HALIFAX, TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2013

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

1:53 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

 

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the Subcommittee of the Whole House on Supply to order.

 

We will commence with the estimates of the Department of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

Resolution E35 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $247,315,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, pursuant to the Estimate, and the business plan of the Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation be approved.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

HON. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good afternoon. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the budget of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

 

With me are Kevin Malloy, Deputy Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations; John MacDonald, executive director of Alcohol and Gaming; Nancy MacLellan, executive director of Service Delivery; Paul Arsenault, acting executive director of Program and Registry Management; Marvin MacDonald, executive director of Municipal Services: Scott Farmer, executive director of Strategy and Corporate Services; and Marianne Hakkert-Lebel, director of Financial Services, who is to my left here and it will be obvious, her value; and Aileen Waller-Hebb, director of Grants and Programs. I'm going to go through a list of others; Kathy Smith, Bob Newcomb, Rhia Perkins, Jodi MacMillan, Dan Bell, and Frank Moore are also with us.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is a large and diverse department with broad-based responsibilities ranging from birth to death and all points in between. Serving Nova Scotians is what we do and we do it well. Virtually every Nova Scotian has or will have direct contact with the department at some point in their lives. In fact, our department has about six million client interactions each year. Whether registering a motor vehicle, applying for a driver's licence, or applying for a birth certificate, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is our access point.

 

Much of the work done in the department focuses on improving access to government programs and services all across the province for businesses, individuals, and municipalities. We're always looking at ways to streamline our processes to offer better, faster service in a variety of ways: on-line, in person at our Access Nova Scotia centres, or toll-free through our Contact Centre.

 

I'd like to tell you how very pleased I am with the hard work and dedication to customer service shown by our Contact Centre staff. Not only are they able to respond to questions about programs and services offered through Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, they are also very knowledgeable about programs and services offered by other government departments; not to mention, they help Nova Scotians in both English and French. You can reach the Contact Centre by phone or e-mail or visit us in person at Access Nova Scotia centres across the province.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations staff work in more than 50 locations in 24 communities across the province. As mentioned earlier, our department has around six million client interactions each year. Our Web site receives on average about 8,600 visits each day; nearly 60 per cent of those are return visitors. We recently updated the Municipal Services Web site to make it easier for clients to access a variety of topics related to local government and we've made additional strides in improving access to government programs and services.

 

Access Nova Scotia Centres are some of the busiest spots in the province. Over the past few years, as building leases expire, we look for opportunities to co-locate our access centres and land registration offices. This has allowed us to provide our customers with more services under one roof and has proven to be a more cost-effective way for government to serve Nova Scotians. Our new co-located Digby Access Centre officially opened in May 2012 and this state-of-the-art facility combined the Digby Registry of Motor Vehicles and Weymouth Land Registration Offices. Our staff worked incredibly hard preparing for the move and we are pleased to serve Nova Scotians in a new, modern, client-focused office.

 

If my memory is right, some of our employees were working in a construction trailer for the Digby office - I don't think it was on the main drag - so we were really quite pleased to get a much better facility and a much better working environment for our staff there. Our staff worked incredibly hard preparing for the move and we are pleased to serve Nova Scotians in a new, modern, client-focused office.

In November 2012, the Amherst Access Centre and the Amherst Land Registry Office moved to a new co-located space on Robert Angus Drive. Clients in the area are now being served in a bright, updated facility with ample parking. We also renovated the Sydney Access Centre and co-located the Sydney Land Registration Office in a renovated space to provide more effective service to the people in the community. Later this year the Truro Access Centre and the Truro Land Registration Office will co-locate in the new facility on the Truro Heights Connector Road near the Colchester Regional Hospital and the Truro Civic Centre. This newest access centre will offer easy access and ample parking for all classes of passenger and commercial vehicles.

 

We also installed television screens in each of our access centres so Nova Scotians can receive important information about health care, jobs, rebates, and public safety. The screens also allow us to provide access centre clients with regional information that may be of interest to them, as well as details on what to do in an emergency situation. These office moves and the new information screens are part of our continued commitment to providing good service to the people of this province while being fiscally responsible and living within our means.

 

We will continue to explore further opportunities to co-locate offices as leases expire in the future and look for new ways to use existing resources to ensure Nova Scotians are informed about the government programs and services of interest and benefit to them.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also offers a wide variety of on-line services such as change of address; motor vehicle registration renewal; birth, marriage, and death certificate requests; and the payment of some municipal fines. You can also get a marriage licence now on the same day that you request it. We have speeded up the time you can get the licence; we just cannot speed up the time that you may require one. You're on your own on that.

 

At Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations we're also reviewing programs and services to be sure we're providing the best possible service to Nova Scotians. We're working hard to make it quick, easy, and convenient to deal with government. The province also continues to look for ways to help businesses succeed in Nova Scotia. We continue our efforts to address red tape by focusing on regulation, compliance, and service excellence through initiatives like better business and access to business. This approach ties into the province's economic strategy - jobsHere - by contributing to a business environment where Nova Scotia businesses are set up for success.

 

Better Business applies a more focused lens to how government deals with businesses and other regulated organizations, taking into account the benefits and costs of businesses and citizens. The plan Better Business - creating an environment for a business success - was released in January 2012. The multi-year plan outlines specific actions to be taken, focusing on making improvements by business sector, identifying significant opportunities, and resolving issues with simple effective solutions in three main areas: service excellence, compliance excellence, and regulatory excellence.

 

We made progress in a number of areas, including the convenience store pilot project, and over the past year we have worked directly with the Atlantic Convenience Stores Association as well as with independent convenience stores to understand their challenges and identify opportunities for improvement. A convenience store action plan is in the process of being drafted and will be implemented over the coming year.

 

This is good work that is making it easier for businesses to interact with government. As a result of our work with convenience stores, our department was nominated for a Regulatory Partner of the Year Award by the Atlantic Convenience Stores Association, and in addition our executive director of Service Delivery, Nancy MacLellan, who I just asked for information on our access centre in Digby, was nominated for a Golden Scissors Award and received honourable mention for her work on red tape reduction by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

 

As Better Business moves forward, we will finalize measures and targets to evaluate the success of the program. We'll also look to other business sectors to continue to build on the work that we've done in the convenience store sector.

 

We continue to make life better for Nova Scotia business with our Access to Business initiative, or "A to B" as we call it. This initiative allows Nova Scotia businesses to access information and perform various transactions with government in a manner similar to on-line banking, while helping to reduce the administrative burden, increase the use of on-line services, and improve the accuracy of customer information. Through a secure on-line service, businesses are able to log into their account and apply for more than 60 licences and permits and conduct a variety of transactions.

 

Phase I of "A to B" was launched in December 2012. With "A to B" businesses can now securely log onto the on-line service and start a business, search for licences and permit requirements using BizPaL, apply for and renew more than 60 licences and permits electronically, pay for licences and permits, and manage their Tender Opportunities Notification Service subscription. We continue to build on this, and as of early March we had more than 8,000 business users signed up for this service. Plans for the upcoming year include something we're really excited about: the first industry-specific bundle. With this bundle, businesses in the accommodations and food service industry will find everything they need like licensing and regulatory information in one convenient on-line spot.

 

The department also continues its work to make life better for Nova Scotians by making it easier for them to interact with government. The Access for Citizens initiative consists of multiple projects that will collectively provide enhanced on-line self-service for citizens and offer a streamlined solution for government identification. The projects in the Access for Citizens initiative include life event bundling, Access for Citizens on-line services, and the health card/business case/integrated services card. One of the objectives of the life event bundling project is to make is easier for Nova Scotians to interact with government through the implementation of a bereavement bundle and the expansion of the current integrated birth bundle.

 

The enhanced birth bundle service allows parents to register the birth of their child and register for four other government programs and services using a self-service kiosk, which is available in nine hospitals throughout the province. Most new parents will only have to complete one electronic form to submit their child's birth registration information and apply for the child's birth certificate, Nova Scotia health care, Canada child benefits, and social insurance number. The service was soft launched in February at Saint Martha's Regional Hospital in Antigonish, and we've rolled it out at the remaining eight hospitals. Initial feedback from parents and hospital staff has been excellent and we continue to make improvements. We're looking forward to an official launch in the coming weeks.

 

Building on the Access to Business, or "A to B" on-line solution, we're looking into providing a similar service for citizens. The goal of the Access for Citizens on-line service is to provide Nova Scotians with easy, convenient on-line access anytime, anywhere to make key government programs and services in a secure environment. This work is currently in the planning and requirement phase.

 

We're also working with the Department of Health and Wellness to develop a business case related to the delivery of the Nova Scotia health card. This analysis will look at the effects of transferring the issuance of the Nova Scotia health card from the current provider to Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and assess the feasibility of including the health card in an integrated government services card, administered and produced by my department. An integrated government services card could encompass multiple programs like health care, as well as drivers' licences and other provincial licences like hunting and fishing.

 

We are also implementing a new bereavement service bundle that provides information to Nova Scotians on handling the death of a loved one and also allows funeral directors to electronically submit death information to the province. This package will be a single source of information to help citizens navigate all levels of government so they can access benefits during a stressful time.

 

In addition, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is actively supporting 211 Nova Scotia. Launched in February 2013, 211 Nova Scotia is a 24-hour a day, seven day a week, year-round non-emergency help line and database of government, community and social services. My deputy minister, Kevin Malloy, has served on the 211 Nova Scotia Board of Directors since October 2011. Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations facilitated the process of obtaining resources from key departments to validate the information about their respective departments, programs, and services, and will continue to on an ongoing basis.

 

The Alcohol and Gaming Division joined the Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations family a little over two years ago, and what a spirited addition to the family they have been. The Alcohol and Gaming Division regulates places of amusement like video outlets, theatres, and pool halls. It also provides liquor licence applications for businesses and the general public; provides licences and regulates lotteries and other forms of gaming; and classifies films and videos. In January 2012, the Alcohol and Gaming Division also took over the granting of permanent liquor licences from the Utility and Review Board.

 

Putting the decisions for granting liquor licences into one single department has resulted in a reduced cost to business and government, and decreased the time that it takes a business to get a liquor licence. I know some people might argue that. How could you do that and make it more efficient in government? But we did. The food and beverage industry is important to Nova Scotia's economy, and the Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations Alcohol and Gaming Division continues to work very closely with industry and industry associations to ensure a thriving, vibrant industry.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also provides programs relating to consumer protection, land and condominium registration, residential tenancies, taxation, business practices, and geographic information. I know I don't have to highlight the importance of these services to Nova Scotians; however, there are some legislative and regulatory changes I'd like to bring to your attention.

 

Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act came into effect in the Fall of 2012, ensuring better protection for both Nova Scotia tenants and landlords. As well, legislation respecting domestic violence has been passed and will take effect later this year to assist those who have suffered domestic violence in ending their lease early without financial penalty.

 

Changes to make it easier for Nova Scotians to make informed decisions about mortgages and mortgage brokers were made last year when the new Mortgage Regulation Act was passed. We are consulting now on regulations needed to bring those new rules into effect.

 

Speaking of new rules, new rules governing fairness and cellphone contracts will take effect May 1^st. Also on May 1^st cellphone providers will be required to make information available to consumers respecting responsible cellphone use, including cyberbullying. We're also working on regulations that will bring into effect new rules for collection agencies and debt management agencies, and regulations governing the Community Interest Companies Act are currently being prepared. Building on the success of last year's event, we'll be hosting a free shredding event at our Access Nova Scotia Centre at 300 Horseshoe Lake Drive in Bayers Lake on Saturday, April 20^th. This event is aimed at helping Nova Scotians protect themselves against identity theft by safely disposing of old documents, and we hope to see you there.

 

We also continue to use our updated Web site to inform consumers about our consumer protection programs, and our Twitter account continues to be a great help in getting consumer alerts out quickly to Nova Scotians.

 

This department also administers a number of important rebates, specifically Your Energy Rebate and the Heating Assistance Rebate Program. The province removed the provincial portion of the HST off home energy, meaning Nova Scotians immediately see this rebate on their home heating and power bills. We also offered the Heating Assistance Rebate Program again in 2012-13. The program provides up to $200 in home heating help for eligible households.

 

It's important that we help as many Nova Scotians as possible through the Heating Assistance Rebate, so in addition to print and radio advertising, we also advertised the program on television again this year. We were also able to provide the Salvation Army's Good Neighbour Energy Fund with a $400,000 donation this year to support low-income Nova Scotians in emergency heating situations. I'd like to take a moment to recognize the Salvation Army for its good, important work; their commitment and dedication to Nova Scotia families in need is immeasurable.

 

Another important rebate that we offer to Nova Scotia families to help make life better and more affordable is the First-Time Home Buyers Rebate. The rebate is equivalent to 18.75 per cent of the provincial portion of the HST, up to a maximum of $3,000. It's available to first-time homebuyers purchasing or building new homes. This rebate helps families put down roots and become part of a vibrant, caring community.

