HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

1:57 P.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable members and staff, I call the subcommittee to order. We have 22 minutes remaining in the Progressive Conservative hour of questioning.

The honourable member for Cape Breton West.

 

MR. ALFIE MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be back here again today. As we rounded up the period the last time, the question that I had put forward to the minister - and I'll just do it quickly as a reminder - was, indeed, when you moved two offices of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, you moved them in the same direction about three-quarters of an hour, an hour, apart from each other. The question was, where such an amount of the fishery is also located in the other area and if the reason for moving the jobs was to get good government jobs in rural Nova Scotia - which we all agree with - I'm just wondering why you went in one direction and didn't put one office in one part of the province and the other office in the other part of the province.

 

HON. STERLING BELLIVEAU: That's a fair question in a province that's regarded as a fishing industry, but I can tell you that the consideration from my perspective is that first of all for the Aquaculture Division, as I mentioned earlier, aquaculture is basically located in Shelburne, which is my understanding with my knowledge of that community. It's the central, if not the centre, of aquaculture in Nova Scotia - the hub of that. I can go into great detail about the utilization of Shelburne Harbour and the activity around salmon there, but also closed containment with Acadian Seaplants and the Scotian Halibut grow-out in my hometown. There's a lot of activity in aquaculture across Nova Scotia, and to me that is basically in the heart of that particular developing industry.

 

The other point is that the revenue from the traditional fisheries - if I can move in that direction - is basically in that general area. I mentioned earlier that between the two points of Shelburne and the Digby-Cornwallis area, to me this is the most active, the most revenue-generating area in Nova Scotia. Also, I think there's a point here to spread these jobs out in rural Nova Scotia, I think that's the point that perhaps when I have an opportunity to spend the time and understand that there are different communities that can benefit from it. I think the question I may have gotten was why not put it all in one place, and to me it's about recognizing that other communities can benefit from relocating these departments that don't always have to be in downtown Halifax.

 

I can spend time talking about that because I reflected on the comments that I said about there aren't too many fishing species, aquaculture or wild fisheries, landed in the ferry system between Halifax and Dartmouth, the terminal, and I was actually in that vicinity last night and I reflected on that comment. I know down deep that the relocating of these departments from Halifax to the areas of Shelburne and Digby-Cornwallis is the right thing to do for the industry. I think I can justify it by the dollar value, by the activities in those species, and it's not to take away from the value of those other areas.

 

I know the importance of Digby, we have regional offices all across this province, and it's not diminishing them or the fact that there are activities in Cape Breton, Northern New Brunswick, the Bay of Fundy, all the rest. But it sends a clear message that we take these moves seriously and that people in these communities can benefit from it, our tax base, our municipal councils can benefit from it, and it was not just in one particular area. I have a number of comments, and I'm going to turn it over to the honourable member for his response, but I have a considerable amount of consideration about saying that it's actually a good choice of dividing that up into two different areas and people can benefit from that.

 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over to the honourable member.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, nobody is disputing that it was a bad move to move them out of Halifax. Nobody is disputing that it's a bad move to split the two apart, but you are the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture so they are one department. The question would be, if you're going to divide the department up and have two offices in rural Nova Scotia - which is a great thing - why would you put the two of them in the same end of the province, an hour apart from each other; why wouldn't you put them at two ends of the province?

 

You indicated the other day that the snow crab catch, for example, that made about 40 per cent of the amount of dollars that were generated in the fisheries, there's a huge snow crab - so if you can have the whole department together when it's in Halifax, why can't you move it and have the department in one part of the province and a full-service operation at the other end of the province still achieving the goal that you're talking about: spreading good jobs into rural Nova Scotia and at the same time making it easier for the people in the industry to access people face to face?

 

Mr. Minister, the other day you said that people can talk over computers and everything like that, but it has been my experience with fishermen that they like to look you in the eye and have a heart to heart. Nobody is disputing that it was a good idea - at least I'm not, because I'm all for any jobs we can get anywhere in the Province of Nova Scotia - but I'm just wondering why they both went in the same direction and they weren't split up in different parts of the province.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I really appreciate this question and to me, I believe it's something in principle that the member opposite - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - but I think you agree that moving the jobs from the city to rural Nova Scotia was a good idea.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I said that.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I believe that is confirmed. To me the selection between Shelburne and Digby-Cornwallis, again, I want to emphasize - and I'll not repeat that - I believe it speaks for itself. Basically the heart of those industries is there. They're a good representation of what is going on in Nova Scotia. Actually, it's the place where the fishermen gather. I reflected on that actually last night and I know this may sound quirky at this time, but sometimes when you go through the House and you have questions posed to you, I really take that to heart when I look at an industry in aquaculture that has been basically the foundation.

 

The department has been established in Halifax and one of the things that our Premier and our government have said is that we would move jobs to rural Nova Scotia from the city if we got elected, and we did that. I'm very appreciative of that. I also want to echo that there are a number of regional offices across our province - particularly in Pictou, Arichat, Mabou, and Truro - and I know that fishermen have access to these different offices. I also know that we have what I call fish reps - it may not be the technical name, but I know that there are individuals out there representing the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the industry knows this. They have these people basically on speed-dial.

 

I'm confident of the technology that we have today, that this is the right move. From just listening to municipal leaders, whether it's in the Digby-Cornwallis area, this is the best thing that they've had in the last decade of these moves for professionals - bringing in professional people and the number of jobs related to both of these departments. They bring in their families and the numbers - you can multiply that - and it trickles on down to the economy, to the school systems and what we have.

 

To me, it's a good idea. Can we be in every community? Well, I wish we could, but I think the department has made the right move by sending clearly to the industry that we take aquaculture very seriously. We've committed to that and the potential growth in rural Nova Scotia. To me, in talking about Shelburne, it's a classic example of where aquaculture can be developed in that particular harbour - a natural harbour that's recognized as third-best in the world.

 

Also in my neighbourhood is the Scotian Halibut grow-out site; it's a closed containment site. Also, Acadian Seaplants is basically a stone's throw from my hometown. I'm very proud of those different closed containment ventures, I'm proud of the aquaculture part being located in Shelburne, and I'm also proud of basically understanding that Digby is the world scallop-fleet capital. To know that this is all taking place and there is harmony in co-existence with the traditional fisheries, I'm very proud of that. I thank the member opposite for the question.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Nobody is disputing the centre of aquaculture; nobody is disputing how important those areas are to aquaculture and to the fishery. What I can't understand is when you had an opportunity to make sure those two areas that are huge contributors to the economy of the Province of Nova Scotia, why you chose to move your two offices in one direction instead of putting one in one part of the province and one in the other. They can work in harmony; they don't have to be separated. Again, according to what you told us the other day, the stone crab, the lobster, and the shrimp - which is basically the bigger fishery - are located in our area as well. Again, having rural jobs moved out for people is an important step.

 

I just want to change gears a little bit because I guess we're not going to get the answer anyway. Last year's estimates called for 82 FTEs and the forecast shows that only 68 were used. How come such a drastic number of positions weren't filled?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I really appreciate your interest in our department but we're working on filling those positions as we speak, and that's the short answer.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Will any of them be in Cape Breton? You can open a third office.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I know the member opposite asked about opening offices, but the point that's being made here is that these are important jobs in rural Nova Scotia and I can't emphasize that again.

 

MR. MACLEOD: Mr. Chairman, he's right, and I can't emphasize any more than this: with 18.5 per cent unemployment, Cape Breton Island is an area that should be targeted for jobs that are good paying, that belong to the Province of Nova Scotia, and they can help the economy there. The reason, from what I understood, for the diversification and moving jobs out of metro into different areas was to help the economy. If an area that has 18.5 per cent unemployment doesn't need help, I'm not sure what does.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I want to leave the member opposite with this scenario. We had four - I have it down to 1,500 days of being in office here and doing something that previous governments have never done. The member opposite raises this question about moving and I don't want to get into a history lesson here, but I think there were plenty of times in the past that previous Opposition Parties could have done this and they failed to do it. We have led by example and to me, I believe the history lesson is about doing something and living up to it; we committed to moving these jobs from the city. When it comes to a marine resource industry such as aquaculture and fisheries, I'm proud of the fact and I'll stand behind where these have been located; it's in the heart of where the fishers gather - that's the point.

 

To me the point is, and I need you to reflect on this, in the past these moves could have been done at any time over 30 years. The point I want to make is one of the things that gave me the momentum or incentive to go here, the seed that planted that in me is actually going through a cod moratorium and seeing the devastation of policies that affect my community. Mr. Chairman, I know you're familiar with the cod moratorium and when that was introduced in the 1990s, that had a serious effect on communities right across Nova Scotia; whether you were in Woods Harbour or whether you were in Cape Breton, it had an effect. That was in the early 1990s.

 

I remember as a young man, literally leaving school when I got old enough to work at my father's side and the sea was a beehive of activity in my community. When I walked down to the wharf on a weekend there would be fishers in the fish plant saying, would you give me an opportunity to go with my family this weekend, because I want to take a break, would you fill in for me on the fillet line? I said sure, I'll do that - that's how busy, how much opportunity there was in that community. Every community right across Nova Scotia was the same; it was a beehive of activity. In the 1990s, that came tumbling down because of federal government policies.

 

Since the 1990s, if you could fast-forward to the early 2000s, as I was getting more mature in my life I said to myself, there are no opportunities in this community for people to have the same opportunities that I had, and that needs to change. We are going to change policies and we are going to put people to work in these communities.

 

In my background as a fisher, I saw opportunities in aquaculture and I saw opportunities in under-developed species. I had the incentive to go and get elected to do just that, and we as a Party, as a government, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, are changing those policies that are going to have an effect on our community.

 

I'm proud to stand up here and say that the previous government, the Opposition, had all those opportunities to do those changes - to move jobs from Halifax to rural Nova Scotia. We did it, and we put them in the heart of the aquaculture industry; we put them in the heart of the fishing industry. I'm proud to stand here and say that not only did we stop there, we talked about policies in Ottawa and said, when there's going to be a negative effect on our communities we're going to stand up. We stood up in February of this year when we went to Ottawa and said EI is going to have a negative effective on our communities and coastal communities across not only Nova Scotia, but the Atlantic Provinces.

 

We also said there are opportunities there, and the fishermen know and the fish harvesters know that there are under-developed species out in this water column, right from the Scotian Shelf, right from the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, to the Georges Bank and the Bay of Fundy; they know that these under-developed species are there. There are opportunities, and whether you have the courage to talk to your federal counterparts and say these policies relating to EI are having a negative effect so please do not introduce them, and please do not talk about lobster quotas in a fishery that is struggling because it's going to have a negative effect - please do not introduce them.

 

When you say that we will be committed to finding the science - and please do not say no to our fishermen because they know that these new species are out there; they want to go out and develop them. When we go there, we know we're going to get the same answer - you can't do it; you can't do it, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture from Nova Scotia, because we don't have the science. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman? We had the answer when we went there. We will do the science for two species. If we were working together as Atlantic Provinces, all of our neighbouring provinces would be pulling the same string in the same direction. They would be committed to the federal government saying, don't give us that answer anymore; there are opportunities in our community and we will commit to two species. Guess what? If all the other provinces did that, we would have a long list of different species that could be developed in our communities and it would make a significant change in the attitudes in the coastal communities as we see it.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt your answer. I see that the allocated hour is over. However, I wondered if Mr. d'Entremont or Mr. MacLeod wishes to continue. If so, we're certainly prepared to accommodate that.

 

MR. MACLEOD: I want to hear the end of this, whatever it is, and then I have a few things that I would like to get on the record about who represents people and who picks winners and losers in this province, and who has decided that they want to have it in their area and they're going to tell the communities that the fisheries in Cape Breton aren't important - they're not the heart of the fisheries. That's what this minister has just finished saying: that the heart of the industry is in one spot and not all over the Province of Nova Scotia. He should be ashamed of himself. There are a lot of things that he can be proud of, but I'll tell you, to say that he's going to be picking winners and losers and to say that the only place that's the heart of the fishery is in his end of the province and in his constituency is not the way that we should be operating here.

 

There are people who are unemployed and having trouble with the unemployment system. Yes, you may have talked to them, but do you know what? It's not an exclusive on your part because I have taken the time and effort to talk to people in Ottawa, too, but I'm not a minister - you are. You are not supposed to be picking winners and losers in one part of the province; you are supposed to represent every fisherman.

 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I conclude. We have nothing else to say to this minister because there are no answers to be gotten anyway. Thank you very much.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Just for clarification, I want to know the remaining time that I have left for this particular department. I do have some closing remarks so I want to be clear that I have an opportunity - but the questions will go on.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think technically you have at least another hour and a half, maybe two hours that could be spent on this department, but I think if you wanted to respond to Mr. MacLeod . . .

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I do want to respond to that, but I want to continue on . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . and then there will be questions from the NDP caucus, I know.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: . . . and the clarity I want to ask for is will I have the opportunity for closing remarks?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Lots of time.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I'll respond to the member opposite. Mr. Chairman, I do sense some sensitivity around my response about going to Ottawa; it's a very sensitive issue in the fishing communities. I'm committed to our move, I will defend that, and I appreciate that the member opposite may have some sensitivity around my response, but I'm confident that the move is bringing good-paying jobs to rural Nova Scotia.

 

Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all members of this House to our presentation to Ottawa about the issue of unemployment, that is something that is going to have a serious effect on our communities. I went there, with all due respect, before the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and laid out why it is going to have a possible negative effect on our communities. I understand the seriousness about having inexperienced fishers in the sterns of some of these boats, inexperienced people in the workplace, it's going to be a safety issue.

 

I also understand that there are fish harvesters, and not only fish harvesters but plant workers - herring plant workers and crab workers who rely on unemployment insurance. You do not - I repeat, Mr. Chairman, you do not - take away a policy that will have a negative effect on communities when you're in the most vulnerable state; you're hurting people that are the most vulnerable in our communities. We raised that question.

 

The other part that I think there was some sensitivity around was the under-developed species. These are opportunities in our communities where fishermen can go out and harvest them and bring in good-paying jobs, create good-paying jobs. I made reference to the offshore lobster, which was an experimental fishery to begin with. The fishermen, whether you're in Cape Breton, Grand Manan, or southwestern Nova Scotia - the stone crab is the one I made reference to and there are opportunities there. I can make a list of a number of other different species.

 

What I want to finally close on this part, to the member opposite, is there are opportunities in rural Nova Scotia and we, as a government, have committed to do the science on two different species. That's the message that I want to take back - whether it's Canso, Louisbourg, Main-à-Dieu, southwestern Nova Scotia, or Northern New Brunswick. The point is we need to bring these opportunities into these communities and it goes back to your general question about why we made the move of Fisheries and Aquaculture to rural Nova Scotia. It's a great move and I really believe we have a plan forward and we're going to bring some stability back into these communities.

 

I will end on the point that since 1990 or 1991, when the cod moratorium was introduced by the federal government, there has not been one plan to go out and stabilize these communities. This is a path forward. I'm going to end on that and I really believe with the science that we are committed to, the fishers know that these species are out there and there are great opportunities.

 

I'll end on a positive note: the glass eel. Last night when I went home, I sat and watched a documentary on the glass eel, and I encourage everyone to see that. Twenty years ago the glass eel, the eel licences in Nova Scotia, you could literally pick them up for less than hundreds of dollars for an individual licence, they were basically worthless paper. Today that developing species is one of our gold bonanza species that are benefiting very many fishers in our coastal communities. I'm using that just as an example.

 

That is a developing species that literally was on nobody's radar 20 years ago, and if you go out and see the people involved with that, they are enjoying the revenues of people who were committed to doing something that they believed in - there were opportunities there. They literally took a worthless species and developed it into something that's very economical and beneficial to these communities. That's what can be done with determination and grit. The same can be done with all these other species.

 

I'll end on this: the fishers know that these species are there. We need to work together to convince the federal government to get the science in place and do this in the right way, to have a stable fishery, and our communities will be safe and stable. Thank you for the question.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacLeod, I heard an interjection from you at one point - did you want to continue?

 

MR. MACLEOD: I just want to thank the minister and his staff - especially the staff - for their time. That's the end for us.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I turn now to the NDP caucus.

 

The honourable member for Pictou East.

 

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a real pleasure for me to ask some questions of the minister today because after spending a number of years in the news media working for radio and radio-television for a while, and then working with a daily paper and being the general manager of a weekly paper, I became a public relations officer with the Communications and Information Centre. One of the areas that I was assigned to - I ended up with the resource departments because I always was sort of a grassroots type of person.

