HALIFAX, MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

5:00 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I call the estimates of the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

Resolution E34 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $274,561,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation be approved.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will call on the minister to introduce staff and to have the preliminary remarks.

 

The honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

HON. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have all the names of my staff here, so I want to get Marvin to fill me in.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will observe that the start time is 5:00 p.m.

 

Mr. Minister, anytime you're ready.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, thank you very much. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the budget of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I want you to notice that I am well fortified with people around me, and there's good reason for that.

 

 

55

 

With me, to my far left, is Kevin Malloy, deputy minister; I have Cameron MacNeil to my right - he's the executive director of Program Management and Corporate Services; I have Marvin MacDonald, executive director of Municipal Services, to my immediate left; behind me I have Scott Farmer, executive director of Strategy, Integration and Registries; Nancy MacLellan, executive director of Service Delivery; John MacDonald, executive director of the Alcohol and Gaming Division - John's division is about as new to the department as I am, I think we walked up the sidewalk together when I became minister; and Marianne Hakkert-Lebel, director of Finance. I'm thinking we probably should have a fourth seat here. I think she'll be beside me as much as anybody. Behind me I have Catherine Smith, Maggie MacDonald, Eileen Wallerhebb, Paul Arsenault, and Bob Newcomb, and Penny McCormick is my communications person whom you will probably see close to me at any given moment.

 

All of these people will assist with departmental estimates and this is a department that I understand doesn't always get to estimates - I think probably this year, in particular, since I'm the Minister of Agriculture, going alphabetically and the fact that I'm the minister for both departments, then both departments came forward.

 

Before I begin, I would like to welcome the Alcohol and Gaming Division that joined our department earlier this year. As I indicated, the Alcohol and Gaming Division regulates places of amusement like video outlets, theatres, and pool halls; it provides liquor licence applications for businesses and the general public; licences and regulates lotteries and other forms of gaming; and rates and classifies film and video - which makes me think of a story of one of the, I think the United Church minister in my area, I'm not positive if that's his affiliation, but anyway I saw him at a breakfast in Upper Rawdon and he indicated he was classifying dirty movies for my department. We both got quite a chuckle. Their move to Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations will lead to a greater efficiency and improved client service.

 

I'd like to begin by telling you a little about the work done at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, as well as a little about the dedication of the people who work there and serve Nova Scotians every day. This department is large and diverse, with broad- based responsibilities, and I do want to say to my colleagues around the table that this is an interesting place - this could be referred to as Ministers 101 or MLAs 101. The services offered by this department to the people of Nova Scotia is a place where politicians really should go and learn about what kind of service people get in Nova Scotia.

 

I really actually appreciate the fact that I'm there; it has given me a really great appreciation for what the government does in terms of a lot of services from one department. Since I didn't come into politics through the municipal council doorway, it also has provided a great insight into the kind of synergies between the provincial level of government and the municipal level, which has been a very good thing for me.

 

Serving Nova Scotians front and centre is all we do. Virtually every Nova Scotian has direct contact with this department; in fact our department has almost 5.4 million client interactions each year. Whether registering a motor vehicle, applying for a driver's licence or a birth certificate, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is the access point. In fact, much of the work done at the department focuses on improving access to government programs and services all across the province for businesses, individuals, and municipalities. We are always looking at ways to streamline processes and offer better, faster service in a variety of ways on-line, in person at our Access Nova Scotia centres and land registration offices, or toll-free through our call centre.

 

Just a note about our call centre - staff are not only knowledgeable on and respond to questions about programs and services offered through Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, but also on many more programs and services offered by government. You can reach the call centre by calling, in metro, 424-5200, or toll-free, 1-800-670-4357. I don't think I need to give you the e-mail. I'm happy to note French language services are available for a variety of programs and services across the service channels. Our staff work at more than 50 locations in 24 communities across the province and, as mentioned earlier, we process almost 5.4 million client interactions each year.

 

Our Web site receives an average of almost 7,500 visits each day; nearly 70 per cent are return visitors. We've made doing business on-line easier by adding Interac Online as a payment option for services offered through our Web site. This is another convenient and safe way for customers to interact with government. Recently we made additional strides in improving access to government programs and services - in the past months we've co-located some of our Access Nova Scotia and Land Registration offices, which provides customers with more services under one roof and is a more cost-effective way to deliver services. We will continue to explore further opportunities to co-locate offices as leases expire in the future.

 

Our Access Nova Scotia centre, formerly located at Mumford Road, moved to Bayers Lake in October. The lease of the existing location expired at the end of September 2010 and the current landlord at the West End Mall did not offer an opportunity to stay at this site. When we learned that we had no choice but to leave the Mumford Road site, our preference was to continue operations on the peninsula. Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal issued a tender that was limited to peninsular Halifax; unfortunately, there were no successful bidders on that tender. A second tender was issued with expanded boundaries, and the owners of the Bayers Lake location were the successful bidders. There are many positive aspects with the new location - it's a very energy- efficient building, with operating costs at half of most existing buildings.

 

Over the initial ten-year lease, this will save the taxpayers of Nova Scotia hundreds of thousands of dollars in heating costs. The Bayers Lake location is also accessible by public transit and has ample parking. It will effectively enable the department to meet all client service requirements. I think "accessible by public transit" was one condition of the tender, so that was important for us.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations offer a wide variety of on-line services such as motor vehicle registration renewal; birth, marriage, and death certificate requests; and the payment of some municipal fines. I'm very proud that Nova Scotia was the first province in Canada to partner with the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada to implement bundled birth services that include applications for tax benefits and a social insurance number. Parents may now register their newborn's birth and apply for their child's social insurance number and the Canada Child Benefit using one application form right at the hospital. The success of this project has provided a foundation on which we can build. This would make it easier for Nova Scotians to interact with government through the implementation of a bereavement bundle and the expansion of the current birth bundle program.

 

Providing access to government programs and services is just one part of the daily work done at the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. We are also the lead department for government's Better Regulations Initiative. Last January, a survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that Nova Scotia placed second in the country in making it easier for business to operate. In Nova Scotia we've made significant strides in reducing the administrative burden for business customers. Five years ago, Nova Scotia began a Better Regulations Initiative and set aggressive targets and I'm happy to say that, in 2010, government met most of those targets - the province has cut the administrative burden to business by 20 per cent.

 

To reach this target, some of the changes we've made include changes to the Companies Act to make it faster and easier for businesses to incorporate, amalgamate, or convert to an unlimited company, and we're always working to make the services we offer available on-line, which makes it quick and convenient to deal with government.

 

Another way is to launch the BizPal, a convenient on-line service for business owners. It offers one-stop shopping for applications for permits or licences from the municipal, provincial, and federal governments. More than 80 per cent of the individuals and businesses across the province now have access to BizPal, which makes it faster and easier for business owners to deal with all levels of government. The province has also set a ten-day service standard for the time it takes to grant business licences. More than 80 per cent of the licences are meeting that service target, and that means Nova Scotians spend less time waiting and more time taking care of business. And we're also moving forward with an access-to-business project, which we're very excited about, and it will be much more like on-line banking - one spot where Nova Scotians can see their interactions with government with just a few clicks.

 

The department also manages registries for motor vehicles, vital statistics, businesses and corporations, and land data. These registries provide important services for Nova Scotians. For instance, much of the work done in the Registry of Motor Vehicles is borne from the continuous need to keep our loved ones safe on our roads, and in this capacity we partner with departments such as Justice and Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, as well as national agencies such as the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators to help keep our roads safe.

 

The Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also provides programs relating to consumer protection, residential tenancies, taxation, business practices, and geographic information. I know I don't have to highlight the importance of these services to Nova Scotians; however there are some recent activities relating to consumer protection and to our taxation compliance efforts that I do want to mention.

 

I'm very proud of the gift card regulation we put in place to ban expiry dates and fees on gift cards - this serves to protect customers and makes sure they get the full dollar value of their gift card purchases.

 

Our used vehicle protection legislation that we brought forward last Fall is another fine example for consumer protection. Our used vehicle protection legislation, commonly known as the "lemon law", gives consumers access to the history of a used vehicle when they're shopping. This includes information such as a vehicle's designation as a manufacturer buyback, or a lemon. We want Nova Scotians to have all the information they need at their fingertips so they know what they're getting into when they buy a used vehicle. The lemon law will help Nova Scotians choose safe vehicles that they can rely on.

 

I'm also happy with the changes we announced last Fall to better protect the rights of Nova Scotia tenants and landlords. We expect these changes to the Residential Tenancies Act will balance the needs of the tenants and landlords, to come into effect later this year. We continually look for ways to collaborate with our partners to improve consumer protection in Nova Scotia, and we work with licensees to review their records and help them understand their responsibilities under the Acts that regulate them - a service that is beneficial to their business and to their clients.

 

We take the time to listen to their concerns in order to seek the best legislation and regulations to balance the needs of business and customers when reaching out to consumers by reviewing our on-line content to make it clearer and more accessible. In the future we'll be launching a new version of our Web site to help ensure that the best, most current information on our programs is available, as well as details on ways consumers can protect themselves from fraud, scams and unethical business practices. And we're taking messages about consumer protection out into the community by attending events like the Nova Scotia Home Show, the 50+ Expo, and student orientation activities at our universities.

 

On our taxation compliance front, our tough stance against illegal tobacco products is working. Over the past several months, through interdepartmental and inter-agency collaboration, as well as our partnership with other jurisdictions, we have seen almost 60 seizures of illegal tobacco. I want to mention that as a result of our enhanced relationship and agreement with Nova Scotia Crime Stoppers, all province-wide tips and leads received by Crime Stoppers on tobacco smuggling are forwarded to our department's compliance unit, as well as the RCMP excise and local law enforcement agencies.

 

We have also entered into an information-sharing MOU with the RCMP, which enables our department to participate in joint investigations with other police agencies and the Canada Revenue Agency. We have a former RCMP officer heading our compliance unit. This allows our staff access to enhanced training and techniques. Through work done with our partners, we are seeing more illegal product stopped before it enters the province. We will continue to combat the illegal sale of tobacco.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also oversees a number of rebate programs that are of particular interest to Nova Scotians. One of these is the First-Time Home Buyer Rebate program. This is a provincial rebate on first- time homebuyers for 18.75 per cent of the provincial component of the HST, to a maximum of $1,500 on the purchase price or a construction cost of a new home to be used as the primary residence. Other important rebates administered by this department include those relating to home heating, specifically your Energy Rebate, and the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. Your energy rebate provides a rebate equivalent to the provincial portion of the HST on all home heating - this resulted in about 200,000 additional households benefiting from the electricity portion of the rebate. This change is additional evidence of our government's commitment to support Nova Scotians with their home heating costs.

 

The Heating Assistance Rebate Program will once again be offered in the 2011-12 heating season, and this program provides up to $200 in home heating help to eligible households. Families with an income of up to $42,000 and individuals with an income of $27,000 or less will continue to be eligible to receive home heating help through this program - and thanks to the province's donation of $400,000 to the Salvation Army's Good Neighbour program this year, I'm pleased that more families will have access to home heating help.

 

I want to take this opportunity to applaud the great community work done by the Salvation Army. This care and concern they show to Nova Scotia families in need is immeasurable.

 

I'd also like to take an opportunity to congratulate the Program Management and Corporate Service Division staff of our department. They were recently awarded a Level 1 certification by the National Quality Institute. This certification is in recognition of a commitment to organizational quality, building leadership, and a focus on proactive and preventive planning, and methods. The Program Management and Corporate Service Division is only the third Nova Scotia recipient of this certification of quality.

 

Once again, congratulations, and I wish them well as they work toward an even higher quality certification through the Progressive Excellence Program.

 

Up to this point I have only been providing highlights on the Service Nova Scotia side of this department, and now it is time I turned my attention to the Municipal Relations side. This department is government's link to Nova Scotia's 55 municipalities and 22 villages. I have to say that one of the things I learned in this department was that I don't live in a village. I found that to be quite earth-shattering but, anyway, I've learned to cope with that.

 

We maintain the legislative framework in which municipalities operate. Much of the work we do involves collaboration and co-operation across levels of government to support communities in every region of the province. It also includes ongoing consultation with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities. Our focus is to help build municipal capacity, to build sustainable communities. We have many programs in place to help support and enhance municipal governance, and on a daily basis we provide advice and assistance and program support to municipalities. This includes helping municipalities in the areas of finance, administration, governance, infrastructure, municipal engineering, planning, and subdivision regulations.

 

In our last session we passed legislation that enables the province to establish a debt collection program on behalf of municipalities. Small debts owed to municipalities can be a challenge for them to collect, and bills owed for utility services, facility rentals, or bylaw infractions can add up to a significant amount owing to individual municipal units. Our department operates an efficient debt collection unit with highly-trained staff who provide compassionate and effective debt collection services. The UNSM approached our department to see if municipalities could tap into these services to help them collect more of the debts owed to them. We are pleased to move forward with their request and our services will help them collect more funds that will, in turn, go back to their communities.

 

We support numerous workshops and conferences for municipalities, to provide them with the tools required to meet the needs of their residents. We understand and appreciate the vital role that local governments play in keeping our communities and, indeed, our province, strong and healthy - therefore enhancing local government is also a key function of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

Since the signing of the federal Gas Tax Fund Agreement, department staff has been working closely with municipalities to develop their integrated community sustainability plans. These plans are more than just a requirement for federal gas tax funding, these plans help guide municipalities toward a more sustainable future. They have the potential to assist municipalities in determining major investment needs and priorities for environmental stewardship, economic growth, social equity, and cultural vitality. They encourage communities to take a look at their future through a sustainable lens. This element of citizen engagement helps to shape communities and, indeed, this province. We recognize the financial struggles at the municipal level and continually work with them to build a sustainable future for families.

 

The reality is we are all facing some very big financial pressures. At both the provincial and municipal level it is a challenge to provide the programs and services citizens are demanding. We must all live within our means to ensure strong communities, to make life better for families and communities across Nova Scotia. All Nova Scotians bear the costs of municipal and provincial government services, whether it's health care or garbage collection and, as minister, I'm very aware of that. That's why we are not changing municipal funding at all in 2011-12; in fact, we are not reducing funding to municipalities at all. We do not want to download the province's problems onto them. However, starting in 2012-13, the province will no longer continue to bear additional costs for public housing and Corrections that had begun to assume under the MOU.

