is currently installed at the justice system in Sydney, Port Hawkesbury, Halifax and Yarmouth. Similar equipment is being installed in the remaining justice centres. The department implemented an 18-month pilot project that will involve a video link between the Sydney Justice Centre and Ingonish. This is intended to make it easier for residents of rural Cape Breton to attend court and improve their access to justice by reducing travel to the justice centre serving Victoria County.

Eventually, we are aiming to 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 these modern techniques benefit the entire system.

Another area where I believe we can create administrative efficiencies in the justice system is through the merger of Family Court and Provincial Court. It simply does not make sense in a province of this size to have two distinct provincially-appointed courts. This merger has started over the last couple of years through the dual appointment of judges to the Family and Provincial Courts. It is my intention to complete the merger. I think that this is something that needs to happen while continuing to appoint judges who have the skills and experience to hear family law matters.

Court security. We are also working diligently to ensure our courts continue to be safe. A security review of 13 court facilities was conducted in November 2007. Consultations occurred with all stakeholders, judiciary, lawyers, staff, public prosecutions, police and facility users. The review indicated our court facilities were safe. However, the review made 11 recommendations in four key areas: security technology, security protocol, communication, and training. These recommendations are being implemented.

In the past year we've installed panic or duress alarms at all courts for judges and staff, and 10 new metal detectors, security arches, and more security wands were purchased to replace portable walk-through equipment. Closed-circuit television is being upgraded at the Dartmouth Provincial Court, and other sites are also being prioritized to replace outdated equipment. That's just to name a few. We are always seeking innovative ways to address the challenges we face.

Mental Health Court. As you know, the province's first Mental Health Court opened November 2, 2009 at the Dartmouth Provincial Court. Last year's budget allocated $1 million to open the doors to the courts and offices in Dartmouth, and hire professional staff who assist those Nova Scotians suffering from a mental illness and come into conflict with the law. This year we are happy to announce that we've invested $750,000 into the continued operation of Mental Health Court.

The court looks at offenders and their illness, not just at their crime when it comes to administering justice, but individuals are still being held accountable and face sanctions. They receive other supports to help improve their lives so that they can live in the community without committing crimes. Mental Health Courts in other provinces have proven that they are effective and reduce recidivism by addressing their social needs as well. This new court looks at the offenders and their illness, not just their crimes when it comes to administering justice. Individuals are still to be held accountable and possibly face sentencing; however, they will receive other supports that have not existed before to help rehabilitate them.

In the first three months, 84 people had been referred from the regular court justice system. Now at six months, it is too soon to speak of the court's success, but so far it is operating as we had hoped. This specialty court is still in its pilot stage. The department and our stakeholders will monitor its progress closely.

Corrections. The department is improving public safety and security through effective custody-based corrections and community-based corrections. There are approximately 8,000 court-ordered admissions to community and custodial correctional services annually. The Correctional Services Division operates five adult and two young offender correctional facilities. The key functions of correctional facilities are to provide safe and secure custody, direction, and control of offenders, and programs that assist with the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.

The department's five adult correctional facilities are Antigonish Correctional Facility, Cape Breton Correctional Facility, Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, Cumberland Correctional Facility, and Southwest Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. The department's two youth correctional facilities are Nova Scotia's youth facility in Waterville and the Cape Breton Youth Detention Facility.

I am pleased to announce today that you will see in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal's tangible capital assets budget that there is almost $9.2 million allocated to the start of construction for a new $31 million, 100-cell correctional facility. This new facility replaced the aging Antigonish and Cumberland Correctional Facilities, which were built in 1948 and 1890 respectively. Not only will this facility meet the province's correctional facility needs now and in the future, it will also create about 70 new rural jobs. In this economy, I am very proud of this sound investment. We are entrusted with taxpayers' money and we will continue to make sound business decisions that will serve Nova Scotians well into the future.

As we move forward with the site selection of the new facility, the department is meeting the needs of the current inmates as well as planning for an increase of inmates in the future. The department has invested $100,000 in purchasing and installing permanent double bunks at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Burnside and the Southwest Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Yarmouth. This will enhance current requirements and increase future capacity in the province by adding 105 beds at Burnside and 23 at the Yarmouth facility.

Local and provincial union representatives, as well as Occupational Health and Safety committees, have been consulted on the design and configuration of the bunks in the cells. Although the bunks are not needed at the Southwest Nova Scotia Correctional Facility at this time, it is important to be prepared for a potential increase in offenders in the future. We are also pleased to continue to fund the Halifax Youth Attendance Centre which treats at-risk students for programming and educational support. The division also operates 22 community corrections offices.

Restorative justice. At the Department of Justice we are very proud of the innovative, successful work done in restorative justice. The program is delivered in partnership with communities, is a key crime prevention investment, and has been operating successfully since 1999 when it was first formed. It is an intervention program for youths 12 to 17 and those they have harmed. This year the program will launch two pilot projects designed to expand the program to adult matters. These pilot projects will serve in the form of policy for a potential full expansion of the Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Program to adults. To support this important program we have provided $227,000 in additional funding.

[2:30 p.m.]

The medical examiner's office. In my role as Attorney General I am responsible for the medical examiner's office. I am also pleased to share with my colleagues that there is almost $5 million in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal's tangible capital assets budget for construction to begin on a new forensic medical examiner's facility. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is essential to an effective law enforcement system. We've also been able to increase funding by $165,000 to appropriately staff the medical examiner's office with well-qualified individuals. A case records assistant will be added to the team this year. We are truly fortunate here in Nova Scotia to have the calibre of individuals working in such a delicate and important field. The medical examiner's office prides itself on helping families by finding answers during tragic times.

Legal aid. We are also working to ensure Nova Scotians have access to legal aid services when they need them, regardless of their financial situation. I am happy to announce that there is an increase of $620,000 in legal aid funding. These new funds will help hundreds more Nova Scotians gain access to legal aid services. This investment is another demonstration of our commitment to legal aid in this province.

Maintenance enforcement. Another critical service provided to Nova Scotians 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 had made significant 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.

Government has been increasing enforcement through revoking drivers' licences, and garnishing wages and lottery winnings. We are also revoking hunting and fishing licences. A new director was appointed. The systems database was revamped to ensure data reliability and control, and to establish performance measures for an annual accountability report. All complaints are being assessed for client services and to ensure that all callbacks to clients are within the standard of two business days.

A Maintenance Enforcement Program Web site was launched in June 2008, to provide the public with general information and frequently-asked questions. The MEP on-line was launched June 1, 2009 so that clients may receive automated information about their accounts 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The secure Web site also provides information to garnish into reciprocating jurisdictions within Canada. For the first nine-month period the info line has been in operation, the average total users per month is 3,936. This represents on average 3,243 unique users. The Act has also been amended to require courts to provide information to the director that would assist with the enforcement orders. There is still much work to be done, but we feel we are making significant progress on this important issue.

Other responsibilities. I am also responsible for a variety of other agencies providing important services to Nova Scotians and these include the Public Prosecution Service, the Human Rights Commission, and an independent government agency charged with administering Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act. Under the authority of the Act, the commission focuses on two core business functions: resolving complaints of discrimination, and public education and outreach.

I am 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 decision 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 amount it cost to request information, from $25 to $5. This will open the process to those Nova Scotians who may not have been able to afford it in the past. We also proclaimed a new privacy Act, which will ensure that we balance access to information with an individual's right to privacy in this era of the Internet.

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to review some of the activities in 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 to ensure Nova Scotians can be confident in the safety and security of their communities.

I would like to close my remarks by thanking my staff for their fine work. Each person has an important role to play in making sure that we provide high-quality service, and I have been impressed with the dedication and enthusiasm I have witnessed since becoming Minister of Justice, that is without question.

I look forward to the members' questions and comments and welcome the opportunity to share information once again on our programs and services - I guess there's a lot more to read.

The Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service works hard for the people of this province representing the public interest in criminal proceedings. 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 90 Crown Attorneys and has a total staff of 160 in 20 offices across the province. Our Crowns handle about 45,000 Criminal Code charges every year. In 2008-09, these included more than 70 murders and attempted murders, 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 record offences in Nova Scotia, the Public Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting cases involving violations of provincial Statutes. 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 the service has determined the court has made an error in law. In 2008-09 the PPS was involved in 37 appeals. Since it was established 20 years ago, the PPS has prosecuted cases that have garnered national attention. As a service the PPS delivers quality front-line prosecution services, and it continues to sharpen its skills and expertise in major and complex cases.

With regard to our hard-working team of Crown Attorneys, I remind you that February 2007 saw a labour relations milestone - an agreement was reached with the Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys Association on a salary-setting mechanism. That arrangement most recently resulted in an arbitration award which has set salary increases for Crown Attorneys from April 2006 through March 2009. Negotiations for the next salary agreement are pending.

Continuing education for full-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 prosecution services.

In the last year the PPS funded the Crown Attorneys' annual conference and the Public Prosecution Service support staff's annual seminar; it funded the participation of several Crown Attorneys at the Ontario Crown Attorneys' summer school program, a valuable professional development opportunity made available to the PPS through the kind co-operation of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General; it continued to train PPS staff in the use of the Prosecution Information Composite System - or PICS, I guess it's called; it continued to provide training to all Crown Attorneys on youth criminal justice matters; it continued additional training as required on new PPS policies; it provided training to Crown Attorneys on the government's Family Violence Initiative; and it supported the Education Professional Development Committee in the delivery of required training.

The PPS also participated at the national level. The director of the Public Prosecution Service continues to meet regularly with heads of prosecutions from jurisdictions across Canada, to share information, and to collaborate on common initiatives. As well, the director of the Public Prosecution Service participates in meetings of deputy ministers responsible for justice.

Let me now turn to the challenges facing the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service. Major cases require extensive work, as Crown Attorneys prepare the case for court. There are often complex Charter challenges to the proceedings. There are usually dozens of witnesses to be interviewed and prepared for the experience of giving evidence in court. There are also expert witness reports to be studied and digested. More and more often, DNA evidence is introduced in court which requires an extensive preparation by Crown Counsel.

Major cases are complex and high profile. Public safety and the public perception of the justice system are influenced by the outcomes of these cases. The PPS makes it a practice to assign at least two Crown Attorneys to each murder case, with 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 the service's Special Prosecutions Section. 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 Public Prosecution Service's expertise 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 specialized prosecutions conducted each year. When such cases are conducted by Crown Attorneys other than those in the Special Prosecutions Section, they can also be responding to the demands of regular court responsibilities - I should correct that, I think I said "can" - they cannot also be responding to the demands of regular court responsibilities.

This difficulty necessitates backfilling the Crown Attorneys in their regular court schedule for days, weeks, months or even years, as has happened in the past. Therefore, the service must use outside counsel hired on a per-diem or term-employment basis to backfill in response to major cases. 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. To service this policy of assigning at least two Crown Attorneys to all murder cases, the ever-increasing number of major cases, as well as the additional police officers in the Boots to the Streets program, this is adding to the volume of prosecutions and a requirement for additional resources. In addition, the province's Justices of the Peace operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In this regard, Crown Attorneys have provided advice to the police after-hours and on weekends. A weekend bail court pilot project has concluded. The project requires Crown Attorney resources, and if weekend bail courts were to become a permanent program it would require Crown Attorney resources.

Other new initiatives to the Public Prosecution Service include a Proceeds of Crime program and responding to the procedural needs of the new Mental Health Court, which opened in November 2009.

As you can see, there are many challenges facing the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service this year and in the coming year. The continued contribution to public safety made by the Public Prosecution Service is significant and must never be taken for granted.

[2:45 p.m.]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: At this point we'll be opening the floor to the Liberal caucus.

The honourable member for Richmond.

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Minister, I'm going to do things a bit differently this time. I'm just looking at some of the Supplementary Detail from last year and I'm just wondering if you could provide me with a bit of explanation as to what some of this funding was for. I'm looking under Justice in the Public Accounts, Volume 3, Marine Drive Pentecostal Church, $12,000. I'm wondering, could you advise what that is for?

MR. LANDRY: That was a crime prevention program - the teen youth initiative.

MR. SAMSON: And was that $12,000 per organization that qualified or what was the basis of that amount?

MR. LANDRY: That was from the Lighthouses Program. They were one of the awarding candidates through the applications that we received and they received $12,000 for their initiative.

MR. SAMSON: For the Millbrook Youth Group - $40,000?

MR. LANDRY: That was a just one of the process there, where we gave them money that we felt was a wise investment, a sound investment, into the community for that event, and we had the funding to support that.

MR. SAMSON: What was the event?

MR. LANDRY: I will gather further details. It was dealing with the drop-in centre itself, but the actual particulars of the case I don't recall right now. But I do remember signing it and looking at it.

MR. SAMSON: What pool of money would that funding come from?

MR. LANDRY: That was from a pool of discretionary grant money that was utilized for that expenditure.

MR. SAMSON: Do you still have a pool of discretionary money as the Minister of Justice?

MR. LANDRY: I'm going to answer that question in a couple parts. One is that there's about $500,000 available to the Justice Department to utilize. I personally don't make the - well, I do make the awards but it comes based on recommendation and need, and in the interest of crime prevention in the communities across Nova Scotia to access that.

MR. SAMSON: And where would one get the application forms for that program?

MR. LANDRY: That would depend on the community and having an interest in a need, and if we have a need to put the money out, we will put it out. I don't know if there's any special format - just through crime prevention is where that money lies.

MR. SAMSON: Being there's no application, do you understand how - there's really no means for community groups to know this funding even exists. So how are they supposed to know they can even apply for this, if the program is not advertised? There's no name for the program. There's no application form for the program. How do they even know to make application to you if there's no program or awareness of how they could access such funding?

MR. LANDRY: Well, we're continually getting inundated by requests for different issues, and a lot of this is to see if there's an emergency, or something that we couldn't forecast, and we respond. One of the unique things about our government that we have done this year, is if there are surplus dollars left over at the end of the year, they go back into the government and not spent unwisely at the end of the year, or unnecessarily. So we have a system there where if there is a need, and an emergency comes up in the community, we have access to some dollars to do that. At the end of the year, if there are dollars left over, it goes back into the government.

MR. SAMSON: So you started by saying you were answering two parts, but you only got one part out by saying there was $500,000 in this discretionary fund. Is there any other funding that you have, which is not part of a specific program, that's discretionary to you as minister?

MR. LANDRY: Other monies that we have is the $240,000 for the Lighthouses Program; $40,000 for small grants for crime prevention and applications are taken for that. That's our other money.

MR. SAMSON: Where does one get an application for funding under the $40,000 small grants fund?

MR. LANDRY: You can just go on our Web site on the Internet and it's all laid out in there.

MR. SAMSON: So what is the name of the program?

MR. LANDRY: Well, there's the Lighthouses Program and you go under Crime Prevention, and under grants you will see that it's there. Or you can call the deputy and touch base with the office there. If you're looking for something in particular for your area, I'm more than happy, or anyone else . . .

MR. SAMSON: That's a good thing and I know that my community has benefited from that, but when we're looking at a budget and when we're looking at accountability and programs, how do you explain the fact that in 2010 you still have a $0.5 million slush fund, which you get to decide what to do with, that really has no program criteria or guidelines to it and there's no application form.

MR. LANDRY: Well, those are dollars that are in the budget and, as I said, if there are emergency circumstances, if there was ever an event that came up - one of the members of the Progressive Conservative Party mentioned to me today, the criteria for their particular program didn't fit in ours so we found it in another department, but if it had fit within our criteria, we would have been able to take it from there. The unique thing and the nice thing about this government's approach to the budget is that if there are surplus dollars left over at the end of the year, it will go back in and go towards the government debt reduction.

MR. SAMSON: Were there any surplus funds left after the end of the 2009 fiscal year?

MR. LANDRY: Last year they were all used.

MR. SAMSON: They were all used, okay, so no money was saved there. How much was this $0.5 million slush fund last year? (Interruption) Okay, the question was, you're saying that this discretionary fund of yours is $0.5 million this year, how much was it in 2009?

MR. LANDRY: It was the same amount and just for clarity, it's the Department of Justice's fund, it's not my personal fund.

MR. SAMSON: You sign off on it as minister, correct?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, but there's a process there for people to access the dollars, they're reviewed, and I respect the process.

MR. SAMSON: Could you table for us, if you don't have it with you today, what exactly is the process on paper? Obviously, I'm assuming if there's a process and you're saying you follow it, it must be written down somewhere. If you could provide that to us so we would be aware of that, that would be great.

MR. LANDRY: We'll get that to you.

MR. SAMSON: Let me just go to a couple more here that kind of jumped out at me. The Salvation Army - $270,000 - what was that for?