 

I started off working with the Department of Fisheries as a public relations officer, was the manager of Field Services, followed by an aquaculture administrator, and then a marine adviser. I commend you, minister, because you have been around for four years; sometimes the minister is turned over more rapidly than that. I had the pleasure of serving under 13 Ministers of Fisheries, working with them very closely in those positions on a daily basis. As you have indicated, none of those previous ministers ever did realignment of the department, other than creating Field Services, which started off with seven fishery representatives, eventually ended up going to nine, and then I think back to eight.

 

There is regional representation around the province and that regional representation has always been a very good representation, for sure. Most of the members - at least all of the ones initially - came directly from the fishing industry and had a real pulse on the industry. I actually commend you for the moves that did take place, and of course there was some regional allocation to Cape Breton, but it wasn't through your department - it was through the Department of Justice. That, of course, went to an area where there was very high unemployment.

 

I think the moves that you have made, minister, have been significant. I know they had been very difficult for the department because many people were actually firmly based in Halifax and may have had a spouse working. It must have been a terrible assignment for you as minister to deal with departmental people - some of them who were very unhappy about relocating. So I admire you for the work that you have done and I just want to perhaps give you a chance to respond a little bit further to the member for Cape Breton West who, in fact, was taking some serious shots at you in relation to the two moves that did take place. Do you have any further comment to make?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Mr. Chairman, it's not too often that you get to acknowledge the experience that my colleague from the Pictou area has. I really appreciate your expertise and I know that you have been - we use the phrase at home "around the block," and I hope you take that as a compliment because I certainly intend it to be. I appreciate the member's experience in this particular file. I know you raise important questions about the concerns about when we announced the move. I do appreciate the opportunity to talk about the staff in the present Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture who may have been affected by that.

 

I understand that this may have been a struggle for some of those members, but we have worked - I'm glad the member opposite raised this question because we had worked with the staff to accommodate them and to allow the move to be as smooth as possible. We've given people the opportunity to move into the new communities that we talked about - Shelburne and the Cornwallis area - but we also talked about allowing for people who are in senior positions if they wanted to move or wanted to stay. But the other part was that they could move to other departments so we have been working tirelessly to accommodate them.

 

I'm also encouraged on the other side of that to see that there are new people coming to these communities. We also have some experienced people who are making the move, so with the combination - the recipe of having seniors with experience and also new blood coming into those communities. I'm encouraged when I go into these communities and talk with municipal leaders about what effect it's going to have on their communities. Municipal leaders know the tax base and I think everybody around here has a lot of background at local municipal levels. They know how important these jobs are and they bring families to those communities.

 

The one that actually struck me - the testimony that I actually kind of appreciate and keep tucked away and bring it out - I was actually in a store in the Shelburne area - and I won't say the name of the place because it narrows it down too much. The individual was a mom and she said to me: Minister, I understand what you're doing - the move - but my child went to university and has been very well-educated, and this is an opportunity that the stars all lined up and the individual was successful in obtaining one of those jobs. To me, that is a perfect scenario. We all try as parents to make sure our children are well-educated, give them those opportunities. I'm very familiar with that scenario. I've done that as a parent, and my wife and I have worked to give our children that opportunity. I think that's typical of most people in today's society.

 

We understand usually, when you get to the high school level, the next step is going to university. There are very few if any universities in rural Nova Scotia - especially my hometown. I'm not trying to make light of that. The reality of it is that one has to move away from your community. There's a big transition between youth and as they go to university, they get well-educated and usually there's a transition that goes on in those precious four or five years. I think we all understand that as parents, but usually the decision after graduation from university, there's a choice that those young adults make.

 

As I referred to earlier, I made the decision when I was 14 years old to accompany my father in a fishing boat, and I'm very proud of that. That was part of my culture, but today's culture is that young people usually go down the path of being educated in university; after that, the next step is to find a job. Usually that individual, like a magnet, will be drawn toward the cities. This is part of the reality of rural Nova Scotia - not Nova Scotia but rural Canada. I observed that as a parent, I observed that as a member of the provincial Legislature, and we can all witness the out-migration of our youth.

 

For me to be part of a government, to see that unfold and to know that we have an opportunity to bring those jobs back and to step into a local store and the mom actually gives testimony to what I just described, it makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck to know that yes, you actually did something that made a difference in this community.

 

That is what this job is all about, Mr. Chairman: making a difference and making life better for our citizens of Nova Scotia. I couldn't feel more proud of our government, I couldn't feel more proud of being part of this whole exercise, and I hope I partly addressed your question.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, thank you. Before I go back to Mr. MacKinnon I just wanted to do a short calculation for the clock. I noticed you had introductory remarks for about 31 minutes and I wonder if you happen to know just how long your closing remarks might take.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I would just summarize it in less than five minutes, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's going to be a short one, in that case, back to Mr. MacKinnon.

 

MR. MACKINNON: I think the intention of those who have been in the Red Room is that a department would get a minimum of four hours worth of exposure through the estimates. Whatever that would calculate to, I think I have some considerable time to ask some questions.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the NDP caucus has about another full hour.

 

MR. MACKINNON: Thank you very much. Having said that, I remember years ago - and I just wanted to know if it's still continuing or not - I was involved with a minister in the starting of the First Ministers conferences that were held, an annual event which in the very beginning was extremely important. I remember the deputy minister of the day and I going around the province to regional meetings where fish harvesters actually nominated delegates to come to those conferences so the conferences were deemed to be extremely important in the early days, and as the department had less money for programs and so on, those conferences started tapering off in importance and sometime perhaps the same people coming year after year to them. Those conferences, so many of the matters related to the federal government.

 

I remember you as a fish harvester attending those early ones; you were selected as one of the delegates, I know, in those early conferences. So my question to you, Mr. Minister, is are those conferences still being held - they used to be held in Truro - and are they increasing in significance? I know you have been involved in a number of very important issues, some of them federal government matters like owner-operator which I want to get into with you, as well, because you have been a leader in relation to maintaining owner-operator. Are those conferences still being held and what can be done to increase the importance of those conferences as they were in the very beginning?

MR. BELLIVEAU: To the member opposite, the wealth of knowledge is just oozing from you because you can reflect on not only the history of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, but also my background, so I really appreciate your knowledge of both. First of all you were raising a question about First Ministers conferences, something I can say that I really enjoy and I look forward to each year on a continuous basis. To me there is good dialogue, and as the member opposite can appreciate, there are times when the fishermen have never been shy in expressing their concerns and bringing them forward.

 

My colleagues, I know, share with me that there's always a full agenda and the different associations are very active, different memberships across the province are always eagerly waiting for this annual event. Sometimes the weather conditions are not all that pleasant for driving, but the members make a really conscious effort; in fact, the ones I have been to since I have been minister, there's a social afterward, the minister goes and I take great pride in knowing that I have a social or dinner with them. We meet in the hallways or we meet at dinner and have a lively discussion during the conference.

 

This year it was naturally brought up about the marine stewardship certification, there was a great discussion on safety, and to me, the effort of addressing the issue regarding personal flotation devices, that was on the agenda, and the other part was the Fisheries Organizations Support Act. I know the member opposite can talk at great length about FHOSA; in fact, we have just revised that and it came into effect on April 1, 2013. I know the critics from the Opposition were in attendance earlier, but the member leads into one of the questions that's really dear to me, and that's about the owner-operator. I know I can speak at great length, but I'd like to hear the member's views on owner-operator before I go into that.

 

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Minister, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to express my views on owner-operator, but I think the intent of this session is for the questioners to put the questions to the minister, rather than the questioner expounding at length about his or her philosophy. For the written Hansard record, I'm wondering if the minister would outline the benefits of the owner-operator policy over the years in keeping the fishery, to a large part - we know there is a corporate fishery out there - to keep a large part of the fishery in the hands of individual fish harvesters.

 

I know you have taken leadership, and you have gone to Ottawa, and I recall sitting beside you when we were in Opposition. I think on many fishery matters we did what we would call "riding shotgun" for each other because I do remember sometimes when there was a fishery question in the House, when we were in Opposition, you would speak on it and I would speak on it as well. So for the record, tell us about your leadership in owner-operator policy and how you think it has benefited the community.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Well, again, the member opposite is probably raising a question that I want to talk about at great length and I have. It's disappointing - in my closing remarks I may get into that - to know there was an opportunity here by our Opposition but it wasn't raised. But it has been raised by myself, and I know the member opposite has raised it and some of our other colleagues.

 

The owner-operator is basically a policy that has been in effect since the early 1980s and it's basically described to make sure that it would serve the independent fishermen in Atlantic Canada. I can go on at great length on that, but I can echo that if you want to see a fight - and I'll put it bluntly - if you want to see a fight arise out of Atlantic Canada, you tell the federal government to - and they tried several times to talk about a way to dismantle this owner-operator policy, which is basically a policy that has kept the independent fishers in Nova Scotia, particularly in Atlantic Canada. They're not going to get away or change that without a very severe fight from the independent fishermen. What is so concerning about that is any policy that can give up - and the member opposite raised a question about getting the licences in the hands of large corporations, that is one that actually gets the blood pressure up in many communities across Nova Scotia.

 

If I could just back up, one of the principles of why I wanted this job - and we don't have to go back over six or seven years before I was introduced to provincial politics - one of the desires I had coming into this job was fishers in Nova Scotia or independent fishermen did not have access to capital. If they were to go in and purchase a licence, they could not acquire that licence from the loan board for a fishing licence. They could get it for a boat; in fact, I can go back to 1938 when the loan board was first introduced through a federal policy in Ottawa to create a loan board for fishers to get into the industry for access to an engine, boat repairs, building a boat, and so on. The problem with that whole exercise is it never evolved to where it was caught up to in the mid-1990s or close to 2000, where fishers had to have access to capital. Going into it at the provincial level, I made a commitment that we were going to change that policy, and we did.

 

On the eve of the PC's, they introduced access to capital and we have constantly reviewed and upgraded that whole loan board policy around having access to capital. But the owner-operator, if I can just expand on that, is something communities all know and it's a simple message: when you have a policy that is the backbone of these communities - and the members opposite would understand that - every lobster processor in my community depends on independent fishermen, and that's just one community. I know that is a fair statement right across Atlantic Canada.

 

If that policy was allowed to be dismantled or you had it expand so those licences could get in the hands of large corporations, you are going to see an erosion of your communities on a very fast pace; there is where the concern goes in these communities. Anytime you talk about owner-operator or EI changes, it gets the hair on the back of your neck standing up knowing the impact that is going to have on that community. I have said, and I haven't ducked under the table, that if these policies are going to have a negative effect on our communities, we are going to raise the alarm bells.

 

I can assure you that Minister Ashfield got that message loud and clear in the last few months when they talked about possibly tinkering with the owner-operator policy, they backed down; they simply backed down because they knew they could not sustain the fight they were going to have with these communities and the importance of it. So that's the quick, short version of owner-operator, and the EI could probably follow on some of the same arguments.

 

MR. MACKINNON: One of the things that I want to talk about is some changes that were made; there was lobbying for many, many years to change the loan board so that there could be purchasing either by a family member or a crew member to get some gear. This was particularly important years ago, the prices were really peaking at one time when the American dollar was worth so much more than the Canadian dollar; when we were at 63 cents or 65 cents, good prices - extremely good prices - could be paid to fish harvesters. We know that has become a problem with the change in the dollar.

 

If I could tell just a little story for the record, I remember being at a graduation at St. F.X. A woman whose brother was a judge - and the judge was at the graduation and it was before the ceremony started - a fish harvester came in who we knew very well. This woman said to him, you were so smart in school that you never did your homework, you always had an excuse for not having assignments done - the cows needed to be milked, a calf was born, or whatever. She said, you were so smart that you could actually be sitting in the judge's chair today.

 

He said, why would I want to be sitting in the judge's chair? I make more in two months than the judge makes in a year. Those were sort of in the heydays. He mentioned that his gear was worth - he had a crab fishing Area 19 licence, CFA19 licence, which was worth a fortune, and he also had a lobster licence and all the gear that went with that as well. He told this woman that the value of his gear - he had just been offered $1.2 million for his whole operation.

 

After he moved along, the woman said to me, that can't be true. I said, I know for a fact that it is true. So for someone to get into the fishing industry, it was always very difficult to come up with the capital.

 

I know that changes in recent years have been made. I've been gone from the department for a good number of years, way over a dozen years now. Anyhow, I'm just wondering if you can talk about the intergenerational licence exchanges and how a son or daughter or crew member can actually get a licence and the associated gear with it. The licence itself, which was so valuable, could never be used as security. I understand that some changes have taken place there and I understand that when you were in Opposition you lobbied for those, and maybe you were totally or partially responsible for some of the changes that have taken place.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The member is raising a number of questions. In fact, I remember those days that you are talking about, back in the 1970s, and a 30-cent dollar. I know the dollar value is raised and I remember some of the professionals in my community who took a leave of absence, there were a number of them who took a leave of absence in their profession and went on to join the fishing industry. So yes, those stories are all throughout Nova Scotia and it was the heyday at the time.

 

Some of the policies you're talking about, there has been some tweaking of these policies. In fact, I hope to take credit for some of them. One of the things we're doing is the member opposite raises questions about access to capital. There are programs in effect right now that if the fisher is a new entry to a new species, there's access to capital for that capital cost for that licence.

 

To me, the other thing that we have done - in fact, we did this very early on - there's a program in place that most people may not be aware of, but if there was a senior who, for instance, the scenario was a senior or a senior fisher who has a licence and right now they can sign an agreement with the loan board, it would be registered. We actually talked about this about three years ago with Ms. Shea when she was the minister. I had a casual discussion with her and she said that sounds like a good idea. We actually implemented the changes, and she and the DFO in Ottawa agreed with it. So the policy I'm talking about, we actually have some information. We can get that to the member opposite.

 

If a senior wanted to pass on that licence to a family member who was in the stern of the boat presently, they could sign an agreement or have an agreement witnessed through the loan board and it could be a deal - or you could call it a sweetheart deal - that they could come up with the terms between the two individuals, between the seller and the purchaser, and they could create that deal themselves - it could be father to son. But it would be an agreement that would be protection for the seller that the cost of the vessel and stuff, naturally, they would receive that. These are all avenues or opportunities that people can have these enterprises in a very friendly way being transitioned to the next generation.

 

To me, it's a simplistic way of moving an enterprise from father to son or daughter, whatever the instance is. A lot of people may not know of that particular program, but to me, the access to capital, the access for new species, new entry, I know there are some fishermen - and the member opposite is right. You can literally have a lobster licence and want to enter another species like crab and you're looking at millions of dollars - not only a considerable $100,000 for that licence, but the gear that goes with that.

 

It's something that we have to bring into the modern - where we're at, the evolution of our fishery. This is where these policies need to be aligned - to simply evolve with the way our fishery is.

 

MR. MACKINNON: You mentioned a number of times the actual number of days that you have been minister, and I think in that time frame there have been a number of accomplishments, but a very proud day in the House - and I know the federal government has so much jurisdiction over the fisheries - but it was a proud day for me, and I know it was a proud day for you, when the Georges Bank moratorium came in. I have to say publicly, when the Cabinet was being formed - that small Cabinet - after the last election, instead of having my nose out of joint, I was very proud that you became the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture because you have always been there at the grassroots and on the water and engaged in so many different fisheries and on so many different banks. What was that feeling like for you in relation to the Georges Bank moratorium? Would that be one of your highlights as minister?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The highlight is not going to compare to when my granddaughter was born, but on a political note I would say it's there. I think Denny Morrow from the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association summed it up - I always remember how he described it - he described our work on Georges Bank as the "story of the year." I think he summed it up in that one sentence. To me, he captured my feelings of basically understanding Georges Bank and the unique ecosystem around that bank.

 

The whole thing about Georges Bank, I remember The Hague decision and about our - I don't want to call it a "dispute" - but our challenge with our good neighbours to the south - the U.S.A. - on the ownership of Georges Bank. I remember as a young fisher going through our community and I remember some of the DFO personnel coming to my community and actually talking to my family members and getting some historical events to get the attachment to Georges Bank, and I'm pleased to say that literally in my own family that the testimonies that the fishers gave to those professional DFO personnel, the testimony of their presence on Georges Bank was received, documented, and presented in The Hague on this decision.