 

Municipalities need to continue to contribute to these important services, just as they have been. We plan to hold the rate that we base municipal education contributions on at the 2010-11 level, and we're asking for a lower contribution to Corrections than we did before this agreement was signed, and we're not indexing Corrections contributions to CPI - this will mean a $400,000 benefit to municipalities this year. We need to change the agreement to make it more affordable. The agreement committed the province to take over costs for public housing and Corrections from the municipalities and to bear extra costs for education. Up until now, this agreement has cost the province about $21.5 million, and it could have cost over $100 million by 2014-15.

 

We simply cannot afford these additional costs. Nova Scotia is facing a different financial reality than it was in 2007, and the contribution rates set in the MOU at that time are no longer realistic. We know that municipalities are facing challenges, but they will still retain benefits from the MOU. I'm committed to providing municipalities 12 months' notice for any financial changes that will impact them and that is what we did. They will have time to look at their budgets and plan for the future, and we remain committed to strong, sustainable communities across this province. We will continue to work with municipalities to help develop smart, practical solutions to the challenges we all face now and in the years to come.

 

The town's task force is a fine example of our department working with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities to review issues and challenges associated with towns in Nova Scotia. This task force will begin its formal meetings next week. Over the coming year, they will be looking at such matters as service delivery, demographics, and development pressures. Perhaps one of the most important financial contributions we make to municipalities is in the form of infrastructure - programs that support economic growth and help ensure better communities for our citizens.

 

Through programs like the Provincial Capital Assistance Program, the federal Gas Tax Transfer program, and the Building Canada Fund, along with our federal and municipal partners, we have, over the last five years, provided approximately $527 million for more than 500 infrastructure projects. Through the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, together with federal and municipal partners, we are investing in more infrastructure projects, including water improvements.

From Bridgewater to Canso, more and more families can be confident that when they turn on their tap they'll have safe water to drink. We need to focus on clean water, a clean environment, and climate change in order to create a better Nova Scotia for future generations.

 

Although the stimulus funding is winding down, we have partnered with our federal and municipal governments to deliver projects worth more than $260 million under the Building Canada Fund. Once again, most of our investments are towards water and waste water projects across the province. We recognize that these projects may not be as interesting or exciting as a new recreation centre, but they are about providing clean drinking water and safe communities. Over the recent years, we have invested about $500,000 toward Hebron's water project; more than $4.3 million in Havre Boucher toward its waste water treatment plant; almost $4 million toward a new waste water treatment plant in the Town of Middleton; and more than $2.2 million toward the Evanston waste water treatment plant.

 

As many of you are aware, there will be new stricter regulations for municipal waste water treatment as a result of the new strategy by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. These new regulations will mean changes and higher costs, and many municipalities have expressed their concerns to me as to how they're going to pay for these changes. During the last year, our department has consulted with my colleagues in other provinces and territories across Canada and, collectively, we continue to lobby the federal government for a dedicated funding program to assist municipalities across Canada to upgrade existing treatment facilities and build new ones, where needed, to ensure compliance with the new regulations.

 

Our department is not all just about water and waste water projects, we also offer programs that help community-based transportation. There are 11 such operations located in places like Yarmouth through to the Strait-Richmond area. The Accessible Transportation Assistance Program assists with the purchase and modification of accessible vehicles; the Community Transportation Assistance Program helps with operational costs for community-based transportation systems; and the Nova Scotia Transit Research Incentive Program provided $250,000 in funding to 13 organizations to support capacity building initiatives intended to generate new and improved public transit services in rural and unserviced areas of Nova Scotia.

 

Through the Emergency Services Provider Fund, our department continues to assist volunteer fire departments, ground search and rescue groups, and other emergency organizations perform their duties safely. We also recently announced the Legion Capital Assistance Program, which will help provide necessary upgrades and repairs to our Royal Canadian Legions where many events, public meetings, and community activities take place.

 

All of the initiatives and services we have mentioned so far have been possible because of the strong relationship the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations has with the UNSM and municipalities. These programs and this funding have helped communities across the province remain strong, vibrant, and healthy. You can see how diverse and unique the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is.

 

I can still say that I'm at the "drinking from the firehose" stage with the department, so I'm hoping to either get better at it or get a smaller hose.

 

I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of our department's new investments that were announced in last Tuesday's budget. Our government will provide $585,000 to support the creation of the 211 Nova Scotia, in partnership with United Way. This system will make information more accessible, providing a single access point to a full range of community and government services. We will be among the first in Canada to offer this service province-wide.

 

Another budget highlight, we will see businesses benefiting from two investments in digital strategies; one of which is a $2.4 million investment that will make it easier for businesses to access government programs and services.

 

These are fine examples of our government making life better for families, as well as for businesses.

 

In closing, I want to mention that I'm always struck by the dedication and commitment of our staff in all areas of the department. The staff work diligently to make sure that programs and services are delivered in a way that make sense and in ways that are the most accessible to Nova Scotians. I'm proud to be Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I value the great work done by staff every day.

 

Now I'd be happy to answer any questions - or try to answer any questions.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. It should be noted that your opening remarks were 36 minutes. The time is 5:36 p.m. and we will now go, for an hour of questioning, to the Liberal caucus.

 

The honourable member for Halifax Clayton Park.

 

MS. DIANA WHALEN: I appreciated your opening comments. It was a good review for me on everything going on in the department - and congratulations on your new assignment to the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. Certainly a lot of things happen in that department, as you said in the beginning.

 

I'm actually beginning our questioning for the Liberal caucus, but the member for Preston, our critic, will be joining us, I hope, in the first hour. If not, I'll be doing the first hour. It's certainly an area that has a lot of subjects that I think are important to all of us in our own municipalities and our own ridings.

A couple of the areas I wanted to explore are not unique to my area, but I certainly have a lot of apartment buildings and a lot of condominiums - in fact, the first condominium, condominium number one - since they're all numbered as they're registered - was in Clayton Park in 1978 and we have a good number of them that have continued to be in that area. So I wanted to get an update on the Condominium Act and the changes that are not yet in force.

 

So maybe we'll just start there because that's probably the most burning issue for me. I do have other questions around your budget and staffing and so on, but if we could talk about the Condominium Act. And I've had the opportunity to speak in the past to Mr. Duda - so it's nice to see you here today.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The amendments to the Act will be proclaimed on June 1^st of this year.

 

MS. WHALEN: So June 1^st is when - is it regulations we're waiting for right now because we passed an Act last Fall, was it? I believe it was as recent as last Fall.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, and the Act will be proclaimed, the legislation, and the regulations at the same time.

 

MS. WHALEN: Okay, have we been waiting for the regulations - is that really what was holding up the . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MS. WHALEN: Okay. I might suggest that it would be good to keep the organization that has been closely involved with this. There's an organization called the Condominium Owners of Nova Scotia, and that spells C.O.N.S., and it very much reflects how they felt about being new condominium owners in Nova Scotia. It was started because they didn't feel that the Condominium Association represented them well. The association which has been around a lot longer has lawyers and realtors and others, you know, even builders I think that have an interest in condominiums, whereas they felt the owners were the ones who were left holding the bag basically when the buildings were poorly constructed, when there were big expenses that came down for new owners - and there are some pressing issues that still need to be addressed in legislation.

 

So I would like to go there as well, if I could, with you. As I recall, the Act that we brought in is going to talk about some of the governance issues around the building. The condominium boards that actually, you know, are the governance bodies for the owners of a building didn't have any real authority to, I guess, punish anybody who breaks their rules, or to chastise people who weren't following the rules of the condominium.

 

So the Act passed in the Fall allows that they can now do that, impose some fines, and if the fines aren't paid there might be some kind of an appeal process or mechanism that's in place, and hopefully also keep boards and the owners, out of arbitration as much as possible.

 

Again, as an MLA with a lot of condominiums, I've been involved in a number of cases where owners have come into conflict with the boards and the only avenue offered through the department and through the Registry of Condominiums has been arbitration, because what I discovered at the time was that the registrar, who resides within your department, did not have any authority to deal with any kind of complaints. So they might have taken note of a stream of complaints or different issues that were arising, but beyond taking note of them they wouldn't take action because their job was simply to register condominiums.

 

So as a new building is built, or as a townhouse complex comes up, you know, to be registered, they were just going through the checklist of what I must do to ensure that you have all the features in place to now be a condominium, and when it's registered I give you a number and you create your board out of the members and I'm done with you - if you have complaints or problems, we have no mechanism to deal with that.

 

Can you let me know if there is any mechanism within the department now to deal with complaints?

 

MR. MACDONELL: To the member, yes, coming out of the Act and the regulations, we'll be appointing condominium dispute officers, so they will handle those disputes. It's kind of interesting actually when I think of our different worlds, because in my constituency I have never encountered - well, I'm not sure that we have condominiums, so you know it's just when I think about all of what we all do in our different communities, this has not been one that would have educated me much, I have to tell you.

 

MS. WHALEN: I can certainly appreciate that. In Clayton Park there are 9,000 apartment and condominium units and less than 4,000 houses and townhouses, so I've got a preponderance - two-thirds of my riding is apartments and condominium buildings, so I hear more of those. And it's good, you'll learn lots as you go along.

 

The idea that you're going to put in place condominium dispute officers, I would say it's a wonderful thing, it's good. We haven't heard that, of course, that would be details I guess that would come around the regulations or the actual how you're going to implement these things.

 

I felt when I first got these complaints that it was a real travesty that there was nowhere they could go within government to get any help, and no mechanism, really, other than arbitration, which was an expensive option. You went up against the lawyers that the condo board would have hired to defend their interests and, as an owner, you would find yourself either having to hire a lawyer or you would be immersed in a very legal process that was a big overwhelming certainly for individuals. I know there are some lawyers around the table, you can appreciate what that would be like. It very much discouraged anybody trying to resolve issues. I think this is a lot better and I'll look forward to seeing that.

 

In addition to these governance issues and the complaint issues that came up, there is a big problem around the construction issues. That's where I'm going to the issue that perhaps has not yet been addressed in legislation. I'd like to know if you're looking at further legislation. The two points I will mention, because I realize my mic gets turned off and yours will go on - you are very formal, I appreciate that - is that there were two things - the Atlantic Warranty Program, I guess it is, was not sufficient to protect the owners of condominiums. It's too short and it doesn't have any teeth. It doesn't do a great deal for homeowners, either, but there seemed to be far less complaints around new home construction compared to new condominium construction, I think because the homes are less complex, in the sense than a big, multi-unit building.

 

Anyway, we needed to address a better warranty system and we needed to find a way to ensure that before a building is registered and occupied, that we've looked at the big deficiencies in construction, to find a way because this was happening repeatedly. It wasn't one builder, it was a whole slew of builders and ones with good reputations, too, were building buildings that still seemed to have leaks and just deficiencies. In one case, each unit owner - and this was one in Bedford - had to put up $30,000, each and every unit owner, and they had only just purchased their units, which would probably have been $300,000 units, or $250,000 and up, so a huge cost to the individuals, on a brand new building.

 

So if you could update me on what is coming up in terms of addressing what I felt were the bigger issues that were remaining outstanding, because there's still a sense, and I personally was looking at buying into a condominium building and all my friends were saying be careful because there's so many problems. It has created sort of I would say a reputation of concern that people now don't have a good level of trust around the new condo buildings. I'd like to know what we can do, again as consumer protection - and I'm finished.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I guess a couple of things that came to my mind were issues around the building code and that's at Labour and Workforce Development. We're looking at better consumer education, and the issue of the warranty is a really complex one. We have had discussions outside the province around what kind of model might work, but our market here is so small that for an insurer to take it on it's a bit of a problem, so that's one that I've got to say that we have not got a rope around. It's still something that is going to take a little bit of work - and I'm not guaranteeing we'll actually even get it right or get it so that it's a model that works but it's one that we've been looking at but we're not there yet.

 

MS. WHALEN: One bill that I had introduced as a Private Member's Bill a few years ago was a holdback for the builder, so that there would be a 5 per cent holdback on the cost of the units. That would be held in trust and would be there in the instance that they did run into some of these big charges that would come back on them and, again, I mentioned $30,000 - some of them are $5,000 each. So a holdback would have provided a fund and if that was held for even five years, which I think was the length of time I suggested in the Private Member's Bill, at least there would be a fund you could go back to because the builder ultimately is responsible. If a new building had, as one in my riding had, an entire brick face that had to be redone within the first couple of years of a building because of leaks again and water getting in, you know, if it has been improperly bricked, it's just shoddy workmanship or a problem like that.

 

So if we can't find another insurer who would come in and would see our market as, you know, at all attractive - and I understand we're small, maybe we need to look at some other mechanisms and that might be a way to provide some peace of mind because what we're talking about is how do you provide a little assurance to the new owners?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, everything is on the table. The fund you mentioned in your legislation is one that we've been looking at or some kind of compensation fund. I'll ask you a question about your bill. How did you see it working - was it a percentage of the overall cost of the unit that had to be set aside? And did you have a percentage?

 

MS. WHALEN: I believe I said 5 per cent which seemed reasonable to me, you know, it's not too harmful to the builder. It's a share of their profit, no question about that, but, you know, it's an incentive for the builder to make sure they've done it right because otherwise they're going to lose that 5 per cent because my suggestion was that if you set aside for five years and provided that there were no major deficiencies in the building in that period of time, the money would be released and go back to the builder. But right now, you know, I think it's something that if they've been building poorly, this is sort of a natural repercussion that you've got to now put your money where your mouth is and stand behind your building. So I was looking at 5 per cent of the unit cost.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, this is a road I shouldn't go down, only because I don't know if I know enough about it. My concern would be that 5 per cent may not be a target big enough but, like I say, this is something we're not rejecting. I would worry about the possibility that you could easily inflate the cost of a condominium by 5 per cent and then walk away, you know, pay your fund and then walk away. I don't know that for sure but, anyway, as I said earlier, anything is on the table. We would be glad to look at whatever - we recognize it as an issue and protection for the consumer is what we would like to see happen.

 

MS. WHALEN: And that is something I would like to know. I know we had originally talked about it and it been rejected as your first avenue of approaching this problem but if, in fact, you can't find insurers, then I think we should be looking at another way to provide that peace of mind for buyers. If they do inflate the cost in order, you know, the initial cost, then so be it because I would rather pay 5 per cent more and know that I'm not going to be dinged for extra money later that I can't put on my mortgage - I've already got a $250,000 mortgage let's say, or a $200,000 mortgage. It's harder to come up with another $5,000 or $10,000 when I'm charged to help pay for some big repair that comes up suddenly.

 

So that's a concern to me there and I just don't feel that we've yet addressed new construction and what we're going to do to ensure that those buildings are going to stand the test of time and, you know, I think a lot of the smaller issues raised by the condominium owners has been, you know, at least we're working on and some have been addressed.