MR. LANDRY: They were staff that we took on to coordinate youth programs that we had and we actually accessed the resource from the Salvation Army. (Interruption) We were already paying that to the Salvation Army, so we took it under our own staff and direction.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I'm at a bit of a loss. You're paying them for what? You didn't say what you were paying them for.

MR. LANDRY: They were employed with the Salvation Army, and we were actually providing them funding and they paid the staff. So we just took them over and we pay direct, they're employees of ours.

MR. SAMSON: I'm going to try this one more time. What did they actually do, what was their job? You've told me you paid them, but what were they doing? That's what I'm asking.

MR. LANDRY: They were working with youth - in the youth field.

MR. SAMSON: Doing what?

MR. LANDRY: Working in areas of troubled youth throughout the area.

MR. SAMSON: What area?

MR. LANDRY: Cape Breton - Sydney.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, how would that have been different than what was being done by the - let me see - how is that different from the Island Community Justice Society?

MR. LANDRY: Pardon?

MR. SAMSON: How is what they were doing different from what the Island Community Justice Society was doing?

MR. LANDRY: That's a private organization that we help fund that provides services to youth within the Cape Breton area.

MR. SAMSON: Are you referring to the Salvation Army now or are you referring again to the Island Community Justice Society?

MR. LANDRY: The Island Community Justice Society.

MR. SAMSON: You're saying they're a private organization?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I always thought that the Island Community Justice Society was a volunteer organization that was a non-profit.

MR. LANDRY: Well, private - volunteer.

MR. SAMSON: They're volunteer?

MR. LANDRY: They aren't government.

MR. SAMSON: No, they are not government, you're right, but they are non-profit.

MR. LANDRY: My understanding is yes.

MR. SAMSON: So you're saying you used to pay the Salvation Army $270,000 for work with troubled youth but you're saying now that's being done by your staff, is that correct?

MR. LANDRY: We're paying them direct, as employees.

MR. SAMSON: They are now your employees.

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so they get benefits and everything else now?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: And what has been the costing of that?

MR. LANDRY: We're doing it for the same amount of money.

MR. SAMSON: The same amount of money, okay. Sankofa Films - $40,000 - what was that?

MR. LANDRY: That's a group that we supported in regard to issues around gun violence and educating young people on that issue, and safety in regard to that matter.

MR. SAMSON: What work did they do?

MR. LANDRY: Without the actual details, I know that they were making a film or advertising spots that went out and communicated with the youth in regard to that matter.

MR. SAMSON: Have you seen any of these ads? Has it been done? Where were these ads or films shown?

MR. LANDRY: Actually, where I'm at a loss - and I think this might help - now that I look at the date on the document, these actions that you are referring to are matters prior to me becoming Minister of Justice and being in the department, so it's under the previous administration. I was wondering why they weren't just snapping off the end of my fingers here.

MR. SAMSON: Well, if the minister would be prepared to provide us with the Public Accounts, Volume 3, for 2010, we'd certainly be more than happy to ask him questions about that. Unfortunately, as the minister should know, that hasn't been tabled as of yet, so the only information that we do have is information relating to last year's expenditures.

[3:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, I do realize it may be before your time but they are still expenditures undertaken by the Department of Justice, for which you are minister, so I would certainly hope that you would be able to answer questions in relation to that. Maybe the minister can undertake to provide more details as to what the $40,000 actually was for this Sankofa Films.

One of the other ones I'm looking at is the Springhill Police Department, $5,500. I'm just curious what that was for.

MR. LANDRY: Well, being familiar with crime prevention and bicycle rodeo programs, it was to sponsor that initiative and to put on that event. I don't know how many days they invest in it. Maybe just to save some clarity for you, we'll get you any information that you want, if you want to make a list of things that you'd like to have from that budget period.

As far as the new budget period, I'd be very happy that once those documents are out, if you have questions and you want to come down and meet with me in my office and my staff, we'll be glad to sit down with you and answer your questions. I'm at a loss a little bit, although on the issue of the Springhill Police Department, that's easy, bicycle rodeos. I can see the costs - you know, you probably had some food there that day, special appearances by individuals with equipment, and police officers would be there but most of them give their time for that.

MR. SAMSON: Under what fund would that funding have come from?

MR. LANDRY: That would be from the grant programs that we have.

MR. SAMSON: Which specific one? Lighthouses, the discretionary fund . . .

MR. LANDRY: It looks to me like it would be out of discretionary spending because it's not Lighthouses and it doesn't look like a one-off.

MR. SAMSON: The next one I see is St. Matthew-wesley United Church, $10,000.

MR. LANDRY: Well, other than what I read there, it's a crime prevention program, it says Sunday school support. I'm not sure what that would be but we'll get you the information.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I'm by myself here and I see you have a significant amount of staff with you. I'm assuming that one of them will be taking down the list of these items and able to provide more of this information. I'm fearful that you're going to expect me to have all this at the end, so I'm hoping they might be able to provide a - offhand, do you know where that $10,000 would have come from? Is that from the discretionary fund as well?

MR. LANDRY: I would say discretionary.

MR. SAMSON: But you don't have the details around what it was for?

MR. LANDRY: No, I don't look at individual cases prior to my arrival, just so you know.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I'll skip that for now. Looking at a few others on Page 172, Supplementary Information, I'm looking here at Archibald & Lederman, $103,000. I wonder if you could tell us what that was for.

MR. LANDRY: That was payment for professional services to a member of the Criminal Code Review Board.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I'm going to need a better explanation than that - payment for services for a member of the review board - what review board, what member, what service?

MR. LANDRY: Well, he would be on the Criminal Code Review Board, is what it says to me there and it says for professional services, $103,000, so to me that's self-explanatory. But if you want further information, I'd be more than happy to get it for you.

MR. SAMSON: Who is Archibald & Lederman? I'm assuming there's not a person by that name.

MR. LANDRY: That's the firm that was contracted to provide that service. It's a law firm, to a member of their firm.

MR. SAMSON: And that firm is where?

MR. LANDRY: Truro, and he would be the chair of the board.

MR. SAMSON: Is that Bruce Archibald that you're referring to?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, it says Bruce - oh no, that's below, that's Archie Lederman. It's Lederman who is the chair.

MR. SAMSON: Lederman is the chair of the Criminal Code Review Board, is that what you called it? What is the Criminal Code Review Board?

MR. LANDRY: It's a board, I would assume, that looks at the Criminal Code and reviews different parts of it. If you're looking for details, we'll get them for you.

MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, minister, I would hope that you would have details of what exactly it is and where that board sits and how we're involved with that board. Can you provide us with more detail than that?

MR. LANDRY: A review board on people who have been wrongly convicted and they assess their cases.

MR. SAMSON: And that's based here in Nova Scotia?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: Who else sits on that board?

MR. LANDRY: We'll get you the names.

MR. SAMSON: But it is a standing committee of Nova Scotia, it's part of the adjudicative boards that are appointed by Cabinet, is that correct?

MR. LANDRY: Yes. We'll get those details for you.

MR. SAMSON: Archway Search Consultants Inc., $364,000, what service did they provide?

MR. LANDRY: An IT consultant is what I see there. We're going to dance all day. You just pick the ones that you want the details on and we'll get them for you.

MR. SAMSON: So you don't know what we paid $364,000 for, is that correct?

MR. LANDRY: Well, I wouldn't have signed off on that so I wouldn't have read it. We'll find that out for you and get back to you.

MR. SAMSON: I see here on Page 173, Chairs Ltd., $130,000. I wonder if the minister could provide us with some details on that, other than just saying that they bought chairs.

MR. LANDRY: Well, I would make the conclusion that they bought chairs.

MR. SAMSON: You have no other details on that?

MR. LANDRY: Well, of course not. I don't want to be disrespectful in any way. You can ask me all the questions you want about that, I didn't sign off on this. If I signed off on most of those things I would have an answer. But I'm more than happy to find you any issue that you want. We can make a list and we can check it twice and we'll get it to you.

MR. SAMSON: Well then, I'm doing my best not to be argumentative but I'm sure the minister will understand, time did not end when you became minister. The clock didn't stop and then we start from there. These expenditures, I'm assuming there has been some benefit to you and your department now that you are the minister, it didn't all stop the day that you got named minister and it's only here going forward. This is an issue of trying to find out where tax dollars got spent. You're now the minister and, with all due respect, whatever got spent yesterday or five years ago, if it's in your department, I would be hoping that you would be prepared to provide an explanation of how that was spent.

The alternative, if you feel that there are expenditures that were made prior to your arrival that were inappropriate, maybe the minister would wish to advise us of that as well. But to say that you bear no responsibility for previous expenditures - I'm not asking you to be responsible, I'm simply asking you to provide details and we're not even getting that here today.

MR. LANDRY: Let's be reasonable here and let's answer this question. It is impossible for me to walk in here and tell you whether or not100 chairs were bought for that money or that there are chairs. I respect the fact that there was a Minister of Justice sitting in my chair before I arrived in office, and they and the department signed off on them. At no point in this discussion have I implied or indicated that something was done inappropriately or improperly, I have no evidence of that.

I am more than happy to see that my department gets any question that you may have with regard to an expenditure and get you the details. But to believe for one minute that I went back and reviewed those things would be misleading. I don't want to be disrespectful or short with you in any manner at all, but we should be reasonable. So put forth what you would like to have information on and we'll see that you get it.

MR. SAMSON: Anyway, I sat in your chair as Minister of Environment and every line item in that budget, I had an answer for. It was all written down for me. If there were chairs bought, I knew the exact amount of chairs bought, I knew where they went, and all that information was provided. If that's not provided then there are issues here. We have a limited amount of time to ask questions and we have a very busy House session. Today, I came here prepared to ask questions and I hoped to get answers, and we're clearly not getting that.

Now, one of the points that I wanted to point out is that the funding has been given through this discretionary fund that you can't provide details for, and my concern is that there really are no parameters for this, it's left to the minister to decide what gets funds and what doesn't. The fact that you can't provide me details adds to my concern that there are not the proper protocols in place for these types of programs.

Again, the next one I was going to ask is the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches got $21,000. I think it's reasonable for us to be told today, what did we spend $21,000 on?

MR. LANDRY: The first part I would like to answer because I didn't hear part of the second half of his question. The first part of the question - we bought $123 million worth of merchandise and if you're able to comment on that from a previous administration, you're a better man than me and I respect that. As far as I'm concerned, I can't go back there and I'm not going to pretend and give you some type of - I'm not going to string a line here. But if you feel it's important - and I respect the fact that you're asking that question - I'll bend over backwards to make sure you get the appropriate information. But I'm just one man and $123 million worth of purchases in our department from the previous year to me coming in, I hope that you can understand that I would be overwhelmed.

MR. SAMSON: Well, look, we can do this all day but I think it's just ridiculous to suggest that you're one man - with all due respect, you've got thousands of employees, very competent and qualified employees, and to suggest that I'm asking you to count how many chairs were bought is just absolutely ridiculous and I think the minister realizes that.

But let's try a few more and see if the minister can answer these. The Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches got $21,000. Could the minister advise what that was for?

MR. LANDRY: What page is that on?

MR. SAMSON: Page 173. The Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches, $21,045.49.

MR. LANDRY: I'm going to have to get back to you with that information.

MR. SAMSON: Crime Compensation Payments, $181,335.34. What were those?

MR. LANDRY: We believe it was for legal counselling of victims of crime.

MR. SAMSON: Would it be possible to get a breakdown of what that $181,000 represents?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, we'll get that for you.

MR. SAMSON: D & D Removal Services, $420,000.

MR. LANDRY: That's dealing with the removal of deceased at scenes.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, and which area did that cover? It must be here in the city or something, is it?

MR. LANDRY: It's province-wide.

MR. SAMSON: It's province-wide. Okay, because I know that there is a company from my areas that's there as well.

Deloitte & Touche, $213,000, was that the Burnside review?

MR. LANDRY: Which one was it, Deloitte & Touche or Deloitte Inc.?

MR. SAMSON: No, Deloitte & Touche, $213,000.

MR. LANDRY: That's the Burnside review.

MR. SAMSON: Was that all they did, just the Burnside review? That seems like an awful lot of money for just that Burnside review.

MR. LANDRY: The principal location was the Dartmouth one, but they did it province-wide, they reviewed the whole system.

[3:15 p.m.]

MR. SAMSON: Has there been any analysis done of that? That's almost $0.25 million, that seems like an awful lot of money. Has the minister looked at that at all or is this just the first time you're hearing what that cost was?

MR. LANDRY: My concern with Deloitte was the 52 recommendations that came out of that. When I came into office I focused on how we go ahead with the implementation and the costing surrounding that. As to what the report cost, I didn't look at that until today, and if that's what it cost and the department and previous minister signed off on it, then I accept that.

MR. SAMSON: I see the Diocese of Yarmouth Chancery, $48,762. I'm wondering what that was for.

MR. LANDRY: That's to pay the chaplain to provide those services.

MR. SAMSON: Services, I take it, at the correctional facility down at Yarmouth?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: Does your department pay for chaplain services for every correctional facility?

MR. LANDRY: That would be at Waterville, because it says the Nova Scotia Youth Centre. So that's at Waterville and not the Yarmouth one, to correct that.

MR. SAMSON: Okay. So does that pay the salary of one individual or a group of individuals who go in? This is the first I've heard of this, so I'm curious.

MR. LANDRY: Looking at the rate that's there, I would assume it's the cost for a part-time person to come in and provide those services and the cost for that person to come there.

MR. SAMSON: I see on Page 174, William Hogg for $16,000. I'm just curious, what service did Mr. Hogg provide for that amount of money?

MR. LANDRY: Mr. Hogg provided contractual services to do a review of the service there in the medical examiner's office and that was his fee.

MR. SAMSON: Was that contracted out? Was it put to tender, was there a call for tender on that?

MR. LANDRY: It was a standing offer.

MR. SAMSON: It was a standing offer. I'm looking at Page 175, MacAulay Neuropath Consultations Inc., $57,500.

MR. LANDRY: It appears to be lab work for the medical examiner's office.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, on Page 176, McCarthy Tetrault, $18,219. I'm wondering, what service did they provide?

MR. LANDRY: It's a law firm to deal with some issues surrounding our involvement with the tar ponds and the class action suit that's against us there. So I would assume, looking at that and knowing what I do know about the issue, it was probably advice given.

MR. SAMSON: So they're providing advice on the class action lawsuit regarding the tar ponds to the Department of Justice, is that correct?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, that's what it is.

MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious, with the amount of lawyers that we have here in Nova Scotia, why are we going outside the province for that kind of advice?

MR. LANDRY: We quite often in highly technical matters consult with people that have a unique set of skills or expertise. In the long run it's cheaper and more efficient. And just one other little point with that, as well, is that we also have a partner in the federal government so there might be an issue there, too, that was being resolved.

MR. SAMSON: On Page 176, I see Musicstop Ltd. for $32,000. I'm just curious if the minister knows offhand what that was for.

MR. LANDRY: We're going to have to get you that information because I can't determine from the printout what that is.

MR. SAMSON: I'm seeing a line item for Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. I'm assuming that's the Bar fees for the Department of Justice lawyers. There has certainly been an issue with the payment of Bar fees for the Premier. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate, was it the Department of Justice that was covering the Bar fees for the Premier?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, it was.

MR. SAMSON: Okay. What funding was that coming out of?

MR. LANDRY: It would be the same line. Just for the record, since coming into this office, that has been stopped.

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise when that was stopped because you came into office in June, wasn't it?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, just earlier this year I stopped it.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so earlier this year, in January, February?

MR. LANDRY: A couple of months ago, I guess, maybe.

MR. SAMSON: Have you had the opportunity to determine how it was - there have been questions about whether a policy existed in relation to the fact that the Premier was able to have those fees paid. Have you seen a policy yourself in regard to that?

MR. LANDRY: It was a matter of protocol with the previous administration and a decision that they made. Since coming in, I had discussions with the Premier and his discussions with me in regard to that matter were it would be better that this would be stopped. I concurred with that.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, just for my own clarification, are you indicating that you as minister suggested that payments no longer be made or is that something the Premier concluded? I'm just looking for clarification.

MR. LANDRY: The Premier requested that.

MR. SAMSON: That you stop making payments on it?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so when you say "protocol" there is nothing in writing, there's no policy, there's nothing at all that advises as to who would be eligible to receive payments as elected members in the House of Assembly for professional fees, is that correct?

MR. LANDRY: To my knowledge, I haven't seen any documentation. My understanding is that the previous administration, that was the way they dealt with that matter. They had an understanding and that's what traditionally was occurring, but that changed this year.