 

To me, to get one-sixth of the richest fishing bank in the world and going through that whole political court - and I'm not too familiar with the court system, but I know that when there is as important an industry as that - I know they have professionals there who are very well qualified and to know that people, when they came back said, minister, your family members in southwest Nova Scotia had a very large impact on that decision in The Hague. They gave testimony of being on that ground for literally 100 years, generations, and their participation and being there and their knowledge of the tidal currents and how that affected the Bay of Fundy and not only the fish species that were in it, they drew a comparison that this whole ecosystem was shared.

 

It wasn't about one country, the fish don't wave a flag - I remember some of these comments - the fish don't wave a flag or don't have a U.S.A. stripe on one side and a Canadian stripe on the other, it is a unique ecosystem that we are blessed with the tidal range in the Bay of Fundy and how the sword fishermen of the day testified that they had been on that bank for generations and that they had fished there for scallops and groundfish and all the other species and how the currents, the tidal range, how they affected the lobster larvae that were out in Georges Bank and Browns and how the Bay of Fundy, one of our wonders of the world - my personal belief - had an effect on all of that ecosystem.

 

That testimony in The Hague had a major impact on us getting our flag on Georges Bank. It was really an important moment in my life, knowing that our community had a major play in that decision. So the Georges Bank - I hope I addressed your question but I know that it was certainly a highlight when it comes to personal. I think with the birth of my granddaughter, it's not going to get anywhere near that, but I think the question was related to my political/fishing career and it's right up there with the top 10, yes.

 

MR. MACKINNON: Just turning to aquaculture - and I may bounce back to fisheries because there are a lot of things that haven't been touched on for sure. I've seen aquaculture sites from Louisiana through to Newfoundland and Labrador, Scandinavia, and South America a couple of times, and I've seen the transformations that have taken place in communities when there has been a lot of investment in aquaculture.

 

I remember Charlotte County in New Brunswick not being overly well off. If we look back a couple of decades or more ago, the aquaculture activity that took place in Charlotte County was phenomenal - the investment, small at first but with the profits, expanding and expanding.

 

I know your department has taken some flak in relation to Cooke Aquaculture and some investments that took place there. Certainly for me, I know there are always not-in-my-backyard scenarios in relation to aquaculture. But there are always bumps in the road in relation to any kind of development. What do you have to say about those investments and what the potential actually is for Nova Scotia?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: I know that the member opposite is bringing something that is really important to my colleagues and also to myself, but I am really committed to aquaculture and I believe the potential there for rural communities is second to none, and I'll defend it as long as I'm in this position. In fact, I've had some personal experience as a fisherman, being involved in the industry.

 

I think it's more than what I believe, is what some of the other people have raised about aquaculture, and if my colleague would just bear with me, I can give him a little history of what some of the people across Nova Scotia - in fact, I actually want to start out with a mayor, Max Taylor, from Newfoundland and Labrador. I'll just read a portion of a testimonial, Mr. Chairman. If you want me to table it, I can table the document for the Chair's courtesy, but I ask that you return it after I table it.

 

The document here is from a news article of November 19, 2012. This is from my hometown of Shelburne: "Much of Shelburne County could one day find itself in the enviable position of not having enough workers to fill all the jobs coming to it. That is what the mayor of a small Newfoundland community said happened after three aquaculture companies set up shop and hired just about everyone for miles around. 'As a result of that, we basically now have full employment,' said Max Taylor from St. Jacques-Coombs Cove in the Coast of Bays region of Newfoundland." I'll table that for the members.

 

It is also interesting that the question you raise is - you know I can speak for hours about how I feel and I think most people across Nova Scotia realize that the minister is a strong supporter of aquaculture. This is what the PC member for Argyle said on April 29, 2010: "I am very happy to stand and speak to aquaculture in our province. To the member for Shelburne, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I can say that I support aquaculture and I can say that our caucus supports aquaculture." I'll table that also.

 

Mr. Chairman, on April 23, 2008, the member for Digby-Annapolis, the Liberal critic said: "Cooke is sick and tired of fighting just to grow a few fish. But we've got to grow some fish around here. Fish is the way for us. I think we can grow fish here or they can turn us into a gravel pit for the U.S." I'll table that.

 

The other one is from the MLA for Richmond, from the Liberal caucus: "If one looks at aquaculture - for example, New Brunswick has almost four times more value than where we are here in Nova Scotia. B.C. is ahead of everybody else in Canada, almost everybody combined. So there are tremendous opportunities there for us to continue to work and I'm certainly hoping we're not going to get bogged down in strategies rather than finding real solutions that are going to be able to grow the economy . . ." and I'll table that. I hope I'm going to get these all back because these are collections of mine.

 

This is the interesting one; I'll just end with this and I'll let the member respond. When I went to Ottawa I basically raised a question and was asked the question about aquaculture by Tom McInnis. Tom McInnis is now a senator; actually, he was an MLA at one time for the Eastern Shore. I know there are some issues regarding the Eastern Shore but this is what Mr. McInnis said back on March 25, 1988:

 

"Since being elected on the Eastern Shore I talked about the benefits of aquaculture and I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, today, boasting that we have the largest, on Ship Harbour alone, we have the largest aquaculture plantation in North America . . . It is a job creator but in addition to that it is smart business. I have encouraged many fishermen, traditional fishermen, to participate in that aquaculture program.

 

I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and I will in the very near future be able to announce a new hatchery, to replace the hatchery I should say that was first put in place by the Premier when he was Minister of Fisheries back, I believe, in 1966 or 1967. So, that will go down in Ship Harbour. Hopefully we will have a tourist interpretation centre there as well, and tourists coming in will be able to tour the hatchery and step out and see the largest aquaculture plantation in all of North America."

 

The point I want to add on that is that you can speak, as I have many times, about the benefits of aquaculture and how to make it sustainable, how to make sure that we have a strategy in place that we're implementing as we speak, an aquaculture strategy, one of the first ones to do that, as a government, to be committed to protecting our traditional fisheries.

 

Mr. Chairman, I think the appreciation is having the testimonies of all other Parties. To me, it is a great opportunity when you get an opportunity like we have right here, to reflect on them. I appreciate the opportunity to do that. Thank you.

 

MR. MACKINNON: I think you must have been anticipating someone to ask that question on aquaculture because you have a number of things to be tabled. I'm just asking things off the top of my head and that was an interesting response for sure. My question was on Cooke Aquaculture and I guess the bottom line is that you realize or you believe that that investment was very sound and that it will have beneficial effects on the Province of Nova Scotia.

 

During your time as minister, as well, there was an Act that came in many years ago called the Fisheries Organizations Support Act. They used to claim that some bureaucrat wrote that on a cigarette package or a napkin or whatever. If I remember, it was a fairly detailed piece of legislation and that Fisheries Organizations Support Act wasn't the history of how it developed but that's what some legend within the department actually came to be, I think.

 

That piece of legislation was deemed to be very valuable at the time in organizing fish harvesters because there were many harvesters in the province that paid to no organization but they were getting benefit of the representation that was taking place at the time. I have to really say that Minister Jim Barkhouse at the time took real interest in that piece of legislation. He also supported it, despite some people saying that it was very left-wing legislation. Jim Barkhouse, who I had great respect for, stood by that piece of legislation.

 

I always thought it was a great and detailed piece of legislation but it required not just a 50 per cent vote, it required participation by a certain percentage of fish harvesters. As we know, not everyone votes in any kind of election or plebiscite; it only came into being in two of seven regions in the province, if I remember correctly. I think the province was divided into sections, maybe six or seven - I thought it was seven. In two areas of the province it came into being. The majority of fish harvesters in some other areas of the province thought it was a good thing and they voted far in excess of 50 per cent, but they didn't have the participation numbers.

 

You, minister, or at least the department during your time as minister, has reviewed that Act and modernized it. It came back into the House under a different name but I understand that the intent is the same, and that is to support fish harvester organizations. Many organizations in those days felt really strongly about that piece of legislation because when it was not mandatory for them to pay any dues, many just didn't submit the $100, or whatever it was, and still had the representation. Do you want to comment on that Act?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: First of all your earlier comments, before you got into FHOSA, were regarding Cooke Aquaculture. I want to say I truly support that, first of all, and also that the conditions of the loan were naturally tied into conditions that it was going to create so many jobs and also that there was going to be a hatchery built in the Digby area, a feed plant in Truro, and a processing plant in Shelburne. Those are the meters to understand the issue of the conditions that are tied to those loans and the jobs that are going to be created from that.

 

Your comments about FHOSA are dear to me; in fact, the fishermen have wanted that to be reviewed and updated and tweaked, if I can just use that term, and that's something that we have achieved. We basically have accomplished that and put everything into place. We have worked with the Department of Justice and industry to develop and finalize the draft regulations under FHOSA, and the Act was proclaimed on April 1, 2013. I can move away from my notes here because I know this one basically is dear to me, and there has been a lot of discussion on this.

 

Basically the fishermen said the old Act needed to be tidied up and the member knows the voting in that whole process, you had to have 60 per cent participation of your industry in one geographical region to have an endorsement or to be credible. The industry had some concerns about that and it was always difficult to accomplish. I see the member opposite shaking his head; he knows the struggle that some of the regions have.

 

I'm confident that we have worked with industry, we have tidied that up. We're also looking at regions where the minister, through the advice and direction of the industry, can tweak the boundaries of a region. I'll use the example: basically, when this particular legislation was first introduced there was a difference of priorities around regions, where it may have benefited from the ground fisheries and the regions realigned themselves because of the movement from finfish, such as the cod fish and the cod moratorium, to be more aligned with lobster districts, and the legislation has given the minister the ability to realign the districts. The industry asked for that and there has been a great process of engagement and consultation with the industry to do some tweaking of this legislation.

 

I'm very proud that through all the consultation, through the exercise with the industry, this is a tool that can actually give the industry an organizational opportunity if they so choose. I've been asked this question many times, Mr. Chairman: is this something we want? No, this is what the industry wants and there are safeguards saying there has to be a clear direction from the industry, there has to be a desire from the industry to ask the minister, first of all, to initiate a vote and there has to be an acceptance from the industry. The tools are there for the industry to strengthen itself if it wishes. I appreciate the question.

 

MR. MACKINNON: One of the issues that you have experienced while being minister, it has been difficult throughout the province, very difficult in your own area where the lobster season opens the last Monday in November. That season always landed such a large number of lobsters. With the world economy the way it has been, particularly with the strong Canadian dollar, and also extremely high landings in some areas, the lobster prices, as we all know in this room, have sent many fish harvesters or at least their relatives into the Halifax area and other areas of the province. We've seen a lot of tailgate selling of lobsters, and so on, and these are pretty desperate measures. Has the department looked at any kind of - I know you can't jump in with just throwing dollars at an issue, but I understand that Europe is receiving large quantities of lobster now; some special arrangements had been made at the airport for transport and so on.

 

There is no quick fix to this and I don't expect you to have an answer for it, but do you have any comments on that whole issue of lobster pricing? Certainly there have been efforts in the community to keep boats from going out and cutting the supply down and so on. I think the last thing we want to see is an ITQ - individual transferable quota system - come in on lobsters, which would be very detrimental to keeping fish harvesters on the water. Do you have any comments in relation to that? The last thing I would like to see - and I don't know 100 per cent for sure that you would share the same view - that we don't want to see quotas on lobster.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's list might also have included high lobster landings in the United States.

 

MR. MACKINNON: Exactly - that's another factor as well.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: There are a number of questions in there, and I'll try to do my best to address all the different points from the member. First of all, the first thing we did as a government and as a minister, I remember this very clearly - you talked about roadside sales - the first thing that we did as a government, we took off the vendor's permit of $40 for that. We just waived that and that sent a clear signal that we want to address this issue about the low prices. That was a clear indicator that we were taking this very seriously.

 

The other point in there - you talked about some of the things that we're doing and I don't get many opportunities to address this, but when you talk about doing things and connecting the dots, these are all - if you can see where we're going you connect the dots. I use that phrase many times, and one of the things that you can connect the dots is our investment as a provincial government. My understanding is that the Halifax airport is under federal jurisdiction. We have put provincial money into expanding that runway for the large cargo planes to come in and take the air cargo freight out: fish supplies, lobsters, glass eels. To me, that is connecting the dots, knowing that's a wise investment when all the people who depend on that through exports are getting a value and the benefit of that investment.

 

One thing that our investments are also in is the Lobster Council of Canada, which right now is our hope for the best strategy. They have business people, a representative from the industry, and a broad range of all the stakeholders - the Mi'kmaq community, all of the above - who are sitting around that table and addressing the serious issue of low prices in this industry.

 

We've raised the question and we've gone to Ottawa and we asked about - that we need to invest in science. To me, there is an environmental question going on about climate change and if you go back and look, you can actually see that the landed value of lobsters has increased threefold since the 1980s. That's a good thing to know, that we've had this substantial biomass of lobsters literally on our doorsteps and we are benefiting from that.

 

On the other side of that, what is of great concern in coastal communities is the effect that additional landed quantity is having on the price. This is something a number of provinces are dealing with, as we speak. We've had different ministers' meetings and the Lobster Council is addressing that right now. Our lobster associations are working overtime to find ways of actually addressing some of these high quantities that are being landed. To me, this is certainly a time that these issues have to be addressed.

 

The member raised a question about ITQs and I can tell you, if you want to talk about tearing apart a community, this is something that you're going to see the industry is totally opposed to. In fact, the federal government over the last few months, six months ago, basically floated that trial balloon. The trial balloon was a lead balloon because it didn't get off the ground, it deflated very rapidly; any time that word is mentioned in coastal communities it's going to see that same effect.

 

There are issues that have to be addressed but I can assure you our Premier has led delegations and trade missions to China. There are some opportunities in China and Asia; to me, there are opportunities there. That's something that I think we need to pursue and develop new products. Consumer demands are changing. When you go to different countries - our cultural preference may be to have a lobster pot or a pot of lobsters and we cook it in our traditional way, but the world consumer may have a different preference. Mr. Chairman, I think the industry is evaluating all the different ways they can display a product in different food chains around the world, and they are addressing that.

 

To me the opportunity is to move away from a traditional market. Our good friends in the United States have always been absorbing basically 75 to 80 per cent of our products, but I think we need to find other opportunities out there. This is what the Lobster Council is doing. We have a number of opportunities, like the business that we conduct at the Boston fish show where we try to put business people from Nova Scotia in touch with people who can expand the markets around the world. I hope I've addressed part of your question. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. We move now to the member for Cumberland North with about 12 or 13 minutes remaining in the questioning.

 

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

 

MR. BRIAN SKABAR: In that same vein, minister, a couple of years ago - actually two years ago this summer - I happened to be travelling in Italy with a friend of mine from Pugwash, Nova Scotia. As we were walking up and down the streets in Rome, there was a vendor, a large company selling lobsters from Chase's Lobster Ltd. in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. There was a lineup for people ready to buy those.

 

Now one of the things in particular that struck me when you were giving one of the answers to your previous question is that fishers have never been shy about expressing their concerns; my gosh, is that the understatement of the year in reference to that.

 

Now, in that same vein, just getting back to employment insurance and the changes and how it will affect local fishing communities. I am aware, and certainly any local community or coastal community that has any processing plant or anything to do with any seasonal industry - but the harvesting of sea products in particular - is aware by now of the changes in the policy of the federal government: sending our young people out of rural communities because they can't afford to live there and just wait for seasonal employment.

 

To your knowledge, is there any kind of organized movement by local communities, by local fishers, by the industry, from the ground level up, to express their concern with our federal colleagues about changes in the employment insurance policy?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much and to the member opposite, I wish that I could say yes, there is a group, but unfortunately it appears right now that we are carrying the load for this particular issue. I guess my judgment call is many people are basically working hard, doing their daily routines and probably don't understand the full impact of this policy that may have a burden that's going to be put on them in the future.

 

Basically their concern is that they are just going on with their daily life but to me, the burden is for people like myself, and politicians, to bring that message forward. When we took it to Ottawa, we had people, senators basically, challenging you for bringing the story forward. I didn't blink and I'll continue to bring that forward because understanding how that policy can affect the household income in your community, I understand that. I understand that people who work on a boat and if you put a greenhorn in there, I understand there's going to be a safety issue on the first day of the lobster season when the boat is loaded from fore to aft.

