HALIFAX, FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 2013

 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY

 

9:20 A.M.

 

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Minister, and members. We will continue the estimates of the Department of Justice. We will get underway again and if I remember correctly, Mr. MacMaster, you had about nine minutes in yesterday, so you have 51 minutes remaining in the Progressive Conservative caucus questioning. We will pick up where we left off.

 

The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. ALLAN MACMASTER: Mr. Chairman, we're just about midway through the first period here and we'll continue.

 

When I left off yesterday we were talking about, I don't know what the division is called, but in the Budget Book it's Fatality Investigation Act. We were talking about the FTEs there and I just want to ask you a couple of questions on that.

 

The year previous, last year, at this time the department was expecting to be 22 people in that division. Mr. Minister, you mentioned yesterday it was through efficiency that that number was brought back down to 14. My thoughts were it must have made things very chaotic in that division to be short one-third of the people who work in it normally. I know you mentioned that it was achieved through efficiencies, but then if we're going back up this year, back up to 21, the efficiencies are lost. Maybe you could provide us a better explanation that makes a little more sense, if I may?

 

HON. ROSS LANDRY: It was a transition year and we were doing some work at the CDHA and so it's that transition where we needed the extra resources to make that happen. Once we got the system up and running, it was more fluid and that was the reasoning behind that.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So transitional, I guess this division, from the description, conducts medical examinations and autopsies that are completed by forensic pathologists. Can you describe the transition a little bit more about what happened when there were fewer of them this past year?

 

MR. LANDRY: It was moving to the new building.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I can appreciate if they moved to another building it would be, as you say, a transition year, but wouldn't they still be dealing with the same amount of workload and thus need the same number of people?

 

MR. LANDRY: Some of the work was still being done at the CDHA and so as a result there were two locations being used as the resources of both.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Would the FTEs for the others that were located at the CDHA be included in another set of FTE numbers, say in the Department of Health and Wellness?

 

MR. LANDRY: They would be under the Capital District Health Authority, not under us.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Would I be correct in saying that this year coming up they are now back under the Department of Justice, under the FTE count there?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, we're fully staffed there and functional.

 

MR. MACMASTER: The next question I have is on Page 14.4, Specialty Courts. I have a number of questions here just looking at the numbers you see where there are differences that kind of stand out and this one stood out, it came in under-budget by about a third and this year we see it back up. What was happening in court services that accounted for that?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's the domestic violence investment and the court in Sydney.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Was there some reason it was over-budgeted for last year?

 

MR. LANDRY: That was the start-up and the preparation to get the court up and running and the infrastructure requirements.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So was that a one-time cost?

 

MR. LANDRY: Last year's would have been. This year's cost would be ongoing.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So this is a number that varies every year, is it?

 

MR. LANDRY: It won't now, it should be stable now because it's a basic constant expenditure with the court being up and running the second year.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I guess I just wonder why it was lower last year and then it's back up.

 

MR. LANDRY: You got a half year expenditure roughly, it was a mid-year start.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So it started about halfway through the year and that's why it was about half the amount and this year going forward from now on it will be the full amount every year. Okay, good.

 

My next question is from Page 14.8 under Public Safety and Security, Crime Prevention. The amount budgeted last year, it's more than twice that amount. Maybe you could give some explanation of what's happening there?

 

MR. LANDRY: Once again, and don't take this as a shot, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it had to do with the bullying and the gun CeaseFire. To bring in culture, I shouldn't say bullying I meant bringing culture inside, that's the program we have at Waterville and then the CeaseFire Program for the gun violence.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Are you doing more of those programs this year or something? Is that why the numbers are going up for this year?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, because the program implementation will occur this year and so the cost is related to that. The idea behind gun violence and the CeaseFire component is that we know that you just can't throw money at something, you have to have a way to restructure and change the beliefs or attitudes of those who are involved in that, or provide them opportunities to see life differently. As far as bringing culture into Waterville, it's allowing our Mi'kmaq, in particular, to meet with people with cultural awareness and the elder within the community to be able to work with the youth there and bring them with their past and looking to the future and how they can be good, productive, supportive people in the community.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That sounds like a good program. I know the percentage of Aboriginal people in correctional facilities is higher than what it should be in terms of their representation in the population overall. We certainly know the history of things that have happened to them. Can you expand on the gun safety program a bit?

 

MR. LANDRY: The detail on that is that we need to get support from the federal government, we're working with them with regard to that. If you want to know more specifically about the details you can go on-line and check under the Chicago CeaseFire Program and there's quite a bit of information actually on-line about how it works in the United States, in Chicago in particular, therefore its name. We're looking to implement that concept here with some modification to adjust to our cultural issues and community concerns and we're looking to roll that out. Right now we need to get federal support, that is one of the things that we've made an application for. If you know some people, have some relatives or anything within your political circles and you can put some pressure on that, that would be very helpful. Our youth deserve the opportunity to succeed.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Can you give me just a couple of examples of features of the program that is being proposed?

 

MR. LANDRY: It would be difficult for me to do that since I don't know the actual inner workings and detail. I know the concept about community leaders going in and working with the young people in the community and addressing that in a way that diffuses the conflict and underlying currents that occur with this program. As to the actual mechanics of it I didn't bother reading down to that level. The basic concept is that there will be a mentoring part of it and looking at the root causes within the community and trying to build community awareness and support.

 

MR. MACMASTER: That's helpful. This would be communities where there might be a higher instance of gun use?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's focused on that, that's the idea. The CeaseFire, of course, we wouldn't put it in an area where there is no gunfire. We know if you have the opportunity sometime to see a presentation by the regional police, they do periodically some community consultation and they know exactly where the violence is occurring and who's causing it and that knowledge and information. Having that in our possession is one thing, it's what are we going to do with it. We try to get a program that would gear and focus on that target group, pardon the pun, and we would try to diffuse the situation.

 

MR. MACMASTER: This is a very small item, but on that same page there is an amount that was budgeted last year for Security Intelligence Management, there was none spent and there's none budgeted this year. Can you give us an explanation of what that budget line was for?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's within EMO, security background checks.

 

MR. MACMASTER: For EMO?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes. It has been transferred from Public Safety to EMO.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Okay. The next question is on Page 14.9, Emergency Management Office. The actuals for EMO Disaster Assistance were significantly higher than estimated. Can you explain what was going on there and I'm thinking of when the flooding was in Truro, I can't remember how many months ago that was, but I'm not sure if there is a connection there? I'll let you comment.

 

MR. LANDRY: That's the flooding in Pictou County and Truro, Colchester County.

 

MR. MACMASTER: So that would be actual money paid out for people who made claims for disaster assistance to fix their properties?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, and the overall mechanics of working that project through during the time of the storm and afterwards.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Going back to Page 14.2, under Gross Expenses, Chargeable to Other Departments - the forecast varied from the estimate. Can you explain what happened there?

 

MR. LANDRY: Say that again.

 

MR. MACMASTER: If you look at Page 14.2 under Gross Expenses, Departmental Expenses, the amount that's "Less: Chargeable to Other Departments". The forecast last year was $7,977,000 it came in at $11,353,000.

 

MR. LANDRY: It's charging back work that we did with TIR in connection with the disaster. One of the things that - and this might help you out as well - as a government, and please don't take this personally, the previous governments failed to look at this issue. Now, I can remember being a young fellow in Pictou County growing up and going over to Truro as a kid and every year there would be a flood. Every year the government would bail it out. Well finally, we come of an age now where our government is saying this doesn't make sense - why would we continue to keep fixing a problem that we know exists. Governments can't afford to manage themselves in that manner. We have to look to the future and how we're going to manage our dollars.

 

So unlike previous administrations that said, we've got a lot of money to spend, and spent it unwisely; it was good to spend to fix up and help the people who were there, but we really need to look at how we stop the continuation of the flooding into areas that we're going to continue to fix. This requires good consultation and strategic plan and dialogue from many levels to look at - what if we fixed the underlying flow patterns of the water and what are the impacts and how do we do that so that the next time there's a flood or we have the heavy rains, the system can handle the water flow and transfer it without putting problems on the downstream issue.

 

What we're doing as a government now is investing and looking at how we're going to restructure the water flow patterns to ensure that those restructuring efforts and actions don't create another problem, so that the next time that same volume of water or greater occurs, the amount of damage would be reduced. I'm sure over the long term - I'm not a Spring chicken anymore and I know that has been going on for over 60 years - because it was long before I was here. So now it's to invest dollars - if you took all the dollars that were invested over those years, not only is it an economic inconvenience to our economy, from a human perspective it's very disruptive and stressful, and creates other kinds of problems in our society, so we want to look at - how do we make life better for today's families? It's to work and look at it from a holistic approach of how we make the environmental impacts more palatable in a community and how you can live together in a time of disaster and to prevent those impacts.

 

I know during the last disaster, I had the pleasure of going around the community at the time that it was occurring, as the Minister of Emergency Measures Organization, and I went with the member for Truro-Bible Hill and others. We met with some of the seniors and we saw the people in tears because of the disruption in their lives and what that cost them. Especially when you looked at the seniors who were affected because they're in their final years of life and to have this type of impact was a bit concerning. It raises the question of - how do we prevent that? To make life uncomfortable for someone in that stage is rather sad and so we worked very diligently and hopefully we will come forward with a strategic plan.

 

As well, when you look at the overall continual cost by a government, from an EMO perspective, if we can reduce the impact on our resources, it allows us to be more proactive and preventive in areas and looking at studies like 911s and other emergency routing patterns and putting our energy into those types of areas of how we can be prepared. The best preparation is preventive for these types of disasters and the most cost-effective way is to create an opportunity for us to make sure that when a disaster is about to occur, that our infrastructure and system can withstand itself and be durable.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Minister, does this mean that your government will be changing its response to the people of Margaree because that's exactly what they were asking for? I have a number of pieces of correspondence on it, including with the Premier, where we're making the exact points that you've just made, to do something because Margaree is prone to flooding as well and they were wanting to make the case, why don't we take a look at the river system and see if there are changes we could make so that this doesn't happen to the same degree again and we'll save everybody money in the future, when there's a future flood. Does this mean that your government will change its response to the people of Margaree?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well I think with the young, bright MLA down there you might be able to cultivate some of the people in the community there and start to develop a business case and look at what type of opportunities are there to look at the potential to do that. I know that we as a government, listen and we work very collaboratively, especially with our MLAs and those other areas. Right now we were focusing on the Pictou County and Truro areas and definitely the same would apply to the Margaree Valley.

 

I know I've had the opportunity a couple of times this summer to go cycling down through there and I can't help but think, as I go along the lower road down there between the rivers, and see the people out there flyfishing and some of the cottages and people along the embankment with their trailers and how beautiful that is and how peaceful. I think back when I was a young fellow and I used to go on a retreat down there into the Valley and I used to go running and I couldn't help but think. So if nature is going to destroy that in some way through the storms and the inconvenience to people who live there, it would be nice if we're able to reduce - as long as it saves people's properties, reduces costs and makes life better for families because that's certainly what we are focused about.

 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask if we could take five minutes so I can go do that interview, if my colleague would allow me that opportunity?

 

MR. MACMASTER: Certainly.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will take a five-minute break for the minister to have an interview with Global, I understand.

 

[9:42 a.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[10:04 a.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Inverness.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Mr. Minister, when we left off we were talking about flooding and it's good to see that government is looking at the idea of maybe investing some money today to address areas that are prone to flooding so that it reduces the costs in the future of dealing with the properties that are damaged because, as we know, that's the purpose of the disaster assistance program, to fix principal residences that are not covered by terms of their insurance for their owners. I'm going to be approaching the government again for the people of Margaree to make sure that they have a chance to get in on this as well. I'll move on from that question.

 

My next question - and I know we've gone back and forth on this one during Question Period - is on ankle bracelets and I just have some questions on that. Would the minister agree that law enforcement gets better results where ankle bracelets are used?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, I wouldn't agree with that. I think ankle bracelets are a tool and an option depending on what the ankle bracelet is used for. I have great confidence in probation services and Correctional Services doing the reporting on someone who is a client that has been an inmate that it's assessed in what the benefits of that are. I disagree totally, the medical evidence, unless there's a change in this, that if somebody is a mental health patient, putting a bracelet on them - whether in treatment for rehabilitation - may have negative effects, so I leave that to the medical personnel to make those decisions. At the same time, when you look at bracelets, I know as a government we put bracelets on for children who are autistic and adults with Alzheimer's. I know my mom, who suffers with Alzheimer's, she has a little bracelet so people know who she is and where she belongs should she get out of the care facility that she's in.

 

As a government what we did with the tools, with the ankle bracelets, is we're using them, we're staying within our budget, we're managing our resources and trying to put forth a program. To carte blanche would be to blanket and that's one of the things that I know from an Opposition perspective that you've been focused on and you're hoping to get some ground, that your ideology in regard to this has some merit and I don't disagree that it has some principle and that there's a value. I do disagree if we put systems in and if somebody has a mental illness and there's a law broken in regard to the law itself, it's how you deal with that individual and how you help them in the rehabilitation because mental illness is not a crime it's a disease and it needs special treatment and care and requires that we have to have a system that has compassion. At the same time we have to have a justice system that ensures public safety and public safety has to be number one and I firmly believe in that. I spent a lifetime in public safety and I'm very honoured to have had the opportunity to do that. I felt good about that career and I feel good about the job that I'm in now that I continue in that same mindset of public safety and working and serving the community.

 

I know this past week we had the memory of Mr. Taavel and the sadness of that situation, I won't get into the details of that, but I think that the family and friends, and I know some of my colleagues here were friends of his, how that transpired saddens all of us. At the same time we have to find a way to balance in our society, to allow people the reintegration. I know with the study that came out with the 18 recommendations, five of those are directly pertinent to the Justice Department and we've done our job, we have met that component.

 

When we look at putting bracelets on I think they have their place, we do utilize them, we believe in them, we just don't believe in a blanket approach. We would like to have more scientific or empirical evidence that supports the best use of those and how to use them. That doesn't mean we have to have a system that's rigid one way or the other, we have to have a system that's able to evolve with the new knowledge, the new technology.

 

As I talk about the technology, one of the things that we're able to do with the bracelets, which I'm very proud of our team and the way that they've managed is that they looked at how to reduce the cost and still have the quality of service. Of course, they renegotiated some components of the bracelets, they looked at how we distribute them and who uses the bracelets, how we maximize the benefit.

 

At the end of the day, if we're going to look at doing something in the Margaree Valley to help with flooding, the dollar comes from the taxpayer. Everything has a yin and a yang and we have to look at how we reduce costs in one area and how we improve, as long as we're working from the spirit. I think all politicians, inasmuch as we take criticism in the public, are there from a belief in trying to do the right thing in the community. There are some different ideological perspectives at times and that's to be respected in a democracy. We need that in a democracy where we have people who have differing views and the strength of our democracy is in our ability to listen, hear and understand these points of view and at the end of the day come to a consensus, or if there's a majority vote the majority vote carries.

 

When we start to personalize these things that's one of the dangers I see in our society, when people talk about building more jails and somebody commits a crime and we are all - and I say this with all due respect to each of us in the room - but a fine hair away from ending up in a jail ourselves if we have a slippery slope of mental illness that can occur, as somebody told me we are a fine hair away from sanity and insanity and something could happen to us at any particular time or we can make a mistake in judgment, or we could do something because of something else occurring in our life and we just go down the wrong vein. We make a mistake and end up having to be accountable and so we should, and we end up having to do a little time. There's a saying out there, don't do the crime if you can't do the time, so I'm a firm believer in that.

 

Getting back to the primary focus and premise of your question, ankle bracelets, I respect the fact that you have a strong point of view on that, at least it's consistent. I just see a little different perspective on that in saying we have to be a little more flexible and open, at the same time never losing sight that public safety without a doubt has to be our primary focus overall.

 

MR. MACMASTER: I guess the reason that we have the position that we do on ankle bracelets, we see it as a way to protect the person - if you start looking at a specific case or people who may be out on leave from a forensic hospital, who are being treated for mental illness, it's a way also to protect them so that if they're having problems with their own judgment and they're out amongst the public, we see it as a more effective way to make sure that they don't get into a situation. If they're supposed to be back at the hospital and they choose not to because they make an error in judgment, and then they get involved in something, they could end up hurting themselves, hurting somebody else, we've seen that and that is why we feel as we do on that matter.

 

Mr. Minister, I know you talk about balance and you're very right that things can happen, somebody could end up doing something wrong and all of a sudden they might find themselves in jail. We were just talking to the media out there and I think one of the reasons people are very frustrated with what's being talked about now so much about bullying, and there are other terms for what's going on, the reason people are so frustrated is because they don't see any justice. People are getting away with things and it's really a separate issue to this issue.

I think I'll move back to my questioning, but I just wanted to make that point that the public is looking for people to be held to account when people make decisions to do things that hurt others. If they get away with it people are upset by that and they want to see government act on it. I'm going to move back to my questions around the ankle bracelets. What is the cost of providing and monitoring ankle bracelets under the current program?

 

MR. LANDRY: We invest about $400,000 annually on electronic supervision, ankle bracelets, and that's part of the $9.5 million that Justice spends every year supervising 5,000 offenders in the community. I want to just elaborate because you raised a couple of key points there. I think I need to just clarify a few things.

