HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

2:20 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the Subcommittee on Supply to order. We had 10 minutes used of the time for the Progressive Conservatives when we last met on Tuesday.

 

The honourable member for Inverness, you have 50 minutes remaining.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of questions. I think I hammered home my points in the last session, but I have a couple of questions; one is about decentralization in the department. I know the Department of Finance - well, I'll leave it open, I'll let the minister answer. We saw in the Speech from the Throne some talk about decentralizing government. Are there any plans within the Department of Finance to decentralize positions around the province?

 

HON. GRAHAM STEELE: Before I answer that, I did want to remind the member that the Department of Finance - or to put it more broadly, the things for which I am responsible are actually reasonably decentralized around the province already. The Department of Finance itself has an office in Sydney and an office in Truro and, of course, the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation, for which I am responsible, employs people from one end of the province to the other. Beyond that, I'm really not prepared to say.

 

Any plans the government has along those lines will be announced reasonably soon. Any allocation for that is held centrally. I know that members, just by process of elimination, if they get ministers to say who's not thinking about decentralizing, they will know who is, so I'm not today prepared to say whether we are or we aren't.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Well, that's fine - so there's no real confirmation that there is going to be any further decentralization in the Department of Finance.

 

MR. STEELE: There is neither confirmation nor denial.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Well, I guess we'll accept it for the uncertain statement that it is. My last question has to do with the restructuring cost projection. I know one of the things it's used for is wage settlements. You had mentioned NewPage. I guess I always thought that the restructuring cost was for restructuring within government, but is there sometimes an amount that is put aside in case there's an industry that's significant to the provincial economy that there's restructuring in the industry that requires support from government?

 

MR. STEELE: I wouldn't put it that precisely. Restructuring is a catch-all area. Maybe what I can do is just explain generally what it's intended to do. Restructuring exists to capture current and prior year's costs, expended on corporate initiatives. The costs are not incurred at the discretion of a particular department, wouldn't normally be part of a specific department's operations, and may or may not be attributable to any particular department - so the situation with the mill sector in Nova Scotia very much fits within that umbrella. It sits in restructuring mainly because there is no other appropriate place for it to sit. That's the first reason.

 

The second reason is because - as you are only too well aware as a member from the Strait area - it's still an ongoing file; it's not completed. The government's final obligations are not yet known and there's a certain amount of negotiations still to be done. Also for that reason, that is why funds are placed in restructuring, because once they're in a department, the amount is certain because then it becomes an identifiable separate line item. For those two reasons, that particular file sits in restructuring.

 

MR. MACMASTER: The other question I have is, is there money budgeted within that restructuring cost projection for the strike that we're trying to avert right now? Is there an amount budgeted in there for that - as something the government sees as a future wage settlement that could become an increased cost to government over the coming year?

 

MR. STEELE: As I had mentioned the other day, of course, I'm not prepared to identify amounts identified with a particular item or particular negotiation but I did mention, as you alluded to, one of the things that restructuring is used for is provision for contract negotiations, which is to say costs associated with employment contracts that are still in the negotiation process, as well as the actual costs related to negotiation. I just wanted to remind all members that the situation I think the member is alluding to is one that is still in progress.

 

There is a tentative agreement between the bargaining teams, and that particular agreement hasn't yet been put to a membership vote or is, as we speak, being put to a membership vote, so it's not concluded and, therefore, is appropriately held for the time being in restructuring. When it's all finally settled and the costs are known, at that point the money moves out of restructuring into departmental budgets. At that time the costs can certainly be disclosed, but it's still an ongoing file so it has to sit in restructuring area. I'm not prepared to identify specific amounts.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know the Department of Justice and staff are waiting for the next round, so with that I will conclude my questions.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E8 stand?

 

Resolution E8 stands.

 

Resolution E9 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $881,701,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Debt Servicing Costs, Department of Finance, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E21 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $9,484,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Government Contributions to Benefit Plans, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E26 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $426,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Police Complaints Commissioner, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E27 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,660,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Securities Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E28 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,038,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E36 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $198,724,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Restructuring Costs, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E37 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $73,500,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Tax Credits and Rebates, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E38 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $71,485,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Pension Valuation Adjustment, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E39 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $523,689,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Capital Purchase Requirements, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E40 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $68,888,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Sinking Fund Instalments and Serial Retirements, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E42 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission be approved.

 

Resolution E44 - Resolved, that the business plan of the Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation be approved.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolutions carry?

 

The resolutions are carried.

 

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister; that concludes your time.

 

MR. STEELE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have a five-minute break, providing everyone promises to come back in five minutes, while the Minister of Justice prepares for his time with us.

 

[2:32 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[2:35 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the Subcommittee on Supply back to order. We have just finished with the Department of Finance and we will now move on with the estimates of the Department of Justice.

 

Resolution E12 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $306,723,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Justice, your opening statement, please.

 

HON. ROSS LANDRY: Good afternoon. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the senior staff here with me today: Deputy Minister Judith Ferguson, and Greg Penny, the executive director of Finance and Administration. I understand that Martin Herschorn, director of the Public Prosecution Service is on his way and will be here later to join us. I'll be seeking their assistance today as we discuss budget measures and initiatives that pertain to the Department of Justice and my other responsibilities, which include the Public Prosecution Service, the Human Rights Commission, and the Privacy Review Office.

 

Estimate debates have been ongoing for some time now and I'm sure you've heard a great deal about the measures government has undertaken in this year's budgets to keep the province on a sustainable path. I am very proud of the work we have done at the department and at our associated agencies and across government. While it hasn't been easy, it was necessary and it will bring enormous benefit to future generations. Our government committed early in its mandate to work hard to make life better for Nova Scotian families. We continue to stand by the commitment; getting the province's finances in order is critical to ensuring that essential programs and services continue to be available for our families, our neighbours, our grandchildren, and beyond.

 

I'm going to start today by talking about the budget for the Department of Justice, including the Medical Examiner Service and Emergency Management Office. Later I will talk specifically about the Public Prosecution Service, Human Rights Commission, and Privacy Review Office.

 

Cost-saving measures - like all departments and agencies, we are asked to find savings within the department's budget. These measures are being phased in to minimize the impact on staff and service levels. Last year the department began to implement cost-saving measures totalling $8.6 million over three years. Last year, 2011-12, was year one. Cost savings for year one were $5 million. Year two, this fiscal year, we intend to implement $1.1 million in planned budget reductions. Those budget reductions include the elimination of the Justice Learning Centre, bringing some legal aid work in-house, and restructuring the Halifax Youth Attendance Centre to reduce costs and to be more responsive to the needs of moderate- to high-risk youth under community supervision in the HRM. As well, we are continuing to see administrative savings related to vacant positions, management, and professional services spending.

 

The Department of Justice has identified 70 positions that will be eliminated over three years and we will continue to look for more. The eliminations have been through vacancies, attrition, and some programming changes. The breakdown for the positions: administration, 15; courts, 13; corrections, 26; compliance and internal investigative services, 1; public safety, 12; Emergency Management Office, 3.

 

Budget increases - the budget for the Department of Justice also had several increases. Overall spending, including the Medical Examiner Service and Emergency Management Office, has increased by $6.3 million. That increase is offset by the budget reductions of $1.6 million. That net increase for 2012-13 is $4.7 million. Most of the increase is due to the RCMP policing contract, which I will talk about more in a few minutes.

 

There is also additional funding for the new Nova Scotia Medical Examiner Service facility in Dartmouth which will open later this year. As well, there is funding to accommodate the fire marshal's and security concerns at courthouses across the province. This investment includes interview rooms, security upgrades, cellblock modifications, cameras, and alarms - to name just a few.

At the end of the day setting budgets is a delicate balancing act. We must be able to meet the needs and priorities of Nova Scotians to keep them safe and secure, but we must also live within our means. That requires making difficult decisions about what programs are adding the most value, with a view to eliminating or reducing those that aren't having the desired impact, those that are no longer affordable, and those that no longer help us achieve our priorities.

 

The budget cuts we have made and continue to make are not about reducing services and cutting programs, they are about becoming more efficient in our service delivery and using technology more effectively. Let me highlight a few examples. The electronic ticket project is part of a larger provincial initiative to move from handwritten to electronic tickets across Nova Scotia.

 

Earlier this year 10 Halifax Regional Police and Halifax District RCMP vehicles were equipped to allow officers to create and print electronic tickets in their vehicles. It's the initial phase in a plan to roll out electronic tickets across Halifax Regional Municipality and to the rest of the province policed by the RCMP; hopefully other municipalities will come on board. This project produces efficiencies in the way charges are laid and processed in Nova Scotia. Data entry by police and court administration is reduced, as well as the time and effort to process payments. The time to complete an electronic ticket is much quicker compared to preparing a handwritten ticket. This also improves roadside safety for officers and the public.

 

There's also E-disclosure. Our Public Prosecution Service is working with our law enforcement community to develop a process that will allow the police to submit all material required for a criminal prosecution electronically. This will provide efficiencies for police, the prosecution, defence attorneys, and ultimately the public of Nova Scotia. We are currently reviewing programs from other jurisdictions to determine the best fit for Nova Scotia and are expecting to have recommended models later this year.

 

At this time, to help you understand our budget for 2012-13, I would like to provide a brief overview of the Justice Department's programs and services, and highlight some of the changes.

 

The Department of Justice is committed to fair and effective administration of justice and to excellence in service to the people of Nova Scotia. To accomplish this, the department provides many programs and services. Some of our major divisions are Public Safety, Court Services, Correctional Services and Legal Services. We have about 1,700 staff that work across the province in our courthouses, our correctional facilities, and in our communities as probation officers. In fact, the dedication and commitment of our staff helps us to meet our goals and maintain balance within the justice system.

 

Safety is what drives much of the work carried out at the Justice Department. Our work is integral to helping keep our cities, our communities, and our homes safe. One of the things that is top of mind to most people when they think about the Justice Department is the making and enforcing of laws to keep us safe. Traditionally, law enforcement has been the main tool used to fight crime, to make sure people are held accountable for their actions. Preventing crime before it ever happens is equally important.

 

The answer to safer communities does not rest with more jails, more courthouses, and more police officers. While those things are an important part of the justice system, on their own they are not enough. Enforcing the law and holding people accountable for their actions will always be a priority of this government for the police and for the justice system. There will always be a need to hold people who break the laws accountable for their actions, but the reality is we cannot arrest our way into a crime-free society.

 

Irvin Waller, a professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa and founding CEO of the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime in Ottawa, says that more police officers does not equate with more order, and I agree. He argues that if you want to prevent crime, ". . . it is better to tackle the reasons why persons offend, than to wait until they offend and then try to correct them."

 

My job as Minister of Justice, and the job of my department, is to look beyond the crime to the person who committed it. We need to find new ways of looking at crime and addressing the things that are causing people to get involved in criminal activity, the root causes of crime.

 

I would like to tell you about some of the things we are working on this year in partnership with police, community organizations, and others to address the root causes of crime. I had the chance recently to share my views and our priorities for the coming year and talk about our approach to crime prevention, Nova Scotia's 4^th Annual Crime Prevention Symposium. Over 200 people and organizations that are passionate about crime prevention came to celebrate success and chart a course for the future.

 

In the coming year we will focus on two simple, but effective approaches to tackle the root causes and work differently to prevent crime. Community partnerships and restorative approaches start with partnerships. Crime is not specifically a problem of government; the entire community is affected by crime and, therefore, the entire community needs to be involved in the solutions: schools, governments, hospitals and individuals.

 

Too often we look to government for solutions when what we require are the skills, determination and leadership from the community. The issue of domestic violence is a great example of this. Domestic violence is a community issue that affects all of us. The Domestic Violence Action Plan, the work happening under the plan, is about community and government working together to prevent domestic violence and protect Nova Scotia's women and children.

 

This year there will be more opportunities for community and government to come together to talk about the issue and solutions. We will also launch Nova Scotia's first Domestic Violence Court Program as a pilot in Sydney. We expect the court to begin hearing cases in late Spring. I'm very hopeful about the impact this specialized court will have on domestic violence and stopping the cycle of abuse.

 

The court's purpose is to keep victims safe and to get them the support they need, it's about intervening with offenders and giving them the opportunity to change their behaviour so we can stop domestic violence from happening in hundreds of thousands of homes across the province. This court is expected to cost $800,000 annually to operate. Domestic violence is but one issue that requires strong collaboration between government and community.

 

This year we'll establish a Crime Prevention Advisory Circle with representatives from across government and our justice and community partners. This advisory circle will be tasked to seek out opportunities to collaborate in new ways and to build our crime prevention capacity. We will continue to support that growth at the local level through funding and other means.

 

We recently announced $50,000 in annual crime prevention grants to help organizations and grassroots community groups that are working to make their communities safer.

 

Another great example of community partnerships and crime prevention at the local level is the Lighthouses Program, an annual investment of $240,000 in communities across the province. Our community-based Lighthouses partners help young people connect to their wider community, using a range of programs such as teen centres, art projects and boatbuilding. The Lighthouses Program connects at-risk youths to positive adult mentors and positive social activities.

 

Last year Nova Scotia funded 20 programs and connected with 1,200 at-risk youths. The province is committed to continuing the Lighthouses Program and is looking at ways to engage other partners and develop a stable, four-year funding model for the program.

 

We will also bring together resources in housing, health, education, employment creation, and social services to ensure the successful reintegration of offenders into our communities. The research is clear: if we lower the chances of reoffending, we enhance community safety. That requires a planned, coordinated and supportive integration of offenders back into the community. It starts with a coordinated case plan in custody and continues with a well-structured transition back into the community.

 

The key to a successful reintegration is the person's family and community. That's why we will collaborate with government and community partners to pilot a new parenting program to target vulnerable and high-risk populations in both institutions and community settings. In addition, we are working actively with our community partners to develop a pilot of what is termed the Housing First approach. It supports reintegration through safe, affordable housing and social supports. These evidence-led, community-linked initiatives rely on the strong partnerships we have built and will continue to build across Nova Scotia.

 

While we look for new ways to respond to crime, address root causes and focus on prevention, we will also strengthen our response to crime so that we can be proactive in our enforcement efforts. A critical element in any prevention framework is the ability to effectively and swiftly enforce our laws, and ensure our streets and communities are safe on a daily basis. We will look for opportunities to police smarter, more effectively and more efficiently.

 

It is a fact that a small portion of offenders are responsible for most of the criminal activity. Research suggests that 15 per cent of alleged offenders are responsible for 58 per cent of all alleged crime in Canada. For this reason it makes sense to focus efforts on active offenders. When governments, police agencies and communities work together strategically, with a focus on the small group of offenders responsible for the majority of crime, it can prevent crime more effectively.

 

To help move to that model, this year we will introduce regional police crime analysts. These experts will look at criminal trends and patterns. Police can then develop priorities, focus resources, and target their activities. We will also host an important knowledge exchange about gun violence in collaboration with the Halifax Regional Police, the RCMP, and community leaders in the Halifax region. In May, we will all come together to explore innovative ways to build a community-wide response to gun violence.

 

Joining us for the discussion will be representatives from the internationally acclaimed CeaseFire-Chicago program. The program says it uses science and street outreach to track where violence is heating up and stop it - and it works. CeaseFire has significantly reduced gun violence in inner-city Chicago neighbourhoods. The premise of the program is that violence is like a disease that can be prevented and controlled.

 

I also want to point out that we will continue to support policing at both the local and provincial levels. We invest $47 million in direct policing every year. This includes a $17 million investment in the Additional Officer Program which puts 176 additional resources in communities across the province. It also includes a $30 million investment in centralized services such as major crime investigators and emergency response units.

 

We also just signed a new 20-year Provincial Police Service Agreement with Canada. Under the agreement the RCMP will continue to be the provincial police force for Nova Scotia. This agreement will cost more than $100 million annually. When it ends in 20 years, we'll be marking 100 years that the RCMP has been our provincial police force.

 

I would like to quickly explain what the Provincial Police Service Agreement is all about. First, it provides front-line policing to communities across the province. Some communities have their own police departments; others contract the RCMP to police their municipalities. The provincial police keep the rest - about 60 per cent of the population and 94 per cent of the land mass of the province - safe and secure. There are more than 800 RCMP officers as part of the provincial police. The provincial police also provide specialized, centralized services to all municipalities and police forces. These critical units include major crime investigators, dog units, bomb disposal units, emergency response teams, and traffic patrols for our 100-Series Highways.

 

Having these front-line and specialized resources is a significant investment by the province and of great benefit for Nova Scotians. Officials from the Department of Justice and Public Safety Canada have been hammering out this agreement for a number of years. The negotiations have been tough but we reached an agreement where, considering everything, we have a win-win result. I'm proud to say that the province bargained to get a good deal for Nova Scotians. The agreement gives the province and municipalities more control over key areas such as the containing costs, governance, and operational and financial accountability. This means that the province and municipalities will get more input and control into staffing levels, policing standards, and construction of new detachments.

 

I mentioned earlier that our approach to crime prevention will also include restorative approaches. Nova Scotia's Restorative Justice Program is the most comprehensive of its kind in Canada and, indeed, is one of the most developed in the world. We invest about $2.2 million every year in our youth Restorative Justice Program and our two adult pilots in Sydney and Truro. We intend to continue our international leadership in the field.