 

The people in Ottawa, if I said the boat is loaded fore to aft, they would probably just doze off and it doesn't register with them. I know that when I send somebody back there, if the person is inexperienced, they've got to get all that gear off before I can get an opportunity to get them back aboard the boat if there's a mishap. That is a serious situation when you're putting gear in the water, knowing that you have qualified personnel, and it's a safety issue.

 

The people in Ottawa who are having an effect on EI do not get that. It's our opportunity to bring the fallout from this policy on coastal communities. This is our commitment and I'm disappointed. In my closing remarks I'm going to talk about the opportunities for our critics to bring that topic up. It was not raised here in our four hours of discussion - in four hours. To me, the policies about owner-operator, trap tags - I can go on - but employment insurance is one of the issues that is going to have a big effect not only in Nova Scotia, but right across the Atlantic Provinces. The federal government needs to understand this, but the message is not getting to them.

Just on your comments, I'm pleased with your observation because you said that fishermen are not shy in expressing their concerns. I was told by a senior fisher many years ago, when you go to a meeting - and he gave me some advice and I was representing a fishermen's group at the time. I would say I was a bit shy and I was a bit concerned, probably not a question of my ability to go in there to that particular meeting. It was a very important meeting; actually, it was a meeting dealing with a very serious issue. I asked the senior fisherman in the community to give me some advice - and I'm going to wind up here shortly. He said there are three approaches to an issue when you go into a meeting: you can listen very intently, you can be very diplomatic, or you can be loud and strong. You need to know the time to be either one of them. With EI you need to be loud and strong or else it's going to have a serious effect on our communities.

 

I'm getting the circle from the chairman here now to wind up.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well actually, Mr. Minister, we have a couple of questions that Mr. Prest has for you and he had to leave the room for a minute. We had promised him a little bit of time - Mr. Skabar, are you finished?

 

MR. SKABAR: How much time do we have?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have only about seven minutes remaining for both.

 

MR. SKABAR: I have two short ones.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could they be very short, with an even shorter answer, Mr. Minister?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes.

 

MR. SKABAR: I happened to be at the Cumberland YMCA and ran into a young gentleman who, as a matter of fact, went to school with my son. He is 25 years old, he's heading out West and I asked him what training do you have, what skills do you have? He worked on a lobster boat for the last four years and he's off, he's not doing that this year, he said he can't afford it.

 

Similar to you, Mr. Minister, I miss no opportunity, public or private, to raise this issue with anyone that has a moment to listen to me. There are those who are concerned with employment insurance programs as they stand that people keep coming back to the - excuse me - trough for employment insurance. As soon as you speak to them for five minutes and explain the concept of keeping the local workforce there for the industry, it's surprising how quickly many of the people that were in favour of employment insurance reform came around to see the illogic of such a move. With that statement, I think by continuing to address this and not letting the issue lie, that we ought to be able to pursue that. I'm sorry, that was more of a statement of an agreement.

 

I just wanted to ask quickly about the First Nations fisheries. Are our First Nations operations, in that sense, successful? Are they primarily employing First Nations fishers on that, or are they kind of leasing that out or subletting their quota?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: If we could get a fairly quick response to that because . . .

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: First of all, to the unemployment question, if they agreed with us about developing new species there would be less unemployment in our communities and we would address the EI issue by developing new species.

 

The one about First Nations, there is a lot of work going on and yes, Eskasoni and places like that are getting more involved in the traditional fisheries. I can tell you that that was one of my first stepping stones in the fisheries, being involved in the 1999 Marshall decision, so I know the whole history of that. Our traditional fisheries have accepted the Mi'kmaq community into our traditional fisheries and there are some success stories. I'm pleased that you asked the question.

 

MR. SKABAR: So they are now part of the mainstream . . .

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's correct.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have about four or five minutes remaining for the member for Eastern Shore.

 

The honourable member for Eastern Shore.

 

MR. SIDNEY PREST: Mr. Minister, as you know, down on the Eastern Shore there has been quite an issue with aquaculture, but it was only one sector of the aquaculture that people had concerns about and raised concerns. There are mussels being raised, there are oysters and all that, and people are very happy. The one sector of aquaculture that people have concerns about is the open-pen fish farms. I would just like to make a reference, in our forestry there is an issue, too, but it's only one sector and that's clear-cutting.

 

On the shore at least, if communication was made that yes, we understand your concern about the open-pen finfish farming and we will focus on that - certainly none of the residents on the Eastern Shore are against aquaculture per se. I think if that had been communicated from the start things would have gone more smoothly. Is there any reason in the Aquaculture Division that they don't specify the different sectors? If open-pen finfish farming is the issue, why is that not focused on?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: First of all, our commitment is to the new aquaculture strategy. I can assure you that there seems to be a focus on applications for open-pen salmon farming because this is where the money is actually being generated by this particular industry. But getting to your question in your community, I actually visited the community on the Eastern Shore, I've been there, and I know the particular site that you have an interest in. The question I want to raise is we are conducting a closed containment study as we speak and we're addressing those issues. Nova Scotia is leading the way in closed containment and I know a number of your constituents have raised the question about going in that direction. In fact, Nova Scotia is a leader when it comes to closed containment. We're not encouraging business to choose one or the other, we're just saying here are the different options out there and the business community is bringing forward their ideas.

 

The principle here is to make sure - and this is what our aquaculture strategy is committed to doing - that our traditional fisheries are protected. We're going to increase the monitoring in that and we're going to lay the groundwork and have recommendations so that our traditional fisheries are protected; we're going to have increased monitoring, and we'll do this in a way that the environment is protected. To me it's understanding what we're trying to accomplish and getting that message out there.

 

Again, I want to emphasize that the footprint of aquaculture in Nova Scotia is so small, I can go on at great length in saying all the present aquaculture open-pen salmon farms are roughly in 10 locations across Nova Scotia and can be all put in the Head of Bedford Basin 10 times over. The footprint is very small, but we have the regulations in place to protect the environment. I believe these are opportunities for jobs in rural Nova Scotia. As for the testimonies we said earlier, I appreciate if you would review them. The mayor from Newfoundland and Labrador, one of his concerns is where these workers are all going to come from in these communities to supply the jobs that aquaculture is going to give the benefit. I hope I addressed your question as good as I could.

 

MR. PREST: Do I have time for one more?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, you do. I just did a calculation here and we have a few more minutes. Mr. Minister, you need how much time for your wrap-up?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Two to three minutes is all.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you do have time for a couple more questions.

 

MR. PREST: Mr. Minister, we do have land-based halibut farms and we have bass and we have Arctic char.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Yes.

 

MR. PREST: Is there any reason we can't have land-based salmon farming?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: That's a question that the business community would address, but to me the rationale behind that is basically the feasibility of it and we're not opposed to any of it. We have closed containments from Irish moss to halibut, all the species that you mentioned. It's not something we're discouraging; we're just saying there is a feasibility to this whole exercise. Our commitment to the closed containment study is ongoing and it's the industry that brings forward their ideas and creates and develops aquaculture as we do. All I can add to that is right now the aquaculture supply of fish has just surpassed our wild fisheries product. In fact, in 2020, over 60 per cent of our consumption of fish is going to be coming from aquaculture, and that's worldwide, that's considerable, and we need to acknowledge that.

 

MR. PREST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly there's time for one more question if any member has the time. We did a little calculation here and we have a few more minutes to make the full four hours this afternoon. We had two hours and nine minutes in previously and we aren't up to the full four hours for Fisheries and Aquaculture, so continue with another question.

 

The honourable member for Cumberland North.

 

MR. BRIAN SKABAR: Mr. Minister, I recently had an inquiry and we spoke of this earlier with one of your staff around leases for oyster sites. I understand that there's no longer a requirement for a permit for people selling lobsters on the backs of their trucks and, again, when there was talk of increasing user fees across the board - this is basically a user fee that was eliminated, plus the administrative burden on doing such. Good on you - congratulations for that. As far as the fees for the leases of oyster areas, is that a fee for cost recovery or is that lucrative to the province?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: No, it's not close to the cost. This is just - I don't want to call it a token fee, but it's just a fee that has been evolved and it's not close to paying the charges that the administration and all that goes with it. It's just a set fee that was established over a number of years ago.

 

MR. SKABAR: So it's a nominal fee just, I guess, in order to maintain some concept of which people have which area that they're allowed to harvest from?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: The simple answer is yes - it's just a straightforward fee.

 

MR. SKABAR: Is there a great deal of turnover in areas that oyster - what are they called, farmers? What are they?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: No, there isn't a large turnover. These are people who are usually committed to a number of years - my experience with people who are involved in aquaculture, growing oysters or mussels, they're really committed to the long term and doing this to either supplement their income or things of that nature. All fishers know that this is a yearly event; the fee structure is set, whether you have a package of licences - usually this is something that you pay out annually and you appreciate the opportunity that you can retrieve from that.

 

MR. SKABAR: If the lease isn't renewed, are there significant penalties or issues if the harvest takes place before the lease is renewed?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Usually if there is no fee paid for a year, the department will remind the applicant if they failed to pay and we will usually work with them if there's a hardship or whatever, but usually most people pay up. If, for instance, they miss a payment, they're constantly reminded that they may have missed that annual fee. That's basically my understanding.

 

MR. SKABAR: My understanding in this case is that the person applied for a renewal, there was some little hiccup because the staff are moving from one location to another, there's some turnover in staff as a consequence of that, and there was just a slow up. I can certainly understand that would happen by times, particularly if there is some turnover and nobody wanted to move to Shelburne, and why wouldn't they? Still, that he was reticent to go out and harvest even though the paperwork was in for some time already, but the approved lease didn't come back, so he was reticent to go out and harvest because he didn't have the new lease. I'm just wondering, who is going to go and slap the cuffs on him or give him a prohibitive fine?

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: We'll give the member opposite a phone number or contact the office. I can give the assurance that you have my attention, and I'll bring it to our staff's attention and we'll deal with this immediately. I just want to comment - the member is bringing a particular case forward and I appreciate that. To me, it's just a simple glitch that can soon be easily resolved. I appreciate you bringing that forward.

 

MR. SKABAR: Of that, I have no doubt. I've always received a particularly quick response from you and your department on any concern that I've raised to date.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, members. Certainly we will give the minister approximately three to five minutes to finish up.

 

So just a few closing remarks - you've been doing very well, minister: some very good, informative answers and some of them spread out over a couple of minutes.

 

MR. BELLIVEAU: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to congratulate you on your knowledge of the industry. I feel as if being in your presence is really appreciated.

 

First of all, I want to thank my staff from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I go days in knowing I don't get the opportunity to thank them but I want to tell you that my staff, I really appreciate your knowledge, your expertise. It has always been very professional and I think - I don't think, I know - that we are making a difference to people's lives.

 

This exercise is something that I have become more familiar with over the last 1,500 days - I've actually got it down to the days. I very much appreciate the opportunity of coming from a fishing community and knowing that I started work in a fishing community at the tender age of 14, my own vessel when I was 15, I'm very proud of that. I'm also proud of my colleagues and the questions they asked. I'm also encouraged by our critics and the questions they asked. I respect the courtesy and the professionalism that's all around the table.

 

I know that sometimes the debates can get somewhat heated or whatever but I'm always in very consideration and appreciate that. I want to thank my critics, the Opposition members, for their presence in this particular format.

 

Mr. Chairman, I know I'm not a person who complains but I do want to just publicly present my disappointment. I commented on a number of things but I just want to close on this. I enjoy doing this exercise but when you have an opportunity to address issues of importance to your industry, I think you need to seize that. My disappointment - and I want to register it - is we had an opportunity to talk about EI reform and it was not raised by the Opposition. We had an opportunity to talk about our trip to Ottawa, developing new species, and for our government to pay the science for them. There was never a question raised for that. I am disappointed in those two topics.

 

In fact - and I'll close on this - the EI issue, if the issue were addressed that we could talk about encouraging the development of new species, we would not have an EI issue in a lot of communities, so they tie together. The other part of that is the science. I know as a fisherman, my background, that climate change is something that's taking place. With that, I want to thank everybody for their attendance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E10 stand?

 

Resolution E10 stands.

 

Thank you very much, minister - we thank you and we thank your staff.

 

We will take at least a five-minute recess as we change departments.

 

[3:53 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[4:02 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the subcommittee back to order. We will now move on to the estimates of the Department of Justice.

 

Resolution E12 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $309,801,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Estimate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will have opening remarks before we go to the Liberal caucus for an hour. Minister, we welcome you and your department staff here today.

 

The honourable Minister of Justice.

 

HON. ROSS LANDRY: I just want to start off by saying how excited I am to be here today - just for the record, to make sure it's noted. Before I begin I would like to introduce who is with me here today: Judith Ferguson, the deputy minister; Greg Penny, Finance and Administration; Paul MacNeil; and Martin Herschorn. I welcome them and I look forward to doing my presentation. I will be seeking their assistance today as we discuss budget measures and initiatives that pertain to the Department of Justice and my other responsibilities: the Public Prosecution Service, the Human Rights Commission, the FOIPOP Review Office, and the Office of the Police Complaints Commission.

 

Estimate debates have been ongoing for some time now so I'm sure you've all heard a great deal about the work done by all departments and agencies to help government introduce a balanced budget for 2013-14. I am very proud of the work that we have done at the department and our associate agencies and across government. I am also proud that we are one of the only provinces in Canada to table a balanced budget this year.

 

The work we have done in the last four years to get back to balance has not been an easy task. It has required sacrifice and commitment, not only from government and its partners but from Nova Scotians. What our parents told us as children is very true: hard work pays off. They also told me many other things, but we won't necessarily disclose them here today. In this case, hard work will mean a better, stronger, and healthier Nova Scotia for future generations.

 

Nova Scotians have unparalleled opportunities: more training, better jobs, fewer financial burdens, and lower HST to name a few. To get here we have realigned, reorganized, and modernized government in a way that will make life better for Nova Scotia families. But there is still more work to be done. What we have not done is increase spending to keep pace with increases in revenues. We're doing things differently to ensure that the programs and services that Nova Scotians rely on are sustainable into the future. That's the overall picture.

 

What we have done at the Department of Justice, working with our many partners in the justice system is not much different. We have looked at where and how we're spending taxpayers' dollars to determine what's working, what's not, and what's missing.

 

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

 

The Department of Justice budget for 2013-14 is just over $309 million; to be exact, $309.801 million. Our budget has several increases in reductions which I will talk about in a moment, for an overall increase of over $3 million from last year's budget. Like all other departments and agencies, Justice was tasked with finding efficiencies and working smarter. The good news is that the reductions in our budget were found in operational efficiencies and vacancy management, leaving funding for our core programs and services unchanged. The programs and services that Nova Scotians rely on to keep them safe are being maintained. As I just mentioned, there were several increases in this year's budget.

 

The new 20-year RCMP contract signed last year requires additional funding for $4.8 million to cover the addition of three towns to the contract, as well as salaries and inflationary cost increases. Most of this is recoverable from municipal governments. An increase of $2.7 million is also required to bring correctional officers into the civil service. This covers an increase in their base salaries and benefits.

 

We're also increasing our investment in legal aid by $1 million. I'm very pleased that we're able to secure additional funding for legal aid; this is a service that our most vulnerable citizens rely on. Over the last couple of years legal aid has made some changes in the way it does business in an effort to improve efficiencies; those changes have been very worthwhile. But as the complexity of cases continues to increase, legal aid cannot maintain services with its existing budget. This increase to legal aid's budget will ensure a critical legal service continues to be available to Nova Scotians.

 

To complete our budget increases this year is an additional $700,000 to support federally funded programs. One of the most significant of those supports is the province's crime prevention efforts to keep our communities safer. Specifically, Bringing Culture Inside is a program to help Aboriginal youths in our youth facility get on the right track. I'll talk more about this shortly.

 

The good news about our budget this year is that our increases were offset by reductions. We are continuing to see administrative savings related to better management of vacant positions as smarter professional services spending. This year we're seeing $3 million in savings through vacancy management and government-wide efficiencies on fuel, stationery, computers, printing purchases, and other administrative items. We also reduced our budget by $2.7 million as part of the three-year reduction to reduce FTEs and offer programs and services more efficiently. That meant making difficult decisions about which programs were adding the most value with a view to eliminating or reducing those that weren't having the desired impact, those that were no longer affordable, and those that were no longer helping us achieve our priorities.