 

Again, I was suggesting initially I think it's good if you get in touch with them because we had had some e-mails asking what's happening and when they'll be able to start actually having some teeth in their enforcement efforts as well because they feel they can't do anything to make people comply with the rules of a condominium at the moment. So I think the sooner they know about that, the better. I guess June 1^st isn't that far away, but just to let you know there's still a lot of interest and concern among the community about that. So I think we've probably covered that quite well, but I guess my last question would be, can we expect any further legislation at this point in time - anything else coming that will be coming soon?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, I don't think so. I think if we get this bill proclaimed and the regulations, I think we may want to have a re-look over time as to what kind of gaps, maybe identify where it hasn't worked, which I think would be an appropriate thing. There is certainly nothing on our table right away around new legislation since we don't have the present bill proclaimed. The thing I would worry about, any kind of a backup fund or whatever is that I'm thinking if I was the builder, that would be in my cost and the person who is buying is going to be paying that extra fee. How do we ensure that the consumer is not actually paying for the back-up fund for a shoddy building? Anyway, I'm not rejecting the idea.

 

MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. I can't stress enough that there is a lack of confidence in the quality. I haven't heard any recent big horror stories, not in the last few years, but starting in 2006 to 2009, there were quite a few. Now when you have your officers in place, you're going to have these condo dispute officers, you may be hearing about them first-hand and you may even have a mechanism to start looking at how widespread they are. Prior to this, as I said, with a condominium registrar, you didn't really even have an obligation to record those complaints that came to your office; that wasn't in your mandate. Now you will have a role to play in looking at what kind of complaints are out there.

 

I have another question around condominium ones and that is the occupancy fee that's being charged to people. Again, it was in the bill in the Fall, I believe, but I didn't think it was perhaps as good as it could have been in terms of protecting people from being charged an occupancy fee - and while they're looking it up, just for the members, that means that you buy a condominium and it hasn't yet been registered and you're able to move into that building - maybe you have some in your ridings perhaps. I think perhaps a few of you do, but people are moving into these buildings and waiting for the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations or perhaps the builders to submit their papers and then the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to deal with it and there could be months and months of delay.

 

They've already bought their units so they've paid their $200,000-plus-plus and moved in and they're being charged rent in the meantime and they're being charged over $1,000. It's up to the builder, I guess; it's up to the agreement. There is an employee right here at the Legislature who told me recently he paid $20,000 over about a year and some months in rent on a unit he had bought. The problem was it wasn't registered. Again, that's a travesty. Obviously consumers are not being protected if they are going to be charged. I don't think anybody minds a month, maybe; they might not like it, but they'd pay a month's rent. I felt that they should not be charged rent on their unit; that they should be charged, perhaps, something for the common fees, the common areas that are there, but it doesn't seem right to charge you for the unit that you've already bought. I realize the minister is new in this role.

 

MR. MACDONELL: They can't force the tenant to go in - or the owner, I guess - if the condo isn't ready. If they choose to go in, then there is a cap on the rent at three-quarters of 1 per cent of the purchase price of the unit. The longer the owner is in there, then the lower the rent is as an incentive for the builder to complete the project, but there is nothing, there is nothing to force the owner to go in; certainly the builder can't, but I'm thinking if you don't have a place to live, that might be something that forces you to go in. Anyway, the amount that the builder can collect is so reduced that that's the incentive for them to complete the project.

 

MS. WHALEN: Three-quarters of 1 per cent may sound low, but since the unit started around $200,000 - most of them are in that range or higher, especially on the peninsula, and they go up to quite a high rate - that's quite a lot of money. A per cent is $2,000, isn't it, on $200,000? Three-quarters of that is still a high rent to be asked to pay. I think it goes back to people having made a decision to buy in a building, waiting for it to be constructed. When it is ready, they are excited and they have probably sold their home in order to put the money down on the new unit, so you can understand why they are anxious to move.

 

I don't know where the delay is coming from, but again is it not an incentive for the the builder to perhaps delay because they are making the money on the rents, or is the problem in the department because you're backlogged with not enough staff and too much paperwork to do? That has been a problem in the past.

 

I guess I'd like to nail down why it's happening, too - is it because you don't have enough staff in the department? Could that be?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The full rent can only be charged for six months. Thereafter, the amount reduced is at the six months to 0.5 per cent and further at 12 month date to 0.25 per cent, so the builder is going to get less and less rent and the owner is not - I mean if you're thinking of $2,000 a month, I mean maybe they would choose, you know I can rent somewhere else for, you know, $1,000 a month, so, anyway, there's nothing to force them to go in but there is something to force the amount that they pay to be lowered.

 

MS. WHALEN: I wonder if you could tell me again just how long it takes to go down to 0.25 per cent?

 

MR. MACDONELL: At the 12-month date.

 

MS. WHALEN: The condominium I'm referring to actually was Founders Corner - I just got a note to that effect - in Dartmouth, and that did go on for up to two years, so I think it's important that the deputy minister and your staff who are responsible and deal with this, be aware that this is happening.

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's the whole rent, for two years?

 

MS. WHALEN: Well I know it came to $20,000 and we could double-check right here with one our library staff who was directly involved. I think if there's one person here, there are many others, and I know there are other buildings in many of the ridings where this is happening. Again, you can't be forced in, but nobody moves in with the expectation that this will drag on for years.

 

So, again, I would like to know if you could answer whether you feel that the Registrar's Office has the resources to deal with these applications in a timely process and if the paperwork is delayed, is there any mechanism where you can push the builders? I mean you're now going to have conflict resolution officers, or dispute resolution officers, and if they know that there's a building where this is just dragging on, will you have any power to push the builders to get their paperwork in?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well I'm thinking we'll have power after June 1^st, but not really much until then.

 

We are going to put additional resources to this when the Act is proclaimed and we can't - I guess we can kind of go on a basis of what the level of complaints that come in to us and the fact that we're a bit powerless to do as much as we would like, so we certainly would have some notion of what we're going to have to deal with, if it hasn't been taken care of.

 

So yes, we identify this is going to need resources and we are going to put some more resources to that.

 

MS. WHALEN: I think the point is really that the number of condominiums has greatly increased and the construction now, it's becoming a more popular form of ownership and not just in Clayton Park, I've gotten complaints from people in my riding who have bought in Liverpool, for example, because they wanted a place for the weekend or for the summer. They bought a small unit that was a condominium, same problem, their rent was being charged on that unit, so they are building them in places around the countryside as well and I think that you'll hear more and more about it so I'm glad we've had a chance to discuss it today.

 

When I first started asking about this I don't even know if you had a full-time registrar. I think the registrar looked after a number of different functions and wasn't even dedicated to condominiums. I believe you now have a dedicated registrar. I appreciate that and I think some of that comes up from calls from MLAs and individuals who are concerned.

 

You were talking about staffing and the fact that additional resources will be made available. I was surprised about something in the very beginning of looking at the estimates for this department - and that was your estimate of staffing for 2011-12. Just to look at it on Page 22.2 where your estimates begin, it has the number of FTEs, Total - Funded Staff, and even if you take off the ones funded by external agencies, last year you were below what was estimated, by a significant number. It's more than 100 less than estimated. It says here the Estimate was 876 and your Forecast was 767, but next year in the 2011-12 Estimate, we're jumping up to 940.

 

I'm really curious about that because I know there is an across-the-government move to lower staff numbers. We're supposed to be shrinking by 1,000 or 1,100 through the whole civil service. The Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations clearly has quite a large contingent of staff - what's going on? That's what I'd like to know.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We eliminated two positions, but we added 63 because we took on Alcohol and Gaming.

 

MS. WHALEN: So Alcohol and Gaming is 63; the difference though is well over 100 there. You've got your finance director, that's good, but unless I understand it wrong, I see 767 was your actual forecast numbers for this year. You're jumping up to 940, which is approaching 200. It's 174? Or 173 - I'm not doing my math, but 760 to 940.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The normal turnover is around 10 per cent, so that's the difference between the estimate and the forecast in 2010-11. I think the real number from estimate to estimate is probably closer to - which is a lesser number but . . .

 

MS. WHALEN: Actually, if you do take the estimate and add 63 on, you're pretty close to what you said, exactly, to the 940. But I guess I wanted to know why you were so much lower in actuality at the end of the year - is that almost 100 people that you didn't have those positions filled?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's about normal staff turnover, I'm told.

 

MS. WHALEN: It's not for me to say, but I think 10 per cent is a high turnover. I think maybe you need to look at whether you have a nice workplace or something - maybe it's too stressful. Maybe it's the call centre and all of that that's too stressful, but 10 per cent is a high turnover in a year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We have some speciality positions that are very difficult to fill, but we're expecting that with this new minister that people will be running to the department for work. (Laughter)

 

MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much. That is something of concern and I think you've explained it pretty well, so I'm okay with that. I think it's something to watch in terms of employee satisfaction.

 

On the residential tenancies, if we could look at that as well - I know that's another area where you have brought in a new Act. I think that was pretty much a complete overhaul of the Residential Tenancies Act as I understood it. And I should let the minister know that in the past I've had a couple of meetings in my riding, which are specifically inviting the community to come out and talk about residential tenancies. I haven't done it with your current director of that area, but your previous director did come and give a very balanced view on tenant rights and landlord rights. It's a tough area because you're usually very much at loggerheads. There are a lot of disputes between them and the people who want to come out to a public meeting either have an axe to grind with the tenant or with the landlord.

 

We did have a couple of those meetings because, again, I think in order to protect the public you need to give them more information about their own rights as people who are renting. I think it's important that we protect them, and their interests as well, because they're not nearly as organized as your landlord groups.

 

You've got the Investment Property Owners Association and you've got some very big landlords that have the resources to defend their interests very strongly, and the tenants groups are very difficult - they definitely exist, they're very difficult to reach. There are some poverty groups that will, under their banner, say that they're representing tenants, and they do - you know, Dal Legal Aid and others do help tenants a lot, but they are not organized across the board as a tenants' group. So in my area a lot of the tenants are not particularly low income, they wouldn't fall under the banner of poverty, people who need a poverty advocate, but they certainly need to have their rights looked after as tenants because they can be, I think if they don't know the rules and so on, they can be treated poorly by a landlord as well, although I realize it's a tricky one - it does go both ways.

 

Anyway, I would like to know about the Residential Tenancies Act - why is it taking so long for that one to be proclaimed? And I'll give you an exact reason why I'm concerned - I believe a lot of landlords right now are evicting people under "security of tenure." The new Act says the minute you sign your lease, you've been vetted by the landlord and that landlord then gives you a security of tenure. But the old rule was five years in order to get that security, and what's happening is I've had some calls from people who are being asked to leave - no reason given. So the landlords are taking advantage of this window of opportunity, and it's a major concern to me.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I think this month we're going to start the consultations on the amendments to the regulations and then, hopefully, this Fall we'll have that package ready, and then proclamation.

 

MS. WHALEN: I wasn't aware that there was going to be further consultation, so is there a schedule or will you soon have a schedule of where and when - is it available yet?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No.

 

MS. WHALEN: So there will be consultation on the regulations to go along with - I thought July 1^st the Act was going to be proclaimed, the actual, the new Residential Tenancies Act?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's been pushed over to the Fall.

 

MS. WHALEN: It has been pushed back to the Fall?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MS. WHALEN: Well, I'm going to suggest to you again, there's even a wider window for people to lose their tenancy during this period. As you know, the landlords don't have to give any reason for saying I'm not going to extend your lease, I'm not willing to sign on for another year. This is the problem: Under the old rules they just don't have to give any reason, they can just say I'm not willing to sign your lease for another year. So effectively you're evicted. They don't call it "evicted", they just say we're not extending you. But this is going to extend that window, and that concerns me because I've heard it from other MLAs as well that they're getting these calls.

 

So, you know, I guess I would like to hear about when the consultations can begin - have you got any idea how deep into the Fall we're looking?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, it would certainly be my expectation that this will be back and ready to get - well regulations are a different animal; they don't have to go to the House of Assembly - I would say as soon as we can possibly do it. If we consider September to be Fall, I'd like to say then, but I can't verify that yet.

 

The issue around the tenure or evicting people - those would be people who don't have tenure, obviously don't have the five years, and they'd have to be at the end of their lease?

 

MS. WHALEN: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MS. WHALEN: The way it works is three months before their lease is up they're given notification, which was presumed to be ample time to tell them to move, but my argument has been that it is their home and if they haven't broken any rule and if the landlord can't say what they've done wrong they shouldn't have the right to evict them. I think your new rule would say there'd be certain reasons why a person can be evicted, and that makes sense - if they destroy property, if they don't pay their rent, if they make excessive noise, those complaints should be noted and the tenant have an opportunity to correct it or leave. But not to give any reason is just very damaging to the individual - and we've had some really compelling cases where you'd say they just didn't like each other or there could be racism. It could be any number of things.

 

I'm just concerned that it has been pushed back, but I would like very much to be notified when you get your schedule of consultations - and I'm sure all the members would like to know. Really, there are tenants everywhere, so I think it would be good to let us know that, and it would be helpful.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We're committed to this. The reason that this legislation has been changed is because it needed to be changed. As much as I'd love to wave my magic wand and do this faster, I think we'll probably be all over the place if we don't do it in a kind of prescriptive way, that when we do get the regulations done, we'll at least - as much as some people may not like what the final product is, we didn't do it without going to find out what might work.

 

As much as I have to feel for residents, this is a two-way street. It's really important for us to protect the people who are renters, but also we want to ensure that the people who are offering them a place a live have some reasonable expectation that they can do what they need to do, and if it was possible to do it faster - I'll say we'll do as much as we can as fast as we can so that people know there actually was a real consultative process here.

 

MS. WHALEN: I have one small issue that has come up around tenancies and I'm hoping that your staff here would be able to answer it as well. There have been cases where people - and the one that I know of was a student, looks at an apartment, says they like it, but they want to look at two or three more, and the person who is showing the apartment says, well you'd better give us a deposit because otherwise we'll rent it to someone else. So they write them a cheque, leave them a deposit, go look at something else and decide they would rather over here, and when they go back to get their deposit back, they're not given it because they're told that now belongs to the unit and that was their money to ensure that it was available for them.

 

The student, you know, could ill afford to lose the half month's rent, or whatever the deposit was that they had to leave. Have you heard of that case? I've read about it in the newspaper with someone else as well, but that should not be allowed or there needs to be consumer education, again. I personally would have thought I would have left a deposit too - I think that anybody could be caught in that trap.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Good point. Actually, they could file a complaint with the board, but I guess I'm a little concerned about that if there is no real mechanism to ensure that they get their money back.