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, was there anyone other than the current Premier and the late Mr. Baker who were receiving payments for this?

MR. LANDRY: My understanding with the information that I have at this point is no, just Mr. Baker and Mr. Dexter.

MR. SAMSON: Could you verify whether there is any correspondence between the Department of Justice and Mr. Dexter over the years when these payments were being made, whether a receipt to confirm payment had been made or any correspondence indicating how this would all take place? Is there actually anything on paper at all referring to this or how this was handled? For example, how was the Premier made aware that his fees had been covered? Is there a letter that would have come from someone in the Department of Justice just to advise that payment had been made? Is there any paper trail with this at all or was it strictly all verbal?

MR. LANDRY: My understanding is that it was done through the Premier's former law firm and they paid the fee and they were reimbursed. So the only way the payment could be done is if the receipt was there.

MR. SAMSON: Would there be any correspondence between the Department of Justice and the Premier's former law firm in regard to this? How did they even communicate to know that?

MR. LANDRY: My understanding is there's no formal correspondence but we'll check to see if there's any correspondence.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, I didn't think the Premier was even still associated with his firm so I'm surprised to hear that. I assumed that payments were being made directly from the Department of Justice, but you're saying that it was first paid by his firm and then reimbursed by the Department of Justice.

MR. LANDRY: Whether it was in the last couple of years I'm not sure, but what I do know is that it doesn't occur anymore. We can find that material out because you're asking me a question, once again, that in all likelihood I had no access to that information until you raised the question.

MR. SAMSON: Yes, and you've provided information today that's new to me so I would certainly appreciate if you could ask your staff to look at providing us with how exactly the payments were made. Were they paid via a law firm? Were they paid directly through the Department of Justice? I'm just curious. I'm surprised by the information I was provided so I certainly would appreciate if your staff could look back to whatever the period was, whether it was 2006 or prior to that, and just indicate how those arrangements were made and whether there is any sort of paper trail for that.

One of the other questions - I'm just looking here at some of the larger numbers that jump out at me. I see for the Springhill Police Department, on Page 178, a payment of $175,000. I'm wondering if you could advise what that was for.

MR. LANDRY: I would assume that it's Boots to the Streets and just for the record, we can't do enough for the Springhill Police Department. (Laughter)

MR. SAMSON: I'm assuming that's the Boots to the Streets program?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MR. SAMSON: Is the same amount of funding that is going to the Springhill Police Department and all the other police departments that are mentioned here, will that same level of funding go to them again in 2010?

MR. LANDRY: The current funding process that was happening in the past is still in effect today. I see no change in that.

MR. SAMSON: In light of the indication from the Minister of Finance with concerns over trying to control spending and that, I'm just looking at some of the travel costs within the Department of Justice. I'm curious, could the minister indicate whether he has had the opportunity to review some of these travel costs and whether there are any anticipated changes being contemplated with regard to some of these significantly high travel claims that are contained here?

MR. LANDRY: The issue on travel costs, no, I did not look back at the past. I was aware there was extensive travel and I know in some of that costing you, yourself, were involved in it. I know the previous minister was quite active and the deputy accompanied them on many of those occasions.

As far as expenditures this year, it has been limited to almost nil, really.

MR. SAMSON: Are you referring to yourself there or are you referring to the rest of the staff? Could you clarify, is it the staff that haven't been travelling or you haven't been travelling?

MR. LANDRY: I haven't been travelling and there has been a reduction in overall travel within the department. My counterpart there seems to think that it's that no one wants to talk to me, but I think when you're new in the area, you start to move forward. We will work through that, but we've been active on the phone.

MR. SAMSON: So there has been no directive or anything from you to limit travel amongst the staff?

MR. LANDRY: What we have done is we are looking at everything that we're doing and what our costs are and we're trying to find ways to reduce costs and reduce travel. We have significantly reduced it so there is a communique out there to staff that we want to cut back on travel, unless we can show it's of a high priority. That's where we're at.

MR. SAMSON: There are a couple that really jump out here and I'm looking at Anne Derrick, $25,000. I think that's more than any of the other justices that we have. I'm curious why the travel is that high for Justice Derrick.

[3:30 p.m.]

MR. LANDRY: I believe that's the Hyde inquiry cost and she's the judge on that hearing.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, but this is going back to last year so this is almost going back to around the 2008-09 period. I'm not sure if the Hyde inquiry was even underway at that point.

MR. LANDRY: I wish to make a correction, it was not the Hyde inquiry. It's the travel back and forth to Cape Breton to fill a vacancy that was there, and there are costs associated with that.

MR. SAMSON: Okay. I'm looking at Russell Partridge, $21,000 in travel claims. I'm not familiar with who Mr. Partridge is.

MR. LANDRY: He was in Yarmouth and he was moved to Burnside, so that's a cost associated with that move.

MR. SAMSON: When you say cost of that move, that's just travel costs, or was it relocation costs that he was provided with?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, relocation costs.

MR. SAMSON: Can you tell us how much the relocation costs were?

MR. LANDRY: Well, moving myself a number of times in my career, that's a very cost-effective move, if that's what the total cost is to move someone from Yarmouth to here.

MR. SAMSON: Okay. I was assuming there was a bit of travel involved in that, but the minister is saying it cost $21,000 to move Mr. Partridge from Yarmouth to Burnside?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, a very reasonable cost.

MR. SAMSON: Robert Purcell, $25,000. What was that for?

MR. LANDRY: We'll get the information on that particular one. He's the director of Policing Services and I would make an assumption it's travel costs for conferences and that, but we'll find out specifically what that was for.

MR. SAMSON: Moving on to another issue. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate whether during the next fiscal year, into the future, are there any plans to close any of the courthouses that we have in Nova Scotia right now?

MR. LANDRY: There are no current plans at this time to close a courthouse.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, to turn that completely around, are there any plans to actually open a courthouse in Arichat that has been closed now for quite some time and for which we spoke about last Fall? I'm wondering, could the minister advise us what the status is on restoring court services to Richmond County?

MR. LANDRY: I knew I was coming here this week and I thought it would be really important if I went to Arichat to take a look at the geographics and get a firm understanding of the community and stuff. So I did that the other day. It's roughly about 45 kilometres or so from there. The answer to your question is, the present system that we have will probably continue. It's important to me to ensure that those clients that have a need for French services, that they get access to that. We're going to try to ensure that the level of need is being met under the present arrangement but at this time, when we examined the whole issue of the courthouse there, we're holding off at this time.

MR. SAMSON: That's disappointing. It's one thing to say about French services, but you have a First Nations community in Chapel Island, which is also in Richmond County, that is now having to leave their community to go to Port Hawkesbury, which is a completely separate community. That takes away the whole idea of being judged by the peers of your own community because you're sending people outside of their community to be judged.

What we basically had in the case of Arichat is that a judge decided she didn't want to go to that court anymore. I'm curious if the minister understands the message that's being sent that, basically, in that case the judge raised a concern, they closed the courthouse, and now it's remaining closed as a result. I'm not sure, knowing some of the aging courthouses that we have around the province, is this a precedent that's being set that we're now going to see more courthouses being closed as a result?

MR. LANDRY: You raise a very good question. As I said, I went down there the other day to get the geographics in my mind, it was important. I saw a nice, quality highway there. One of the real issues that I hear you saying, especially in the tone or the approach to your question, is that you feel the community and the judgment by their peers, to have that in their community is a high priority. I respect that. One of the things that I have to balance in this present situation is the financial constraints that we're under as a province and how we move forward in meeting community needs and expectations, while at the same time being within our budget costs.

The First Nations issue in Chapel Island is an important issue, the community is important to us - the same with the community of Arichat. But at this time we're going to continue in that area with the present arrangement that we have. However, that's something that as we move forward we will examine more closely.

MR. SAMSON: Well, it's disappointing to say the least, especially with the discussions that we did have in the Fall and the commitments to look at some solutions of even looking at a temporary court facility within the area. I'm assuming that any sort of attempt to look at that is now ended and is not being pursued, and my understanding when we spoke in the Fall was that was being looked at. I think there were different offers that were put forward to your department as to what might be put in place on a temporary basis, waiting to see whether there would be a new building built or whether renovations could be made.

If a report was done in regard to the current facility, I'm wondering if the minister could provide me with a copy of the report that was carried out on the Arichat courthouse.

MR. LANDRY: We'll be happy to provide you with that. Just so we don't leave things off on the wrong foot on that question, because this issue is important to me as well, we had considerable discussion about the options in Arichat last Fall, I remember, and no solution came forward that was practical at the time. If something can come forward in the future that we can examine, that's fine, but to simply say that it's off the books and we're not thinking about it, I don't know if that's fair. When I say I was there a few days ago, I was there last Friday. It's on my mind and I specifically went there because it's on my mind.

I want to assure you and to encourage discussions and if something comes forward in the future to look at, to approach me because if there's a way for us to work a positive resolution that enhances the quality of the service to the community while still respecting the budgetary situation we're in at this time, I'm open and committed.

MR. SAMSON: Well, while I'm always pleased to see people come visit Richmond County, I would encourage the minister to keep in mind that when you're looking at Richmond, you're going from Point Tupper to Irish Cove, which takes you to the Cape Breton Regional Municipality boundary, that's going along the Bras d'Or Lakes. Then if you go along the Atlantic coast it takes you all the way down to Fourchu, which is about an hour-and-a-half run so if you visited Isle Madame, you visited but a small portion of Richmond County, and that is the concern. I wouldn't want the minister to be of the belief that if it's convenient or if it's within 40 minutes to drive from Arichat to Port Hawkesbury, then that addresses the issue because if you're a resident of Irish Cove or Fourchu, it's certainly a much longer distance than that.

Anyway, we'll certainly be continuing to pursue this and hopefully in future budgets that will be a priority.

In the few minutes that I have left, there were some suggestions that there may be either cuts or elimination of the ankle bracelet program. I'm wondering, could the minister indicate whether any changes are being proposed to that program?

MR. LANDRY: Thank you for the question. I believe in the ankle bracelet program, I think it's an area that we need to expand. I'm not aware of any discussion about cutting that. There are issues about looking at how we might cut costs but not cutting the program itself, or how we become more efficient - how we partner with corrections, with sheriffs and with the policing community on the use of the bracelet. So the program is there.

Remember, if you build a jail you'll fill it and so we have to find ways that - we are going to build a jail, but we don't want to keep building jails so we have to find other alternatives. Plus, we want to try to keep people who are not a physical threat in society out in the community while still holding them accountable. It's an issue that's important to me and something that I'll monitor closely, but there's no reduction there.

MR. SAMSON: You indicated in your opening statement that there was going to be $5 million for a new medical examiner's office. Could you provide the details of that? I'm assuming $5 million is not going to build a new office. What exactly will the $5 million bring?

MR. LANDRY: That's a year-one construction cost. The overall cost is about $12 million, if I remember correctly, but that's the first year. For budgetary purposes we split that over the time of construction.

MR. SAMSON: When do you anticipate construction to start?

MR. LANDRY: This Fall we're hoping that it gets started. It would be nice to get the ground broken, the footings in, and then go up from there.

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, where is the new medical examiner's office going to be constructed?

MR. LANDRY: It's in the Burnside Industrial Park area.

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, is it strictly going to be an examiner's office or will there also be forensic capabilities at that site, as well, or are we still sending that out to Ontario?

MR. LANDRY: Well, it's the Chief Medical Examiner's Office and they do forensic work, so I would assume it's one and the same.

MR. SAMSON: I guess there was a discussion about doing some ballistics work here in Nova Scotia and some of the other work that's currently being farmed out to the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa, and the discussion was whether we could look at having a regional facility here in Nova Scotia that would serve, for example, the Atlantic Provinces, and as a result would be a cost-efficient way of doing it. I'm curious, is that still under consideration or is it not?

MR. LANDRY: At this time we're very satisfied with the quality of service and the cost of service from the RCMP in Ottawa. For us to look to develop that and go to cost it, it may be unnecessary costs for us at this time so we're satisfied with that service. The volume that we have may not necessarily justify, but if I clearly heard in your question about a regional part within the Atlantic Provinces, that very point is the type of thing that we discuss at our regional discussions and look at to see if there's a flavour for that.

MR. SAMSON: You indicated, as well, that there was going to be more money for legal aid and you indicated more people will qualify. Does that mean that you're increasing the income limits as to who can qualify for legal aid and, if so, what was the previous limit and what will the new income limit be?

MR. LANDRY: They expanded the certificate portion of it to allow access but they did tighten up on who gets to use it and when. Some of the criteria, the exact details I can get to you.

MR. SAMSON: Are you saying you tightened up who could qualify or you've made it more flexible for people to qualify? I'm getting mixed messages here because your statement was more people will qualify, but what do you mean when you say you've tightened up?

MR. LANDRY: We expanded it for access to criminal and other types of matters such as that, but on personal divorces and stuff we've tightened that up a little bit. The additional monies are to meet the demand that we see predominantly in the criminal area.

MR. SAMSON: I'm going to have to ask, when you say you've tightened up on the issue of divorce and family matters, what do you mean by tightened up? Is it, you don't do divorces anymore or what exactly does that mean?

MR. LANDRY: They looked at efficiencies within the system and how to make it more efficient and they're working that out internally of how they deal with the divorce matters and they're looking at the cases more closely than they have in the past. I think when they say tightened it up, that's basically what they've done.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: At this point I have to interrupt, the time has elapsed for the Liberal caucus. We will now be offering the floor to a member from the Progressive Conservative caucus.

The honourable member for Cumberland South.

MR. LANDRY: I'd like to take a two- to five-minute break, please.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Sure.

MR. LANDRY: Just to get up and move around - I'm getting old.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We'll take a two-minute recess.

[3:45 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[3:49 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the subcommittee back to order. The PC caucus now has one hour for questioning.

The honourable member for Cumberland South.

HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say welcome to the minister, the deputy, and the staff who are here with them today. I actually want to begin by saying, first of all, congratulations to the minister, the department and the staff for what I've seen over the last year. A lot of programs were initiated over the last number of years and I see that those programs continue to be worked on and, in fact, enhanced upon and continued in the future, and I hope that the department will be able to find the resources to continue to do that.

Just very quickly, because I don't want to lose thought of this, I know the previous speaker asked about the Lighthouses Program and I believe the Lighthouses Program was something that was actually initiated in the western provinces and adopted by Nova Scotia. I think it's one of those programs where you talk about, you know, getting at the root causes of crime. I know there were some questions around that and I'll use the example of Springhill.

There's a community centre there that when I was on the police force there, it wasn't actually in operation but I can tell you that that money from the Lighthouses Program, I think it was $12,000 - and I'm sure your department gets results back from these grants. The kind of results they're having around the province, I think you would be pretty amazed that these small communities can take what seems like a small amount of money here in the department - when you look at the millions of dollars in your budget, and then you look at a small community like that that really has little access to any kind of government money through programs or grants, they'll take that $12,000 and turn that into a very successful program, as I know they are now.

I go in myself once in awhile and, you know, these are kids who would normally be hanging out on the corner, congregating in front of the pizza shop, or doing who knows what, a lot of times through boredom and no opportunity to go inside on cold nights and whatever and take part in programs, play pool or whatever it is they're able to do, so I can tell you that the Lighthouses Program, and I'm sure there are many more examples of that around the province - I would encourage the minister and the department to continue to try to find those scarce dollars that I know are in the department because it will, in the end result, I believe, pay off province-wide, especially in small communities where they don't have access to dollars.

The other thing I wanted to mention was, and I think the minister would agree with me, the minister is in a department that's probably one of the most important departments, I believe, in the province - probably every jurisdiction would say the same. The minister is very fortunate to have very capable staff in the department; whether it's directly in the department or whether it's in the Public Prosecution Service, whether it's in legal aid, whether it's on the policing side of the department, he's very fortunate to have very experienced, capable people who are able to head up programs and advise the minister on what kind of vision for the future the department should take.

Again, I think the minister, I'm sure, would agree with me that he's very fortunate that he has that type of support within the department. I want to congratulate the staff, who I believe do an exceptional job, and did an exceptional job when I was there and have done an exceptional job since.

There are just a few budget things I wanted to ask about, that I want to talk about for a minute. I want to talk about some programs that are very important to me around the Boots to the Streets program, some correctional programs and, obviously, I think the minister would probably be disappointed if I didn't take a bit of my hour up with regard to a correctional facility and about what he may have done over the last year, which I'm sure he'll want to tell me about, particularly in regard to going to Ottawa and talking to federal people about tremendous opportunities in this province for savings of dollars. Anyway, we'll get to that eventually, Mr. Minister. I don't want you to be disappointed, I will get there eventually.