 

A good example is the restructuring of the Halifax Youth Attendance Centre to reduce costs, while at the same time being more responsive to the needs of moderate- to high-risk youths under community supervision in HRM. We also eliminated the bail supervision program; we were spending $170,000 on a program that was underutilized by the courts. Police already supervise people on bail and they are continuing to do so.

We have also found savings of $145,000 in how we supervise offenders who have been convicted and placed on house arrest by the courts through changes to our electronic supervision or ankle bracelet program. First, we are matching equipment with offender risk; for example, tracking devices that use radio frequencies are more cost effective and can be used in cases involving house arrest. GPS can be used to supervise more high risk offenders under community supervision. Second, we have negotiated lower equipment cost with our current contract.

 

While I'm on that point, I just want to compliment the staff; you'll see as we go through this that they have done a number of really key things to look at maintaining service and staying focused on reducing costs. So kudos go out to the staff that made these things happen. Both of these changes have made delivering this program more cost efficient and effective, without jeopardizing the program or community safety. We are able to monitor the same number of offenders, from 80 to 90 on average, at a lower cost overall.

 

It's also important to remember that ankle bracelets are just one of the tools we use to monitor offenders who have been convicted and are serving a sentence in the community. We also use voice verification technology to make 25,000 to 35,000 calls a year to offenders on conditional sentences and house arrest. While technology helps, it is also the great work done every day by our probation staff and our close relationship with police agencies which helps keep offenders accountable and keeps Nova Scotians safe. At the end of the day, setting budgets is a delicate balancing act and we must be able to meet the needs and priorities of Nova Scotians to keep them safe and secure, but we must also live within our means.

 

The budget cuts we have made and continue to make are not about reducing service and cutting programs, they are not about putting more responsibility on police and other partners - they are about the entire justice system becoming more efficient.

 

Now, I'd like to talk about the department's FTE picture. If you look at our total FTEs three years ago and look at them this year, you will note that they are exactly the same: 1,568. It's understandable that you may come to the conclusion that the Department of Justice did not contribute to government's overall goal of reducing FTEs; that conclusion would be incorrect, and let me tell you why. Essentially, we have reduced our total FTEs by 100 in the last four years. During that time, however, we have added FTEs for some very worthwhile, and I would argue, critical programs and services. Thirty of the additional FTEs reflect the fact that the Emergency Management Office is now part of the Department of Justice, so we took it from one agency and moved it over to ours.

 

Four FTEs are legal staff that were transferred from other departments and are now Department of Justice employees; 17 are now legal staff hired to support child protection work that was previously done through Children's Aid Societies by external lawyers. This move was a significant cost saving for government.

 

Other FTE additions include the Domestic Violence Court, which will improve the lives of families affected by domestic violence; the Serious Incident Response Team, which investigates serious incidents involving the police; and the province's medical examiner. We've also added some correctional officer positions, in keeping with the Deloitte report that made a number of recommendations to enhance safety and security in provincial corrections. These worthwhile FTE additions offset the reductions we have made over the last three years.

 

At this time, to help understand our budget for 2013-14, I would like to provide a brief overview of the Department of Justice, its programs and services, and highlight some of the changes. The Department of Justice mandate is a simple one: to keep Nova Scotians safe. To this date, there are thousands of Nova Scotians, from the Department of Justice employees, to judges, to lawyers, to police, and others who are part of the justice system and who are committed to the fair and efficient administration of justice.

 

The department is made up of almost 1,600 staff who work across the province in our regional offices, courthouses, correctional facilities, and in communities as probation officers. There's no doubt that the dedication and commitment of employees, their focus and safety is integral to keeping our cities, our communities, and our homes safe.

 

One of the things that is top of mind to most people, when they think about the Department of Justice, is the making and enforcing of laws to keep us safe. There was a time when law enforcement was the main tool used to fight crime. The primary goal was to make sure people were held accountable for their actions.

 

We now understand that preventing crime before it ever happens is equally important. The answer to safer communities does not rest with more jails, courthouses, or police officers. While those things are important parts of the justice system, on their own they are not enough.

 

Enforcing the law and holding people accountable for their actions will always be a priority of this government, the police, the Justice Department, and I will say myself, personally; there will always be a need to hold people who break the law accountable for their actions. The reality is you cannot spend or arrest your way out of crime. My job as Minister of Justice and the job of my department is to look beyond the crime of the person who committed it. We need to find new ways of looking at crime and addressing the things that are causing people to get involved in criminal activity, the root causes of crime. I would like to tell you about some of the things we're working on this year in partnership with police, community organizations, and others to address the root causes of crime.

 

This year we launched Nova Scotia's first Domestic Violence Court program as a pilot in Sydney. The court began hearing cases in the summer. The court's purpose is to keep victims safe and to give them the support that they need. It's also about intervening with offenders and giving them the opportunity to change their behaviour so we can stop domestic violence from happening in tens of thousands of homes across the province. I am hearing good things about this specialized court, and I'm very hopeful about the impact it will have on domestic violence and stopping the cycle of abuse. I'm looking forward to the results of the formal evaluation.

 

We also expanded the successful Lighthouses program. This year we offered two additional grants of $12,000 to community partners; we will be announcing our new partners very soon. All of our Lighthouses partners offer programs to help young people connect to their community using a range of programs such as teen centres, art projects, and boatbuilding. Lighthouses programs connect at-risk youths to positive adult mentors and positive social activity. Last year, Nova Scotians funded 20 programs and all of the programs offered by our partners, an average of 2,714 youths visited per month, and over 32,500 positive youth and adult engagements over the course of the year were reported.

 

We will also be offering support for university students through a new Restorative Justice Pilot Program with Dalhousie University. The Dalhousie Restorative Justice Pilot Program is an alternative for students who come into conflict with the law, on campus or in the community, and for student-conduct issues on campus. Students will have a chance to accept responsibility for their actions and the impact on others in the community. Victims have both a voice and support in the community as a role as well. This is Canada's first comprehensive restorative justice program for university students. It's also another step the province has taken to keep families and communities safe through crime prevention.

 

Restorative justice is not new to Nova Scotia. In fact, the Nova Scotia Restorative Justice Program is the most comprehensive of its kind in Canada and one of the most well developed in the world. There is a network of restorative justice agencies across the province that collaborates with their communities and works with youths, victims, and communities. The department has run restorative justice programs for youths across the province for 10 years, with a successful completion rate of 90 per cent. We are also running two successful adult pilot projects in Cape Breton and Colchester Municipalities.

 

Another great example of addressing the root causes of crime is the federally funded pilot program to help Aboriginal offenders get their lives back on track. We announced the Bringing Culture Inside program earlier this year. Outreach members and Mi'kmaq elders will work with Aboriginal youths at the Nova Scotia Youth Facility in Waterville over the next three years, in partnership with the Mi'kmaq Legal Support Network. The goal will be to strengthen their connections with their culture and their communities. Reconnecting Aboriginal youths with their culture and their communities will make our communities safer and stronger.

 

Finally, the last example I would like to highlight is the canine therapy pilot at Burnside, WOOF. I know Jingles the dog captured the hearts of many during his CTV television appearance. I'm happy to report that he was successfully adopted after graduating from the program and I must say he had straight A's.

 

Jingles is one of the many dogs that are being trained and socialized by offenders at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. The goal is to make the dogs more adoptable and give offenders valuable life skills to ensure they can become contributing members of society when they are released. The concept is quite simple but the results can be significant. I truly believe, even if we change the life path of one offender and prevent them from reoffending, the program will have been a success.

 

Similar programs can be found in correctional facilities in other jurisdictions, including Newfoundland and Labrador. These programs have reported improved offender behaviour and have eased pressure on the SPCA. Since the pilot began in December, four offenders have graduated from the program and 20 dogs were trained. The staff are seeing the benefits and are really enjoying being involved in the program; in fact, two of our employees were awarded the SPCA's Golden Paw Award in the Community Engagement category, for 2012. The pilot has officially finished and is now being evaluated. It will continue until we determine whether it will be maintained in the long term.

 

Our correctional facilities offer many other rehabilitation programs, from literacy programs to parenting programs and vocational skills training. We cannot forget that offenders go back to live and work in their communities. All of the programs and initiatives I've just talked about help us better understand crime and address what is causing people to get involved in criminal activity. At the end of the day, addressing the root causes of crime and preventing it is the only way to break the cycle.

 

I would now like to highlight some additional initiatives for 2013-14 that are being moved forward by various divisions within Justice. Our Public Safety Division provides policing services governance for the province. Through this division we provide oversight, governance, and advice to police, private security services, and firearms licence holders.

 

There are many new and continued programs that I would like to highlight under our Public Safety Division. We continue to see success under our Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, SCAN. Since 2007, under SCAN we have received 987 calls to our toll-free line. We had 12 cases go to court; one owner sold their property before the case concluded and the other 11 cases saw community safety orders granted by the Supreme Court for closing the properties. To date we have also had 146 successful evictions; in 129 of those cases, residents vacated voluntarily after an investigation was conducted and illegal activities were confirmed. It is our duty to take measures to ensure the safety of all Nova Scotians. The SCAN Act gives citizens the tools to take back their neighbourhoods, and as you just heard, it continues to help Nova Scotians do just that.

 

Civil forfeiture is another tool in the fight against crime for law enforcement agencies around the province. This program was launched in May 2011 and helps deter criminals from engaging in unlawful activity. The province can sell seized assets acquired through criminal activities or used to engage in criminal activities. To date, 48 files have been referred to the Civil Forfeiture Unit and all are in various states of investigation. Funds collected fund the Civil Forfeiture Unit and provide financial support to provincial crime prevention and victim services programs.

 

This year we will also proclaim the new Security and Investigative Services Act. This Act will require security personnel not currently regulated to be licensed and it will ensure that any individual engaged in security activities is suitable and properly trained. This will apply to any in-house security personnel that have interaction with the public: those working for retailers, shopping malls, universities, bar establishments - bouncers - bodyguards, and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. The Act was introduced in May 2010 and it's time to proclaim it this year.

 

We took our time to make sure that this was done right. We consulted with stakeholders. In fact, that was a promise, including the security industry, bar and lounge industry, police, and the public, and we developed a private security advisory committee to assist in the development of regulations. This legislation will also introduce a requirement for mandatory training to ensure individuals have the knowledge and skills to perform their duties to better protect themselves and the public.

 

Courts also play a critical role in the administration of justice. Our Court Services Division covers civil, criminal, and family law court administration services; small claims; bankruptcy law adjudication; security and transport of prisoners to and from court; and criminal law adjudication, or Justice of the Peace. The department operates 36 facilities throughout the province with court administration managed through multiple justice centres.

 

Safe, secure, and modern justice facilities are a priority. Courtrooms are being renovated all over the province and much of these renovations are related to improved security. The work will continue this year. The additional upgrades of closed-circuit TV is underway or completed in most courthouses across the province, and renovations to address concerns raised by the fire marshals have been completed in Halifax.

 

Work is also in progress in Halifax to make 24 courtrooms safer. We know our courtrooms need improvements. We have been meeting with all involved parties, including Crown Attorneys, the judiciary, and sheriffs to discuss renovations to courtrooms in HRM. We have a plan, work that we started last year and will continue this year, to reconfigure the layouts of 24 HRM courtrooms to improve the physical security.

 

It's also important to note that the physical changes to the courtrooms are only part of the solution. We've already taken steps to better train and equip sheriffs; improve policies and procedures, both inside and outside courtrooms; and install metal detectors as well as closed-circuit TVs. We're also upgrading the mechanical and electrical systems at the Law Courts in Halifax. This work started last year and will continue this year and next.

 

In Truro we are looking at land available for our new justice centre and the rationale and the reasons why. We've also begun the work to explore the possibility of renovating and expanding the Spring Garden Road historic courthouse. The Spring Garden Road courthouse is a 160-year-old heritage building that needs renovation. We are also leasing space in Dartmouth for five courtrooms.

 

Without changes, these two courthouses will have difficulty continuing to meet the demands of the justice system. We are looking at our options for a consolidated provincial court. We need to know if the Spring Garden Road location can be expanded and renovated, and whether it can accommodate all existing provincial court functions.

 

A consolidated provincial court in HRM would reduce costs and wait times while improving accessibility, safety, and efficiencies. We're really at the preliminary stages. We're doing our homework and there is a long way to go before a decision is made on whether there will be one consolidated provincial courthouse in HRM.

 

This is one example of how we are looking for ways to do things differently - to do things better. This is one example of how the entire justice system can become more efficient. Another example is with our Maintenance Enforcement Program. The somewhat controversial move of the program to New Waterford is well underway; in fact, hiring is near completion. All of the employees who opted to not move have been placed and new office space will be completed in June.

 

This relocation was a good thing for two reasons. First and foremost, we all want to know that parents are getting the support payments they need to raise their children. Moving the Maintenance Enforcement Program to New Waterford will help staff be more efficient in getting support payments to Nova Scotia families who need them. It will allow staff to do consistent training and share best practices since staff will all be in one location. The move will also bring good government jobs to an area that needs them, which brings me to my second reason why this was a good thing.

 

We want to ensure the economy is strong across the province. New Waterford has fallen on hard financial times and there are no government offices located there. It was a good location for a program that with technology can be run from anywhere in the province. It would be naive to think there weren't going to be challenges associated with the move. We've done our best to minimize disruptions for families that rely on this program, but there have been some issues.

 

I think we can all agree that parents should get the support payments they need to raise their children, on time and every month. They should also be able to reach our staff when they have questions or need help. That's why we recently made some changes to make sure clients of the program are getting the support they need. Specifically, we are meeting with parents who raise concerns. We've also put an additional toll-free line in place and we have more staff answering phones to make sure people get a live person.

 

We will continue to monitor this transition and fix problems when they come up. Having said that, I want to assure Nova Scotians that this program continues to do good work, but I know we have more work to do to improve the program and the amounts of money we collect for Nova Scotia families. Having all of our staff in one location will help.

 

Just as our Public Safety and Court Services Divisions play critical roles in maintaining law and order in communities across the province, so too does the Correctional Services arm of the department. The department operates 22 community correction offices throughout the province. Custody-based correctional services involve facility operations and reintegration programs and planning. The department operates five adult correctional facilities in Amherst, Antigonish, Dartmouth, Sydney, and Yarmouth; one youth correctional facility in Waterville; and a small satellite youth detention facility at the adult facility in Sydney. As I said earlier, safe, secure, and modern justice facilities are a priority; that is why work to upgrade security measures at the province's correctional facilities is ongoing.

 

It is also why we're building a new state-of-the-art facility in Priestville, Pictou County. The construction of the Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility is well underway. We broke ground in June 2012 and we're on target to open the facility in 2014. The 198-bed, 81,000-square-foot Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility will replace aging facilities in Antigonish and Cumberland. It was designed to consider public, staff, and offender safety as a paramount and will meet maximum security standards. We cannot forget the benefits this jail will also bring to the community and to Nova Scotia's economy. Building it will inject millions into the economy; as well, it will mean more government jobs in rural Nova Scotia. There will be more than 100 jobs at the facility, 70 of them new corrections and support staff positions. There will also be jobs created during construction.

 

Earlier this year we announced that we have formed a community liaison committee. The committee is comprised of community and other stakeholders who will play a key role in ensuring the community is well-informed and understands the benefits that this facility will bring to the community; likewise, they will bring any concerns or questions forward to be addressed. I'm very much looking forward to watching the progress as the construction and community involvement ramp up this year.

 

I also want to note the improvements we're making into the training and hiring of correctional officers. Earlier this year we learned that two former correctional officers were involved in bringing drugs into the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. I've often said that I respect correctional officers and appreciate the work they do; they do a difficult job every day. They are well trained and they are professional, but it is not acceptable when people in positions of authority are accused of illegal activities. There is zero tolerance for anyone who abuses their position or their authority. I am pleased that some good can come of this unfortunate situation.

 

As a result of this, we are looking at various options, balancing the rights of staff with the safety measures we put in place. We have already started work to strengthen security and background checks and put more stringent hiring standards in place. We expect enhanced security checks to be fully implemented by September 2013. As well, we are updating our training standards and will share them with the community colleges and private career academies so their graduates will have the right types of training when they graduate. Again, I want to express the respect I have for our correctional officers and I sincerely hope that Nova Scotians don't paint all of them with the same brush.

