[Page 427]
HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2003
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON SUPPLY
9:13 A.M.
CHAIRMAN
Mr. David Hendsbee
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Supply to order, please. This is Thursday, April 17th. It is now day seven in debate of the Nova Scotia budget estimates for the fiscal year 2003-04. We are still continuing debate on the estimates of the Department of Energy. We have before us the Honourable Ernest Fage. The time of commencement this morning is 9:13 a.m. We have four hours, hopefully, today to conclude some of our business. At the time of adjournment, we still had time from the Independent member for Cape Breton The Lakes who has up to 40 minutes remaining in his time.
The honourable Minister of Energy.
HON. ERNEST FAGE: Mr. Chairman, at the time of adjournment we were listing a number of programs that we're involved in, the skills training. Should I resume where we left off and finish that question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If the honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes wishes to follow that answer.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: No, the reply I received that day, Mr. Chairman, would be sufficient for me, thank you. I am very much aware that the minister has programs in his department that he could use as a resource, but I'm not so sure there is any funding in those programs so I am not going to go into programs too much.
427
[Page 428]
[9:15 a.m.]
Mr. Minister, what I would like to ask you, there are ways that I could bring this up, but I am going to be right upfront, the Point Aconi Generating Station, there is a study through the tar ponds that would suggest that some of that material could be burned in that facility. Would that involve your department if the proposal were put forward that would suggest any burning of this waste at Point Aconi?
MR. FAGE: I think that question would be more properly asked of the Department of Environment and Labour. They would be the ones that would issue the permits to allow such material to be combusted.
MR. BOUDREAU: I understand that it would be the Department of Environment and Labour and other departments as well, but I guess my question is will your department be involved in the process as well?
MR. FAGE: Since Nova Scotia Power is a private company, other than if the material burned generated energy and would be reported to us on a yearly summation of Nova Scotia Power's annual power production, that would probably be the only contact. Materials such as that, if it was combusted, would be under permit from the Department of Environment and Labour.
MR. BOUDREAU: I know open-pit mining is proposed in Cape Breton. Have you done any proposals or any consulting with communities where this open-pit mining is proposed?
MR. FAGE: Again, those enquiries would be more properly addressed to the Department of Natural Resources that has the responsibility for mining.
MR. BOUDREAU: We will go to wind power, Mr. Minister. In a lot of parts of Nova Scotia they're struggling to find new ways to come up with energy, particularly ways to create energy for power. Is there any such proposal for the Cape Breton area?
MR. FAGE: There are a number of companies or associations, groups that are looking at opportunities for renewable energy or cogen energy. Certainly, renewable energy, there had been a proposal by Nova Scotia Power to put up a test wind turbine in Cape Breton. They had some public consultation, and local residents had some concerns. Eventually, those two turbines, when they settled on two, were established at Little Brook and Grand Étang in Nova Scotia.
MR. BOUDREAU: Does your department have any funding for research purposes?
[Page 429]
MR. FAGE: Yes, we would partner on some research and training projects with educational institutions or private ventures.
MR. BOUDREAU: Communities that are proposed for open-pit mining, are they going to have an input into the process? Will there be a process put in place?
MR. FAGE: Again, those enquiries would be better put to the Department of Natural Resources which deals with the question of mining.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you have any process where you can communicate with the other ministers?
MR. FAGE: There's no question, ministers within the government meet on a regular basis. Certainly, if an issue is raised with one minister, they would ensure that another minister, in most cases, was aware of a situation.
MR. BOUDREAU: The Louisbourg area, is there a proposal for any wind turbines in that area?
MR. FAGE: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge there has been no proposal that has come forward for that specific area. Nova Scotia Power, as you're aware, has a call for proposals for up to 50 megawatts of power of renewable energy through wind generation. I think if the area was suitable - there are no site locations yet - any area of Nova Scotia could be possible.
MR. BOUDREAU: Have you ever visited the Wreck Cove generating project?
MR. FAGE: I have not visited Wreck Cove.
MR. BOUDREAU: Is there any proposal to expand that facility?
MR. FAGE: Again, Wreck Cove is owned by Nova Scotia Power. I am not aware of any proposals that have come forward to our department to discuss with us that they would be expanding that project.
MR. BOUDREAU: The ability to expand that facility, is that available to your department?
MR. FAGE: If Nova Scotia Power as a matter of course was to expand any facility to generate more power, decommissioning it as a matter of course they would advise us. But I'm not aware of any proposal that they're prepared to increase or decrease capacity there.
[Page 430]
MR. BOUDREAU: But if the demand becomes greater than what it is today in that particular area, does that facility have the availability to expand to create greater output?