 

The restorative justice process sets out to hold the offenders accountable, offers victims both a voice and support, and creates an important leadership role for the community. Underlying this approach is the focus on the relationship between people and the needs to guide behaviour changes. These restorative approaches are now being used widely across Europe and North America outside the criminal justice context, as a way to manage conflict and build citizenship.

 

We are seeing tremendous outcomes in our schools. Essentially this is about targeting our most vulnerable group: youth. In our own province we have found that when used in schools, restorative practices improved attendance, reduced behaviour problems, and improved the time teachers spend on classroom learning as opposed to discipline issues.

 

The facts are clear: when students can stay in school their life opportunities improve and they are less likely to offend. A recent one-day snapshot of our adult correctional institutions found that 62 per cent of adult offenders had not finished high school. In the general population this figure is about 19 per cent.

 

We have been piloting restorative practices at several schools in our province since 2008, with very positive results. Yarmouth Consolidated Memorial High School reported that suspensions were reduced by more than 80 per cent. Shelburne Regional High School reported a shift from 65 lost teaching days per year due to classroom disruptions to only 14 lost days. These results speak for themselves. Over the next year we will explore options for expanding this approach to more schools. We will start building the tools and resources the school administrators will need to start using a restorative approach with our students, teachers and school communities. This is really about helping our youth change their behaviour before they ever get involved in criminal activity.

 

We are also beginning a new partnership with Dalhousie University and Halifax Regional Police to pilot the nation's first comprehensive restorative program for university students. The Dalhousie Restorative Responses program will be an alternative for students who come into conflict with the law, and for student conduct issues on campus and in the surrounding community. If successful, we'll consider expansion to other post-secondary institutions in the province. These are just some of the actions we will pursue in 2012 and 2013 to prevent and reduce crime.

 

We are also committed to working smarter and ensuring our investments have maximum impact so we will be tracking their effectiveness through a number of measures, including how they change the provincial crime rate, enhance intelligence-based policing, and reduce the severity of crime.

 

I want to highlight some additional initiatives for 2012-13 being moved forward by various divisions within Justice. Our Public Safety Division provides policing service governance for the province. Through this division, we provide oversight, governance, and advice to police, private security services, and firearms licence holders. There are many new and continuing programs that I would like to highlight under our Public Safety Division.

 

We continue to see success under our Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, or SCAN. Since 2007, under the SCAN Act, we have received 794 calls to our toll-free line. We've had eight cases go to court: one owner sold the property before the case was concluded and the other seven cases saw community safety orders granted by the Supreme Court, closing the properties. To date, we have also had 121 successful evictions. In 110 of these cases, residents vacated voluntarily after an investigation was conducted and illegal activities were confirmed. It is our duty to take measures to ensure the safety of all Nova Scotians. The SCAN Act gives citizens the tools to take back their neighbourhoods and, as you've just heard, it continues to help Nova Scotians do just that.

 

Civil forfeiture is another tool in the fight against crime for law enforcement agencies around the province. This program was launched in May 2011 and helps deter criminals from engaging in unlawful activity. The province can sell seized assets acquired through criminal activities or used to engage in criminal activities. To date, one case from Sydney has resulted in the forfeiture of cash of over $5,000 from illegal drug activity. Other cases are currently pending throughout the province. The funds collected fund the Civil Forfeiture Unit and provide financial support to provincial crime prevention and Victim Services programs.

 

I would also like to talk about the Serious Incident Response Team, or SIRT. SIRT was announced in the Fall of 2010. Just last week the legislation allowing it to exist was proclaimed. The legislation allowed the establishment of an independent unit to ensure a more transparent and independent way to investigate serious criminal matters against police. This was something brought forward by the chiefs of police themselves. We know that many people have concerns about police investigating serious incidents involving police. The chiefs advocated for a more arm's-length, independent process. This unit will provide for the transparency and impartiality and integrity of the investigation in its outcome. SIRT has already begun their first case.

 

Courts also play a critical role in the administration of justice. Our Court Services Division provides civil law, criminal law and Family Court administrative services, small claims, bankruptcy law, adjudication, security and transport of prisoners to and from court, and criminal law adjudication or Justice of the Peace. The department operates 45 facilities throughout the province with court administration managed through 14 justice centres.

 

Safety and security at our court facilities is one of our top priorities. That is why we are working to upgrade and improve security in Nova Scotia courthouses. This year we will make significant investments to building and security upgrades for courthouses. We will invest almost $3 million to upgrade security of our courthouses to ensure the safety of public and staff. This includes, but is not limited to, the Shubenacadie Provincial Court - redesigned layout of cellblock and courtrooms to ensure safety; the Windsor Provincial Court - cellblock modifications including security doors and locks, and cellblock cameras and alarms; Dartmouth - access control, rekey project, and building and cell lighting; Halifax - interview room upgrades and building lighting; Sydney - interview-room security upgrades; and Truro and Pictou - door panic hardware compatible with fire alarm system.

 

We are also investing $4.3 million to renovate Nova Scotia's Court of Appeal and Supreme Court buildings - work that will extend the building's life by decades and save money for taxpayers. This work starts a four-year, $22.5 million renovation project to upgrade the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and electronic services at the Law Courts on Upper Water Street in Halifax.

 

This year will also see new capital funding of $900,000 to replace vehicles currently used by our sheriffs, as well as the Emergency Management Office. This will allow us to upgrade our offender transport vans and other vehicles to reduce the risk of offenders and ensure the highest level of security. We are making sure that our employees have the tools they need to do their jobs, always keeping safety in mind.

 

We are also making an investment of $200,000 to partners with the Nova Scotia Community College to develop accessible on-line training programs for Court Services staff. One example is the Court Interpreter Certification Program. We are also working on the curriculum now, and interpreters in 10 languages will take the course this Fall. This program will help us to ensure access to justice through high-quality language interpretation. On-line programming helps make courses more accessible throughout the province.

 

We invest $3 million annually to provide services for victims of crime. This is an important area. Victims of crime need to know they are not alone, that help is there. We work with a range of justice partners such as the Crown and the police to provide various services and support for victims of crime or violence. Direct services for victims of crime are provided through four core programs: the provincial Victim Services Program, the Criminal Injuries Counselling Program, the Victim Impact Statement Program, and the Child Victim/Witness Program. Victim services are provided through four regional offices and three sub offices across the province. Victim services will continue to be there to help victims of crime in Nova Scotia.

 

Just as our Public Safety and Court Services Divisions play a critical role in maintaining law and order in communities across the province, so too does the Correctional Services arm of the department. The department operates 22 Community Corrections offices throughout the province. Custody-based correctional services involve facility operations and reintegration programs and planning.

 

The department operates five adult correctional facilities in Amherst, Antigonish, Dartmouth, Sydney, and Yarmouth; one youth correctional facility in Waterville; and a small satellite youth detention facility at the adult facility in Sydney. We are making budget changes in some correctional program areas. These changes do not impact essential service, and result in efficiencies and allowing us to refocus services as appropriate.

 

An example we have reviewed and restructured our program at the Halifax Youth Attendance Centre, resulting in total savings of $645,000 while enhancing our overall ability to provide programs and services to more moderate- to high-risk youth under community supervision in the HRM.

 

As I mentioned earlier, safe and secure custody of offenders, as well as safety of our staff and the public, is paramount. That is why we are building a new state-of-the-art facility in Priestville, Pictou County. The 200-bed, 81,000 square-foot northeast Nova Scotia correctional facility will replace aging facilities in Antigonish and Cumberland. It was designed to consider the public, staff, and offender safety as paramount, and will meet maximum security standards.

 

Key features include superior sight lines, offender movement kept to a minimum, the day room design allows enhanced supervision, state-of-the-art closed-circuit TV monitoring of facilities, an electronic drug detection system, a video conferencing system to courthouses for virtual court appearances, and health and dental suites. Intermittent and full-time offenders will be separated and have no contact with each other, and specific holding cells for offenders and transients that actually reside in other institutions saves on travel costs. Building this facility will inject millions into Nova Scotia's economy. There will be more than 100 jobs at the facility, 70 of them new corrections and support staff positions. There will also be jobs created during construction.

 

The tender for the construction phase is out right now and we expect construction will begin in earnest in June of this year. The building will open in mid-2014. I would also like to note that this is the year we will open the new Nova Scotia Medical Examiner's facility in Burnside. There is an additional $600,000 in this year's budget to support the facility, which cost $12.9 million to build. The project is slightly ahead of schedule, and Dr. Matthew Bowes and his team hope to be in the building in the Fall of this year. For the first time, the Nova Scotia Medical Examiner Service will be able to consolidate services under one roof in a new and modern facility. A new facility will ensure we are providing the best forensic service possible, which will benefit families who have lost a loved one.

 

This year will also see an overhaul of the Medical Examiner Service information management system. This will have a significant impact on the Medical Examiner Service by improving the scope, quality, mandate and services. The Medical Examiner Service, despite getting additional funding for the new facility, also proposed cost-saving measures in the last fiscal year. In the Fall, a virtual investigations initiative was implemented. Deaths that fall under the Fatality Investigations Act and meet certain criteria - such as no suspicions from law enforcement and non-traumatic death - can be investigated virtually. This saves the body of a loved one from being transferred to Halifax, which results in quicker closure for the family and no transportation costs.

 

I would also like to speak for a few moments about another division of the Department of Justice - the Emergency Management Office, or EMO. The Emergency Management Office became a division of the Justice Department just over a year ago and it has been a good fit. The EMO focus is on the protection and safety of Nova Scotians during emergencies that can range from severe weather events to forest fires and flooding and everything in between. This focus complements the role of the Department of Justice in ensuring safety and security of Nova Scotians in the context of the justice system. EMO work is also about the safety and security of Nova Scotians.

 

I would like to provide some detail on how we approached our efficiencies target at EMO in the past fiscal year, but let me first make an important distinction between two areas at EMO that have different budgetary structures. EMO is responsible for Nova Scotia's 911 system, and I will discuss the 911 service in greater detail at a later time. The important point here is that the 911 service was originally constructed on a user-pay model. It is completely funded by a levy on every telephone line in Nova Scotia. Each of us pays 43 cents per month, each telephone line we own. In fiscal 2010-11, the monthly fee generated $5.6 million in gross revenue. Over the years, this revenue source has been sufficient to pay for all aspects of the 911 service, operation, maintenance and periodic technical renewals. The 911 service is provided by a staff of nine.

 

All other EMO provincial programs and services are now delivered by a staff of 19 people. Those latter services, as with most government services, are funded by a direct government appropriation. In this area, five positions have been eliminated as a cost-saving measure. In total, EMO has achieved cost savings for this fiscal year of $345,000. Other efficiencies include: critical infrastructure and business continuity programs were combined under one person; and training programs were reorganized from the ground up to achieve greater efficiencies. This process has involved collaboration with municipal Emergency Management Offices across the province using a train-the-trainer approach. The reorganization is working. In 2009, EMO delivered nine training courses but no workshops or new programs. This year we will deliver 28 courses and eight workshops.

 

In 2011, six new training programs were developed, including a course for emergency preparedness officers in government departments, and another for emergency management in Nova Scotia universities. I want to assure you that all efficiencies at EMO have been accomplished without compromising the core work and purpose of the division, which is to prepare for and coordinate responses to emergencies.

 

With that overview of resources, let me now highlight some of the core activities and challenges at EMO. It's no secret that this has been a relatively calm year weather-wise in the past year or more and we should all knock on wood. Nova Scotia has been fortunate to have mostly escaped the kinds of severe weather events and other disasters that require expensive emergency responses at the municipal and provincial levels. Colleagues in other jurisdictions have not been so lucky and have had to cope with disasters that have hurt thousands of Canadians and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

In Nova Scotia, we only have to go back to the previous year to know what this is like. We all remember the severe flooding in Meat Cove, Cape Breton, in August 2010. Meanwhile, Nova Scotians living in the Valley and southwest regions won't soon forget the November flooding that same year. Cape Breton and parts of northern Nova Scotia and the Valley may well consider December 2010 one of the worst in history for relentless rain and wind storms that caused substantial damage. But for EMO, a year or more with few major emergency events does not mean a year with nothing to do. Emergency response is only a small portion of EMO's substantive responsibilities; in fact, it is EMO's day-to-day work between emergencies that enables and ensures effective emergency responses when they are needed.

 

One of EMO's key responsibilities is to help communities recover from emergency events. EMO administers the federal-provincial disaster financial assistance agreement program on the province's behalf. These are critically important programs that help Nova Scotians who experience damage in storms and disasters to recover and get back on their feet. The loss could be the loss of a primary residence, it could be damage to business premises or supplies, or it could be the destruction of common infrastructures such as bridges and roads. The needs are always acute, and through the DFA agreement the province and the federal government have been there to help.

 

Since 1999, there have been 12 DFAA programs in Nova Scotia at a total cost of over $100 million. DFAA recoveries from the federal government are based on a sliding scale where the support from Ottawa depends on the size of the disaster plan. Of the over $100 million in claims to date, Nova Scotia has recovered more than $31 million and expects to recover more than $60 million in total from Ottawa. The review process is rigorous and EMO works closely with Public Safety Canada to ensure that all claims are properly documented and that recoveries are fair.

 

I mentioned the 911 service earlier. I would now like to talk about a major 911 initiative currently underway. The safety of Nova Scotians depends on a fast and fully integrated emergency response system. The pulse of that system is the 911 emergency reporting service. This service is delivered by 180 well-trained caretakers in four public safety answering points across the province. Those people in turn are supported by a sophisticated hardware and software plant that operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. The system now handles some 220,000 calls a year.

 

Computer hardware and software offered in such an intense fashion has to have a high level of reliability and low maintenance to guarantee public safety and competence. Operated in this way can require 100 per cent reliability, the equipment has an expected lifespan of four to five years. That is why for the past several months our Nova Scotia 911 operation has been carrying out a complete renewal of its technology. The project is on schedule, well below budget and nearing completion. By early this summer the entire technical replacement will have been completed and launched without any service disruptions. I'm very pleased to say that this renewal, at a cost of about $1.5 million, will be fully paid for by the 911 user fund.

 

Finally, I would like to remind you of the important role EMO plays in the areas of emergency planning and security service. EMO has multiple responsibilities that include government and business continuity planning, critical infrastructure and essential services, and emergency preparedness exercising. In short, EMO is a vibrant and effective division of my department. EMO is a leader in emergency planning and response, and I compliment the staff in that regard, they've done an excellent job. It is Nova Scotia's reliable energy information and resources nerve centre, coordinating government agencies during all major emergencies in our province.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, if I could interject for a moment. I always give a 10-minute notice on the running out of time. I know there is some understanding from legal people that a minister's opening remarks can be as long as a minister wants; however, the precedent is one hour or less. This Chair will be living with the one-hour precedent, so you have 10 minutes remaining and then I will have to cut you off. Thank you.

 

MR. LANDRY: Thank you for your reminder and I assume that after our discussion and dialogue that the 10 minutes starts now?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That 10 minutes starts now.

 

MR. LANDRY: At this point I would like to note that I am also the minister responsible for a variety of other agencies providing important services in Nova Scotia. One of those is the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission is an independent government agency charged with administering Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act. Under the authority of the Act, the commission focuses on two core business functions: resolving complaints of discrimination, and public education and outreach.

 

I first want to note the appointment last year of David Shannon as CEO of the Human Rights Commission. David has a very impressive background in human rights and we are lucky to have him back in Nova Scotia. This year the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission is pleased to announce several key strategy initiatives and goals to help build inclusive communities and to protect human rights within the province. These initiatives will advance equity and dignity, foster positive and respectful relations, and protect human rights.

 

In January of this year the commission implemented a new dispute program to redesign how complaints are addressed by the commission. The program focuses on how disputes are approached and the timelines for bringing a complaint to resolution. This markedly different and exciting dispute program may very well lead to a Canada-wide renewal of statutory human rights agencies. Commissions across the country have expressed an interest in learning more about Nova Scotia's efforts and our successes.

 

The commission is also focused on educating Nova Scotians. The commission's Race Relations, Equity and Inclusion team is working to provide education and training to Nova Scotians in order to advance human rights and strengthen connections with all stakeholders. This is done through schools, school boards, community outreach, and training workshops.

 

Finally I would like to note that the commission is working to strengthen its relationships with First Nations communities and between these communities, government, and other human rights stakeholders. The commission is actively recruiting a person of Aboriginal descent who will be based out of Cape Breton, but will provide Aboriginal outreach work to members of the Nova Scotia First Nations.

 

I am also the Minister responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office legislation. I would like to quickly highlight three items with respect to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office.

 

The first is that the FOIPOP Review Officer's mandate as the independent oversight body for access to information has been extended under the Privacy Review Officer Act for the privacy breaches. In the coming years the office will be given another extensive oversight role for access and privacy under the new Personal Health Information Act. The new mandate will be monitored carefully to ensure there's a balance between fiscal responsibility and quality service to the public.

 

As well, I am pleased to say that the Department of Justice was able to provide grant funding to offices to assist with hosting the federal-provincial-territorial 2012 Annual Access and Privacy Commissioners' Summit, to be held in early September in Halifax.

 

I am also responsible for the Public Prosecution Service. I mentioned earlier that Martin Herschorn, our director of PPS, will join us today.