Mr. Chairman, I should say that out of my hour I'm going share a bit of my time at the end with my colleague, the member for Dartmouth North, so as we get near there I'll alert you to him when I'm finished and then he can ask a few questions that he may have.

In the Estimates and Supplementary Detail, Page 15.2 - just while we're looking to get to that, the other thing I'd like the minister to think about, because the question I'm going to ask somewhat along here is if the minister can tell me, I've looked where there are some reductions and some actual increases. I am going to ask the minister somewhere along the line if he can tell me if there are any programs that have been eliminated or have been reduced in regard to funding in the upcoming year.

Just while you're thinking about that, Mr. Minister, on Page 15.2, the total departmental expenses, I see it has gone from $281 million to $289 million. In regard to Court Services there's an increase from $57 million to $61 million, roughly. Can you explain what that additional $4 million is going to be for, what that will be utilized for?

MR. LANDRY: The additional costs are for the casual conversion into the service and the reclassification of sheriffs' costs.

MR. SCOTT: So the question is, these are converting casuals to permanent employees, I assume, so do you expect that you're going to need an additional annual increase to reflect that increase this year?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, that's what has transpired there.

MR. SCOTT: In Correctional Services, is that the same?

MR. LANDRY: In Correctional Services we had 12 and so the costs there would be tied to that. That's at the youth facility, that's for that one.

MR. SCOTT: On Page 15.3, Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister, there's a bit of an increase there. Can you explain what that is for?

MR. LANDRY: Domestic violence, $100,000, we're trying to trace that down.

MR. SCOTT: On Page 15.4, Victims Services, there's a reduction.

MR. LANDRY: That was the reduction in IT costs because we finished the project.

MR. SCOTT: On Page 15.5, when you look at the correctional facilities, attendance centres and whatnot, there seems to be an increase in everything else except for the Cape Breton Youth Detention Facility. I'm just wondering why there wouldn't have been any increase there.

MR. LANDRY: It stayed consistent, let's put it down to good efficiency that they didn't need an increase.

MR. SCOTT: The Cape Breton Youth Resource Centre has gone from $270,000 to being eliminated. Is there a reason for that?

MR. LANDRY: In a previous discussion questions were asked around the Salvation Army. That's the transfer of the money back into our department's responsibility, so it no longer goes to the Salvation Army.

MR. SCOTT: The Salvation Army program, I had actually met with the folks here in Halifax when I was in your department and I know they had a tremendous program there. Is that program still in operation today?

MR. LANDRY: We took over the employees and they work for us now. So the program itself is there and so on but the reporting line would change.

MR. SCOTT: Youth Attendance Centres, I see there's an increase there, I think it looks like $100,000, $110,000. What's the situation with youth attendance centres now? I'm interested in the one in Halifax. I know at the time they were looking at moving it, finding a new location, looking to enhance their programs, additional youth taking part in the programs. Could the minister update me on what's happening with the youth attendance centre presently?

MR. LANDRY: It's still in operation, it's in Dartmouth and I think the cost increases there were more to do with rent, I believe, and it's a permanent location now.

[4:00 p.m.]

MR. SCOTT: I just want to mention that I made a note here earlier, the minister had said that - I think you said this is the fourth year for declining crime rates in the province. I think that's something we all should be very proud of and I'm sure that we'll continue to see a decrease with the type of programs that have been brought in, they're in place now, and I'm sure there are new ones that you'll bring in. That's really what it's all about when it comes to a lot of taxpayers' dollars going into programs.

On Page 15.7, Contribution to Municipal Policing, there's a reduction there. I'm wondering if you can tell me why that is.

MR. LANDRY: Those are increases in positions that we put from the Boots to the Streets and where they were reallocated to policing and public prosecutions, that's where the increase went.

MR. SCOTT: It's a decrease - almost $2 million.

MR. LANDRY: It's about a shift - Boots to the Streets used to be more strategically focused and the monies, and the positions were moved into other areas; for example, SIM, security information management, civil forfeiture, crime prevention, Public Safety Investigation Unit, use of force, the private security initiative, legal aid, and the Public Prosecution Service.

One of the things with the Boots to the Streets that they discovered when I came in was the impact on the overall justice system. There are still a number of pressure points within the justice system because of Boots to the Streets that we need to try to strengthen; otherwise there will be a crumbling effect. If you try to put too many people through the front door and there's no room to get through, you're going to have a jam and so we're trying to be more efficient and giving support in the appropriate areas. I think, as I read the Public Prosecution Service part of my introduction, it has had a profound effect on their ability to deliver service because of the increase in files and the demand in the technical aspect of the files.

Just before I finish, my last point, I should also, before that went forward, they were discussed with the local police chiefs and the RCMP, and they're in support of those initiatives.

MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, actually that was a question that I had for later on but I might as well ask you now. I think everyone was aware originally when the Boots to the Street program started that you couldn't put in 250 additional enforcement officers over four years. That would mean a tremendous amount of arrests and more incarcerations, more probation, and obviously more taking part in the bracelet program and every other service that's provided through the justice system.

I think British Columbia, if I remember, had some sort of program they had developed that for every police officer injected into the system, it showed where the pressure points were and what kind of domino effect it would have on the justice system over the next period of time. So I guess what I'm wondering is, has your department initiated any sort of a review of exactly what that means? I think today there are - and you corrected me the other day - I think the number is 187?

MR. LANDRY: No, 183.

MR. SCOTT: So, anyway, 183 additional officers have been injected into the system and obviously, as you just said, whether it's corrections, whether it's the Public Prosecution Service, have you initiated any sort of review now to see, two or three years later, exactly what that has meant for the system, where the pressure points are, and where you're going to need to look in the future in regard to addressing those concerns?

MR. LANDRY: I thank you for that question, it's an excellent question, and we are actually doing that. I know there has been some bantering on the floor, and I'm starting to learn about the orchestrations that go on in here and the value that it does to our democratic system. In reality though, Boots to the Streets needs examination like most government programs and I thank you for bringing that forward. We want to look at the impact it's having on different parts of the justice system, plus what's not working, and then have extended collaboration with the stakeholders of how we can make it more efficient.

One of my goals is that I want to keep the funding there, but we need to be strategically focused. When I use the word "strategic" I've had it thrown back at me in a couple of different ways, saying - well, there was a comment made one day that you can't have people standing on the corners, you haven't got money to burn. Our real issues in crime - and I think the purpose behind Boots to the Streets is to make the community safer. I use the analogy of putting a band-aid on a cancer sore, it does not cure the cancer. Putting a police officer on the corner or additional police officers out on the streets doesn't necessarily solve the problem. What we need to do is put police officers in place who are focused, for example, on repetitive criminals, on the prolific offender, on doing analyses when there are patterns of crime.

I'll use an example, an interesting one would be when there's a large number of shootings which raises a concern in the community. Well, I assure the mayor and the chiefs of police and the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, our department will support you and look at the analyses of what's underlying - are there relationships, are there connections? Well, if you have an officer who is in a patrol car or walking a beat, they don't necessarily have the technical skills to address that issue, so it's a matter of shifting.

Now from a justice perspective, we're not here to tell the front-line police officers how to do their business or the police departments. What we want to do is say there are some things that are working well, there are some things that may not be working, what can we do together to identify what's working well, what's not working well, and how do we support you in the management so as they move forward with their decisions, do they have the right resources, the right training, and the capabilities to get the job done?

In today's global economy and the type of criminal element that we have, it requires that continual review, and I'll give you one quick example. When we were young police officers - well, I shouldn't say young, when we were police officers - we didn't really have computers to the level we have today. You didn't index and look at the computer crime. Now a lot of crime is committed on computers. If we're not adapting our policing services and making sure that they go there - so when we talk about Boots to the Streets it creates sort of - and maybe we should change the term a little bit because it creates an image that the officers are out there on the road. We may be better off positioning them in a room with a bunch of computers and start to analyze, research or deal with the cyber crime that's occurring. So it's a matter of that type of shift in philosophy.

I want to assure you, like you, I'm committed to policing and providing support to all police officers in Nova Scotia and to address crime to make Nova Scotia the safest place in Canada. I know, for example, in Moncton that one of the things New Brunswick is trying to market now is that they're the safest place in Canada to live. They actually have a police department there that is judged to be the most efficient police department in Canada, in Codiac. We want to look at, if that's the best practice and if that's, in fact, the truth, what can we be doing here to make sure and work towards that?

I do compliment you because you mentioned the point about the four years and going down, credit's credit where credit's due. There were a lot of good things that were started there and I'm very pleased with the staff and the quality of staff that we have to insist on certain things to move forward, some things to be changed or adapted to meet other needs and to continue. Even though our crime rate has gone down four years in a row, it's not the best in Canada and we want to be the best in Canada.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that. I recall the time that Premier MacDonald - and I said it in the House the other day and I'll say it again - there are tours throughout the province, particularly talking to parents and around schools and the drug problem that's prevalent everywhere in our society and the need to address that very issue, that's what people want to see. I remember him asking at the time, how do we move on this? How do we do something about it? I said to him at the time, it's going to take bodies to do this, it's going to take time, and it's going to cost money, and you won't see the results overnight. I think we're seeing the results now.

The minister used the analogy of putting a band-aid on cancer, well, I'd like to use the analogy and take that a little further. If you put sunscreen on the skin, you'll prevent the cancer to begin with. I guess the thought of a police officer just standing on the corner with not a lot to do, in my mind, a police officer at the school, they're not just responding to the school because there's crime, they're at the school because they're trying to work with youth and trying to prevent a crime. I think that whether you use that analogy with schools or whether you use the situation of police that are patrolling high-crime areas where a lot of crime happens - I know there are areas in the cities as there are in smaller communities.

I remember back when we had discussions in the Fall here and your focus - my concern is that the Boots to the Streets focus, the mandate, is going to change. What I heard in the House the other day and what I'm hearing from you now, and I remember hearing back in the Fall, you said your thoughts were around international drug traffickers and around - I can't remember at the time - you mentioned the technology, the cyber crime and that.

There was something else in the Fall, and I can't recall what you said at the time, but I understand that and we have to address those issues. We have to mandate a certain part of our resources to do that, but I don't think we should ever forget that citizens of the Province of Nova Scotia are paying, whether they pay to the municipality, whether they pay to the province or the federal government, they expect good, safe communities. I think there's an opportunity to have a good general mix of all.

The ICE program, I had an opportunity to visit with the officers at the time and they were doing tremendous work and I know there's a need for that. There's also a need for that in-your-face type of police officer in communities, especially in smaller communities where we've kind of gotten away from that over the years. I think community-based policing has been proven around the world to have good results and at the end of the day, although you're charged with delegating that and the resources and all that, I think if you talk to people in the communities they will say they like to physically see police officers on the street, at dances, at schools, wherever.

I just hope we don't see a change of focus provincially with the provincial responsibility of policing, which I know there's a difference between the province versus the municipalities. I just hope we don't kind of take our emphasis now away from what I originally thought it should have been two or three years ago and just change it to kind of that bigger, international-type influx of crime, whether it's drugs or whatever it is. I think there's a need for both, Mr. Minister, and I hope you're able to see that. If you listen to your colleagues, the chiefs or the high-ranking officials of the RCMP, I'm sure they'll say that everybody has a kind of different thought with regard to enforcement.

I think there's room for both those schools of thought and I hope you don't change it completely and toss out the Boots to the Streets program in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a question there? Are you looking for a comment?

MR. SCOTT: No, but I believe the minister is ready to respond. I can tell, he's . . .

MR. LANDRY: There are a number of things that you've raised in there. I think one of the underlying concepts that you're trying to say is that you want to see police officers at the community level. I agree 100 per cent, we need police officers at the community level.

If we're talking about violence or we're talking about criminal activity in the community, and you talked about drugs, the drug problem is an issue for the community itself. Drug distribution is a business and we need to have the technology and the expertise to deal with that. If we're putting officers on the street to make sure there are no drugs on the corner, if there's a supply and demand, the demand is going to receive and the supplier is going to get it there. You need to have police techniques and approaches that deal with the organizations that traffic, import, and distribute, and that's an organized crime issue.

[4:15 p.m.]

We can put 1,000 officers on the street and it's not going to stop the supply. You need to target that, you need to target the criminals who are profiting through the proceeds of crime and we're doing many things; for example, in civil forfeiture, the processes that we're looking at to get the money from there. I'm proud to say - and a lot of this goes right back to the work that you and your colleagues did and the fact that we are above the national average in police officers.

It's not police officers that we need, if we have crime in our community and we're reducing the crime, what can we do to deal with the prolific offender, the person continually being in the system, how do we reduce that? Crime prevention is the one area that we can help if the criminal behaviour is local. If it's organized then it's usually outside of the local area because of the organizational structure.

An area that we really need to focus on - and we look at Boots to the Streets - is domestic violence. When we look at domestic violence and we can train more officers to deal with that specific offence, the social ramifications of domestic violence are quite profound on the system overall - from health care, to social services, to the social development of our children, to the psychology of the community, to the mindset, and it affects it dramatically.

We need to invest more in crime prevention and we need officers to work in that regard, but we need to have our officers skilled and trained to deal with the new complexities of crime. If you have sexual exploitation on computers, putting more police officers out in police cars does not deal with that. The crime that we're seeing today, besides dealing with the emotion of the community, is the hidden criminal - the person who is committing the fraud - and if we don't put some of our resources from Boots to the Streets to deal with the frauds that are occurring in the system, we're going to have people victimized far greater than what we're having now. Our children are more vulnerable. So we need that technology and technical skill.

In addition to that, we need to make sure that the Public Prosecution Service in the system can help support that for our prosecutors. For example, our costs go up because they need advanced skills, the complexity of the cases, and to work with other provinces and other countries to deal with that. If we continue to look at our crime and we look out the window and say our crime is occurring out on that street and that's what we need to be concerned about, on that block right there outside this window, without looking at where that crime originates, what's the foundation of it - and that's my example about the cancer; if you're not looking at who's generating this, then you're only dealing with the front-line worker.

One of the things that I know from my experience as a police officer dealing with Boots to the Streets, it changed the pattern of some of the drug distributors and what you're seeing now is a more violent group that's coming into our system because some of the local people that you knew when you grew up through school and so on that were in business, I'll use the term they're "easy pickings," and the system did a great job cleaning that up. I was the commander who worked in getting that out of there but what it did is it opened up a market, and the strong will get stronger and richer. So we see some of that violence pouring out on the street now. We have to make sure that we adapt our process and when we talk about the officer on the street, that level, we need to move up the food chain.

I want to make it clear that I am committed to keeping the resources there. All I'm saying is that the stakeholders and the operation isn't driven by Justice, that's not my job. I'm the Justice Minister, I've got to look at the overall system and support the chiefs of police, support the RCMP, our provincial police service provider, to ensure that the federal RCMP are providing partnerships and resources here in the province to attack crime. So we need a more collaborative approach. We need to consult with our public prosecutions, corrections, our social services. We have to take down some of the stovepipes and look at the impacts of the crime and how we reduce that.

With the aging population that we have that's coming, we need to go back, that's where the police officer being out on the street, being in the community, helps deal with their emotional concerns because of their fear. If they have fear of violence in their community, whether it's real or not is irrelevant, in their world it's real. So that's that important role that the crime prevention units can do to make them safer, make them feel safer, and make the community safer. At the same time, if we're not dealing with those who are perpetuating the crime either through a cyber base or organized crime, or any other levels of criminal activity, we can't make this community safe but we have to look at the total overall picture. But on the operations, that's up to the commanders to make those decisions and to follow that through.

I'm proud to say within Justice that we have good relationships with the chiefs of police and with the RCMP and with the councils and police boards. We're looking to expand communication with the police boards and the mayors to make sure that they're getting the services that they need and the support that they need for their police departments. We're expecting the police departments to come forward with their desires and there are methods for them to establish their priorities. But we can't make everything a priority on a front-line level, we have to balance out and that's what we're hopefully approaching.

MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the Boots to the Streets, I guess the 183 officers being paid for by the Province of Nova Scotia today, that probably goes about $18 million a year, I guess, roughly, does it?

MR. LANDRY: No, $19.5 million.

MR. SCOTT: So my question to the minister is - obviously you've committed to it for this year, what about the out years?

MR. LANDRY: I don't know what the future will hold, I don't have a magic ball, but I am committed to ensuring that the police officers in the Province of Nova Scotia have the tools, skills and abilities to do their jobs. I am committed to trying to ensure that our resources are properly placed and that there are adequate resources to deal with our policing needs. Right now we are above the national average, that is to our advantage right now, we're funding that.