 

Before I conclude my comments about Correctional Services, I want to highlight some feedback that we received from the Ombudsman's Office. Representatives from the Ombudsman's Office visited our correction facilities regularly to hear from inmates who have complaints or concerns. In a recent letter to the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Ombudsman noted that the on-site visitation process was working well. Specifically he said that the resulting reductions in the numbers of complaints brought forward to this office are notably and encouragingly reduced. I, too, was pleased to hear that news.

 

The Medical Examiner Service - I would also like to note that this year saw the opening of the new medical facility in Burnside - the Dr. William D. Finn Centre for Forensic Medicine. The building boasts green technology and an advanced forensic facility. It was built in pursuit of gold certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design. It was also completed within budget and on time.

 

Key features include enhanced security for information and evidence; laboratory-grade air and water handling in the mortuary wing reduces the risk of infectious contamination; capacity to expand, allowing the service to handle multiple deaths such as during an epidemic or after a significant incident like a plane crash; improved autopsy services with a reduced turnaround time and enhanced forensic imaging; video conferencing facilities, which allow pathologists to testify in court remotely; information technology changes to archive autopsy images; and a private briefing room for families.

 

In addition to being a top-of-the-line facility, the Dr. William D. Finn Centre for Forensic Medicine may also be used for other opportunities. First, this facility has the capacity to support tissue donation recovery activity - an important feature that can help save lives in Nova Scotia. As well, the ME's office and EMO are exploring the option of utilizing the facility to use as a back-up command centre during emergency events.

 

I would now like to speak for a few moments about another division of the Department of Justice: Emergency Management Office, or EMO. You may be wondering why EMO falls under Justice. EMO's focus is the protection and safety of Nova Scotians during emergencies, which range from severe weather events to forest fires, flooding, and everything in between. Given the department's focus is ensuring the safety and security of Nova Scotians, it's a very good fit.

 

On weather events, I think we'd all agree that we've had an eventful Fall and winter this past year. The province has seen extreme flooding, particularly in September, which saw many homes and businesses flooded in the Town of Truro and Pictou County. We know people are depending on government funding to help them get their homes and businesses repaired. That's why we announced two disaster financial assistance programs for the flood events in September. These assistance programs will see us spending over $5 million to help Nova Scotia families and businesses rebuild their homes and businesses, and return provincial and municipal infrastructure to pre-disaster conditions.

 

The Emergency Management Office received 127 applications from homeowners and small businesses to assist with the recovery from the September flood. To date, 99 applications have been finalized and the applicants have received $2 million in disaster financial assistance. EMO administers all federal-provincial disaster financial assistance programs on the province's behalf. These are critically important programs that have helped Nova Scotians who have experienced damage in storms and disasters to recover and get back on their feet. This year we raised the province's cap on claims to $80,000 for small businesses and families, and $200,000 for not-for-profits to help cover uninsurable costs. Prior to these increases, the cap of uninsurable cost was still at 1999 levels.

 

Two of EMO's key responsibilities are emergency response and helping communities recover from emergency events. Emergency response is only a small portion of EMO's substantive responsibilities. In fact, it is EMO's day-to-day work between emergencies that ensures effective emergency responses when they are needed.

 

EMO is also responsible for the province's 911 Emergency Service. This critical service is delivered in partnership with four public service answering points located around the province: Sydney, Truro, Kentville, and Halifax. Nova Scotia's 911 system provides a superior service to Nova Scotians, with over 220,000 calls processed last year. This year the system received a $2 million upgrade with all new technology and equipment. This upgrade was paid for by the 911 fund to which all Nova Scotians contribute 43 cents a month for every telephone line they own.

 

I'm pleased to say that this major system renewal was financed on schedule and on budget. This is critical to ensuring Nova Scotians can always rely on 911 when they need help. Its quality and reliability is not negotiable.

 

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

 

This year I was thrilled to work with the Human Rights Commission to introduce new legislation to better protect transgender Nova Scotians' rights to equality and fairness. Amendments to the Human Rights Act were made to add gender identity and expression as protected grounds in the Human Rights Act. This means that Nova Scotians who may be denied an apartment or lose a job because they are transgender can now file a human rights complaint on that basis. Before, transgender people had to file a human rights complaint based on sex or disability. Making this change was the right thing to do; transgender Nova Scotians deserve the same legal protections the rest of us take for granted.

 

In May, the Human Rights Commission will host Canada's National Human Rights Conference here in Halifax, themed Renewing the Vision. I'm looking forward to participating in the conference and to the interesting and thoughtful discussions and solutions it is sure to inspire.

 

I am also the Minister responsible for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy legislation in Nova Scotia. Before providing a brief overview of the work completed last year, I would first like to congratulate the review officer on her successful hosting of the 2012 Annual Access and Privacy Commissioners' Summit held for the first time in Nova Scotia last September. I'd like to highlight a couple of important items with respect to the review officer's oversight role. The first is that the FOIPOP Review Officer's mandate in the independent oversight body was extended under the Privacy Review Officer Act for all privacy protections including breaches, complaints, consultations, and education at the provincial level. As a result of these changes to include privacy, the review officer was granted international accreditation.

 

Also, in June of this year, the review officer will be given another extensive oversight role for access to and correction of personal health information and privacy protection under the new Personal Health Information Act. Under PHIA, the review officer has oversight over all custodians of personal health information, including everything from health authorities to hospitals to private sector health care practitioners like doctors, dentists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and optometrists. This will mark the first time that the review officer has privacy jurisdictions that in part covers the private sector.

 

I am also responsible for public prosecutions. I mentioned earlier that Martin Herschorn, the director of public prosecutions has joined us here today, and I thank Martin for being here. The Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service represents the Crown in criminal proceedings. It was established in 1990 under the Public Prosecutions Act as the first independent prosecution service in Canada. It employs 94 Crown Attorneys and has a total staff of 167 in 20 offices across the province. Crown Attorneys handle about 48,000 criminal charges every year, so just do the math of how much of a workload goes on each individual.

 

In addition to prosecuting all Criminal Code offences in Nova Scotia, the PPS is responsible for prosecuting some 10,000 violations of provincial Statutes annually. The PPS also appeals decisions made by the courts in indictable proceedings where the Crown determines the court has made an error in law. At the end of the day, Nova Scotians want to know that people who commit a crime will be held accountable in our court of law. It's important they understand that the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service helps to make that happen.

 

For the last several years, the PPS budget has not been sufficient to cover the expenses associated with prosecuting the 48,000 Criminal Code charges and 10,000 regulatory offences they handle every year. Over the last few years, we have seen additional appropriations for the PPS to cover their operational costs. This year we'll increase the PPS budget by $1.2 million from $19.5 million to $20.7 million to reflect the actual operational costs of PPS.

 

This is a more realistic budget and will continue to allow the PPS to successfully prosecute Criminal Code charges and regulatory offences. In addition to this work, PPS has taken the lead among Nova Scotia justice partners to implement province-wide standardized electronic disclosure from police to Crown. A pilot project is currently underway in Sydney and a province-wide rollout is expected later this year.

 

I also have the responsibility for the Office of the Police Complaints Commission. The Office of the Police Complaints Commission is an arm's-length agency funded wholly by the Government of Nova Scotia. Its mandate is to maintain public confidence in our municipal police agencies by delivering judicious, timely, impartial, and client-oriented services to the public and to the police services in Nova Scotia. The commission handles allegations of professional misconduct against municipal police officers in Nova Scotia. Allegations by members of the public are overseen by the commission, and it also monitors investigations into internal disciplinary matters.

 

The office can also order independent investigations into police misconduct. The commissioner then determines whether a hearing before the Police Review Board is warranted. The Police Review Board has the power to discipline officers with any penalty including dismissal. A decision of the Police Review Board is final.

 

The office is staffed by three full-time employees and a commissioner appointed by the Governor in Council. In the 2012 calendar year, the office opened 157 files; 128 files arose from allegations by members of the public, while 29 internal disciplinary files were initiated by municipal police agencies. There are 11 municipal police forces in Nova Scotia and a total of 875 officers sworn under the Police Act. The role of this office is separate and distinct from that of the independent Serious Incident Response Team, or SiRT, which conducts criminal investigations into incidents involving police which may result in the laying of charges.

 

In closing, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss some of the activities of my department and to present the highlights of this year's budget. As we go forward, we will continue to work with our many partners to ensure the safety and security of Nova Scotians and prepare and respond to emergencies. We will focus on reducing and preventing crime, and supporting families and communities through our various programs. We will continue to look at everything we do with a critical eye and we will always be ready to make changes if something isn't working or if something could be done better.

 

Before I turn the floor over to questions I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the department that consistently meet the challenge of providing high-quality services each and every year; their dedication and commitment is to be commended. I look forward to the members' questions and comments and welcome the opportunity to share once again on our programs and services. I also want to thank my staff for jumping through the hoops this afternoon because this was not planned to be here. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, minister. We will now turn it over to the Liberal caucus for one hour of questioning.

 

The honourable member for Bedford-Birch Cove.

 

MS. KELLY REGAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you to the minister and staff for coming in today.

 

First of all I would just like to ask the minister about 911 procedures when officers are called to a scene after someone has called 911. I did ask for a briefing on this, was provided with an e-mail but did not, in fact, get the briefing. I'm just wondering if you could explain to me what happens when a 911 call is made to the police if the person has a diagnosed mental illness, what the procedure is when the police come in.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, I'm going to tap into my previous life to answer the question because it's not a budget question. However, I want to say that the 911 process we have in Nova Scotia is an exceptional system, both from a technological perspective and the infrastructure that we have. The updates and upgrades that we have done, we have done some examination and improved training for police as a result of the Hyde inquiry.

 

The issue with a 911 call, no matter where it originates, when that call is received it is then processed and it cannot be concluded without a contact being made to verify the safety at the other end, whether someone says they've just dialed in error or whatever, that process is in there.

 

You made some reference to mental health and the idea behind the police officer. If there are exigent circumstances or a safety issue, they assess the call and what other services may be appropriate. The person receiving the 911 call determines which resource should be there - police, fire, or ambulance - and ensures that the appropriate response is done in a very timely manner.

 

MS. REGAN: I've heard sort of conflicting reports that in the past police officers, whether they were RCMP or HRP officers, used to escort patients to quiet rooms, if they had a facility like that - if they had a quiet room, if there was one in the facility, or if the particular home they were living in had something like that. Is that accurate; in the past, did police perform that function?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, first off, I don't think that's a question of budget; however, I will give you an answer. I can't necessarily speak for the past; I can speak from some experience. If I'm hearing your question correctly, then you're saying a 911 call to a care facility. Would I be correct that that's what you're - rather than a 911 call about an emergency situation, which could be anywhere? There's a distinct difference.

 

MS. REGAN: To a care facility or to a provincially funded home where someone would be in care.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, I suppose if there's a quiet room, I'll make the assumption that the police are there responding to a call, they will assess where they need to be to communicate with the parties concerned. So if there's a quiet room there, I suspect they may use that, or wherever officer safety can be established and client safety can be established, is the point that the officer would be looking at. So whether there's a room there or not, I'm not clear as to what the value of that would be. It would be assessed by the officer whether there's a need for that space, and they would utilize it if they felt that improved the safety of the client and ensured the safety of the officer.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, because what I have been hearing in the wake of several cases that have been brought to me is that officers no longer perform that function; they are not allowed to escort patients to quiet rooms. And I'm just trying to find out if that is the case.

 

MR. LANDRY: On that question, I don't know what police policy would ever say about the rules of a police officer. When they're on a 911 call, it's to determine officer safety and ensure client and public safety at all times. So if they go into an environment, whether it's in a group home or any other location, they will then communicate with either the complainant to establish the particulars of that situation and who they need to deal with, or if there's a particular individual that's in distress, that's in conflict, and the police engage that person, the police officer, at all times, must determine how they maintain safety. They then need to put a measure of control in the environment where the client's hands are seen and maintained at all times, that others within the facility are no longer in danger, and that the environment itself is cleansed so that the engagement can continue, or until the person would be safely restrained and the client is calmed.

 

MS. REGAN: So I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. There is no blanket prohibition on officers escorting persons to quiet rooms?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, I don't know the policies of individual police departments. When you talk about quiet rooms, if there's a quiet room, what that means, that would have to be defined. If they're going into a provincial care home and they have a quiet room, I'm not sure what - the criteria for any police officer going into a situation would be to maintain officer safety, client safety, and public safety, so they have to assess and evaluate the environment in which they're in, based on the information that they have at that moment, and take those steps. So whether there's a policy of being in a care home and going into a space with someone that's - I can't comment on that.

There may be individual policies within police departments because I know when I was a police commander, we had some care homes that had certain physical structures that we would try to have people put in and sit and talk with them so it didn't disrupt anyone else in the facility. But I can't speak for what an individual policy - and that's a front-line operational issue and not where I'd be commenting at this time.

 

MS. REGAN: Thank you. And from there we'll go to maintenance enforcement.

 

MR. LANDRY: Excellent.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay. So I would like to discuss the Maintenance Enforcement Program move to New Waterford. How many civil servants did not move with the program?

 

MR. LANDRY: None physically moved; there were 11 in Sydney and they stayed in that area. They may move closer to New Waterford, they may move into New Waterford, but they're in that area.

 

MS. REGAN: So everyone outside of Sydney did not move, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's correct.

 

MS. REGAN: Did those staff members find new jobs within the civil service?

 

MR. LANDRY: There were 20 placed. I mentioned in my note that all people were looked after, and three term positions were completed and returned to old positions. Everybody was looked after.

 

MS. REGAN: So when you say "everyone was looked after," do you mean there were retirements, do you mean there were packages, do you mean that they transferred to other departments?

 

MR. LANDRY: According to my notes here, four retired, one chose to leave government, three term positions were completed and one is left to be placed, and 20 have been placed within government. So I'm really excited about that because what that says to me is that as a caring, respectful government - and as the Premier had stated - we would ensure that our employees were respected and valued and looked after as we move on to populating some of the rural areas, with equal access and opportunity to good government jobs. I'm very pleased as I look at these figures a little closer, because it has been a while since I had looked at this.

 

MS. REGAN: Of course, what happened though is that we lost some institutional memory. We had people who were already trained and they left their positions and now we've had to train a whole new crop of workers in that department.

 

MR. LANDRY: Let me comment on that from a couple of different directions. The reason I said I was excited about that was what we have is 20 highly-skilled previous maintenance enforcement employees now going into other areas that they made a choice to go into and share their knowledge and skills within government, and in Sydney we had 11 people there to help mentor. I know from talking to some people that we have some very motivated, talented people to replace.

 

There's a sign I read once that said "no change, no future," and with that new integration, we could look at it from a negative perspective and say that we have lost that talent instead of saying - the way I look at it, the glass is half full - we've taken that talent and put it in other places in government. That knowledge is being shared. At the same time we're bringing new, vibrant, young, motivated people into a community that needs that, into an area that, as a government, as a department, we value. We know that there's an imbalance of payments coming and we need to focus and make a system that's more compassionate, sensitive, and focused on those families that need those dollars. I'm highly charged and thankful that we've made this decision and I see great opportunity here.

 

Will there be bumps, a few hiccups? Absolutely. Will there be some people that didn't like that we did this? Absolutely. However, progressive thinkers looking at the future will value that and say we've got something going on here. So I compliment my staff and the work they've done that has made this transition as seamless as possible, while recognizing and respecting the good work of those that were there before. I know from a training perspective we're going to be able to bring people up together and work in a collaborative manner to focus, and the amount of errors in the future will be less significant than in the past, as well as our cost of operation.

 

Remember, getting to a balanced budget requires our political leaders, managers, and departments to be fiscally responsible and looking at new and creative ways of improving how we spend our dollars. If you notice some of the thread through the speech that I gave about maintaining services while reducing costs through efficiencies - it's government approach and the dedication and commitment by people in the Justice Department to do just that, so my hat goes off to them.

 

MS. REGAN: You did mention populating rural areas but perhaps you can comment on the fact that offices in Kentville, Amherst, and New Glasgow - MEP offices - were closed.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm very glad that you asked me that question because that's another key point of a government that is being sensitive to community needs. In each of those communities there are other strategic focus and jobs put in there. We can no longer afford to have a government that looks at putting positions just for political reasons, and the correctional facility in Springhill is a good example and I'll elaborate on that further. New Glasgow and all those communities that you mentioned have government jobs and I think people in Cape Breton, and in New Waterford that's such an economically depressed area, that as a government we have to find ways to create that seed and opportunity of life and growth.