 

You know, I agree with you when you say that we want to hold people accountable and I think a justice system needs to do that. We need a justice system that has compassion, contrition and allows us as a democratic society - and I hold certain religious beliefs and they influence my judgment and my perspective to some degree. If somebody does harm someone else, how do we forgive and how is that person held accountable. If we're looking for a pound of flesh, our system can certainly get a pound of flesh. Locking someone up for a period of time is always - I don't care what anyone says, going to jail for one day or one year or 20 years is no vacation. The public thinking that someone has been harmed is that you have to look at the underlying causation, not just the individual themselves but what has occurred.

 

I know in our community, in our city, and I know that the Independent member there represents a community where the social-economic structure of that community is certainly significantly different than the province as a whole, in many ways. The people there aren't given the same opportunities, from a nutritional health perspective in some ways. As a result of that and other types of social inequalities they are maybe more susceptible to certain types of crimes or accountabilities. You have to look at the society and how you deal with that in the rehabilitation. If you don't have a justice system in a democracy and, as I say, in our Legislature every morning we say a prayer. So I would say that the Christian ideology that flows from that of forgiveness and contrition that may happen in there, I think as a society if we don't have that compassion and recognize as humans that we are fallible and subject to error, we come into the world with the belief, in some circles, that a sin has been committed and therefore, we need to cleanse and repent.

 

That ideology, there's many different forms of ideology, but the point I'm trying to make is that to have a system that's black and white is not really where I want to live. I'd like to understand that if someone - we see what has happened in the United States, the violence that has occurred there, that's disturbing and we want those people punished and, in some cases, there's a belief there of capital punishment. There's no question where I stand, there's no way that I can believe in capital punishment and have the state have the power to take that life, in a democratic society and as a Christian that I could believe that would be acceptable. The sanctity of life has a value.

 

That goes back to the point that you're saying, if someone is harmed, we need them accountable and we do, when the processes need to be. I know from an ideological perspective, and that's where there's a separation from the Conservative Party and the Party that I represent politically, and for me personally, that I believe in a more compassionate and understanding society and yet holding people accountable. As I say, I have no trouble putting someone in jail for life if they did a crime, but to make sure that the facts were there, that the process was fair and it was honest and open and the rule of law was applied and the trier of fact had an objective opportunity to weigh and measure and ensure that when person's total freedom was taken away. At the same time I'm also advocating, and one of the reasons I'm going to Ottawa this week, is to advocate in support of the federal government's position in regard to the victims' rights and the victims Act.

 

I think there are some components of that that I strongly believe and I'm sure that are some parts of it that I may not but at the end of the day we'll probably come to a consensus approach of how we need to do that. I think one of the things I think I hear in your statement is that the victim needs to be taken under consideration and protected because the revictimization of people I think is a bigger injustice in our society.

 

I know that with the whole discussion around the idea of bullying, one of the things I know that some people are saying, they want the bully really punished and I know the Prime Minister came out and talked about the difference between bullying and the minimizing of it as a term and saying that they are criminal actions. Well I agree in part with what he is saying there, as well as I heard some people who wrote and said that bullying is a serious matter for some. So it's a matter of semantics, I think it's some way of how people interpret that.

 

The point I want to get at in regard to the bullying is that the person is doing the bullying, so you have a victim as a result of that, or victims, at the time of many of those cases of when they become aware that they're actually being a bully that they're actually being mean and cruel and their behaviour is causing that negative effect, they instantly at that moment become a victim themselves. That can be from societal influence and other pressures. You know being a young fellow playing sports, you know the male ego of how you want to win at all costs and what that means and how you champion that, yet we're trying to teach our children to be one thing and at the same time we see warring nations around the world taking lives from children.

 

I could go on on this subject and talk for hours, but I think the message, the point that I'm hearing from you is that somebody needs to be held accountable, we both agree on that. It's how we get there and what type of system we have.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacMaster, about 10 minutes remaining in your time for the Progressive Conservative caucus for this round. You're welcome to come back for another round.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have other questions here. I think what you'll find when you go to Ottawa and you're talking to the federal minister, you can tell him that your critic in Nova Scotia - and he knows this because I met him once myself - my uncle was his Grade 9 math teacher in Niagara Falls. He has, as you know, quite a strong record of focusing attention back on victims of crime and trying to make sure that the justice system does something for them.

 

I'm not going to say too much - your perceptions - it doesn't really matter, we're not going to change politics, you and I, in our lifetimes, but I think the picture you've painted of the desire for justice of the Progressive Conservative Party is a perception. Of course, everything is perception, but at the end of the day, I think we probably all want the same thing. We want to see people who have done something wrong held to account and if we make victims out of the people who commit the crimes, we're actually not being very compassionate to them because if they don't understand there are consequences, it's almost demeaning to them that we don't want to try to make them change. I agree - if we want to get into some biblical talk - he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, but we also know that if you're doing something that's wrong, forgiveness is certainly a good thing, but with forgiveness there is usually the requirement that you try not to do that thing again - whatever it is.

 

We're straying way off my questions. I don't really have much time left. I doubt if I would really get much answers on my remaining questions anyway. We've only got probably about five minutes, Mr. Chairman?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have approximately six and a half minutes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: What would be the marginal cost of adding - you had mentioned that the cost for ankle bracelets is $400,000 per year; you mentioned there are 5,000 offenders. How many actual people would be wearing these ankle bracelets, say, today? What would be the cost for each additional ankle bracelet that is brought into the system? I imagine that there's the physical cost for the bracelet, but maybe the monitoring cost doesn't necessarily go up.

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, I want to answer that rather quickly and I want to just follow up on a couple of other points. There are roughly about 60 to 75 people and that number fluctuates. As I looked at the number in the past when you had questions about it, it fluctuates from day to day and who is on and who is off, and so it runs somewhere in that sequence.

 

I won't say my critic in Nova Scotia, I'll say my friend who happens to be in the Progressive Conservative Party, rather than has the role of the critic. I want to talk about the consequences - and I think to give clarity on a point that I might have misled you on - I firmly believe that if somebody is a bully, they need to be held accountable. What I do caution though, in the process of doing that and people wanting to get that pound of flesh is that the bully quite often is a victim at the point of recognition and so needs supports from the mental health perspective and from away.

 

It's a matter of changing behaviour. It's the behaviour of the individual that we don't like, not the individual. If, once they recognize that the behaviour of bullying is not acceptable and they understand that - I've been involved in many cases in the workplace as a mediator where the person who was the bully in the mediation broke down because they saw themselves in a totally different light and didn't see that their behaviour was such. That's quite common within the sphere of that concept. I just wanted to point that out.

 

I am dead against any process that does not allow the trier of fact to weigh and measure each individual situation to make a ruling. That's why I struggle with minimum sentencing and although there are some cases where I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, I have a very cautionary approach to having minimum sentences approach as I believe that the people that we hire, that we recruit to be triers of fact - our judges - that the judiciary go in there with the greatest of honour and respect for the rule of law and with the intent to have a balanced approach to justice and to take in each individual case on its merits and on the facts. When we have a justice system that has the primary minimum sentences, it takes that discretionary approach by the trier of fact to make a ruling that's in the best interests of society, of the victims and of the perpetrator or perpetrators in these actions.

 

Accountability is one thing, getting people to be productive, contributing members of society in the long term should be our ultimate goal and although there are many cases - and we can go to the far extreme, the Olsens or the Bernardo cases where you just kind of say how do you even have compassion? You have to reach above that in a justice system and let the system deal with that.

 

That's why, I guess, capital punishment I couldn't support that. As a society it says more about us to lock them up and make them put their lives in a place where they're never getting out and never going to see the light of day. I can live with that. I want to be part of a justice system that has strong support and belief by the public that we have a sound rule of law that holds people accountable and yet we have a system that from a social equity perspective has balance in society and allows people the opportunities to contribute and be the most they can be to reach their potential.

 

That's where I come from and hopefully in my job that I exude those views in a positive way that serves the people of Nova Scotia and the people that I work with in the department and have the pleasure to be a part of in a very positive and productive manner.

 

MR. MACMASTER: How much time do I have left?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a couple of minutes.

 

MR. MACMASTER: Men's intervention programs fall under the responsibility of Community Services. However, I know there are ties to your department; could the minister provide some insight into whether or not there are any discussion of expanding these programs?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's a DCS question but I do have an opinion and I'm going to leave that part to them. I will talk from my own perspective on the issue of, particularly, men's violence against women. In order to break the cycle of violence, I firmly believe that we need to look at new ways of investing in boys and young men on the education and reorienting them into what are the ways and manners in which we should have that social interaction with women and that any form of abuse is not acceptable. The social services has the primary work in that, but I know from justice, programs such as New Leaf that deal with men that are angered and frustrated. A lot of this is the ability to communicate and how to use tools to deal with anger.

 

Remember, someone can't make you angry, anger is an internal emotion that you make a decision to either be angry or not, you have full control over that. As a result of that I firmly believe that we need to do more work with men's intervention groups and I think that would be a positive step forward. Jackson Katz writes a good book on men's violence against women and really articulates this point in a very positive way.

 

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

 

The honourable member for Richmond.

 

HON. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you. I welcome the minister and his staff. I understand there were already a few questions asked on this but I wanted to go back. Am I correct in saying there is a small increase in the Legal Aid funding in the budget that has been presented?

 

MR. LANDRY: There has been a $1 million increase.

 

MR. SAMSON: A $1 million increase - could you indicate where that money is going to?

 

MR. LANDRY: All over in the operations, directly in the operations.

 

MR. SAMSON: Are any additional staff being hired as a result of this funding increase?

 

MR. LANDRY: There are two paralegals that were hired here. I just want to comment on the issue around Legal Aid, I'm a firm believer that it is underfunded, there's no question and to say otherwise I think would be inappropriate.

 

I compliment the director and the staff for the work they do. I've been championing this for some time with the federal government to try and do more investment. Since 2003 the federal government has not invested any additional dollars into Legal Aid so we definitely need to look at how we're going to deliver that service.

 

MR. SAMSON: When you're meeting with the federal Minister of Justice, is that an issue that you're going to raise?

 

MR. LANDRY: Say that again.

 

MR. SAMSON: My understanding is that next week you plan on meeting with the federal Minister of Justice, are you going to be raising the issue of funding reductions by the federal government into the Legal Aid program?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's not the focus of that meeting but the last meeting I had with the minister I certainly did raise it. However, if the opportunity does present itself, I quite often drop the issue of Legal Aid but once again one has to be cognizant of the form, I'd rather have a positive impact of making that statement rather than a negative impact. So it's on the top of my list of things to discuss when the opportunity presents itself.

 

MR. SAMSON: With the $1 million increase in Legal Aid funding, has there been any change in the income caps to qualify for Legal Aid representation?

 

MR. LANDRY: No.

 

MR. SAMSON: Am I correct, if I remember from last year, that it has been almost seven or eight years, if not more, since that income cap has been amended?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's tied to income assistance so if that goes up, the Legal Aid goes up.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so can you confirm whether, from this period last year to today, whether the income caps for Legal Aid have changed?

 

MR. LANDRY: We'd have to check on that. I think it's more to do with the caps and how that motion moved.

 

MR. SAMSON: My understanding is that Legal Aid, in one of the brochures they sent to my office - I'm assuming that it was sent to all the other offices - talk about some of the expanded services that they are willing to offer. Traditionally Legal Aid has only provided either representation for criminal matters or for family law matters.

Could you advise as to, now that they have increased their list, I believe there's tenancy disputes, Canada Pension appeals, could you advise what kind of additional cases have been taken on, in light of the expanded offer of services from Legal Aid?

 

MR. LANDRY: There are no expanded services. In fact they're operating on a very tight deficit and the money was there to help balance that out.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. I don't have the card with me, unfortunately I didn't bring it but I was quite surprised when I did receive it because I was always under the impression that due to caseloads, that they were only doing family law and criminal law but when the card came it obviously had a whole list of other items that Legal Aid was prepared to look at.

 

Can you advise whether Legal Aid has provided representation in the last year for matters outside of strictly criminal law and family law?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, an extremely small amount. The $1 million wasn't put in there for that purpose, they were already doing those things before so it's not a matter of expanded service but in some rare cases they will provide that support.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the primary focus of Legal Aid is still criminal law and family law?

 

MR. LANDRY: Exactly.

 

MR. SAMSON: Do you have any sense of what type of caseload each of the Legal Aid staff, lawyers, are carrying?

 

MR. LANDRY: Not at the current time. I know that they work hard and I know that they have many challenges but I don't know the exact.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. The other one I wanted to mention was the transfer of the Maintenance Enforcement office to New Waterford. Could you advise, as we speak today, how many people are employed in the Maintenance Enforcement division?

 

MR. LANDRY: Those statistics, I think I gave to your colleague last night. We have 22 enforcement officers, six enforcement assistants, four inter-jurisdictional support order enforcement officers and three coordinators. All the new positions but one have been filled.

 

MR. SAMSON: In the office in New Waterford could you advise how many staff are currently in that office today?

 

MR. LANDRY: There would be none in there, the building's still under construction, however there are people in the Sydney office working there until the new place gets finished.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm wondering about the other satellite offices, are those still functioning as always or has there been any closure of those offices or reduction of staff?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's all consolidated so they're not functioning. It's all in Sydney right now.

 

MR. SAMSON: They're all in New Waterford and Sydney, there are no other offices operating right now?

MR. LANDRY: No.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. Between New Waterford and Sydney, could you advise how many staff are working today in Maintenance Enforcement? Is it the same number you gave me earlier?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's 34 because there's one left to fill.

 

MR. SAMSON: Of those, could you advise how many of the 34 staff have more than one year experience in Maintenance Enforcement?

 

MR. LANDRY: There are 11 in Sydney. I'm going to just talk on this decision and the exciting opportunity that's presented here and the good news. As a government we heard from the Opposition and we heard from Nova Scotians that we have to get more opportunities for people in rural Nova Scotia and that government offices should not be just centrally located. We listened and we started to take steps so there are a number of different programs that we have done that provide a balance of opportunity.

 

In Cape Breton we know the economic challenges that are there. In fact, the Opposition has been very critical lately, with 18 per cent, and so as a government we've been trying to look at ways to put jobs there. What throws me off - and of course this is confusing, I'm new to this political game - in one breath the Opposition complains about the unemployment, in another breath we try and put jobs in an area and they complain about the jobs - whether it's NewPage and how that system works to keep the economy going.

 

From a Maintenance Enforcement perspective, we looked at the number of criticisms we have from people in the public and once again we're a government that listens and the Opposition is very strong in their articulation that the program needed to change, that we needed to go in a new direction, we needed to try something. I'm a firm believer if there's no change there's no future.

 

So when you look at that and examine how we could improve that system, in the technological age that we're in now with video conferencing, with the Internet, with the telephone systems that we have and the fact that most people have cellphones, if we bring people together we could start to put a nucleus of people and talent that will be able to serve this community. At the same time we knew there were cost overruns with training and development and we said, how do we get it in the more timely, positive way to put training in to make sure people are at the same level and standards. So whether you're in Amherst or the Valley or Cape Breton or the Halifax area, you know that the quality of service and standards are there.

 

Also with the previous system where you had an office, like in my riding in New Glasgow, another one in Amherst or one in the Valley, these communities had an advantage over the Truro, Antigonish or the New Waterfords that didn't have that access so what we tried to do is say how do we balance and make a system that's focused. If you don't have people taking a risk on the concepts and moving things forward and trying to do something positive and address the underlying current, then you're going to take a step backwards. If you're trying to take a couple of steps forward and you're taking one backwards, it will take you a long time to get somewhere.

 

We took that approach and we saw this opportunity and one of the great things with this location as well is the cost of the floor space is going to be significantly lower there than in many other areas, it's at a good rate, it balances our budget for the future.

 

The other key point that happens here is that the talent that we had in MEP, and the expertise that we had, we were able to take that talent and those motivated employees and redeploy them within the government system so that they could continue to contribute without disrupting - because as a government we said that we would have compassion and support for people in those jobs and they are now working in other departments where they feel that they can contribute to the government and still have stable home lives. Where at the same time we can increase the young people in Cape Breton that had an opportunity to get a job that said they wanted a job, they want to live there, raise a family there, and to help with the population density and that goes down from everything from our schools to our hospitals and creates that infrastructure and puts benefit in that economic spinoff that that's going to occur.

 

I compliment my colleagues and my staff for making this come to fruition. Were there going to be bumps and hiccups in the road? Absolutely. Any change or adjustment causes people some stress and distress and we tried to minimize that as best we could. At the same time there are going to gaps in the system. But really an interesting thing that will come out of this is, as we identify some of these gaps and problems, the system should even be better because we're going to make them be more functional and be aware of these concerns. We're going to have young people that didn't look at this system and they are going to be asking a lot more questions and saying what if, how about let's look at it differently.

 

Sometimes in a bureaucracy you can get a mindset and that the culture itself has a life in itself and people get indoctrinated in that so changing that sometimes is a good thing. My comment is not as a criticism to what has been there because I have no criticism of the previous staff, they did a wonderful job and contribution, I'm just outlining some of the positive benefits that we can get from this process.