 

MS. WHALEN: It was described to me that the landlord was within their rights to do that, but it seemed to me just not a good thing to be doing. And people should understand if they write the cheque that the landlord is intending to keep the money - or could keep the money. So, you know, I think it was done in good faith and the student, this young person, the first time they're getting an apartment, gets left out in the cold. So it was a concern to me.

 

I'm going to move on a bit to the budget in general, because I do like to get a sense of the spending and, again, on the financial side it looks like overall your budget is down $20 million this year. Is that estimate over estimate? It's forecast over estimate. It's the same page, Page 22.2, it is down to $274.7 million. What I'm curious about there is you've brought in 63 more people. You haven't decreased your staff, staffing component, we've said it's actually up with that 63 you've absorbed.

 

You've got a new function and yet your budget is down, so I wonder if there is a Coles Notes version of where the savings are, hopefully?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Was it estimate to forecast or estimate to estimate?

 

MS. WHALEN: Forecast to estimate this year. It's down even more from your estimate last year. You were over $300 million, $312 million - $37 million down from the estimate.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, there's a decrease in federal gas tax recovery, okay. That's about $11 million - am I right? (Interruption) yes, an $11.4 million decrease;

a reduction in the HARP budget based on a lower rate of applications, so about $3.5 million there; a net decrease in the Building Canada Fund top-up, so that's about $1.5 million; and that's municipal/rural infrastructure fund, a federal funding change in the federal spending profile, so it's offset by a decrease in recovery, so that's down about $700,000. That actually comes to about $17 million, a little over $17 million. So that's the difference - I'm thinking it's close to the difference, say $20 million.

 

MS. WHALEN: I think perhaps I'm not as aware of what the federal gas tax is. We're sharing that with municipalities; I know they get a share of it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's a flow-through to my department.

 

MS. WHALEN: It just comes through. So it would just show there. I'm surprised it's down though because the cost of gas is up and our motive fuel tax is way up. The federal tax must be up as well - so why would our amount flowing through be down?

 

MR. MACDONELL: If I understand the excise, it's a flat rate, I think, so it's a volume. (Interruption) Oh, okay, it's a flow- through of the funding, it has nothing to do with volumes. So we expense it as they use it, and the rest is in reserve.

 

MS. WHALEN: So can I just clarify, that is only the federal amount? That doesn't affect the other taxes we're collecting, the other motive fuel tax which is provincial and does vary with volume and with the price of gas, okay. So I guess that's fine and it's going straight through to municipalities, which is where the need is greatest I would say.

 

Maybe we could talk about the MOU - well, actually before I do that, you've got your finance person here and I know you have to change tables when I do that. On the finance side, if we could talk a little bit about fees, and I think that probably the critic will want to go there as well, but what will the impact be of the increased fees - and I've got a big list in my binder of all the fees because (Interruption) Well, it may be about 2 per cent. Some fees went up more than that in some departments.

 

Now, I was flipping through the pages and pages and I realized it's because you administer a lot of government programs through Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations that so many of them rest in your department. Just in going through quickly, I didn't see any that were making gigantic jumps. It was like $3, $2, you know, sometimes probably less than a $1 - I think I see one here for $6. The jumps are not tremendous on each and every one, but the cumulative effect should be great. So I'm wondering how that will affect your bottom line and whether that is going to help you on the revenue side.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It will generate a little more than an additional $2 million in revenue.

 

MS. WHALEN: What's the total?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The total amount for the department or the total amount in the fees?

 

MS. WHALEN: In the fees, the total amount that you would collect in fees in your department - maybe they are done by program, rather than as fees, but I'd like to know.

 

MR. MACDONELL: About $8.7 million.

 

MS. WHALEN: Is that the previous amount or that will be . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's including.

 

MS. WHALEN: So this is interesting, though, because it means you are up $2 million in fees from - is that right? - you said it would be about $2 million, the impact of the increase in fees?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, it's $1 million - $1.1 million, something like that.

 

MS. WHALEN: Just to be clear, the increase this year, with the increase in fees, which as I said is a large number across the board, I'm sure some of these have a lot like people getting their licences, people renewing their licences, people buying their driver's education book, all of that is pretty frequent - it happens a lot, and therefore even a small increase will be over a large volume and could generate a lot of income.

 

What it looks like is certainly more than 2 per cent, because if you're going to make $8.7 million in fees this year and it's up $1.1 million, that's more like 20 per cent - well maybe not quite 20 per cent, 15 per cent.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The $1 million is a wide variety of other fees. The Registry of Motor Vehicles alone is about $2 million in increased fees, with $1.1 million in all the other fees, so about a $3 million increase in the total.

 

MS. WHALEN: If I could just ask you again then, what would be the total amount of fees you would collect - you must collect far more than $8.7 million - you know, your total number of fees in the whole year, from all of the different sources that people have to pay for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The Registry of Motor Vehicles is about $108 million and the other fees are about $8.7 million.

 

MS. WHALEN: And that's the figure you've . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a reminder, if I could. There is a control room that is recording this and we can't have chat time between the minister and the member, so please recognize the mic - and I would like to remind the member that there is exactly 10 minutes remaining in the Liberal caucus time.

 

MS. WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will direct our questions through you; we'll do that.

 

I did want to ask the minister a little bit more about those, but that certainly clarifies a lot because the $8.7 million just didn't jibe with the increases we were discussing, so that puts it better in perspective - I mean $108 million with a $2 million increase is 2 per cent, or a little under, so that makes a lot more sense to us.

 

With those monies that you collect in fees, do you use them just to cover your costs of delivering the services?

MR. MACDONELL: Registry of Motor Vehicle fees, they go into general revenue, and the $8 million, the other fees, those are cost recovery.

 

MS. WHALEN: Very good, thank you very much. I wanted to say I was pleased you've moved to Bayers Lake. I realize it's not on the peninsula and I've heard some people complain it's further away, but I think it's a good location and I was pleased to hear you say that it's going to save money because it's energy efficient as well. I had an issue that I've raised here in past years, and that is the hours that you operate for drivers' testing. The hours, unless you've changed them, don't really work well for students who, you know, are a large number of the people getting their licence for the first time - high school students. I'm wondering if you're doing any, and this would be somebody who knows I guess the Registry of Motor Vehicles, I wonder if the hours have been changed or adjusted at all to allow the students to come more in the evenings - even writing your written test, I think you had to be there by 4:00 p.m. to write the written test - has that been altered in any way?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, it hasn't. Actually it's a good question and I wish I could offer more. I'm trying to think of how, considering what kind of schedules people have, it seems - I'm just thinking about my own kids when I tried to get them their driver's test and sometimes it was just getting the kid but, anyway, we can do multiple written tests so, you know, we can take a lot of people at one time. Road tests are booked ahead, so if they can foresee a day, it could be teacher in-servicing, you know, whatever, they might have a day off and if they know that's coming, they can try to book.

 

I have to say it's not one of those things that we get a lot of complaints about, that people can't get their driver's test in an appropriate period of time, when they want to. It seems to work well enough.

 

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, well, my children have their licences now, but I can say that there were complaints that I heard from friends and others when they were at that age of taking their licence - and the reason is that the office is open. Your Access Nova Scotia office is open until 7:00 p.m., but when you go in the section where you write your written test it closed at 4:00 p.m., and I don't believe you can go out later on your driver's test. It seems silly to me, if you've already got the office open, you're doing other permits and other work, but you're not allowing people to come in to do their written and driver's test. I just think it's an element where you could improve your service - and I think kids are missing school quite happily, they're not complaining, their parents are grumbling about it. So this is just a suggestion to the new minister.

 

Can I ask, Mr. Chairman, how much time I have left?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a little over five minutes remaining.

 

Minister, would you like to comment on that comment?

 

MS. WHALEN: It's just a suggestion.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm trying to. The testing area being closed, like between 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., or 4:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., it's a completely different staff complement who does that and the road testing, so there would be a whole kind of labour issue around that. Also, we're looking at kind of on-line simulated testing which has been done in Australia which seems to work well, but I am going to emphasize the point - we don't get a lot of complaints on this, it seems to work well.

 

MS. WHALEN: We only have a few minutes left so I just wanted to go on to another subject and that would be the cap on property taxes. You've just come, I believe you've completed your series of consultations on the cap and that was the cap where we were looking at the cost of living in terms of our property assessments. I'm talking about the assessment cap and I know there has been a lot of controversy from municipalities. I don't mind telling you that I think it has been a good thing. I think it's very important to people who are in their homes, they certainly value this a lot and taking it off, or whatever changes are going to be made, is going to create a lot of, I think, "angst" might be a good word to use around that. I don't know how your consultations have gone, so I wonder, could you tell me if they're wrapped up and what your next steps are?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, it's a hot topic. The consultations have wrapped up, and we're analyzing the data from that. I think I have always been saying late Spring we're hoping to have, you know, kind of a final analysis and whatever, recommendations I guess, from the review.

 

I want to say it is something that I have kept my distance from, and I'll be as interested as anybody to see what my staff comes up with. I know since I've been minister - well, actually even before I was minister - certainly in my own constituency the present CAO was the financial officer for the municipality, so definitely I know what the municipal view is, I hear it now from other municipal leaders. So I do know, roughly, what that line in the sand looks like. But, otherwise, I don't know really what has come into us and I'm as curious as anybody to see what that final analysis is. And it will be government - you know it will be the government at the end of the day that will make the decision about what happens with the cap. I've certainly heard the view from residents who like it, and municipalities that don't.

 

MS. WHALEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we have all heard from the municipalities that they don't like it; they feel it cuts into their revenue. But I think it's much clearer about who is responsible for increasing your taxes - and that assessment lift was an invisible way that they were able to, especially here in HRM, collect a lot more money every year and spend more widely and perhaps not as carefully and, you know, at the same time telling people they had lowered taxes.

 

So it was very disingenuous. And I've been on both sides of it - I've been the councillor they called to complain, and I would say it was the assessment so you don't call me; and then on the other side the reverse would be said, you know, you call me as an MLA and I would say, well, they can adjust your rate downward - right?

 

But they have control; the municipality really has control to adjust the rate based on the assessment. If they need more money, then I think they need to be more honest and upfront about it and not take the lift that comes just because of market prices. But I realize there are a few other issues that come up around it, around equity, and over time whether you get some lack of equity along a street as homes change hands, the same house having maybe a markedly different assessment rate, but it is a way to protect the homeowners and I think that if we're not doing that, we should be doing something for seniors across the board, or low-income people, a much more strong program that way.

 

It just concerns me and I did want to know when we would get an answer, and I think there will be more discussion then, but I would like to say - and I think my time has almost elapsed, am I right?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is just about a minute left if the minister wants to respond, or you can conclude with a few more remarks.

 

MS. WHALEN: Well, he may want to respond, but I just wanted to say it was all three Parties that supported that move to lower it to the cost of living, and I think that it should be considered as you go forward.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, a quick comment?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I appreciate the comments and, yes, I think everything is considered in this case.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the time that has been allocated for the Liberal caucus. We will now recognize the Progressive Conservative caucus. The start time is 6:36 p.m. and you have an hour for questioning.

 

The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister, and staff, for providing the opportunity to ask some questions this evening.

 

Recently the memorandum of understanding with the municipalities was changed, and I have two municipalities in the area that I represent, the Town of Port Hawkesbury - which, of course, has Mayor Billy Joe MacLean, who is the president of the UNSM - and we have the Municipality of Inverness as well. It was expressed to me that in 25 years the UNSM has never faced a change like this before.

 

I guess I would start out by raising that concern, but I would ask the question: Where do you see the role for municipal governments going forward? And when I say "the role", specifically what would they be expected to be responsible for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well as I said earlier, I'm still drinking from the firehose. We are just about to embark on a whole fiscal review, and that was from comments I think that had come to the province - well I think probably the issue of equalization, the CAP, that the Premier had made a commitment that we would look at everything affecting the funding relationship between the province and the municipalities.

 

So I've got to tell you that I don't really have a particular place that I think I should go, and I'll be as curious as anyone to see what comes out the other end of that. I think that there is no way that municipalities should think that they'll be off the hook for something; I mean I think they're going to contribute. We don't necessarily, I think, in this province operate in the same world as maybe another province or their relationship with municipalities. I'm could be wrong on this, but I'm going to say it anyway - I think in Alberta the municipalities pay 38 per cent of the Education budget. Prior to the MOU, the municipalities here paid 14 per cent to 15 per cent of the Department of Education budget.

 

Also, in Ontario the Ontario provincial government maintains less roads than we do, less kilometres of road, and the municipalities maintain the roads. I think you have to realize there are worlds in which the load on municipalities is quite significant. I don't know all of how they deem equity in the relationship with the province to those municipalities. I'm sure they've sat down and figured all that out between them - and I think that's really what I would like to have offered to the municipalities as we go forward, that we'll sit down and talk about this stuff.

 

I think there are probably things that maybe they don't want to contribute as much to, but they'd be willing to take on. I know there have been a number of these services exchanges - and actually where we are now is the result of a discussion that they had that they would take this and we would take that. So anyway, I don't think it's my will or wish, or the government's, to burden them disproportionately.

 

I think the comment I've made, on one or more occasion, is there's really only one taxpayer. But I think something appropriate, and I guess maybe the definition is in the eye of the beholder, but certainly I think at the day it would be one that I would like to think that the municipalities and the province will agree on.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, and I can appreciate that every province is different. You gave the Ontario example, and I believe in a lot of municipalities in Ontario they do have much more responsibility for roads. I think actually in this province a couple of years back, a few years back, the provincial government asked the federal government to consider allowing federal dollars to be spent on secondary roads in this province, because before that they were only allowed to be spent on highways. So I can appreciate that with these things you get into the finer points, and there are probably finer points that we won't be able to clarify tonight, but the reason I wanted to ask that question is just to get a feeling of where you were going.

 

I don't know if you'd have the numbers, but if I could ask: With the change in that MOU, what would the impact be on the Municipality of the County of Inverness - would you have those numbers available?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think we have some numbers. Whether we've got numbers that will answer your question - I was told that it would be about a 1 per cent on the HRM. So whether you can extrapolate that across the province - anyway, we'll see what we can tell you.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I will await the minister's response.

 

If the minister prefers, we could maybe get that number later on during the questioning. In fact, hopefully to be helpful, I can pass along the budget of Inverness and perhaps it can be found in their statements - I'd just like to try to identify what the impact would be on a typical municipality.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking it looks too low in the future, so I might be wrong on that. It's lower, at least for Corrections it's a fair bit lower going into the future, so I want to verify that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Perhaps I'll table this document and I can certainly provide a copy to the minister's staff if that may be helpful - and I'll proceed with further questions.