MR. FAGE: Certainly aware that Nova Scotia Power are looking at their facilities because they intend to increase their peaking ability with power production, but whether it would take place at that facility or another facility, I wouldn't have any knowledge of their intentions at this point.
MR. BOUDREAU: I'm not asking you that, Mr. Minister, I'm asking you about the facility. Is the facility suitable for expansion if it's required? That's all I'm asking.
MR. FAGE: I couldn't answer that question. You would have to ask Nova Scotia Power.
MR. BOUDREAU: If there was a need for new energy needs in the province would you review the existing facilities to see if they could be upgraded to expand before you began a process such as open-pit mining?
MR. FAGE: Nova Scotia Power is a private company, and as time goes by, obviously they will have to increase power generation. At this point, their observations to us when they look at increased peaking would deal with, in most cases, adapting the current turbines to natural gas to create that extra power. I have no knowledge of any intention on coal production or those types of issues. Again, that would be the Department of Natural Resources that would be involved there if they were looking at a project.
MR. BOUDREAU: I want to go to the offshore for a little bit. I want to ask you about training. I know you told me that you have all kinds of training programs, and Marconi College which is a first-rate facility, there's no doubt about that, but I want to ask you about one particular school, and that's the drilling school located in North Sydney, Cape Breton North. It's owned by an individual there, he has the highest rate of success for his students, I believe it's approximately 88 per cent. Your government and the federal government - it's in between - you won't authorize this school. This gentleman has students coming from P.E.I., New Brunswick, Newfoundland, being paid for by the federal government through the funding programs, and because it's not recognized by your government, Nova Scotians are not eligible to receive any funding from the federal government, particularly EI, processed through there. Mr. Minister, I know you're familiar with that process. I guess my question is, why is this school not classified as a proper drilling school?
MR. FAGE: I take it that it's a private operation, or private trade school? You wouldn't have the name of it so that I could . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: Yes, I do. I could use the gentleman's name and everything, but I prefer to do this - you want to correct a problem, I don't want to create a problem.
[Page 431]
MR. FAGE: I certainly would give an undertaking to see if we can . . .
MR. BOUDREAU: It's the Northside Drilling School, it's located at the Exhibition Grounds in North Sydney. The honourable gentleman there is a Mr. Reg MacDonald.
MR. FAGE: Okay.
MR. BOUDREAU: I can provide the phone number, I do have it. As soon as I'm through my questions I'll obtain it from my notebook.
MR. FAGE: I certainly would undertake that we'd have contact with the individual involved and see if there's anything we can do to straighten out the circumstances.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you for that, Mr. Minister. Mr. MacDonald, he's just mystified. The federal government blames the provincial government and the provincial government blames the federal government and in the meantime Nova Scotians are losing out on opportunities. This gentleman really does have a good relationship with the oil companies. I can provide a file that I have with letters of recommendation; and this guy is real. I am very familiar with the economic situation in that community. I live there, I represented the community since 1991. I can't figure this out. This is just why Cape Breton is in the mess that it's in. This individual works hard, he's puts 200 per cent into everything and I think he deserves a fair playing field. I don't think that's unreasonable to ask for. So I do appreciate, Mr. Minister, that you would have your staff contact this person and try to deal with his situation. I honestly do appreciate that.
I don't want to sound like I'm picking on Nova Scotia Power here but the Point Aconi Generating Station is located in my constituency. It's on a little island that's only 8 miles long and 16 miles wide. Most people appreciate the utilized bed not being used any more because of the high demand for water from the aquifer. However, the Millville area, in particular, continues to be devastated with well water problems. Mr. Minister, I know this isn't energy but it is an issue that affects the community and I'm not suggesting for one minute that Nova Scotia Power is taking all the water from the homeowners. I'm not suggesting that for one minute and I want to make sure that's understood. But I will say that they are contributing to the problem, there's a lot of farms in there, we have a lot of people on Boularderie Island employed in the farming industry. It's one of the most viable industries in Cape Breton at the moment.
With the closure of Devco and Sysco, there's basically, on the Northside in particular, only farming and Marine Atlantic left. So, we have these other facilities that employ people, but there's a lot of people employed in the farming industry on Boularderie Island. There's Eyking Farms there, there's the Niesten family farm operation, Morrison's, there's all kinds of operations that employ people, and this water problem is an issue for that community, particularly in the Millville area. I guess my question is, does your department monitor the
[Page 432]
groundwater readings? I know there's test wells, I'm very familiar with this facility. In fact, the former Tory Government, prior to 1993, placed me on the liaison committee, so I'm pretty familiar with that project. It is a world-class facility and the people who work in that facility in Point Aconi are a unique brand of employees with Nova Scotia Power, believe me. They work hard, they contribute and they run a first-class facility and they're to be congratulated. I am not beating up on these facilities or the employees. What I am trying to address is the concern in the community in regard to the well water. Now, could you provide some comments in regard to this situation, please?