 

When I look at these areas and we take those jobs out of there, from a micro perspective people say that we're losing something but in Amherst, for example, the investments that we made in LED lighting and in the wind energy, who's further ahead? I think Amherst is further ahead with doing those investments. New Waterford is further ahead - this is about a government that's focused on trying to make all Nova Scotians have equal access. So on that issue, the sharing of that, and putting government opportunities there, we know in each of those communities that you said, there are government offices there so I'm really excited about that change and that focus.

 

MS. REGAN: Could you identify how much money has been spent training the new workers?

 

MR. LANDRY: We'll get that for you in a second, but while they're getting that figure, I want to talk about training. The good news here is that we're going to ensure a higher standard and current information, and when I talk about a higher standard in the past it's so it's not fragmented; learning is given practically at the same time and balanced across the board. So training is ongoing but with this new core and this new foundation going in the direction - because we knew that the system, not that people weren't working hard or dedicated, but the system was not as efficient as what we're looking for and hoping for, and if we don't take a risk there's no success.

 

I just want to finish the question. We spent $220,000 on training and we saved all that on transfers and moving, so I think that's a pretty good deal.

 

MS. REGAN: Well, transfers and moving, yes and no - I mean the fact is if you had left the offices open where they were you wouldn't have had the training costs nor would you have had the transfers and moving. So you can't say that you saved money on transfers and moving when, in fact, the decision you made was to close offices and that would have forced those other costs had people actually decided to do it. It's like me saying to my husband, oh look, I bought this dress with the 50 per cent I saved on it.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, if you needed a new dress, you're certainly further ahead if it was 50 per cent and you're below your budget by 50 per cent - that's good, sound government business. But I want to clarify that if we're a government - and I remember the Opposition, of course, where you're sitting and I know that you ask questions in regard to this, but some of the process was not working. Now, I don't want to get too partisan or particular. If we continue to focus our mind to spend more money and expect a different result - and I'm probably going to use that type of a phrase - we're spinning our wheels.

 

By bringing the system together so that we have a plan, we have a strategy, and bring the system together and get standardized training methods and try to make it current, and have staff that are able to adapt and mobile to current and changing needs. By keeping it in those smaller communities where we were leaving people alone to give some communities an advantaged service over other parts of the province where, for example, someone in New Glasgow was getting a better service than somebody in Truro because they didn't have the office there that they could walk into off the street - we could make that argument.

 

What we're saying is by bringing them all together, with the technology that we have today, we're able to deliver the service more cost effectively with - we're hoping - a more highly focused, skilled group than in the past. When I make that statement, I'm not making it that the others weren't skilled or dedicated or professional; in fact, just the opposite.

 

I think when government makes the decision we have to make that change of how we do government business in the future. Put more out in the rural areas, balance the actual government dollars so that it's benefiting all Nova Scotians and adds to the stimulus of the economy, as well as improving the quality of service that we deliver and make the people that are doing the service know that they have supports, and if they're having a concern or a problem, they can just turn and look at their buddy, their colleague and get the support or help or advice that they need; versus the old system where there would be one or two in an office or three or four in an office and somebody might be away, for whatever reason, and you're left there alone.

 

So I think this is a much better system and it's about having a vision looking forward and making things just different. Once again, I'm going to reiterate probably this throughout the whole time that I'm held here: if we continue to do things the same and we don't look and try to take a risk, if you're not taking a risk, you're not moving forward.

 

I don't think this is a risk itself, I think this was a sound, well-thought-out decision. But when I talk about risk, it's doing things differently and trying to be innovative and creative. I like the creative nature of this.

 

MS. REGAN: The minister spoke about new technology - could you identify what new technologies have been purchased for the new MEP office and how things will be done differently?

 

MR. LANDRY: I think just the computer systems, the phone systems, the video conferencing, the software that will go into this. What we're doing is we're modernizing the facility so everything's current and we have it in one location. I know that you have a passion for this issue and trying to make sure that women, in particular - they're the disadvantaged group, because there is really a gender-based argument on this in most cases - are getting fair access or equity to funds to help raise the family.

 

I'm really pleased that we have taken this step to do this and we're working on the goals that I've heard you say before in the past and we're trying to achieve those.

 

MS. REGAN: Thank you. In terms of the video conferencing, how will that be used?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm not certain about the mechanics of how it will roll itself out, but I can make some assumptions. We're going to have people that will go into the big window of government office that has the video conferencing, and they could be in one location - for example, they can be in Amherst and the manager of their file can be in New Waterford or they can be in Halifax or Yarmouth. I think when you start looking at the technology and utilizing that, when you look at the cost to society and to the government, it starts to reduce significantly. It allows the parent to be closer to their children, it allows them to feel that their voice is being heard sooner and quicker, and they don't have travel costs - I mean I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

 

MS. REGAN: I'm just wondering what's going to happen now, for example, if we have an MEP case that comes forward in, say, Yarmouth and the caseworker is in New Waterford, then you're going to have travel time down to Yarmouth of a day, an overnight hotel stay, and then you have your case and the travel back. How is that going to work? It would seem to me you're going to increase the travel costs.

 

MR. LANDRY: All the courthouses we're setting up - I mean in the Justice Department we're doing a number of things that are interfacing. I'll use the example of a patrol officer out on the road starts to have a case, rolls the camera on the police car, minutes later the information is over to the Crown. So you use the same concept that it's instant.

 

In MEP there's no reason why they can't go to the courthouse, sit down, have their file, and be face to face - it's not necessary with all cases that a caseworker has to drive down with someone. With today's technology you can be looking at someone - like, I know I'm buying a new TV and I'm getting a little computer camera put in it so that when my wife is away on her wintertime break, I can Skype and get to talking - it's like I'm there talking to her in the room and I think I can carry on a conversation and see. I do that with my granddaughter all the time; we're right there, engaging, and I can see her expressions.

 

This is about using technology, this is about a population - we've heard stories, and not that I want to talk about sitcoms, but there's one sitcom on TV where there's a young boy, and his uncle comes over to him and sees the young fellow sitting on the couch with a young girl and they're giggling away at each other and they have their BlackBerrys, or little computer things in their hands, and they're looking up and giggling. He says: What are you doing? Well, I'm texting. Who are you texting? I'm texting her. Well, why not just talk to her? And they kind of look at him as if he has two heads.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that we have to get current with society today; the young people, the young mothers and stuff, they're using this technology, so this is a way for you and I - and I'm not implying that you're as old as I am in any way, you're so much younger, but I want to state that it's a little bit foreign, like when I was in here today listening to people saying they're going to tweet or Facebook this and that, and I said, no, I'm talking to people face to face or on the phone. So I'm a little bit of a cultural lag myself here that I'm not keeping up with technology, but we're trying to use it in the department so that we cut down costs and still have that engagement.

 

When we need to make those personal contacts, when we look at the overall system, we strongly believe that it will be more efficient and cost effective.

 

MS. REGAN: So is that what's going to happen - we're going to have video conferencing in court, which I imagine is going to involve some renovations in courthouses as well?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's already there; the reason I gave you the process about the police officer and the prosecutor is that system is already there. Maybe I should have explained it better.

 

MS. REGAN: So they're in the actual courtrooms?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well yes, they're in the courthouses. I don't know about all the rooms but wherever they're needed, they'll be utilized. It's portable.

 

MS. REGAN: It is portable, so they can move from room to room. Okay, thank you.

 

In terms of - you mentioned there was one person who retired, did they receive a payout or was it just retirement time and away they went?

 

MR. LANDRY: Regular retirement. They received their severance; I don't want to mislead you, the standard government severance, whatever that package is - their retirement package.

 

MS. REGAN: They got a severance package or a retirement package?

 

MR. LANDRY: Whenever you retire - well, I should say that when I retired I got a severance package but today the officers don't get - they get paid out early. Under that agreement I make the assumption they got the public award, whatever they're entitled to - nothing extra.

 

MS. REGAN: In terms of the offices that closed in Kentville, Dartmouth, Amherst, and New Glasgow, eventually it will be Sydney as well, right?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MS. REGAN: Were there government leases on those properties?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MS. REGAN: And were they at the end of their leases or are we still paying those leases?

 

MR. LANDRY: We're paying $220,000 for all leases and two expire in less than a year and two are longer term, so the cost for that is about $220,000. TIR is working to find new tenants so our costs may not be that high. That's the maximum cost.

 

MS. REGAN: You said that two are due to expire within the year?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MS. REGAN: And two that are longer?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, and TIR is looking for new tenants.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, but I count five offices - oh, the Sydney one isn't closed yet so that one is ongoing. And the $220,000 is for this coming year, or is that for all of them put together?

 

MR. LANDRY: All put together - that's the high end; it could be significantly less if they get leased.

 

MS. REGAN: If you find new tenants. And is the $220,000 - I don't think I was really clear on my question. Let's say Amherst and New Glasgow, for example, they have the longer term leases, so would that be to the very end of their lease or would that be just for this year?

 

MR. LANDRY: To the end of their lease. I just want to say that the new building they're going into is that the leasing costs are below average for the area.

 

MS. REGAN: I would expect that in New Waterford. In terms of that new building, are there renovations being done to those new buildings.

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MS. REGAN: Do we know how much they're going to cost?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's built into the lease rates so it's no new cost to us.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, thank you very much for that.

 

So let's do some big-picture questions now. What spending reductions have you made in your department in terms of what lines you have seen reductions on?

MR. LANDRY: Approximately $2 million out of human resource management; $950,000 out of efficiencies - as I stated in my notes earlier about computers and printers, go on with whatever administrative usage you have; and another $2.5 million in additional FTE savings that were identified previously. So that about gets us to just under $5 million.

 

MS. REGAN: Would it be possible to get a copy of those?

 

MR. LANDRY: Certainly.

 

MS. REGAN: What line items have had spending increases in your department for this coming year?

 

MR. LANDRY: The increases have been, for example, the RCMP contract for three towns is $4.8 million - and I should just give a little note on that that we'll get most of that back. The correctional workers' salary increases, we're putting it into Local 480 of the NSGEU, $2.75 million. Legal aid, we added just under a million dollars there, and one of the things with the legal aid I would really - it's an issue for me personally that I believe they need significantly more and that the federal government needs to be a partner in that; I don't think they have increased since the 2003 rates. We know the impact that that has so we're working on that and I bring that up every meeting that I have with the other ministers.

 

The other addition is Bringing Culture Inside and the Ceasefire program which is just around $700,000, and that's trying to address some of the violence in our system and also give our young people that are involved in crime a chance. Crime prevention projects are one, and then the IWK Secure Care Unit rebill of salaries at Waterville is $300,000. So that's where the funding increases are.

 

So from that you see that those are - in fact, I think that some of those things were issues that were raised as questions by the Opposition that we're responding to to find answers and a way to address some of their concerns.

 

MS. REGAN: If I could get that list again afterwards, too, that would be most appreciated.

 

MR. LANDRY: Absolutely.

 

MS. REGAN: In terms of legal aid rates, what I often hear is that it's tough for people on low incomes to get any kind of legal assistance. I know that's a cause dear to the minister's heart as well as to mine. I think the legal foundation helped some organizations - did they help legal aid, too, do you know?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not anymore, I don't think.

 

MS. REGAN: They were for a while but I don't think they are able to do that anymore.

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, their funding has been reduced. I do want to say on legal aid, though, kudos should go out to the legal aid management and staff because they were able to restructure some of their outsourcing, the way that they did their business, to try to maintain the level of service they had and reduce their overall costs. They really have become very efficient at what they do.

 

The essence of the question that I think I'm hearing from you is that we would like to do more and the problem is, unless the federal government steps up to their partnership - we're working on that, I'm committed to that. If we can find ways - ways like the Domestic Violence Court, for example, and the mental health package that we're putting forward. There are a number of initiatives that we're doing throughout - improving health care, access to health care, some of the safe-room areas within the hospitals that we're putting in. These are all things that are going to contribute to reducing the impact on some of these clients that get tied up in that system.

 

It's not just about putting money into legal aid. We know that's an important part there, but it's also the overall social structure of trying to put improvements in so that we reduce the number of people who are going to be engaged in criminal activity because of either mental health or other types of issues and then need these services. So it's a holistic approach.

 

MS. REGAN: I think you mentioned that there were some reductions in FTEs, so that contributed to some savings. I'm wondering if you can give us an indication of what divisions and what jobs specifically did we not have full complements?

 

MR. LANDRY: The key area here is that there are a number - over 100 vacant positions throughout the system so we kept them vacant over the three years. We evaluated those that we really needed to fill and kept those, and also HYAC, the Halifax Youth Attendance Centre, the restructuring there and how we have managed that resource and approached within that area. So that has created some of the efficiencies that we have - front-line staff did not get cut.

 

MS. REGAN: The 100 positions, I was just wondering where they were. You're telling me they're not front-line staff but I'm just wondering where they were.

 

MR. LANDRY: What I'll do is get the staff here to get a copy sent over to you, breaking it down by divisions, but the front-line working staff, we maintained that.

 

MS. REGAN: So a bunch of them weren't in one program or one division? We weren't cutting . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: No, there were vacancy patterns that were occurring and when the direction came down that we needed to reduce the costs, we looked and evaluated how we could maintain the vacancies and we addressed those areas of concern. I compliment my staff and especially the deputy minister, because that's the person who manages that.

 

MS. REGAN: I actually have - and this may be a dumb question . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: No dumb questions.

 

MS. REGAN: I come from Ontario originally and we had a provincial police force, the OPP, and there's the QPP. Here in Nova Scotia we don't have that but we pay the RCMP to act as the provincial police force, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: The RCMP is the provincial police force in Nova Scotia.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, because I've heard a couple of things in interviews recently where people are saying the RCMP is the federal police force so that's not our jurisdiction, and I found that odd.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, let me explain to you because I worked in a number of those areas. The federal government pays for a number of positions in the province for people to be in federal policing and they fulfill the federal mandate requirements. The province last year signed a 20-year agreement with the federal government to contract services of the RCMP as a provincial police force.

 

Some municipalities in the province have also contracted to have the RCMP deal with that and they've also contracted through us, so there are a number of various arrangements. The RCMP provides that service and another branch of the RCMP provides federal. They have their command structure of how they manage that but they are separate entities within that structure; but for administrative purposes, they manage it out of the same facility and out of the same management infrastructure so that it reduces costs and maintains efficiencies.

 

MS. REGAN: So the Tantallon RCMP, for example . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: That's a different arrangement; the Tantallon RCMP comes in partnership with the Halifax Regional Municipality.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, that's what I was wondering - so Tantallon, Cole Harbour, outside sort of the core where we had HRP; in fact, that is . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: The police force.

 

MS. REGAN: That's the municipal police - they're contracted by HRP, they aren't acting as federal police officers, unless they are, in fact, working on a federal kind of case.

MR. LANDRY: Let me explain it to you then; what happened is that the officer that you see in the patrol car in Tantallon is an HRM municipal police officer, that contracts by the Halifax Regional Municipality with the RCMP. There will be other officers who will do federal duty who aren't contracted but may work in partnership with either the Tantallon RCMP, the Halifax Regional Police Service itself, or any other branch of law enforcement - to provide the services that they provide.

 

MS. REGAN: And then outside of HRM you might either get municipally contracted RCMP or you might have the provincial police force, the RCMP.

 

MR. LANDRY: Exactly, in fact the highway patrol car that you see out on the highway would be a provincial position.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, that's what I thought. I was just hearing things and I thought either I'm wrong or they're wrong. Thank you.

 

MR. LANDRY: It all works. To the average person it's confusing; for me, I lived it so I'm natural in it.

 

MS. REGAN: Exactly. In terms of staffing increases, are there any parts of the Justice Department that have seen staffing increases?

 

MR. LANDRY: Say that again?

 

MS. REGAN: Staffing increases within the Department of Justice, are there any areas where we've seen staffing increases?

 

MR. LANDRY: There was with the RCMP - no, the emergency management, we've taken over 30 positions there, they transferred over. I know one day there were a couple of questions in Question Period, and of course it's always not necessarily the facts get in the way of the questions sometimes, where they were saying we're adding services - it's really we reduced in one area and just moved it to another area. So it's a matter of how you become more efficient.