 

My next question is trying to follow the same line of thought. I know that municipalities can't run deficit budgets because legislation won't allow them to. We just talked earlier a bit about the property tax cap assessment. Because of the changes, by changing the MOU and the municipalities being responsible for housing and judicial costs, does that not suggest that the municipalities would have to raise the property tax rates?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It certainly doesn't suggest it to me. For Corrections, going forward - now, I'll be told if I got this wrong, I hope - prior to the MOU, the municipalities were responsible for $17.5 million in Corrections. The first part of the phase-out I think occurred last year, $3.5 million, and another drop of $3.5 million in this fiscal. Coming back for 1213, it will go - in other words, a year ago it went from $17.5 million to $14 million, $3.5 million off and another $3.5 million off in this fiscal year is what they should realize. Next year, they're going to go back up to the $14 million and they'll continue with that $14 million going forward. The municipalities will have gone down from $17.5 million when they entered the MOU on their Corrections contribution; that will drop to $14 million going forward next year and so they actually are having a reduction in their contribution to Corrections with the change in the MOU.

 

Their contribution to housing, which is $7 million to $7.5 million, that's going to stay at that. They would have had a reduction of about half of that I think this year, so the start of the phase-out started this year so they would have gone from about $7 million to $3.5 million this year, and then they'll go back up to $7 million and continue with $7 million next year.

 

I'm assuming if they maintained their rate they would have had a little bit of a bump; they'd have a little bit of revenue that they would have had as a bonus, I guess, is what you could say. I'm assuming that since they've been budgeting these expenses all along over the years that they shouldn't be raising their taxes for these expenses. As a matter of fact, their contributing less to Corrections as they move forward than they were prior to the MOU, so there shouldn't be any reason for them raising taxes as a result of the changes to the MOU.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Usually I can follow the numbers. I'm having difficulty tonight, but it's not because of your explanation - could you give sort of the bottom line difference last year, say, under the MOU? Now, this year, they still have the MOU in place for all intents and purposes, correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: For all intents and purposes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So, what is the difference between, say, last year - I presume last year and this year is the same?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Can I speak generally for the municipalities and not just for Inverness? I think that will take us awhile. In the 2010-11 year, on Corrections - because Corrections, housing and education were the three areas we're talking about - they saw about a $3.5 million reduction in the contribution by the municipalities to the province.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So the municipalities would have saved $3.5 million across the province on that budget line?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They could have saved it or they could have had a little bit of a windfall - that was kind of up to them. Then in 2011-12, which is this year, they are experiencing another $3 million, $3.5 million reduction; so basically about $7 million in these two years off the $17.5 million that they were responsible for. Then going forward in 2012-13, they're going to go back up to the $14 million level.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Which would be the level that they have this year in 2010-2011?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's the level they had in 2011, not 2011-12, because they only had the first $3.5 million came off in 2010-11 and they paid $14 million. That amount then dropped again in this fiscal, but next year it will go back up to the $14 million, and it will continue forward at $14 million.

And it's not indexed by CPI - that will save them about another $400,000 across the province. So if you look at what they came into the MOU with, they were paying $17.5 million, which was indexed. Now they're going to go forward with $14 million that's not indexed, so actually closer to a $4 million reduction for them - $3.5 million plus the $400,000. Housing will come back to the same, it'll go back to the $7.5 million and the MET this year will be at the 2010-11 rate and then the rate will change by regulation, going forward.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Are you looking at eliminating the CAP?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We're doing a review. I'm not really looking at doing anything; I'm waiting to see what the information shows me. I'm going to be honest with you, for provincial politicians, the CAP, we're not getting beat up by our residents on the CAP. But we did make a commitment to review it, so I'm keeping my distance around that process purely to make it clear that I'm not interfering with it.

 

Whatever my staff gleans through the consultation process, which is actually completed, then we're going to soon start into the analyses stage of what we've gotten from the UNSM and various municipalities and other stakeholders, and hopefully by the end of late Spring we'll make a decision around that - but I'm not predicting anything on that at this stage.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. I'll move to another topic. There has been some discussion by some people who claim that municipalities are not getting their fair amount of equalization. Now, from what I've reviewed on it, it seems to me they would like to have the entire amount of the transfer payment from the federal government bypass the province and flow out to the municipalities - is that your understanding of that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Kind of a national equalization, like what the federal government might contribute to the province? That's not my understanding of what the municipalities are thinking about, that should just be a flow-through to them. My understanding is around the contributions made by other - what the municipalities might contribute and kind of similar if we were to say Ontario would contribute more to equalization than we do and we get a benefit and they don't.

 

I think there are some issues around how the province gathers, and where it gathers, its taxes and then distributes a share of that in an equalization formula, a Nova Scotia-made formula. I have heard from one municipality that they are of the view that it's not as equitable as it might be.

 

MR. MACMASTER: My next question. Looking at the budget figures - to provide clarification, this would be on Page 22.2 of the Estimates and Supplementary Detail - there are a couple of figures that stood out for me. One was on Page 22.2 under the line Municipal Relations, under Programs and Services. The amount in 2010-2011 is $219 million, that was the Estimate 2010-2011, it is Forecast $205 million, and for this year we're looking . . .

 

MR MACDONELL: Where are you again, please?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Page 22.2 in the Estimates and Supplementary Detail.

 

So the question would be, there's quite a decline in the number there - can you explain what that is related to?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You're referring to the change from estimate to estimate, from estimate in 2010-11 to 2011-12, right? So it's going from $219 million to $173.8 million roughly - is that what you're looking at? It really is the adjustment in the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and the Building Canada Fund. Those funds are reducing and the difference is about $45 million. So that's basically it - they're starting to wind down those programs.

 

MR. MACMASTER: And I presume, there's also a figure I think when you delve a little deeper on Page 22.7, Grants and Programs, and I think that's the same thing that we're speaking about?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They did an extension of the Building Canada Fund in stimulus money and the bulk of that money got spent last year and it wasn't continued into this fiscal, or it's not to the same level. So there has been a drop in that. Quite often, as one program winds down, the government would come up with another program that would kind of crest at about the same time the first one is dropping, and that's not happening in this case. So you're noticing a significant drop and, in particular, because a lot of the money in that program was spent last year.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Minister, I guess this is symptomatic of the federal government. Its stimulus program is over now. Their intention was to stimulate the economy and we were partnering with them on a lot of those projects. So I take it that's winding down, and I guess that has really been the chief driver of our municipal infrastructure renewal. What do you see going forward in that vein? I know that there's not going to be near the same amount of dollars on the table, but do you see maybe - could you give a rough per cent rate of renewal? If we were to look at say over the course of the stimulus period, if it was - I don't want to interrupt you because I know you're getting information there - if we were to look at the renewal of infrastructure going forward, would it be at a rate of say 10 or 15 per cent of what we've seen in the last couple of years?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, not only was I getting information, but it was very accurate.

 

The municipalities get the federal gas tax money - we don't get that, it flows through to them. There is still money in the Building Canada Fund, but I don't know if I could give you a 10 per cent. And actually it's kind of, well I guess it depends on what those outstanding infrastructure projects were that some municipalities didn't get to, but hoped to while there was still funding. I'm sure there's probably - you know, if one municipality, if it got granted for a project, they probably had three that they were hoping to do in the future. But I don't know if I can give you kind of a quantitative percentage on what that will look like going forward.

 

I guess part of it will depend on what the economy does, if things improve significantly, and what our ability may be to contribute without federal funding to any particular municipality. But yes, there are still dollars there for them to do projects, but I don't think I can give you a quantitative 10 per cent, 15 per cent going forward.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. You mentioned the federal gas tax transfer - I think that's in to the tune of about $250 million. My question would be - I guess it's all flowing to the municipalities, but what is it being spent on?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's $56 million a year, and I think it's spent pretty much entirely. And the federal government determines - they've set the criteria for what they can use that money for, but I would say water and sewer projects really are what that money is designed for.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So that amount comes separate of what we would see under provincial revenues for fuel tax, because that's the provincial excise tax versus the federal excise tax, I guess.

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's right.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, thank you. There was an issue raised related to federal excise fuel tax, and apparently the federal government is making it conditional on municipalities to have climate change studies in place to be eligible for receipt of these tax dollars. What was expressed to me is that it's making things complicated, and I'm sure they realize and respect the reason why the federal government is asking for this, but as we all know, municipalities need to spend this money on things that are important, like water and sewer projects, which are also good for the environment.

 

Can you give some commentary on that and your thoughts, as minister of the department, on that requirement by the federal government?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well you're not wrong on the requirement by the federal government for the climate change study or initiative. We help with a planner who works with municipalities to help them develop their studies. It was around sustainability of communities, that is what the initiative was. So the province is trying to help them with people who could kind of move that along.

 

I've begun thinking that they wouldn't have to have their study completed before they could use federal gas tax money - but they'd have to be underway, they'd have to be doing something to indicate that they're following through, because it's a requirement by the federal government.

 

The gas tax money is used for what I had said around water and sewage but they really want to see that the municipalities are moving down the road of the issue of environmental sustainability related to climate change and so we're helping them do that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, I'm glad that you're offering them some help with that because I think it seems to be a bit of a stumbling block for some of them, especially some of the smaller units, to have the resources to provide that kind of feedback for the federal government.

 

The next question I have - and I don't know if there is anything you can do about this - water safety regulations have changed significantly, the requirements to build a water and sewer system are much more rigorous now and while, at first blush, that's a good thing it also brings a tremendous amount of added cost. The more these projects cost, the fewer of these projects we can do - have you any thoughts on where that stands right now and where it is going forward?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Can I ask the member to repeat - I missed the "where that stands".

 

MR. MACMASTER: I was just asking the question about the new water safety regulations. They're significantly increasing the cost of water and sewer projects, which means there are going to be fewer projects done, which I suppose also has a potential health cost for people. Have you any thoughts on how this can be mitigated going forward?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We offer assistance to the municipalities through the Provincial Capital Assistance Program. I would be of the view that if the province is demanding these environmental standards, that there is probably not much wiggle room. You may want to delve a little more with the Minister of Environment because I'm not sure on the ground how many municipalities are at a particular place - unless we have some notion of that? (Interruption) I'm told that we've come a long way with them, but there are still a few that are struggling to meet compliance. I think as much as we can offer assistance to them to get them there, that's what we would be trying to do.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Has the department looked at technologies? Again, this may be more so for the Department of Environment, but I know there are other ways to build water and sewer systems. I think there may have been a pilot project at one time where instead of building the infrastructure of a water and sewer system we would typically expect, it involved putting septic tanks in for people and having a truck set up to go around to collect the waste and dewater it, which was a lot cheaper than to move the waste materials away.

The reason I'm asking this question is I know municipalities may not want to initiate that kind of activity because it may not be favourable with some of the residents because it may be pushing them towards complying with water safety standards, but it may also be a cheaper way of getting people good water and sewer coverage. Has the department looked at encouraging municipalities to present these kinds of technologies in their areas?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well I learned something today. The department works with the Innovations group at the Department of Environment to look at just those things - dewatering and cluster groups, and so yes, I guess it's obvious from that that the Department of Environment I think tries to be flexible in what will still meet their environmental goals, the standards that they want to put in place and try to do that with something that offers enough flexibility. I think at the end of the day, you come to a place where there's nowhere else to push. I mean, finally you have to meet some standard. You can't wiggle around that forever, but certainly as far as the people in my department trying to ensure that municipalities can hit the standard and work with the Department of Environment to do that, then we actively pursue that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, and I think that kind of direction is important because if it gets more bang for the buck ultimately for people, I think that's a good thing. And I know in a lot or rural areas there is a lot of pollution from people who don't have proper sewer setups and, of course, that even affects probably the fishery, you know. So I'm glad to hear that.

 

Here's another topic and this is a touchy one - municipal amalgamation. Have you any vision for municipal amalgamation going forward? I'll let you comment.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I guess probably at the risk of my career ending through my first budget estimates, I guess I have to say it's one that has certainly been raised with me and I was surprised at where it came from, because it didn't come from this level of government. But, to be honest, you know, neither the government nor I are pushing the "a" word very far. I think we do recognize that there are jurisdictions whereby regional co-operation would be important for them to reduce costs in a variety of ways.

 

If you think, if there were five or six municipal units all paying for policing and all doing their separate thing, you might say, well, look, do you want to think about somehow amalgamating that service - so, yes, I think as much as we can encourage municipalities to think regionally on their service commitments and delivery and the impediments to doing that, if they can partner with a neighbour to make that easier or better for their taxpayer, we definitely would encourage it, but we are not at a place where we are thinking of talking amalgamation to anybody.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. I would just like to look at a couple of areas of the budget. What areas - and we've talked about one of them already and that's the decline in the expenditure on municipal infrastructure because the federal government is declining their input dollars, and we usually partner with those dollars to help municipalities build their infrastructure - what areas of the budget beyond that would you expect would be subject to more variances like changes over the past year and over the coming years?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I want to make sure I understand the question. So are you thinking what changes to the budget are going to come forward in the future, I guess, or maybe you're thinking that I can tell you about in this budget where we would have a reduction in funding to programs that we offer to municipalities to cost-share on infrastructure - is that the gist of your question?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Minister, I was trying to, I find sometimes budget numbers go up and down but, just as an example, if I look, in 2009-10 there was about a savings of 1.5 per cent, and then in 2010-11 the budget went up significantly - maybe that was from increased dollars for municipal infrastructure projects, but then it's back down to probably about another 1.5 per cent over two years ago. So in that sense it almost seems like the department is kind of holding a line and maybe decreasing a bit. So I guess maybe I'll ask that question: Would you say that's the case?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking if we think about the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and the Building Canada Fund which I have identified as dropping, you know, so that, I think about $45 million or $46 million, am I (Interruption) Combined. Yes. So are you thinking of a bigger number in the drop from say 2010-11 to now or 2009 because I'm thinking that's the major drop I can think of. The capital is the one that's up and down, the basic operational funding to municipalities - we're holding the line on that so there shouldn't be any change there, or significant change.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I notice in the budget, like you say, in 2009-10 it was about $280 million was the budget for the department. Then in the forecast for this year that we've just completed, it looks like it's about $294 million and now we're back down projected for this coming year in these estimates, to $274 million. So there was a bit of a blip this past year and perhaps you could give some explanation as to why the increase - what was responsible for the increase this past year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Are you looking at the Programs and Services, total department expenses, $312.3 million - that's the 2010-2011 Estimate - to $274.7 million for 2011-2012? Is that the line you are looking at?