 

I see nothing but good opportunity here, I do recognize that this transition is not without its problems and concerns and we minimize that, and that's part of life and it's also the exciting part. I'm an individual that has always worked through his career that believed I'd like to be an agent of change. I went into many jobs and opportunities where I was involved where the organization was making structural or physical changes within its environment and I was part of those teams. I thrived in that, I liked that and that's one of the exciting things I see here with MEP when we had the notion of looking at how we make access to good government offices.

 

The New Waterford area didn't have any government offices where I know in my riding, in New Glasgow, we took the MEP out of there, right next door to my MLA office I have Probation Services, I have a court office, I have other services all around so the government is well represented in my area. In fact, we have an Access Nova Scotia there. So my area is well served from that and I saw no concern moving that to New Waterford, in fact, I said that's a good thing. Now for the individuals that were working there they had some concerns and we had compassion for their situation and afforded them opportunities to seek employment and to get so they have some stabilization in their life and they can plan their continued future. I'm very positive and I thank you for asking me that question.

 

MR. SAMSON: I was pleased to hear the minister say in New Glasgow he's got great access to court services and the like because I can tell you Richmond remains the only county in Nova Scotia that doesn't have access to court services because of the decision to close our court, and obviously, unless the minister has changed his decision from last year he made it very clear this government has no intention of re-establishing court services in Richmond County as they previously were.

 

Back to my original question; of the 34 employees in Maintenance Enforcement could you advise how many of those 34 have more than one year's experience in Maintenance Enforcement?

 

MR. LANDRY: We'd have to get you that statistic but I know there are at least 11. On the issue of the court, just to set the record the straight, there is a courthouse that we made the decision to put in Pictou so for the people in New Glasgow they have a 20-some kilometre drive to the primary courthouse there. In this economy when you have a structural deficit like we had and when you have a province that over the years - and I know governments made decisions that they felt were in the best interest and some for political reasons, hopefully we've changed that quite a bit as a government. But we have a debt in the province that really restricts us, we're putting almost $1 billion a year to sustain that debt. We have to look at ways of how we do things differently to manage the dollars and that we get the long-term benefits.

 

A good example of that, a sound government decision, was not building a jail in Antigonish and not building a jail in Springhill. I mean, the one in Springhill alone, I went over these reasons before of how that would just cost us more money, it was inefficient, ineffective, and doesn't make business sense, and yet we took the time to consult and to dialogue, and then to make the decision to build that in a location that had the highest catchment area, that had good economic benefits for the community and the province to save money, to reduce the carbon footprint, we built a building that is environmentally friendly.

 

So I recognize the fact that every community cannot have a court office, and I know the people in the Town of New Glasgow are after me about bringing the courthouse completely back, and maybe someday that may make business sense. However, the decision was made by the previous administration to put it in Pictou, and I have to respect that and support that and look at the areas of how that works out. So I do know when you express your feeling in regard to Richmond, I understand some of that sentiment and where that comes from as recognizing within the riding where my office sits and the building that I'm in. And there is a temporary courtroom there on exigent circumstances for particular reasons, but I do share that concern with you. But it's a matter of we can't be all things to all people all of the time, and we have to make choices. The difficulty with government is that they have to make tough choices, and good government makes those tough choices.

 

MR. SAMSON: On the challenge that the Acadian Federation is bringing forward on the electoral boundaries, there was a request that the process be heard in French. I think our province has made great strides in the appointment of French-speaking judges, and permitting cases to be heard in French. Can you advise why your department has refused to allow this matter, which deals certainly primarily with the rights of the Acadians as a minority language in this province, why you did not allow that process to proceed in French?

 

MR. LANDRY: On that particular case, it's before the court, it would be inappropriate for me as the Attorney General to discuss. I will comment though that I'm very honoured to be in my job and have the opportunity to work with such groups as AJEFNE, I will say that as a government and as a minister, and from a personal perspective, that I fully support the expansion of French language in the province. Acadian heritage, I know if my dad was here, he'd be championing this issue to a pretty good level. He had pretty strong opinions on that whole initiative. So I want to say that I am very sensitive and caring to that issue.

On the electoral boundaries itself, we had a requirement, we tried to get a balance, 25 per cent, and respect that, I respect each person's individual right to vote, and as I understand, the riding of Richmond is still there, the riding of Clare and Argyle are still intact, and so I respect that. I respect the people's opinion, and I respect the Acadian community that if they decide they want to take a matter before the court, that they have my support from their process and I believe in having a voice.

 

MR. SAMSON: Why did you not agree to have this matter heard in French?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm not going to discuss that component - that's before the court, and I'm not going to get into the individual details. I gave you my conceptual framework of where I come from, how I feel about the issue, and that's where I'm coming from.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm not asking about the details of the case. I'm asking you, there was a request that the matter be heard in French. It's a procedural, technical question. It has nothing to do with the merits of the issue. Why did you not agree that the matter could be heard in French?

 

MR. LANDRY: I've given my answer.

 

MR. SAMSON: They've now requested that the process be expedited and that it be referred to the Supreme Court for a determination on constitutional grounds. Could you advise why your government is refusing to go that expedited route?

 

MR. LANDRY: As the Attorney General, it would be inappropriate for me to have a dialogue in this forum on those issues and I'm not going to do that.

 

MR. SAMSON: Well, it's interesting, because the Premier is prepared to answer in the Legislature, yet you're not. It's a procedural question, minister, with all due respect, saying it's before the courts and I can't answer is a cop-out - pardon the pun - but that's exactly what it is.

 

I see no reason why you cannot answer a very simple question. Your government was asked to expedite the matter, it has nothing to do with the merit. It's a procedural question and on a procedural question your government said no. Why did you say no to having this matter heard in an expedited fashion, in front of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia?

 

MR. LANDRY: I think you've answered your own question. As the Attorney General, I'm not going to get into that battle but as the Premier is speaking on behalf of the government, he is free to do that.

 

MR. SAMSON: So the Premier gave an explanation and said no but as Attorney General, you're not prepared to discuss the request as to why it was denied for having this matter expedited, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: In my role I uphold and respect the Premier's comments and at the same time I respect the rights of the Acadian community. If they believe that they have a need to take a matter before the court, they have my full support in what they're doing.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could you advise whether there were discussions amongst your Cabinet colleagues on the request to have the matter heard in an expedited fashion, in front of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia?

 

MR. LANDRY: If there was or wasn't, and I'm not giving an indication one way or the other, I would not divulge what was discussed or wasn't discussed in Cabinet.

 

MR. SAMSON: Could the minister advise who would have made the decision when the request was made to have the matter heard in an expedited fashion by being submitted to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia? Who in either your department or in government would have made that decision or communicated that decision to the Acadian Federation?

 

MR. LANDRY: That would be a government decision and as the Attorney General, I respect the government's position, the same as I respect the rights of the Acadian community to challenge the government's position.

 

MR. SAMSON: Who communicated with the Acadian Federation to indicate that the government would not be agreeing to have the matter heard in an expedited fashion?

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm not exactly accurate on this but my belief is the lawyer representing the government from the Department of Justice.

 

MR. SAMSON: And who would that be?

 

MR. LANDRY: That comes under Ed Gores' shop, I would assume it's Mr. Gores or somebody within his shop that is working with him in regard to that. I don't really get down in the front-line details of that.

 

MR. SAMSON: Have you been consulted or been asked for your advice on the question of whether the matter should be expedited and sent to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, prior to Mr. Gores communicating that information to the Acadian Federation?

 

MR. LANDRY: Whether advice was given or not given or discussed in regard to that, I'm not going to comment as the Attorney General. One of the difficulties in politics is understanding the role of the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice and the difference between those two roles.

 

The Attorney General has to balance a number of very particular interests and has a number of hats that he or she must wear. In that capacity, they have to balance the respective governments to make decisions and to put forth laws and to respect and uphold those laws. At the same time, individuals or groups or minority concerns need to have an avenue where they can have their voice and the Attorney General must stay impartial in regard to that, so I respect fully the rights of both sides to have a position.

 

As the Attorney General, even though I know you made reference to me being politically involved, being part of the government I have to - parts of this just slip out of the government role and stay in the Attorney General role - maintain those standards. It's a very difficult balancing act sometimes because you're always questioning in your mind, well which voice am I using to speak here?

 

It's very important that I stay cognizant and respectful and that at no time I deny someone their rights to be able to express themselves, to be able to challenge the courts. At the same time I've got to support government and when I say government, from the rule of law perspective if there are regulations and so on that they are following, have those rules been adhered to.

 

MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, what you've just said really flies in the face of what the government has done. You said you respect the rights - when the request was made by a minority language group to have the matter heard in French, which is a service that is made available in Nova Scotia, someone in government said no. So with all due respect, you can't sit here and say I respect the rights of minorities, yet when the request was made to respect their rights and to have it heard in their language, your government said no.

 

Who would have communicated to the Acadian Federation that the Province of Nova Scotia and that your government was not prepared to have this matter heard in French?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well Nova Scotia is not an officially bilingual province and therefore it is not required by law to hold a civil trial in French. To do so would come at considerable cost to the taxpayer. As the Attorney General, I have the responsibility to ensure that any legal action taken on behalf of the province is done in the best interests of all Nova Scotians.

 

Part of the difficulty here is that some - and I'm not implying yourself or anybody - I am saying that some would like to personalize this issue. If a particular group, in this case the Acadian community, wish to take a point of view that they have and go to court to challenge the government or any other body in regard to an issue, they have that legal right to do that.

 

If you're saying that the province should pay for this and that it sets precedents for other matters, and I think that it would, some would try and say the people don't support or like the Acadian community and I think that's not healthy nor the right facts. I don't have any negative - my views are positive. I've shared with you that I support the expansion of the French language within the province, that I believe that the Acadian culture and community should thrive and have opportunities and support.

 

I know that as a government, we have the Office of Acadian Affairs and we support them in many different ways and provide support. On the issue that you're raising, I'm not going to go down that lane and say too much more.

 

MR. SAMSON: You made the statement that a civil action in French would cost the province significant money, could you advise what extra costs would be involved?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well I'm not going to get into the details, I'm just saying that it costs and as the Attorney General, I don't want to get involved in how we proceed legally. At this stage I think part of what you are questioning is - I'm going to be very blunt - I think that it's laying a foundation where the Attorney General should stay neutral, should say respectful and I won't get drawn into putting myself in a position where people can draw a conclusion.

 

I just want to be very clear that I respect the expansion of the French language in our society and our community, that I believe firmly in the enrichment that the Acadian culture and community brings to our province. I support that, I believe in that. From a heritage perspective I respect my father and his family.

 

MR. SAMSON: We're here debating the budget estimates.

 

MR. LANDRY: That's right but you brought the discussion into that dialogue.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay. You've just made the statement that having a civil matter heard in French would cost the province significant money, so we're still on the topic of money. If you're going to make that statement, minister, I'm asking you again, how would it cost the Province of Nova Scotia additional money, and how much, to hear this civil matter in French? You can't make the statement and not be able to back up what your concerns are about finances. If it is going to cost more money, where would it cost more money?

 

MR. LANDRY: I don't have those details and . . .

 

MR. SAMSON: Well how could you make the statement if you don't have the details?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well because I did make the statement, I believe that it will cost extra resources and knowing that we're not a bilingual province and the infrastructure that we'd have to do to put that in place, we are trying, as a province, to expand French services as best we can around but I'm not going to get into a debate with you. I know how you're trying to ploy this and you won't stir me on it. I'm very clear on what my position is and from the legal matters and the process, I've already gone down this road further than I really feel I should.

 

MR. SAMSON: I'm reminded of when we raised the issue of translation in the House and the former Minister of Acadian Affairs, Graham Steele, came out and immediately told the media that it would cost too much. Fortunately in that case, the media actually asked how much. He had absolutely no idea and he looked absolutely ridiculous because at the end of the day the numbers showed that it really wouldn't cost very much at all.

 

To have you sit here when we offer French services for criminal matters and to say that we can't hear a civil matter in French because it costs too much is disingenuous to say the least. The fact that you cannot point to even one area where there would be additional costs certainly begs the question of just how serious that kind of a statement is, that you are even unable to answer that to start off with.

How many staff lawyers do you have within the Department of Justice who are able to conduct a legal matter in French?

 

MR. LANDRY: We'd have to check that out. We can get that detail for you sometime to see what the ratio is.

 

MR. SAMSON: A few years ago the Office of Acadian Affairs undertook a project to identify all civil servants who are able to offer French-language services. I am assuming that that was applied to the Department of Justice as well. So you are telling me that today, in light of the French-language services law we have in this province, that you and your staff have no idea how many employed by your department are able to offer services in French?

 

MR. LANDRY: No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying to you, and I think that if we're going to go down this road in that tone, I think the bottom line here is that that's not a statistic that I have at my fingertips. We can say that it's available, the data has been collected in the past. One of the purposes of taking that data was the very question that you're asking, so if you are asking that, we will send a request over to our department to see what that number is. It should be within a variable of a small margin, I suspect, from when the statistics were taken. I think I'm going to leave it at that for now.

 

MR. SAMSON: I see that the Director of Public Prosecution Service is here with us today. I'm wondering if you could ask him how many of his staff are able to offer services in the French language.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well we are already in the process of asking that question. He is going to get that confirmed but we believe it is around six.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you do have existing staff who, I am assuming, have already in the past carried out legal matters on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia in the French language?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: But it would be extra cost to hear a civil matter such as this, in the French language, is still your statement?

 

MR. LANDRY: There is a clear distinction between the civil side and the criminal side and those six who I mentioned would be involved on the criminal side.

 

MR. SAMSON: So you're saying you have no lawyers who would be able to handle a civil matter within the Department of Justice in the French language, is that your statement?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's not my statement and what I'm saying is that we're going to check that out.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, you're going to check that out. So you're going to be - that will be part of the thing that you can respond to me is whether any of them would be able to carry out a civil matter if required in the French language, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: Very good. Victim Services was underspent last year by 13.3 per cent, I believe $195,000. Could you advise where that $195,000 is in this budget?

 

MR. LANDRY: The money would be just going into savings within the department overall, if it wasn't spent. The budget actually this year is $3.2 million, so it has actually increased this year.

 

MR. SAMSON: As a rule, any unspent money in Victim Services doesn't necessarily stay in Victim Services, it's rolled into the department's overall budget, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well when you look at Victim Services, let's just talk about that for a few minutes. If you start to manage a $309 million budget and you start being black and white and you spend a dollar here because it has been budgeted, and you have many other pressures or issues where there's need for dollars to be put, and sometimes in exigent circumstances - like for example, the incident we had last week with the allegations made - that we now are spending additional dollars and we've got to find that within government services to address those concerns. It's a very important issue, the cyberbullying, the distribution of imagery, the loss of a precious life and it requires a response, so there are dollars being put there.

 

If you have a budget and you say that you need to spend it all on this area and that if it isn't, then you have certain rules around that, I think you start to restrict your ability to address the exigent circumstances as they arise.

 

We have to have a government and a system and a process that has flexibility built into it and is not so rigid on its budget that you can't manoeuver. I'm having the pleasure this week of going to meet with the Minister of Justice for Canada and my colleagues from across the country to talk about the victims of crime. That's something to me, personally, is one of the reasons that I'm sitting before you today.

 

As a politician I got involved because I believe there have been some things done in the past with victims and the way that we deal with crime that I have disagreement with or a different perspective and I felt that I could contribute, as a police officer for over 35 years, involved internationally in policing and understanding the impacts that certain crimes and things have on victims in our society and how important it is that we're able to address those concerns and expand.

 

One of the things that I'm excited about in meeting with the federal government is that one of my goals in the job that's on my bucket list is to start to address the impact on victims of crime and how we start to address their needs and concerns. Quite a bit of the system deals with the right, wrong and the guilt or innocence, the incarceration, non-incarceration of someone and left at the side are the victims.

 

As a policing commander, I had a management team at my operation that dealt with the victims. It was something that was very important to me and to work with and to try and address their concerns. So when I look at the budget and the expansion of the budget to be able to do more, I'm glad as a minister that I have a staff, a team that is committed to looking at how we make life better for today's families and addressing the victims of crime.

 

Can we do more or should we do more? It would be nice to always do more so I'm committed and focused in that direction. On that $100,000-some, it would have been put back somewhere in the system but I can assure you when I gave you an example of this week how government dollars get spent, at the end of the day there's one taxpayer who pays that money and it asks us to be custodians of their dollar and to manage it and to try and do the most we can with each dollar, to ensure the quality of life in Nova Scotia is second to none in this world.

 

MR. SAMSON: In light of the increase in Victim Services, could the minister advise whether there have been any changes to the programs being offered, such as the cap that's there on some of the different services or are there any changes proposed to Victim Services as a result of the increase?

 

MR. LANDRY: There has been no change since last year but I do want to just talk about the cap. I mentioned earlier in my previous answer about having flexibility in looking at each case, if there's a particular need that there's something out of the ordinary, there are extraordinary circumstances or whatever, we have to be able to be prepared to look at that and not be black and white and say the rule says this.