 

On the taxation compliance front, our very tough stance against illegal tobacco is working. While the smuggling of tobacco products continues to be an issue in Nova Scotia and in other provinces across the country, we have made progress. Our estimate of the illegal tobacco market in Nova Scotia has decreased from more than 30 per cent in 2006-07 to a current estimate of between 5 per cent and 7 per cent. In the last seven years about 220,000 cartons of illegal cigarettes were seized in more than 500 seizures. Illicit sales of contraband tobacco contribute to an underground economy worth billions of dollars. Tobacco trafficking is regarded as a significant source of income for all levels of organized crime, who reinvest the substantial profits to support other criminal activities.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also supports Crime Stoppers on the production and airing of public service announcements on tobacco smuggling on the Internet and television. As a result of our enhanced relationship and agreement with Crime Stoppers, all tips and leads received province-wide on tobacco smuggling are forwarded by Crime Stoppers to the department's compliance unit and the RCMP excise and local law enforcement agencies.

 

We also provide funding to Crime Stoppers for awards to tipsters for tips leading to seizures of illegal tobacco. We distribute a brochure on illegal tobacco products to tobacco retailers, truckers, taxi companies, Access Nova Scotia offices, and Crime Stoppers. We collaborated with the federal government in the new tobacco stamping regime, and amendments to the revenue Act and the regulations required to implement the change to the new stamps have been passed or effective as of April 1, 2012. The new state-of-the-art tobacco excise stamp contains both overt and covert security features, much like those found on Canadian currency, and allows enforcement agencies to more easily detect and seize counterfeit tobacco products.

 

I'd also like to bring your attention to our hard-working collections team. We know that Nova Scotians want to pay their debts and our collections team is helping them do just that. In the past fiscal year the collections team has helped Nova Scotians settle more than $21 million in debt across provincial departments, health authorities, and municipalities, helping to bring the province back to balance. The collections program will continue to expand across government to help Nova Scotians pay their debts and protect their credit history.

 

Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations is also very connected and involved in the operations of the province's 54 municipalities. Municipalities in the province are very diverse; they range in population from 481 residents in Annapolis Royal to more than 390,000 in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Geographically there are significant differences, as well, from small self-contained towns to large rural municipalities. The role of this department is to provide advice and assistance and to prepare a policy on municipal matters for government.

 

In 2010 the Towns Task Force was charged with bringing forth recommendations that will help keep Nova Scotian towns healthy and vibrant. The task force finalized its work last September and submitted a report containing 36 recommendations for government's consideration. Many of the recommendations are around shared services and how to encourage and promote more efficiencies in delivering municipal services in Nova Scotia. A joint Towns Task Force coordination committee has been established with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities and the Association of Municipal Administrators to develop an implementation plan for consideration by the UNSM board and the province. I look forward to hearing from that committee on its progress.

 

Over the past year staff have been involved with the UNSM and the AMA in a joint municipal fiscal review of all municipal programs and the financial state of municipalities in Nova Scotia. The review looked at ways to find efficiencies and improve municipal viability while living within our means. We have developed a financial condition index for use by individual municipalities to compare how they're doing compared to acceptable standards for 24 key financial measures. We have worked with municipalities to test the Financial Condition Index and will be rolling it out in the coming year as an additional tool for municipalities to use.

 

Ours is a very large department and the province feels that good, strong relationships with our municipal partners are of the utmost importance and warrant a senior position at the associate deputy minister level whose main concern is municipal relations. I'm pleased to say that Dan McDougall is now in place in that position and is busy working on building collaborative and strong working relationships with the province's municipalities, as well as municipal organizations like the UNSM and the AMA. In addition, Dan is focusing on the development of enhanced horizontal decision-making mechanisms across government so that provincial and municipal priorities are better aligned.

 

I just want to make a note so members will know. Dan was the CAO at the Municipality of the County of Colchester, so I think they were not that impressed that we took him - but, anyway, we're really glad to have him. I think Colchester wasn't the only municipality that he had worked for, so his name was familiar to municipal units. I know they recognize that we got a good person in getting him working for government. I just need to be sure that I make him think he's now working for the province and not the municipalities, and when we get that transition made, we're going to be in good shape.

 

We're also continuing to support municipal infrastructure through the Building Canada Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the Provincial Capital Assistance Program. The recent federal budget announced a 10-year infrastructure funding program starting in 2014-15, and we will work with our colleagues in the federal government to work out the details of the program in Nova Scotia. With our federal partners, we will continue to work towards a replacement program for the Building Canada Fund as it winds down over the next year.

 

As of July 1, 2012, the Town of Canso became a part of the Municipality of the District of Guysborough. The transition was smooth and services in the town have improved. The October election saw new councillors elected to represent the area for the former town. I'd like to recognize the good work that continues to be done in Bridgetown. Our goal was to provide stability and rebuild confidence in that municipality, and we've done just that.

 

In October the residents of Bridgetown elected a new mayor and council to take over from the appointed mayor and council. I'd like to thank Bob Fowler, Anna Allen, Jim Thurber, and Darrell Hiltz for the great work they did in helping to bring stability back to the town. I have to say those were people who - lucky for us - were available, number one, and number two, brought a great deal of experience and capability to the job, and dedicated themselves to the community. I think Bob Fowler as mayor did the mayor's job; in other words, he showed up at events and did the whole thing.

 

The people in the town, I think, we're really pleased with him and the work he did and with the other members of the council, and Darrell Hiltz as well. The feedback we got was all really very positive and I think from what seemed like a very dark time for the town has been turned around. They have a new mayor and council and some policies in place that needed to be strengthened, so it has turned into a good-news story. It's one where if municipalities do run into problems, we do have some capacity to be helpful and we have good people on the ground to work with municipal units to ensure that - well, first of all, we'd like to try to keep them from running into problems, but if it happens, we're not willing to abandon them.

 

Bridgetown now has a full slate of councillors, and a new chief administrative officer is in place to ensure the residents are provided the governance and services they expect from their municipal government. We're also working with municipalities to build their capacity to undertake and improve strategic planning processes and to use performance measures to improve operations.

 

For example, there's a requirement under the federal Gas Tax Fund Agreement, municipalities are required to submit a municipal climate change action plan by December 31, 2013. Municipal Services has developed a guidebook to assist municipalities in preparing climate change action plans. These action plans will focus on both climate change adaptation and mitigation and will describe how municipalities plan to respond to climate change. These plans will make Nova Scotia municipalities leaders in the global response to climate change.

 

Municipal and school board elections were held throughout the province on October 20, 2012, to elect 412 municipal council representatives, mayors, and councillors; and members to eight school boards, seven regional boards, and one Francophone board with jurisdictions across the province.

 

Overall voter turnout for all municipalities in the province was 42.66 per cent, up 0.6 per cent as compared to the 2008 election. Fourteen of the province's 54 municipalities took advantage of e-voting in 2012 as compared to just four in 2008. The 11 municipalities that used e-voting for the first time in 2012 saw, on average, an increase of 6.58 per cent in voter turnout over 2008.

 

After the municipal elections in October 2012, we held a day and a half training session for new councillors. The session was well received and very well attended. One request that came out of this session was that we also provide refresher training for existing councillors. In March we provided six training sessions in the Annapolis Valley, Truro, Port Hawkesbury, Pictou County, Yarmouth, and Queens to existing and new councillors.

 

The sessions focused on four main components: the Municipal Government Act, understanding municipal budgets, understanding financial statements, and the importance of having an effective audit committee. These sessions were also well attended and staff were provided additional training as a follow-up. We're working hard to ensure local governments have the tools they need to effectively govern the province's 54 municipalities.

 

We're also continuing to work with the UNSM on the municipal auditor general's office. The UNSM has established a committee to lead the implementation of this new function, and a recruiting firm has been chosen to assist with the selection of the province's first municipal auditor general. We anticipate a candidate being chosen and that the office will begin its work in 2013-14 fiscal year.

 

The Gas Tax Fund promotes the economic, social, environmental, and cultural sustainability of the Nova Scotia municipalities through projects like community energy systems, public and accessible transit infrastructure, and water and waste-water infrastructure. The Gas Tax Fund has helped fund the Metro Transit bridge terminal in HRM, the Falmouth Sewage Treatment Plant in the Municipality of the District of West Hants, and the Meteghan Recycling Centre in the Municipality of the District of Clare.

 

We also offer programs that help community-based, door-to-door transportation. The Nova Scotia Transit Research Incentive Program provides funding to eight organizations and municipalities to support initiatives intended to generate new and improved public transit services in rural and underserved urban areas of Nova Scotia. The Community Transportation Assistance Program helps with operational costs for community-based transportation systems in low-population-density communities in Nova Scotia. The program currently funds 12 services that help Nova Scotians in underserved areas get to work, school, or to a doctor's appointment. Another two organizations will receive this funding in 2013-14.

 

The Accessible Transportation Assistance Program assists community-based transit organizations with the purchase and modification of accessible vehicles. Last year we helped these organizations purchase and make modifications to five vehicles. Through the community accessibility program we also provide grants to non-profit community organizations or groups, as well as to municipalities, to help with the removal of barriers for persons with disabilities in public buildings and spaces. Over the past year we have helped complete 38 projects province-wide, installing ramps, elevators, and accessible washrooms, making the province a better and more accessible place to live and visit.

 

Through the Emergency Services Provider Fund our department continues to assist volunteer fire departments, ground search and rescue groups, and other emergency organizations purchase the equipment they need like imaging cameras, bunker gear, and ice rescue equipment to perform their duties safely. We also help our Royal Canadian Legions through the Legion Capital Assistance Program to make necessary upgrades and repairs to existing buildings used to house Legion events and other community activities. Over the last year we have provided funds to help 11 Legions upgrade heating systems and to replace roofs, windows, and doors.

 

I'd like to take a moment to discuss our department's budget. There has been a net decrease of $28.6 million in the 2013-14 budget for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations as compared to last year's budget, which is largely attributable to the winding up of the Building Canada fund. This multi-year program, which began in 2008-09, is winding down and the province's financial commitment for this particular program will end in 2014-15. While the details have yet to be worked out, the Spring 2013 federal budget has indicated the new Building Canada program will be a 10-year commitment that will help communities plan more effectively for the future, by providing predictable, long-term funding for municipal infrastructure investments.

 

Changes to the new gas tax program will include payments being indexed at 2 per cent per year, starting in 2014-15, and eligible project categories expanded to include almost all municipal infrastructure, including projects in sport and recreation.

 

The initiatives I've outlined today are fine examples of our government making life better and more affordable for families, as well as for businesses. In closing, I want to mention that I am always struck by the dedication and commitment of our staff in all areas of the department. Staff work diligently to make sure that programs and services are delivered in a way that makes sense and in ways that are most accessible to Nova Scotia.

 

I have to say that I didn't come up through municipal politics, and I think the services I've used are probably similar services as lots of Nova Scotians: the Registry of Motor Vehicles, birth certificates and whatever. I am impressed with the people that I work with at Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. They are dedicated, committed, knowledgeable, professional and I am quite in awe, I think, of the initiatives they take on, that they come to the minister with, around things that they see that would be helpful to Nova Scotians - not necessarily that they're waiting for the minister to come up with a great idea, although I'm sure they're overwhelmed with a number of them that have happened.

 

Anyway, I have to say it's a really good department to work in and it's actually a very good department, I would say, for lots of ministers, in the sense to get a real overview of a broad range of programs that are offered to Nova Scotia citizens. This was a good experience for me, I have to say. I've learned a lot. Anyway, I have very good people to work with.

 

With that, I'd be glad to take any questions from my colleagues and try my best to answer them.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now call on the Liberal caucus for one hour of questioning before moving on to the Progressive Conservative caucus.

 

The honourable member for Preston.

 

HON. KEITH COLWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, minister, for the overview in your department and I, being a former minister of the department, not including Municipal Services, I couldn't agree with you more on the quality of the staff you have in that department. Indeed, a very good group of people.

 

I'm going to ask you this question first and I asked you before, when the user fees were hiked, like 2 per cent in 2011, you indicated in this room during the Budget Estimates that indeed, it was directed by the Department of Finance to do that, it wasn't based on actual cost. When I inquired more and more into that at that time and your staff indicated - through you, of course - that they didn't really have a handle on exactly how much the cost was up in each section that this was in place, and that's all on the record. I can understand that, that's the real life of doing business and it's hard to calculate all of those costs. Now the government has announced a 5.8 per cent increase, again in hikes in all the licences, fees, registrations, and all those sort of things. I'm going to ask you the same question, are these hikes because the Department of Finance or someone outside your department indicated to your department that you had to raise it that much?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Once bitten, twice shy. Like anything government does - and I kind of take a bit offence - it actually turns out to be Treasury Board that has to approve that. The notion that even if it had come from Finance, to my previous question a couple of years ago or whatever, it wasn't that they didn't know how that happened, it wasn't as if they made a request without some background knowledge. Anyway, I think there's a court case, and I'm trying to think if it was the Progressive Conservative Government or the Liberals, I think it might have been the Liberals that raised fees but didn't have the cost of that increase connected to the delivery of the service.