 

MR. MACMASTER: I'm actually looking at the number - the original number that I mentioned is actually not in the Estimates Book here, it was a previous number but it was around about $280 million, so if we look at the 2010-2011 Forecast, it is $294 million, and then we're going down to $274 million this coming year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The number that's not here, was that the forecast number in - I'm going to say 2009-2010, I guess? Is that what that was? Otherwise, I'm just going to refer to it as Tory propaganda.

 

I can speak to the $294 million down to $274 million because the 2010-2011 Estimate, which I'm not sure that you can see, is $312 million, roughly, and it goes down in the Forecast to $294 million, and that the reduction in federal gas tax. Then to go to the $274.7 million is a further reduction in the Building Canada Fund, that's what is happening there - is that helpful at all?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, and that is helpful. The figure I was speaking to is actually the actual figure for 2009-2010 - so no Tory propaganda there. That's good, that's very helpful, actually.

 

I guess what I was trying to do was when we're looking at this budget, if we're trying to watch for things - I always watch for variances, things that change, what is happening different today than what was happening yesterday. Do you see any areas of the budget over the coming year that you might expect to see either a budget increase or decrease? So if you look ahead over the coming year, are there any areas where we shouldn't be surprised if we see some change in some of the budget lines?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well I know right now that we're facing - the little bit of money that is left in Building Canada Fund is going to be gone, so I know you're going to see a further reduction there, and I know that Minister Steele is probably going to be looking for further reductions I think from every department so we can hit our targets for balance in 2013-2014.

 

I have to be honest and tell you I don't have a place yet where I think you're going to see that; I think my staff will work toward what that can look like and give the least impact on the services we offer to municipalities. But I can tell you right now the stimulus money in the Building Canada Fund, that's going to wane to nothing, I think.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Is that taken into account in the upcoming year's figures - I presume that's been factored into the budget numbers for this year that we're looking at now?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: My next question - one of the things I've noticed right across government is, and I spoke of it in the Legislature today, is the FTE count. In departments I know there's a set number, there's an FTE count for the year. This past year we were looking at a deficit and then all of a sudden we had a surplus, much the same in the FTE count. The numbers were expected to be about 700 more than they ended up actually being, but I notice this year they're going right back up by sort of the same amount.

 

I guess what I'm noticing is it seems to be a discrepancy - I know there are changes, you can't expect a position to be always filled, there's transition in and out. But it's a significant figure. If you costed it out, like a salary plus office space, plus benefits, plus maybe training, technology, you might be looking somewhere to the tune of $100,000 for FTE, and if we have a discrepancy across government of say 600, you'd be looking at $60 million - which is significant.

 

In the Service Nova Scotia department, I don't notice any big changes. Have you been given any targets this past year or this coming year with respect to the FTE count for the department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: When you started to say your preamble around one of the things you've noticed, I thought you were going to say how much better the government is run now than it had been in previous years.

 

No, we're not, we haven't been given targets, I'll say that. I think there is generally about a 10 per cent variance in our FTEs year to year in this department.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister, and just to clarify - the numbers I referenced were the government's numbers for the past two years, where the numbers had gone down for the surplus that was just reported about two weeks ago, but then the next day, on budget day, the numbers were back up to where they were the previous year. It's just something that I noticed as a variance.

 

MR. MACDONELL: You mean the number of FTEs or the number of civil servants was down and then went up again across government? Okay. I can probably speak more specifically to what happens in my department. I think we lost two people and then picked up 60-some when we brought in Alcohol and Gaming. There was kind of an increase there.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know the government has promised to reduce the number of positions by 1,000 over the next however many years are left in the mandate, so that could be the next two or three years. I can appreciate your department hasn't been given a target to reduce the FTE count by, but have you been asked for some estimate of how many you think may leave? I know the government had said they would reduce these positions by attrition, so people naturally moving on, retiring, or leaving government voluntarily. Has there been an estimate prepared for your department to go to the Department of Finance to say, yes, by attrition we expect will be a decline of X number of jobs over the coming two to three years?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, that hasn't happened; nobody has come to us with a number. Kind of in the normal world, we think about losing about 10 per cent through attrition, so that seems to be the general trend in this department. Whether that will maintain itself time will tell, but prior to me becoming the minister that has been the trend, roughly around 10 per cent.

MR. MACMASTER: One of the things flagged to my attention - and there may be a good reason for this, it might have something to do with bringing in another division or another agency of government - in the year just passed the Salaries and Employee Benefits seem to be up about $9 million. Does that ring true with your colleagues there and, if that's the case, is there some reason why there may have been that increase?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to make a comment regarding the time. There is less than 10 minutes remaining, about 8 and a half minutes remaining in the Progressive Conservative time frame. If the minister so desires, we could take a break.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm assuming that the member is looking at the 2010-2011 Forecast number to the 2011-2012 Estimate, which goes from about $51 million to $60 million - about $9 million. That really is about the 63 - so there are 63 additional employees and it's lower because we have some vacancies, so that number is lower in the Forecast line than it was in the Estimate line from 2010-2011.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So just to clarify - would the vacancies constitute the $9 million?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The vacancy costs are about $5 million; Alcohol and Gaming is about $4 million.

 

MR. MACMASTER: And just to clarify - are those two new divisions that are included in the budget this year because those divisions or agencies of government have moved into the reporting of the department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Well thank you very much, minister. I've concluded my questions. I think we're getting close and we have a couple of minutes left, but I've exhausted what I wanted to ask this evening, so I thank you and the department staff for the answers, and I will turn it back over to the chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Would the minister like a break for five minutes?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I would, thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will adjourn for five minutes.

 

[7:31 p.m. The committee recessed.]

[7:36 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, anytime you're ready.

We will now turn to the Liberal caucus for an hour of questioning.

 

The honourable member for Preston.

 

HON. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, some interesting questions. I'm sure I'm going to have some interesting answers and I look forward to them. I'm going to start with what perceives to be some accounting discrepancies, and maybe you can explain what they are because when you look at one estimate for this same year and then you look at the next estimate for the same year, the numbers have been changed. It looks like somebody has been playing around with the books.

 

On Page 22.7 this year and on Page 20.8 of last year's estimates with the heading Municipal Relations - last year's Grants and Programs were estimated at $160,550 for the year 2010-2011. This is what was published last year; however, this year's publication states for the same thing that the estimate is $216,950 - so how did the estimate get changed? There are no notes on it - nothing - it just looks like somebody arbitrarily changed the numbers.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I want to be clear. So what you're saying is in the 2010-2011 estimates there is a number, is it the forecast or the estimate number in one of those columns . . .

 

MR. COLWELL: Estimate number.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Estimate number for 2011, and then when we show the 2010-2011 number in these estimates for that year, the number is different?

 

MR.COLWELL: Right.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. So we don't have last year's other than if it's in our Estimate column, so what page in the Budget Estimates are you looking at so we can get the number for you?

 

MR. COLWELL: The lighting is so bad in here that I can hardly see this little fine print. The page I refer to on this year's one is Page 22.7 and on last year's it was Page 20.8.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, Page 22.7, last year's estimate number, okay, so last year is 2010-2011, is $216,950?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Which you say is part of what would be Grants and Programs?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister, your microphone is not on there. Okay, would you like to clarify?

 

MR. MACDONELL: So last year, or in this year, it says for 2010-2011 it was $216,950, but you're saying last year for the estimate in the book, last year, it didn't say $216,950 - what did it say?

 

MR. COLWELL: It was $160,550 - a huge difference.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So I just want to be clear - is that the estimate number or the forecast number for last year?

 

MR. COLWELL: Both numbers we're looking at here are estimate numbers.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay. Yes, since I don't have it here, I don't think we can explain it for you, but we can get you an explanation for it.

 

MR. COLWELL: It would be interesting to get the explanation for it because it looks like somebody is cooking the books.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Do you have the page number it was on last year?

 

MR. COLWELL: It was Page 20.8.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Page 20.8. Okay. If it's possible to get you that before - because you have an hour - you get out of here, we'll try to find it; otherwise, we'll get it to you.

 

MR. COLWELL: It just seems sort of strange because normally if something is changed there's a note on it. There are no notes, nothing to explain why the estimate would change so drastically. It does look like there has been - I'm sure this is not the case, but it looks like somebody was trying to make the estimates look a little bit better or worse in one year or the other year even after the estimates have been put in. It's just too much of a change, so either somebody made a huge mistake, which ends the credibility of any of the numbers or they omitted to put a note in. Anyway, it's not acceptable accounting practices.

 

MR. MACDONELL: As far as anything else in that line for 2010-2011 that's different - is that the only number that is different?

 

MR. COLWELL: As far as - I just did a quick review on it and it appears that's the only one on that line, but I've got some more here.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I want to hear what the other ones are too, if he's got them there.

 

MR. COLWELL: It also seems that you included the transit incentive program and federal gas tax transfer under the heading of Grants and Programs. Can you confirm that this is the case?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The federal gas tax - did you say is that included?

 

MR. COLWELL: The transit incentive program and the federal gas tax transfer.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, they're included.

 

MR. COLWELL: It would have been nice just to have a note on that in the documents too. What is the rationale for that change - why did you change it?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The drop, you mean?

 

MR. COLWELL: No, changed how the programs under these headings have been sort of included - why was it done like that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You're saying last year it included some others saying gas tax along that line, and that for Grants and Programs it included a note about gas tax?

 

MR. COLWELL: No, it seems like you've included, over from last year to this year you've taken and included these two items, the transit incentive and the federal gas tax transfer under the headings of Grants and Programs - what is the rationale for doing that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They were there last year in that line, Grants and Programs. The gas tax was there last year, so it's there again this year.

 

MR. COLWELL: So you just put it in place and neglected to write that in - is that all that happened?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Last year they were shown outside of Grants and Programs, but they were part of Grants and Programs, so they thought that was inappropriate so they just included them in Grants and Programs. That's the difference.

 

MR. COLWELL: Where is the information contained now that a person can go to and find that the federal gas tax transfer, which is estimated to be about $58 million last year, is forecast and what is it under now? Is there a place we can go and find out exactly how much that transfer is from the feds?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, I don't think there would be anywhere that you would see that.

 

MR. COLWELL: That's a little bit unusual, because it's a transfer from the federal government so it should be something that's easily located and well documented. It is money that's coming in to the province from the federal government which, if I understand this properly - correct me if I'm wrong - that money is then transferred to the municipalities.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Gas tax goes directly to the municipalities, it's a flow- through. It's through us. It's recorded, you won't see it in the Estimate line here.

 

MR. COLWELL: Where would that be recorded?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't think there's a place you can click on a line item that shows that tax flow- through. It's just recorded in the overall total.

 

MR. COLWELL: I would think that would be a pretty important number because it does affect the municipalities very substantially, especially that amount of money. It should really be shown where it's in and where it's out. In standard accounting practices, that really would be the case. You're handling the money and you move it in and out, and that's good that the province does do that because they work with the municipalities and the federal government doesn't. There has to be some way of recording that - is this something you will undertake?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think it's recorded. I'm just saying it's not in those line items.

 

MR. COLWELL: It would be very interesting. Again, it's a flow-through and it would be nice to know exactly how much it is and what municipality gets how much and if there is a delay getting the money, because if there's a delay in getting the money it does cost the municipality money and the province could stand to make money on it if the money was held up for awhile and invested. It would be very interesting to see this information - can it be provided?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'll get an answer for you. The Department of Finance tells us where we account for that; that's not something we do without their discretion. I'll try to get an answer for you. Your question was around if we can see which municipality gets what?

 

MR. COLWELL: There are a few things: number one, which municipality gets how much - that's very important to each municipality, it would affect their budget tremendously; and also the total amount - where it comes in, when it comes in, when it goes out, and the time span between to see if there's any opportunity for the province to hold the money up a little bit and make some money on it. It's a substantial amount of money and it would affect the overall budget of the province in a small way, if not a bigger way. That information, I think it is quite important to have it clearly laid out.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm told we can show you what each municipality gets. It's a formula that was developed by the UNSM, with us, around what each municipality gets. I think if they didn't get it, people would know that.

 

Here's the breakdown of what every municipality gets.

 

MR. COLWELL: Could we get a copy of that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Sure.

 

MR. COLWELL: Thank you. It was forecast, I stated here earlier, just a little bit over $58 million last year. Did it come in at, over, above, or below the target that was forecast for this? I know you have no control over that, I just wanted to know because it has an effect on the municipalities.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The annual allocation is $56 million - every year. Last year there was a carry-over of $2 million that didn't go out. (Interruption) It went to municipalities, but they didn't expense it, so there was $2 million that got added on to the $56 million to make $58 million.

 

MR. COLWELL: So it's usually $56 million in a normal year - unless you have some hiccup that the municipality creates?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, we don't expense it until they actually draw the fund or they use it. So there was $2 million that that didn't happen with, so it got added to the $56 million, the incoming $56 million, so it made $58 million.

 

MR. COLWELL: So that would be something that they planned to do, but for whatever reason they were held up and didn't get to use it?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, sometimes they put it in reserve until they build up enough money to do a project and then use it, expense it.

 

MR. COLWELL: That makes sense. What about the transit incentive program - the same questions?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You say the same questions, so I'm thinking the 2010-2011 number is different in the Estimate line than what our estimate shows for 2010-2011?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: That transit incentive program is a $500,000 provincial fund. So, are you saying that you have a 2010-2011 estimate number that's different than the $500,000?

 

MR. COLWELL: Maybe you could check and let me know.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, you see, you're asking me the question, and you said "the same question as last time." So you said there was a difference. I just asked that before I went to look. So you said, yes, there was a difference in the number last year in the Estimate line for 2010-2011 that's different from the Estimate number in 2010-2011. So now you're saying, well, tell me and let me know. It was your question, so do you have an estimate 2010-2011 number from last year that's different than the $500,000?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, and what's your number?

 

MR. COLWELL: I don't have it right here.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The way this is going, we should keep both microphones live.

 

MR. MACDONELL: There was a federal transit transfer number that would have been added to the $500,000 last year which would have made a bigger number, but that federal transfer ended so it's not added on this number.

 

MR. COLWELL: The other thing is that the transit incentive program is not in the budget this year at all - is that correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking it's under Grants and Programs because they felt that they were Grants and Programs, so they just put the value of those dollars up into Grants and Programs.

 

MR. COLWELL: That was my misunderstanding. So that's what I thought it might have been. So that's where it is now - so it's not shown separately at all anywhere?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's not shown separately. So it should be $500,000. In those Grants and Programs should be the transit incentive program.