 

One of the things that I'm proud about with the government that I'm working with and my colleagues is that we're looking at how we take down the stovepipes within government and how we look at supporting each other's areas of responsibility. That's why you're starting to see more of where one department - that you may say something belongs in Justice but in actual fact it might be over in Community Services that is dealing with that, that there's a Justice component but we're looking at who is the best to serve that client's needs or something may be over in Education or something in Health and Wellness and we're trying to find ways because as I state, and I'll state probably many times today about the importance of trying to manage the Nova Scotia taxpayers' dollars wisely and ensure that when we do things that we try and reduce the cost, increase the efficiencies. As a minister and having the fortunate opportunity to work with a deputy and a financial manager that really keeps an eye on the dollars and looks at how we stretch them out, and when emergencies come up or areas that need additional support, that we're able to shift monies around to make those things happen, whether it's in crime prevention or whatever area.

 

MR. SAMSON: Restorative justice, it appears that the budget for that has decreased again this year. If you recall a couple of years ago, there was a significant decrease in restorative justice. I'm just wondering, how does the minister explain why this item has been reduced?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, I'm glad you asked that question. Restorative justice is something that I feel very passionate about but with any programs you need to have test initiatives, you need to try new things and different things. There are a number of grants that expired from last year and those monies were not renewed, the programs had their life and, as a government dealing with the debt, you have to find ways to manage and reduce that cost.

 

If you take a line by line item and say this must be kept and aren't able to look at the big picture and say how do you provide services - I'm a very strong advocate for restorative justice. As a professional mediator by trade, I believe in dealing with conflict in a way that you look at the problems, the concerns, that you get to the underlying emotion of the matter before you find solutions and then you work in a collaborative manner with those that are involved to come up with remedies or ways to move forward.

 

That's one of the great things about restorative justice. I believe that the model itself helps reduce costs and increase efficiencies in this system. So if we had some pilot projects where we're looking to get information, they may or may not have provided a good value and hopefully in most cases, in all cases, it would be nice if they provided the value you want. But sometimes even though they were providing value, you need to then look at moving dollars into other areas and finding other opportunities.

 

That's not unlike the fact that we took the Lighthouses programs and we put them forward - when I look at the initiative of Dalhousie - I had some people say to me about letting off the university students. In fact, somebody in the House even mentioned on the floor, raising questions saying we're going to let these students off and they won't be held accountable. Just the opposite. We want a system where we hold people accountable, where we're allowing them the opportunity to grow.

 

We send our young people to university not just to get a university degree but to get an education. When I talk about an education, I'm talking about how to live and how to be a responsible person in society and be a contributor to society. We do know in Halifax, we've heard stories about the drinking and the binging and some of the things in the culture, some young person might be away from home for the first time and just got involved in drinking or some other activity and made a mistake and went out and did something they normally would not have done or ought not to have done. They could potentially end up with a criminal record but by having the restorative justice program it allows them an opportunity to be held accountable for their actions and to acknowledge that they have done wrong and then those that were affected - whether it's somebody in the public that has become a victim of that or the institution themselves, the good name of one of our universities, or some other aspect or even their parents would be shamed by this - so the individual taking responsibility and having a second chance but at the same time learning a lesson in life is a good thing.

 

I look at how we manage the money and take that very seriously. I'm committed in a big way to the restorative justice program. I think the work done and the feedback that I'm getting from the Dalhousie school, the project there, that pilot that's there is that it's had overwhelming success. That reduces the costs there and saves the university money. I know, talking to some police officers, they have spoken very highly of it because it reduced their overall work that they have to do. Initially there might be a little bit of extra work, but overall it has a very positive effect.

 

When I look at the $91,000 that was down and we cancelled projects that had a shelf life and as a government that is trying to live within its means and trying to get this back to balance, having an announcement this year with the balanced budget, this is just one step. Spending the $91,000 here, finding it there and finding it somewhere else, goes a long way to getting that house in order so that we're not spending additional dollars on interest and so on like that. So there are overall benefits there. That's what has happened with that $91,000.

 

MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, it's clear that almost every year we've seen decreases in restorative justice so I guess balancing the budget on restorative justice is part of the equation.

 

As far as correctional facilities, I see the increase year over year in costs goes from a low of 8.5 per cent to a high of 17.2 per cent. Can you explain the cause of such increases in costs for the correctional facilities here in Nova Scotia?

 

MR. LANDRY: First off, I just want to correct a statement you made a moment ago saying that every year it seems like we're reducing the money in restorative justice, that's just not correct. I just want to reiterate my commitment to restorative justice and how passionate I am about that and how I will protect some aspects of it. One of the nice things about restorative justice is it does reduce our costs in the overall system.

 

On the issue with correctional - that's the $5 million additional - $2.8 million is the conversion to the Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union. What that does - salaries, benefits - I want to share with you just some background. I have a number of people that I know within corrections and when this decision is going about, morale and other types of things were being struggled with on many different fronts within the correctional operation and also when we looked at trying to bring people in line within the government structure for their overall benefits and efficiencies, quite a lot of discussion went on there.

 

What's going to happen out of this here, I think the employee will have better benefits. The job of being a correctional officer, for example, it's a high-stress job at times and I can imagine that you're in with people who have caused conflict and couldn't conform to society in many cases and broke the rules. And you put them all in one environment and you have an individual that you're asking to manage that group of people, that at times could take a toll on a person or the type of work that it does, that there could be a confrontation and they could get injured.

 

Under the old system it didn't allow us to have flexibility to move employees around - if they were not able to do the particular job they were in - to give them the opportunity to be somewhere else. I think that's a very important point to note, that if an employee is off or injured because the job that they're in requires a physical requirement versus being able to put them somewhere else and you don't have the spots to put them in, it could really restrict their ability to come back to work in the long term because the longer you're off work, the less likely you are to return, especially with an injury or if there's depression or whatever else could occur within that process.

 

By having a system where you're able to move them from one job area, if they have an injury they are able to go into another area and do that job, it's better for their mental health, their physical health and their overall well-being and their stability as an individual. I think that's a good benefit that will come out of this.

 

I'm very happy with that changeover, it's a one-time cost and as we move forward, I think there will be some direct benefits to the overall system. As you noticed, the overall morale within our correctional facilities is significantly improved over the last three years, compared to where it had been in the past.

 

I know that we've had a number of difficulties and problems and we've been very diligent in working and not defending the status quo and finding improvements, looking for ways to improve and put a better quality of service, making the place safer for our employees to work in and for the clients that we serve in those facilities to have a better environment in which to function and be safer and healthier. That's really the overall goal for all Nova Scotians, no matter what their plight or situation is, is to be healthy and safe in our society.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member, 10 minutes remaining in this round.

 

MR. SAMSON: Just to help the minister's memory in case; in the 2010-11 budget there was $475,000 cut to restorative justice, which with $91,000 this year without even including last year, you are well over $0.5 million reduction in restorative justice.

 

One of the issues I forgot to raise in Legal Aid is that in that same year of 2010-11, you cut $553,000 from the Legal Aid budget. At the time the justification was that you'd be able to issue more certificates rather than using up Legal Aid lawyers. Could you tell me, since 2011 to today, on a comparison of year to year, what the difference has been in the amount of Legal Aid certificates issued in 2012-13, compared to what was issued in 2010-11?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well on that specific point we'll have to get you that. We manage them very carefully and I just want to go back, and I'll come back to this again, on the restorative justice, a lot of that is the reallocation of funds. As I gave you an example before, it's not black and white, we take dollars, cut them from one area, it's a matter of how you reallocate dollars somewhere else.

 

One of the key things that this government is doing that I think past governments did not do is that there's no new money. It's a matter of taking dollars from one area and reallocating them, that's not saying that one area is not important or one area is more important, it's that you need to have that flexibility. We always have to keep in mind, we have one taxpayer. The pressure people are feeling on the taxation is real.

 

On the Legal Aid certificates, we'll get that statistic for you. I can't stress enough how I respect and admire the work the Legal Aid service does. I know there are struggles, I compliment the director for the good work that she has done, in particular with regard to how they cut down the outsourcing and how they've done work internally and how they were able to manage that to keep that budget in line.

 

When you have a structural deficit of $1 billion-plus and you don't start to look at how each area is able to increase efficiencies - I also remember reading back in high school - that's a lifetime ago - and reading in a book in economics that talked about efficiencies and trying to reduce your costs, it's better that we can be efficient the more we can be competitive. I look at Nova Scotia and then when we had the economic downturn, one of the benefits of that and the high Canadian dollar is that it forces our businesses to be competitive and to be streamlined and be focused and that's not just when we talk about efficiencies in that manner.

 

All segments, whether it's government, private businesses, we all have to be efficient in what we're doing. It makes us more competitive so that if the dollar were to drop, for example, that means that our businesses would have a significant edge. What happened before, because we didn't change when the dollar was low and we didn't feel we had to, when that transition occurred and the recession happened, we got ourselves in trouble.

 

What's the difference between that and what we're doing here at the estimates, the concept doesn't change. We're a government and if we don't start to look at ways of how we streamline our operations, how we look at it more efficiently, if we start to defend the status quo day in and day out or say that you had money in restorative justice or you had money here but you took it out, you don't believe in it or you don't do this and that, I say to the contrary, we have to find new ways to be creative and to get the results. It's a matter of keeping a big picture of the justice system and trying to say how do we make Nova Scotia a healthy, safe environment? How do we make people have confidence in the justice system when we know in the last couple of weeks there has been a strain.

 

I have to compliment a number of people. One, the Premier for taking a strong leadership role, the Minister of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women for her leadership and coordinating on that project, the departments individually, whether it's Education - I'll talk particularly in Justice. The work that has been done by the Justice team and the Public Prosecution team with regard to the issues that are out there right now, is phenomenal and how they have achieved in one week to address the public concern issue that's so real and vibrant that's occurring and changing as we sit here. You need to have a responsive government and ensure funding can be able to be there to meet these goals and expectations that the public have for things that weren't necessarily budgeted for.

 

So when you have an Opposition that just criticizes all the time and doesn't look to work - I'm very happy that the leaders of both Opposition Parties said they're going to work in a collaborative manner with regard to the bullying issue and that we should work in that direction, so I'm very happy with that and very happy to work with the other Parties with regard to that to move these issues forward. It's the matter of being aware of the economic trends that are occurring and where we're at and how we can be competitive; if there's no change, there's no future.

 

MR. SAMSON: The Premier has indicated that there's going to be a review of the Parsons case following the current re-opening of the examination. Could you advise, to your knowledge, what exactly is that review going to look like?

 

MR. LANDRY: At this time it would be premature for me to speak in that regard because what we're going to do first is finish the criminal investigation and I'm very pleased to see that the RCMP and the Halifax Regional Police integrated team is working very diligently on this file. New evidence came forward from last week which allows them to reopen that matter and as long as that file is open, the actual particulars surrounding that would be best left until that investigation gets over.

 

MR. SAMSON: Your government has also indicated it is going to undertake a type of review or inquiry regarding the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children, could you advise us as to what the current status is now, as far as undertaking a review of that specific matter?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well that would be best put to the Premier, that's his area. He's managing that part of it; as the Attorney General - because there's a court case going on - I have significantly removed myself from the overall discussion in regard to those matters and concerns and allow the court case to proceed and stay neutral in regard to that overall. The Premier can speak on that matter.

MS. SAMSON: If there's a review undertaken, I'm assuming that the funding and the costs and the setup for such a review, inquiry, whatever it's going to look like, that will come from your budget, won't it?

 

MR. LANDRY: The Premier will determine as to how that would roll out and if there's a need or a way that our budget can contribute and it's appropriate for us to be involved in that, I'd be more than happy and we'll look at that at the time.

 

MR. SAMSON: I believe you're still the Minister of Emergency Measures Organization as well.

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, I am.

 

MR. SAMSON: Does the funding for that specific item fall under your Justice Department as well, or is it separate funding?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's in our funding.

 

MR. SAMSON: So when I see under Grants and Contributions $2.7 million for disaster relief, that is all part of your Justice funding as well?

 

MR. LANDRY: The particular amount that you refer to deals with the amounts of money that we paid in Pictou and Truro for the floods and it comes out of our budget.

 

MR. SAMSON: So your EMO budget is rolled in with your Justice budget?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. SAMSON: I see under Page 192 of Expenses for Department of Justice, Under "Other", there is $107,000 or Archibald & Lederman. Could you advise what that expense was for?

 

MR. LANDRY: Mr. Lederman is the chairman of the Criminal Law Review Board in the Criminal Code Review Board and that's where that funding has gone to.

 

MR. SAMSON: Is that a standing position that he has, or is he just called in for specific matters?

 

MR. LANDRY: That's an appointment and the board meets regularly.

 

MR. SAMSON: Okay, so that's a payment made - is it to a law firm or what is that?

 

MR. LANDRY: It's paid to his law firm directly, I guess.

 

MR. SAMSON: How often does that committee meet?

MR. LANDRY: They meet every week or every other week or so, depending on the volume of files to address the overall demand.

 

MR. SAMSON: And we say criminal review, what exactly are they reviewing?

 

MR. LANDRY: They review a number of things but in particular, the non-criminally responsible matters.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Liberal caucus time. We're certainly open for a continuation for a few minutes, if you would like, because the Progressive Conservatives are not coming back so take as much time as you would like.

 

MS. SAMSON: I'm fine, thank you. I'll wait for the information that was requested and was committed to be provided.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, member.

 

The honourable member for Lunenburg West.

 

MR. GARY RAMEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you, minister. I have a couple of questions here and I do apologize if some of these questions were asked, I haven't been in this room for the full session because I've been in the main Chamber a bit, too.

 

My first question is really about SIRT, the response team. I was wondering if you can just tell me a little bit about the makeup and also if you're satisfied with the performance of SIRT at this point in time?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes, and thank you for that question. SIRT is another one of those areas that I feel very strongly about. When I first became the Minister of Justice, I knew there was a gap in the system, I knew what public opinion was in regard to police complaints. As I have a vast background - I used to work as a lawyer at RCMP Headquarters in Ottawa, the national headquarters on the internal affairs branch. I worked dealing with the cases and I had the opportunity to have a good overview of what matters across the country, what happened with different police officers and their involvement and to read public cases. In fact, I've done a lot of analysis and review over those particular matters and I worked in the prosecution area of the adjudication branch of the RCMP. I had an opportunity to review each and every case up until 1993, was the time I was in there, around that time and I reviewed every case prior to that for some 20 years, 30 years or something.

 

I had the chance to analyze the complete works and see the impacts and circumstances around that and then I had the opportunity of moving forward in life in the RCMP to be in charge of internal affairs here in Nova Scotia, in administration within the RCMP. I had the opportunity to work closely with investigators and send them out and see what public opinion was like and I can say without a doubt that they are professional, that they did an excellent job. There was the perception though that they weren't objective and weren't meeting with the public and they were doing cover-ups.

 

I felt that in those previous experiences and seeing public opinion, I saw there was a trend where the public was losing confidence for various reasons in the police doing their own internal investigation. I approached the Premier shortly after I got into office and dropped a seed in the back of his mind saying that this would be a really good thing to do, it's timely, it's a matter that the public wants that and as a government it would be a good decision and would be a good move. I based that, as well, not only on those components of the history that I shared with you, but also my consultation with other police chiefs and officers about the cost and time it took to do internal investigations and the impact it had on resources and how it caused some dysfunction within the policing community and there had to be a better way in order to address some of these issues.

 

Out of that came the notion of forming a team together and I remember we were at a retreat in Truro just shortly thereafter and the Premier had the opportunity to talk to a lady who was a semi-retired journalist, but was writing an article. It surrounded police independence, objectivity and we had the previous conversation. The Premier looked at me after we spoke with the lady and said, I think it's time to get the team in place, and so I got the green light to approach my deputy minister at the time and said, we're going ahead with this notion.

 

We did extensive research and consultation to look at what type of model would be best. What was exciting from the Chiefs of Police, the feedback I got, is how it saved them time and money. You'll notice in some of the other answers that I gave to our colleagues here on the Opposition side, that as a government we have to find ways to get public confidence, to increase efficiencies and reduce costs - that's what this process ended up doing.

 

When I talked to some of my colleagues, ministers across the country, they're still a little bit awed at how we need this position and what does it really mean. Some of them don't have it and they're not understanding the system of how it expedites certain complaints or things that occur in the community, it gives a confidence in the community. As a minister, one of the things when I first came into office - and prior to getting elected - I had the opportunity to watch my counterpart in this office with a number of incidents that happened with police or corrections and realized defending the status quo, or trying to support someone that you don't have the facts to support, or putting police agencies through these costs or pressure points creates a whole other set of setbacks and negative press that you really don't need. What this enabled us to do from a government perspective was have a vision, put a plan together, implement the plan and then get results. In fact, yesterday in this Legislature, just outside the door before I came in to speak, I had three cases from the SIRT team and in two of those cases, criminal charges were in the process, of people of the work that they did. So from a policing perspective, it's made a matter of record.

Also, I'd like to see within our province that no chief of police or no police officer can be the subject of a public complaint or criticism without this team being made aware and looking at whether or not they should be examining because there are some gaps in the system where some police officers were involved in violations, whether administrative or regulatory, and weren't made a matter of record. They weren't taken through the administrative process and recorded, so when it came time for discipline, it was noted that there was no past history. That's another thing that I'm working on and where we can use this team.