 

The Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service represents the Crown in criminal proceedings. It was established in 1990 under the Public Prosecutions Act as the first independent prosecution service in Canada. It employs 94 Crown Attorneys and has a total staff of 167 in 20 offices across the province. Our Crown handles about 48,000 Criminal Code charges every year. In addition to prosecuting all Criminal Code offences in Nova Scotia, the PPS is responsible for prosecuting cases involving violations of provincial Statutes.

 

The PPS also appeals decisions made by the courts in indictable proceedings where the Crown determines the court has made an error in law. Continuing education is a priority for this organization, it is important for Crown Attorneys and support staff to be able to enhance their expertise on an ongoing basis. At the end of the day the result is better-quality prosecution services.

 

I would also like to talk for a few moments about the challenges facing Nova Scotia public prosecutions. Major cases are complex and high profile and require a significant amount of time, skill and dedication from more than one Crown Attorney. Public safety and the public perception of the justice system are influenced by the outcomes of these cases. The PPS makes it a practice to assign at least two Crown Attorneys to each murder case, at least one being a senior Crown. This is essential in order to professionally respond to the demands of these difficult cases.

 

Many major or specialized prosecutions are handled by members of the service's Special Prosecutions section. Such prosecutions include complex fraud cases, historical sexual assaults, cyber crime cases, child pornography cases, provincially-regulated offences, and Aboriginal law cases. The Halifax region of the PPS has dramatically reduced the needs for outside counsel. This has been done with an innovative approach to court rescheduling and has resulted in significant cost savings in Halifax.

 

I also want to thank the PPS for its partnership and support in working with other partners in the justice system, to get Nova Scotia's first Domestic Violence Court up and running. I very much appreciate the efforts of the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service, and I am confident that they are well positioned to meet any challenges and opportunities in the year ahead.

 

In closing, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss some of the activities in my department and to present the highlights of this year's budget. As we go forward, the Justice Department will continue to strengthen our efforts to reduce and prevent crime. We will continue to work closely with policing agencies and communities across the province to make that happen. We will continue to sit with partners around the table and have open and frank discussions that will help guide our future direction. We will continue to work to ensure the safety and security of Nova Scotians, and prepare and respond to emergencies.

 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the department, who consistently meet the challenges of providing high-quality service each and every day. Their dedication and commitment is to be commended. I look forward to the members' questions and comments and welcome the opportunity to share information once again on our programs and our services. I'm very excited and motivated by the upcoming year and I couldn't be happier than to be here.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, your speaking time and opening statement - 58 minutes - leaves us two hours and 50 minutes remaining in the four hours of the Subcommittee on Supply in the Red Room. At this time I will turn questioning over to the Liberal caucus for one hour.

 

The honourable member for Richmond.

 

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How times change in a year. Last year I think the minister spoke for about 10 minutes and said, let's get to it, and this year it's 58 minutes, so apparently he didn't enjoy last year as much as he would have us believe. I suspect that someone who served as a police officer would be aware that cruel and unusual punishment violates the Charter and I would suggest those 58 minutes would have fallen under that definition.

 

In light of your 58 minutes, let me start in that same vein. You referred to the Public Prosecution Service, I'm wondering if the minister could provide us with what the guidelines or the policies are that are applied by the Public Prosecution Service when it comes to press releases regarding matters in front of our courts.

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, thank you very much. I just want to make clarity on a couple of points there. Last year we were short on time and I made, on a special request by my colleague, to shorten the comments so we could get more questions because we had reduced time. I see that this year they were kind enough to afford me some additional time and to get all the fine things that our department is doing and this government is doing out on the table.

 

As far as the cruel and unusual punishment, I share that same emotion because I experience it on a regular basis when I'm sitting in the House and have to hear certain people speak - and not to mention anyone in this room. But I have had the pleasure of having that experience, so I can appreciate his comment and I take it in full understanding.

 

The Public Prosecution Service is an independent body that has its own communications team. They do up directives. I have the pleasure of seeing most correspondence before it's sent out, within minutes before it's sent out, just to have a quick read of it. Basically that's the format that's done there.

 

MR. SAMSON: That's fine. I wouldn't suspect that you would be involved in the decisions on prosecutions and that, but my understanding is that the communications staff are responsible to government, not just to the Public Prosecution Service. I would again ask you if you could provide us with the specific guidelines that are used by the Public Prosecution Service in determining which matters in front of our courts are going to be issued as press releases and which will not.

 

MR. LANDRY: I had the pleasure of meeting with the director of the Public Prosecution Service. He directs that part of the operation and has the communication with his staff, and they make the decisions on what they do in-house. It's not something that they come and have direct dialogue with me on which cases.

 

They have a process where they evaluate whether it's a public interest and they make certain assessments there. If you would like additional information, I can get you information from the Public Prosecution Service division and have that provided to you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Sure, your assessments are up and apparently we're not going to have the director here to respond to that. Obviously he must be busy doing something else, this isn't important enough, but I would certainly appreciate if you could direct the director of the Public Prosecution Service to provide us with the specific policy.

 

You know yourself, I've raised it with you and others have raised it with you as well, there appears to be a bizarre standard that's being used by the director and by that staff. At the end of the day, while they might be quasi-independent, you are the minister responsible. If a release goes out from the Department of Justice or the Public Prosecution Service, it's coming out under your mandate and under your direction. I would certainly look forward to seeing exactly what criteria are being used in determining that.

 

One of the other questions is, I noted for the new jail that's going to be built in Pictou County that the contract to clear the land, it was determined that would only be available to Native contractors. I'm wondering if you could table the government policy that deals with this as to how that determination was made.

 

MR. LANDRY: Is your question the determination to use First Nations, or the selection of the individual that got the contract being First Nations? I'm not clear which way you're going with the question.

 

MR. SAMSON: My understanding is that the tender was only open to Native contractors, which is a refreshing new policy from the government, one that I certainly was not aware of. I'm just curious as to what other projects that might apply to. I'm assuming the decision to do so must be based on a specific government policy so I'm just asking if you could provide us with that policy so that we have a better understanding of which projects in the future are going to fall under the same criteria.

 

MR. LANDRY: As the honourable member is probably aware, the management of those contracts for the building of infrastructure within the province falls under TIR. If he is interested in reducing my time, maybe we would make arrangements for the minister to come forward - I don't know how that process works - but I won't speak for that minister.

 

But I am very pleased and honoured to have within our department that we did that. I had the pleasure of speaking with the person who won that contract, who actually did an excellent job and came in under budget and on time, I think, in the overall project and did just a great job. We're very appreciative of that and that was a good value and a good partnership with the First Nations community.

 

MR. SAMSON: There's no question of that, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that prior to the decision that it only be open to Native contractors, you would have received correspondence from First Nations representatives that indicated that the process of consultation in the land selection was not respected. I found it ironic that the contract would be only open to Native contractors and, again, we'll certainly be asking to see what specific policy the government has since adopted in that regard and see what future projects might be under that restriction as well.

 

You made mention of virtual court appearances. I'm wondering if you could advise which of our courtrooms and which of our facilities are now geared up for this and how often that has been put into use.

 

MR. LANDRY: Right now the infrastructure is set up in Halifax and we're in the process of developing all sites across the province for that. Just before I finish the answer on that point, I just want to come back on the land process. You alluded that the process was not respected. The issue surrounding the Pictou Landing First Nations had more to do with the - they were well aware and involved that there were some administrative difficulties within the community at the time and there was some communication breakdown. We addressed that appropriately. I live close to that community and I have a good working relationship with them, and in no way would I disrespect a community that I grew up with as a child and have close friends and relationships. I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

 

MR. SAMSON: Sure, I can go back in my files and find the letter for you; it's not something I invented. I believe you received correspondence that they indicated the process that has been established by the government for consultation with First Nations wasn't followed. So I can certainly provide that letter again for the minister if he has forgotten about it, I haven't - but anyway, how often have these virtual court appearances been used in our province in the last fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: I would have to get that information for you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Once, twice, three times, a dozen, never?

 

MR. LANDRY: I will get you that information.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you don't know?

 

MR. LANDRY: I don't know.

 

MR. SAMSON: Which actual sites is this set up?

 

MR. LANDRY: Primarily in Halifax, in the HRM courthouses.

 

MR. SAMSON: There are quite a few courthouses and facilities in Halifax - I'm curious which specific ones. Is it the Law Courts downtown, is it Spring Garden Road?

 

MR. LANDRY: Every justice centre has it but not every courtroom - 10 to 20 times, to date, both in civil and criminal.

 

MR. SAMSON: And that's strictly here in Halifax?

 

MR. LANDRY: And a bit around the province. Every centre has them and I couldn't be specific. That's data or information we would have to go out and collect.

 

MR. SAMSON: And I'm wondering if you could tell us for what types of matters this has been used for.

 

MR. LANDRY: Both civil and criminal.

 

MR. SAMSON: And was it simply plea matters that this was dealt with or were there actual trials using these virtual court appearances?

 

MR. LANDRY: That type of detail, to me, firstly, I would have to get you that information. That's not something that I would really be reflecting on unless there's an issue of asking for a review or getting data. You can appreciate from where I sit and the job that I'm responsible for, the day-to-day functions, we have managers and directors to do that but we can get you that information and if you would like to put anything in writing, we would certainly make sure we get a complete list of information for you.

 

MR. SAMSON: I think you have a sufficient amount of staff here today that hopefully, whatever you're not able to answer, they will be able to provide you with that. Especially since you made mention of it in your 58-minute opening statement, I would have suspected there would have been more information available on that, but so be it.

 

Last year in the budget there were reductions made to the medical examiner's office, especially weekend autopsies. I'm curious, is that reduction going to be maintained?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise, has the medical examiner's office kept track of how many autopsies this has reduced or the exact amount of money that this has saved?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not to date but we are tracking it and we're collecting that data.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you don't have that information?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not today I don't.

 

MR. SAMSON: Not today, okay. Last year when we did estimates you had a one pager that showed the reductions that had taken place in your department. I'm wondering if you have such a one pager again this year that you can share with us as to where reductions took place.

 

MR. LANDRY: I just want to clarify a point there that the actual number of autopsies has not been reduced; what we have done is increased efficiencies and done them over five days instead of seven. It reduced costs and operations from that perspective.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, we can probably agree to disagree on that because you've changed the criteria for which autopsies were going to be done on the weekend and when they would be done. Again, maybe you'll be able to provide us specific numbers on that. The initial answer was you didn't have those numbers but now you're saying there hasn't been a reduction.

 

Again, as I mentioned last year you had a one pager that you were kind enough to share with us that showed the changes that took place in your department. I know you made mention of a number of them during your 58-minute remarks, I'm wondering if you have such a document that you can provide us with this year that shows the changes that have taken place in your department.

 

MR. LANDRY: We can get you the information and get it to you. I should clarify a point that I think I made on the autopsies. We reduced the number of days and increased the number of autopsies done in that period, for those days that are operational. But on critical incidents - for example, homicide or other special areas, those autopsies are done on the weekend. So that's on exceptional circumstances as well.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, that begs the question, how many autopsies were done on the weekends during this past fiscal year compared to the year before?

 

MR. LANDRY: I don't know but just to give you an idea of what they might be: suspicious death, death of a child, and death where religious beliefs would be requested for expedient burial. That type of data we can probably cultivate and get it off to you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Well, we're in budgets so it's all about numbers. I've heard your policy statement and the changes made last year; the question now is, what impact has it had? Having those numbers would have been a bit useful to know exactly what changes that would have required but . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: Can I respond to that? We are in budgets and we have the figures and the numbers here, but on the actual impacts and the variances between one year and the next, that's something that we would have to measure. All the numbers are here, just for clarity.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could advice what the status is on the resumption of court services in Richmond County.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm not clear on what your question is. Are you saying you want them resumed or are you asking if they're going?

 

MR. SAMSON: They're not only going, they're gone. Your government decided to close the Arichat courthouse and therefore, since, it has been almost two years now that we have not had provincial court services in Richmond County as a result. Due to working with some of the members of your staff we were able to have Small Claims Court brought back, which is currently being held in the council chambers at the new municipal office but as far as the resumption of other services that has not taken place. Members of the community are asking when they will see either the Arichat courthouse reopened or a new facility in place for court services to be available in Richmond County, which I should advise the minister we are the only county in Nova Scotia that does not have a functioning courthouse.

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, I remember the history on the building there and the position of the judges working out of that and the critical state that it's in. Right now, there's a Small Claims Court done in the area, and people go to Port Hawkesbury. I did notice when I had the pleasure of driving across a good portion of that highway there that it's quite good and accessible. In my last time to Port Hawkesbury, I spoke to a number of people there who were from the Richmond area that do their shopping and were in there regularly, and that it seems to be a common migration part for services in the area. So as far as an individual courthouse in the community, it's not in our immediate budget.

 

MR. SAMSON: I've said this before - and I believe the warden of Richmond County has made it clear, as well, in correspondence to the minister - that Richmond County has its unique characteristics, with the First Nation of Chapel Island and with the very predominant Acadian population. We've always had court services, and unfortunately it was this government that put an end to that. We're coming up to over two years now and I take it the minister's indication is that there is no intention currently in his department to resume court services for Richmond County. Is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: The deterioration of the building there when this government came into office, we were faced with a facility that was not safe and did not meet the needs of providing the service. At the same time, investment was made by this province to build a new facility that could accommodate the broader area and to look for efficiencies within the region. The taxpayers of Nova Scotia paid for a new facility that more than adequately meets the needs, and if there are special and unique needs with the First Nations culture or the Acadian, we provide those services and make them available when required.

 

MR. SAMSON: Well, I can certainly provide you with correspondence that when the previous government built the new Port Hawkesbury Justice Centre, there were assurances made by the Justice Minister at the time that it would not have an impact on services at either the Arichat courthouse or the courthouse in Port Hood. The Port Hood courthouse is still operating. It has gone through upgrades with the support of the municipality, and I guess we're left wondering in Richmond why there isn't an effort to work with the municipality which has offered to be a partner in re-establishing court services there. The minister may not be aware but there were guarantees given back then that it would not lead to the closure of court services in those two other communities and, unfortunately, under his watch that has taken place. So there is a bit of history there and I guess we'll leave it to the community to pass judgment on that.

 

Could you give us specifically, as far as - I believe you indicated that seven positions were going to be eliminated over three years. Could you advise which specific seven positions you're referring to?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, 70 positions, not seven - if you're referring to reductions within the Department of Justice.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you give us the breakdown of where those 70 positions are going to be eliminated?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm sorry, you must have missed it. I had said it in my speech and I don't know where I would find that now. If you like I can go through it but I'll have somebody - yes, here it is, I have it here. Isn't that fortunate? Administration, we knocked off 15; in the courts, we knocked off 13; in corrections, we knocked off 26; compliance and internal investigations, 1; public safety, 12; EMO, 3.

 

MR. SAMSON: And these are full-time equivalent positions?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: And when you say "administration," is that in your own office here in Halifax or is that throughout the province?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's head office.

 

MR. SAMSON: That's head office, and what specific positions do you plan on reducing in your head office?

 

MR. LANDRY: What do we plan or what did we do?

 

MR. SAMSON: What specific positions? Is it a secretary? Is it - not deputy minister, I would hope - but other positions that are going to be reduced?

 

MR. LANDRY: There was no one laid off. Some were in finance, some were in the learning division, and some were vacancies that were there, but nobody was specifically laid off.

 

MR. SAMSON: So these are vacancies you're just not going to be filling - is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: There are some vacancies there that we were in the process, but we stopped any filling of vacancies when we were looking at ways to meet our expectations.

 

MR. SAMSON: On that question of vacancies, you said you were looking at filling some of them. Under the Supplementary Information on Page 182, there's a line item for Archway Search Consultants Inc. for $250,000. Could you advise what we spent $250,000 on search consultants for?

 

MR. LANDRY: That was an information technology consulting firm and they were, from my understanding, if my memory serves me correct - and just a little bit of a whisper in my ear - I think going back to the electronic ESOT system and the efficiencies that system will make and safety improvements it will do for the officer on the street. I believe that's where the investment was made - with that skill base.

 

MR. SAMSON: So that's for safety upgrades to what?

 

MR. LANDRY: The electronic ticketing, once again I had that in my speech, you might have missed that part as well. We're putting in the patrol cars where you swipe the driver's licence - it increases the efficiency - and the officer then just keys in other data. You need it to make significant technological changes throughout the system and you need the people to be coordinating that along with the various stakeholders and partners that we have within the system that that would affect. That's where I believe all of that went.

 

MR. SAMSON: That was tendered out, was it? Archway Search Consultants, they would have been a tender for this work and they would have bid on that tender?

 

MR. LANDRY: As far as I know and understand, we tender all our projects.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise whether any additional monies have been spent to Archway Search Consultants during just this most recent fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: The supplement for this current fiscal year won't be available until the summer, so I don't have that information.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, without giving a specific figure, I guess the question just was did we pay any additional monies to this company during the past fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: We can find that out for you and get that back to you if that's okay.

 

MR. SAMSON: On Page 184 of the supplementary detail, under the heading of Crime Compensation Payments there's the amount of $266,683. I wonder if you could advise exactly what these crime compensation payments were and who they were made to.