 

That's what I think came out of that case, was that government could not raise those fees because otherwise it was a tax. The government could not raise those fees unless it was appropriately connected to the cost of delivering those fees, so that's the case for the 1,400 fees increase, is that because the cost of delivering those fees has gone up. We didn't raise the price on those fees last year, so we've kind of had two years of carrying it so that's the reason for the 5.-whatever. Anyway, the cost of doing business has gone up, so in order to ensure that we cannot be drawing money from somewhere else to cover that because we're trying to deliver services in a lot of places - it's just purely the fact that the cost of doing business and delivering those has gone up; that's what that 5.8 per cent increase represents.

 

MR. COLWELL: That leads me to the ultimate question, have you got a breakdown of the cost increases per licensing and permit at this time? You've had two years to get it in place.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The cost increases for a licence . . .

 

MR. COLWELL: Maybe I can rephrase that. You put up 1,400 user fees by an average of 5.8 per cent, which is a total accumulative cost of about 8 per cent over the last couple of years. The department has had two years now to figure out what this costs. The last time they came here they couldn't tell me, they couldn't tell you what it cost to do each one of these licences. If you're running a business you would know those right to the penny, absolutely to the penny. We had two years to figure that out and now you have a breakdown of exactly what the cost was and why the cost has increased in each one of those 1,400 licensing items.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure that all the 1,400 fees apply to my department, but certainly some fees went up by $6; some went up by 30 cents. If you want to name five things or something you'd like me to get back to you, we can show you the price two years ago and the price now so you can see what the difference in the cost is for delivering that same licence or service. If I understand my deputy correctly, because there are 1,400 fees, it's done on a rotational basis: a certain group of fees analyzed over a period and then another group of fees to ensure they're within the range that the Auditor General is going to be fine with.

 

MR. COLWELL: If you raise a substantial increase on the average of 5.8 per cent, it brings it back to the point that the department should know - for the fees that are under your control, I'm just talking about those ones. The other ones, I don't know how many of those there are, but I would assume it's a majority of them because it's really the licensing and regulation things that the department does, the majority of it in the province - not all of it, the majority of it - should know, to the penny what it costs to issue, for instance, a driver's licence.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I can get you that. Do you want to know what it costs to get a driver's licence? I can probably get you that.

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I'd like to know that one.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So I'll give you a broad stroke and then if you want me to get you a specific of what a driver's licence - is it a driver's licence? I might not get that for you right this minute, but we'll get that for you. By way of example, in 2013-14, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations programs, cost projections for Registry of Motor Vehicles driver services is $11.1 million, and estimated revenues are $9.7 million, yielding a cost recovery ratio of 87 per cent. That kind of tells you we didn't get it all back for what it costs us. Anyway, I can get you the price for a driver's licence, if you would like to have that.

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I would like to have what it costs for a driver's licence, because you should know that.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Do you want a certain class?

 

MR. COLWELL: By class.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Every class?

 

MR. COLWELL: Give me a few examples - that would be fine.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, a Class 5 licence - I don't know that many so I don't want to have my staff spending hours at this, so if you can just tell me what it is you would specifically like, I can try to get that for you.

 

MR. COLWELL: Maybe two different classes of licence. Maybe one would be a commercial one for like a tractor-trailer driver, and one for a general driver's licence - the two of them. The thing is, it shouldn't take hours to do this. It's information that the department should have.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think we have it. I think we can get it for you - sure, we'll get that for you.

 

MR. COLWELL: We'll start with those ones and there are some other ones as we go through.

 

MR. MACDONELL: You were the minister for the department at one time.

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I was - and very aware of that. There were some issues at that time, as well, in getting costs on things, but that was a long time ago.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, there are no issues now so that's the difference.

 

MR. COLWELL: The computer systems have improved since then too. I know the staff is continually trying to improve things as they go forward. What I'm trying to get to here is what the actual costs for these things are. I want to make sure that the costs - not just the taxes added by the government to generate more cash for their coffers in other areas. That's what I'm trying to get to.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think the case - and I can probably get you the background on that case, which I think was the Liberal Government that the court said you guys couldn't charge what you were charging because it wasn't based on the cost of doing it. So I think we are restricted in our ability to gouge. So yes, the increase in cost is really a reflection of our additional costs of doing business, the delivery of the service, that's really what it is.

 

MR. COLWELL: Now in these cost increases, does that take into account the extra costs that you've incurred by moving, for instance, the Registry of Motor Vehicles to other locations? Is that included in this cost?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm assuming that when we tender out for a new access centre and we put in a Registry of Motor Vehicles Office and a Land Registry Office - I'll take the example of Truro, where we're combining the two. We had two separate offices in downtown Truro so we reduced the amount of space we needed to lease.

 

I'm thinking that whether or not that's something that has to come out of - I always say it winds up in the department's budget if we do the tendering and pay for it, but whether we have to do a TCA request to do that, because I'm thinking that building those is not - you know, some years you might do it, some years you wouldn't.

 

Since we don't build them, we lease them; we don't have ownership so we're really just leasing the space on a square-footage basis. Certainly once we take one on, we lease them for seven to 10 years, so for seven to 10 years we have to have that booked in our budget in order to pay our landlord the lease payment.

 

MR. COLWELL: Are there any extra staffing costs that would have been unusual, like new training and that sort of thing, by relocating any of the offices?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It would depend on probably the usual attrition, I guess. Certainly I think what we try to do is reduce costs but we would need people to actually deliver the service so that when citizens walk into these offices, they can be appropriately taken care of.

 

As people leave or retire or maybe somebody gets a job somewhere else, the idea of training is kind of an ongoing thing. There are probably hills and valleys as to what our complement is of staff that need to be trained at any one time. Generally it's something that we definitely want people trained before they start the job, but no additional costs as a result of facility changes.

 

MR. COLWELL: With the costs that you're running, what's your average wait time now at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, for service?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We'll get that for you.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay. I know the system was changed at one time so you could track that, I believe. You have that right in your system now so it should be pretty easy to get that.

 

I've got a ton of questions here. We're going to run out of time, of course, as we go on here. I want to talk about the VLT licensing and alcohol and gaming a little bit. I've been trying to get information from your department with not much success. They've actually referred me off to Atlantic Lottery. I'm still not getting hardly any information out of them as to what the process is. I know our office has been trying to get the same information, with no information coming back.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So what's your specific . . .

 

MR. COLWELL: We want to know exactly - there's a new study, or something, that's going on about the location of VLTs in bars and whatever, wherever the case may be, and we're not getting any information at all of how that is done. For instance, if you move a machine from one location to another, what the requirements of that are and how it all works and how one business may get one and another business may not, that sort of thing - what the rules and regulations are around that.

 

MR. MACDONELL: You want the rules and regulations about moving VLTs or acquiring VLTs, but you also mentioned about a study. Do you have a question about a study?

MR. COLWELL: Yes, there was a study that was going on with this - I can't remember right off hand - or a new process they were going to use for this. They all talk about it but nobody gives us any information.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Atlantic Lottery and the Nova Scotia Gaming Corporation determine where they go, so whichever minister is responsible for the Department of Communities, Culture and Heritage, whenever they come up for Budget Estimates, you can ask them. We just do the licensing so where the actual machines go we don't have anything to do with that - and the regulation of them, we're in control of that.

 

MR. COLWELL: When you're licensing, what kinds of regulations go into licensing?

 

MR. MACDONELL: What type of regulations?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, under your licencing - there must be something with the licencing that your department is involved in to make sure that it's licensed in the right location. What does the licensing incur? What does a business that gets one of these - what do they have to do to get a licence?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The regulations would be an age restriction, no credit granting - while the VLT is being operated in the facility. The Atlantic Lottery Corporation identifies to us that a place qualifies for the licence and we issue the licence - that's basically what happens.

 

MR. COLWELL: They would do that, but they would have some requirements that you would tell them that has to be in place or the government would tell them.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think they tell us. The operator applies to them and so they do the due diligence to ensure whether the outfit would qualify, and then they notify us and we issue the licence.

 

MR. COLWELL: So all those rules and regulations - from what I understand, if I have this right, that all your department does is issue a licence based on the information provided by . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: Based from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation - they notify us that the people who have applied qualify for the licence and we issue the licence, but then we regulate on - so they don't have people below a certain age in there and so on. We do that enforcement.

 

MR. COLWELL: That's who, your liquor inspectors?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Compliance officers, yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: Do the compliance officers now do both the VLTs and the liquor?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: That's a positive thing. That's interesting. I'll follow that up with the other minister.

 

You talked about some of the infrastructure money that's coming from the federal government, through to the municipalities and through the province.

 

MR. MACDONELL: You mean Building Canada?

 

MR. COLWELL: Just the program - the one you're wrapping up and there's a new one coming, is that correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: You talked about the different things that will qualify now - I think you said sport and recreation was some of it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Is that a question, can I answer?

 

MR. COLWELL: That's a question - yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Building Canada, I'm not sure I know everything about the new program because we're not the lead department on that - if there is anyone, it's TIR that has been the lead - but the bit I think I know is generally the Building Canada that's winding down now, I'm not sure if I can say exclusively - and somebody can correct me, which I think somebody will - but it has been almost entirely devoted to waste water and that type of infrastructure, and in particular because the feds have set a standard for municipalities to reach by 20-sometime - 2020? I'm thinking a recreation facility would not be a place that would qualify for that. (Interruptions)

 

I stand corrected that the feds have said that recreation facilities could qualify but it's up to us to negotiate on each project with the feds. Each province negotiates an individual program with the federal government so I'm assuming that we would probably weigh what we would see to be - like if waste-water and environmental issues, safety, and so on are deemed to be greater priorities than recreation facilities, then maybe that's where we would put our money. But I'm not entirely sure what direction that negotiation is going in at this stage.

 

MR. COLWELL: I just want to get a brief overview from you about what spending reductions you have made in the department, if any, and can you provide a copy of the reductions made in the department, including specific programs that reductions may have impacted?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Okay, I guess I'll need about eight people beside me here. Operating costs have a reduction of $402,000, various operating costs of $1.1 million; we had some additional savings through spend analysis of about $430,000; we completed our electronic scanning for the land records, and that saved us about $400,000; we had amortization costs for TCA of $814,000, and that offset those reductions. When I mentioned in my speech about Access to Business and Access for Citizens, what I called "A to B" and "A for C", we made a TCA request to Treasury Board for additional monies for those projects, and that was $720,000.

 

I want to just let you know regarding your question around the wait times at an access centre, they are on average about 20 minutes and that's depending on the time of month and whatever; it could be one minute, it could be 30 minutes.

 

MR. COLWELL: Also, what spending increases have you made in your department? When I'm going through the estimates here I see that some things, which I'll go through in more detail, have gone up substantially. Can you give me an overview of those?

 

MR. MACDONELL: For grants in lieu of property taxes, $934,000; the 211 Nova Scotia program is $169,000; lease expenses for Vital Statistics, a relocation to Bayers Lake, $134,000; and a Unisys contractual fee increase of $15,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: Have there been any increases in administration costs in the department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking no.

 

MR. COLWELL: Has there been any reduction in staffing in the department and specifically what areas?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We've had a reduction of 27 and then added 15 - so kind of made a variance, really a reduction, of about 16 overall. Most of those in relation to that increase of 15 were on service delivery? (Interruptions) Yes, most of that was - the increase was 12 new positions for that program of "A for C" and "A to B" - Access to Business and Access for Citizens. Most of the reductions were in clerical positions and service delivery, and some in various divisions, which we may get as you proceed through other questions.

 

MR. COLWELL: Have there been any programs that have been cut totally in the department - anything that has been eliminated?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No.

 

MR. COLWELL: Have there been any funding reductions in any of the programs you have?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, I think we kept HARP the same. Through our spend analysis we're always trying to find efficiencies or savings, so there may be some administrative reductions because we found some efficiencies - and that would be administration related to a program but actually not really any cut to the programs.

 

MR. COLWELL: Have there been any programs that have been scaled back with regard to access by the public?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No.

 

MR. COLWELL: On Page 20.3, there has been a change in the presentation of Senior Management from what has been presented in last year's estimate. The Office of the Associate Deputy Minister, which you touched on earlier a bit, has been added to this year's budget. However, the printed estimate in 2012-13 is substantially different from what is printed in the Estimates Book last year, but exactly the same entry for Senior Management. Could you explain that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Are you looking at Programs and Services?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Office of the Minister and Deputy Minister?

 

MR. COLWELL: I believe, yes, Page 20.3.

 

MR. MACDONELL: What numbers are you looking at as far as estimates?

 

MR. COLWELL: I'm looking at the overall numbers. It's quite a substantial increase in that cost - very substantial, if I could find it here. It looks like there's a whole lot more administration in the estimates. Under the heading Senior Management there is only a four full-time equivalent estimate for this fiscal year and a total expenditure of $790,000.

 

MR. MACDONELL: In 2012-13 there was $795,000? My book has an estimate in 2013 of $795,000 and then the forecast for 2012-13 went to $726,000. Then the estimate for 2013-14 is $790,000. Estimate to estimate in the year, from 2012-13 to 2013-14, is from $795,000 to $790,000. That doesn't look like an increase to me.