 

There is also potential when you have - and I'm going to talk about the mechanics of this team in a few minutes, but when you look at the concept of what the skills - these are investigators so it doesn't matter whether they're investigating police officers or doctors, for example, or a nurse that does something wrong in a hospital and they need an investigator to go in. They can send those investigators in and work with a health care professional because it's the skill base that they bring. Expertise can be garnered from other ways, and that's one of the nice things about this team.

 

As they were developed we had four people who have primary investigative skills and the director of this department is someone who cannot be a police officer. The first disqualifying requirement to be the director is that you were a police officer. I didn't necessarily totally agree with that, but I can understand it and accept that concept. In this case, with Ron MacDonald, the director has vast experience as a lawyer, as a Crown prosecutor, and has knowledge and professionalism that he brings to that and has been a good leadership role that he's contributing to that position.

 

Also, the team has the ability that if they're doing a particular investigation and they need expertise or skills, they can draw on that. They can also draw on other police departments to bring in resources and utilize them, whether it's the identification section, the police dog, forensic auditors, many others, so that the team has that, but we do still have that independence - especially with the director not having that direct contact with policing, but has the knowledge and skills that are required to help support that initiative.

 

From that perspective, the team has good potential to succeed and the response that we're getting from the public is that we're not getting the complaints, they believe and they have faith and they respect the work that this team is doing. As we move forward, I see great benefits and I see potential of where this unit can provide other services.

 

We're also looking for this unit to provide support to other provinces that may have an investigation in the Atlantic Region. One of the goals that I see the potential foundation - and I've shared with my colleagues - this team could be an Atlantic Region team now that we have it set up here in Halifax. There's no reason why we can't send our investigators to New Brunswick or Newfoundland and Labrador and vice versa, and share that expertise and knowledge to reduce government costs.

 

As a government, as you know, we're always looking at ways of how we manage the taxpayers' money wisely; how we invest, at the same time maintaining public confidence, unlike - I don't want to get too political in here about this, but I pointed out earlier in a question that I answered that we had the Opposition saying, you're spending too much money as a government and then if you cut something out or restructure it, they're saying no, you can't do that. I'm going to use some strong language - you can't suck and blow is sort of a term that's used out there. Pardon my harshness on that, but I think it articulates in someone's mind that governments have hard decisions to do, but they have to be creative.

 

When I got this - and we always come into politics - everybody comes in with their own particular interests and reasoning and as a former police officer and having that experience in the Internal Affairs area, I just felt that from leadership and having a vision that this was the right direction to go. Of course, having a leader in the Premier who shares the vision to do things like reducing costs, efficiencies, maintaining public confidence because it's about making life better for today's families. That has a broad concept of how we contribute and each department needs to contribute that in their own way and always be striving to manage the taxpayers' money and increase efficiencies and we have a huge struggle.

 

A lot of people in our society in Nova Scotia lose sight of the fact that three and a half years ago we got elected as a government because of the mismanagement - and we can't underscore that any less, nor should we, the province was being poorly managed, the politics of the day were if you can do a political favour for someone, whether or not they had the skills for the job, and I'm very proud that this Premier and this government did not fire people or get rid of them and cleaned house. We tried to work with people and if they had the skills or they were the right person, no matter what their political stripe was, we put them in there.

 

You say well what connection does that have with SIRT, it has everything to do with it because it talks about the transparency, the neutrality and the confidence that people have. For some, though, they're having trouble with the transition of why we aren't giving patronage out. Well, we don't believe in that, we believe you got the skills and if you're the right person for the job, then you should get the job, no matter what your stripe or colour or size or background, we believe in people. Thank you for your question.

 

MR. RAMEY: Thank you for your answer. I do have a follow-up to that, you triggered some things as you were speaking there - did you say the director of SIRT is Mr. MacDonald?

 

MR. LANDRY: Ron MacDonald.

 

MR. RAMEY: How many team members are there, minister?

 

MR. LANDRY: There are four others investigators on the team and two investigators that we hired outside of the current police model here in Nova Scotia -one from Halifax Regional Police and one from the RCMP.

 

I know some people said well how can you have police on there? They have the skills. There's something that we have to be careful about in our society right now that is occurring, there are some people thinking it's really easy to criticize our police officers or our correctional officers, the people who are serving. These people are professional, they believe in what they are doing.

 

I read an e-mail sent to me by an officer in Alberta. He had 31 years of service so this is someone who has been around and put their life on the line and how they were hurt by some of the things written from last week's incident. Now the travesty and the loss of a young person devastates and emotionally affects us all in our own way so I don't want to minimize that in the least. If we make assumptions and we write that it's the police who did wrong, they are bad, then we should take a look in the mirror because what we're saying is that we, as an individual, are doing bad because they're reflective of the mosaic of our society, and they should be.

 

If you have those feelings, what can we be doing differently to make our community better and safer? The underlying thing from last week that I said in a number of interviews was that the police can only be as effective as the public allows or permits it to be and it's critical that the police are accountable and answerable. I must say that the leadership here in Nova Scotia, we have a good working partnership, and I use the word "partnership" while at the same time recognizing that the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General has to have an overriding position of authority within the democracy or the governance model that we have in society. We have checks and balances and in Nova Scotia when you look at what came out of the Marshall case and the structure of the Public Prosecution Service, its set-up and its independent structure, the beauty of that is that it allows checks and balances while at the same time we have a respect and a communication between each other that's not unlike the judiciary.

 

At some point we've all got to recognize that we are a community, there is a collectiveness and that the mores that we enforce, the rules and regulations that come together and the people who try these or implement the processes are but us of the community. Therefore, that collectiveness, we have to have respect and confidence in it. So when that gets shattered it is up to us, as politicians, as legislators, to make sure that we act responsibly and quickly. I complimented the Premier last week how, in a discussion, we looked at the things needed in adjustment and we needed to move quickly as things were changing and we needed to rethink and look at this matter. Each of us has a role to play and the SIRT team is one of those that do that. Public Prosecutions have their role, we, as legislators have our role, the judiciary has their role, the Justice Department has their role.

 

We each have a part to play but it's the open dialogue and discussion, but if you arbitrarily disagree and challenge it because that's the emotion you have at that moment, that's not the way to make constructive decisions. It's good to have questioning but it should be practical and logical. In government that's what we need to do at the end of the day, have sober thought and reflection and make decisions that are well-informed and that are in the best interests of all within the province and not just any particular interest group. Thank you.

 

MR. RAMEY: Thank you, minister. Just to make sure I have this perfectly clear, with regard to the SIRT team, there is a director, it's Mr. MacDonald. There are four other members?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes.

 

MR. RAMEY: One from the RCMP, one from HRM. Who are the other two? What are their backgrounds?

 

MR. LANDRY: They've got policing backgrounds and they were hired - I think both were from New Brunswick, yes. I think both are ex-RCMP.

 

I should point out that I was told very early in my career, when I was in the RCMP, when I was a young fellow, and I talked to a person and I said oh, you just retired, how has it been for you? He says, Ross, you know I was a member of the RCMP and now I'm an ex-member and it's heavy on the "ex". He wasn't out that long, he says it's heavy on the "ex". He knew the separation and that the organization, the same as many people say to me, well you're RCMP. My political foes sometimes are people in the community who have a different political slant and are trying to slant something in their favour, and say well, you're in favour of the RCMP. I want to make it clear, the client I serve is the citizen of Nova Scotia, that's who I work for. There's no confusion in my mind where my loyalty is.

 

Do I respect and value my past? I have the skills and abilities to do my job, based on the opportunities I've had in life through my different employment, so I respect and value that. The client I serve is the citizen of Nova Scotia, the taxpayer here who pays the salary and I respect that to the fullest.

 

MR. RAMEY: So just in the interests of clarity again, is it true, and I think it is from what you said, that Nova Scotia is the only province in Atlantic Canada that has a SIRT team?

 

MR. LANDRY: In Atlantic Canada, yes.

 

MR. RAMEY: Is this also true, you mentioned that the SIRT team from Nova Scotia could possibly be made available to other jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada, perhaps, if it were required. If that were indeed the case, is that a fee for service?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes. I don't know if you were here when we were talking about the medical examiner's building. Governments today, not like yesterday, need to make clear decisions about where we're going in the future because things are changing rapidly. When you make a decision today, whether you're building a correctional facility in Pictou County as why that's the best decision to make and how your operating costs down the road are cheaper than the previous decisions made on other types of facilities, that's sound economic management.

 

When you look at creating the medical examiner building, not what do you need to meet the medical examiner's expectations, but what could it be? How do we develop an opportunity for the future? So if you're going to build an infrastructure piece that's going to last 50 years or more, how does it meet today's expectations and tomorrow's opportunities? If you're going to create a SIRT team, how does it meet the current problems and what does the future potential look like and how do you then turn around and make revenue returns for the province in regard to that to defer or reduce your costs?

 

As a government - and we've only been in for three and a half years - part of the mindset is that we think in those terms and try to look at how we move forward. If we're going to manage ourselves in this economic environment and challenges that we have with the structural deficit - and we're not out of this yet with a balanced budget. That could change tomorrow, depending on what happens in the world. We can't control the world. An economist was talking the other day about what is happening in the United States with the housing market. It meant great return for our lumber mills and the production there so they're starting to make money, but as America starts to pick up speed, Nova Scotia will reap those benefits because we're a major contributor to goods to that society so that will help us.

 

You have to be prepared; you have to be aligned and that's why as a government you invest in pulp industries that help stabilize your economy, but you don't look at the pulp business of yesterday. You look at Bowater and the what ifs, what is the potential for those fibres and the chemical structures, the other opportunities where there are really big dollars and less impact on the overall environmental structure of our forests. It's a matter of many things. I know I deviated from your question, but I don't want to have our discussion that we're just conceptually looking at one particular area, but that as a government as a whole we're looking at it and you have to take a holistic approach.

 

That goes back to the point that I made earlier that as a government we're also looking at how we take down our stovepipes and work intergovernmental. A good example of that that's occurring right now is where the Minister responsible for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women Act is heading up our initiative between the Department of Community Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Wellness, and the Department of Justice in regard to the Parsons matter and the circumstances that evolved from that and how we look at sharing dollars and working in that collaborative manner and how our deputy ministers meet regularly to focus on that same initiative and that same direction and so I'm excited to be part of a government that has seen that transitional change in how we do business.

 

MR. RAMEY: Have overtures been made at this point by one of the other jurisdictions to you suggesting that in your discussions with them that they may wish to have this offered up at some time or they may be able to use the services of our SIRT team?

 

MR. LANDRY: There have been discussions going on. I know I've discussed with my colleagues and other ministers. Whether something comes to fruition we'll wait and see if the opportunity is there. We drop seeds and one of the things I like to use is the term - can I drop a seed for you to see if it grows, to put the notion out there. I know when I meet with them I will bring it up again at an opportunity that may present itself. It's just like marketing of anything, if people know that it's out there and all of a sudden a need comes up and they don't know and a need comes up - how do the two get together?

 

MR. RAMEY: I noticed in one of your answers when we were talking about SIRT, you referenced the jail in Pictou. Again, I have to say apologies up front if you discussed this at length at some point when I wasn't in the room and I missed it all, and now I'm asking you to say something over again, which I hope I'm not. Where are we with the building and development of that facility?

 

MR. LANDRY: Thank you for that. I'm always happy to talk about our new correctional facility and I'm going to talk about corrections and just a short part of that - the building has come along really well. In the next couple of months a lot of the structure will be up there because the steel has already been ordered and the walls are going up now that the snow is gone and they're able to lay that foundation down.

 

I'm very proud of our Correctional Services and how far they have come in the last three years and seeing the movement there and the correctional officers are getting pride in the fact that they provide a very important service. This new facility will help modernize and deal with some of the issues that we dealt with in the past. I know my previous colleague who sat in this role took a lot of political heat and I learned a lot from the heat that he took, so that's a good thing. I'm glad it was him and not me. I had my own political heat in regards to that, but I learned from that don't defend the status quo, let's look and see how we modernize and improve and there's a lot more things we can do.

 

The correctional officer of tomorrow needs to be different than the one we hired yesterday. That's why we're in dialogue with the Atlantic Police Academy and with the Nova Scotia Community College and looking at how we can improve the standards, increase the screening of who goes into these jobs. When you have a correctional facility, remember that in our provincial facilities, the average stay of an inmate or a client is roughly 90 days, so that starts to tell you that people are in and out pretty quickly. Some people are in there longer and sometimes there are some really violent and bad people in there who need to be in jail a long time. They're in there and they're transitioned to the long road to the federal institution.

 

We have to have a facility where we can reduce illegal substances and products coming into the jail and, at the same time, providing opportunities for people to transition back into the community. That's why we go woof, woof, on the WOOF program, we bring that in - I like saying that - and trying to think outside the box and working with staff and looking at projects that improve the way we deliver service.

 

I know some critics - I'll use the WOOF program for example - were really highly critical of the fact that we're going to put a dog in the place but they never got the full information so it's a matter for us to get the information out that it was a partnership with the SPCA and helping the SPCA get puppies trained and ready to go into homes so families can have a dog, an animal, and know that it can be functional right away.

 

With the facility in Pictou County, you know that decision came about because of the raw politics - I'll be very blunt about it - one was going to go in Antigonish and one into Springhill because the business of the day was the politician put it in there because they wanted to put something in the riding - not whether it was in the best interests of the taxpayer of Nova Scotia or the right thing to do, and I can say right here on the record that one of the reasons I left being a police officer was because I was livid with that decision and that they could do that because the place where that correctional facility should have gone is where it's at right now because the catchment area, when we looked at - I was managing movement of prisoners who came into our care, having run them to Halifax and looked at this and had other issues where we had to deal with incidents of people going from Sydney to Halifax, where officers had to respond to incidents.

 

Then you put a correctional facility in Amherst and in Springhill, for example, and somebody put it to me, they say well you've got a federal one there. I said that's a great decision, that's where it should be. They said, well how come it's good enough for the feds and not good enough for the province. I said well I'm really pleased to answer that question because that's a really good question.

 

You have to look at the big picture and what your service and who your client is. In a federal institution they need to be in a location where there's some remoteness and yet some commercial accessibility to the facilities.

 

When you look at Springhill, it's between three airports - Halifax, Charlottetown and Moncton. You also have a range of movement where if a prisoner was to escape, you have some movement of police and security that can narrow the person in, where they have distances to travel and to get to where they need to go. When you look at the internal mechanism, and that facility can help Springhill from an economic perspective, that's a good thing and I'm glad that it was in Nova Scotia. When you look at it, it must be on those minor few points that have a great benefit.

 

Now let's compare it to the correctional facility for Nova Scotia, you have to look at the geographical structure of the province and say where is the main movement of traffic? Well, if you're looking at the highest volume of traffic, it's Halifax to the Truro hub. The Truro hub is probably the busiest point in the province.

 

However, if you're going to Sydney and you have your correctional facility there, it's a long distance to go from there to Halifax. If you build that provincial facility in Springhill, then you have all your traffic going off the main flow route, where it costs. We know that the decision to build the Cobequid Pass, that it - looking at it in today's lenses - may not have been a wise choice because one, there's a toll there, and two, there's weather conditions that a better design of the highway would have reduced some of the closures. So if you're building a provincial institution out there, it would cause some other problems, versus the movement of traffic along the highway through from Sydney to Pictou County to Halifax is usually wide open and very seldom is that ever slowed down or shut down.

 

When you look at that and then you look at the catchment area of the client that is going to be using the facility, the highest catchment percentage was in Pictou County and right where it was. Now had they built in Antigonish, we probably could have survived with it there but when it came right down to the crunch numbers, Pictou County was the best overall and it gave us a significant distance from Sydney to Halifax, it gave that little distance, yet from Halifax going to Sydney it gave that little bit of balance.

 

It also meant that from our sheriffs' perspective, we can get a synergy of sheriffs and expertise that can then complement Truro, Antigonish and other areas. As well, the new correctional facility has a closeness to three hospitals, so you have the Truro, the Aberdeen in New Glasgow, and the Antigonish hospital. When you look at it from a policing perspective, that you have sufficient support and from fire safety and so on, there's significant resources and support there for that facility as well. Also, it's going to have access to other mental health capability and other community involvement to engage people who are being released, if they want to be in that area, or opportunities for employment in others, so it's in a bigger population that way.

 

When you look at decision-making like that, that's sound and has a lot of practicality, as well as when you look at designing the building, and I'm dead against a dual capacity, just so the record shows, but I'm all for it if the building is designed that way. So how do you reduce costs and the building is being designed and the land mass that is there, it allows us to build 100 cells with dual capacity, and we hope that we don't fill that up, but it's also being designed, the building is designed so that if you need to add to it, you can add capacity down the road, rather than the previous decision being made, which we put a stop to, thank goodness, to build one in Antigonish and then build one in Springhill, which drives up our costs and drives our efficiencies, which restricts our ability, as a government, to do investments, like the LED Roadway Lighting in Amherst or to do investments in the Valley that we made significantly here, to take those dollars and do that, or to do, for example, the Port Hawkesbury plant there.