 

MR. LANDRY: Those are the counselling awards under Victim Services.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could provide the breakdown of this. Is there a cap on how much each individual can receive or how many individuals would have received monies under that specific payment program?

 

MR. LANDRY: There is a cap and we're getting that data. I remember I answered that question last year. I don't recall what I said then. We'll get you that information.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you could advise . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: Just a moment, I have the answer here. It was recently increased to $4,000 for a family of a murder victim.

 

MR. SAMSON: So it's $4,000. I'm assuming you wouldn't be able to take that $266,000 and just divide by $4,000 because I'm assuming some payments are not as high as $4,000.

 

MR. LANDRY: There are a number of different programs and movement of those dollars of how they fit into that category. It's not a cookie-cutter process and each situation merits different needs.

 

MR. SAMSON: I take it that this money here from the crime compensation payments comes out of the victim surcharge fund which is charged to individuals when they pay their fines.

 

MR. LANDRY: That comes out of the Justice budget, not under the surcharge. There are four core areas, just for your information - Provincial Victim Services Program, Criminal Injuries Counselling Program, Victim Impact Statement Program, and the Child Victim/Witness Program - that those monies go into.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you're saying the victim impact surcharge goes into those programs or you're saying they're completely separate?

 

MR. LANDRY: The surcharge goes to staff and salaries, service providing - counselling.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the money raised from the victim impact surcharge goes to pay staff?

 

MR. LANDRY: The caseworkers that administer the program, it covers that cost. The rules around that, which we can get to you, are very defined as to what the money can go to and how it's spent.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise in the last fiscal year how much monies were raised through the victim impact surcharge?

 

MR. LANDRY: $1.5 million.

 

MR. SAMSON: So of that $1.5 million, how much actually went back to victims?

 

MR. LANDRY: It doesn't go to the victim; it goes to the caseworkers that provide the service to the victim and the infrastructure to ensure that support mechanism is there for the victim. So I guess it goes to the victim - it depends on how you define it. But that's where the money is structured and what it covers.

 

MR. SAMSON: You might not be able to answer this, maybe your staff has a better idea but is that where the monies for victim impact always went, to pay for staff and not directly as payments to victims?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, when you say directly to victims, in order to get services and to ensure that their needs are met you have to have people that administer that. So that was set up, it's my understanding, to put those resources there and that's where I understand the dollars go. I remember from last year we answered that. (Interruption)

 

I've just been advised that a number of years ago there were actual award payments, I guess, to victims and we have a different process today.

 

MR. SAMSON: You're going to have to say that again. I don't know if your mic isn't close enough that I'm not hearing you, but I'm not picking up here on what you're saying.

 

MR. LANDRY: There is some grandfathering there, as well, for people that were getting money before, and we take that out of the Justice budget to pay them and not out of that fund. So there are people getting some monies but it comes from Justice, not the fund.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, can you get the breakdown of what specific funding is available to victims that you're saying is coming out of the Justice budget?

 

MR. LANDRY: We can get you that.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you also provide us with a breakdown - the $1.5 million, I'm assuming, pays for a significant amount of staff. How many staff people are being paid by that $1.5 million?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's about 20-some or so, but we'll get you the exact number.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, it's about 20 or so, and where are they located?

 

MR. LANDRY: It doesn't pay for the director or for that person's support staff, it doesn't pay for that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, if you want to try your other question as well there, you can restate that question.

 

MR. SAMSON: Sure. So you're saying that it doesn't cover the director of the program but it covers about 20 staff?

 

MR. LANDRY: Caseworkers.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, but these caseworkers don't provide counselling to victims directly. Instead, they are the ones who administer where the victim should go or be approved to get counselling or other services. Is that not correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: They coordinate it and manage that. They have four regional offices and three sub offices across the province.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. So when someone has to pay a victim impact surcharge it's going towards administration, not specifically to fund services for victims?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, that's not correct. If you have somebody who has been victimized, when you talk about service providers, you have to have people that make human contact with them, understand their needs, and then coordinate and help facilitate that and meet their needs. I would say that's a service provider directly to the client, and if that wasn't there the client wouldn't get connected to the services they need in an appropriate and timely manner.

 

MR. SAMSON: One of the issues that was raised - I know my colleague, the member for Halifax Clayton Park has raised this over the years - is the caps that were available under counselling. In this budget has there been any move to increase the cap on the amount of counselling that's available to victims?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, there hasn't been any change, but I also want to point out from answering this question several times before, if someone has a unique set of needs, that will be examined in its merits at that time. So to make a broad base that you want to increase the fees or increase that, it's meeting the demands and the expectation that the client is asking of us. If there are unique circumstances, I know our department, in consultation with others in the past, addressed those in its form.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering if you've kept some statistics as to how many victims would have exceeded what standards are available for counselling under the current limits that exist within the department.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm not aware of that but I guess we could find out that question as well.

 

MR. SAMSON: Right now, if you could run through again, what programs are available to victims of crime? I think you headed three or four programs you said.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, there's the Provincial Victim Services Program, the Criminal Injuries Counselling Program, the Victim Impact Statement Program, and the Child Victim/Witness Program. The different needs of a client that fall into the different elements that I just outlined will be provided there. Remember, this is not a cookie-cutter process where you have a uniform set of needs. Whatever the individual's requirements are, they'll be addressed so that they're tailored to that individual.

 

MR. SAMSON: Have there been any changes in the percentage of fines that the victim impact surcharge is based on?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, it stays the same.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering, is that an amount that's increasing, decreasing, year over year; where is it?

 

MR. LANDRY: Last year there was an increase but overall it has been steady and there's no increase this year.

 

MR. SAMSON: So it's still coming in at about $1.5 million on an annual basis?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: I wanted to talk about legal aid. If I'm not mistaken, from what I can see in the numbers, there has been a slight reduction in funding to legal aid. Is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's correct.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you explain exactly how much reduction has taken place to funding for legal aid?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm getting that for you. While I have legal aid, they did an excellent job of looking to restructure and to make some cuts with that. On legal aid, just another point on that issue - it's an important area to me. I've raised it with my federal counterparts and it's an area I'm trying to explore further with my federal colleague in regard to our needs here in Nova Scotia.

 

MR. SAMSON: Do you receive any funding from the federal government for legal aid, currently?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, there's about $180,000 taken out of the budget for this year.

 

MR. SAMSON: A reduction of $180,000. How are you going to achieve that reduction?

 

MR. LANDRY: The reduction will be realized by taking additional work in-house that is currently done by external lawyers. This additional work should be assumed into the regular workflow process without adding pressure, all things being equal, unless the demand increases, is the note I have here.

 

MR. SAMSON: I take it that means issuing less certificates?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not necessarily.

 

MR. SAMSON: Has there been any move on the cap for people who qualify for legal aid?

 

MR. LANDRY: At this time we haven't. As I say, that's a discussion that I would like to have with my federal counterparts. There are some areas in the country as a whole that legal aid needs to be addressed in a different format, not only in Nova Scotia. I'm continuing that dialogue with our federal counterparts, as well, to look at how we share in some of that responsibility.

 

MR. SAMSON: Currently, does the federal government play any role in the funding of legal aid in Nova Scotia?

 

MR. LANDRY: About $3.6 million and it has been pretty constant for a number of years.

 

MR. SAMSON: So $3.6 million of the budget comes from the federal government?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, and if I'm not mistaken, the total budget for the province is about $21.3 million. So I'm assuming the province is putting in about $17 million, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: That would be about correct, yes. I also just want to make a point here that I've had consultation with the executive director and I am aware of the issues or points concerning the certificates. We're aware of that.

 

MR. SAMSON: On that issue, has there been any increase in the certificates?

 

MR. LANDRY: No.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering, could you advise the last time there was an increase in the income cap for legal aid?

 

MR. LANDRY: It has been quite a few years but we can get you the exact year - it has been a number. Now, the executive director has some discretion depending on the case and has some flexibility, it's not as rigid.

 

MR. SAMSON: No, and I'll be the first to say that in the past I have had success in appealing to the executive director. Unfortunately, my most recent experience was not successful, but I'm sure the minister would be well aware that his government increased user fees last year - I think over 1,200 user fees - on the basis that you have to keep up with the cost of living for delivering service. So I'm sure the minister would appreciate that that same logic should apply to legal aid. By leaving the cap where it is and where it has been, I would say at least for the last five years, possibly longer, it's simply not reflective of the inflation rate, the cost of living increases that have taken place, which means fewer and fewer Nova Scotians are able to qualify, and for the most part legal aid has limited itself to criminal and family law matters.

 

More and more we're seeing cases of single mothers - we might as well call them working poor - being turned away from legal aid, trying to get child custody agreements in place, trying to get separation agreements in place, and they're being turned away. When you see a mother who works at a crab plant, that between her work and her employment makes barely over $22,000 or $23,000 a year, to be told that that's too much money for legal aid, there's something wrong with our system, and when she's trying to make ends meet, going to pay a lawyer is certainly not at the top of her priority. But the last thing we would want to do is see people who are in situations of abuse, in whichever form, who are not able to access this most important service.

 

The other thing - and I've raised it in the last number of years, and I've raised it with the deputy just recently with some correspondence - is that fewer and fewer lawyers are touching these legal aid certificates. They don't pay enough. They're not doing them. Some lawyers will try to do some pro bono work but these certificates are almost like the plague right now. When you have it, nobody wants it and that's a significant problem especially, I would submit - I don't know what the status is here in metro but I can tell you in the Strait area, almost no lawyer wants to touch these legal aid certificates anymore and it's making it that much more difficult.

 

So I raise that with the minister, I am disappointed to see that there has been a reduction in the overall funding because it would have been good to see an increase in the cap and an increase in the certificates, as well, but obviously that has not taken place.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'd like to say a few points in regard to what you just raised. I can't agree with you more, the fact that we need to do more in this area, and it's something that I've had a variety of conversations with a wide range of people. As early as this morning, I spoke with the federal Minister of Justice on that very point, on the issue of legal aid. So it's a dialogue that we're having, it has to be a partnership.

 

As you know, one of the unfortunate things in this province is the structural deficit that we have; the pressure is on all of us. It's easy to make a comment that you're neglecting this group, but it's a matter of where we're going to take the money and I'm trying to find creative ways in which to expand that. Will it be able to get the province back to balance and live within our means? It's a wide range and I don't want to saddle it down to any one group; it affects all of us. One of the biggest restrictions in this province to being able to provide the services we'd like is that we need to get our financial house in order.

 

I'm wondering, how much more time do we have? I was looking to take a quick five-minute break.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: With this caucus we have until 4:33 p.m.

 

MR. LANDRY: Would you mind if we took a five-minute break?

 

MR. SAMSON: Go ahead.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We usually wait until the time is concluded but with the agreement, we'll take a five-minute break now.

 

[4:16 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[4:20 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the subcommittee back to order. The time is 4:20 p.m. and the amount of time remaining for the Liberal caucus is 16 minutes.

 

The honourable member for Richmond has the floor.

 

MR. SAMSON: Thank you. I'm just curious - just wrapping up on legal aid - have you received correspondence either from the Bar Society or from Nova Scotians expressing concern over lack of access to legal aid, problems with the certificates? Is that something that has been brought to your department's attention or is that not something that you have been made aware of?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm aware of the concerns. In fact, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Canadian Bar Association, to talk about some issues that are happening across the country. I recently met with the Nova Scotia representatives and that was pointed out, and we have staff working within the community in regard to this issue. We know that it's a pressure point, and as I said, it's an important issue for me. It was important enough this morning that I had limited time with the federal minister and that was one of the two points that I wanted to raise with him today. I had a moment with him in regard to that.

 

Before I finish this answer I just want to point out on the policy dealing with public prosecutions and communication, that policy is on-line and you can get it off the Web site, so that information is available there. But we can also get you information if you need additional information.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, we'll certainly check that out. I wanted to go back to the one pager you provided us with last year regarding the reductions - I believe it was $5.3 million that was going to be cut from your budget. I'm wondering if you can advise, was that achieved in the last fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, we did that through a lot of vacancies and part of that was in the HYAC program, the youth program in Halifax, and other areas where we had some vacant positions.

 

MR. SAMSON: I note that the plan was to reduce 26 full-time equivalent positions, could you advise if that was achieved?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes it was, and we're very proud of our record this year.

 

MR. SAMSON: I noticed that last year under legal aid the reduction and funding was $553,000. The $180,000 reduction this year, that's on top of the $553,000 you reduced last year, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's correct.

 

MR. SAMSON: Last year we had a bit of a discussion over reducing grants to discretionary, crime prevention and restorative justice of $475,000. We did have some correspondence from the deputy minister afterwards which indicated where some of those cuts were going to take place. But the last correspondence indicated, I think, there was about $250,000 or $225,000 that the cuts had not been identified. I'm wondering if you could provide us now with where that money was specifically saved from last year.

 

MR. LANDRY: Some of that money has been restored, from my understanding, and some we're putting back into the Law Reform Commission.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, but I guess on that question specifically there was $250,000 of cuts not identified under that specific line item of reduced grants and we were told that there would be information coming afterwards. I'm just curious, where at the end - can you give us a breakdown, now that the year is over, where specifically you save the $475,000 under reduction of those grants?

 

MR. LANDRY: On the $250,000, $185,000 was in the Law Reform Commission, which we have since reinstated.

 

MR. SAMSON: All right, so help me out here. You're saying you reduced $185,000 last year to the Law Reform Commission?

 

MR. LANDRY: It was part of the $475,000 and we gave it out, so that takes you down to about $290,000.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so that's $185,000. What else makes up the $475,000?

 

MR. LANDRY: There were a number of one-time grants that occurred and, I think, remember on the floor of the House we had a number of debates where it was alluded to that we slashed and burned crime prevention, but these were one-time grants and we just didn't renew them. One-time grants mean either they're one time or they're short term, and then we look at other areas in which to invest our dollars - taxpayers' dollars, just to be clear, when I talk about "our dollars."

 

MR. SAMSON: How much money did you save from those one-time grants not being renewed?

 

MR. LANDRY: About $312,000, and just for clarity on that money, it was for specific pilot projects that had come to completion. We cut nothing out, absolutely nothing; we just didn't renew projects that had an end date to them in that regard. So we met our requirements, and if I remember correctly, we invested heavier in the Lighthouses Program and put it where we felt the money was working smarter. As I said earlier in my statement, about 12,000 youth got the benefit of that Lighthouses Program, youth at risk and youth in need, so this government is spending money smarter - not that other programs didn't have a value but you can't be doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You have to try new things and let other people have opportunities to get access to that funding.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise, with that $312,000 that you didn't renew - what you refer to as one-time grants - which specific initiatives were funded in light of that money, or were there none and that just went as a savings for the fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, it's not necessarily a savings because the money wasn't there for it. If it was a one-time grant, it had a termination date. So from an accounting or an accruing perspective, we didn't put additional monies back into that program. It had a lifespan, it had a budget line, and it came to its conclusion.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, you do realize the sheet that you gave us has the figure of $475,000 as a reduction in your budget, that's what I'm taking that from, so it was actually a cut from funding that previously in the Department of Justice. I'm just curious, overall last year you had a funding reduction of $5.3 million, what is your funding reduction in the Department of Justice for this fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: In the neighbourhood of $1.1 million to $1.2 million, plus or minus a buck.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, and could you just give us a quick rundown? I think you mentioned that we've got the $180,000 cut to legal aid. You indicated that you're going to reduce 70 positions. You said that's over three years. So for this fiscal year, what do you expect to save from that?

 

MR. LANDRY: About 36 positions being eliminated this year.

 

MR. SAMSON: How much do you expect that's going to save?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, it will be over $3 million for sure, $3.5 million.

 

MR. SAMSON: You will save over $3 million?

 

MR. LANDRY: About $3.5 million, I would think. (Interruption) Oh, about $2.5 million - they're paid less than I thought. Okay, $2.5 million.

 

MR. SAMSON: So if your overall budget has only been cut by $1.1 million or $1.2 million, where is that money going to be reinvested?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, as we develop our budget and we look at our needs and the pressures, whether we get requests from different communities for different expectations and needs, I suspect the money will go in there. One of the things I'm very proud to say that this government has implemented, is that we no longer have the year-end madness, March madness. If there are surpluses, if we don't manage the money appropriately, we're held accountable by Treasury Board; if we have surpluses and we can reinvest it back into dealing with the overall government, we're happy to do that.

 

One of the things as a Justice Department that we're looking at is taking down the stovepipe and working with Community Services, Education, and Health and Wellness. No longer do I think governments of today or into the future should be taking dollars and saying they're just to be gated with the Justice Department, for example. We have to look at creative ways to reduce costs but at the same time maximize efficiencies - work in partnership with other areas and other departments, and we're looking at that.

 

From a crime prevention perspective, for example, I think it's important that if there are initiatives within Community Services that we could do to reduce crime - for example, in Education we use Cape Breton where we have supported some initiatives within the school systems there, and whatever we can do to restructure it or re-channel dollars, we're going to look to do that.

 

So to say specifically where it's labelled right now, we're looking to reduce costs, but at the same time be able to shift money because there's no new money, it's a matter of reallocating. I think it's a critical thing to keep in mind that as a government we establish new priorities in one area, but we have to look at ways to work collaboratively together and in partnership to shift those monies so that money could go anywhere in regard to that overall objective.