 

MR. COLWELL: The increase I'm really looking for is probably from budget year 2009-10.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not dealing with 2009-10.

 

MR. COLWELL: But it looks like there has been a budget increase of almost 60 per cent in that area.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't have 2009-10 in front of me and I think those budget estimates have been debated and passed some time ago.

 

MR. COLWELL: That's not the point, the point is . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's a big point. If you want to deal with 2013-14 budget estimates, I'm more than happy to take the hours we need. I can't address 2009-10, I don't have it in front of me and it seems to me you were a member of the House, and I think you were the critic - maybe not - but I wasn't the minister at the time. I'm thinking every caucus had the opportunity to debate those budgets at the time so I'm not going back.

 

MR. COLWELL: Well, we did debate it at the time. The point is and the fact is it's a 60 per cent increase over the budget between 2009-10 and today's projected budget. That's a substantial increase. Regardless of what it was then, that's a substantial increase. We're talking about today's budget which is . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: If you want to talk about 2012-13 to 2013-14, I'm more than happy to - since you and I debated 2012-13 last year, so if you want to talk about a change from there and get an explanation from 2013-14, we're good.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So you were talking about an increase but from estimate to estimate, but I have a decrease in my book here.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay. What travel requirements are taking place for employees now in the department, especially for the deputy minister?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't know if there's any requirement.

 

MR. COLWELL: Or any rules around that.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Out-of-province travel requires approval by the minister; out-of-country travel requires Intergovernmental Affairs; and we're limited on the number of people we can send to conferences.

 

MR. COLWELL: In the last fiscal year, where has the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister travelled, in out-of-country travel, and for what reason?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Out-of-province includes: a visit tour of 211 call centres in Windsor and Detroit; Provincial/Territorial Deputy Ministers Responsible for Local Government and Executive Directors of Municipal Associations, Toronto; Lac Carling Congress, Toronto; deputies of service delivery meeting in Ottawa; ministers and deputy ministers responsible for local government conference, Ottawa. The rest is in-province.

 

I think our associate deputy minister is a fairly new position. I don't think he has left the province yet.

 

MR. COLWELL: On one of those trips what type of advisory positions/support staff would typically be attending with the deputy minister?

 

MR. MACDONELL: There's no typical or prescribed staff that would go with the deputy. It would depend, really, on the conference and perhaps whatever is on the agenda of the conference that might pertain more to one of the directors or executive directors in the department, that he would want to take that person with him because it aligns with their actual area of concern within the department.

 

Generally on the FPT ones, where the minister goes, the deputy would go and perhaps one other staff person or planner, but it kind of depends on what we're thinking - we generally know the agenda ahead and that kind of determines who we might want to have with us for that meeting.

 

Some ministers take - some other governments, I notice, had executive assistants of the ministers go to these meetings. We have never done that since we formed government.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, that's great. I see on Page 20.3, again, when we go through Service Delivery, the executive director in that position has come in substantially over budget every year, resulting in an increase, but if we look from 2009 - and I know what your answer is going to be on that, but it's still important to see what the estimate was in 2009.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Nice try, we're not going there. I'm not sure who is preparing your questions but I'm thinking you haven't.

 

MR. COLWELL: Let me finish my question, if you would, please.

 

MR. MACDONELL: For a non-answer.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The honourable member for Preston has the floor.

 

MR. COLWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The executive director has been substantially over budget every year, resulting in an increase, from 2009-10 to the estimates for this year, of 552 per cent. This is a substantial increase and possibly there's some reason for that. Could you tell me why that is the case?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not telling you. I don't have the information from 2009-10. I wasn't the minister and I'm not going to make my staff pursue that - I can tell you that right now. I think maybe the Chair might want to find out if there's a ruling that would indicate that we don't have to deal with budgets other than the one that we brought before the committee. We're dealing with Resolution E35 and not estimates from some other era. If he would like to look at the 2012-13 estimate number that I have here in my book and compare it to 2013-14, I'd be more than happy to do that, but I am not going back to 2009, and I would not expect my staff - I'm not putting them through that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. Certainly it is the precedent to deal only - it is my understanding - with the current estimates that are before the House. I will rule in that regard right now, but if the member wants to question that we could get a more official ruling from the Speaker's Office. But I think we're dealing only with the estimates.

 

MR. COLWELL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments on this, but I do believe it's relevant because this government has been in place since that time and it's relevant to see what the costs and everything are in the department, so I would ask you to take it to the Speaker's Office for a ruling.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we could certainly do that, but we're not going to stop the current proceedings for the day. I would suggest that if you want to do comparisons of the nature that you're talking about, probably the best place to be doing that would be in Question Period in the House, would be my take on it and one could, in fact, ask questions about any year, I'm sure, in the House. Certainly we will proceed with the estimates for the current year and we will get a ruling from the Speaker if you can jump back into past years.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as the estimates for the previous years have been voted on and passed some time ago, so I would think the resolution would indicate the year that we're in. Anyway, I want to make it clear that I'm not interested in going back to any of those. I don't mind taking a small recess if you want to pursue that because I think we might as well hit this thing on the head if we can do it. This seems to be ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I am agreeing with you - not out of a sense of Party loyalty or anything; I'm agreeing with you out of a sense of reasonableness in dealing with the current estimates. I am suggesting that we proceed with the current estimates and that perhaps our very pleasant Page would see if the Speaker is not in the Chair at the moment - he was circulating out in the corridor just a moment ago - if you could perhaps mention to the Speaker that there is a little bit of a discussion in here, a very friendly one, and we will proceed with the ruling in a few minutes. We will proceed with the questioning immediately.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the minister, of course, and it's very unfortunate that he's unwilling to talk about things that truly represent increases in the costs for the taxpayers of Nova Scotia.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Chair has made a ruling on that for the time being - that we are dealing with the current estimates - so let's proceed with the current estimates for the time being. We'll get a ruling on this and I feel quite strongly that the ruling will, in fact, be one that it is the current estimates we're dealing with. I've been doing this in the Chair for a long time and I know, member, that you've been around a lot longer than I have and should be more aware of it than I am but in the past - and I have been doing this for several years now and I think I am correct. But as I say, you've been around longer than I have so we will find out in due course.

 

MR. COLWELL: Very well, we will do that and I'll leave it at that. I won't argue about this anymore at this point.

 

Okay, under Executive Director and Service Delivery, there are 466.6 full-time equivalents assigned to the division; how many are assigned to the office of the executive director? Of the 466.6 full-time equivalents assigned to the department, how many of these are under the office of the executive director? How many is he responsible for of the 466?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Two.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay. Last year - and I'm talking about last year now - the office of executive director was allotted $1.047 million; you have spent $1.45 million. What accounts for the 38.6 per cent over-budget spending for this year, from last fiscal year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Overtime is in that $1.047 million but it's spent throughout those other divisions, like e-services, operation centres, and so on, but it's budgeted in that line item. The difference you see on the $1.45 million was a new numbering system for all of the access centres, so we spent more for a new numbering system that was not indicated in your 2012-13 estimate; it showed up in the forecast number.

 

MR. COLWELL: How much did that new numbering system cost?

 

MR. MACDONELL: About $180,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: So how much was overtime?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Overtime was $161,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: Why so much overtime?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm going to take a stab at this and then I'll be willing to be corrected. When our access centres close at five o'clock - they're open until 7:00 p.m. on Thursday and Friday and then they close at 4:30 p.m. the other days. If somebody walks in, because we've said there's on average 20 minutes to get processed, so if somebody walks in at 4:20 p.m. and you're going to close in 10 minutes, when the closing time comes we can have a fair number of people still in our access centres. We don't kick them out at 4:30 p.m., we service them. Sometimes that means our staff will be there until five o'clock or maybe after, so we have to pay them overtime when those things happen.

 

It's just the nature of those operations, simply because we have a time that we kind of consider to be the regular day but we don't put people out if we haven't served them. So if our staff have to stay after closing to service those people, we get overtime costs.

 

MR. COLWELL: Even after coming in 38.6 per cent over budget last year the estimates you put forward this year decreased the expected spending by 2.2 per cent. How does that make any sense?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Say that again, please?

 

MR. COLWELL: When you look at the budget last year which we just talked about, 38.6 per cent over budget and you explained why and that makes sense, what you said, but you decreased the expected expenditure this year by 2.2 per cent.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So did you go to the $1.024 million, you mean, for 2013-14 which was a drop from 2012-13?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The numbering system was a one-time purchase for all access centres so we're not doing that again. That's the biggest reason there for the drop; we're not expecting to have to do that.

 

MR. COLWELL: That only accounts for $180,000 of it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The $161,000 for overtime is in the forecast, but it's not in the estimates for 2013-14.

 

MR. COLWELL: So that takes it up to about $300-some thousand, the total of the two of them with the numbering system gone.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Right. When you asked a previous question about what reductions or what increases in the budget, some of those reductions we mentioned would also be captured in that as a reason for a drop in that number.

 

MR. COLWELL: Like what?

 

MR. MACDONELL: For professional services, meeting expenses, as well as some memberships.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay. So you feel confident you'll meet the budget even though it was overspent last year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think the one thing we want you to consider is for the department's budget, like all departments within government, we've either been on or under budget in every department since 2009. Even though you might see something here that shows an increase from the estimate of 2012, for what we budgeted for spending for the department as a whole, there was no 36 per cent increase that we were over or anything.

 

MR. COLWELL: Of the just over $1 million allotted last year, how much went to staffing and salary requirements, and how much went to other spending?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The entire budget is $685,000 in salaries and that includes $500,000 in overtime, which is for the whole division, so that would be for programs and services, all of these, so that's not just the executive director - no.

 

MR. COLWELL: So you're indicating that the $685,000 is sort of regular pay and $500,000 is overtime?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No. If you subtract the $500,000 from the $685,000 it would be $185,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, overtime would be $185,000.

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, $500,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'm not getting this right; I'm missing something here, what you're telling me.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Regular salaries, $185,000; $500,000, overtime. So add $185,000 and $500,000, and you get $685,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: Holy, that's a pile of overtime. Wow, how can you explain that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, because we're in service delivery. I mean that's what we do so if people are in our access centres, then we don't kick them out. If you're on Page 20.3, Funded Staff (# of FTEs) $500,000 turns out to be about 10 FTEs.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, it just seems like a regular salary is $185,000 and you've got almost two and a half times that in overtime, there seems to be a problem. Am I hearing this right?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's for all the programs and services, the overtime, not just the Executive Director line. So it's E-Services, Operations Centre, Northeast Region, South and Western Valley Region, Central Region, and Service Integration - all of that is where the $500,000 overtime comes in.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'm going to ask this question again; do you mean to tell me you're paying $185,000 in regular salaries, have I got that correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's just for the Executive Director line.

 

MR. COLWELL: But the $500,000 is for something else besides?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The $500,000 is for overtime in not just the Executive Director line, but all the other line items that you see there: E-Service, Operations Centre, Northeast Region - are you on Page 20.3?

 

MR. COLWELL: No, I'm not, I'm just . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I'm going to show you.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'll get into the numbers here.

 

MR. MACDONELL: There's the Executive Director line, which is $185,000; everything from here to here is where you use up the $500,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, and that's in overtime?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's in overtime.

 

MR. COLWELL: It still doesn't make sense, there's way too much overtime for the regular hours. So what you're telling me is - I've got to get this straight because what you're telling me is there must be some other regular wages someplace in the system that would account for the overtime being so high. If you look at the way this is accounted in the book, it looks like you've got two and a half times the overtime you have and that's a real serious problem.

 

MR. MACDONELL: But those other line items, E-Services and Operations Centre, all would have a regular wage item in them. So if we consider the Executive Director line, the one at the top where you're looking at the $1.047 million, it's the one that has the $185,000, with two people; all of these other lines would have baseline salaries. So every one of these, if this is the Executive Director line and it has $185,000 for two people, then there would be a salary number for this, this, this and this.

 

The overtime, if you consider - I guess what we could try to do, if it's possible to tell you what the overtime would be in the Executive Director line, it would give you some kind of correlation to your $185,000 but the $500,000 is used up in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven line items. The $185,000 is only the salary in one line item. So if you were to think that every one of those line items had $185,000 or $200,000 as a salary, you would be looking at seven times $200,000 which would be $1.4 million or something. So your $500,000 is a much smaller number than the actual base salary found in every one of those line items because the $500,000 is the cumulative overtime in all of them.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has expired. Certainly you will have a further opportunity later on. Thank you very much. So we will now turn to the Progressive Conservative caucus.

 

The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, minister, for the opportunity. My first question is on the FTE numbers for the department. Last year it was estimated that 926 would be needed, 850 were needed, and this year I would expect we'd be looking at 850 again. I know there is fluctuation but at the end of the day, take out the fluctuation, and all things being equal, I would expect the FTE number would be closer to 850 this year. If it took 850 FTEs last year, then it probably could be done with 850 this year. Can you give any reasoning why it's back up to 910 for this coming year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'll try. We have a fair turnover in people, but say for example if you had 10 people working at your access centre and two leave, then you're probably going to pay overtime to the other eight until we get them replaced, until we get them backfilled. So what you spend really doesn't drop very much even though your FTEs have changed because you still have to get the work done. You're just paying more to fewer people because you need them to actually do overtime to get it done.