 

MR. COLWELL: As part of that thing - so there's nowhere that you break that out now, you just leave them lumped together?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's it as far as the budget document is concerned, but I'm thinking the same as when we found you what all the municipalities got in terms of gas tax, we probably have something somewhere that indicates those dollars exist.

MR. COLWELL: I'm positive that you do. Is there any way you could supply us with those numbers as well?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Sure.

MR. COLWELL: That would be greatly appreciated, thank you. Sorry for the misunderstanding there, it was my fault.

 

On Page 22.5 of the Estimates Book this year and on Page 20.6 of the Estimates Book of 2010-2011, you come to Information Management Services. This is a little odd since the Information Technology and Project and Portfolio Management are in both years, but they have two different published estimates again. In 2010-2011 the estimate is $4.134 million under the Information and Technology and $4.81 million for the Project and Portfolio Management, yet the next year it looks like that has been changed, it now represents $6.5 million and $1.8 million respectively. What happened to these numbers? How did they switch from the two different estimate years? It was two different times it was printed, two different numbers.

MR. MACDONELL: Under each one of those line items you've identified would be five or six different cost centres, so we moved some of those cost demands, I guess, around amongst a number of those cost centres, which actually shifted the values on, say, from one to the other, and that's why it is higher in one and lower in the other.

 

The total value on the line item for your estimates should be the same, the $16 million, $4 million, $23 million should be the same in each year - is it different?

 

MR. COLWELL: I'm sure that they are and that's not really what I'm getting at here. It's the same problem as one of the other ones I just mentioned a while ago - the estimate in 2010-2011 was roughly $4 million for the two different things, the Information Technology and the Project and Portfolio Management, yet it should have been the same number when you looked at the estimates when the new book came out for 2010-2011, but yet it has changed to $6.5 million and $1.8 million respectively and there's no note.

 

What you said makes sense, but there's no note on the thing. The numbers should have been identical because it's the same estimate, but the number was changed. So, again, it looks like there was something funny going on with the books, which I'm sure there isn't, but when you look at it as a layperson or somebody from accounting principles - it sure doesn't meet any accounting principle I've ever seen.

 

So really what happened? Why the change - you know you can't put an estimate down and say that's just for this year and then, the next time you print it, it comes out as a different number.

 

MR. MACDONELL: When you reorganize the department you can't go back and restate the number that you stated, you have to put the number as it is, so that's the reason for the change.

 

MR. COLWELL: Maybe you did not understand my question. In the estimates, the original estimates in 2010-2011, it's roughly $4 million for each one. Now the total appears to be the same, but without doing the detailed math, I'll assume it was, but stating the same number in this year's estimates, the same number, going back to the 2010-2011, it should have been the same number with a note.

 

In other words, you've taken the numbers that were stated last year, 2010-2011 and changed them and re-stated them as 2010-2011 numbers, but they're different. That's not the way to do accounting. I mean, if you would have put them in the same, as the two of them at $4 million and then made a note and said we changed this because, and now they're at this number, it would have made sense, but there's no note there. That's really poor accounting; that's what it is. It makes it look like something is fishy, and when you look at the numbers and add them up it's the same thing, it's the same number but it just looks weird. It wouldn't pass any kind of audit, that's for sure.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well I'm thinking actually it must have passed an audit and the fact that the total is the same, as you've indicated, which would tend to make you think there can't be too much fishy. Anyway, I think what we'll do is we'll take a look at that number and we'll be glad to get you an explanation for that. Anyway, that's about the most I can promise you.

 

MR. COLWELL: I appreciate that and I'm sure it's maybe just simply an oversight, but it doesn't look good, that's all. You've answered the rest of my questions I have on that, so we'll go to the next one here.

 

The department is estimating a decrease in spending by 12.02 per cent, but that's not the whole story. If you look closer, it is based on estimate-to-estimate projections; in fact, the decrease in spending is only 6.5 per cent if you go by the forecast 2010 to estimate 2011.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Do you have a page or . . .

 

MR. COLWELL: Actually I don't have on this one.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So we'll assume it's a general question across the board . . .

MR. COLWELL: Maybe it will make more sense if I finish it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'll start over again here just to make sure we get the drift of the whole thing.

 

The department estimated a decrease in spending of 12.02 per cent, but that's not the whole story, if you look closer it's based on estimate-to-estimate projections. In fact, the decrease in spending is only 6.55 per cent if you go by the 2010 forecast to estimate 2011. That is consistent with the gap between estimate to forecast last year of 5.85 per cent. It looks like the estimate was padded to overestimate your expenses and it doesn't look right, that's all.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's not clear to me what your question is.

 

MR. COLWELL: How can I state it any differently?

 

You forecast a decrease in spending of 12.2 per cent and, in fact, it was only 6.55 per cent. If you look at the forecast estimates of the 2010-2011 year, between the forecast and the actual estimates and then the gap between them is 5.85 per cent. So it's really just a general question - you forecast a 12.02 per cent, and I realize at that time you weren't the minister - why is it such a big discrepancy of what was forecast? Either it was too ambitious estimating, or it really didn't hit the forecast the estimators thought, for some reason. Did it fall short - was the estimate too hopeful or was the decrease because of some other unknown factors?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm going to take a stab at it. Just so I understand the question - are you saying from the estimate from 2010-2011 to the estimate of 2011-2012 we were predicting a 12 per cent decrease and all we did was a 6 per cent decrease from the forecast of 2010-2011 to the estimate of 2010-2011, we only went to 6 per cent of a decrease?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR.MACDONELL: Okay. Last year when the estimate, I don't think, someone can tell me (Interruption) Alcohol and Gaming was with another department. We have it, we've taken it, so that caused a little bit of an increase. It didn't take us as far as the 12 per cent might have, so that's why there's a difference.

 

MR. COLWELL: That makes sense, but it just doesn't seem to be clear in the estimates, unless we missed it when we looked through it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: On Page 22.2 there's a note to show Alcohol and Gaming at $5.6 million in the 2011-2012 Estimate. So it's there on that line.

 

MR. COLWELL: That's good, I'm glad that's where it is, but it just should have been noted somewhere against the estimate that was made for the decrease, so it would have been very clear to see.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It was, you know, in that line.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay. Moving on to something else - Salary and Employee Benefits was estimated to be up 17.3 per cent from the forecast last year. Is this over all three years, is that how that was established to get to the 17.3 per cent - was that a three-year basis?

MR. MACDONELL: I think if you're looking at the $53,757,000 compared to $51,000,200, we had vacancies from the $53 million to the $51 million, and then if you look at the 2011-2012 Estimate, $59,000, the $60 million, that that was an increase in staff - the vacancies became hired, and then we had Alcohol and Gaming. I think the vacancies took up about $5 million and Alcohol and Gaming accounted for about $4 million. There's a $9 million difference between the 2010-2011 Forecast, $51.2 million to $60.59 million, so that accounts for the $9 million difference. Alcohol and Gaming is part of it and then those vacancies being filled at about a $5 million level, so that made up for a $9 million difference there.

MR. COLWELL: Basically, you really didn't have any increase in staff except for Alcohol and Gaming, which is just a transfer in - you just filled some vacant positions that were there. That's it. Okay.

 

Would that also account for Funded Staff being estimated to increase by 22.56 per cent in the coming year - is that the Alcohol and Gaming people again?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I want to make sure we're looking at the same line. I'm looking at Total - Funded Staff under Estimate 2010-2011 of 892 over to 2011-2012 of 953 - is that where you're looking? Okay. That's Alcohol and Gaming, yes, 63 people.

 

MR. COLWELL: Another one here - your office and the deputy minister's office is expected to have an increase in spending by $7 million or 1.46 per cent - can you explain what that is?

 

MR. MACDONELL: There are four positions, they are salary increases - it is $7,000, not $7 million.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, all right. I had the wrong number written down here. So salary increases . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: For four people.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, that's easily explained. What accounts for the expected decrease in E-Services, under Service Delivery?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Decrease?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I want to be clear. You're asking what accounts for the expected decrease in E-Services, so I'm looking at 2010-2011 Estimate, which is $1,987,000 to the 2011-2012 Estimate which is $2,170,000. I'm seeing an increase so I'm not sure - are you looking at the Forecast $2,181,000 down to the Estimate $2,170,000?

 

MR. COLWELL: I'm looking under Service Delivery. Is that the same thing?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Service Delivery, E-services - right?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So what number are you . . .

 

MR. COLWELL: I don't have it right here with me, unfortunately.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Oh, because from the 2010-2011 Forecast to the Estimate there is a decrease of about $11,000. We projected some audit costs in the Forecast line that we don't have in the Estimate line, about $11,000 difference.

 

MR. COLWELL: Under Strategy, Innovation and Registries, the item Vital Statistics is forecast to come in 9 per cent under budget - what's the difference there?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Did you say a decrease? Is that from the forecast to the estimate, is that what you're referring to?

 

MR. COLWELL: It's forecast to come in 9 per cent under budget.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure if I'm clear on the question yet. I'm thinking you're saying that the forecast, you're saying it's estimated to be lower, I think that is what you're saying. So are you saying that the 2010-2011 Forecast is estimated to be lower than the 2010-2011 Estimate?

 

MR. COLWELL: The forecast looks like it's going to come in 9 per cent under budget?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, well, the 2010-2011 Forecast is higher than the 2010-2011 Estimate. So we've had an increase due to pressure for digitizing historical records. So we have an increase between those two, but you're saying a decrease.

 

MR. COLWELL: That's what my note says. So I will have to double-check my notes.

 

I've got another one here too, it's under Strategy and Innovation. It came in 35 per cent under what was budgeted. This was out of line with the previous year and it seems that it's out of line with next year as well. Can you explain that? It appears in the numbers that that was the case - is there an explanation on why there would be that much change?

 

MR. MACDONELL: When you say it's out of line for next year, do you mean it's going to go down or do you mean it's going to go up?

 

MR. COLWELL: It just seems out of whack, where it come in under 35 per cent under what was budgeted. It just seems a little bit out of whack, that's all. (Interruption)

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, I'll see if I can deliver this. So from the 2010-2011 Estimate to the 2010-2011 Forecast, there's a $384,000 difference. We have an agreement with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and there was a reduction of $205,000 in costs in that agreement. Then there were operating savings of $50,000 and then salary savings from staff turnover of about $100,000, so that gave the $384,000 difference between the estimate of 2010 and the forecast for 2011.

 

MR. COLWELL: That all makes sense. Also Corporate Development is showing a decrease on the estimate-to-estimate basis, from estimate to estimate, yet in reality it's expected to see spending climb by 12.39 per cent from last year's forecast - what is the difference there?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's Corporate Service Unit? Corporate Development, okay. Corporate Development, I'm thinking you're looking at the estimate for 2010-2011 around $8 million, a little over $8 million. Then for the forecast it's about $6.9 million, a fair drop. It was the reduction in business occupancy tax, number one, and we had a lease that started partway through the year, so it didn't have the full complement of payment there. So there's about an $800,000 reduction from lease requirements and about $300,000 saving in business occupancy. That's the difference there.

 

MR. COLWELL: The $800,000 - where would that have been? That's quite substantial.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Multiple locations - so you want a breakdown of where all those leases are, or differences in the leases from one to the other?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We can try to find that for you.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'd appreciate that, thank you.

 

Under Municipal Relations, under the item of the Grants and Programs, you are estimating a spending of 12.64 per cent, if I have this right, less on grants and programs to the municipality over the coming year. Do you have a detailed breakdown of that and what that might be?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Grants and Programs - I think that's going to be the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and the Building Canada Fund. Those programs are winding down and there's an extension. Stimulus funding came through the Building Canada Fund, the federal stimulus funding and there was an extension for those projects into the Fall - am I right? - or into last Fall.

So there will be a little bit of the Building Canada Fund left in this year, but basically, really, the reduction in those dollars and programs is those two programs winding down.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to point out to the member for Preston that there is exactly 10 minutes remaining in the Liberal caucus time.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, thank you very much. That makes a lot of sense. The spending for the Executive Director on Information Management Services looks as though it is up by 39.08 per cent over last year's forecast - what does that include?

 

MR. MACDONELL: So I want to be clear - are we looking at the estimates 2010 to the forecast 2010, a reduction from $2,265,000 to $1,763,000 - that's the comparison we're making here?

 

MR. COLWELL: It just looks like it's up over last year's projection, it looks like it's up over 39 per cent over last year's actual forecast, if I have it right, if we did it right.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, there's an increase in the amortization provision of about $165,000, plus negotiated salary increase, so it's about a $187,000 increase from the forecast over the estimate, yes - from 2010-2011 estimate to 2011-12, that's the reason.

 

MR. COLWELL: You say some of those are in salaries, salary increases, or were there more people hired?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's mostly amortization, but it's about $20,000 in salary increases.

 

MR. COLWELL: And the amortization would have been just a change in the bookkeeping process that did that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Projects were delayed in implementation, so it caused a decrease. (Interruption) It caused a delay in the starting of the amortization, yes, because the projects were delayed.

 

MR. COLWELL: So it shows that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is only about seven minutes left. These questions are all very short and to and fro, so I'm just going to throw it open here and go at it.

 

MR. COLWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will be a lot more efficient.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm tired of saying minister, member, minister, member - go to it, boys.

 

MR. COLWELL: Where in the line-by-line estimates would it show the consolidation of services, in other words Access Nova Scotia, or particularly the Weymouth Land Registry Office, which is being shut down and moved to amalgamated offices in Digby - where would that be shown in the financial statements?

MR. MACDONELL: So your question was - I forget the question.

 

MR. COLWELL: Where could we find it in the system where Access Nova Scotia, in particular the Weymouth Land Registry Office was moved to Digby - where can we find the cost of doing that or the projected cost of doing it?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That cost hasn't happened yet. When it does, we'll book it and it will show up in two places - one will be in our leasehold line and the other one will be in our staffing in our operational line in Access Nova Scotia.

 

MR. COLWELL: I would assume that they've done an estimate what this is going to cost so far.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking you're right on that. I think we're actually thinking it's a reduction. Transition, the move is about $75,000; the lease cost is net zero because we're moving into our own facility - no increase in rent in our own space. So no increase in cost there, but certainly costs associated with the move of that.

 

MR. COLWELL: Are there going to be any costs with having to relocate any staff or anything like that from one location to the other - how are you going to handle that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That would be the $75,000 I mentioned.