 

MR. SAMSON: On the revenue side, I'm wondering, are you projecting any increases on the revenue side for your department?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not really, no, we're pretty fixed and it's proportional. I suspect some revenues will go up if certain things occur in society but we're not increasing the rates, so it all depends on the numbers.

 

Okay, there is one area where there might be some recoveries but as you noted earlier in my speech, I'm sure you caught that one where we said that additional costs with the new RCMP contract, there are some pressures there. There will be some clawback by the municipalities in their payment requirements in regard to that service, so there will be an adjustment in regard to that, but that's actually money owed for a service that they're responsible for and we'll get that money back.

 

MR. SAMSON: So they will be paying you more money for that service, which you're saying the new contract was . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: When you frame it in the terms of more money, they will be paying us more money from a technical perspective. It's an increase in dollars but it's for a service that we provide that they're required to cover the cost. So there are additional costs as a result of the contract, which they're well aware of, and know that that bill is coming.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, with the recent increase that took place in the fine structure for motor vehicle infractions, I'm wondering if you could tell us what you're seeing overall. Is that money coming to Justice or is that going somewhere else?

 

MR. LANDRY: It goes to the consolidated fund for the overall government and . . .

 

MR. SAMSON: So it's not specifically designated over to . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: No, but we become aware of what those numbers are and what the impact is and when we do requests, like for example, when you look at the Additional Officer Program - and we went to the Treasury Board - one of the key things we put in, which I'm very excited about actually, is the crime analysts that are put in. When we look at the figure, when you say that 15 per cent to 19 per cent of the population commit 58 per cent of the crime, when you want to work smarter, it's a matter of saying, how do you do that?

 

The crime analyst positions will allow the police services to target in on who is committing that crime and try to reduce it. That's working smarter with the tax dollars that they're given, and the efficiencies are improved there because you're targeting those that are committing the crime and making those resources. So by putting those analysts in there, we're helping the police departments be more efficient: look at where they're resourcing, improve their staffing levels, know when to have peak resources, what the crime patterns are in the area, and how to better target those needs.

 

MR. SAMSON: Just on the issue of the Emergency Management Office, one issue that has been raised in my area is the lack of cellphone service in certain communities. Apparently in these areas when there's a power outage, it affects their LAN lines and due to the fact there's no cellphone service, in essence, they have no means of communication. In speaking with the RCMP, apparently even their radios have a hard time working in some of these more remote areas.

 

What role is EMO playing in the encouragement, I guess, or trying to ensure that there is cell service in these areas, especially from an emergency perspective?

 

MR. LANDRY: EMO is not responsible for the delivery of that service. That's private industry that is providing that and, of course, you know the full gamut of trying to get Internet and cell service everywhere in the province. It's a matter of putting in the appropriate towers. I know that we're in discussion with police and how to improve their communication systems, it's a very expensive retooling of policing, and that's a huge bill for the police service; for the general public, that's an ongoing process. I know in the area that I live in recently one company has put up a tower, in a couple of other areas they put them up, so the cell is improving in that aspect. We're in dialogue with private companies that provide that service, and we're aware and concerned about that from a safety perspective.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the time frame for the Liberal caucus for questioning. We will now turn it over to the Progressive Conservative caucus for one hour.

 

The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister and staff. My first question - we heard in the Throne Speech about decentralization of government. Are there any plans in this budget, in the Department of Justice - and I recognize there is a lot of decentralization already. There are facilities right across the province, but are there plans to further decentralize the department?

 

MR. LANDRY: When you say that, do you mean the Department of Justice or aspects of the services that we provide?

 

MR. MACMASTER: The whole Department of Justice, is there a plan for any decentralization of any of the positions that would be currently located in Halifax to other parts of the province?

 

MR. LANDRY: We're always looking at ways on how to improve service and to help stimulate growth within the rural area and ensure the services are provided. We're very fortunate that we're one of those departments that is in almost every community. We have representatives across the province that provide service either as prosecutors, the policing, so our department really touches base there. Administratively we're looking at some options as to how we can provide better quality service to improve areas of responsibility, and I'm hoping in the near future that we can come up with a plan that meets the needs of the rural community, enhances the quality of the service line that provide and reduces costs. So, yes, we're committed and I'm hoping within the year that we have such an initiative coming forward.

 

MR. MACMASTER: My next question, minister - we've seen the elimination of the long-gun registry - is there a plan to introduce a provincial registry to replace it?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm going to go on the record here - especially coming from the Progressive Conservative caucus, there is absolutely no plan. This province cannot afford that. I am highly, highly, highly, highly, highly dissatisfied that the government restricted that information, cancelled that. As a police officer and as a commander, my officers that worked with me, and for me, depended on that service. So I am extremely disappointed and it's unfortunate that we do not have the financial means in which to have that database. Have I made myself clear?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, you have. I guess, minister, a lot of the people that own these long guns, you still need a firearms licence, which I think is federally regulated, you need two character references, and you need to complete a safety course. Police can still check to see if a homeowner is a licensed firearms owner. So is there not still means for police to review those records and is there not still many measures in place to ensure that people who are getting those kinds of guns have training and that they have a reputation that's favourable to own such a . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: We have a medical card, we have a driver's licence, we go to the video shop and get a card, and we register our vehicles. I just find the whole discussion and debate around this is kind of moot and fruitless in the sense that as a police officer, in my mind, a mistake was made. I think to say that the police officer is going to have access to - we know the system didn't work. Now, I don't necessarily agree with how this long-gun registry came about and the politics behind that. But the fact that such a wealth of intelligence, if we're to be intelligence-led policing - and when I talk about intelligence-led policing, the police have to have critical data in a timely manner that deal with the circumstances that are happening now. It's instantaneous that they need them with the systems that we have in place - it was a valuable tool.

 

We can make arguments and try to justify it in whatever means we would like and say that we have these steps, and I'm glad, but the majority of people that take these are very law-abiding citizens - this isn't about law-abiding citizens and that whole argument on the rural population and where that vote lies on this issue. It goes to the fact that many homes - I think there has been an increase in break and enters; people know that someone has guns and will get access to them. The authority for police to go in and secure the weapons is weakened because of this change. The whole system has had a negative effect, I think, because we've already spent the money on that. But I understand the politics of how that came about and why that got cancelled. It's just something I feel passionate about.

 

Recently the incidents in Mayerthorpe and so on, as a former police officer - and I don't think I'm the exception to the rule - it traumatized police officers, it traumatized them right across the country. There wasn't short guns used there, they were long guns. It was a very premeditated action and very calculated. It would be nice to know who has guns in certain areas. When you go to do the follow-up investigations, God forbid that there should ever be another incident of that nature done again, and the intelligence on how to gather and get access to the weapons and where they might be would be valuable. So as a police officer, I just think politically I can understand why it was done and the motives behind it, I just morally and ethically think it was wrong.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, I appreciate your position, minister, and I guess it's good that we both have it on the record that we have different positions on that. I think what we saw with the registry that a lot of people have to register guns and we saw a lot of other people who never register guns, who are most likely the ones who are committing those crimes. When you think about if a 25-year penalty for murder doesn't deter people, why would registering their gun deter them from committing crime?

 

The other thing I think about, too, is for police officers to be relying on a system that's supposedly collecting information, but there's no real measure whether or not all the information is collected. I think there are a lot of risks in a system like that as well.

 

I would like to ask about something else that's somewhat related. I know a gentleman who actually trains police officers on the use of guns, and I know some responsible owners like to use body armour at gun ranges as an added safety measure. Could we not have a permit system - to be a gun owner you need a permit, so why not have a similar system for body armour for those people?

 

MR. LANDRY: Boy, you're making my argument easy, thank you. First off, guns never registered - if a police does a check and an arrest is made immediately for the unlawful use of the weapons and the crimes that are committed there around that allows them to conduct certain investigations, to get extended warrants, people that they believe are criminal, it also allows for data intelligence. The fact that 25 years doesn't deter from committing a crime, well, it deters me. I don't want to be jailed for 25 years, so I'm not sure what that's based on.

 

It's just like the argument of capital punishment: some think that's a good thing. I'm firmly against it, there's absolutely no question in my mind that it does nothing to further in a democratic society and if one is of a particular religious belief or Christian belief, as I believe in personally, it has no value in our society if there is sanctioned capital punishment. So on that structure and the 25 years, I understand somebody goes to jail for 25 years, if they are deemed to be a continual threat to society, the likelihood of them getting released is slim to none. It does happen, but at the same time, that's the justice we have, that if somebody gets rehabilitated, we have there.

 

The police rely on that intelligence. It's good to know intelligence, it's good to know information and if it wasn't accurate, how could we make the system better?

 

On the issue of body armour and to get permits, once again, we start apples and oranges. I mean to have the guns registered is just as important as the body armour. If you're saying that someone is at a gun range and could be wearing body armour, I have no disagreement with that. That's not a bad idea to have that there. But then who takes responsibility at that place if something goes wrong, who is accountable?

 

I fired a gun for 35 years every year. Year in, year out, I had to use a weapon and I hope to never touch another one for the rest of my life. I have no use for guns personally, but I do respect the fact that many see it as a comfort in their life of going to a range and having body armour there. I don't disagree with that in that sense, because it's a safety perspective. However, I do know that criminals are getting body armour; they're using it and they're furthering their objectives in believing they have safety. It actually escalates the potential for violence and harm in our society. So I believe, when we introduced the legislation with regard to that, it was a positive step for the health and well-being and safety of our Nova Scotia families.

 

MR. MACMASTER: My next question is also on body armour and this may be the case, but if a police officer is a member of a gun club, can they use their body armour at the shooting range for improved safety?

 

MR. LANDRY: A police officer is registered to carry a gun at any time and a police officer carrying a gun - if they're acting in that capacity or seen in that capacity in any manner, they should have their body armour on. I know when I was a policing commander, I ensured that my officers - in fact, I remember one day a senior officer said to me that he doesn't like wearing it, he's not going to wear it, so I told him he can go home for the rest of the day, then we'll talk about it later and he can have time to reflect on it. When he came back a little while later he said he reflected on it and put on his body armour. There's no negotiation. If the police officer has a gun, I encourage them to have their body armour.

 

I'm not making the comparison to someone else who carries a gun to a gun range. Most people in the communities, especially in the rural communities, know who the police officers are and they have a gun; they're going to have to act if there's something going on. If I go to shoot, I have my body armour on. I'm not messing with it; I'm coming home tonight. That's my attitude.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Just for the record, I myself don't use guns. I shot one once on a range. It was a pistol and I didn't really enjoy it. I guess the reason I'm asking these questions is because I know there are people out there who are good, law-abiding citizens and they found the gun registry to be very intrusive on their lives and it caused them great frustration. I think anybody who is a law-abiding citizen who is made to feel like they've done something wrong, which was a by-product - whether it was intended or not - of the gun registry, that has its costs, too, to society.

 

One last question on the body armour - and I'm getting the sense that your position on it is that it's too risky to allow anybody other than law enforcement to have access to body armour. I know in British Columbia, I believe there's legislation - I think it's an amendment to the Possession and Acquisition Licence. So if the government trusts you to own a firearm, it also trusts people to have the ability to own a piece of body armour - say, it's for safety on a gun range, for instance. Have you considered that as an option?

 

MR. LANDRY: What as an option - that if people have a registered gun . . .

 

MR. MACMASTER: If the government trusts a person to register and own a firearm with all the requirements - the character references, the safety training course - could the government also trust people to have a piece of body armour for the sake of safety, if it's given by way of a permit?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm going to take some time to talk about how I feel and how I think on these issues. First off, guns do one thing and one thing only: they're designed to kill. Now, I respect the fact that there are some people who like to do target shooting. Even in the Olympics it has an historical relationship, and I respect it in that context. So maybe there are two things - the gun is designed to kill and whether it's an artificial target, the goal is to destroy the target, no matter how you frame that.

 

"Law abiding citizens" has been a political term used very freely - I'll come out and say it - our federal colleagues have done a great job in playing that terminology and using it as a fear or scare tactic or as a political gain. Everybody has their tactics, I guess, in getting elected. I find it distasteful that it's used in that manner and that people see it in that, but that's my view and I'm giving my personal view, and not necessarily the view of the government or the Party I represent.

 

Saying that law-abiding citizens use guns - well, one of the major problems with the guns and why the gun registry was such a critical element, and the fact that we spent billions on it and had that data there, is that when there was a crime it gave us a routing for an investigator to follow and track the origins of that gun and where it's from, provided it was legal at some point. All guns are legal at some point, the majority - and some are handmade, which is different - but if they're a brand name. Then to say to someone that we have to have proper storage - taking away the registration is going to take down the adequate storage and control of these weapons. To say that people are law-abiding - and 99.9 per cent of the population are respectful, law-abiding citizens that we serve and I serve directly, and have responsibility for their safety.

 

When you throw the ingredient or start to have the dialogue or the debate in regard to having body armour and say they should carry that, is just opening another avenue for criminals to exploit a system that has already been permeated to an extent that there's not just a gate open; there's just no stopping the flow. So we do not want people to have body armour. There is a process within the regulations for people who have a specific need. For example, if you're working in a particular security area and the place has been designated to be a risk of a certain nature, that officer could be wearing body armour. There are other areas that if somebody was serving in some particular area that their life was at risk, then an application could be made for body armour.

 

Also, one of the things with body armour that's critical to know is that it has a shelf life or a lifespan to meet the safety requirements, so it has to be renewed every so many years. However, to a criminal, that still could provide confidence, some added steps there. So my answer to that is I don't want more body armour in society. We don't need body armour in society. People shouldn't have guns out in the street. They do have them, but we don't want to be giving people false belief. That's one of the reasons, for example, we're going to do the CeaseFire thing with the Chicago group, to talk about their society, which has an ingrained history of gun violence and abuse, and how they went from a societal perspective into individual communities and worked with the citizens on how to improve safety, and they come up with the formula and methodology that helps make it safer.

 

We need to be looking at ways to reduce guns in our society because, remember, they only serve one real purpose: to kill. So why have them? Now, if you're a hunter, it serves the purpose and goal in which you're doing it, if you're trained properly. I know there are many dads out there - and I'll gender-ize it for a moment - that may want to take their sons or daughters, but I know historically it has been predominately male. Many women have used guns to go hunting, but traditionally it's more dominant within the male structure. There's a bonding.

 

I know many of my friends, when I was playing in the men's rec league, you just knew during hunting season they weren't showing up for the game, because they were going hunting and there was nothing on this earth that was going to disturb that. I'm not so sure if it was the hunting or the beer drinking. There was a combination there - I'm sure they did some hunting. Anyway, that was that time and that history. I don't think the two really work together. So when we talk about responsible citizens - and I like to think some of my friends were responsible, but their logic of mixing alcohol and guns just doesn't make sense to me.

From a political aspect - and one Party, especially on a national basis, marketed that really well. I find that distasteful and I find that people who look at alcohol and guns in the same form and that whole philosophy and principle, and we're - rah-rah-rah - protecting the farmer and all this here - and I know from working in policing in the rural areas in Manitoba and being in other parts of Canada, guns are survival. I wouldn't take my patrol car out of the detachment - I wouldn't go 10 miles without packing the 308, the shotgun, because I didn't know whether I was coming home that night or the next night, depending on what was going to happen, and you had to have your survival kit and your equipment there and be very prepared to use them. Sometimes you'd come across wild animals out in the rural areas and you have to deal with that element. But on the tradition of society having access to guns, to drinking - mixing the two - I just think we need a shift.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I certainly wouldn't like to see body armour just floating about at random out in the public either, I certainly understand. I guess the source of my question was more so for the enthusiast at a gun range. I know you said that the gun registry was ridded for political reasons; one could also say it was started for political reasons.

 

MR. LANDRY: Absolutely, there was absolutely no question . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister.

 

MR. LANDRY: Sorry, I thought you were - can I answer that?

 

MR. MACMASTER: No. I just wanted to make that point, and you and I can talk about it all day, but there are all kinds of people out there who feel either way about it. I don't think there's anything that you and I can do today that's going to change anything with respect to it federally.

 

I'm going to move on from that. I have had a chance, in my duties as critic, to meet with a number of police officers. One of the issues we talked about was mental health. Oftentimes, especially after 5:00 p.m., or 4:30 p.m. on a weekday, when a lot of the other services of government are no longer available, police officers are counted upon to support people. Oftentimes they're coming across individuals who may have mental health issues. What are we doing in the justice system, within the context of the budget this year, to train people, to help them deal and work with people when they come into contact with people who have mental health issues?

 

MR. LANDRY: Before I answer that I just want to go back to gun-range safety that you mentioned last time. The rules of the gun range is that - I would prefer that people have a vest on if they're on a certified gun range and following the gun-range protocols, a person is safe on the range anyway. However, I just wanted to point that out.

 

Mental health is an area that I have some passion for and some interest in and I know when I came into office, we had the Hyde issue that was there. I just want to say for the staff, if any of them are here that actually worked on that, I want to just talk about their proactive action as to what was happening with Hyde; they weren't waiting for the final report to come out before they started taking steps.

 

I want to talk about their vision and their passion within the department. It was really enriching to have conversations in regard to some injustice that has gone on. The Hyde report outlines a number of steps, and the great thing about the Hyde report is it gives us a good blueprint and our department has been committed to that.