I'm going to continue to champion for the continued funding but I can't read what the future is going to hold. Municipal policing is a municipal responsibility. I do see that the Department of Justice has to give support because the demands put on them to protect the security of the province as a whole is critical and we have to invest there. It's a partnership and in that partnership we have to have a strong collaboration as to what the priorities are and make sure the resources are there.

I guess maybe changing that term "Boots to the Streets" - because I think it's problematic. We have to ensure that we're supporting the overall security of this province and those who deliver the service and that we have adequate resources there: human, financial and material.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess what I was asking the minister was - and I know you can't speak for next year or the year after or future years beyond that - but I guess I was asking if you, minister, are supportive of this program and will continue to keep it going. You just said about calling it Boots to the Streets - you know, if it's working, you can call it what you want. If it's working and it's providing good results - I know the southwest highway unit, tremendous results; down in Bridgewater, great results; Pictou, great results. Again, no disrespect, but it should be the focus of - and we decided at the time that we would not tell the departments throughout the province or the RCMP exactly what they would have to do with those resources. They know best how to utilize them.

I guess what I am asking is, are they still going to have that flexibility under your watch, that they'll utilize those additional officers and the money they're getting for additional officers to where they believe it's best used, not where the Department of Justice does?

MR. LANDRY: Well, I answered that question in part before that we don't get involved in the operation. What we're talking about is that if we don't progress in our thinking and look at crime and the patterns of where they're going and if we're not communicating with the chiefs of police and with the RCMP as to what their priorities are, how do we know where to invest?

To say that you give $19 million and as a government we walk away and say, well, we gave them $19 million, I'm sure they're doing all right, that would be negligent on my part. I don't go into a chief of police's department or the RCMP and say, do this or do that. We sit down and we've had some discussions as to what types of crime patterns are out there and what changes we need to make. There is a director of Policing Services that deals with them on a daily basis and puts recommendations into where I sit in regard to that; I take their advice and direction, and then periodically I will meet with them and hear directly from them.

It's important that our police chiefs and RCMP commanders are communicating and working in a partnership and establishing where their priorities are, and to come back to government and say, look, we need to go in this lane here and for me, as minister, to champion and support that and move that forward. But if you're saying to me to put more police officers on the street, then what we have - we're already above the national average.

What I've said and what I've been very clear on from the time I came into office, we need to ensure that our policing service is strategically focused on dealing with the priorities of security of this province and how we meet that demand. One area that's of concern is the prolific offender and taking specific action to deal with people who are repetitive offenders, who are crucial to the organized criminal structure of this province, and to dismantle them. That's one area. I'm not going to tell them how to do that, we just identify that that's a concern.

Another area of concern is domestic violence and we have to invest in the security and safety of our families. So I expect that the police chiefs and the RCMP come back and say, look, this is what we recommend and with collaboration from the experts within Justice who work and specialize in these areas, how do we reduce the violence in our community? How do we make our families stronger? That's a priority, that's not coming in and telling them how to do their jobs. They come back and they deliver the service.

I respect police officers and value the service they provide to this province. As Minister of Justice, I am honoured to be in that position. It's not my job to get into operational policing matters but it's my job to see that we are actually addressing crime as a total package and how it affects the security of this province. I have to look at it from a global sense, from the province as a whole, and then how we partner with our national and international partnerships. If we're still - crime is local, crime affects people locally, but crime is global today.

If we're only compartmentalizing it to our local areas, or Halifax is one area and it doesn't really affect New Glasgow or Antigonish or Yarmouth, then that's mistaken. We may have a drug dealer in one of those communities who is supplying Halifax or we may have a person moving guns or other types of commodities. So I support the police departments and I expect that they will come forward with their plans and initiatives and that we'll be prepared to adapt in that way.

What I am saying is that we have to get a big picture and stay focused on dealing with that criminal element because the guns weren't built here, the guns weren't manufactured here in Nova Scotia, they're coming from somewhere. The drugs aren't - some of them are grown here, some of them are produced here, but most of them are coming from outside, so there's transportation. It's a commodity, it's a business and we want to dismantle it, we want to shut those operations down.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, minister. I just want to switch gears here a little bit. I want to ask you about the provincial police and the highway patrol, are there any existing vacancies right today that you're aware of? If there are, how many and what is it costing the Province of Nova Scotia per year for those vacancies?

MR. LANDRY: Actually I didn't look at this - I looked at that a few weeks ago and our vacancy pattern is extremely low. It's an issue that's a concern for me, as I monitor that periodically and take a look at that, to make sure that we're being provided the service.

One of the things that we have to look at, though, I think we have to be careful as a province that if we say we bought 10 police officers, or let's say 100 police officers if they're being paid for and there are two vacancy patterns, therefore you owe us for the two, the real question that needs to be answered is the service that you've paid for, is it being provided? If it's being provided there are administrative costs.

I know from my job, because at one time I had a role and responsibility for administration of Policing Services in Nova Scotia when I was with the RCMP, it was one of the areas that I was in charge of, the administration portion. In that component that I had, we periodically had vacancies but were we providing the service? Yes. If we have such a vacancy pattern that it's lowering the quality of service then that's a deep concern for me. I monitor that to make sure that we're well in hand. I've been assured and I looked at the figures the other day and I didn't see that we have very many vacancies in the province.

[4:30 p.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a note to the member for Cumberland South, 20 minutes remaining, honourable member.

MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister. I had a whole lot of other questions for you, but obviously I'm not going to have time today. I do want to change - in the few minutes I have left I want to talk about corrections, correctional centres. Minister, I'm going to ask you - there's a couple of pointed questions I want to ask. The first one is, can you personally as minister, or since you've been minister last June, have you met with Joan Jessome of the NSGEU yourself?

MR. LANDRY: I had the pleasure to meet with Ms. Jessome shortly after I came into office. Was it last Fall? I think I met with her twice and had - I can't even remember what the second issue was, it was just an informal, brief discussion is what we had. (Interruption)

Deputy, I thank you for that. There were some issues with the staffing. I think the last time we spoke there were some issues around the correctional facility. We wanted to reassure the employees there that we are working on their issues - and I don't know whether it was the vests because we ordered the vests shortly thereafter, I think.

Anyway, I'm very pleased to say that I've had a couple of meetings with Ms. Jessome; I found her professional, very respectful, and very committed to the employees within corrections. At the time I shared with her my commitment to the employees within corrections and how important it is that we improve the quality of the working environment and to ensure the health and well-being of all employees within corrections, and that I was committed and focused in achieving that goal and working with her in that regard.

MR. SCOTT: Can you tell me if you discussed with her - I'll call it the fate of the correctional officers in Cumberland County. Did you have a discussion with her about potentially what could happen to those employees, whether they're offered positions or not, whether they decide to stay in the county and seek other employment within government? Did you discuss with her about the future of the employees of the correctional facility in Cumberland County?

MR. LANDRY: I don't know if I specifically made reference to that with her, but I would have talked in general terms. I will also comment further with regard to the question you're raising. I assured the union that all employees will be respected and their costs, if they need to be moved, that the province would absorb that cost, it was built into the process. I think I also had a discussion on one of my walkabouts - I'm not so clear why, because I met with staff at the correctional facility and I know that question came up a couple of different times at places I was at and said that the cost of moving, there's a process in there, and whatever happens it's going to be a couple of years away. Some people may decide to retire or whatever, some others may decide to move, and some others may decide to move on, but that we would be supportive and open to discussion with regard to those issues.

I did have some dialogue with Ms. Jessome, some dialogue with actual employees, but I can't remember exactly which time, which ones.

MR. SCOTT: In those discussions, do you recall if she had requested that you keep those positions in Cumberland County?

MR. LANDRY: My discussion with Ms. Jessome was, if I remember correctly, she was very concerned for employees. At any time that I've met with her - make no mistake about it, Ms. Jessome's first priority is the employees that she represents and there's no confusion when I'm speaking with her and her dialogue about who she's committed to. On the issue of the facility being moved to another location, she knew that the decision was made and I make the assumption that she accepted that to some level, although she voiced concerns for the employees. We didn't have much discussion on it to any great length, other than the fact that there are processes and procedures in place to ensure that the employees will be treated fairly and with respect.

MR. SCOTT: Then I guess the answer is no, she didn't try to convince you to keep those jobs in Cumberland County.

MR. LANDRY: If I remember the dialogue that I had with her, she was wanting to know what the province's position was going to be. When we told her what the decision was, I don't think we had much discussion after that. I will say, if I'm hearing your question properly, she was concerned - she is concerned - at the times that we spoke she was definitely concerned for employees in Amherst and I just assured her that we will treat them fairly and with respect, and any benefits that are appropriate will be provided. Just to finish, I remember one comment where she said we'll hold you to it, so along that line.

MR. SCOTT: It's kind of ironic that prior to this she was committed to two facilities and then all of a sudden there's nothing publicly, absolutely nothing, about keeping those jobs in Cumberland County. I know that's not your - it's very interesting to hear that it's more after the fact what happens to them as opposed to doing what I would expect a union head would do to keep those jobs in Cumberland County. Maybe that explains why it's so hard to get the union to come out here to support keeping those correctional officers in Cumberland County - which is what they should be doing - and maybe that's why there's very little, if nothing, publicly from the union and even a level of frustration within the union members themselves. I think I just heard why, I think I heard the answer to what I've been wondering all along here, and that's about the voice that's supposed to be out there publicly, and at your level, to keep those positions where those people are today.

The staff that are there today - and I've got the numbers and maybe the minister can allude to this when he gets the microphone again - I'm not sure if the minister is aware of how many have actually indicated so far, through the corrections, how many expect that they'll stay on and move on to a new position wherever the new facility is going to be built - and I have an idea - or maybe the ones who have said no, they're going to try to pursue other careers.

I do know this, and I want you to know this, minister, because my time will wind down here. I want you to know that the calls I get are from the grandfather who says, can you explain how it's a benefit for my son or daughter that they're going to take their grandchildren and move out of Cumberland County? I'm a grandfather and I can certainly appreciate where this particular gentleman is coming from. Or a wife who calls and says, I have a job here, this is our home, this is where I grew up, this is where my husband grew up, this is where we want our children to grow up. They took this job 10 or 15 years ago to now find out that the government is going to offer them a better deal for their families, and all of a sudden they're faced with - we have a choice here. We can sell our home, uproot our children out of school, or he can give up his job and try to find other employment. I'm not sure, minister, that these people are getting the representation they've asked for and deserve.

I know you're making some notes and you have some comments you want to share and that's fine, but throughout this whole process I couldn't understand why there wasn't more of a vocal opposition to these people being taken from Cumberland County, and I think I just heard now why. I'll give the minister back the microphone in a second, I'm sure he's anxious to answer. But I hope the minister can understand the frustration of these employees, I hope the minister can understand the frustration of their families, I hope the minister can understand the frustration of their extended families - grandparents - I hope the minister can understand the frustration of Cumberland County residents in general and the business people.

You've heard over the last few weeks here - and you're going to hear for the next number of weeks - that Cumberland County is in a very unique situation geographically by being positioned where we are near the border. I heard the Minister of Finance today making light of it and joking, well, I didn't put Moncton there and I didn't put Cumberland there. It's fine to say all that, but these are Cumberland County, Nova Scotia residents who have a service. No one has ever answered the questions around - no one will ever convince me that the costs of sheriff services for that end of the province aren't going to go up, they have to; no one will ever convince me that lawyers' fees for citizens aren't going to go up, they have to; and no one has ever convinced me that the study that was just done isn't going to have a huge, negative impact on the economy of Cumberland County as a result of moving this facility.

Minister, I heard you say in the House there was no business case, there's no business plan, I heard all that. I can't wait to ask the Premier - I have a question for the Premier - because the announcements were made, the acquisition of lands, the beginnings of talks that were initiated with the federal government, you're right, there's no paper I can hold up and say, there's where we signed and agreed. If you look in 2006 - and I've got it somewhere - there was an agreement signed between the province and federal government with regard to - and the deputy might know better than I - I think it was called sharing of services or sharing of programs, something, but anyway, it's in the department. That was certainly kind of a preclude to where we wanted to go; we saw tremendous opportunity there.

As far as I know - and I think the minister answered me the other day in the House - there have been no visits to Ottawa to meet with the minister or the staff there to say, this is what was proposed by the previous government, is there any validity to this? Is this something we can follow through on? Can we actually sit down and negotiate services, programs and training? I don't think anyone has done it with the local community college. The Police Academy in P.E.I., I've spoken to the director there, no contact, and no contact with the federal minister in Ottawa he tells me. In fact, staff said back in September 2009, I think, there was a meeting and they said they were quite surprised that the issue of corrections and training and what we talked about here, sharing of services, never came up.

So I hope, minister, you understand the frustration of the people in Cumberland County when you look at cross-border shopping and the loss of these jobs, it's huge in Cumberland County. You know, there was - and I believe there still is - some evidence where we felt there was an opportunity to build a new correctional facility in Cumberland County. There were some things that would have to happen to make that justifiable and one was the savings of operating, which I felt there was a tremendous opportunity federally, and geothermal is another aspect, but there's also an opportunity with training and the possibility - even the federal government insofar as per diems when it came to housing federal inmates at certain times, the weekends or whatever. So, minister, I hope you understand there's a high level of frustration.

It's funny, I heard the Minister of Finance say this morning that he went up and everybody was positive in these meetings on Friday. I talked to a lot of them afterwards, too, but that's being in Nova Scotia and that's being in Cumberland County, they're very respectful people who don't very often get an opportunity - and I did give him a list of people I wanted him to meet with and I appreciate him meeting with them - it's not very often those people get an opportunity to sit down with the Minister of Finance one on one. So they're not going to use their time to be - they're trying to be constructive, they're trying to see an opportunity here for the community and the future of the area, for their children and grandchildren, but make no mistake about it, they see what's going to happen here as well.

This cross-border shopping, for example - I know it has nothing to do with you, minister - but it's this whole issue of Cumberland County and what has happened here over the last little while. It's not your fault that we are where we are, but I've asked the Premier - and others in the House have asked the Premier - to give us help, put some resources in place, work with the business people there, but also take advantage of an opportunity to bring this forward with the Council of Atlantic Premiers. But, you know, just to discount it and say, well, you fought against gas price increases so really, you know, you showed where you put your support. Of course I did, because it put Springhill against Amherst, it put Parrsboro against Oxford, and that's not the solution. That's just moving a border and creating more problems within the Province of Nova Scotia.

Anyway, minister, I can't in my time go without saying how important - I get calls from these correctional officers, they're really concerned about their future. And you or I would be, as well, if we were sitting there and you and I would be, as well, if that was our son or daughter and you had grandchildren, who are going to separate families, we would be as well. I will tell you, minister, that I do not believe for one minute that at the end of the day you're going to realize any savings. (Interruption) Pardon me?

MR. LANDRY: Is it my turn yet?

MR. SCOTT: I'm not quite done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has the floor and the question can be as long as he so wants.

[4:45 p.m.]

MR. SCOTT: I do want to give the minister - and I know I'm going to share, we've agreed to share with my colleague here. I should have gotten this off my chest to begin with but I didn't, so unfortunately, minister, you have to sit here and listen to me. But do you know what? This has been building and building and it has continued to build. I can't emphasize enough because people who are feeling all this only have me down here to put this to you and to put this to the government. I'm afraid, you know, once I turn the microphone over to you, that's it, I've lost it.

I just want to say, minister, in my closing comments - and I will close - these officers and their families need someone to stand up for them. The union is not doing it and I will go outside of here and say that. I won't just say it under the protection of the House, I'll go outside and say that they are not getting the representation they deserve. I believe the taxpayers haven't been given the opportunity to decide for themselves - and I'm not saying that I don't believe you, I'm saying that I disagree with the facts that you presented to the House and me about the savings. I don't think those savings are going to be realized and I don't think this government has followed through on what we initiated in regard to creating an opportunity in Cumberland County to get a correctional centre there in partnership with the federal government, because we have one of the best-run federal institutions in the country. Anyway, the minister is quite anxious to talk, Mr. Chairman, so I'll end there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is less than five minutes remaining in the PC caucus' time.

MR. LANDRY: Let me be very clear with you, honourable member, I am not getting in the middle of your concerns with the union. I will say that when the decision was made by our government to go ahead with the correctional process, prior to that she was nothing but professional and respectful and supportive of the employees that she represents.

She championed the interests and concerns and once she was given guarantees that their interests were going to be met and respected, she respected the fact the decision was made.

I want to give a clear message back to the people of Cumberland County, Cumberland North - my honourable colleague who represents that area - and you in Cumberland South, that I too am committed to that area and as a member of the Cabinet am working towards providing opportunities and support for that community.