 

MR. COLWELL: You probably don't have enough time to answer this and I'll probably bring this back tomorrow, but I'll just let you know what I'm going to ask so you can be prepared. I want to know where, on the line-by-line estimates, will we find the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. I understand it might have been underutilized because a lot of times these programs are. I would like to know what the exact figures on use this past year have been and how many people used it and how much was spent.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, we've got that. I'll tell you, under Program Management and Corporate Services, it's in the Consumer and Business Policy line item. There are 3,000 applications outstanding yet, so we don't really have the number kind of nailed down. The closest I think I can give you will be about $12 million, in that range. The actual take-up is between 45,000 and 50,000 people.

 

MR. COLWELL: Just a last quick question on that - is that an improvement over last year? When I say 'improvement', are more people in the system taking advantage of this, or less?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It was about 52,000, slightly less at this stage. Whether it will level off there, but right now it's slightly less than last year.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Liberal caucus time for this evening. It's my understanding that the Liberal caucus and the Progressive Conservative caucus both want to have another go tomorrow, so there will be no resolution tonight, we'll get the four hours in.

 

At this time we will call on the Progressive Conservative caucus for 29 minutes and we will begin with the member for Cape Breton West.

 

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, first, if I may, I'd like to congratulate the minister on his new position as minister in this department, and I hope that things go reasonably well.

 

A couple of questions I would like to ask, one on the Emergency Services Provider Fund. I was wondering if you could tell us what this year's plan for the emergency provider fund is, and the amount of dollars? Then also, what the criteria would be for a department to meet funding under the program, as you see it coming in the new year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The fund is $500,000 and that's the same funding as previous years. Eligible projects - the funding will be used for equipment used directly in the response to a fire or emergency, that's the criteria. It says "eligible applicants are volunteer fire departments, ground search and rescue organizations, and other first responder organizations in Nova Scotia. Each organization may only submit one application for one type of equipment per fiscal year and, in addition, are only eligible for one grant in a three-year period."

 

MR. MACLEOD: So if somebody qualified last year then it's another two years before they would be able to qualify again. Is there a maximum amount that they are allowed to qualify for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Grant payments for approved projects will be processed as follows - estimated eligible grant up to $5,000, and that's 100 per cent upon completion of project; and then $5,100 to $20,000, 50 per cent on signing of the program - so I've got to find out what those projects are for $5,100 to $20,000.

 

Contributions - the program will pay 50 per cent of eligible costs up to a maximum of $20,000 for approved projects.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Under the original program there was a certain amount that would have to be raised by the departments to make them eligible - is there still such a request in the criteria?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The program pays 50 per cent of eligible costs.

MR. MACLEOD: I might have missed that, and I apologize if I did.

 

I'm just wondering, Mr. Minister, if indeed there is a program going to be available this year to assist Legions?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, a $100,000 Legion Capital Assistance Program.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Minister, I'm just wondering if you could outline the criteria for the programs, the qualification periods, very similar to what we just talked about for the Emergency Providers Fund, please.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's for upgrading facilities - eligible applicants are Royal Canadian Legions in Nova Scotia. Legions may only submit one application per fiscal year for one project - in addition, they are only eligible for one grant in a three-year period.

 

Eligible projects - the funding will be used for repairs to existing Legion buildings used to house Legion events and community activities, and includes the following: necessary structural repairs to meet building code requirements; upgrades to kitchens and bathrooms; roof repair/replacement; windows/door replacement; furnace/ heating system replacement; on-site sewage system; wells and water treatment; and emergency situations at the discretion of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I guess, minister, one of the questions would be, again, is there a period of eligibility the same as the emergency provider fund, i.e., one year, three years?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I see the minister is indicating yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's the same actually.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I wonder if it would be possible over the course of the next little while to get the criteria for both those programs passed on, tabled?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Sure, it's posted on the Web site. Would you want something more?

 

MR. MACLEOD: Some people are really good at Web sites and then there's me.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We can get you a copy.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I thank you for that, Mr. Minister.

 

I would just like to ask the minister where the review of the cap assessment program is at this point?

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think we've completed the input or our consultation stage and we're at the analysis stage of what has come in from stakeholders now. So that's what we're doing, we're looking at what we got.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could relay to the committee what steps were taken to this point in the process and the timeline that has taken us to here?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We had a number of consultations around the province for the public to have input. We solicited information from the municipalities, and certainly they were eager to let us know what their thoughts were. We had gotten information from the UNSM on their view and I think there was one more - oh, yes, ratepayer groups and industry groups, for them to give us input, although on the industry side it wouldn't apply on commercial taxation but, anyway, that was basically the gamut of stakeholders who wanted to have input relating to the CAP.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could now share with us where we go from here. You've got the information, you've gathered it and you're assessing it, what kind of a timeline can groups like the group you met in Mira expect to see before we hear some kind of rationalization of where we're going?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think I've been saying late spring. I'm really hoping about June that we'll have the end of whatever analysis and actually whatever and position of the government. I think I'm hoping by June to have that all done.

 

MR. MACLEOD: And at that time when there is a rationalization or a decision as to where the government stands, will that decision require legislation to enforce it or will there be a change in regulation, or will it be done by Cabinet?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think regulation changes can be done by Cabinet. I guess, since I'm not, actually I don't think I've ever asked the question about the CAP, I guess it came in under legislation. (Interruption) Yes, so if there's a change, it will mean a change in legislation I'm thinking. So we'll just have to see, you know, what comes out at the end. So that would actually mean there couldn't be a change at least until Fall if it required a change in legislation.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I guess that's what I was trying to establish, sort of a follow-through as to just when people could start expecting to see a change, if there's going to be a change, and many of the people, I represent in Cape Breton West are very happy with the system and aren't anxious, as I think you may have heard, about having the system changed. I know there are a lot of questions back and forth as to what or could take place.

 

If there is going to be legislation, then people would have an opportunity to come here to the Law Amendments Committee and again voice their opinions, so there is still time for public input if there's going to be a change.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, sure, that would be a definite possibility. If it requires a change in legislation, the Law Amendments process would allow people to come in and voice their concerns around that. I think your comment around what your constituents seem to have indicated to you, I have to say of all the issues for which my constituents phone me, this is not one. I don't hear much about it.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I can appreciate that, minister. I think one of the reasons that I may hear a little bit more about it is when it was originally decided it was for people who were on waterfronts and part of my area is the Bras d'Or Lakes, and another part of it is the famous and wonderful and beautiful Mira River that was made so famous by Allister MacGillivray's Song for the Mira - I just had to throw that in.

The reality is there are a lot of people who live along the river who are very nervous about the fact that they've had properties there for hundreds of years in their families and now believe that the removal of the CAP could have a bad effect on them, to the point where they could even lose their properties. Again, I know that you've been aware of that and I know we've had a brief conversation about that and you were very open to listening and I appreciated that, and the minister before you as well.

 

The question that some have asked me is, is there any consideration, and I guess it's hard for you to say but I'm going to ask it anyway - right now one of the reasons that some of the municipalities seem to be upset with the process is because it got tied to COLA - the cost of living allowance - on the raise, rather than before it was a percentage base. I think in the initial years, as I recall, it was raising around 10 per cent a year on the CAP, so there was extra funding actually showing up for the people in the municipal units. Now when it became tied to the cost of living, we had a year where there was no increase in the cost of living and therefore there were no extra, new dollars coming into the system.

 

I wonder if there are any thoughts as to going back and is that something that you're looking at, changing how the CAP was affected, rather than changing the whole CAP? How it is implemented, I should say.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't know that, since I'm not sure what - I've been keeping my distance from the review process. I didn't want it to appear that the minister was meddling in this. I really wanted to see what came out of the input by the stakeholders and then what would come out of the analysis from my department.

 

Like everything, I'm assuming there's lots of things, I think everything on the table, whatever might be suggested - doesn't necessarily mean we're going to do it but if that was something that came in, I think it would be something we would look at in the analyses of all the inputs that have come from the stakeholders.

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate, minister, I just received the criteria for both those programs we just talked about and I want to thank you and your staff for that.

 

I'm going to go in a place that I'm not sure I want to go but, I'll go there anyway. What is the status between the Province of Nova Scotia and CBRM in relation to equalization payments and the potential lawsuit that had been talked about, and where do we stand, as a province, right now?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The Supreme Court ruled that they had no case, but we continue to work with CBRM. We're interested in trying to resolve any issues that they might have, or any municipality, and as much as we can kind of make the case for equity and fairness, we'll try to do that but we're glad to dialogue with them and see if we can allay any concerns they have around equalization, or anything.

 

The province is very soon going to be engaged in a fiscal review and that's of all of the financial relationships between the province and the municipalities, equalization is part of that so that's going to start (Interruption) It has just started, but anyway that's a process actually that the Premier made a commitment to UNSM that we would look at the broad range of funding between the province and the municipalities. That's something we made a commitment to do and we're going to do.

 

I don't know where anything will particularly land out of that, but we made a commitment to look at it and we're going to do that.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Municipal units - are they not supposed to run a deficit?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They're not allowed to run a deficit, that's right.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Are there any current municipalities that are in a deficit position in the Province of Nova Scotia?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACLEOD: They're not allowed, but they are.

 

MR. MACDONELL: My department is working with those municipalities. They have to show us how they're going to budget in the next fiscal year to eradicate that.

 

MR. MACEOD: I'm just trying to make sure that I understand, minister. So if they're in a deficit position this year they are supposed to have a plan in place to take themselves out of that deficit - by one year, two years, three years? Is it a back to balance over so many years or is there a specific time period that it has to take place in?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The point to make is they can't budget for a deficit. If they wind up in a deficit position, that's a whole other world, but they can't budget for one. So we work with them - well, actually each individual municipality, different circumstances for each one, so we work with them to - I think our hope would be to get them in the next fiscal but, depending on the size and the breadth of the problem, it might take a little longer than that. I'm told it would require ministerial approval to be beyond one year.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, minister, and members, just a shade less than 10 minutes remain for tonight. We'll finish at 9:05 p.m.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So if there is a municipal unit that is in a deficit position, how far in a deficit position do they have to be before the department will take action to help make that right itself? I remember a number of years ago Glace Bay found itself in a position where they were in a deficit position and at that time there was action taken by the department - it was a different name in those days, but it was taken.

 

So if there is a municipal unit today that's in a position of deficit and has been for more than one year, when, or will, the department take action to correct that situation for the ratepayers of that municipal unit?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking that if they were $1 in deficit, I'm not sure that we would - I think a phone call would probably suffice. If it turns out to be deemed to be significant - and the deficit may not be as significant as the reason they got there, so I think if they're in a deficit we want to talk to them.

 

Then, depending on what we deem to be the time frame for that to happen, because obviously we expected to be in the next fiscal because otherwise they're going to need a ministerial order to go beyond that, so yes, if they have a deficit, as far as we're concerned, that triggers action.

 

MR. MACLEOD: So if there is a deficit, again, what percentage of their budget would they have to be in deficit before the department would trigger some type of an action? If they are 10 per cent over their budget, is it a deficit, or 50 per cent - is there such a thing as a place where they would actually come into play?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We don't have a target. I think if they were 0.5 per cent - if they run a deficit, flags are going to go up for us, so that would initiate an action from us. Depending on how severe the deficit is, that will determine how strenuous the action might be for the municipality, but if they run a deficit we are going to be involved.

 

MR. MACLEOD: There are a couple of things, I guess, that are sort of pushing me down this road. One of them, of course, is the waste water management that municipal units are looking at, and I'm hearing from different units - they're saying that this is going to be a very costly thing and they could end up in a deep deficit. You have the water rules and how pure water is supposed to be in the water treatment plants that have to be done. What talks does the department have on all of a sudden, right across the province, because we're meeting standards put in place about water and waste, waste water, how much leeway is there going to be? At the end of the day it's still the same taxpayer who is paying for this regardless of who is putting the rate on. It's a pretty scary proposition for a lot of areas.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well I think there's really not any backing-off on environmental requirements, but I think there's a 30-year implementation strategy for this. We'll work with municipalities who can address this quickly, and then try to get the others, a strategy in place. They're going to have to come up with a plan. If they can't, if the costs of it seems to be too onerous early on for them, then we'll help them develop a strategy to address the cost of this over a longer period. But nobody can escape the plan. They've got to come up with a strategy to see that whatever requirements are necessary for them to meet, that they have a plan to do that.

 

For CBRM we funded a waste water management strategy for that area, to the tune of I think $200,000 maybe, so we are working with municipalities to kind of help them get down that road.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Getting back to our two larger municipalities, the CBRM and the HRM - are either one of those in a deficit position as we speak?

 

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

 

MR. MACLEOD: Accessibility to Access Nova Scotia offices - the hours of the offices have changed in some areas and I know in some areas you can now get in late in the evenings, for those who are working. Are any of the offices open on a Saturday?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Is there any thoughts of opening your offices on a Saturday for access for people who are working during the week and find it hard to get access, especially in rural areas where they have to travel a distance to find an Access Nova Scotia facility?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Actually, we're trying to avoid it. If there's a direction we're going to go it's for less people to come into the Access centres, not more, and to try to move to more electronic in that way. I would say with the initiative of trying to hit our budget reduction targets, or come "back to balance" by 2013-14, then I would say no, we will not be doing that because I think that's going to be an increased cost driver rather than reducing cost. So I would say no.

 

MR. MACLEOD: The minister mentioned that there was a move maybe to go towards maybe electronic. One of the challenges, again in rural areas, is that there are people who are not computer-friendly, as I had pointed out earlier. It becomes a challenge for someone who is not computer-friendly who does not have the ability to travel to the centre at a certain time.

 

The electronic age is wonderful and it makes everything easier only if you're acquainted with that technology. Again, people I'm acquainted with in rural parts of my constituency, going to a computer is not one of the things they rush to - and there is still some challenges with broadband in some areas of the Province of Nova Scotia as well. How are we going to meet the needs of the citizens who are in that boat?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time for a relatively short answer.

 

MR. MACDONELL: All of mine are short. We are trying to build in more systems so that actually people can call in and get transactions done more quickly. The fact that more people are using on-line means the lineups at the access centres are going to be reduced. If you can get there, you're not tied up long, so we see this works well. There are lots of people who are willing to use the on-line service.

 

I hear what the member is saying. I might even belong in that group. Certainly I can see we're not going to extend the hours; I'm pretty sure of that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister, and thank you to your staff and thank you to members. We started at 5:00 p.m. and we had a five-minute break and it's now 9:05 p.m. So we got exactly four hours in, as we had hoped to do. It's my understanding that both caucuses want you back tomorrow. You're very popular.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 9:05 p.m.]