 

As a police officer I know the very issue that you're raising and one of the steps that I hope to achieve by being in this job, so long as I hold it - and with any luck I'll be here next year and the year after, but if not, I hope that some of the initiatives that we get moved forward will be accomplished.

 

Mental health - as I said, as a police officer, my officers used to come back and complain about the services at the hospital. I know that our department is having extensive dialogue with health services - this is not just the police, this is a health issue. It's a matter of working with health services and putting the appropriate resources in place to meet the needs of having proper facilities, and that requires good consultation between the different health authorities around the province and trying to get a good, clear vision about the impact and working with the police and the community. I meet with the chiefs; this is an issue that comes up. It's not something that we can just snap our fingers, nor should we just throw money at it to deal with that, as I mentioned to the member from the Liberal caucus.

 

We have to be governments of today and governments of tomorrow that look at how we spend taxpayer monies. I notice there's a comment today in the House where we said they had balanced budgets when something went up 17 per cent, making the assumption that because you can balance your budget by allowing something to go up 17 per cent, is good fiscal management. I don't want to be too critical of any individual or any particular Party; I just want to talk about the principles and philosophies of how we have to manage tax dollars.

 

I keep going back to the words of Minister Steele, your good friend - I know that you have a good relationship with him in regard to questions and it's part of the nature, so I mean that with respect. His point though - and I think it's profound in the sense that there's no new money - if this is a priority, then what are we taking away? He's not saying not to put the money there to do that. I would like to see changes in this Chamber and in this House to say that this is an issue that we need to work collectively on and I'm going to put it out to you, as a friend and colleague, that less work to improve this very issue - because this is an important issue that you raise and I'm very glad that you raised it. I know that you're speaking in regard to contact with some police officers, and I always welcome when you do that and bring those views forward because they're critical.

 

Especially a front-line police officer - and I have the pleasure of meeting with the management regularly and hearing how the front-line officer feels or how it's traumatizing, their ability to provide that. I'm very proud of my history in policing and being involved in that, but I'm equally proud to have the opportunity to try to make a difference in the way that police officers are able to do their jobs, but also to extend our partnerships within the health community. Mental health is as much about illness and from that illness there are times that actions occur that are criminal in behaviours - not necessarily in its intent, but the actions to the broader community are seen to be criminal - but when you deal with it from a mental health perspective, we have to look at it and deal with things from that perspective.

 

I'm very pleased with my department's work with regard to Hyde and if you do talk to some staff that have worked on that, I would appreciate you giving them an extended "thank you" because they have done outstanding work.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know there was a mental health strategy that was released just a few days back and great respect for some of the people - well, all of the people, but when I say "some" I mean the ones I know a little bit. This is not really a question, I guess, it was just my first reaction. I think there were 61 recommendations and I thought that is a daunting task to have 61 different recommendations. Perhaps 61 things need to change or need to be initiated, but I'm always amazed in government how things become so complicated. I wonder how we can get things done when they are so complicated. I just make that as a comment, I'm not intending to be critical.

 

I know that you're busy in your position as minister, I'm sure it would be a lot easier if there were a smaller amount of recommendations that were maybe - I guess maybe when it gets to your level, it becomes a smaller amount of recommendations and there are other people who look after the individual 61 of them.

 

I guess my interest in asking this question was recognizing that we've seen situations where people who are mentally ill, things may have escalated beyond what they should have. Maybe it's because people need more training. I know that you raise a good point, you can't just throw money at everything, so that was the intention of the question, anyway. I don't know if you have comments, but I'm comfortable to move along with - sure.

 

MR. LANDRY: I do have some comments and I'm enjoying our discussion, just so you know, and I appreciate the spirit of what you're asking and I'm very thankful for this dialogue.

 

I took the position when I came into this job that I'm not here to defend the status quo, unless there's a valid reason why I should. When you look at corrections, there are some areas that occurred there, and if we need to change something or improve it then let's do that, let's look at the issues. When I see the 61 brand-new recommendations that come under Minister MacDonald's area, I understand your point, it's overwhelming.

 

I'll give a story that Peter MacKay shared today in a dialogue we had on the announcement this morning on Victim Services. He was telling a story of a young fellow who was on the beach and as this couple were walking toward him they saw him throwing starfish back into the water; the tide had gone out, the sun was beating down and there were hundreds of them, thousands of them. As they got closer, he frantically continued to throw them out. When the couple got to him they said, you surely can't save all these starfish, are you really going to make a difference throwing them back in? As he picked one up and threw it in he said, I just made a difference for that one.

 

The connection that I'm making here is, when I have 61 recommendations - and remember I talked earlier about having passion about mental illness and about the quality of our families in our lives. People think that mental illness is excluded of anyone's family. If you have three or four or more in your family, there's some mental illness throughout your life in the connections; if there are 10 in connection with your family, it affects you. If it doesn't affect your immediate family, it affects the community which affects you in that sense. If we're able as a department, as a government, if I'm able as a minister to say, which one of these can we work in a collaborative manner to address, it's just one starfish at a time. I'll have to tell Mr. MacKay that I used this, of course, in the questions. Anyway, at least I gave him credit for his story, not that I plagiarized it.

 

MR. MACMASTER: It's good to see sometimes, I guess, we're on the same page. The next question I have - and because of your previous career, maybe you can relate to this - one of the other things I've heard is that police are spending a lot of time with paperwork and in court. I understand there's a reason for that, because the justice system requires that stuff to be completed so that a case can take shape and come before a judge and whatnot. Is the department looking at any way within policing or within the justice system that would minimize the amount of time that police officers need to be spending on paperwork so that they can focus more on policing? Whether it's providing resources that may be saving on the police side that might be added to the administrative side, whether it might be - that's just one example. I'll let you comment.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm going to reiterate that I'm very pleased to be having this dialogue. I might say this a dozen times more - my wife sometimes says to me, you keep repeating that - but I just want to share my excitement and passion that you're asking, I think, very pragmatic, very sound questions that are very real in our society today.

 

In the police work, the paperwork, I've been out of policing just over three years, in direct policing, and I'm in a role that I have responsibility - and I'm very excited for that, very honoured to be in this role. The police work from when I remember getting in a patrol car, being out in Manitoba, in Interlake, I would get nine kilometres out of town and I had no radio communications. On a good night we would skip to the Northwest Territories, we would flip it back to Dauphin, but you had no communication, you were on your own. You would come back to the detachment if you had an arrest or whatever and you typed by hand on the typewriters, and if you made a mistake you had to do it over or you had some White-Out or whatever.

 

Today that data and information - and we had the pleasure to talk here and one of the reasons I believe in going electronic disclosure and the e-ticketing that we have in getting that data into the machine immediately and being intelligence led, is it requires a different set of skills. We have an employee or a police officer coming forward today who is very technologically savvy, so we have to be very active in that.

 

We recently did an announcement in Pictou when we signed the 20-year contract - once again, Mr. MacKay was there with us as well - on the live scan where we now do fingerprinting. When I start looking at some of this technology - and I'm going to come back to your question on the written reports and the courts, this answer is complex - and you look at the fingerprints and you can reduce several weeks to the matter of a couple of days, the data that goes in there, you can print someone immediately and they can be checked down the road a little while later and they can be printed on something, and all of a sudden the two are going to marry up. On the patrol car, doing the electronic ticket and someone gets checked down the road - the data is already there, so we're improving this.

 

When I think back as a young officer, we used to have reports called C237s and we seemed to be doing them for everything. It was a major report and I don't think the young officers today really recognize the amount of writing we used to do and note-taking and major reports for everything. The system actually has a lot of efficiencies. I think for some of the officers, they're not used to doing the writing in the sense of what has to be put in.

 

You can type them in, too, and that's a better system because spellcheck is there for some of us. It requires the texting and short, slurred comments, or the "lol" - I learned what that meant. I gave a speech once and it was used in Lady Gaga and I talked and put in "lol" and everybody laughed out loud at the way that line went. I said I originally thought that meant lots of love. Anyway, it's a matter of interpretation so you have to spell it out. Some of the officers today are complaining because they have to reorient that there's a traditional base of recording information and it's not their slang or youthful relationships and communications, so it's more intense. That's a skill that some of them have lost.

 

There is, though, in policing and in the courts - I am disturbed to some degree to how the courts have progressed with something as simple as an impaired driver that an officer can't get - I remember one night getting four people in a shift for impaired driving. I mean, they're easy to pick but they were there. But for an officer to do that today, with the paperwork it's just physically impossible and we have to change that. One of the things that I've pushed on and what I want the court to move a little quicker on, I want Public Prosecution to be a little bit more progressive with regard to electronic disclosure. But in respect to the courts and the Public Prosecution, there are a number of stakeholders and processes involved. We're also communicating with the court itself, with the judges on the technology and trying to bring people in.

 

There's a bit of a cultural lag in the sense that the technology has advanced the culture, so we have to enculturate society to get up with the technology and interface that, so I see some great opportunities here. Under the Charter in British Columbia, for example, under impaired driving, they were trying some different ways to redefine what an impaired driver is under the Highway Traffic Act versus the Criminal Code. We're looking at that method and that process within the courts.

 

At the same time we have a Charter. Now, I don't want any confusion because I just recently watched some politicians, especially in the federal arena, not giving the Charter, which I firmly believe in - it's a fundamental security blanket for our society. It is one of the most enriching things about being a Canadian that we have. It enhances the fabric of our culture that we like to be: a caring, loving, sharing society that respects the most vulnerable and ensures that there are systems in place to protect that.

 

We have to balance the Charter interest in that. I'm not satisfied that in some circles within the legal profession - I think we have to change our attitudes and our philosophy about what it means to defend the client at all costs. If we're driving the costs of the system and there is no more money - the system can't spend more money it doesn't have to do justice, so we have to be smarter in how we do it. So when we say we're going to defend our client and have delays or judge-shop - all these rumours or stories that you hear, if they're true - we need to get rid of those types of behaviours and look at what we need, which is an efficient system so that the client can get a timely hearing and get the support mechanisms and treatment.

 

I had a reporter today say to me in one of the scrums that I did after the presentation we had in the announcement this morning in Victim Services, and was talking about young people and was using the word "punishment". I just wanted to grab hold of him for a second and give him a little nudge - not a hard one, but just a little shake - and say, I've got to just re-shape that. You know the little Etch A Sketch we used to have where you could change the screen? I used words to do it. I said, I would like to re-frame the question and the dialogue that we're having from punishment to accountability, and mentoring and caring, and trying to find ways to look beyond the crime to the individuals, and then try to put in place steps so that we don't have a repetitive - if we have a culture or a community that looks for a pound of flesh, especially when we're talking about young people, that disturbs me.

 

I'm also on record, make no question, I think some people need to go to jail and never get out - there are some people who need that. The majority, 99 per cent of them, are getting out and should get out. We need to have processes and a compassionate system that allows them to have opportunities to change. I remember an old saying, walk a mile in someone's shoes to understand where they're coming from and that whole principle. I know that there are some people who say, just lock them up and we're going to solve the problem. Locking people up, all it does is cost you and me more money and it creates more bitterness in society and creates more harm. That's not saying that some people need to go to jail as an accountability mechanism and that's not a bad place for them.

 

I had the pleasure the other day - I meet a different variety of people and a young fellow was talking about his experience in jail, how he went to jail and it helped him understand his addictions and how he got to be addicted to the level he was and the road that he was on. He was able to say now I'm able to change my path, and I hope that that's true. What was enriching from that was that for that individual, incarceration was a benefit and it will hopefully enrich society because that person will become a productive, caring person within our society.

 

What does this all have to do with the paperwork? It's a complex matter. Some people need to go to jail and we need to have the hearings, but I also think that there's all the mechanisms - this isn't just about a government being in power and saying what are you doing about it, this is about you as Opposition, what are we going to do together? This is about the prosecution section and what are we going to do, what's the defence bar going to do, what's the Canadian Bar Association going to do?

 

I had the greatest pleasure the other day to have lunch with an executive and talk about working together in a collaborative manner, looking at putting legislation forward and looking at different ways of restructuring the judicial approach to issues, to have open dialogue. I think we need to have some very clear, frank discussions from a broad range, whether they're within forums that judges can express their views and knowledge - they have a wealth of knowledge and experience, especially when retired judges come in and we use them for different functions to give us advice and direction. There are lawyers that have those experiences and can say how we can improve the system and make it better. At the same time the citizen wants to know that they're safe.

 

Anytime we hear of gun violence in the community it's disturbing. We recently had a murder and there were some allegations of homophobia, and that's disturbing. I think out of the sadness, pain and suffering when that incident occurred, some good, constructive discussions will come about diversity in our society, about people being able to be free and be who they are and to be loved and cared for. At the same time, people who have illness and are not well, how we are caring or loving to them so that they can find ways to be reintegrated back into society, and not stigmatized or channelled and just looked at as a non-valued entity and we're just going to say they need to be locked up.

 

I had one reporter who disturbed me to no end in the discussion in the scrum out there: why don't we just put shackles on them and put them out there? I know the person probably regrets making that statement, but I didn't let it go. I happened to say, what's the difference of having a broken arm or somebody with cancer? We care for them, we know that they need to heal and they need support, and mental illness is the same way.

 

The court processes - and that's why I'm very excited about having the Domestic Violence Court and how violence in our society ties into the drugs, the mental illness, to help reduce the paperwork for police officers so that they're not going to court and having to do major reports, because the person is getting support. I'm trying to push for a drug court. People think that individuals do drugs - and I don't have a lot of sympathy for drugs, I've had a lifetime in that, but I understand the principles behind addiction and how someone is sick and needs help. That affects every one of us in this room, a family member or relative - distant or close - that has been affected or aggrieved by these types of issues.

When we talk about the paperwork in policing, it's about having methods and processes in place so that we reduce the recidivism rate so that the police officers can get engaged in the community, like the crime prevention programs. An interesting thing that I read just recently - and there was some discussion in the news about the demands on police officers and the expectations we have on them. I look at some of the falling out of police officers that has occurred in our society, by making mistakes and getting themselves on the wrong side of policies or expectations the public has on them. We are asking police officers to do so much and it's stressful, the impact on them. We have to find ways that they can have more time off and if they want to engage in the community, it's in programs that are enriching them both spiritually and physically. We want a holistic approach in society, and the police are a very important component to a healthy, safe environment.

 

I'm disturbed somewhat that we have to put police officers in the classroom, in the schools, versus police officers on the street. We need a different retooling, and I believe putting teachers in the classroom is what's needed in there. We need to look at ways to better utilize those resources and make sure that if we're going to have someone in the school representing a policing need, that they have the skills to meet the needs of that community and the youth are getting the skills. I don't really value a police officer spending time in there and carrying a gun in the school, it's the wrong image in my mind, but I do value police officers going to the school.

 

I know when I was a policing commander and the number of schools that I had in my policing district, at least two officers were assigned to each school. The young people in each of the schools knew who the officers were, the teachers knew, and they knew that these officers were available to them and that service was well put out. It allowed them free time to get in there, but if they're doing extra time on paperwork, that takes away from it.

 

I want to make just one more point. I am deeply disturbed about the amount of impaired driving in our society. I'm going to be bringing this point up at every opportunity I can. It's incumbent on each and every one of us to start to help change the attitude and behaviour in our society that it's all right to drink and drive. If you're going to be out somewhere and you're going to have one drink and you're deciding to have the second drink, make sure you have plans for a designated driver.

 

If you're going to drink at all - and I'd prefer that people don't - that would greatly reduce the police officer's time, because I said earlier in my answer that police officers spend an amount of time - I remember getting four. It was a game in our district to see who could get the most in one shift and make sure that you had the proper evidence and the right outcome by the court, that you presented the court appropriate, professional evidence and that all steps, policies, and procedures were followed. Today for that to go on, I don't think it's possible; I don't know how you would do that in today's paperwork environments.

 

What's more important is when you framed the question and when you raised it that way, it's as if it's just singular approach to that answer. It's you and I, both of us saying, we're going to come to a function in this facility here and yet some of us walk away - and I'm not saying anybody here would drive, but I've heard rumours that that has occurred.

 

I'm not trying to chastise any individual or be that, I'm just saying that as a society we need a shift as to what's acceptable behaviour. If you're going to go out to a bar and you know you're going to have a drink, then have the driving arrangements made. One of the greatest things that I've seen is I had the opportunity with the hockey team I played with, we used to run a dance at the arena to raise money at the end of the year. The number of young people that would show up at that facility in taxis and have it all arranged to go home, I thought that was so exciting. Somewhere along the line, though, we're losing that sensibility about drinking and driving. So with that issue alone, if we reduced impaired driving we would have reduced the police work and the whole compounding cycle of incidents that occur around that in the drinking.

 

One of the things I'm excited about - and I'm not sure that you were here to hear about that - is the Restorative Justice Program that we have with Dalhousie University. We know and the police departments know that each year, come September, we're going to have a bunch of drunk teenagers and that. Just a couple of years ago we lost a young person, we lost an asset to our society at a university, a young, bright, talented mind that consumed alcohol and died. I hope we learned something from that. As a parent, my children - my young nephew is going off to university this year and I can't help but think he's a pretty straight young fellow, I just hope he doesn't go to university and experiment that way and make that mistake, so we have to be conscious of that.