There are a number of things that I want to get off my chest. First off, the previous administration, which you were part of - not that I want to get into that battle too much because I notice I made a slip of the tongue the other day with the prices and you guys brought that to my attention, I am learning - in 2000 they shut the Guysborough facility down and that had an impact on that community; and in 2001 the Lunenburg, Kings, Colchester, and Halifax facilities were closed and that had an impact on those families.

What you're talking about in Amherst is approximately 10 people. As a grandparent, I don't want to be away from my granddaughter who's in Ottawa, but my circumstances are what they are. I moved across the country so I understand the impact of moving and I don't want this issue to cause discomfort to anyone in the community - the business community, the families that work within that institution. I value the corrections officers and respect them, and I value their families and the support and love that they get.

On the issue of this province and looking after its finances, we're doing it this way. The decision has been made and nothing is changing that. It's done. We need to take our energy to move forward, and see how and what we can do differently to help the community and move that forward. The federal programs, our staff are continually meeting with the federal - and anything that could be done in Springhill could be done wherever the new facility is, and that decision isn't made yet.

On the issue that you raised about the police academy, I have met with the director from there and I plan to go over in the near future. I was hoping for the ice to go away and for the boats to go and I'm on my way - might take my bicycle, a good way to travel over there.

I don't want to leave this discussion with the impression that I don't care for Cumberland or we're not committed to helping and doing things for Cumberland County. It's just that we had no issues in the past when we closed five other institutions; what's different today versus the Amherst facility and those facilities and the impact that had? We lived through that. We have to make a strong province and we'll build a new facility and we'll hire 70 more additional positions. Wherever that facility is, it's not that far that they can't move.

I don't mean that disrespectfully. The emotion of how that affects families, I have to respect that. But I don't want to put the sky is falling; this is a good-news story. This is a great thing for the province where we're going to build a piece of infrastructure that's going to hire more employees, reduce the overall operation costs to the province so that we have more dollars to invest in your community. You see that differently.

I must honestly say to you that I do respect your tenacity and desire and the fight you put on with that, but I would really like to take that energy and work with you to try to find something new and creative that we can do together to move and strengthen the community you represent. I know you're loyal and committed to them and you've sent a clear message of saying who else is down here to fight for them. You've done that and you've done that well, and I respect that. But it's time to move on.

My decision was made, we're going to have the business case move forward, and we're going to have a first-class facility that meets the needs - a place, hopefully, that at the end of the day is the right choice. I'm sure we'll make that based on the information that we have to the best of our ability. I think our time is up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, the time has expired for the PC caucus. The Chair will now recognize the Liberal caucus. You have one hour.

MR. LANDRY: Before we start, could we take a break for a couple minutes? I'm going to get up and move around for a minute. Is that all right? Just two minutes to get up and move; otherwise, I'll be frozen stiff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?

It is agreed.

[4:51 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

[4:55 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm wondering if we could resume.

For the previous break I added three minutes to our finish time, and for this break it was five minutes. The finish time tonight will now be 6:11 p.m.

The honourable member for Richmond.

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to go back to a few questions about the investments you indicated that were made to legal aid. You said there's more money and that more people will qualify. I'm just curious, when you say more people will qualify, what do you mean by that?

MR. LANDRY: What I understand the issues are is that there has been a greater demand for service and, as a result of that, that is what's taking up the additional costs. They are reviewing the cases closer, to make sure that those who are deserving receive and those who don't fall within the guidelines that are set out are cut back. I think there has been some lackadaisical approaches in some of those issues in the past but, you know, whenever you have a tightening of the budget - and we did, we were able to expand there.

Legal aid is one of those areas that if we were able to do more it would be the right thing to do, but we're limited. But with the monies we have we were able to expand to some degree, and that's because more people have been coming forward.

MR. SAMSON: I'm just trying to figure this out in my own head and understand that since I've been here I've advocated for more funding for legal aid, especially for those who qualify for legal aid, the cap is way too low. The working poor are all being rejected because if they have any income at all, they're considered over income right now.

Do I understand you correctly that you're saying you put an additional $600,000 into legal aid, is that the figure that you gave?

MR. LANDRY: Just about $600,000. One thing with the legal aid process is that we give them the money, they manage it. We don't go in there and micromanage or get involved in their operations overall, that's their business.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so again, I'm just going to try to figure this out. You indicated they've done more tightening as to what type of cases they will take but it's going to provide more people with legal aid. I'm just trying to figure out how those two make sense.

MR. LANDRY: Well, as I understand it, there's an increase in service demand. They have rules to follow and procedures to follow, so they're ensuring that they're being followed so that they can meet the increased demand of requests. I'm not clear what's not clear about that.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so you're saying the increased demand is coming from people who still qualify for legal aid, is that what your statement is?

MR. LANDRY: As I understand it, yes.

MR. SAMSON: Okay. Has there been any consideration given to increasing the income limit that is currently in place for legal aid services?

MR. LANDRY: At this time, no. As I said earlier, my earlier statement was that it's an area that if we're able to do more it would be the right thing to do, but we're limited. It is what we have to work with, especially where we're looking at areas to do cuts. I know that I had some discussions earlier on this issue and I said whatever we can do, let's not cut but increase legal aid. So you and I, I guess, are on the same page.

[5:00 p.m.]

MR. SAMSON: Offhand - and maybe some of your staff would know this - do you know, when was the last time there was an increase in the income limits for legal aid in Nova Scotia?

MR. LANDRY: I don't know that answer but I guess we could write that down and get that prepared for you.

MR. SAMSON: Maybe I should put it to the member for Antigonish. He might have a better idea than both of us when it comes to those matters, considering his experience with that. I'm sure the member for Antigonish would agree with me on this; anything we can do to enhance the services that are being provided through the legal aid service is a goal that I think is something we all want to achieve. I would certainly encourage the minister to make it a priority in looking forward at increasing that income cap because right now, as I said, someone with any type of job at all is being disqualified and someone who makes under $20,000, having to go through divorce proceedings and paying their own legal costs or even custody battles, it's just not reasonable to expect that they're going to be able to pay legal costs on their own.

Looking at the budget that you have tabled and some of the changes there, I just had a few questions regarding some of the items that kind of jumped up at us. As far as administration costs, it would appear that the Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister is increasing by $105,000 or 5.9 per cent. I'm just curious, are there any staffing changes that are being proposed in your office or in the deputy minister's office from the last budget?

MR. LANDRY: The $100,000 has gone to or is going to the domestic violence issue, which we haven't increased staff but we've increased our investment in there. Over time I'm hoping that we can do - not hoping, I'm committed to trying to do more on the issue of domestic violence. I think it's one of those areas that if we can make a better inroad - and it's a long process, there's no one easy solution to that issue, it's a broad issue with many components to it - that we could really make a significant difference that would have an impact on our health system, our social services system, and to the mental health of our families overall in the province.

MR. SAMSON: So there are no staff increases in either your office or the deputy minister's office or any changes that are taking place there?

MR. LANDRY: No.

MR. SAMSON: Looking at the numbers, it would appear that there were 241.9 full-time-equivalent funded staff in Administration but the forecast is to go down to 211.7. It seems to be a drop of about 30.2 staff. I'm wondering if you could explain where those reductions are going to come from.

MR. LANDRY: You're talking specifically on staff overall or in a particular area?

MR. SAMSON: It seems to be on the Administration side for - let me see - Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister, Finance and Administration, Policy and Information Management, and Legal Services.

MR. LANDRY: There are a number of areas. One is that we're looking for a 1 per cent cut-off. The previous minister had two EAs, for example, would be one area. There are a number of other areas. I know in discussion that we were looking at, where can we cut positions or save money and how do we realign the cutback? That's what we're working towards.

MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious - I've given you some figures as to the reduction - can you confirm if that is the plan, to have a reduction of about 30.2 staff for the upcoming fiscal year?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, we only have a reduction of six staff in our administration.

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could indicate what six positions you intend to reduce.

MR. LANDRY: Yes, we can get you those details.

MR. SAMSON: Are there any other positions . . .

MR. LANDRY: I'll just finish my - we'll get you that but they are mainly vacant right now. I think that the six positions we're referring to are vacant and so we're just not filling them.

MR. SAMSON: So those are six positions. Are there any other positions within the Department of Justice that you're looking to either not fill or to reduce in the upcoming fiscal year?

MR. LANDRY: There are other vacant positions that we have that we're looking to leave vacant and to cancel so that shows up in our budget. I should also say, too, that over the next year, over the next number of months, we will be looking at how we realign certain resources and where can we actually cut a position or change the description so that where the person that's performing the job is at the right level of pay and service delivery, so we're looking at ways to reduce that. That's going to materialize more as this budget goes on and as we look at the cuts that we're making now and what we're going to be expected to do next year to meet our targets.

MR. SAMSON: So what target have you been given for this fiscal year as far as reducing staff?

MR. LANDRY: We cut 1 per cent, a total of $1.8 million.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, you say it's 1 per cent which was a total of $1.8 million. So that's based on the instructions given by the Premier and the Minister of Finance, I take it, since coming into government, to reduce by 1 per cent. Is that what you're referring to?

MR. LANDRY: Well, I was given directions to become more efficient and to look at ways to reduce staff. I must compliment the deputy and my finance manager and other staff people, because they're committed to looking at ways to do that while at the same time respecting the fact that we have employees that are working hard and contributing. We're not really out to look at taking people's jobs away but looking at how we can do some things differently and where we have vacancies, if we can continue to live with the vacancy, to do so.

MR. SAMSON: So let's talk about this $1.8 million saving. I'm wondering if you could break down for me what areas you expect to be able to realize the $1.8 million in savings.

MR. LANDRY: There's about $700,000 in vacant positions and about $1.1 million in overall efficiencies that we were able to achieve.

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise on the $700,000 vacant positions, where are those positions, what kinds of positions are they?

MR. LANDRY: It's a variety throughout our building - throughout the department I should say. Just if you can appreciate the fact that we have 1,700 staff and when six or seven are vacant, we can accommodate quite well those kinds of numbers.

MR. SAMSON: So $700,000, that's equal to how many positions?

MR. LANDRY: That's about eight positions or so. That includes not only salary but the administrative benefits to the individual employees, plus the administrative costs per employee that we have to take to manage the overall operation of Justice.

MR. SAMSON: But at this point you're not in the position to indicate where those eight positions are. Are they in Sheriff Services, are they in correctional facilities, are they in the administration over on Terminal Road?

MR. LANDRY: We can get you that specific information. It's just spread throughout our department, it's not one - we didn't go in and say to the department you've got to cut right now. We looked on the surface: what can we do, what's out there, and how do we become more efficient? Now we're looking at the next phase: what else do we need to do and what else can we do? But we also have a dialogue with the employees in regard to that.

MR. SAMSON: Now, the other statement you made, you said about $700,000 in vacant positions. The other one was $1.1 million in efficiency. Now, I'm going to have to ask you to explain to me, what do you mean by $1.1 million in efficiency?

MR. LANDRY: Well, that's a reduction in costs throughout our department of various ways that we have found to save money. I think one example would be travel and I'm going to make a comment, but I don't want that to reflect on the past. The reality that we're in is that we're in tough economic times and if we're going to make travel, we've got to know that there's a direct benefit to that. So we've reduced significantly there.

There's just a number of savings that were made and I can't specifically say right off the top, but employees are looking at different ways to reduce costs, and we welcome anybody's suggestion and recommendation as well. Employees were asked to make suggestions and, in fact, I made one myself to the deputy yesterday on a piece of information that was given to me by a constituent. So we may look at that to see, well, we are going to look at it and if there's validity to it and we can show savings and cost benefits, we're going to do it.

MR. SAMSON: Just so I understand, this is a work in progress and you haven't identified the $1.1 million in savings, you're hoping to figure that out as we go throughout the year. I would assume that you had a list with different programs on where you would find the savings and those instructions were given, but now I'm left with the impression that you're open to suggestions and you're still working on this. So I'm just not sure, which one is it?

MR. LANDRY: It's both. One is that we have $1.1 million in savings already. They're identified and they can be reported on if you would like a copy. Also, we're always looking for suggestions and recommendations on how we can improve and make the system more efficient and reduce costs, so it's both things.

MR. SAMSON: How quickly could you provide us with that breakdown? You realize that we're coming up to being asked to vote on a budget and vote on different estimates, and this is information which is kind of vital to us making a determination as to whether it's reasonable or not. To be sitting here today and told there's $1.8 million in savings but not exactly where those efficiencies are being found is fairly difficult, to say the least, so I'm just curious. There's a lot of stuff that you have committed to providing today. Some, I would suggest, are not overly pressing; others such as this, I would suggest, we would like to know by the end of the day or tomorrow. I'm just curious, can the minister commit to making that available to us?

MR. LANDRY: Because it's you, we'll make sure that you get it by tomorrow. Anybody else, it would be tomorrow evening, but we'll try to get it to you earlier in the day.

MR. SAMSON: I was going to suggest that I'd send the sheriffs after you, but apparently they respond to you and not to me so you're pretty safe there.

Victim Services, a quick look at it, it seems to be that there's a reduction in that budget of about 6 per cent. We're seeing about a $100,000 reduction. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate, what is the basis of that reduction?

MR. LANDRY: The cuts that were made to Victim Services were IT and victims' fees that were actually not paid out. So they're savings. I want to make a point very clear though on Victim Services. I'm committed - as a former police officer I know that that issue, the life of it, and the importance of trying to deal with the needs of the victim and having compassion for the situation that people find themselves after a crime, it's very important that we don't lose sight of that, but the costs there were through that process.

We have actually made some increases, you know, we increased the maximum counselling awards from $2,000 to $4,000. The money for psychological services for support is up to two years beyond the finding of a case in a homicide, for example. A pilot project that we have, funding from Justice Canada has been secured to hire a restitution coordinator's position in Nova Scotia, and a three-year Aboriginal outreach project is also underway to help in that situation as well.

[5:15 p.m.]

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could confirm the $100,000 cut in Victim Services. Is that coming from department funds into that program or is that coming from the funds collected through the court system?

MR. LANDRY: It's department funds and the bulk of that money is from IT, and that's just a good example of when we get in a better financial situation that expenditures such as that could be reinvested. I would like to say to you today we have saved it in IT costs and we're reinvesting it in the program, but with the deficit that we have, we have to find ways to get that reduced. But the principles of the program itself have not been lowered; I've just given you a number of examples of where they've been enriched.

MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious, where do you - what's $100,000 in IT costs? What were we getting for IT that was costing $100,000 in Victim Services? I'm just curious, can you provide a better description of that?

MR. LANDRY: One of the things with the IT was to automate the system so that a person could view their own files, it was all put on-line. I know that IT costs can go up rather quickly, especially if you've got new programs and so on put in there. That's not the total $100,000 cost; as I said, there were some fees that weren't necessary so we removed that from the budget as well.

MR. SAMSON: What fees are those?

MR. LANDRY: They are witness fees but it's funding that we hadn't used in years. There was money there for witnesses that just wasn't used so it was sitting there. We just reallocated the funding, so it shows a saving in one and the money goes elsewhere.

MR. SAMSON: I guess it goes back to my previous question on witness fees and your savings there. Again, is that department funding that was set aside for this or is it funding collected through the court process?

MR. LANDRY: Department funding.

MR. SAMSON: It's department funding. I ask you this because this was an issue a number of years ago where the previous government had been taking some of the money collected from Victim Services and diverting it to other programs. Can you confirm today that 100 per cent of the monies collected through our courts for Victim Services is being spent on Victim Services?

MR. LANDRY: From what I understand, the full amount is being reinvested for its purpose but we can confirm that. I don't know what previous administrations were doing but if it's something from Victim Services for Victim Services, I want to ensure that it be spent there.

MR. SAMSON: You might want to check with your colleague, the member for Halifax Chebucto, I think he might have been the one who raised that. This is going back to 2000-01 so it was some time ago.

Every year the Minister of Finance provides a list of write-offs. A significant chunk of that is fines that have not been collected by the Department of Justice. I'm just curious if the minister could indicate to us, are those fines that have gone through the court system, people have been given those fines and they just haven't paid them? What is the nature of the types of monies that when there's the annual write-off, what is the nature of the ones that come from the Department of Justice?

MR. LANDRY: There are a number of things that happen with that. Some of the people move out of the province and are never coming back; others pass on; others are within social services; and others, the courts have removed them. I think it's an area that requires some examination about how we make sure that those that commit those violations are held accountable and pay their costs, but there's always a percentage that you will never collect.