 

I know a lot of people have criticized us for giving money there, however, we'll get our money back in 11 years - I think in 11.5 years we're supposed to get our money back. Right now I heard a figure the other day that over $80 million has gone into the economy there, something like over 1,400 families directly or indirectly have received benefits from those decisions. As a government you have to look at how we sustain our economy? Not only that, but that plant is one of the most efficient plants in the world and they're producing a new product now that if they could stop taking orders for their old product and fill them, they could sell all the new product and even make more profit.

 

It's a decision like that that is a government invested in people. I know I'm deviating from the correctional facility but what I'm trying to articulate is to point out that you have to look at the totality of that and how we're investing in people. I'm excited about that and I thank you for asking the question about the new facility and WOOF.

 

MR. RAMEY: Actually along that line, this is a nuts and bolts question, I guess, related to it but you did spend a certain amount of time talking about the Port Hawkesbury mill and the benefit that has been accrued to the people who live in that area and I certainly concur with that.

 

The new facility is also an economic generator for the area where it's built. I guess what I'd like to know is what are you anticipating as being the number of people who will be employed at the new facility? Do you have any numbers on that?

 

MR. LANDRY: Yes. Presently there are 42 correctional officers who are working in the Amherst and the Antigonish facilities. Those officers will be moving to the new facility and approximately 70 new correctional officers will be hired. Now I suspect that number will be closer to 80 because due to attrition and whatever else, of those 42 I'd say 25 per cent may be retiring or not moving or changing careers or whatever, so we allow that percentage roughly.

 

The infrastructure - now I know I've got a number of people who want to do the haircuts, you're going to need a carpenter, a maintenance person in the building at all times, an engineer to run the plants. So it's going to have spinoff benefits for other people to provide those services. You're going to need snow removal on the outside of the building, you're going to need grass-cutting, you're going to need a number of other jobs - cooks, food suppliers. From an economic perspective it's going to generate business.

 

I know I made a comment about the jail not going to Antigonish; Antigonish directly benefits from that facility being there because there will be suppliers and people who presently live in Antigonish or may move to Antigonish and then work at that facility because that's only about 40 kilometres or so down the road. It's relatively close so it has its benefits that way, so we're excited.

 

I know my primary goal was not about the economic stimulation, it was going to be a stimulus in whatever community it went into, from the taxpayers' perspective it's the best value for the dollar that they are investing. It happens to be in the chairman's riding, that facility, so as he says, you can never do enough for Pictou East.

 

MR. RAMEY: So if I've got the numbers right there, 42 and 70, or 42 and 80, somewhere around 122 people, without counting the cooks and the grass-cutting people and all of that, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: I think there's roughly right now a minimum of 110 correctional officers. That number may be a little bit higher as we move down the road and look at the model of management there but you know you're going to have whatever spinoff is going to come with that. Remember, you go to a chamber of commerce, they'll say, depending on one measurement, for every dollar generated in the community it can generate seven or it can generate nine, so somewhere in there it's going to generate a significant dollar so other people will benefit. The facility itself will be in excess of 120 people for sure.

MR. RAMEY: You cited something else, minister, when you were answering the question about the traffic flow patterns and where the facility would be built and everything. You mentioned - I think you called it woof woof or something.

 

MR. LANDRY: I'm just being smart on the WOOF program, just subliminally trying to drop a seed in your mind of the goodness of that program.

 

MR. RAMEY: I just wanted to ask you a question about that, actually. When that first came out I remember hearing some criticisms from some folks. I can't remember really if it was the public or people in the Opposition Parties in the province but it really doesn't matter anyway but I remember hearing criticism about it. Then I remember seeing a clip on, I think the ATV Evening News, where they interviewed a Correctional Services worker and a person who was an inmate - well, they didn't interview the dog but the dog was there. The inmate they interviewed couldn't say enough good things about this program.

 

I guess I'm one of the people in the world who believes that the same way you can learn to hate people - and I think you can be taught to hate people and I think there's lot of evidence in the world as to how that can happen. Recent events in the United States, particularly around Boston and Waterton I think suggest that that's still the case, Afghanistan and a million other places - but you can also be taught to love people. It's nice when you're taught that at home from people who love you and then you learn it from an early age. It's important to love, it's a basic human need to love someone or something, really, so I think animals are vehicles that can do that. I think if you can learn to love an animal, you can learn to love other things in life, too.

 

I was wondering - I can't remember when that program was started but do you have a little update on how we're doing?

 

MR. LANDRY: Thank you very much for that question. A couple of things, I just want to - there's the saying that Einstein has and I'll repeat it, I like using it, that if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, that's the definition of insanity.

I don't mean to be too critical but we know that one political Party has a philosophy to build jails, fill them and lock them up and throw away the key. That's their philosophy, they believe that you punish everyone for everything. I believe in people being accountable but I don't believe in locking people up and not having an opportunity to be rehabilitated and get an opportunity to get reintegrated in society.

 

In our correctional institutions in Nova Scotia, they are provincial and the average stay of an individual, as I've mentioned before, is 90 days. So we're locking people up and putting them out. You have to have ways to touch them. Some of the people who come into our institutions have lacked the opportunity to be loved, as you raised the question, or an opportunity to get a chance to be valued or be respected.

 

Now I go knocking on doors in my riding and I say about 70 to 75 per cent of the homes have an animal in the house, other than human. So the significance, and we see the value in that around children and how - I know I have a granddaughter who loves animals and has a horse, goes out to the horse farm, and the cats - and how important that is in the conversation and the relationship that she has.

 

For someone going into jail, that doesn't change. I haven't seen yet where a dog puts a judgment on someone, they are always loving. There are many jokes out there - I go home to my dog and if I'm away overnight, they are happier to see me than if I was away an hour. So if I'm misbehaving, the dog is still loyal.

 

The points I want to get at are that a lot of these people didn't have people who believed in them, that they made that personal, that human connection, that life connection. Before I continue down that line of the answer, I want to talk about our correctional officers. Some people have an image that they're just a guard or they turn a key. These are highly respected, valuable people who have the skills to contribute; if we restrict that or hold that back, we're not allowing the person to reach their potential.

 

When you have a program such as the WOOF program and you see a correctional officer wanting to get engaged, it not only has a personal enjoyment and pleasure but as a Department of Justice and as the Correctional Services department, they get an employee who starts to learn other skills, of management and how to interact and how to change behaviour. Remember, a correctional officer is in the business of managing behaviour and trying to contribute to behavioural change. So whether it's the dog - and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner to someone who is incarcerated - whether it's the dog or the individual in the incarceration, there are certain behaviours. One can go back in psychology to Pavlov's theory and relationships. A comic show I saw - what's the show, that young guy, the scientist there, the show that's on TV - Big Bang Theory, and how they make that relationship between some of the connections. In one scene the guy was giving the girlfriend of the one guy candy and then they realized they were playing a game and she was responding and after a while one scientist there was questioning that, what are you doing. After a while the guy gave his friend the candy and started to get the reaction.

 

The point is we can all be programmed and we all are being conditioned, as a minister I get conditioned when to speak and when not to speak and when to go before the - you know we're all programmed in different ways and you've got to react. The connection I want to make is that I'm proud of the correctional officers who have the courage to bring this forward and to stand up. I'm proud of somebody who is an inmate who has the courage to say that they are going to try this because failure is only a journey to success. The not trying is the true loss - a little wisdom there, for whatever that's worth.

The point I want to get at further with regard to this is that if we can change one person around - I got criticized by the Opposition and I hope that I'm never in Opposition in my political career so let's see how this plays out, but if I was, if I saw a program such as this, I'd get up and ask a question and say, I want to know more about your program. I'm excited - woof woof - that it's there. Can you tell me more, instead of criticizing the fact that it cost $26,000.

 

I'm disappointed in the press that they put it out that way to create the doubt in people's minds instead of saying it's a pilot project for four dogs at $26,000, because now we have done 40. I'm disappointed that people didn't show the connection between SPCA and how we as a government - how Correctional Services was trying to make a community contribution and trying to make life better for some families. Remember, the theme that we're trying to market as a government is about making life better for families. That's not one little thing. It's not just some little element; it's everything that we're doing and I believe in this initiative - so the correctional officer and this management and the Department of Justice are bringing that program forward.

 

When we get up to 400 dogs, I wonder if they'll do a headline in the paper - the WOOF program is down to $5 per dog. I wonder if they'll do that. No, they won't, so we have to try to change and maybe we need to do a promotion and give the costs as we get up around a couple of hundred dogs, say, the program is now costing this and do you know the good that has come out - put a couple of the articles that people have written who have experienced this program.

 

What I want to compliment is that as a government we're focused and that holistic view of making life better for families and what that means, and holding us accountable to that concept. I also got to look at the beauty of the staff and the people who I have the pleasure to work with who believe in making life better for families - not politically speaking, but in their hearts, in the job that they're committed and dedicated, that they get those services to the people who they serve in Nova Scotia. Sometimes different parts of it get criticized and sometimes we need to be questioned and held accountable - whether it's Public Prosecutions, the police, the Department of Justice itself, the courts. We all need to be under public scrutiny because we're in a democracy where the public has the right to scrutinize.

 

What I would really like to see in this concept of bullying - that people's negative attitudes and beliefs, sometimes the way that they're magnified across can be a form of bullying and how we educate our society that it's all right to be constructive as long as your constructive perspective is not with the purpose to be destructive. I share that with you and I know we've got other programs that we're doing, not just the WOOF, but something else that's just as important to me is bringing cultures inside our institutions. I know I had someone say to me, why are you doing that for the First Nations? They made some comments about the First Nations community and I couldn't help but think - boy, there's something wrong in your life. I never challenged the person. I listened to what they had to say and my answer was - I see life differently. I believe that if a young Native person in our institution has gone away and their elders or professional support mechanisms from their community can instill the culture and belief that who they are and where they come from is important and valuable, it enriches our society.

 

We are better because of that history and because of their contribution, that they'll come out and make my life better because they will contribute to society and what I believe - paying it forward; that whole concept that as we do something today, and if I can do something for someone today, maybe before I leave this world, somebody in my family who I love or cherish, that somebody will have done something nice to them because I wasn't there or able to do it. So that concept of sharing - and we had an opportunity this week to see from the Boston Marathon, that sadness of events that have happened there, how people opened their homes to other people and provided that support and love. So we need a society and as Nova Scotians we know that we have a strong connection and we all support giving that donation to the hospital and making that contribution. That was a small amount of money and I think it sends a big message.

 

The points I'm making with our system with our corrections is that we need forgiveness while at the same time holding people accountable, that if we're in a system, in a democracy that believes in a pound of flesh, take your pound of flesh and let the person move on, if that's what you believe in. But if we have a system of that's how we judge our people, then I think we'll pay a bigger price in society.

 

MR. RAMEY: Well teaching people to love and care about other people is a good thing so I think that's a good idea. I'm glad to see that it sounds like it's expanding, which is even better.

 

I have several more questions I'd like to ask. I'm going to ask one more and . . .

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I could interject, I always give a 10-minute warning of the time running out. Of course there is no other caucus waiting but you have less than 10 minutes in this round but we can begin another round immediately afterward. Thank you, continue.

 

MR. RAMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate that. As I said, I'm sort of hogging the time here. I know I have colleagues who want to ask a question but again, most of the things that you say tweak the next question. One of the things I spent a lot of my life doing was working with young people. I actually had the great good fortune to teach in the high school system and the community college system and in the university system at the University of Alberta, when I was doing my doctorate there.

 

Programs, as they used to sort of be run here in Nova Scotia, one of the things that used to drive me crazy was, when I was in the community college system, we would be able to offer supports for a student who had gone out and got into trouble and then went through the court system and we could do something to help but we couldn't catch that person before they went through the court system and kind of do all that preventive stuff and save ourselves a whole lot of hassle. In other words, we would spend negative as opposed to positive dollars. I never really understood why that was happening.

 

Any program that supports youth or keeps young people from going astray or gets them back on the right course, before they get too far on the wrong course, is probably again money well spent, just like the program we just discussed.

 

I know the Lighthouses program was one that was tried. I don't know where that came from, I think it came out of Manitoba. I know that we have it here as well and I was wondering if you could just say a little bit about that and also which organizations are involved in that effort with you.

 

MR. LANDRY: Certainly. We've got a list of people, of different organizations involved in the Lighthouses program. The Lighthouses program is a really good program. Just a little background on it; it's a program where we put $12,000 grants forward to particular groups where adults and youth engage in either a mentoring or a developmental program where the youth gets that life experience and makes that connection.

 

There are a number of different organizations around the province that have benefited from that. I don't know if we have a list right here right now. I'll just name a few; Annapolis County Cops N' Kids Association, Annapolis Valley Regional Library, the Antigonish Women's Resource Centre - those are crime prevention, the Bay St. Lawrence Community Centre, a crime prevention grant there to work with youth. So around the province, I guess I could go over and pick some out here, the Northern AIDS Connection Society, those are just a few associations that got them.

 

I know that some youth have worked on sailboats, some have done artistic work, music work. The idea behind the Lighthouses is to try and allow an opportunity, present an opportunity for a young person to be able to turn a light on, to see the potential within themselves. We know that once that light gets turned on inside an individual, there's no stopping as to where they can go with it. It's having a passion and a commitment.

 

In a book I recently read it talked about making money decisions with your mind, people decisions with your gut, what your gut feeling says about someone, but work decisions with your heart, with your passion. If you are passionate about what you're doing, you will succeed.

 

As a parent, we only want our children to be healthy and to be happy. I don't care what their job is, I want them to have a means that if they're happy at what they're doing, I'm happy. So they can be a nuclear physicist or a janitor, I don't care. If they're healthy and happy, as long as I provided the opportunity for them to make the choice of their own.

 

What we need to do with your youth is to provide them an opportunity to make choices that they can reach their potential, that they can be happy and they need to engage with the adult community and to mentor it. One of the fabrics of the Lighthouses program, it provides that and to work in a team environment, in many cases, where they interact with others and have to learn those life skills so that when they're in the real world, working it on their own, they have that potential.

 

MR. RAMEY: So the mentors who are associated with the program are community leaders in various parts of the province, is that correct?

 

MR. LANDRY: Community leaders in the concept and that can be defined in many different ways within the community. Maybe it's a minority group and they have the life skills to provide opportunities for the others to learn. They could be somebody who has a craft skill in, for example, building a boat. I think if I remember back when I was a teenager, to work with someone to really build a boat - I remember I had my own little lawnmower business and I used to strip the lawnmower. I couldn't take it apart now, I couldn't turn it on probably, but at 15 years old I could strip that thing, rebuild it, put it back on and go out and cut some grass, it didn't matter. That was fun and exciting.

 

I was taught by someone how to do that, a lot of it I figured out on my own or I was in the Boy Scouts or other organizations and youth groups that I was involved in that gave me life skills and opportunities to work. What we're trying to do is provide opportunities for people, to give them ideas.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the hour allocated to Mr. Ramey. We have an hour and nine minutes remaining to get the four hours in today. We're already keeping the House going longer than was anticipated because we took a 15-minute break, so we can't have any more breaks, we're in a little trouble for that break we took.

 

MR. LANDRY: Well we're going to have one more, I'm going to take a five-minute break.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm wondering if we can proceed a bit longer, if we could.

 

MR. LANDRY: We can, after I have my five-minute break.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can it be a little bit quicker, please?

 

[12.29 p.m. The subcommittee recessed.]

 

[12:32 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister, for a very quick break. I'm wondering if we could proceed, please.

 

The honourable member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley.

 

MR. GARY BURRILL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Minister, I was just wondering if I could turn our minds for a little while to questions of Legal Aid. One thing I'd like to ask a little bit of your thinking about is about eligibility thresholds. One experience is very common in the constituency office where I serve, I'm sure it must be common for MLAs across the province, is that people are in the situation where they have a legal matter that needs to be advanced, it's within the purview of what Legal Aid does. They have too much income to be eligible for Legal Aid and they have not enough income in order to engage a private lawyer.

 

The question of the eligibility threshold seems to be one of the key things for our operating the kind of system in the province that we would want to have. I was wondering, do you know if there is a process by which thresholds are reviewed or is this kind of a continual review? Or is there an annual review, subject to budget limitations? I just wonder if I could ask you to reflect a little bit about this question of the eligibility thresholds for Legal Aid.

 

MR. LANDRY: Thank you for that question. I want to frame the question and start of firstly, that I firmly and passionately believe that we need to do more for Legal Aid. When one studies criminology or looks at the overall view of the justice system in a democracy, one of the key elements or ingredients is having access and having a defence. When we talk about access or having a defence and having a system that allows the disadvantaged to be given an opportunity for the society to meet their needs and expectations. If you're a single mom and you're managing the children and in a conflict with a partner who might have moved out of province and you're trying to get benefits for your children, or you may be in a conflict with a partner who has legal access and is very materialistically driven who denies your children an opportunity to have a quality of life and you as an ex-partner to be able to manage that. It troubles me, the system that we have, and there are some civil, but it's minor opportunities to right some wrongs and get that access.

 

We have a federal government - and I want to be careful with my words because I'm going to meet with them on other matters - but they philosophically feel that it's okay for 10 years not to raise their support funding in the province and put at least inflationary contributions. Remember, I come on the principle of a democracy. I don't believe in capital punishment in any form. I believe that we need to have social equity and justice in our society that allows an equality of life and an opportunity in life. Not everybody has an opportunity in life. I know that my children had a good benefit and my granddaughter has an immense benefit and opportunity that many other children who I see around do not have and there is fair access.