 

What's exciting is that in our restorative program, when a young person is involved at the university and has a conflict with either the student regulations and rules, or within the bars or downtown, we're going to have a mechanism in which to address that. Our ultimate goal is not to punish or to take a pound of flesh, it's to change behaviour and produce healthy, vibrant young minds to be contributing and living within our society.

 

I could talk for probably the whole duration this afternoon on this very issue and be very passionate about it, but I'm going to give you the opportunity to say some more. I thank you for the question, but I hope from this that I've left you with the impression that paperwork is a very complex issue and requires a very methodical approach. While I have this opportunity, I'm so blessed to be in the job that I'm in as Minister of Justice and have the talent that's in that Justice Department.

 

I welcome the Opposition and I know that the process in here is a bit adversarial on the floor, and I'm as guilty as the next person to some degree, but I challenge you as an Opposition member to come up with constructive ways to ask for information to promote and push ideas that you may have. I put the challenge to the previous colleagues before that if you have an idea of how to improve the system or how to make justice better, don't look at me in the sense of Justice Minister or as a colleague across the floor in an adversarial manner, but as an opportunity to maybe articulate your points of view and ensure that they get forward.

We have talent in the Justice Department and with these issues, we'll find people who probably share your passion with regard to those issues. I'm thinking right now of domestic violence and I think of the mental health court being on the shelf when I came in. When individuals were asked to go ahead with that, they championed that and showed their leadership, and we just need to give them the opportunity.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate your offer if there's an opportunity to advance ideas - and we do try to do that from time to time. I think you've seen me do that in the Legislature.

 

I know I only have four minutes left and I may or may not get some additional time there so I do have a lot of other questions. It's a shame we don't have more time, but there are a couple of questions I'll try to ask - there are a bunch of good questions here. One question is, how much will the Department of Justice save this year with the changes to the memorandum of understanding made last year? I think at the time it was communicated that it would save government money, and I heard a figure somewhere to the tune of $14 million. That may be over a number of years, but as I understand from the municipalities, the first year it was going to have a real impact on their budgets was this year.

 

MR. LANDRY: I was sincere in my point to you when I thanked you for your questions and I wasn't giving long answers to deny your questions, I'll meet with you at any time to talk. I was just excited to have the opportunity to get that on the record.

 

The consolidated fund was just under $14 million that we collect from municipalities, their responsibility - is that what you're getting at? It's roughly around $14 million that they have to contribute.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So I guess that's the amount being saved by the province, is that what you're saying?

 

MR. LANDRY: Actually, it's not an amount being saved by the province; it's the amount that's the responsibility of the municipalities to contribute under the agreement. One of the interesting things - and I had a chance to talk to some of my municipal colleagues - is we can be selective on how we view things. I pointed out to some of them that from my department we put almost $50 million into policing. A lot of that money is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice; it's a municipal responsibility that we share. It's a matter of trade-offs, how we're doing it and how things are lined up.

 

I think the question about whether the $14 million should be paid is a matter that there are all kinds - maybe there needs to be a restructuring of the relationship between the municipalities and government. I know that would be a very complex, difficult undertaking of what services should be paid and how, and that's beyond where we are here today. I don't look at it as money that the province is saving; we're paying it out in different ways.

 

My budget this year is just over $306 million and I have to live within my means. I'm looking at ways to reduce those costs and we all have to share in that, but at the same time provide an appropriate level of safety in our society.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, you have less than one minute left.

 

MR. MACMASTER: You know what? It's kind of tough to ask a question and get a 30-second response. I think if . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time pretty well has expired.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. LANDRY: I do thank you for your questions, they were very enjoyable.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Sure, thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired and the minister, I understand, is asking for a five-minute break?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, I want to get up and move.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. We'll adjourn for five minutes. The Liberals are next.

 

[5:31 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[5:36 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacMaster was cut off five minutes too early so we are going to give him five minutes to make up here. I'm sure he has a couple of very valuable and valid questions for you. Mr. MacMaster, we apologize for the difference in two watches here; somebody in Guysborough County keeps a watch five minutes fast so you were cut off.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Mr. Chairman, it's good to see justice done.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the first mistake that we've made in three years in power. (Laughter)

 

MR. MACMASTER: I think I have time really for one question. This is an issue that I'm sure you heard about. Some of the municipalities have their own police forces and their taxpayers, by way of their property taxes as I understand it, are paying 100 per cent of the cost for those local forces, but when they pay the provincial income tax, in a roundabout way they're also supporting the 30 per cent rebate given to other municipal units for RCMP coverage in those units. Is that something that you've looked at? Is that something that there may be a potential solution to? I'll let you comment.

 

MR. LANDRY: First off the province pays, as I say, around $50 million a year and we provide service to every municipal police department in the province should they wish to use it. Some municipalities have chosen to have their own police dog, Major Crime, and so on like that - that's their choice. In a municipality, policing is a municipal cost. On the RCMP contract, the cost per officer is higher than most municipal officer costs and we do a sharing agreement with the federal government. This arrangement is not a provincial rebate to the RCMP, this is a federal arrangement.

 

The policing structure and one-off piece, policing in this whole province needs to have further dialogue. I had the pleasure in the past month to meet with the police boards and the police chiefs, discussing issues in a very practical way and moving forward. This isn't an issue about the RCMP getting a benefit and not the municipality, everybody has fair and equal access. We provide - when I say "we" I mean the Department of Justice for the Province of Nova Scotia - extensive supports and services to municipalities.

 

I think of my own area - we've had two homicides in our area almost around the same period of time. Both are traumatic situations and very painful in the community. The RCMP, as provincial policing, partnered with the municipal police and to my knowledge I don't think we've sent them back - we sent them a bill, so there are direct benefits.

 

One of the parts of this discussion - and in the answer I gave earlier - is about getting clarity on where we are and what we stand for rather than doing one-offs. On that policing thing we need to have some broader dialogue and discussion, but I thank you for bringing that point forward. The police forces don't pay 100 per cent of the police service, they may in some degrees get 100 per cent of something, but we need to define that.

 

We pay 100 per cent for RCMP policing here in Nova Scotia. We negotiated a contract and how the federal government costs out an RCMP officer and then charges us, we feel we're paying 100 per cent of the bill. The fact that we as a province provide supports on federal duties, we deserve to get compensation for that. The same way I feel that within municipal policing that they do services that benefit the province, and that's why I have no issue paying for some services in support as long as we can maintain that to support that municipal policing structure and I'm happy to do that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the hour of questioning for the Progressive Conservative caucus. We will now turn it over to the Liberal caucus.

 

MR. LANDRY: How much time is remaining altogether, Mr. Chairman?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We had a three-minute break and a five-minute break, so we will be finishing at 6:28 p.m. - we have about 50 minutes remaining or a little less.

 

The honourable member for Richmond.

 

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Minister, could you advise what the policy is for government when it comes to the payment of Bar fees for civil servants?

 

MR. LANDRY: When you talk about the policy in regard, we have a number of people on staff that we actually pay for their Bar fees and the policy within our department is they are providing certain services. Actually, we've had a number of discussions and dialogue in regard to whether or not the government should be paying these fees. At the present time we do pay them, and we encourage our employees to be members of the Bar Association and, therefore, they provide services.

 

Not necessarily, in my opinion, that all of our lawyers would need to be members of the Bar, I mean if they are legally trained and they're providing services within Justice it's just like the federal Justice Department, not all lawyers there are members of the Bar, they provide services and they choose to opt in and opt out. We do encourage them because we want a vibrant, strong Bar Association of Nova Scotia. It's a small population and we think that they do good work and we encourage those partnerships.

 

MR. SAMSON: I guess my question was more about what the policy is in government, not just for your department, but is it correct to say that only lawyers who are affiliated with Justice have their Bar fees paid for by taxpayers of Nova Scotia?

 

MR. LANDRY: I can't comment on that, it's not my area of responsibility. It might be better placed with the Deputy Premier who is responsible for intergovernmental affairs, for policies within government. My area of responsibility is within Justice and the lawyers that are working for the department that I happen to be minister of, and our rules are very much defined as to who gets it and who doesn't. But government as a whole, I'm not part of that process.

 

MR. SAMSON: When I see in the Supplementary Information, Page 186, that the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society was paid $267,126, does that represent only lawyers within the Department of Justice?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so any lawyer that might be working for Energy or Agriculture, or any of the other departments, their fees are billed back to the Department of Justice, not to individual departments.

 

MR. LANDRY: Some of the lawyers - I think the majority, if not all - actually come under the umbrella of the Department of Justice, and their fees would be paid and encompassed in that regard.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. I'm curious as to why there are two separate headings here because under Grants and Contributions, Page 182, it shows the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society received a payment of $5,123. I'm wondering is that for Bar fees or is that for something else?

 

MR. LANDRY: That was just an annual grant that we paid them. Actually, if I remember correctly I remember signing something, and I stand to be corrected, but it may be a conference, or something along those lines, where we supported them in an initiative.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the $267,126 that's further down, that's for Bar fees only?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's my understanding, yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Do you actually have a written policy in the Department of Justice that determines who gets their Bar fees paid for and who doesn't?

 

MR. LANDRY: We will check on that and, in fact, I thank you for that question. It's normally that if they're working with us and they're a member of the Bar when they come in, we continue with that but I think, just based on yours, we're going to follow up on that and probably get policy developed for sure in that regard because I think it's good that they have that.

 

MR. SAMSON: I know you made mention that you can't answer for the rest of government and had we had the opportunity to question the Minister of the Public Service Commission, we may have been able to put those questions to him but, as you know, we were not permitted to do so.

 

The reason I asked this is because during Education Estimates, our Education Critic discovered that within the minister's office there was a payment of Bar fees for a staff member in the minister's office and that's why we were confused. It was my understanding that the policy of the Public Service Commission is that only lawyers affiliated with Justice had their Bar fees paid for. But you've already indicated you're not aware of what the government-wide policy is, so we'll try to find that another way. But if there is a written policy within your department, I would certainly appreciate seeing a copy of it.

 

I'm looking at Page 183 and there's a payment of $10,084 for Centurion Consulting Services Inc. I'm wondering what that payment was for.

 

MR. LANDRY: I don't have the details on that right now, but what we'll do is we'll flag it and we'll get that over to you.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, further down there's a payment of $363,616 for an item that's called Chief Information Office. Could you advise what the Chief Information Office is and why such a payment was made?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's for the Novell licences and the data centre facility charges. So it's a matter of information storage and the management of that. So that's a fee to manage those licences.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm going to need a better explanation than that. This is the Chief Information Office - is this a government office or is it a private company? Where is it located?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's a separate government agency and I suspect, knowing what I know about government and data information collection, it's a centre that manages our information and secures it, and that would be our cost to manage our component of that. There are securities within government, you might notice, for example, our government e-mails and so on, the whole management system in regard to that, and it's money to manage them.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise where the Chief Information Office is physically located and what department it falls under?

 

MR. LANDRY: They are their own distinct entity and I'm not going to state where their security is kept because I think that's a security issue. I'll let someone else or let his office state where the data is kept so I'm not going to comment on that. I just know that I don't know where his office actually is, or her office, but the information is in a couple of locations, or three locations within the city.

 

MR. SAMSON: And what department does it fall under?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's a separate department on its own.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, if we look through the government estimates, there's a line item for a Chief Information Office.

 

MR. LANDRY: I think it falls under Treasury; the consensus here is that's where that would come under.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, and do you know offhand what you paid for with $363,000?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, as it says there, I know just with the licensing, so any computer that has Novell on it and any other types of services that are connected with that have to have a licensed product. It's just like I looked at my MLA office the other day when we were buying, I was actually getting a new computer, a rebuilt one. We were going to put some software on there and the gentleman was going to charge me for it and then we discovered that in our office, when we bought the original computer, there was a licensing there that we were allowed to put an additional one on. So had we not had that licence already paid for and those arrangements, we would have had to buy a new one because you have to follow those regulations.

I just got some information here on the book. It says the Chair of the Treasury Board is the office the Chief Information Officer comes under. That would be Minister Corbett's department of responsibility.

 

MR. SAMSON: Thank you. On Page 184 there's an item there for D & D Removal Services for $787,000. I'm wondering if you could advise what that payment is for.

 

MR. LANDRY: They are engaged by the medical examiner to transport deceased.

 

MR. SAMSON: Do you know offhand - if I'm not mistaken, they subcontract some of that work, so the payment is made to just one company but that company does subcontract its work out.

 

MR. LANDRY: I understand that that's probably what occurs.

 

MR. SAMSON: Has there been any examination of that cost? That certainly seems to be a significant cost. Maybe that's just the cost of doing business but is that something that's put out to tender on a regular basis, to ensure we're getting the best possible value there? Three-quarters of a million dollars is a significant expense, to say the least.

 

MR. LANDRY: It is put out to tender but one of the things that we have implemented to help reduce costs and look at that very issue is the virtual analysis done at a death, which is reducing some of the cost.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you explain, what do you mean by virtual analysis?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, when a body is found - let's say, for example, in your area - the medical examiner can do it by having it examined there in virtual and be in one spot, and make the decision based on information found at the scene that this is a safe and secure passing, no foul play is suspected and, therefore, will deem the body to be moved.

 

It's not unlike when I was a young police officer, the medical examiner would come out and sometimes we'd just phone, and in the outlying rural areas we'd give him the particulars of that and that would authorize us to move the body and then we would take it in. So that would reduce costs, rather than a designated examiner in the area to come out and do the examination.

 

MR. SAMSON: On Page 184, the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, there's a payment for $1.4 million, I'm wondering what that cost was for.

 

MR. LANDRY: That's for work done on our buildings for property leases, insurance, the taxes and radio air time. That's what that money goes to.

 

MR. SAMSON: What's the last item you said there?

 

MR. LANDRY: Radio air time - because we buy blocks of time to use airwaves there's a fee for that.

 

MR. SAMSON: On that, I'm curious, when the issue came up about the sheriffs' vans, and the gentleman who was able to kick out the window, I think you indicated that there were going to be improvements made to those vans. Could you advise if all of the vans had those improvements made?

 

MR. LANDRY: My understanding was that some of them have been retrofitted, that they're all going in, in a sequence. Of course you've got to appreciate that you just can't take them all off the road at once and do that, you have to space them out and make sure that as you get the work done, that the appointments were booked and that you have a scheduling. That scheduling has been ongoing since March or February, I think it was somewhere in there - I guess it was March that they started doing the work.

 

We also got $900,000 being spent for new vans for this year, to make sure that they're up to the specs that we were looking for. This decision, just so you know - and I did mention it in the House, and you may recall we had actually started this last year, but you know in government that you can't make a decision and have equipment of this nature in the next day, so it's in the process of retooling all the vehicles and following a schedule that maintains a certain level of safety and balance.

 

MR. SAMSON: How many transport vans do we have under Sheriff Services?

 

MR. LANDRY: There's about 65 vehicles assigned to that.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise how many to date have been retrofitted, in light of the safety concerns that were raised?

 

MR. LANDRY: Unless somebody here has the information, from where I sit I wouldn't know and I don't think it's in the estimates. That's a day-to-day business thing, but we can get you that information if you'd like it.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. When this incident occurred, I think you advised that your department was already made aware of the deficiencies here and was working on it but I don't think you ever gave a specific date as to when you, as minister, became aware that there were issues with these rear windows and the possibility they could be kicked out. I wonder if you could advise when you specifically became aware that this was a security deficiency.

 

MR. LANDRY: The specific day or the week or the time is not really something that I pay attention to, to tell you the truth, but I know that it was back around, I would suspect, sometime in November or something like that, if my memory recalls. It was before the Christmas break. One of the things that I asked my staff was, due to some incidents that had occurred during the year, can you just take a proactive approach and do an analysis as to where you think some risks may be? One of the things that came up is that they felt it's possible that that window could be penetrated in some way.

 

The company gave us some assurances that the window, in fact, was a secure window, but as we found out, it was not to the level that we needed but the specs said that it was. So that would be back - and I stand to be corrected - 20 or 30 days, sometime between mid-November, or somewhere around there, to put that into motion. That's just a dialogue.

 

You have to appreciate on those types of issues when I'm discussing or I have a thought or an employee has a suggestion or recommendation, it's not something that I'm sitting there making a note on. I'll say fine, and let the process go forward. I depend on the deputy and directors to see that that facilitation is carried out. It's not really my purview, it's an operational issue.

 

MR. SAMSON: I wonder if you could advise what sort of advisory went out to Sheriff Services to indicate that the department had become aware of a possible breach in the safety of these windows and what necessary precautions they should be taking in light of the fact that the department was now aware that there was an issue.

 

MR. LANDRY: As soon as the incident occurred, everyone was made aware.

 

MR. SAMSON: I mean before the incident. Like you said, I think you became aware in November that there was a problem. I'm just wondering, what communication went out last November to the staff?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm going to reframe the question as to how you put it. The way that you framed it is in a sense that you're saying we were aware that they were penetrable. We saw it as a risk potential, and as a result of that, we asked to take steps to examine that and look at steps that if someone was able to do that, what would we need to do to correct it? So as soon as that dialogue or that point came there, to say that they were actually penetrable, we didn't know for sure until it actually did happen but we were taking steps to actually upgrade the level of security.