 

It would be great if we could have 850 and we knew that those 850 were going to be there all the time, it would make planning quite a bit more precise, but that's not the world we're in, so we look at the number we actually need - or I should probably look at the number that we spend, but it doesn't always correlate to the number of people that we have because we have to pay more for the service from fewer people until we replace people that we've lost, that's really it. The overtime doesn't equate to FTEs.

 

MR. MACMASTER: You're paying a higher rate for overtime. Is that what's . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: Time and a half.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So you're building the cost of the time and a half into the FTEs numbers.

 

MR. MACDONELL: No. The number spent on the overtime doesn't necessarily equate to FTEs, and I think that causes the confusion because you think there should be a certain number of people associated with that number and the fact that even if it was just by time it might be simpler, but the fact that it's time and a half skews it a little bit.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Obviously there was overtime last year and it worked out to an actual of 850 FTEs; wouldn't that mean that if we had overtime this year that would be included in the 850 FTEs too?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure there's a simple answer, because we're dropping our number of FTEs year to year, so from 2012-13 we had 939.1 and for 2013-14 we're down to 924.4. In our plan we were reducing the number of FTEs and then the variance - well, there was a difference of 75. We were down even if you look at our forecast of 864.13 - I'm not sure if you have this.

 

MR. MACMASTER: What page are you on there?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You probably don't . . .

 

MR. MACMASTER: I was looking at Page 1.14 in the Supplementary Detail book.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Page 1.14 - well, maybe we'll try to get on the same page. So you're going from 926 in 2012-13 to 910 in 2013-14.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, but recognizing that only 850 were used last year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: If you look at the 926 and the 910, for us those are the net bodies - FTEs - that we think we need. The 850, as it turns out, is losing roughly 75 people, or 70-ish people that we didn't plan for. We wanted more people to get the work done. The money we spend because we lost them and didn't get, depending on when they leave through the year - I guess in the bottom line an FTE is a body that you lost; if it took 10 of them who left in tenths of a year, it made one person. So for us that generally means we have to pay the people we have working - the 850 - more money in overtime to do the same job as 926. So if you look at the dollar amount, it's not like you can do that for 850 - well, we can't do it with 850 without having people working longer and we would just as soon have the 70 other people and pay them; instead of the one-and-half rate, we'd rather pay them the one. Anyway, does that help at all?

 

MR. MACMASTER: It helps a bit but where do the overtime costs show up for the 2012-13 forecast, the year that just finished, where would those overtime costs show up?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Just to give you an example for Page 20.3, the section that I was dealing with with Mr. Colwell, it would be built in in each division. So you're not going to really see a single line item on the overtime as a unit for the whole department, but we can probably tell you what it would be for the whole division. So for Service Delivery, for example, we could probably tell you what the overtime was for that and then tell you what the overtime might be for Senior Management.

 

MR. MACMASTER: In the interest of getting to the bottom of this would the department be willing to put together a summary of the overtime costs for the past year so that we could . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: In each division?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, the total for the department - so that we could compare that for the . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: We can tell you now. The total overtime for the department was $1 million.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay. If I look at the number of FTEs though, going from 850 to 910 at roughly $100,000 apiece between salaries, benefits, and office space, that totals $6 million, which is six times that. I can appreciate that it might not be - I'm making the assumption that every FTE would cost government about $100,000. I realize that may not be accurate but even if we took an estimate of half that, at $50,000 per FTE, that's still three times the amount of overtime that's showing up.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't want to jump to the conclusion that you're wrong; I would rather just ease you there.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Well, if you can add the numbers up, I'll believe you.

 

MR. MACDONELL: If somebody left in the last three months, we had them for nine months and you won't be spending that money because you may not - like for those three months you won't have somebody in that job, although the people who are working, if they have to do overtime, you're going to spend more money to do that.

 

When you look at the 910 number for 2013-14, I want you to ask your question again because really it's a 16 FTE difference between those two, so can you re-ask your question?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Sure. If the department needed 850 people - now granted, I know you make the point you needed more but you made do with . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: We had 850, but in reality what we thought we needed was 926.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So if you had 850, plus overtime costs of $1 million, wouldn't that suggest that you need 850, plus the $1 million in overtime, divided by the average cost of an FTE, which is probably - even if you have estimated an FTE at $50,000, that would mean you need 20 FTEs, so 850 plus 20 would be 870 - do you see what I mean?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

MR. MACMASTER: That's how the wheels are turning in my head.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So you're thinking, because if you look at 926, which is $10.649 million, and 910, which is $10.303 million, that's only a $300,000 difference and you're saying it's a $6 million difference.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Well, I say $6 million based on the average cost of an FTE being $100,000 and if there are 60 people going from 850 - the actual last year - up to 910.

 

MR. MACDONELL: If you look at the 926 at $10.649 million, and the 850 at $9.953 million, there's your million bucks - about.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So you're saying it's a million bucks going from 926 down to 910?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, it's not quite perfect math - $700,000.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I think it's also going in the other direction too.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just going to interject for a moment, if I could. I'm just allowing the tos-and-froes here, which is much more liberal than in the Chamber. Maybe every five minutes you could say "Mr. Chairman" so that they know there is somebody actually there. (Laughter)

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, minister, I think the point I'm trying to make, and I know you're trying to refute it - I can understand if there are overtime costs and you have to add that to the 850 FTE figure, but if there are overtime costs of $1 million added to the 850, I don't think it would go back up as high as 910 FTEs. That's the point I'd like to make.

 

It seems to me that maybe the department is over budgeting the number of FTEs that it needs and if there's some way you can show me that, outside of the estimates here, if you want to endeavour to show me, then I would feel more convinced and I'll stop asking the question.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think the thing I need you to tell me is, do you have a problem with the $10.303 million?

 

MR. MACMASTER: What page are you seeing the $10.303 million?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm on Page 1.14, that page you directed us to, so are you there?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: If you look at the 926 line item, so the costs for the department, now that's not - oh yes, these are all departments, so I shouldn't go there.

 

The 926, I guess probably even for my own mind we should get the number for the cost of 926 compared to the 910 and the 850 as far as it relates to my department, and that would tell you that it's not $6 million like you're indicating. The actual number in the real world, what the 926 was estimated to cost us and what the 850 actually did cost us, by adding 60 or 70 bodies or whatever to get to 910.

 

MR. MACMASTER: If you could provide something to me in the next few days that would be . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: I was hoping I might do it sooner, but if not, we can get it to you. Page 20.2, if you look at Departmental Expenses by Object, it has Salary and Employee Benefits, and if you go to the bottom of the page to Total - Departmentally Funded Staff, you have 926. If you go up to Salary and Employee Benefits, it's $61.1 million and then if you go over to 910 staff, it's $61.056 million. That's the difference between those two numbers, 926 staff and 910 staff. That's not outlandishly crazy.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Can I make a point? Move to the column in the middle where it says the actual for last year was $58.239 million with 850 staff, and I guess the point I would make is if that was the cost - I don't know if that includes overtime - and that was the number of FTEs used, then I would think this year, all things being equal, that would be a better figure to start with to budget for the year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Right, okay. If we're 70 people in the difference, I think where Mr. MacMaster is going, it doesn't look like 70 people in the difference in these two numbers, so that's kind of where I need a little more explanation. (Interruption)

 

I think it's a real good question because I don't really understand the answer. When we lose people, we don't - anyway, we'll get you that answer so that we can show you how we get that number.

 

The explanations I've seen, I don't have my head around the fact - because it strikes me that even though we have a partial person, like somebody is not there the whole year, but if they leave - somebody has gone a vacancy for nine months and somebody has gone a vacancy for three months, well, that's one FTE. That means we really seem to have to still get the work done and pay an amount but if we actually have a reduction of - and I'm thinking it would take an awful lot of people to make up a reduction of 70 impartial breaks but still have a fairly big number of $58 million. I'd like to see that myself, so we'll find that for you and get back to you.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you. My next question - the biggest number that jumped out at me was the Grants and Programs on Page 20.4, under Municipal Relations. I understand this to be - the big difference from last year to this year is the fact that I think the Building Canada Fund is winding down, so that amount is not in the budget this year. That said, can you give some indication for the coming year of what kind of activity might be taking place with respect to the kind of projects that we saw in the Building Canada Fund, like waste-water projects? I can think of one that's near and dear to my heart in Inverness - the Maple Street extension project there. I wouldn't expect you to know of that specific one offhand, but can you give some indication of what activity you might expect to see in the department under Grants and Programs to municipalities across the province?

 

MR. MACDONELL: This year there's no Building Canada Fund. We have a program called PCAP, which is the Provincial Capital Assistance Program. We have $1.75 million in it and we cost share that 50-50 with the municipalities. There is no federal contribution in that, which was generally one-third/one-third/one-third for the Building Canada Fund. Some of that is already spoken for with HRM, and some in Guysborough as well.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So there's probably not a lot of that left to go around for the rest of the year, I don't imagine.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I guess it would depend on who's in the queue. I'll stand to be corrected, but I think municipalities indicate to us that they're going to do a project. But it doesn't happen and so we're kind of in the hold mode: try to verify with them - are you going or are you not? - because we'd rather use that money for somebody else who actually is going to do a project. You can even think that $1.75 million is not - when you talk about the kinds of projects that the municipalities do, it's not a great big amount.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I'm going to move on from this question, but I know in the case of the Maple Street extension in Inverness, it was a smaller project and I think they were kind of hoping that recognizing there's no Building Canada Fund to go to, maybe it was something that they could get done.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure if they - have they applied? Have they sent something to us, do you know?

 

MR. MACMASTER: As far as I know, they have.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We haven't received anything from them.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Well, I'll make sure they get it to you. Thank you for the update.

 

My next question is - and I apologize that I'm jumping around a bit here - but the Smoke-free Places Act, there is a budget line item for enforcement. I was recently in the U.S. and I had the pleasure of being in Nashville and Memphis and, of course, when you go there, if you want to enjoy some music there are great strips of bars you can go to with all kinds of live music. But one of the things that I was surprised by is that there was smoking inside the bars and I'm no longer used to that and it was kind of strange. It was a reminder to me that the legislation that passed, personally I was in favour of it and I think the general public, even those who may have been against it originally have grown to accept it and appreciate it. Can you give us some indication of what you're seeing with the Smoke-free Places Act, the enforcement of the Act, and if you're actually seeing less requirement to enforce it because people are more accepting of it?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Since that Act came in - and we only do the enforcement in the bars, we don't do workplaces - we've only had one incident that had to be resolved in the courts so it's pretty good.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's good to hear, I was just curious. My next question is on motive fuel tax. I know there have been discussions in the past to remove the tax on tax for gasoline and I know that would obviously bring a revenue challenge for government, but have there been any discussions on that between your department and the Minister of Finance's department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, there hasn't. I would have to say that I can't envisage a world - I can envisage a world where you didn't have the tax on tax, I just can't envisage a world where you're going to go without the income. I think whatever way it's reincarnated people are going to pay, so until government gets to a place where it could do without the income I'm not expecting there's going to be any change. But I have had no discussions with the Minister of Finance and this would - really, I find it hard to believe this would be a discussion between the minister and myself on this item. This is a much broader kind of policy direction that all my colleagues, I think, are going to be engaged in when government starts to talk about what they might want to do in this regard. Anyway, to this stage I have not been involved in any discussion in that regard.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I noticed that the revenue is pretty stable every year for motive fuel taxes and I'm just wondering if the department is noticing any trends there. I mean to look at it from the big picture it appears people are driving just as much as they've always driven and they're paying whatever they're being charged because they really have no choice in the matter, and I realize that's a result of world markets for oil and gasoline, but I'm just wondering if the department is noticing any trends around the purchase of fuel and, of course, by way of the revenue that it's bringing to the department.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Year to date for gasoline it's only down 0.88 of a per cent, so not quite 1 per cent. For diesel it's down 1.3 per cent. So you're right, it's relatively stable and I'm not sure if everybody thinks the way I do, like I'm not sure if I notice the price. I need it when I go to the pump so I make a decision: do you want to walk or do you want to go in and get some gasoline?

 

I think we all recognize the impacts on the economy and every product, every good that's certainly moved by freight, but in general those are probably more likely to be diesel than gasoline and somebody has to pay that cost. I think for us it's really a question of whether our businesses are at a competitive disadvantage in a significant way to their neighbours, in bordering provinces and so on, I think as much as is possible.

 

I have to say that probably having a fairly kind of transparent process around how gasoline prices go up or down is, I think, of some benefit to the consumer. I think that's why we have a regulated price structure, in a way. I don't have enough background to indicate that if we had more competition in the marketplace, whether that would have the impact. You can, on occasion, look across the country and see where we stand and quite often in places that are deregulated or don't have regulation, their price is higher than ours and so there are always a number of factors that seem to be at play in the pricing.