 

The Department of Community Services, child protection, 17 legal positions came over to us; the correctional officers, we've added some positions there based on the Deloitte report; the new medical examiner's facility, we took that over under Justice, so there are nine positions there. The Domestic Violence Court, we added five positions for that; the Serious Incident Response Team, we added four - just on that incident alone, that's a direct benefit to the municipal police and to the RCMP, and it reduces taxpayers' costs. Now, some people say, well, you are spending for that unit, but if you looked at the cost to the municipal police departments to be doing those on their own, it would be higher because this is more efficient. The second thing it does is it also has a higher level of public confidence at this time.

 

Then we consolidated legal staff from other departments, plus one new CIO lawyer. Private security - new legislation, which expanded the sector requiring licensing, so that was three people there. And casual conversion, we had a bunch of workers that were part time - sheriffs and youth workers - and we've converted them over to full time and gave them a more stable job opportunity.

 

Just a point that I want to make on your earlier questions, there are 239 provincial RCMP positions and 600 municipal - so of the just under 900 positions, that's the breakdown.

 

Also in that mix is a combination of some people that are paid for, administrators that are shared, and person-years are then calculated with the federal costing is how that administration works.

 

MS. REGAN: You know what I'm going to ask now: can I have that list? Sorry about that.

 

Are there any programs that have been reduced in your department, things that you have - for example, any programs you've cut entirely?

 

MR. LANDRY: We have not cut any this year. So in this year's budget which is what this discussion is about, no.

 

MS. REGAN: Did you cut any last year?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, and I answered those questions last year, but I will answer them again.

 

MS. REGAN: Yes, because that's still in budget.

 

MR. LANDRY: It was in HYAC, and also electronic bail supervision, and there's one other - the Justice Learning Centre. It was all done at once, they're pretty well . . .

 

MS. REGAN: And the first thing you said was?

 

MR. LANDRY: The Halifax Youth Attendance Centre.

 

MS. REGAN: You had mentioned that earlier and the program is gone?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, we have just restructured it. The goal behind it was that the model we had was not getting - the volume of youth was higher than our ability to deliver the service without increasing more costs. So as I mentioned earlier in the points that I made, as a government we are focused on trying to increase efficiencies and reduce costs, and that's what we did here. We actually meet more youth and we address their needs at a better level because the model is more efficient.

MS. REGAN: So do you mind me asking you how you did that? You say you saw more youth and I'm just wondering what you did to change that.

 

MR. LANDRY: What happens is that we deal with them more on an outreach basis, they come to us so the schedules are set up that way, rather than having a physical structure where we're managing and maintaining. We go to them and we meet them on their terms, and we try to provide services and direct them to the services and coordinate more, so that they - it actually increases their ability to have independence while at the same time having guidance and mentoring. So rather than having an institutionalized concept, it's more aligned to getting the services they need in a more timely manner, at a fairer cost management.

 

MS. REGAN: So I'm hearing from that, and I don't want to put words in your mouth but I want to make sure that I understand what you're saying, that there was a centre where kids came and now there isn't a physical building, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: There still is a centre in Dartmouth where that does occur but we've increased the volume of people on an outreach basis, and the model has changed but there are some that still come.

 

There's not a cookie-cutter process here. We try to adapt and meet the needs of the youth, rather than make everyone come in and try to put a round peg in a square hole. Some are square, some are round, some are other shapes so we try to accommodate and that's what this change has allowed us to do, at the same time reducing our costs.

 

MS. REGAN: So was there a centre in Halifax?

 

MR. LANDRY: In the basement of St. Pat's school.

 

MS. REGAN: That one is closed but there is still the one in Dartmouth?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's correct - with a classroom.

 

MS. REGAN: There's a classroom in . . .

 

MR. LANDRY: The Dartmouth one.

 

MS. REGAN: And where's the Dartmouth one?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's in that building over in Dartmouth - where the Dartmouth Provincial Court is, in that same building. I don't know the details so I have to make it up.

 

MS. REGAN: So in that one kids can still drop in and get assistance, but otherwise, we are going out into the community more.

 

MR. LANDRY: We're doing more.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay. So that has seen a staffing increase, then, that program - no?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, a staffing decrease.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, so you're seeing more children with fewer people - more youth?

 

MR. LANDRY: We've got more clients, yes. The efficiency of the program appears to be, with the feedback that we get, more effective.

 

As I understand the facts, under the old model we were dealing with roughly 12 to 15 and now we're between 100 and 150, so it's much more . . .

 

MS. REGAN: I'm sorry, you say you used to have how many clients?

 

MR. LANDRY: In a classroom setting, 12 to 15, and we are able to - because the difference in the model is that we used to have to bring people into the centre and that was costly, versus having the client go to the services that they need in the community.

 

MS. REGAN: I thought we were going to the clients.

 

MR. LANDRY: And we're keeping more kids in school, as a result of this. They're on the supervision of the program. I think I'm stumping you there.

 

MS. REGAN: Well, you had previously said that we were going out into the community to see the kids and then you just said the kids are coming in.

 

MR. LANDRY: I apologize, when I was giving you the example of square holes and round pegs, what I was trying to articulate was that we're doing a combination of things, that each child is unique. Some can get classroom supervision and they may need some counselling somewhere or they may need support in some other area, so that element is taken care of.

 

Someone may need to come into a classroom for a certain set-up, that's why we have the Dartmouth set-up. Someone else may need other services, so they're able to manage, but most of them are in the school system. It's keeping clients in the community and functioning and providing the supports and mechanisms to achieve their success.

 

MS. REGAN: Are there any programs that have been scaled down in terms of access by the public so that you are serving fewer clients than you were before?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not that I'm aware of.

 

MS. REGAN: Okay, I'd like to move on to some travel questions. Do we know what the average travel expenses were for those staffers and employees who were required to travel in the past fiscal year?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, but we can get that. I know one thing, mine is not very high and my staff. I know that in some of the other areas they cut that down so there should be a reduction overall, but we can get you that.

 

MS. REGAN: Well, I mean we do have a list of travel, Page 179 and Page 180, et cetera. And there are some significant ones for travel.

 

MR. LANDRY: The oversight of travel - I'm just being informed here that we've got new software that helps us manage that and keep our costs. Is your question saying that it has increased because my understanding is it should be decreased, our cost.

 

MS. REGAN: That's why I'm asking to find out what the average is.

 

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

 

MS. REGAN: I mean we have some significant travel totals here. I see them at $19,000, $17,000, $15,000, et cetera, so I'm just wondering, what would account for that kind of travel?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, there would be an increase, for example, since we put SiRT in, their job is that they are mobile, or the SCAN unit, for example, where they go around to communities and stuff, they're across the province so there are costs there, but the overall safety of the community - and as I said in SiRT, that reduces our cost to police agencies. There is a system saving, not necessarily to Justice but the overall government - the cost for taxpayers would actually go down.

 

The same with the SCAN unit being in there and the reduction of police calls to communities and areas, I suspect it pays for itself, but you won't see it in a direct line because it has reduced police calls to a neighbourhood and efficiencies that way, so Justice bears a cost there.

 

Also in that question, the probation officers and per diem judges do travel but once again, as we look at the video conferencing, hopefully that will help reduce some of those costs in the future - we're always looking for ways. We're always open to suggestions as to how we can reduce those costs.

 

MS. REGAN: We have a number of travel totals that are above the $10,000 mark: Roy Kennedy, John MacDougall, Thilairani Pillay, Marian Tyson, and Robert Purcell. Do we know what would account for those large travel totals?

 

MR. LANDRY: Let me give you a couple of examples here. For example, Mr. Kennedy does training across the province so his will be exceedingly high. Mr. MacDougall is a per diem judge, and Bob Purcell's travel would be excessive because he was involved in the negotiation going across Canada, meeting with other provinces; he's one of our lead people on the RCMP contract that we negotiated last year. There were extensive meetings across the country so each one of those can be explained very well within the best interests of the province.

 

MS. REGAN: Marian Tyson wasn't there for the full year, was she?

 

MR. LANDRY: She wasn't here last year.

 

MS. REGAN: Well, according to this she has $15,815 in travel expenses.

 

MR. LANDRY: She was there at the end of the 2011-12 portion of the budget. The same with the RCMP contract, that's all of 2011-12 rather than 2012-13.

 

MS. REGAN: And that would be because we get these sort of a year in lag? And Ms. Pillay - oh, I asked for Ms. Tyson. Marian Tyson was still the deputy minister?

 

MR. LANDRY: Until December of that year. I'm glad I don't travel too much on here. I notice the minister's not on there for much.

 

MS. REGAN: And Ms. Pillay, what does she do?

 

MR. LANDRY: She's a lawyer with Legal Services, travelling to court.

 

MS. REGAN: And what is the travelling court?

 

MR. LANDRY: She mainly was focusing on child protection hearings and going around dealing with those matters, so she's a specialist in that area.

 

MS. REGAN: When I look at Grants and Contributions from the previous year - again, because we get them the previous year - I see, for example, the Department of Seniors, and I'm noticing this sort of across a number of different departments where departments transfer money over. Do you know what the Department of Seniors would be for - $50,000?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's the Seniors' Safety Program. If I can remember the program, we did a number of initiatives across the province dealing with focusing on seniors' safety, and that's an overall government initiative to make seniors safer. Of course with the aging population that's an ever-growing concern.

 

MS. REGAN: My understanding is there used to be a program where senior centres could apply to have someone come in and do a talk on not getting ripped off and things like that, is that still available?

 

MR. LANDRY: That would go to the Department of Seniors. One of the things that we're trying to do as a government is to look at taking down stovepipes. I know there's a question that was asked in the House by one of your colleagues, actually, and it had to do with - we take down the stovepipe but some dollars are being moved differently to help with that; rather than being spent directly in our department, they go somewhere else. We are trying to do that so if it's in the senior's - if the Minister of Community Services came to us and they had a program that they're doing that touched on Justice, then we would look to do an investment there. I think we're trying to open up where we can do that more so that one budget is helping the other with focusing on the overall objective of public safety.

 

MS. REGAN: So would that be what that $50,000 was for - for that program?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, it's for what I said earlier. It's for that seniors' program; it was about the seniors' training program around the province.

 

MS. REGAN: I also see Left Foot First Productions, which was $30,000. Was that a video production or something?

 

MR. LANDRY: You're seeing $30,000 - I'm pretty sure, if my memory serves me correctly, we helped with a youth group and promoting going around, and they developed a DVD and other items for educating other kids. It was a production done by kids. I went and saw part of it being done.

 

MS. REGAN: So it was a video production that kids put together, is that right?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, it was professionally done but it was for that purpose, to communicate that message, produce DVDs. We could get the particulars on that for you.

 

MS. REGAN: That would be great. I have just a couple of others that I would - I know our time is drawing to a close . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's probably time for one question.

 

MS. REGAN: Perhaps you could indicate what Archway Search Consultants Incorporated, who received $250,000, what that work was for or what that grant was for.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm just trying to find it. What page are you seeing that on?

 

MS. REGAN: Page 182.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'll have to get that because I can't see it in the book.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the time for the Liberal caucus for today. We will now move on to the Progressive Conservative caucus. The honourable member for Inverness has eight minutes; that will give us the full four hours for today.

 

The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Mr. Chairman, my first question has to do with FTE numbers on Page 14.2 of the budget. This past year the department had 1,542 people working in the department in some shape or form. I know FTEs are full-time equivalents and they could be halves or 0.2 of a position, et cetera.

 

We know that you had budgeted 1,607 for the year and used just 1,542. Now I noticed this year in all the departments the estimates for the coming year more closely matched the forecast of the actual for the previous year, which I think is good because it shows that they're more accurate. My question is, if the department needed only 1,542 people last year, why would they need 1,568 this year?

 

MR. LANDRY: I sure wish you were here a little while ago, I already answered that question. Anyway, as a government we're trying to do things in a very strategically focused way and have a clear vision of where we're going. We wanted to look at how we realign and to put our resources where they're best utilized. For example, we moved 30 positions from emergency management. So when we say we went up, we reduce somewhere else and put that in the department, because when you look at the way we're structured and how our model works, that's a good alignment and more efficient for the department. We actually reduced some positions in there and reduced our costs overall.

 

Then in the Department of Community Services, child protection, legal positions, we took 17 from there. So of those 47 positions, we just moved them from one department and put them over under ours and made them more efficient for the delivery of service. There were 10 positions added to corrections, based on the Deloitte report that we are required to do. Another area that we aligned and took over was the medical examiner's facility, so it came under our person-year FTEs. The other part, of course, was you can never invest too much in Cape Breton, that's what I say. I don't know if you'd agree with that or not . . .

 

MR. MACMASTER: It's in Inverness - Port Hawkesbury.

 

MR. LANDRY: Oh, I just thought it was Cape Breton, where I come from. Anyway, it was a Domestic Violence Pilot Project that we put there.

 

Another key thing we did, and I compliment the Premier for supporting this and having the vision to put the Serious Incident Response Team together, because what it did - and there are four positions there - it reduced the cost to the municipal police departments and the RCMP across the province and made that public complaint system for investigating serious incidents more timely and cost effective, and it increases public confidence.

The other was private security in the new legislation, expand the sectors requiring licensing, so we put three positions there. Then we had a number of employees who are in the sheriff's department, for example, and youth workers who were casual and we converted them and made that a little more efficient and gave some stability to some people in their lives so that their families can have some guarantees. There were 18 positions there, so that's roughly about 100 positions.

 

When you look at the variance that you have there, we were able to make other departments reduce their costs, and at the same time government, because remember, there's only one taxpayer, and at the end of the day it's the taxpayer's dollar that we're trying to manage.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, minister. I want to congratulate you, the numbers are getting closer this coming year. I'm sorry I wasn't here before; I was asking questions in the other Chamber.

 

I don't know, my own feeling is I think it's better that the numbers are closer, and do you know what? It's a little over a 1 per cent variance and to me that's not a big deal. I know in past years, like if you look at last year, the estimate versus the actual, there was a bit more variance and it was like that for all the departments. Of course, if you start adding that all up, you have a cost that becomes significant across government. That's why I was asking the question. I think you know that's why I was asking because I've asked it during Question Period.

 

MR. LANDRY: I know - it's been a long day.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I'm glad to see the numbers closer together there. My next question and I thought maybe I'd just ask about a specific one, the Fatality Investigation Unit, on Page 14.7. The estimate going into last year was that 22 people would be needed yet only 14 were required. Can you give some background as to why there were only 14 used or needed?

 

MR. LANDRY: We're at full-time complement now, we had some hiring delays and some part-time people who were in the equation. Now it's more streamlined and focused as to where we're going in the new facility.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So it must have wreaked havoc in the division if you were missing one-third of the workforce that you expected to have in the office.

 

MR. LANDRY: It had more to do with as a government, once again I talk about having vision and being strategically focused to make sure we're efficient and have the ability to expand. We built a new facility that has the potential to expand its services and I won't get into that today. In that transition we required additional resources to make that transition into the new building. Now that building is efficient and effective and they've got staff that are there.

As we look to the future as to what the potential of that could be and try to market that service, we may expand in the future. Of course, we'd get a return on our dollar for that investment but it's just like building the new correctional facility - we planned for the future and reduced our current costs and we're more environmentally sensitive. That was a critical thing of how we think as a government and how we want to go forward.

 

The staff that we had, I compliment both the medical examiner's staff and my own staff in looking at the potential of the building rather than building a building for what we needed yesterday - it's where we are going tomorrow, and that facility and the department are geared for that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I guess some of the FTEs would be people like medical examiners, forensic pathologists, and that kind of thing. If there were that many fewer, how would they deal with it if it was expected you'd need 22? I mean, that kind of work, I would think the demand is quite stable for it, based on accidents. The death statistics are pretty much the same every year, as much the same as birth statistics are the same. If there were only 14 people there instead of 22, that must have been a significant increase in their workload.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will have to be the last question of the day, and I certainly give the minister an opportunity to respond to your question.

 

MR. LANDRY: Part of it had to do with the inefficiencies of the previous system - not that people in it weren't working hard or doing a good job. The system needed some re-tweaking and that's why we built the new building. It had to do with the staff at the hospital - the Capital District Health Authority - and the autopsies being done there and the expanded services that we had. We've channelled them into being more efficient. We've also realigned when we do some general autopsies on the weekend, unless there are exigent circumstances, so the resourcing was realigned that way.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I know we would all like to stay for a few more hours and continue this dialogue, but that does it for today. We will resume tomorrow. That concludes the Subcommittee on Supply session for today.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 6:01 p.m.]