 

I think that's a compliment to the type of staff and people that we have working within Justice, who are consciously reflecting and looking at ways of how we could improve the quality of service. There are a number of things within the department that we are going to be looking at and examining on a regular basis of having dialogue and looking at risk. Risk management is not something that you come in today and say, oh, all our risks are covered and taken care of, it's every day that you need to look at that. Even when we get new vehicles in, you need to look at that and say, well, what is the potential?

 

On the incident at hand, we know that there was a mistake in judgment by a couple of employees. They have answered for their actions and have been dealt with appropriately and respectfully. They're back working in a productive, caring manner. No one was hurt in this incident but a lot was learned, and I think it's very important that we look at best practice and what we've learned and how we can improve the quality of service. So I'm very happy with how this has all played out.

 

MR. SAMSON: When the risk was identified last November, was there any communication that went out to Sheriff Services to identify that this risk had been looked at and that special precautions should be taken in light of this risk now being identified; was there any communication that went out?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, once again, I'm going to re-frame your question here. You're boxing it in as a lawyer asking a question on the stand to make a client answer in a certain way to get a response. I'm not going to answer it that way; I'm going to answer it this way. We asked to have an evaluation as to what the potential risk could be or what was occurring. As soon as that was identified as an area that we should up the level of security, steps were taken and work orders were put forward in regard to that.

 

In regard to what the additional risks were to an employee, in the case at hand, had the employees followed policy, the issue of the window would not be a vulnerable point. So you have to look at it in its totality, and to isolate it and box it into terms of putting it, as I say, as a lawyer asking questions to prove a point in court, this isn't black and white. Our staff took sound steps to say there's a potential there, and if there's a potential there, what steps can we take? Well, we're going to order bars, and to this day vehicles are still out there without bars on them. They're taking steps, we're looking to upgrade the security, and that takes time.

 

One of the things that I notice from an Opposition perspective in asking questions is looking at finding fault and I think the question that came out here is, is the glass two-thirds full or one-third empty? I think that's a good analogy here, but I'm not going to be critical of staff because they've identified something, a mistake was made. At the end of the day, I as minister take responsibility for that. Technically, the employees work for me in the big picture of the system. At the end of the day, as I said to the press, it comes down to me. The circumstances surrounding that incident happened; the mitigating factor was the neglect of putting handcuffs on, which led to one thing or another, and we put in policies and processes and have communicated extensively with our employees about this and have used this as a learning opportunity. So I'm very happy with how this was handled and I'm very happy with how we came to where we are. Could an incident happen tomorrow? We're dealing with the human element and anything can go wrong, as I found out in my career.

 

MR. SAMSON: You know, this is a safety issue and the safety of the public was put at risk. So with all due respect, whether you like the Opposition asking you or not, the question became was this a risk that was identified - what steps were taken, I think is a more legitimate question to ask - and you said in your statement that someone did a report identifying the risk. Can you provide us with a copy of any reports that were done that specifically identified the rear windows in the sheriff vans as a safety risk?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, whether it was specifically in those terms, we'll have a written document somewhere because the issue was brought to my attention. So whether it was done verbally, I assume there would be something in writing from that, and I think it is the Opposition's responsibility to ask questions. Just on the issue of risk, we risk things out today. I mean we can find many things within the government system that are risks and the question is how much of a risk; how much do you want to spend to deal with the risk and how serious is the risk? As a police officer, I dealt with risks all the time and with my staff, we worked things out; if something happens that goes wrong, you have to evaluate the risk and whether that was reasonable. In this case I'm not here to defend it any further, I'm not, and as I said in a previous answer to your colleague in the Third Party, risks happen and we take it in stride, but we take it seriously.

 

MR. SAMSON: One of the concerns that have been brought to our attention is the discipline differentiation that seems to take place within your department. You indicated that the two sheriffs who would have been involved in the incident where the gentleman escaped, I think you indicated they were disciplined, but we've never been told how. But we're now starting to hear from some of the captains over at Burnside that were fired that are still working their way through this complicated alternate dispute process, apparently run by the Government of Nova Scotia through a number of deputy ministers. They're asking how it was they were fired, yet when other people within Justice make fundamental errors of judgment, there is simply discipline for them and not termination. I'm curious, could you indicate how you see the difference between those who were terminated and those who were simply disciplined for, obviously, not following proper procedures?

 

MR. LANDRY: I take employee management and accountability very seriously; we all have to answer to someone. I'm not going to talk specifically, but if I said someone received discipline, I probably should have said that they were held accountable for their actions and the matter was dealt with in a way that I thought was appropriate. After all, we have to look at the total situation, things aren't black and white.

 

As far as the correctional institute, I'm not going to comment on what happened. There is a process of where people were held accountable for their actions, decisions were made, outcomes occurred, and there's a process there for them to address that. I respect the process, I support the process, and at the end of the day I'm ultimately responsible. I took responsibility and I made my position clear in the press at the time that that occurred, the same as the escaped prisoner from the van and what steps we've taken to address that. I'm very pleased with the professionalism of the employees in that matter and how they handled it and how they addressed the issue.

 

I'm saddened that the incident happened, I can't undo the past, I can't undo what's done there. I can only look at trying to say, well, what good can we get out of it, what's positive out of here, and how do we ensure and enhance the safety of our employees and the public and ensure that we have quality service given? All those steps were taken and many discussions and dialogues were had by stakeholders.

 

I told a story to the previous Third Party representative about asking for a pound of flesh and being interviewed by a reporter on a matter who said, what's going to be your punishment dealing with a young person, are they going to be punished, how are you going to punish them and make sure they're punished for what they've done? I said I want to re-frame the discussion here, I said when we're dealing with young people or when you're dealing with employees - I'll use the example here. If we're looking to punish, really, what benefit is that? I mean there are people that need to be held accountable for their actions, for their decisions, and we have to have processes in place. I said to the reporter in regard to the young person that we have to find ways to make them accountable so they're aware of accountability, so they're mentored and have the opportunity to change their behaviour, their approach or attitude, if it's not conducive to a healthy situation.

 

I'd rather look at things in that way than - I don't really know of any employee that comes to work and says I'm coming to do a lousy job today. We all have emotions and different things are happening in our lives, and many things can contribute to a situation that may occur. It's when you manage a large number of people and have a responsibility that we have to find ways to make sure they're safe and they have an opportunity to grow, to heal if there's harm, that they are able to feel valued and welcomed back in the system, to contribute, and they're not chastised or discriminated against in any way, while at the same time making sure that the public is treated with the best possible service. It's not a matter of black and white, it's a matter of how you address the issues.

 

MR. SAMSON: Look, it's interesting to hear you say that, minister, because you come from a profession that if you screwed up, the public knew exactly what was going to be done to you. The media reports are there; if an officer does something wrong, whatever discipline is going to be handed out is made public, so no officer gets to hide what discipline is going to be done when they make a mistake.

 

You oversee a department where mistakes could cost lives. We've seen too many instances of people being released, people being allowed to walk away from court, people breaking out of sheriffs' vans because someone forgot to put the handcuffs on. Taxpayers went out and bought new leg irons, and apparently this has been breached as well.

 

When people make these kinds of mistakes, Nova Scotians' lives are put at risk. So for you to sit here today and say, I'm satisfied, I think everything is well, Nova Scotians are the ones who are paying these salaries, they should be the ones who are satisfied that the proper actions were taken and the proper message is being given to your employees that such mistakes are intolerable and they will not be tolerated, because eventually someone is going to get hurt.

 

We saw what happened just a week ago, where a life was lost because someone did not follow the conditions of their release and went out beyond their time frame. So I'm curious, how do you justify not letting Nova Scotians know what action you took, in light of these mistakes, when even in your own former profession, the RCMP, it's made public as to what disciplinary actions have been taken as a result of errors in judgment made in your former profession?

 

MR. LANDRY: You seek quite a bit there and I am going to take some time to answer this question in a little different way than a straight, short answer. First off, the real world has humans who operate, function and are subject to mistakes in judgment. We can take a left turn or a right turn at many crossroads, and depending on which avenue you take, it could be a very fruitful experience or a very negative one.

 

When we talk about employees, I assure the public that I take my job very seriously and safety - I spent a lifetime doing it and feel I have a pretty good understanding of what my responsibilities are. When an employee makes a mistake, I don't think the public, if it's a performance issue, has a right to know how we dealt with that employee.

 

If it's a disciplinary issue and there's a tribunal, there are very clear administrative legal processes there on the giving out of information. When an employee's performance - that's a performance, it's a human resource issue and I respect that process, but I don't want someone to walk out of this room thinking that I'm mitigating the seriousness of it. I took it seriously, we dealt with it, and as I said, I try to look at the glass being three-quarters full rather than one-third empty, and look at the positives of what we can learn because we can't undo what has occurred and we have to have employees know that positive actions can come out of mistakes.

 

History - I had a strong fascination, and you mentioned about my previous career in policing, with reading the discipline matters because as discipline was given out under the administrative law rules versus a performance issue with an employee, they used to send out about every month or every quarter, the tribunal decisions and actions with a brief history about the circumstances around the case. I didn't look at it that the organization was trying to say, because they didn't mention the names - I don't think they did. Yes, they might have mentioned - I can't recall exactly.

 

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that they would outline the circumstances behind the indiscretion of the employee and the administrative discipline that occurred. I always use that as a learning tool and say, boy, if I was in that situation, how would I handle that; or that really was not the way to do that; or I made a mistake similar to that so, boy, I'm lucky I didn't get myself in the pickle that these guys did by things going bad. I learned a lesson there; our learning should be continuing and lifelong. Then when I got involved in the internal disciplinary process, both as a defence lawyer and a prosecutor within the administrative process, within the RCMP, I learned much about employees and the vulnerability of people, and people who have made mistakes, understanding the post traumatic and the impacts that those have upon individuals.

 

We should not have a justice system that looks to find punishment at all costs, and when you're dealing with employees within Justice, it doesn't mean that we want to have a system where we're labelling and making employees feel victimized or disrespected because they've made a mistake. Yes, they're held accountable, but what was really interesting about the employees on the issue at hand and that van is their remarkable professionalism and the way that it was dealt with. I couldn't be happier with how confident I was that lessons were learned, that we have good employees that are going back to do their jobs. That doesn't mean that they weren't held accountable. It's doesn't mean that I didn't answer and assure the public that the matter was addressed and it was taken seriously.

 

We take each and every one of those seriously and the lives of all Nova Scotians, the cost to our society is critical. But people make mistakes. I'm not going to get on the floor of the House and criticize police officers, corrections officers, sheriffs or my staff. I take responsibility and I'll take the lumps, and I expect the employees that work within the Justice Department, and I have done nothing but meet with highly professional - I had the pleasure yesterday, on Administrative Professionals Day, to go in and speak and see the commitment and dedication on the faces of those employees and exchange some words, and I think I got to shake hands with just about every one of them. I couldn't help but feel the energy and commitment from them and the pride that they take in the job that they do. I was reflecting afterwards on how honoured I am to work with such quality people.

 

So I'm not going to engage here and I don't think in the mindset that this is bad and evil. Mistakes are made, we have to have processes in place to hold the accountability to ensure that we're correcting those and moving forward. That's what I'm very happy and excited about; I feel that the learning is going on, that people take things seriously and they're committed to their jobs. Could we be in here tomorrow in this House, talking about something else, a mistake that was made or something happened? Well, when you deal with the human element, it's almost guaranteed something is going to happen in the future. We can't be all things to all people and prevent mistakes, nor do I want to manage in an environment that does that.

 

MR. SAMSON: Just based on one of the comments that you made, are you a member of the Nova Scotia Bar Society?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm an honorary member of the Nova Scotia Bar Society, but I'm not a paid-fee member of that Bar.

 

MR. SAMSON: Are there any fees that are paid by you as part of that?

 

MR. LANDRY: No.

 

MR. SAMSON: There's a payment on Page 187 of the Supplementary Information to a Robert J. McCleave Barrister & Solicitor for $50,000. I'm wondering if you can explain what that payment was for.

 

MR. LANDRY: We'll get that for you, I'm not aware of that expenditure. I know it's there on the sheet, but I don't know the particulars behind it so we'll get you that.

 

MR. SAMSON: On Page 187 there's a payment of $146,000 to the Public Prosecution Service. I'm wondering if you could advise what that payment is for.

 

MR. LANDRY: That is for Mr. MacDonald, who is now the director of SiRT, for his fees for the service he is providing in a policy perspective.

 

MR. SAMSON: Who is Mr. MacDonald?

 

MR. LANDRY: Ron MacDonald, he's the new director of SiRT, but at that time he was in the policy position where he liaised with his counterparts across the country and represented interests between the Department of Justice and public prosecutions.

 

MR. SAMSON: So he now works for the Department of Justice or the Public Prosecution Service?

 

MR. LANDRY: He was on secondment at Justice from PPS for that position.

 

MR. SAMSON: So he's back to public prosecutions now?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, he's in SiRT now, director of the Serious Incident Response Team.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, too many acronyms. You also have a payment right under that to the Public Service Commission for $207,000. What is that payment for?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's training within the department.

 

MR. SAMSON: What kind of training?

 

MR. LANDRY: The executive areas within Justice, for their training.

 

MR. SAMSON: What kind of training?

 

MR. LANDRY: Front-line managers, middle managers - I would say it could be anything from reading materials that deal with a specific skill base and knowledge base to actual course training or fees to take in-house training from associations.

 

MR. SAMSON: Like leadership type courses and stuff like that and getting their certificates?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, a wide variety.

 

MR. SAMSON: One last question as we're probably getting low on time. During that incident where the inmate escaped from the sheriff van, the media reports indicated that he was able to remove one of the leg irons. My understanding was taxpayers paid in excess of $100,000 to purchase new leg irons after the Carvery incident. Can you verify whether or not that inmate in question was able to remove one of those leg irons, and if so, what steps are being taken with the manufacturer? My understanding is we bought new ones that someone was not going to be able to escape from, so I'm just curious, from a financial standpoint, did we get value for dollar with those leg irons, and if not, what security measures are being taken to ensure those leg irons don't malfunction?

 

MR. LANDRY: On that matter, we're making the assumption that he was out of sight so the ability to break any secure system, whether it's on a computer - a password - or whether it be shackles, it depends on what tools he had at his disposal that it would be penetrable. I mean they could be cut, they could be anything, and they could be picked depending on the level of knowledge and access. So he was out of sight for some time and he is not co-operating in the sense of how he did that. But the shackles and stuff were looked at.

 

MR. SAMSON: Were they cut?

 

MR. LANDRY: I don't think they were cut - I'm not sure exactly. I don't have that direct information.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired - thank you, member.

 

MR. LANDRY: Okay, how much time do I have to read my statement?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have five minutes, minister, so if you could, fairly quickly.

 

MR. LANDRY: What I want to do is just take a minute to say that I'm very pleased with the transition that the Department of Justice has been making in the last three years to try to look at more from a crime prevention perspective, especially in the area of restorative justice. When I look at trying to bring a more mediated, negotiated approach to issues, and the way that we do business when we're dealing with each other within the office and in the department, and when we're dealing with our various agencies, to have more dialogue, more front-end correspondence and communication. When we look at the underlying emotion behind the issue and understand the interest of the employee, when you take issues, it's to take the issue down and depersonalize those matters and look at it from a constructive perspective.

 

When I look at the crime prevention initiatives we have, the restorative justice, when we look at our communications with Human Rights, the Ombudsman's Office, and EMO, and the approaches that we're taking, it's a more collaborative approach. When we look at the policing departments, we're moving the department into that collaborative model. We're in a knowledge-based society that's economically driven on a global basis, and if we look at it from a parochial or territorial position, we will not have the success that we're going to want to achieve.

 

I compliment the vision, the wide perspective, and the global look from the deputy minister on down within the staff, the communication that she's having on moving matters forward, and looking at the glass as half full rather than half empty, or as the analogy said in the House, three-quarters versus the one-quarter - it's that positive approach that when something goes wrong, we're not looking to harm or blame. We find the accountability and the mechanisms that have gone wrong, and take steps to correct them so that we can provide the best-quality service, and we're trying to reduce costs and live within our means, so I couldn't be prouder of all our different partners and stakeholders.

 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here this afternoon to do these estimates. I want to thank the staff in here; it's taking away from their evening and their families. I want to thank my colleagues for being here, and without both the deputy and the director of the Public Prosecution Service, I wouldn't have been able to present this information. I thank them for their very thorough work.

 

I'm excited for where we're going. I'm very pleased that this government is committed to fairness and equity in our justice system, and is not out just to take a pound of flesh but to make a healthier and stronger community for today's families.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E12 stand?

 

Resolution E12 stands.

 

Resolution E20 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $543,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the FOIPOP Review Office, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E22 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $2,143,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E31 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $19,508,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Public Prosecution Service, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolutions E20, E22 and E31 carry?

 

The resolutions are carried.

 

That concludes our 40 hours of estimates.

 

I request a motion to refer these resolutions to the Committee of the Whole House on Supply.

 

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

 

I also request a motion to refer the remainder of the resolutions not called in subcommittee to the Committee of the Whole House on Supply.

 

Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

 

The motion is carried.

 

Thank you, members. We now stand adjourned.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 6:28 p.m.]