 

How do we balance it and give each child an opportunity to reach their full potential? This is framing my answer because I think the heart of what you're saying goes to us as a government and what we talk about around our table. It goes to the fact that we're a province with over $14 billion worth of debt - or $13 million-something - and we have a structural deficit. I'm going to switch away from the answer and just talk about that since I've raised the deficit part. I've had some people in there on that floor criticize us about the money we added onto the debt.

 

When we took over in a recessionary time, the federal government asked the province and the people of the province, and the Opposition themselves asked us, to spend money on infrastructure development and stimulus dollars. Now I don't know in our society how you can turn around, with the economic challenge that we had, that you need to put stimulus spending, where the money would come from - how it wouldn't be added to the debt. When you look at it from GDP ratio that we looked at, we're not in bad shape overall. The importance of dealing with the structural deficit is critical and vital and so we're on the cusp of getting that managed.

 

At the same time, when we look at Legal Aid, how do we get sufficient resources in there - and I'm going to be a little political here - and yet we invest in going to war in another country and spend billions of dollars on a fight that's not our business. It's not our fight; not our business. When you look at foreign policies and wonder why people may blow up your community when other communities you've gone over and put your drones - not that I want to get too much in one place - and you blow up people. You can see the percentage of how that creates a problem. You say, well, where does this connect? It connects because we have invested in a militaristic approach that those dollars could easily have been invested into our justice system.

 

Now I know some people say to invest in the justice system is a bad investment, but Legal Aid isn't. I frame back, when I hear the words "for today's families", what does that mean? To me it means many different things that we have to do as a government. It's like the mission statement that we see in the different organizations where one might have worked. I know in the United Church they have a mission statement, I've read that on the wall when I had the pleasure to be there for an event. I know in my church there's a mission statement, I know in my job there was a mission statement. I take "making life better for today's families" as a mission statement. I look at that and say I need to work and focus.

 

We're falling short when it comes to Legal Aid. I think as a government the fact that we added $1 million to Legal Aid - the manager there, if she was here I would say she deserves a hug from each of us because the job that that lady is doing as a director and the smile that she has on her face and the positive attitude she has, if you ever get to meet her, she's doing a phenomenal job and a challenge because those workers - and I mean "those" with respect - they're dealing with people who are in real life emotionally damaged. They are in conflict, they are in trouble and they are unable to deal with that.

 

I have a commitment and my commitment to you right now, as a Minister of Justice, if we can do things and at each federal-provincial-territorial meeting we raise this, each of the provinces. The difficulty is and as much as I like the gentleman here this morning from the Opposition, from Inverness - I like him personally, I respect him personally - ideologically I disagree with the fundamental principle he presents and what the federal Conservative Party presents in regard to the human rights aspect of Legal Aid and the contribution. I think they've fallen short and it puts pressure on us to contribute to that and to meet.

 

I know in your life as a minister, that the people you serve - and it's like when I talk to my priest when I go in and see him and when I go to church on Saturdays, he keeps saying to me, well how are you doing and how was your week. I look at him and say, Father, how are you doing? We forget that if you are always giving, is someone giving back to you? The connection I'm making with Legal Aid is most of these people affected are moms, they are single moms, and they are giving, a mom gives, a mom doesn't really take, the mom gives. The child comes first, their personal life comes first.

 

That's why, as a government, we made some taxation choices. I know there's a controversy on the radio today. One of the conservative-leaning talk shows was really trying to push the Minister of Finance about well, you're putting this in law and couldn't make the distinction between us, as a government, in the financial struggle that we came into and the mess we took over, they couldn't make, or wouldn't make, the connection that the consultation that the Finance Ministers went around the province to ask people very clearly, and I had people say well I didn't agree with the 2 per cent tax hike. Yes you did, we went around to each community and we got the consensus overwhelmingly from the community people who came in there said they wanted the GST, the 2 per cent added and to take longer time to clear the budget because they wanted a human approach to how we deal with our social justice.

 

In the talk show what I noticed, what leapt out at me as the Minister of Finance tried to talk and they tried to rub that in her face - she handled it quite well - they did not understand that removing personal products of women, children, clothing and the energy tax, of how those are life-sustaining and helps a disadvantaged segment of our society to have access to wealth.

 

We know, as a government, that we put the 2 per cent on and we took - I'll use a figure of, let's say, 52 cents out of one pocket, we slipped 75 cents into the other pocket, for the low income - and helped them and how the media has not written stories about that good work, they want to look at the negative. When we look the issue of bullying, they don't come to the table with clean hands and the issue of the blogs that are out there - and I know in my paper Johnny Smoke writes in the paper and has a comment on everything that's written and nothing is positive about us as a government or as a politician and writes these negative things, but doesn't have the courage, the integrity to put his real name behind his views like a politician does every day. I stand behind my words. Sometimes they're right on; sometimes they're not so right on, but I stand by them and I'm prepared to change like we did last week on the issue. We came out and realized the way that's framed is not in the best interests of the society that we're here to serve.

 

When it comes down to the issue - and hopefully I'm framing this in the sense that when we look at the issue of Legal Aid, I feel ashamed, I feel embarrassed. I'm the Minister of Justice and I can't do more. I say that with respect to my colleagues who I work with who do a phenomenal job to manage the budget and to ensure that we're putting resources and support into areas to help as best we can, but I can't look you in the eye and say that we're doing a great job on it. I think my staff are doing an excellent job with what they have to work with, but when you're asking someone to struggle in the conflict and you've already tied one hand behind their back, it's difficult to get the expectations met.

 

I personally and sincerely say to you that I feel somewhat challenged. However, that does not mean I want to continue with the struggle to fight and raise those concerns. I hope that we can drop seeds on our federal colleagues and our provincial colleagues as well in their relationship with the federal government to put pressure on from their circles in politics. I should make a distinction - on this issue, I was critical of the federal government. There are other issues that I'm very supportive and they're very supportive of us, and we work in partnership. When we're together, it's business - we both believe we're working for the right cause and right purpose and I respect that part of the process, but this is dealing with an issue. When you raise it, and I know that listening to you speak on other occasions in regard to social justice and equity of our society, you're very passionate as an individual to fight for the rights of the disadvantaged - economically and socially challenged part of our society and how you get that equality in there.

 

At the end of the day, our maker has made us and some of us are born into life with opportunities. As I was saying, my granddaughter has opportunities that many other children do not have and I'm going to do my part to support her, but at the same time I believe as a politician that I have a moral and ethical responsibility to try and contribute to the whole of society. I go back to the term of how do we make life better for today's families and what does that actually mean?

 

MR. BURRILL: This is a very considered and fair and balanced way of thinking about these problems. I'd like to think a little bit more about this whole issue of Legal Aid and the scope of what it might be able to offer if, in fact, we had a federal regime that supported it as it ought to.

 

I was interested to learn recently about how in at least one other province the Legal Aid system includes a network of something that they call advocates. These are people normally, I guess, paralegals who deal exclusively with what people in the Legal Aid community often refer to as poverty law, and poverty law in the administrative tribunal context. These are people who do representation in matters like CPP tribunals or EI, income assistance, landlord-tenant compensation certainly, that's a big matter.

 

It had struck me that certainly this is one of those areas that if we were ever in a position where our Legal Aid system was able to be expanded to the places that we would like to have it expanded, that this is one thing that might be very useful for us, might be a very good use of an expanded Legal Aid system being able to incorporate under Legal Aid this kind of administrative law/poverty law representation.

 

As we think to the future and envision the kind of Legal Aid system that we would like to have - if the federal financial limitations that, as you say rightly, put us in such an embarrassing position - if those limitations were removed and we were able to move in the direction that we want to move, I wonder if you would have any reflections about whether or not that would be a useful area for us to expand our Legal Aid system in.

 

MR. LANDRY: You raised a number of very interesting points. You know we have a law school here in Halifax and they do a lot of good work in regard to poverty law. I know when I was in law school I remember doing a lot of different research points for the Legal Aid group that worked out of the university, with the Dalhousie Legal Aid. So the law school, where there is one, has a benefit for that community as a whole, the nation.

 

I want to talk about philosophical differences and how we need to communicate with our federal colleagues. When you take - as an MLA you know we're doing CPP, although that's federal, but EI, we're always involved. My office is wide open for people with pensions and in this area of the government we've done an awful lot of work and I'm very lucky that I have an assistant who is very motivated to do that work. She has the knowledge and skills and I provided her the support to do that work in the community. She can always just shut the door and go out and help people who have those cases and wherever I can help, I do, although in the job I'm in I'm very cautious of my involvement.

 

When you have a local EI board, and I want to just drop this in your mind, I think conceptually what has occurred, when you centralize those boards in Ottawa you take away the community connection and from where I sit, from my world, morally and ethically I find it repulsive. Why I find it so repulsive is that I spoke earlier about having opportunities and I used my granddaughter, whatever she wants in life she is going to get, her opportunity to get the education she wants because we can afford it. Many can't and we have to have a system - because the opportunity for her should not be any more privileged than someone else that has the ability and potential to do it, because where they were born or their parents' ability to provide should not be the determining factor in our society.

 

We believe in capitalism and that whole concept of letting cream come to the top. I don't believe in a capitalist system that denies the cream from even getting in the pot so it can rise. So when you have people in the community who have low skills and are wanting to work and have a good case, the trier of fact in administrative law or in any form of law in a democracy, the importance is being able to present your facts and have an objective ruler of those facts. To me, the rule of law is an important fabric. I see it as an attack on that democratic principle that people need to be able to express their belief at being wronged, and the system allowing them the opportunity to do that.

 

When you take the EI boards out and you put that in Ottawa, it depersonalizes and dehumanizes and makes the system a very mechanical process. What does that say when we're trying to instill values in our school system about love and respect and each person can be what they want to be when we have systems that allow us to deny human injustice?

 

I don't apologize for my views on this, and if I'm wrong or it needs modification at times, I will adjust that. I believe that people in the federal government want to do good for people. I don't believe they're there because they want to be malicious. I think ideologically they're falling short when it comes to the rights of the disadvantaged in our society.

 

I don't believe in a socialistic society. I believe in social justice and equality of opportunity. I know from a political perspective the federal Party has removed the word "socialism" and I know for some, that's a bad word. I've never known it to be a swear word, but some people use it as if it is a swear word and that's unfortunate because to be concerned for our fellow man is never a bad thing, but to deny justice or access to justice - and that's what I think these changes do and how when we talk about the Legal Aid system, I think it's a whole concept or philosophy to approach.

 

MR. BURRILL: Thank you very much for that response. Those were the questions that I wished to ask, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.

 

MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: There are a few topics I wanted to touch on if we got the chance, but as a preliminary, since you brought up capital punishment, I wonder if I might just chat with you briefly about this and offer you a small footnote to history. I'm sure you'll be interested, given your expression of views on this topic. I don't think we've had the chance to talk about this in any detail, but my own legal career started in Ottawa with the federal Department of Justice. I spent my first three years as a lawyer working in Ottawa with the Department of Justice and these years were 1974, 1975 and 1976, shortly after I was called to the bar.

 

One of the ways in which the federal Department of Justice works is it assigns lawyers to be in-house legal counsel for the other government departments, and I was actually assigned to the Solicitor General's Department. The Solicitor General's Department, as I'm sure you'll know, has supervisory jurisdiction over the penitentiaries, the parole board and the RCMP, and of course at that time the predecessor to CSIS was also part of the mandate of the Solicitor General's Department. So I was one of a small group of lawyers giving advice in the Solicitor General's headquarters.

 

A lot of my work had to do with the penitentiaries and corrections matters. One of the things that I was assigned as well - as sort of an adjunct to that - was dealing with what were called the capital cases. The capital cases were those instances where someone had been sentenced to death. You may recall that by that time, in the early and mid-1970s, Canada had narrowed the ambit of the death penalty so that it was only applicable for someone who had been found guilty of killing a police officer or a prison guard. I'll leave aside the provisions under the National Defence Act, which still included it, but in terms of normal criminal law it was only those.

 

Nonetheless, Canada at that time had 12 people who were under sentence of death. I had general superintendence of these files, these capital case files. Part of my duties was to make sure that stays of execution were obtained as their cases proceeded through the appeal process as, of course, all of them did. I was in touch with the defence counsels and the prosecutions all across the country for these dozen cases and kept reminding them to go and see a judge and obtain a stay of execution.

 

I was also in touch with a number of very nervous sheriffs in different parts of the country because, of course, under the Criminal Code provisions at the time it was the local sheriff who had responsibility for seeing that the execution was carried out, if it ever got to that. By that time Canada had not actually had an execution since 1962. Of course a bill was going to come forward in Parliament in 1976 and did, to actually terminate the provision for capital punishment under the Criminal Code.

 

It was an interesting process, of course, dealing with these capital cases because there were some instructions as to how they were to be dealt with; I was to obtain and did obtain, for all of them, letters from the trial judge, letters from the defence counsel, letters from the prosecution, any recommendations that might have been made by the jury at the time of the trial. I was to obtain all newspaper reports and detailed accounts of what had gone on. I was also to retain the services of two psychiatrists to interview the condemned person and prepare written reports that this was all going towards material that would form part of a submission to the federal Cabinet on whether the sentence ought to be commuted or not.

 

I did this. As I said, I had general superintendence of these files and was shepherding them through the whole process as it was going on.

 

Now my own plans were to leave the federal Department of Justice in, I think September 1976, which I did, to go and teach. The bill had not yet gone to Parliament and I was a little apprehensive, I have to say, that the bill might not pass. I thought that if it turned out that the bill to abolish capital punishment did not pass in Parliament, that there would be a great deal of pressure on the federal Cabinet to actually carry out some executions. I didn't know if all 12 people might be executed or some smaller number. I have to say that when I think back on those 12 files, there wasn't a lot you could say for at least several of those people in mitigation, very little and probably nothing, really, unless you didn't believe in capital punishment, that was about it.

I tried to do what a very minor bureaucrat could do to kind of arrange the scenario even though I was departing. Here's what I did; I was in touch, as I said, with all the defence and prosecution lawyers on each case around the country. They took my suggestions as to what would be the appropriate date for a new order of execution. In each case - this happened several times that new dates were set as the matters proceeded through the courts, as we asked for time after the appeals were over and the matter was perhaps pending in front of the federal Cabinet and so on. Of course everyone was aware that there was this bill in Parliament. What I ended up suggesting to all of the legal counsel involved was that their execution date be set for November 30, 1976.

 

Although no one else knew it, I knew that there were 12 executions set for November 30, 1976, in Canada. This would have become apparent to the Cabinet if they had to be dealing with these cases after I left. I rather hoped, I have to say, that the shock value of looking at the possibility of 12 executions in different parts of the country on the same day might have had some influence on the Cabinet's thinking when they came to it - never mind the practicality of finding anyone who actually knew how to carry out an execution, which probably would have been an impossibility.

 

As it happens, of course you know that the legislation did pass in Parliament and the Criminal Code was amended, I'm very happy to say. I was interested to hear your comments on capital punishment as well. Thank you for that, and I thought you might be interested in hearing this small footnote to legal history.

 

MR. LANDRY: Thank you for sharing that. It's an honour to know that and to know that you put on that pressure. I remember reading the whole story. Of course I was a police officer at that time and many of my colleagues held the view, they'd say hang the - and they'd use the "B" word. They had no mercy. I guess that was part of the culture of the day and I think many police officers today may hold that view, but not as prevalent as it was back then.

 

I remember one of my courses in criminology about capital punishment - and I was also taking a course in new world religions, which was just a phenomenal course to take. The professor was from England and I'd taken it by teleconference. The professor would come to each of the sites around the province in Manitoba and we formed a good personal relationship and I got to meet guys like Timothy Leary on the telephone and Eldridge Cleaver, a Black Panther, and a number of other significant people of the era and actually speak with them and we talked about the new wave.

 

In that as well, when I was dealing with the issue of capital punishment my beliefs were based on Christian belief and so if I believed in that and if I believed in democracy, I felt it would be hypocritical to support capital punishment. That's one of the things when I look at our neighbours to the south, especially the Christian movement, and say in the land of the free - not that I want to be picking on them, we've got our own in our own country, but I'm just using that as an example. I go down to the United States quite regularly and I talk to people of that very same persuasion there and they carry guns and their belief in guns - about how they rationalize that it's okay to have capital punishment.

 

We know in Texas - and of course the President came from Texas and he signed, I think, 140-some death certificates, and we know from different books that are written that there are some innocent people there. I couldn't imagine being an Attorney General - well I can imagine, I am one - but I mean being one that had the decision to make to sign that document. I would never sign it. It just wouldn't happen. To have a society that has those views is in conflict with what I think is reasonable thought, but it says to us as a society that we're going to arbitrarily single someone out because of their behaviour and you're going to put them to death.

 

When we're dealing with something today, when we talk about the bullying issue, how it's all connected and how we value people and how we respect people - and so for me I know I've always held strong views in regard to that. I know in my previous life and career that there are many who had the opposite view. I would try to keep my views stable then, but we all have our views.