 

Yes, as much as it's one of the good things in the society that we live in, there are disadvantages that come with it that are not just the price, but sometimes I think we do feel that the price - you notice it.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I think about the price of diesel and how it used to be so much cheaper than gasoline and now, all of a sudden, it's the same price as regular. To me it's just an obvious sign that whatever they can charge - and when I say "they" I mean the people who are the big players in oil and gas, they are basically charging whatever they think the market can bear and there's not really much competitive forces at work there, I don't think.

 

I also know I think their costs are exploding, as well, to try to get people to work in the oil fields and so that's driving the cost of it too. Of course, there are good things about that, people are making good paycheques out of that.

 

In any case, just one more question on that: just roughly, what is the cost to regulate gas prices in the province? I had heard that it was somewhere in the order of about $600,000 a year. Is there a rough number that you could provide?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We provide a grant to the URB of about $0.5 million.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, thank you. My next question is tobacco tax, I see that it's going up, I think 2 cents per cigarette which - does that translate roughly to 50 cents a pack?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Depending on the size of the pack.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, a good point.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Two times, you know. (Interruption)

 

MR. MACMASTER: So it's 2 cents per cigarette and I don't know, is a standard pack 24 cigarettes?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Twenty-five for a large.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So it's 50 cents for a large pack.

 

MR. MACDONELL: And 20 cents for a regular. I don't know if that means if you're a regular person, I think it's a regular pack. (Laughter)

 

MR. MACMASTER: So that's going to raise revenues, from what it shows here, by about $17 million per year. And that's probably a lot like gas, too, if you like to smoke you're not going to reduce your consumption.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Consumption has been dropping, am I right? But we don't see any gas consumption dropping. Certainly I think with cigarettes it is.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, and I think it has almost been at a rate of maybe between 0.5 per cent and 1 per cent a year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, that's good to know.

 

The other item I noticed is on Page 2.6 in the Supplementary Detail, under Fines - according to this it does come under Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. I notice that at this time of the year last year you were expecting about $2.8 million in fine revenue; the actual was $6.3 million, about twice that; and this year we're back down to about $3.1 million. Can you give some indication for that difference in numbers?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Those fines are for smuggling tobacco and you might say, well, if your actual was $6.3 million - because we have to go to the Department of Justice to help get this number - but really, I don't know if I want to say it's a crapshoot but it's pretty unpredictable to know where that number might land. I'm not sure it's a good thing that we actually took in more money or we had more smuggling. So anyway, we do put a number there and maybe a middle of the road only because we have no idea about where that's going to be.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Was there a major bust last year that resulted in significant fines or is it a bunch of small fines that add up to make that number?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It can be a lot of small fines, I think last year there were two $1 million fines, and the rest of the fines were in the $300,000 to $500,000 range. So obviously not a lot of them to get to that kind of a number.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So I guess the answer is that there are a few large fines.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The 2012 estimate, $2.8 million, and the 2013-14 number, $3.1 million, those are RMV fines. The actual or the forecast is RMV and tobacco, so our estimate number doesn't include the tobacco number in it.

 

MR. MACMASTER: The next one I'd like to ask about is the MVI and Drivers' Licenses on that same page. I see a total there of $1.5 million, if you add the two of them together, and the Motor Vehicle Inspection is doubling over last year's estimate.

 

MR. MACDONELL: The $1.9 million - is that where you're looking?

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's right. Why is there such a large increase in revenue there?

 

MR. MACDONELL: For inspections they're on a two-year cycle, so there's a little more of a peak in one of those years - in some years more than others for that reason. Now, are you looking at the Drivers' Licenses number?

 

MR. MACMASTER: I'm looking at the Drivers' Licenses number.

 

MR. MACDONELL: From $7.9 million to $9.6 million, and that's on a five-year cycle.

 

MR. MACMASTER: People are getting their driver's licences renewed every day and they're getting a car - I can expect there's more getting a car inspected in the Spring, maybe there is a bit of seasonality there, but wouldn't that all even out pretty much?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, in that number probably, because you're looking at, I guess, the difference between $8 million and almost $10 million, so that is a fair difference. I'm thinking some of that is probably a little bit of a wonky in the five-year, but you're right, you'd think it would be fairly predictable. Then I would suspect, from time to time, as people who lose their licence, like coming back into the system kind of throws them out of the five-year - I don't know how big that could be in comparison, but I'm thinking of all those factors. Some years you'd have new drivers, like you might have more coming in in one particular year, 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, than you might in another year.

 

I think my thinking is similar to yours, that the trend should be relatively stable, but I'm thinking there are just other factors.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Would it be too much trouble to ask if the department could provide some background to those numbers? Maybe there's a perfectly good reason, and that would be good.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Sure, we can try that. If you look over five years, you will see in some places a peak, like it's not exactly the same.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, thank you - I'll continue here.

 

One thing I noticed - and you can probably tell where these questions come from - there was mention that municipalities will have to start paying for DNA analyses, which is estimated at $1 million. Now that's probably under the Department of Justice but if there's some comment you can provide.

 

MR. MACDONELL: You may want to just say - if I say it's in Justice, you might think that's true but anyway, it's not us.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So I should ask Justice about that, okay.

 

MR. MACDONELL: And they would pay based on how much they use the service.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes. I think some of these may be better asked to the appropriate departments since they are more directly responsible.

 

What about waste-water regulations? The budget did not address a number of unknown costs with respect to waste-water regulations. Is that . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: Are you on a page somewhere?

 

MR. MACMASTER: No. This is actually something I saw from the UNSM in their response to the budget. They raised the issue of waste-water regulations and they expect that changes there are going to cost them more money, and if the province is not looking after that cost, of course it's a cost that is going to be raised for them. Do you have anything to say about that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We're good guys. The kind of forced move in this direction is as a result of regulations or changes that the federal government is imposing. With that said, the fact that they're imposing it on towns and cities in the province and we live in the province in those towns and cities. I think for us we were kind of hoping that the Building Canada Fund, which generally has had the biggest envelope of money, certainly in the past five years, that that would be the place where we could address some of this. I'm not sure if it's going to do what we hoped, which is a little bit odd in the consideration that if it's the federal government who is imposing the change that they would at least backfill it appropriately to do that.

 

We were in discussion with UNSM all the time, and probably a bit regrettably we kind of do these as one-offs too. Like when you talk about Inverness, sometimes various municipalities apply to programs and then it's all taken up, the take-up on the programs, so sometimes if another municipality took a little longer to kind of get their number crunched to determine whether or not they wanted to do the project while the funding is all spoken for.

 

Anyway, we continue that conversation with the feds in the hopes of what we are able to do to help municipalities. I don't think we see ourselves as unconnected, we feel that we are a partner, and as much as we can help them we'd like to be able to do that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I know what's driving that are the federal regulations, and I think what drove that really goes back to Walkerton. I can think of in Inverness they had this great water supply, at high elevation in the community, and with the changes they moved to a new water supply. It's kind of ironic that people are driving up to get the water from the old supply because it tastes better and they're kind of bemoaning the new water supply, but of course it's more secure. In any case, I guess this is one of those situations where government is sometimes called upon by the public to regulate and to make sure things are safe because somebody has messed up in one instance, and the result is that things cost more but they may be safer overall to a degree. But I can appreciate it's not really anything we can solve in this room today.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We do have ongoing discussions quite often with the Department of Environment. When a particular project of a municipality comes to us, we'll talk to people at the Department of Environment, to get their analysis of how serious the need is and if there are ways to go about mitigating the problem and try to do it in probably the most cost-sensitive way for the municipal unit. I have to say that we really feel a connection with the Department of Environment because sometimes, as it turns out, they don't feel the municipality is under immediate pressure as a safety issue, or a health issue, as they might think they are. Sometimes you can buy yourself a little time and then it gives you time to put a plan in place. Quite often, if you have a plan, most people are willing to say, well, we're perfectly happy to allow you to progress along that line, even if it takes you a little longer, but you have some action already decided and that seems to be helpful.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's something that's positive to hear, that's good.

 

I have some other questions here and these are questions that when we look at the Budget Books, not knowing what's behind them, we notice in the numbers there appear to be some - you know, there doesn't seem to be a clear pattern. In no particular order, the Office of the Associate Deputy Minister, zero was estimated for this last year, yet it ended up with an actual expenditure of close to $84,000, and this year there is an estimate of nearly double that. Can you provide just some background on what's driving that? I presume that maybe you didn't have an associate deputy minister before.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We were thinking in 2012-13 we wouldn't pay him.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That didn't work out though.

 

MR. MACDONELL: But he did turn out to be smarter than we thought. (Laughter) He started in October, so that's kind of the reason because you can only pay for when he came on. The estimate actually was included in the deputy minister's number so if you look over the $626,000, we pulled it out of there for the 2013-14.

MR. MACMASTER: So the associate deputy minister was under the . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: The line item there, the $795,000, that money was in there. Then for the 2013-14 estimate, you can see that we pulled that out.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So half of it was in the deputy minister line; the other half was pulled out into its own line item for half a year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, it should have been the full year in the $795,000, but we only spent basically about half in the actual.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, understood now. Sorry to draw attention to that gentleman, because I believe he's in the room with us today and I'm sure he's worth every penny.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Don't say that too loud. (Laughter)

 

MR. MACMASTER: Let's see what else is here: amounts chargeable to other departments increased by $2.2 million this year - what drove that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We had recoveries from the restructuring fund for some salary increases; we had a TIR recovery for the Municipality of Antigonish - sewer and water; additional recoveries for the program I had indicated earlier about Access to Business and Access for Citizens - that would be a TCA project; and some operating funds that we recovered from restructuring.

 

MR. MACMASTER: The next one is tangible capital assets. There is quite a difference between the estimate for 2013-14 versus the forecast.

 

MR. MACDONELL: What page are you on?

 

MR. MACMASTER: I don't have a page number for that, but let me see if I can find it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We're on Page 1.8. If you look at 2013-14, the $6.524 million, about $5 million of that is Access to Business and Access for Citizens, and the rest of that is an RMV application, high availability. If there's a shutdown or a breakdown in the system, we have a system that will kick in and continue so that you have no downtime.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Are you talking about a computer system?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So there was a purchase of something like that or there's an amortization of equipment that was recently purchased.

MR. MACDONELL: That's the capital cost of it.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Was that purchased in 2012-13, although it wasn't really budged for, is that why the actual is so much larger than the budgeted amount last year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: If you look at the 2012-13 estimate and then the forecast, which is higher, the "A to B" money came in later in the year and the money for the RMV system, which we just talked about, we're budgeting that and it will be in place next year.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Maybe you can explain it to me - this is General Revenue Fund, tangible capital assets. Is this revenue coming into the department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's a cost that is capitalized on the balance sheet but amortized on our operation expenses.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So is this an expense or revenue?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's an asset purchase.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So you're showing a portion of the purchase of the asset or are you showing the full purchase of the asset?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's the acquisition in that year but it could be a multi-year project.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So the big difference is really an IT purchase.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Most of our TCA is IT.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I've asked your department for a bit of information today and I don't want to be overburdening people, but is it possible that you could just kind of show what those purchases were this past year and this current year that were budgeted for, just to have an idea?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You mean the IT stuff?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I know the big one is Access to Business and Access for Citizens. Do you want the breakdown for the $2.343 million? I guess the forecast was $4.694 million so that's probably the one you'll want.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes, that one and maybe the one for this coming year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We can do it now.

MR. MACMASTER: Okay.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, minister, the time for the Progressive Conservatives has expired and there will be another opportunity.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, could I have a little break?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just going to suggest - you've been on the go here for two hours and 49 minutes. What do you want, five minutes, 10 minutes?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Three minutes would be good.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have at least a five-minute break, thank you.

 

[4:39 p.m. The committee recessed.]

 

[4:47 p.m. The committee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Preston.

 

HON. KEITH COLWELL: I'm going to ask some questions about the Service Integration under Service Delivery. Each year that has been run over budget compared to what the budget has been. Is there a reason for that or how does that work? Does that have to do with overtime again?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We'll just have a look and see. I just want to be sure - are you looking at the 2013-14 number, the $2.9 million? I'm just wondering about the over budget comment, where you're coming from.

 

MR. COLWELL: It shows that each year it has been just over budget, not by a huge amount, but it has been over budget. Is there a reason for that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: In 2012-13, it was estimated at $1.5 million, and then the actual came in at $1.3 million, so it wasn't over at all.

 

MR. COLWELL: E-Services under the same Service Delivery increased by 8.9 per cent over the estimate and 2.5 per cent of our last year's forecast in the estimate.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, so $2.327 million to $2.471 million?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's $140-whatever-thousand, and most of that is the contract increase with Unisys.

 

MR. COLWELL: That was the union contract?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, Unisys. It was tendered out - they're a service provider that the department uses.

 

MR. COLWELL: What was the reason for the increase?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's a contractual arrangement. That's what their service cost, so in order to get them, that's what we had to pay them.