MR. SAMSON: I realize, for example, in the Registry of Motor Vehicles there are a number of reciprocal agreements between provinces. I think there's more movement now to work on parking tickets and everything else because the old idea was if you didn't live in Nova Scotia you could accumulate whatever tickets you wanted, and when you'd go to another province it wouldn't be collected. My understanding is there has been some movement there, but is there any discussion within the Department of Justice to look at reciprocal agreements with other provinces to prevent that exact problem of people obtaining fines here in Nova Scotia and then either returning to another province or moving out of Nova Scotia and not living up to their obligations?

MR. LANDRY: Well, the good news is that right now we collect over $3 million, which is increasing. We can go after the GST, we go after income tax in many cases, and you'll see some legislation coming forward where we're going to use the processes to make sure people pay their costs. I think in the maintenance issue there are some steps, so we'll expand that. As dollars get tighter we have to become more efficient and one of the areas is this here, so we'll continue that. The $3 million is a start, it's an improvement over previous years, and maybe next year it will be even higher.

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering offhand would the minister or staff know, what was the write-off this year from the Department of Justice?

MR. LANDRY: There's approximately $900,000 with $300,000 being directly from the Department of Justice; the others are from Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations and other areas that we wrote off in the process. So directly about $300,000, so that's about 10 per cent of what we actually collect.

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious whether there has ever been any discussion to make that information public, in that people who have been convicted or have been issued these fines and have not paid, for whatever reasons, other than them passing on, if there has ever been consideration to making that information public so that at least the public knows who hasn't paid the monies that they were expected to pay as a result of whatever infraction that forced them to accrue such a fine.

MR. LANDRY: You raise a good question that has been discussed and I think further discussion needs to be held on it. One of the things that we want to balance in this process is the privacy issue, even though - you know, making sure you get the right person. I remember reading just recently in the paper somebody being told that they're deceased and their cheques are no longer coming and the fiasco that caused for the family. Depending on the dollar return and whether you want to get into that type of situation, there's also efficiencies of business.

We don't want anyone thinking that, well, they won't pay and then get away with it and we're not going to collect it, that creates a whole other issue, but there are some cases where you say it's just not worth the time or effort or it's appropriate not to do that. Whether we get into publishing people's names, I'm not opposed to it but you've certainly got to look at it from a much broader perspective than just collecting the fine and what that says in the community or society, what messages it's sending outside the province to people about wanting to come here, about what type of a province we are. Not taking a position one way or the other, it does merit some discussion and you raise a good point.

MR. SAMSON: I understand what you're saying about privacy but if you've been convicted and you've been issued a fine, then your rights to privacy at that point certainly are much less strong. I remember a few years ago when an operator of a garage came up with an innovative way of collecting debts. He got a billboard and put it in front by the road and put the names of the people who owed him money and, believe it or not, they quickly settled their accounts with him by doing that. It's just something I was curious whether the department has ever given that consideration.

I've been here 12 years, and every year you see a significant amount that's being written off and I'm just curious as to what message that actually sends to people when they see those types of sums being written off and not being pursued. Anything that we can do to encourage people to pay their fines and to meet their obligations, I think, is something that we should pursue. I think the minister has indicated some interest in looking at it so I'm pleased to see that there is some movement there.

On the issue of maintenance enforcement, legislation was brought in dealing with suspension of drivers' licences, as well as prohibition from either recreational fishing or hunting licences. I'm wondering if the minister or his staff have any data on if that has been used or how often it has been used. Is it actually working as a deterrent? I'm just curious, I know when it came to the hunting and fishing licences I was the proponent of that bill, but I've never seen any data afterwards to see if it has had an effect or how often it is being used.

MR. LANDRY: There's an appearance before Community Services and that transcript could be made available to you if you'd like it. I will comment and that has a lot of questions answering about the statistics. But I do want to comment just for my own constituency office. I've had a few cases there where people have lost their licence and they've been in my office and it is having an impact. It's one of those things that once the word gets out that you can lose your licence, you can - you know, there are a lot of people who don't want to lose their fishing licence either. So it's going to have an impact.

If you were a champion of that piece of legislation coming forward, I compliment you on that. That was a good thing and I think today it's helping. You can't get lottery winnings, for example, and right now we've collected $15,000 from a number of lottery winnings for that - and the hunting and fishing licences. This goes to a broader part of our community and as a society.

One of the things that if people aren't paying their maintenance enforcement, if it's a consistent pattern then there's a gap in our socialization within our society as to what we're responsible for. If you're going to be a parent and you're going to take on that responsibility, you've made that decision as an adult, then you have lifelong responsibilities, at least until the child is an adult and able to maintain their own existence.

For those who abrogate or avoid that responsibility, as a province we have to do a balancing thing; one is ensuring that we can get the best benefits for the family, while at the same time respecting the situation that the person who is negligent finds themselves in. So the system has to be able to collect while still being flexible and compassionate enough to deal with the individual situation and how somebody's realities change. We're trying to change some of the rules so that's going to be easier to accomplish. It's an important area and it goes to the health and well-being of the family as a whole.

MR. SAMSON: I think I understood you would be able to provide some more information on that, is that correct, as far as when it has been used? Okay, great.

MR. LANDRY: Just one quick question there, if I may. Your colleague next to you was also at that hearing, so she would probably be able to share some information with you.

MR. SAMSON: All right, my good colleague here tells me she was there but certainly any information, any data, just for my own interests, I would be curious.

On the issue of Maintenance Enforcement, has there been any additional staff hired for that division in this proposed budget?

MR. LANDRY: Over the last couple of years there have been two staff (Interruption) There have been a couple of staff hired, yes.

MR. SAMSON: If I understand correctly, you said a couple staff have been hired, are going to be - are they currently hired or are they going to be hired?

MR. LANDRY: Currently hired.

MR. SAMSON: They are currently hired. I'm wondering, do you now have a breakdown of what the average caseload is per those employees; and second, where are those two new employees located?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, we have that. Just a moment, we might have it here, hold on. I might have to hire more staff just to keep up with you.

[5:30 p.m.]

Anyway, we'll get you that information. We won't hold up your colleague there, to get a chance to get some questions in.

MR. SAMSON: We've spoken about this before and I'm sure that the minister is well aware - last time I think it was between 600 and 700 cases per worker. It's an incredibly large caseload. I don't think anyone would say that's reasonable so any efforts that we can do to try to assist there because I think the minister is well aware of the impact this has on families, on children, and to not have these maintenance payments made on a regular basis is extremely disruptive for everyone involved. I think the minister might have some updated information.

MR. LANDRY: Well, the good news is that once again, you're right, there were around 700 but the good news is we're down to about 410 caseloads per worker now, which averages out to 531, I guess, depending on the period where that was taken. We have significantly reduced that.

I also think with the ideas that you put forward about the driver's licence and if we come up with other creative ways to hold people accountable, we'll reduce that significantly. This is a good example of do we hire more employees to deal with the caseload, or do we become more efficient and put a process in that holds people more accountable, and does that reduce the caseload which means that the province's overall cost is reduced? This is a good example of where we're becoming more efficient and holding the line on the hiring of staff.

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, minister, has there ever been consideration given to putting a surcharge on - how could I say it? - the deadbeats, I guess is one way of saying it, who are continually being chased by these workers. Has there ever been consideration given on that to actually be a bit of a revenue generator to actually, rather than it being strictly a cost to the taxpayer, that there would be some way of recouping some of the costs here? The idea being is that if you make your payments on time, you don't have to worry about the surcharge but if you're going to be continually missing payments and having to have Maintenance Enforcement staff track you down, has there been consideration given to the possibility of looking at a possible surcharge for those services?

MR. LANDRY: There is a process there and we do charge for default fees. I do caution on that issue, though, because you can't get blood from a stone. I mentioned earlier that we do want to hold people accountable, but by the same token we've got to have some flexibility in the system to deal with a person's reality at the time.

One of the things is to do an annual review on their court case and what their ability is to pay, which saves coming back and forth to court. It's steps like that that would make it more efficient. I've just been advised that we collected $400,000 last year in default fees.

MR. SAMSON: Okay, now I'm curious, what is done with that $400,000? Where does that money go? Does it go towards the salaries of the Maintenance Enforcement employees or what is done with that money that's collected?

MR. LANDRY: General revenue.

MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious, why would it go to general revenue and not be redirected towards the Maintenance Enforcement Program?

MR. LANDRY: That's the standard procedure for all fines collected within our departments that we manage. If your question is that maybe you want to look at that and reinvest it back in, it's a good question.

MR. SAMSON: Well, let me put the question, I guess. I think the minister knows where I'm going with that. I agree with the minister in some sense as there are people with financial hardship, they are just unable to make their maintenance payments. On the other hand, I know of cases of people working out West who just have stopped filing income tax, who are making very healthy wages, but as a means of trying to avoid their maintenance payments, they've just stopped filing taxes. That will obviously catch up to them at a certain point, but until then it's amazing some of the steps that people will take to avoid making these payments.

Again, I would certainly encourage the minister to try to make sure that there is more support for this program and try to assist those families, and send as strong a message as possible that those who have financial obligations to their ex-spouse and children in the Province of Nova Scotia take that seriously and do everything possible to live up to those obligations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the member for Halifax Clayton Park has a number of questions. I certainly do thank the minister and his staff for their responses today and certainly look forward to some of the few items that you indicated you would provide information on.

MR. LANDRY: To finish up on the points that you made there, this Justice Department takes maintenance enforcement seriously. We're committed, as a government, to strong families. There's a secondary part, as I mentioned, with that issue. One is about education and advising, communicating with the community that this is an issue and people need to take responsibility for the decisions that they make.

MR. SAMSON: It just struck me there's one more item. Once again, unfortunately, there's a debate going on regarding the long-gun registry here in Canada. I'm sure at some point, as Minister of Justice, you will be called upon to provide a position as to where the Government of Nova Scotia stands on keeping or abolishing the long-gun registry. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Nova Scotia , I'm curious, could you advise us as to what the position is of the new government, of which you're a minister, in regard to the long-gun registry?

MR. LANDRY: Since this is a federal issue at this point, I am going to leave that issue there and see how it develops. There is lots of controversy around that matter. I don't think I can add value to take a position one way or the other at this time. I will wait to see what the federal government does and will take it from there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.

MS. DIANA WHALEN: I'm pleased to be able to ask a few questions today and perhaps, again, as it goes along. But I think I have about 15 minutes left, is that right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. WHALEN: I wanted to start with Victim Services and that's an area that there have been some changes made to the parameters about that program . When I first became aware of it a couple of years ago, more than two years ago we were paying $65 an hour, and that was all we would provide for counselling; I understand it's now up to $85 an hour, which was an improvement, and I do thank you on that.

I still have a question around whether or not the list of counsellors that we provide to victims, whether or not those counsellors will be satisfied with $85 an hour. I know that when I looked into counselling, the cost of counselling is well over $100 an hour. The sort of people we're talking about, victims of crime, I guess they need different levels, depending on what has happened to them, but some people need significant and very specialized help. I'm still worried that we're only cost sharing and that a lot of people have to leave that money on the table and not get any counselling or help. I wonder if that has been brought to your attention.

MR. LANDRY: Well, I'm not surprised about the question from the member because she has strong compassion and feelings for people who are disadvantaged, and I respect and share that with her. Much of what she says, I think, underlying her tone and her question is that she has a deep concern and I, too, share that.

We have a list of people who will work for the $85. We are able to do group counselling, which helps reduce some of the costs. One of the reasons I'm such an advocate of trying to put money into crime prevention and other types of programs and helping my colleagues with initiatives or ways that we can communicate with children is to try to make that influence to reduce our costs in the future. I know, sitting here, people are saying, well, what about now?

The difficulty that we're faced with, when we have a budget structure the way we have, is how are we able to address this very important concern? If you've been victimized, the trauma and impact can be life-lasting, and the importance of putting services in quickly and being available can help, in some cases, reduce that or reduce the trauma.

As governments, we have tough decisions to make and how do we get additional dollars in there and that's an area that I'd like to see more money go into; it's just, how do we do this during these tough economic times and reduce our costs? I think one of the best ways, the stronger way we can get our financial house in order, is the sooner we can get it in order the more that we can start to put into programs.

Also, it's how you balance investment in our children early and in our families early to reduce the situation. Your colleague just commented about maintenance enforcement and the attitude among some people from this province, which I think is an embarrassment, that they think it's all right not to care for your children.

MS. WHALEN: Yes, I agree.

MR. LANDRY: So if some people think that, then that's a gap in our social system or structure, in our education system to some degree, in the way we deal with respect for others. Now, I see Nova Scotia, in my view, is that we're a very loving, caring community. But there are some in our community who think it's all right to not care for our children, or at least pay, and that's not right.

So as a government and as a Justice Department and being responsible in part for that process, what can we do to enhance the accountability on people? I'm prepared to work with you or anyone else to improve that. I think we had a similar discussion on this last time we were here.

MS. WHALEN: We do and sometimes these things keep coming around. I'm glad to be back to ask the question again though. I would like you, if you could, to provide me with the total amount of money that will go into this program. I had one from 2009-10, which provided the amount by region and showed a total budget of $3.172 million. I'm wondering, if you don't have it today, if it could be tabled later. I would like to know the Victim Services budget and I'd like to know how much of that budget goes to counselling awards. I'll remind all the members that it is only counselling awards that we will give to victims, we'll only provide them with support to get counselling, that seems to be the rule on Victim Services. If I'm wrong, please correct me but I understand that the level and the extent of help that we provide is to say, if you get a counsellor, we'll cost share with you up to a certain amount.

MR. LANDRY: The budget for this is $1.574 million, that's a reduction of $99,000. I've got to give a caveat on that; $99,000 of that is dealing with the reduced IT expenditures and the witness fees that we had that weren't being used that were removed from there and being part of our overall savings. That figure doesn't mean there's a reduction in service in that area; in fact, it means it's staying basically the same.

MS. WHALEN: I'm going to have to ask you to clarify for me because the one I have doesn't show that figure of anywhere near $1.5 million. Was that what you just said, $1.574 million?

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

MS. WHALEN: What I had for the total gross budget, which is how it was defined, was $3.172 million last year. With the amount from the surcharge as roughly $1.5 million was the amount that we get, and I gather the surcharge is an amount we charge every time somebody gets a parking ticket - well, maybe not parking, but a speeding ticket and things like that. We put a little bit of a fee on all of those that helped to cover this, right? Maybe you're giving me the net cost, perhaps you've netted them out, maybe that's what you've done. I didn't do that.

MR. LANDRY: First off, we don't net out, it's on Page 15.4, but we'll supply you with the actual figures. Last year's was $1.673 million; this year I gave you the new figure there, that's for Victim Services itself.

MS. WHALEN: I'm still going to ask you, is that the gross budget or the net budget?

MR. LANDRY: We don't net out so it's a gross expenditure.

MS. WHALEN: Can I just take one minute and show you what I've got from last year?

MR. LANDRY: Okay.

MS. WHALEN: I'm hoping that will perhaps help us to talk in the same levels and be talking about the same line items because what I would like is the total budget. What does it cost to run Victim Services and how many people are involved? I think last year it might have been about 28 FTEs. I'll get all my notes on it and I'll get it back. If you could tell me the FTEs in that area as well.

[5:45 p.m.]

MR. LANDRY: There are 28 FTEs in that department.

MS. WHALEN: So there has been no change in the number of FTEs right now. My specific concern right now, I'm going to make a plea for a person who was a constituent and is now a constituent of Fairview and no longer in my riding. They are not direct relatives - well, they are direct relatives but they are not the immediate family - they are the family of a homicide victim. The new award says that we can have $4,000 and I do applaud the government for making this change because it was a compelling argument that we had to improve Victim Services.

You have improved it now to allow $4,000 for homicide victims' family members and you have taken off the two-year restriction. Before, it was two years after you got the award; if you didn't use it, it was gone and that was the end of it. You've allowed it now to go for one year after the prosecution and I think that's really important, because obviously when a case finally gets to court there's going to be an awful lot of trauma to go through that case.

In this instance it is a family that is related to Jennifer Horne, whose case is coming up shortly - in June - in the courts, and the family that are not immediate family are not entitled to any further counselling because two years have passed. This has taken more than two years to come to court and I know that they certainly have visited Mr. Steele, who is their MLA, and asked for this.

I'm wanting to raise it here to say here is my suggestion. Perhaps some other members who have been ministers may know more than I do, I've not been a minister, but I think there are cases that require some judgement or some flexibility in a program that says not all cases are the same and when you run into one that has compelling reasons why those involved would need extra counselling or extra support in this program, there should be a mechanism to appeal that - whether it's to the minister, the deputy minister, Cabinet, you know, I don't know what level - there should be a mechanism to say some cases are more devastating, more drastic, more horrible than others. We may need to go beyond the strict rules of this policy and we may need to say that there are really strong reasons why there are other people who need counselling.