 

I'm glad you shared that with me and I know that we're stronger as a society if we respect life and value life. When I look at the Clifford Olsons and reading some of the cases and the facts of the Bernardos or Captain Williams, the crimes that they commit and you say well, they should be put to death. When you look at that, you can't in any way condone in any form or concept of what they've done but, as a society, to lock them up and say you're never getting out and that's where you're going to be, I think it sends a stronger message because I haven't known yet of someone who has been put to death, how it solved future crime or how it prevented it because it still continues.

 

As a society, if you support capital punishment then you support violence in your society, so I've got many views on it but the bottom line is that I share your position in that.

 

MR. EPSTEIN: Well thank you. I know I raised it as a footnote to history, going back to 1976, but unfortunately the issue does come up again as a possibility of reinstating this in Canada now and I'm very sorry that topic does come up from time to time.

 

In any event, maybe I'll move on to another issue if I may. I wanted actually to talk about how your department through its staff lawyers examines any legislation for its constitutionality. This is something that has just floated around as a small interest of mine for a while but has been in the news again recently because of an issue with the federal Department of Justice. I can remember on a couple of occasions when our Party was still in the Opposition, raising issues about the possible constitutional questionability of some bills that the government introduced at the time.

 

I'm afraid I can't remember the details but I do remember speaking across the floor to the late Michael Baker, who was then the Minister of Justice, and promising him that I would stop giving lectures on constitutional law just as soon as he stopped introducing unconstitutional bills. This had happened a couple of times and I can't remember whether the points I was concerned about had to do with separation of powers and were we perhaps straying into an area of federal jurisdiction or whether the points I was concerned about had to do with possible Charter violations. I'm afraid the instances are just gone.

 

Something I think I raised at the time and I don't think I ever got an answer about was what kind of a preliminary review or screening takes place inside the department to make sure that this issue has actually been addressed. It seems a sort of fundamental issue to look at and I suppose to a certain extent, each lawyer in the Department of Justice, whether they're assigned to another government department or not, would almost automatically think about that.

 

I was put in mind of this by a couple of things recently, one was issues around cyberbullying, for example, where we've been encouraged to implement all the recommendations from Wayne MacKay's task force and I think one of them had to do with making cyberbullying a crime, yet it's pretty clear that we probably really don't have any kind of jurisdiction to do this; if it's going to be a crime it's going to be a federal Criminal Code matter. In any event, they also have jurisdiction over telecommunications and that's also their responsibility so there's not a lot we can actually do, in terms of making it an outright crime. If we tried to do it we would be kind of straying into federal jurisdiction and it would make a bill like that unconstitutional. That was the first thing that put it into my mind.

 

The second thing, though, was the little fuss that's going on in the federal Department of Justice at the moment. I don't know if you followed this but there is actually a Department of Justice lawyer named Edgar Schmidt who has now actually started a lawsuit in federal court against his own minister, the federal Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General, essentially saying that he is failing to advise Parliament properly when legislation is introduced that might have a constitutionally dubious basis.

 

It turns out - this is something I have to say that I didn't know - there is actually a section of the Department of Justice Act, Section 4.1, that requires the federal Attorney General to advise Parliament if there is something that is sort of questionable about the constitutionality of bills that are in front of them. Naturally the minister is responding to this lawsuit by saying that it's ultimately for the courts to sort out and there are different degrees of constitutionality or alleged unconstitutionality and so on and that he hasn't violated his duty.

 

I guess that first, I'm not aware that we have any kind of comparable statutory provision in Nova Scotia, although I'd be happy to be corrected on this and learn about it, but it also occurred to me that this kind of scrutiny should take place. I know that when bills come forward they come in front of a committee that I happen to Chair, the legislation committee that looks at bills. Certainly almost all the lawyers in the Legislature are on our side, on the government side. I think there's only the member for Richmond on the Opposition benches who is a lawyer. So we have several lawyers amongst our members so we could turn our minds to this.

 

At the same time, being a lawyer doesn't make you an expert necessarily in constitutional law, unless that happens to be your focus. I guess I wondered if there was a formal mechanism inside the department; is there someone who is the designated specialist, for example, in constitutional law, whose job it is to review all legislative proposals and ask themselves the question, does this accord with the division of powers? Does this accord with the provisions of the Charter or is it kind of left to each individual solicitor who might be touching on the RFLs to turn their minds to it and then perhaps to the legislation committee.

 

I raise this point and I'd be happy to hear comments on this from you. Thank you.

 

MR. LANDRY: How much time do we have left?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Approximately 20 minutes.

 

MR. LANDRY: Okay, because I'll need about 10 minutes for the closing. Thank you for the question. Within the Department of Justice we have a few lawyers who have expertise in constitutional law. Not all pieces of legislation would go to the constitutionality for review. Some items do, especially when we're partnering with issues that we're trying to move the federal government on, so before we take a position we get that reviewed in that sense to move forward.

 

Constitutional law is something that interested me when I was in law school. I found it a very interesting subject, very exciting, especially from the historical structure and how each thing falls back and how you can really go back in history to make the decision for today and how that plays.

 

The telecommunications and the cyberbullying, one of the reasons I'm going to Ottawa this week is to address that issue of the cyberbullying and to look at the change that needs to be made. Now I understand from a national perspective why telecommunications is the responsibility of the federal government. I think when you look at a nation and trying to move forward, that's a very important way, rather than having 10 or 12 different policies in a country that you're trying to market your research and your system and to try and unify a nation and have it unified, so I understand that and what needs to occur.

 

I think as a Justice Department, we have good working relationships with our federal counterparts. It's going to be critical as we move forward and as there are the technology changes in how we move in the next decade or so, we have to have a process or system where we can adapt and change with the technological changes and ensure that the law is reflective of the current technology. Of course I've used the word a couple of times in the last week about - we're in a cultural lag as a society in many different forms. The technology is advancing much further than the culture is adapting and so there is that lag process. It's causing us - as we're starting to see in this issue on cyberbullying and the Parsons case - it has raised for me a number of issues of how we really need to think because it's not just change a law and you solve the problem.

 

It's a matter of understanding the social structure of society and how one interacts with the law and how the law influences and what we need to do to keep a balance there between societal needs and what rights are out there, and how at the same time we look at whatever rules we make - how does it involve the economy and how does it affect our ability to commercialize our products to compete with other nations and other countries and how we have to look at bringing different perspectives together in Canada and to have that approach where we can be competitive. That's why with the free trade agreements, when you look back at the NAFTA agreement when it originally started, it allowed itself some mechanisms there to change with the global economy. At the same time, the east-west transition in Canada from an economic perspective was somewhat restrictive and - how do I say it? - somewhat archaic, well, not "somewhat" archaic - archaic. That's why we are seeing changes in standard. I mean, if a person is certified in a bar in B.C., why do they have to write the bar in Nova Scotia? Why wouldn't they be a certified lawyer? When it comes to civil procedures of the province, why wouldn't they just do that?

 

I was just using that as an example; the ability for the person to make a business in Alberta, why couldn't they compete for business in Nova Scotia? It's because we protected that, but in a free market system now, that's opening up so we have to look at whether it's in law or I look at health - why a doctor who is licensed in Nova Scotia, why wouldn't they be able to just walk in? Well they can - they've relaxed some of the rules. The same with the dental hygienists - I'll use that as an example - they are now writing a national exam. They've developed a national exam for that industry and the person who passes that national exam can then apply for certification in other provinces so they're not restricted from working. The standard is the national exam - they meet that standard, they're in.

 

When we look at our laws and from a constitutional perspective, is to make sure that whatever laws that we have, that they allow free commerce. In a capitalist free trade society you have to have those mechanisms that allow that person - while at the same time you have to have systems and processes that respect individual diversity within the country and regional needs and so it's how you balance that in free trade. Even though we're talking about making laws in telecommunication or dealing with the cyberbullying, you change something there and it could have an influence on how the concept is put somewhere else. It's not unlike if we start to commercialize the water and allow access, how that will no longer be our resource, and the world could come in and take it and of course that's going to be more valuable than the oil in the ground. In fact, it is right now more expensive. A lot of people don't see that, but when you buy a bottle of water it's far more costly per gallon than a bottle of gasoline at the same volume.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are five or six minutes left in the time, Mr. Epstein, for your questioning before we leave 10 minutes for a closing statement.

 

MR. EPSTEIN: Since you've mentioned a couple of times about cyberbullying, did I understand that you're going to have one-on-one meetings with the federal minister or is this part of the general meeting of Ministers of Justice? Is it on the agenda of the meeting of all Ministers of Justice?

 

MR. LANDRY: Well, the answer is that the meeting with all the other ministers was set up to be for the victims of crime, which will tie into that to some degree. I am having a private meeting with the minister to talk specifically about the circumstances that have occurred here in Nova Scotia last week.

 

Also, I should share with you that I've touched base, or my office has touched base, with the other Ministers of Justice from across the country and I'm not sure if we have 100 per cent yet but we have the overwhelming majority in support of our position that we wrote out. There are two points I wanted to move the federal minister on; one is on the redevelopment of pictures and distribution of imaging, so pictures. That's a promise I had made to Ms. Parsons in a private meeting I had with her at the time, just after the death of her daughter, it was overwhelming. I agreed with her position and I told her that we would work on that with our staff.

 

It should be noted, and I say it wherever I can, but the Department of Justice, I was just blown away when I looked at the work that staff completed, the staff that I have the privilege to be a partner with, was second to none in the way that they framed this and developed the materials and have us prepared for the federal government and how we're going to be able to approach them with a very succinct perspective.

 

The second point that we're going to meet with the federal government on with the Justice Minister was on cybercrime. There's a working group, which Dan MacRury from our Crown Prosecutor section was working on. He's an expert in that area, has been on it since 2000, I think, so he's on the national committee with that.

 

Their work has been ongoing and we have been working in this for some time. I'm going to ask the federal minister to put tighter timelines, to get some work moved forward because if time was on our side, then I'd say be more patient and take that. But with what has happened here now and what has happened in B.C. with the young girl there last year, there are going to be other cases. We need to be moving forward quickly and then we can put a piece of legislation in, hopefully that meets our needs, and then allows it to be changed as the need requires to do that.

 

I'm excited about that opportunity. I'm appreciative of the federal government giving us the opportunity to speak in this regard and to meet. I know I took a couple of shots at the federal government earlier on some of their ideological approaches but on this issue we have a lot of common ground and their commitment, I think when it comes to the victims of crime, we're not too far distant.

 

I don't want to mix the political concept of saying we're doing something for the victims of crime because it sells good in politics, versus actually doing something that addresses the needs of the victims of crime while, at the same time, ensuring that we're doing crime prevention initiatives and enhancing the social equity of our society so that we prevent people that we know there's a correlation between the social economic structure of their upbringing and crime.

 

It's one thing to say we're going to make things better for victims and look at that. One of the challenges I put to the Justice Department over a year and a half ago is that we have to make sure in the language that we use and how we move forward with policies that we're taking the victims of crime and making them the main ingredient because we used to put just the accused and the justice system as the primary focus. I think it's incumbent today, unlike when I talked about the SIRT team, it was timely, it is timely now to put more of our resources and focuses on those who are victimized by crime.

 

When we talk about being victimized by crime, that comes right back to what I think is a key message for us, as a government, is making life better for today's families, so how do we stabilize and make that approach and how do we put that equality of life in there.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, and members, there's about 10 minutes remaining and the minister wanted about 10 minutes for closing.

 

Minister, a closing statement. We certainly have about nine or 10 minutes.

 

MR. LANDRY: Can you give me a two-minute warning?

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly, by all means.

 

MR. LANDRY: I want to say thank you for giving us the opportunity for the Department of Justice to speak here today and to present last night and today. I want to thank my staff. I know I e-mailed them yesterday afternoon and said, guess what? I need my book. I'd like to read it over for the weekend and I'd like to have it in my hand. They got that message. I could hear them scrambling down there at the office and saying, oh, we'll get this ready for him. Not to be short-lived by that, but a few minutes later, I said, by the way, things have changed, we're going to estimates within the hour, as I got told that we were going to go there.

 

The quality of work that they do and they have done continually is second to none and they presented me with the book and they were here within 30 minutes and ready to make sure that I got materials. Of course, at the same time, this past week for the staff in the Department of Justice with the Parsons case and the expectation that the Premier's Office and the government itself has put on the issue of cyberbullying - and I compliment the government for that - but the work that my communications staff and the lawyers who are working there and the deputy minister - I'm not so sure how much time she got to sleep. I don't know if she got as much as I did and I didn't get a whole lot.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that they're a totally dedicated operation. We don't always get it right at the Department of Justice, but one thing we always do is go with the right intention and we see something that needs to change, we're quick to recognize that and make that adaptation.

 

Last night I made the comment after I read the 210 pages. Although it's a 210-page speech, but it's big print - as Ms. Regan mentioned last night to us. At the end of it I said, I'm some glad I didn't have to read that beforehand, but what I was really meaning is that it was very well done. It articulated all the key points, but reading it through it was so well done that I didn't need to pre-read it and so it covered it, and just reading it at that point, it covered most of what I felt and what I believed to be important. So for me and my job, it's nice to be in tune and the staff and my partners in the Department of Justice are very cognizant of the issues and what's important and how they're able to articulate that in such a succinct way and so I thank them for that.

 

I want to as well thank - like EMO didn't get much coverage here, but I'd like the message to go back to them. The director of EMO, I don't bother with them too much because they do such a great job and they're doing outstanding work in what they're doing around the province.

 

I want to give a particular note to the director of Correctional Services. He has done a phenomenal job in addressing many serious problems there. That's the same with sheriffs. I know we didn't talk much about sheriffs here today. We talked about corrections, but the job that they do along with the director of our Court Services, they're under the gun. They're in construction, their facilities are being overhauled in many ways; there are security issues. The job - I can just imagine when they come to work each day - their environment in total flux quite often, and so I compliment them and the leadership there and the work that they do.

 

The Public Prosecutions, I'm glad to see that the budget was adjusted to meet the demands and the pressure and the director was able to articulate his position and make that known. Our government came through and provided them that. I do send out the caution that we have to live within our means and so there are ways that we've always got to be vigilant and creative in how we do that.

 

I know that my colleague to the left here, Mr. Penny, and the job that he has done - I knew, being put under the gun yesterday, that there were challenges but one thing I knew for sure was that it was well organized and there's not a thing that I'm going to be asked in there that this gentleman didn't know how to get me that information or I felt so confident that I didn't need a whole lot of preparation. He has been on top of the money and the management and takes his job so seriously to manage the taxpayers' money and ensures that the deputy has the current information so that when we have demands and pressures that are put on her regularly to make decisions about funding and no shortcoming, the cybercrime and issues this week and how we have to find money to balance things out of our current budgets because there's no new dollars, although some will say well your budget did go up, but when you really stop and look at our budget, we took over other areas that other departments had to make it more efficient and effective.

 

Now demands of our department expanded but their pay didn't and their resources didn't. In fact we're still looking at ways in which to reduce the personnel that we have and maintain the programs with the dollars we have to operate.

 

I want to thank my colleagues here for allowing me today really to reflect on some issues that I believe from a sociological perspective are very important and for people to know where I stand, as the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General because to be private and not to be out there as to how you think and feel I think is a disservice to people who you are supposed to serve because it's a job that people need to know where I stand and why and what I have conviction for, but also to know that when I'm wrong, I'm prepared to change and to adapt and to listen to reason. I think that's a critical point.

 

I know I was asked some questions today and I want to make it very clear in this forum - because there were some questions that were pointed that I took exception to - about the Acadian community that were put in a tone made to imply that we, as a government, that me, as a minister, are not sensitive, loving or caring of the Acadian culture or community. I took exception to that and I'll make it a matter of record that I firmly believe and that this government firmly supports the French-language expansion in this province, that we believe in the Acadian culture and that I believe in that and I support that.

 

I know there have been some politics played around the electoral boundaries issue but at no time, as the chairman in that or in this whole process, that it did not believe in the integrity of the right of each individual's vote to be valued as important, while at the same time having a mechanism that respects the cultural diversity not only of the Acadian community but our First Nations community and our African Nova Scotian community and our other minority groups. I felt, from an honest position, that having the 25 per cent margin respected all of those and that in no way that my position or views are negative towards any cultural identity in this province and that they have my support.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E12 stand?

 

Resolution E12 stands.

Resolution E21 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $560,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the FOIPOP Review Office, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E23 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $2,449,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E27 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $426,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Nova Scotia Police Complaints Commissioner, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

Resolution E 32 - Resolved that a sum not exceeding $20,700,000 be granted to the Lieutenant governor to defray expenses in respect of the Public Prosecution Service, pursuant to the Estimate.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolutions carry?

 

The resolutions are carried.

 

MR. LANDRY: I notice I didn't make comment earlier there about the FOIPOP and I thank the director there for her document that we presented the other day. I hope I haven't left anybody out but if I did - I see the Human Rights Commission there. I want to just say that I believe in restorative justice and I'm very pleased with the work that they have done from a restorative perspective. I'm very thankful that you've given me the opportunity to express the views of the Department of Justice. I couldn't be happier to be part of the Justice team. Thank you.

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Department of Justice estimates.

 

We stand adjourned.

 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 1:40 p.m.]