 

MR. COLWELL: Is that a tendered process?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, we added some services as well, more so than other contracts, we added some things in this contract and it probably added a little bit of cost for them to do that.

 

MR. COLWELL: What type of work do they do for the department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: On-line vehicle renewal work, they do that, and our Internet transactions - people can go on-line and get their licence or permit or whatever, so they do that.

 

MR. COLWELL: Is that more cost effective than actually doing it internally?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, it is.

 

MR. COLWELL: By how much?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't know when the last time the department actually did it internally. It's a tendered contract so we can take the person who will deliver it cheapest and with them, they meet all the standards nationally for credit cards, storage, and so on. The fact that it's tendered gives us the idea that in a competitive world we're getting the person who will do it for the cheapest for us; that's the thing we're looking for for the taxpayer.

 

MR. COLWELL: When was it last tendered?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They got it in 2007 and we renegotiated the master agreement last year.

 

MR. COLWELL: It wasn't re-tendered last year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No.

 

MR. COLWELL: Why wasn't it re-tendered?

MR. MACDONELL: It's really a partnership agreement with them, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador. We have varying schedules for the tendering part of that so every province might do that tender at a different time. I'm not sure if we have a timeline when ours will be re-tendered again. It was set up so that we would continue until it wasn't desirable for us to do it with them.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Colwell, do you have another question?

 

MR. COLWELL: I do. I'm going to finish my whole hour.

 

It was 2007 when it was originally tendered - were all four provinces involved in that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: Under Policy and Finance, it's showing a 12.7 per cent decrease from last year. What is the change that would have accounted for that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Do you have a page number?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, it's still under Municipal Relations, on Page 20.4 in the Estimates Book, Policy and Finance.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Your question is?

 

MR. COLWELL: It shows a 12.7 per cent decrease from last year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It was mainly just salary reductions in that area.

 

MR. COLWELL: Did you eliminate some staff or something?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We went from 10.5 to 9.2 FTEs.

 

MR. COLWELL: Grants and Programs, under Municipal Relations on Page 20.4, it shows a cut in the budget of $27.997 million. What's the reason for that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's the winding down of the Building Canada Fund by $21.4 million, and then there was a change in the accounting for the federal gas tax, which has a reduction of $6.2 million.

 

MR. COLWELL: Programs and Registries Management, Page 20.6 under Collections, it had a funding decrease of 41.7 per cent. What is the reason for that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't have any recollections, but we'll look. Salary reductions of $223,000; we discontinued the EnerGuide, which was another $100,000; and then there was an increase of about $90,000 in recoveries, which reduces our costs because we took in more. So that basically gives you a little over a $400,000 difference.

 

MR. COLWELL: The salary reduction - how did you accomplish that? What was that from?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Two positions gone.

 

MR. COLWELL: Just two positions?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: Last year, you estimated that you would be able to collect - and I know it's difficult to collect - $1.060 million last year, but you only came in at $223,000. What's the reason for that? That's about a 79 per cent reduction.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We had a grievance amongst collection officers, 35 of them, so we had accrued a possible payout. They were grieving their salary classification so we put in for 2012-13 the possibility of having to address that had they won their grievance, but they didn't so we wound up with actually a credit in the department. We never had to spend that money, really, so that's why there's such a reduction in the forecast; $618,000 is what we think we'll need for such a thing this year.

 

MR. COLWELL: I may be reading this wrong or maybe you understood me wrong or I said it wrong. Maybe I've got this wrong here. You estimated, I believe, in last year's budget you would collect just over $1 million.

 

MR. MACDONELL: You're looking at Collections and the $1.060 million?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's the operating expense for that division. That's the expense to operate the collections department. Included in that is salaries, so we accrued - because there was a grievance - an amount higher than the salaries on the idea that if we lost the grievance we were going to have to pay it out, but we didn't lose the grievance so that's why the numbers turned out to be lower in the forecast.

 

MR. COLWELL: That makes a lot of sense.

 

Is it still a policy in government to allow credit card purchases up to $5,000 for some individuals who would need to buy things from time to time?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You mean a civil servant to buy?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

MR. MACDONELL: The purchasing card limit is $1,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: I believe it was $5,000 at one time, wasn't it?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Travel cards, maybe.

 

MR. COLWELL: On the $1,000 that someone can purchase on that, how is that accounted for in the system? It's pretty sizeable.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm assuming there would have to be a receipt, a bill, or a document. Everyone who has a credit card would submit a claim every month and they would have to have their receipts attached. They spend the money out of the card, but it's not reimbursed until they have the documentation to indicate that there was an actual purchase made.

 

MR. COLWELL: How many of those credit cards would you have in your department?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We can get you that number. We think maybe 54, but we can get you that number.

 

MR. COLWELL: And these would be like $1,000 a month, right?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Not everybody spends $1,000 and they wouldn't be spending it every month.

 

MR. COLWELL: But potentially they could if the need was there.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I think, potentially.

 

MR. COLWELL: So that would be quite a substantial purchase during the year, if everyone did. I realize that is very closely watched and everything.

 

The HARP program - what is the status on that now? How much has been claimed out of that program? How much did you budget for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm not sure we would have that number right now because just March 31^st the program ended. I think we were on track for what we have traditionally been - 53,000 applicants. About $10.3 million is what we're looking at.

 

MR. COLWELL: What was the estimate for the year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The estimate - $12.4 million.

 

MR. COLWELL: So you're relatively close to where you should be.

MR. MACDONELL: Since I have been minister, it has never been fully taken up.

 

MR. COLWELL: I can understand that because it's difficult to estimate how much it would be. It's an important program to people. Are there many people refused; of the number that apply, how many are refused?

 

MR. MACDONELL: As of Monday - yesterday - we approved 45,000 cheques and we have declined or denied about 2,600 applicants.

 

MR. COLWELL: And they would have been declined just because they didn't meet the criteria?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: The land registration office is under your control as well, correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: I wanted to ask some questions about that. To get the new land registration process in place now - and I want to make sure I have my information correct on this. I'm going to ask you probably some pretty dumb questions, so just please bear with me. If you and I register properties and there's a difficulty between the property lines - I'm going to try to make this real simple because it's a very complex issue, I know. If we both do the title clarification and our lawyers believe that both of them are correct, and at the end of the day when it comes down they find a discrepancy there, how is that rectified?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Are you talking about through the migration process?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: And you're talking about abutting properties, I think, that share a common line, I guess is what you're saying?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, number one, I think it's probably rectified through the courts in the sense that if you're doing it without a survey, or if you do, I would think if you're buying a property, you would want it surveyed before the final - you know, if you have your cheque at your lawyer's office in trust, then having a survey done to determine that the lines are actually accurate, it would strike me that you would wind up in court before you ever got to the land registration office. But I can have somebody fill me in - that's correct.

 

MR. COLWELL: If indeed the surveys were different, a couple different surveys, what would that entail?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You have to know where to draw the line. (Laughter)

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I realize that. Some surveyors don't understand how to do that, or consistently do that. What action can be taken - I know there are separate societies set up and everything to regulate surveyors - what guarantee is there, or when you get the information to register that land, that you have the correct information?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, I think you would probably want to seek legal advice on this. You would want to weigh the discrepancy from, in other words, where you thought your line was, if it was a difference of 100 acres or a difference of 0.4 of an acre, and if you talk to your neighbour and you say it doesn't really matter to me, I'm fine with the line there, both of you can walk away and not have to spend any money. If 0.4 of an acre is something that's of value to you and you think you're going to lose it because the line was drawn in the wrong place, or potentially, then you have to determine if it turns out that 0.4 of an acre makes it worth $5,000 for 0.4 of an acre, you might say I can buy land cheaper than that.

 

I think it's going to require a bit of analysis with you and your lawyer and the surveyor, number one, because if the surveyor signs the document that it's accurate, then it's a question of the legal requirement in that regard because he's on the hook if he signs to say that it's right. So I think your recourse initially is going to be through the courts, if you want to get into a fight with your neighbour over a dispute of the boundary line between you. You can correct me, but are you going to a place where you're saying, well, this has not been realized and the property has been migrated and it's in error?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm thinking if it's in error, then it falls back to - the lawyer guarantees it in the first 10 years after it's migrated. So if you find out within the first 10 years, then you go back to your lawyer and he would have to make it right. If it's after 10 years, the province is the one that guarantees title.

 

MR. COLWELL: What if the lawyer won't defend what he did?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The Barrister's Society, whatever governing body for lawyers, or if you have to maybe go to court and sue, I don't know, but I think you'll need a lawyer to tell you that.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'm just trying to see what regulations the department . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't think we regulate, you know, if this happens, you do this. I think if we guarantee title and we're the province and there's an error in it, do we make it right? After 10 years.

 

MR. COLWELL: So the way it works now is after 10 years, if somebody finds out there is an error and it has been registered in error, then the province is responsible after the 10 years?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: What happens at that point - because then it would be the province doing it - what would happen?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, in negotiation with the aggrieved party, if it turns out that they're right that a piece of land wound up migrating somebody else's deed and instead of it belonging to Fred, it should have been with Frank, then it will come down to, all right, how do we make this right for you? And the magnitude of the error, it may mean re-survey or put it back on the original person's deed where it should be; he might say, give me $3,000 and I'm out of here and he can keep it. It will be a negotiation to determine what it would take to accommodate the person. I'm not sure at what point people say, well, that's out of the realm of possibilities, what you're asking for is not reasonable. Anyway, I think it's to try to ensure that the person feels at the end of the process that they've been duly taken care of.

 

MR. COLWELL: In the process of land migration that has been going on - and I think it's a good concept, it really is, to hopefully get lines straightened out between properties. Some people never get happy - how many complaints have you received that people aren't happy with the migration process?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We're thinking not a lot, but if you want to know how many complaints there were in the last year, we can probably find that out for you because my executive director beside me indicates she was in charge of that division for a couple of years and there might have been one complaint in the couple of years that she was there. It generates very few, we're going to say, but if you would like to know for 2012 how many complaints, we can try to get you that number.

 

MR. COLWELL: I'd appreciate that. That would be good. There's a whole process that goes through for this, from when it's migrated by a law firm and then it's placed with the province and then anything past that. Could you just give me in brief terms - or could you provide me with - exactly how that process it works? You don't have to do it now but if you could provide it to me later, that would be fine - to see how that works. It seems to me that some people don't understand how it works, so it would just be nice to have that clarity.

 

I know I've had my own constituency office people come in with issues on it - I don't know if they are real issues or not or they're just not happy with what happened with their neighbour or whatever the case may be, I tend to stay clear of those. But it's nice to know the process so I could give it to them and say here's the process and we can go from there. I'm sure it's something that all MLAs have run into from time to time, so that could be helpful.

 

I don't see it in my book that I've got here but did you supply us this year with the grants that were available to different organizations, like municipalities, churches, and all those things? For this year - I've got them for last year - I may just be overlooking them.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Can you repeat that question?

 

MR. COLWELL: You gave grants to municipalities and to churches, Legions, all those sort of things - did you supply those for this year? I can't see them here.

 

MR. MACDONELL: They wouldn't be in the same place, for municipalities that's a whole other world, but for Legions and whatever, I think we can give you what the line item . . .

 

MR. COLWELL: I may not be looking in the right place in my book here.

 

MR. MACDONELL: In the Supplement to the Public Accounts there is a section here on Grants and Contributions so it has them all listed, that's for 2011-12; 2012-13 isn't available yet.

 

MR. COLWELL: I realize that.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We can get you a copy of this.

 

MR. COLWELL: If you could - maybe you could get the Page to copy that - I'd appreciate that.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We'll just take that for granted.

 

MR. COLWELL: I just don't have it here, that's all, and I'm probably not looking at the right spot. We talked about service delivery - when you moved your offices and the one that you put together in Truro seems to make a lot of sense, the one location makes a lot of sense. What other moves did you make in the province in offices?

 

MR. MACDONELL: There was a number. We combined Weymouth office, the Weymouth Land Registry, with our access centre in Digby at a new facility in Digby. That was one and I think I had two or three in the speech: Stellarton, Amherst, Truro is coming up, Sydney, Kentville - Kentville, Digby, Bridgewater and Truro coming up, Amherst, Stellarton, and Sydney.

MR. COLWELL: What's the total cost of doing all of those, the initial start-up costs, did you have extra in the budget for that last year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They're leases and then the salaries, I think, probably as part of staffing - I don't know if they changed. No increase in salary costs. In some cases like in Stellarton we went from a building we owned to a building that we lease, so we had a cost of $155,000 that we're paying that we didn't pay because we owned the building. They're not entirely all the same, every one of those.

 

MR. COLWELL: The one that you no longer own the building, what happened to the building?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Transportation owns the building - not us.

 

MR. COLWELL: Why did you move out of a government building and incur rent?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Cramped space, which did not meet the operational requirements.

 

MR. COLWELL: There was no way to modify that to make it work?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I imagine that was evaluated, but considering - I don't have here the age of the building, the facility we were in, but it was not set up to be a customer service office initially. There were occupational health and safety issues with it, and the location wasn't great. For those reasons they deemed it would be better to move out of it, since we lease most of our space anyway.