I know that the minister would understand that there are some devastating impacts from people not getting counselling. I mean if you can't deal with grief and trauma and try to just rebuild your lives, it's very important. You know, I did have permission to speak on behalf of the extended family and mention that they have made an appeal to their MLA and they've been told that the policy does not allow for it right now. So only a change in policy would answer their needs. I'm suggesting that maybe you don't have to open the door wide and change the policy for everyone but it isn't unreasonable to have policies that have that clause in it that says, you know, you can appeal or you can make an application, that doesn't seem unreasonable I don't think. So that is what I would like to suggest and perhaps you would like to reply to that.

MR. LANDRY: I won't reply to any great extent other than let's have the staff take a look at it, we've made a note, and bring it forward again.

MS. WHALEN: I appreciate that. In terms of your figures on the budget for Victim Services - and I understand you will maybe give me the breakdown by region and so on later, is that right, going back to the actual resources?

MR. LANDRY: Yes, they're making a note.

MS. WHALEN: Another note? Okay, that's good. Are you able to tell me how much is allocated for counselling awards this year?

MS. LANDRY: We'll get that information for you.

MS. WHALEN: Are you able to tell me how many people have applied for Victim Services counselling?

MR. LANDRY: Do we have that number there? We don't have that on us.

MS. WHALEN: I guess it's not important.

MR. LANDRY: I want to comment on that - it is important.

MS. WHALEN: It is important, I agree.

MR. LANDRY: It is important and you're asking questions and whatever you ask for, if it's reasonable, I'm more than honoured and happy to be able to provide that for you. So I don't want anyone leaving this room tonight thinking that Victim Services - and I think I've been quite clear, it is an important issue to me personally. I've dealt with many victims and people at the most vulnerable time of their life and I understand the emotion - not that I'm trying to put myself as someone who has been victimized and issues, but I respect the emotional impact that has on the individual and their families.

MS. WHALEN: And I know that you've been in crime prevention and you've been a police officer and you've been in a number of different aspects as a person involved with the law. So I understand that you would appreciate that first-hand and, you know, I've talked to people after the fact, not at the moment of trauma, and understand that it can leave lasting difficulties for a family and for every member of the family, the children as well. So I would like to see that they also are able to get the counselling and the support because life will never be the same for a family that has suffered this kind of a loss. But they can try to at least get support and, you know, getting through it, really what they need is the help to do that. So that's why I make that plea.

Maintenance enforcement, I wonder if we could go back to that. At the Community Services meeting there was - you know, I would say there has been an improvement. When it had come to Public Accounts after the Auditor General's Report, there was about $100 million in outstanding arrears really with the amounts that were owed to Nova Scotian families, mostly women and children. We have brought that down and I do want to mention that. I know the deputy minister is here and I want to thank her for bringing to our attention that it has come down to about $80 million roughly, which is an improvement.

I wanted to go back to the suggestion about whether or not we charge an interest fee and that did come up at the Community Services meeting. Is that something that you had the opportunity to look at so that we don't just try to recover the exact dollar amount that was owing? Some of this has been outstanding for years and years, and just continues to remain outstanding. Maybe with an interest fee we'd be able to recoup that, or at least have one more reason to have them not want to impact their credit rating or not want to have that remain outstanding.

MR. LANDRY: Excellent question. One of the good things that I see in this whole process is the fact that you're raising a question that I previously brought forward to say is something that we should look at. We had some discussion on it but it's like everything, there are priorities and the fact now that you've brought it up, we'll move it up the list again and look at it. I believe there has to be a mechanism there that we hold people accountable and that's just another method in order to achieve that goal. By the same token, we have to make sure if we do that within a system that the system also can have compassion for the individual situation, so take each case on its own. I think in principle that's a good move forward.

MS. WHALEN: I'd like to ask you, as well, at present are we able to impact a person's credit rating if they have an outstanding balance with Maintenance Enforcement?

MR. LANDRY: Not at this time. I'm not opposed to the idea that people have debts impact on their credit rating. What I would caution is we can't have a system that is trying to get people to take responsibility and have compassion in the family situation and a government that takes the life out of someone. What I mean by that is that if we're charging interest or we're taking their licence, that has an impact. Eventually we want them to be responsible for their family and to the community. We don't want to cripple them to such a state or have policies that mean they can never get off the ground. That's not saying out of the debt situation they're in or if they're just avoiding, they need to be held accountable.

If their financial situation is such that they don't have means to add that and to give credit ratings where they're never able to get a chance to get a fresh start, that's a different issue because that creates a further social impact on our society, so we have to be conscious. I agree in principle with what you're doing but we have to have a system that has some checks and balances in it. We're on the same page basically to one degree.

MS. WHALEN: I know we just have a couple of minutes left so maybe I will just carry on in that vein. My thought is yes, we have to have compassion and I've certainly had men in my riding who have called me, who have had an issue, and I've gone to Maintenance Enforcement and said, we have to talk about what the requirements are from the caseworkers in relation to the man who is in arrears. So I've had the opportunity to talk to both sides in terms of this.

I do think, if we're using tools like taking away someone's licence or garnishing their wages, this is just another tool that you put in your toolbox and you ask your workers, again, in terms of a progression of penalties, it is one more thing you can use. I'm not suggesting that we cripple men, that we ruin their earning power and they're no longer able to contribute back to their families, but I think you need lots of tools in your toolbox. Some people won't care if you take their driver's licence away and some won't care about something else.

You've got to be able to try to use those levers because that's really what they're there for and we have quite a few of them now. You can take a hunting licence away, you can take back their income tax refunds. There are a number of things you can do. I'd love to know how often we use those different mechanisms or tools that we have. I know you do have a number of powers and this, to me, would just be one more logical one to add to that tool kit that the caseworkers have because they run into a lot of people who are just very difficult.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time has expired for the Liberal caucus. I'd now like to recognize the member for Cumberland South with questions.

MR. LANDRY: How long are we going to go tonight?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have 11 minutes left.

The honourable member for Cumberland South.

HON. MURRAY SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I will say now that I will be sharing some of my time, at least for tonight, with the honourable member for Dartmouth North. I'll be back on Thursday to pick up after the Liberal caucus finishes their time.

Just before I turn it over to him, I want to pick up on a comment that was made by the minister earlier in discussion. Mr. Minister, you had said back then, if you look back in Hansard, I think what you said was, "The decision was made, it's over." Well, I just want to go on the record to say here tonight that I represent the community of Springhill where many, many times people thought it was over for them: men and boys trapped underground in 1891, 100-plus killed; 1956, an explosion, many men and boys killed; 1958, many men and boys killed. We had devastating fires: 1957, completely wiped out Main Street; and again in the early 1970s.

I just want you to know, and I'm speaking on behalf of the residents in my community, there was a promise made and it even went so far - when I read the Speech from the Throne, the Speech from the Throne was changed from "a government that promises to keep its commitments" to "would meet almost all of its commitments."

It's pretty obvious the government of today knew what they had done here. There was a commitment made to a community that was very obvious, with the work that was done and the money spent, that commitment was made. I know you'll disagree with that and you'll talk about business plans, just like the Premier will when I get a chance at him. But the people know what they were told. That community that has been struggling for many, many years knows what it was promised. I know what was promised by Cabinet, I know what was promised by the then-Premier, I know what I promised as a Cabinet Minister, and what the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal at the time promised.

I know the work that was done, I know the money that was spent, I know the design work that was done. Between Antigonish and Springhill, almost $1 million was spent with regard to all kinds of land acquisitions, design work. I know I heard you say earlier - and I heard you mention a moment ago about people being victimized; well, the Town of Springhill, and the citizens of Springhill and the County of Cumberland are being victimized by this government. That's the way the people see it.

Mr. Minister, I know you will disagree with me on that and that's fine. But I just want you to know your comments earlier about it being over, it will never be over. This government may think it's over, it will never be over. As long as I'm in this Legislature, as long as I'm able to come here and represent not only the correctional officers that worked there but their families that are going to be torn apart over this decision by this government, as long as I represent the people of Cumberland South, particularly the people of Springhill at this point and the people in the nearby areas that are being victimized by the government with this decision, it will never be over.

I can tell you it will never, ever be forgotten in our area. As I talked over the last couple of weeks, whether it's cross-border shopping that the government refused to deal with, whether it's the issues of pricing that the government refuses to help with, whether it's an increase in taxes which the government is imposing upon the people of this province - especially the people of Cumberland now that are really feeling the negative impact as a result of all those decisions. The removal of this facility from Cumberland County, those very, very few government jobs that are there, without the government at least attempting to follow up on those suggestions that were made earlier on - and I do not believe a legitimate effort was made to try to find that.

If you did, if you made those legitimate - if you took that on and came back and said we explored them all, unfortunately we're not doing it, I'd have respect for the government to say at least you looked at it and you said - but this is a purely political decision that was made within a couple of weeks after the election of this government. I can tell you, as long as I'm the MLA for Cumberland South, Mr. Minister, it will never be over.

I'm turning the rest of my time, sir, over to the member for Dartmouth North.

[6:00 p.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe there was a question for the minister so you'll have to wait for a directed question.

MR. LANDRY: I can't comment on it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not right now. You have to have a question asked.

The member for Dartmouth North.

MR. TREVOR ZINCK: Thank you. I want to thank the honourable member for Cumberland South for sharing his time. I know as an independent member I have limited opportunity, but in and around Justice it's a very important factor in the daily lives of people in Dartmouth North. Again, I want to thank the honourable member for sharing some time.

Mr. Minister, in previous lines of questioning with the member for Cumberland South, you had made a statement and I want to give you an opportunity to maybe clarify your intent with that statement, just so I have a better understanding of where you were going with that. It was around a statement that you made that drug issues are a problem in the community, it's a community issue. I want you to elaborate on that. Drug problems are a community issue, what exactly did you mean by that statement?

MR. LANDRY: I'll even go further than a community issue. If an individual has a drug problem, the family has a drug problem and the community has a drug problem. I think in the answer I was giving there, you have to separate when you're talking about - I think the reference was to Boots to the Streets. If you're talking about enforcement, if we have a law agency or a police agency that goes after users, then we have a law agency that's really not addressing the issue.

Drugs are distributed and drug distribution is a business. It's done by organized criminals, it's not a freelance business - there's the odd freelancer who comes in and distributes drugs, but they don't stay around long, they're dealt with. Drugs on the corner, that's a business that's being distributed there, people are being victimized by the use of drugs.

As an adult you have the choice to choose whether or not you're going to choose drugs, it's a free choice, I respect the choice by adults. I don't respect the fact that they're taking the drugs and that they bring that into the community. In the community that you represent, you've shared numerous times that the social conditions and drug usage in your community are quite profound and quite dynamic. If we sent police officers in there to arrest them every night, it's a circle, the police will do it every time, there are social problems. If you're not looking at the prolific offender aspect of it and say, all right, who's involved in the drugs, sitting down talking to them as people and working through crime prevention programs to help them get started.

I think the majority of people who are addicted to drugs don't wish to be addicted to drugs and let it have that control over them, they'd like to know a way out. Because of the body's and mind's inability to compete with it and the support mechanisms in there for them to find channels - and in some cases they're not down far enough, they haven't reach far enough in the gutter to say, enough is enough and I'm going for treatment, they haven't done that. Some of the tone of the question - and I make an assumption here - is that there is an exception to the point I was making: we have to make sure that our police resources are focused on those who do the distribution and remove them, while at the same time trying to curb the socialization of drugs in the community.

If there are drugs in the community it's because a good portion of the community is accepting them to be there, otherwise they wouldn't be there. The economics of supply and demand don't change - whether it's drugs, whether it's cars, whether it's food - if the service is there. Now there are some people who provide opportunities for people to use drugs. We don't want them around our schools.

We had an incident in Amherst recently - we'll go back to Colchester - and we had one in Pictou a few years ago where some people think in the community, well, they're just smoking dope. Well, I take exception to that. They are there to learn and go to school, and as parents and adults we have a responsibility to make sure the environment is safe. When those kids reach adulthood and they want to do drugs, that's their choice, and they have to be held accountable for their actions and pay the cost if they're breaking the law, if they're using illegal drugs or if they're going to sell drugs and be part of it.

For those kids to have drugs in the school, somebody is there giving it to them. We want to address that, we want to remove that, but that's a social problem. There are parts of it that are criminal, but the overall essence of it is the destruction of the social fabric because the kids don't have a healthy mind and body in order to go to school and learn, and we pay millions of dollars as taxpayers to make sure they have a healthy environment to work in.

I go through your neighbourhood where you're the MLA, I'm over there regularly. I see the people on the streets. I see the housing and the conditions that some people are in. Do I like it? No. Is there something we can do about it? We're working toward that. You're working as a representative there, representing the people in your community, the same as the honourable member for Cumberland South. When he talks about the impact of the decision on his community, we have to be careful of self-fulfilling prophesies and how we get into the mentality in the discussion about "the sky is falling."

Yes, my decision is made, and hopefully it's made for the right reasons and for the best interests. I'm committed, as I am in Dartmouth North, to Cumberland South, to work to find new ways to create employment and to support the community. I'm committed to the community; I'm committed to your community.

On this issue we have a difference of opinion and I've already articulated and expressed that I respect your position. If we're going to fight on this issue for the next four or five years, so be it, your energy can go there. I'd rather work with you than against you. I want to work with you in regard to reducing the impact of addictions within the community in what we do and I'm committed through crime prevention programs, through Addiction Services, and through enforcement. We talked about police earlier. I'm not going to tell the police, let's go out and do an operation. I did that for a lifetime and that's behind me now. That was my career before. What my career is now is to make sure that the tools and resources and support and partnerships are developed to address those issues.

So when we talk about drugs, are we talking about the socialization of drugs in the community or the criminalization of behaviours of organized criminals in the community to distribute that? Nobody delivers drugs in a community without being part of a network, they're not a single entity. They may do it once or twice but they won't be doing it the third or fourth time because those who really control the distribution will say you owe us; we don't care that you sold the drugs, we want the money that you got from them and if you're not going to work for us, you're not going to work. We see some of the violence and some of the violence that we're seeing on the streets today is that territorial takeover and people being afraid for their safety if they're going to try to peddle drugs down the street. So that type of behaviour is there.

So as a city and as a province, we have to make sure that Justice is committed and focused and taking a leadership role to work with our law enforcement agencies and partners and the judiciary to make sure that we do address this issue. I've got a little more to say, how much time do I have?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Four minutes.

MR. LANDRY: Four more minutes. I also want to say that if we have a Legislature for the next four years where we're continually looking at fighting each other on saying let's make this here a live issue for the next four years, then what are we doing for our constituencies? What are we doing for the province to make it healthier and stronger? We want a province that's motivated for success in moving forward. If we're walking around and we have a mentality of "the sky is falling" and the government can't do anything right - and I'm all for questioning the government and holding us accountable for our actions and to bring things forward, but there are some things that we need to move forward on.

The biggest obstacle to dealing with the addictions and the social problems in our society today is the deficit that we're faced with right now. We can have an argument and use semantics to determine one word versus another and triple one thing in one direction versus another one, but the bottom line is there's only one taxpayer and the bill has to be paid. We have to pay our bills and we're in a situation here in Nova Scotia where you can argue the figures or how we got there - and I really don't care how we got there. We're here and we have to take responsibility about how we're going to get us out of this debt. So if it's $492 million and we talk about the university expenditures and how that has been moved one way or the other, the bill has to be paid, and we're taking those steps to move forward to pay that bill and that's what we're doing.

Now, on addictions and dealing with lottery winnings and putting money into that type of behaviour, we have to reduce that. We have to look at people who have problems and are suffering. Nobody wants to be in a situation where gambling, drugs, alcohol, or whatever, are controlling their world and it's an inability for them to move forward. What's our time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have one minute.

MR. LANDRY: One minute to go and I'll summarize in that. I thank you very much for the question and I'm glad that I was able to clarify that. Look, I understand that we're in here tomorrow - Thursday. How much time will we have on Thursday?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Four hours.

MR. LANDRY: Four hours, so I've got four more hours of opportunity to speak. I look forward to this and I thank you for giving me this opportunity tonight to share, especially my perception on the difference between the socialization of drug use in the community and the criminalization of the criminal organizations behind that. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The time allotted for questioning today has expired. We'll reconvene on Thursday afternoon, I believe.

Thank you. We are adjourned.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 6:11 p.m.]