 

MR. COLWELL: That makes sense. When you look at Vital Statistics here next door - is there a lease cost with that now?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's in Bayers Lake now and I'm thinking it's a lease. It moved into the access centre.

 

MR. COLWELL: It moved out of the building next door. Did the province own the building next door?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think Joseph Howe was a leased building. You might want to ask TIR when TIR gets in here.

 

MR. COLWELL: I will do that. I just want to ask you a couple of questions on these things. Basically this information is a year old. You don't have the current one yet - is that correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's 2011-12.

 

MR. COLWELL: You don't have anything on 2012-13?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Not yet.

 

MR. COLWELL: So this doesn't really tell us a whole lot. We would have had this last year?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, you would have had 2010-11.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay. Maybe I can just ask you a few questions on these, if you don't mind. The Association of Municipal Administrators, $27,000, what was that for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's the Association of Municipal Administrators Annual Spring Conference and Fall Convention, and $20,000 for some IT initiatives.

 

MR. COLWELL: The Better Business Bureau, $25,000.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's an operating grant we give them.

 

MR. COLWELL: Isn't that a separate organization? Why does the province fund it?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think it's because of their consumer protection agenda that they do. It aligns itself with the consumer protection work that we do in our department.

 

MR. COLWELL: But that's 100 per cent driven by membership, right?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I think so.

 

MR. COLWELL: You have to be a member to even get any information on it so just really members' information.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't think so - they make information out to the public.

 

MR. COLWELL: But that's not what I mean. There are members of the Better Business Bureau - you have to become a member of the Better Business Bureau and they will rate you once you're a member. So it's membership driven.

 

MR. MACDONELL: I see. I'm just thinking the question is more along - are you saying they only evaluate their members?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: They'll investigate complaints against any business.

 

MR. COLWELL: They have no ability to do anything - only with their own members, right? Is that correct?

 

MR. MACDONELL: You mean to investigate their own members?

 

MR. COLWELL: If they investigated some organization that's not a paying member of their organization, they've got no teeth and there's nothing they can do about it.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Well, they can alert the public. They can say if it's deemed that a business that's not a member has been found to be in some fraudulent - or making a claim that they shouldn't be, they can make that information available to the public. They can't pull the membership of the person in the joint stocks or something like that, they don't have any power in that regard. I think their role is to disseminate information to the public based on complaints that they get about various businesses so that the public is protected by not going there and not doing business with that organization. If it turns out that there's a legal issue, fraudulent allegation or whatever, then that's for the RCMP or somebody to investigate beyond them.

 

MR. COLWELL: I see there are several grants here to fire departments - which is always positive - especially volunteer fire departments. Typically what's that for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: We do the Emergency Services Provider Fund, that's kind of the big one that fire departments use through us. I'm trying to think about whether it's for construction, if they wanted to put in a door - it's mostly for equipment, pumps, hoses, that kind of thing.

 

MR. COLWELL: I see the First United Church here got $9,800 - what would that have been for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's probably for something - either a ramp or a roof, but we don't do churches. It would have to be the part of a structure that's a community hall or some such thing - a community hall upgrade, that's what that was about.

 

MR. COLWELL: We have a lot of money for the Halifax Regional Municipality - $48 million. What's that for, just in general terms, because you could be here all day explaining what that is?

 

MR. MACDONELL: HST offset, grants in lieu, the provincial portion of - there's some for fire protection; ESPF for Lawrencetown, $6,000; farm property, $57,000. There's a list from Chester for some city hall restoration, $332,000; Ernst Mill Bridge, $236,000; Herring Cove fire station, $280,000; Hubely fire station, $232,000; North Dartmouth Trunk Sewer, $672,000; overpass, $666,000 - so that gives you some idea kind of a broad range of things they had applied for.

 

MR. COLWELL: Is some of that part of the infrastructure program with the . . .

MR. MACDONELL: Building Canada?

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes, is that in that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, and the federal gas tax.

 

MR. COLWELL: I see the Knights of Columbus have two here, Council 8608 - what's that one for, for $7,500?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Stella Maris roof, and community hall upgrade is the other one.

 

MR. COLWELL: The other one is a community hall upgrade?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: What's this one here for Mara Consulting Inc., for $70,000?

 

MR. MACDONELL: What page is that on?

 

MR. COLWELL: Page 289. I'll make sure I have the right thing here. Yes, I'm looking right at it. It's Mara Consulting Inc. for $70,000.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Actually, that's misplaced. It was consulting work; it wasn't a grant. It was development work on system analytics civic address Web server purchased by the PVSC. It should have been reported under professional services in Other - that's where it should have been; it wasn't a grant in lieu.

 

MR. COLWELL: Parrsboro Band Association for $5,766.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Community ACCESS-Ability grant.

 

MR. COLWELL: They have a building?

 

MR. MACDONELL: They must, I guess. We don't have that. We can get that for you. We don't have it right here.

 

MR. COLWELL: Unisys Canada Inc. on Page 290 - it's the second one from the bottom - for $16,130.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It was work that Unisys did for us under an eGovernment initiative and it should not have been under Grants and Contributions. It's another one that should have been under professional services in Other.

 

MR. COLWELL: United Way of Halifax Region - $585,000.

MR. MACDONELL: That was last year's 211 contribution to the United Way.

 

MR. COLWELL: The United Way does the 211?

 

MR. MACDONELL: The United Way set up the organization, but the 211 organization is a separate legal entity.

 

MR. COLWELL: Was that a one-time thing to set it up?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: And is there money that goes to United Way each year for this or the 211?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, I think it goes to 211 now. I think it starts at $500,000 and grows to $995,000.

 

MR. COLWELL: Over time?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Over time, yes - five years.

 

MR. COLWELL: It goes to almost $1 million in five years?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, and that's all the costs you have with it, it's just that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to interject. There are 10 minutes remaining in the one-hour time frame for the Liberal caucus.

 

MR. COLWELL: I may be done before that - maybe. The Yarmouth Life Skills for Disabled Adults Association for $8,181, what was that for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That was a Community ACCESS-Ability grant.

 

MR. COLWELL: I see Yellow Cab here for $54,000.

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's purchasing a vehicle and converting it to an accessible transportation vehicle.

 

MR. COLWELL: Is that 100 per cent paid for by the grant or is it cost shared?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I don't think so - it's cost shared.

MR. COLWELL: The other ones we have down here are numbered companies - 2307407 Nova Scotia Ltd., for $76,000, what's that for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Leased space in Sydney.

 

MR. COLWELL: And all the numbered ones, are those leased spaces?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Yes, they are.

 

MR. COLWELL: And the next one, ACS Public Sector Solutions, what's that for?

 

MR. MACDONELL: So you're in what we call the Other section, which is professional services.

 

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So that's what this is, the ACS Public Sector Solutions Inc. - professional services required to provide a hosted and maintained international fuel tax agreement solution for Nova Scotia.

 

MR. COLWELL: Is that under gas regulation - is that part of the gas regulation?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's for the allocation of fuel tax for truckers in other jurisdictions. I'm going to need to be corrected on this, but say a trucker from the United States is here in Nova Scotia and he's paying our tax, then we equalize that with truck traffic in whatever jurisdiction in another state and only because of the difference in the tax paid - the difference in the rates of the tax paid, so that nobody is disadvantaged, I guess, is the way to do it, so that if our truckers are doing business or carrying freight in another jurisdiction, with a different rate, they're not penalized by doing that.

 

The tax on the fuel is done on the basis of travel within your province. So if a trucker spent the majority of his time in New Brunswick, then some of those tax dollars go to New Brunswick so they're not disadvantaged.

 

MR. COLWELL: And you get corresponding revenue.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Right.

 

MR. COLWELL: That makes sense. What about Adecco Employment Services for $308,000?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It's temporary clerical help, services bought from that company.

 

MR. COLWELL: We have another one, AG Research Inc., for $11,660.

MR. MACDONELL: Maintenance costs to move a civic address Web server and enhancements is what it says.

 

MR. COLWELL: AGFA Materials Corp.?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Colour imaging supplies for the Geomatics Centre.

 

MR. COLWELL: Anna Allen, $10,200?

 

MR. MACDONELL: I'm going to think that's for her services for Bridgetown. We appointed a new mayor and council there - Bob Fowler, Anna Allen and Jim Thurber - to kind of bring that back financially, so it could be handed back over to the town. So I'm thinking that was for Anna's services in that regard.

 

MR. COLWELL: Is there anything you can recoup from the municipality or is that just . . .

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, I'm thinking not. Through an insurance claim around the fraud allegations, I think maybe we got some of our money back. We don't recoup any of that and for the insurance claim, that was for the forensic audit that we paid for, so we got some back on that.

 

MR. COLWELL: Annex Investments Limited, $144,000?

 

MR. MACDONELL: That's our lease in Truro and Stellarton.

 

MR. COLWELL: Okay, that concludes my questions.

 

MR. MACDONELL: We'll try to get back to you as quickly as possible on some of those questions you asked that we didn't have an answer immediately for you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Colwell, you had a minute and a half left, which you have been kind enough to give to the Progressive Conservatives. That means that there are 11 minutes left and another one minute and a bit, so we have 12 minutes.

 

Minister, how much time do you want for a closing statement, two minutes?

 

MR. MACDONELL: Eleven or 12 minutes. (Laughter) No, a couple of minutes - I'm assuming we're closing.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that will be our full four hours. The Progressive Conservative caucus has already indicated that the time frame that is left is sufficient, so I'd better stop talking and give you 11 minutes.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we left off, I know I was asking about the tangible capital assets. I can ask the question again but in the interests of time and making the most of it, I don't know, I think you were about to respond to that one.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Can you redo your questions?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Sure. I was asking about the tangible capital assets and the difference between the years.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Are you on Page 1.8?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Yes. If you look under the Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations line, the forecast, the actual for this past year is $4.694 million, up from an expected $2.343 million, and then this year we're expecting it go up again to $6.524 million.

 

MR. MACDONELL: For 2012-13, we really had only three items in our estimate: geo infrastructure and storage, $1.125 million; AMANDA Web migration, $860,000; and then Life Events bundling, $358,000. Then when we get to the forecast, we put more into the Life Events bundling and brought it up to $823,000.

 

Access for Citizens and Access to Business weren't in our estimate; we had to go to Treasury Board after the budget in 2012-13 to initiate more funding for those projects. So Access for Citizens was $785,000 and Access to Business was $1.175 million. Then the AMANDA Web migration went down about $160,000 to $701,000, and the geo infrastructure and storage stayed roughly about the same at $1.145 million. So there were the three items we had in the estimates: quite an increase, over double, on the Life Events bundling, and then we threw in the Access for Citizens and Access to Business, which is roughly in the range of a $2 million increase just on those two items.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's very helpful. What about for this coming year, in this budget? I see that $6.524 million is the number.

 

MR. MACDONELL: So the Access for Citizens and Access to Business, those two combined are about $2.5 million each, so about $5 million just in those two. Then there is an RMV application server, which is about $1.125 million, and the AMANDA Web migration is $399,000. So those are basically the four items identified in the 2013-14 budget to get $6.524 million.

 

MR. MACMASTER: What was the RMV again, the server? What was the cost?

 

MR. MACDONELL: It was called the application server and that was about $1.125 million.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister; that clarifies that one. I've got four more here, if I can slip them in. Service Integration, the estimate for this year is more than double the forecast for last year, can you explain that one?

 

MR. MACDONELL: For the most part it's increased operational costs for Access to Business and Access for Citizens projects, including amortization. So both of those are in the $600,000 range, which accounts for the $1.344 million difference you see there.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So that's considered a separate cost than the tangible capital asset cost, why is that?

 

MR. MACDONELL: There are two components to tangible capital asset projects: one is the capital investment, and the other one is to the operational investment. Some of that is actually building the project before you, so you can get it to make the request and then make it operational afterwards.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay, that sounds good to me. I know we're almost out of time here.

 

There's an amount for Collections - the forecast for the year just finished looks like $737,000. That's less than the estimate for the year.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Where are you?

 

MR. MACMASTER: I'd actually like to find you a page number, I'll see if I can find it. On Page 20.6, under Collections, the estimate for the year was expected to be just over $1 million; they came in at $223,000; and this year it's expected to be $618,000.

 

MR. MACDONELL: This is the one where we had the grievance - well, we had salaries, I think they are number one, it was one of the things, and then we had 35 collection officers who had put in a grievance for a salary reclassification. So we had three years of accrued increase, but they didn't win the grievance so it didn't get spent. That's why it's such a drop in the forecast.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Is there an expectation that they'll come back again this year? Is that why it's back up again?

 

MR. MACDONELL: No, that's just normalizing the operation - I guess grievances can happen. You kind of booked the liability but as it turned out, you didn't need to spend it.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's fair enough. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I think I'll conclude with that.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E35 stand?

Resolution E35 stands.

 

Thank you, minister; we thank your staff and we thank members from all three Parties. That concludes our session today.

 

MR. MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to thank my staff, as well, for their help.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We are adjourned.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 5:56 p.m.]