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. FAGE: The Utility and Review Board would license or supervise the operation of Point Aconi and Point Aconi, as you know and you've pointed out, is a vital piece of Nova Scotia Power's power generation capacity, as well it provides the employment and a vital piece of that community. There's no question there are multiple users on the water availability and supply there, but the Department of Environment and Labour then would do the permitting after the URB does their licensing on use of that water, who can use it and how it would be used.
I guess there are a number of communities in Nova Scotia that I've interacted with in the last few years and under the recent federal-provincial infrastructure program where the province provides one-third of the funding and the federal government matches that and the municipality then supplies the remaining one-third, a number of communities under the green initiative, so-called with infrastructure, water or waste management have been the key and infrastructures that have been put in. I'm not familiar enough with that particular community, whether the local municipality, and they're the one that has to request it, obviously that has to be their number one priority, but if that is a viable option, there's always a situation where one may want to tap into another water source and pipe it to the residents there under an infrastructure agreement in the future. I assume the ones in the future certainly will have a green connotation as well.
MR. BOUDREAU: Thank you for that, Mr. Minister. I know that the Department of Environment and Labour is the department that is the watchdog here, but I'm just hopeful that your department is also keeping a watch on this. I don't want to say I distrust the Department of Environment and Labour, because I do have a good relationship with them, particularly in the Sydney office. They're good staff in there and they do good work and they monitor to the best of their ability, but I would remind the minister that they are being provided the information by Nova Scotia Power, and most of the local residents are concerned about this because they feel it's similar to the fox guarding the henhouse. It just creates an air of uncertainty I guess, and it just doesn't make anybody comfortable.
[Page 433]
I'm going to close up now, Mr. Minister. All I want to do is acknowledge to you that I have been in contact with some of your staff in the last year for detail or information on different programs and I've always been met with professionalism, and you should be very proud of your staff who put a strong effort in. I noticed they certainly had a positive attitude, which is important. I want to congratulate your staff, particularly, for their efforts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FAGE: I want to thank you for your comments and I feel the same as you, the staff is excellent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions for this minister from the government caucus members? No. Does anyone from the NDP caucus have any further questions? No. No one left from the Liberal caucus to ask questions here this morning. So I will leave it to the minister for closing remarks.
The honourable Minister of Energy.
HON. ERNEST FAGE: Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, an earlier questioner had asked questions on offshore licences and, just for the record, I had them checked and would like to read them in. The number of exploration licences in the offshore are 57. The number of significant discoveries is 22. The number of significant discovery licences are 33 and the number of production licences is six and those consist of four on the SOEP and two on the Cohasset/Panuke area. So I just wanted to read those into the record for clarification.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee and the members of the caucuses who participated in the estimates debate on the Department of Energy. I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff who have participated, and take this opportunity to thank the staff in the entire department. They are first-rate public servants and work very hard on behalf of the residents and the people of Nova Scotia who are proud of their accomplishments, and every day they're out there making sure Nova Scotia's interest is upheld and looking for more opportunities to grow our oil and gas production here onshore and offshore. So I would like to thank them and move my estimates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Resolution E5 stand?
Resolution E5 is stood.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
I now call forward the Minister of Justice.
[Page 434]
Resolution E10 - Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $99,417,000 be granted to the Lieutenant Governor to defray expenses in respect of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Estimate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call the honourable members to order. In regard to the Department of Justice, we have the minister. I would like to welcome you. I believe it's your first time to the Red Room during estimates debate. The rest of your tenure in this House for estimates this past term has been in the Chamber under a different portfolio. So I would like to welcome you first and foremost to the Red Room.
I will be asking you and your senior staff that if there are any requests that are made by any of the caucuses that you provide those to myself as chairman of the committee, as well to all three of the caucuses collectively. So if the Liberal caucus should ask for some information, that information is to be shared with all the caucuses at one time and, subsequently, with the NDP, or if we should ask for any information. Is that understood? Understood, thank you.
The time is now 9:40 a.m. The honourable Minister of Justice, you have an opportunity to do some opening remarks and some introductions of your senior staff.
The honourable Minister of Justice.
HON. JAMES MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here this morning. You're right, this is my first time in the Red Room in my new portfolio and I appreciate the opportunity to open the debate today with a few remarks. I would like to begin with introducing the staff who are with me. To my left is Deputy Minister Doug Keefe. This is the member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, Kevin Deveaux; Graham Steele is the member for Halifax Fairview; David Hendsbee, the chairman, is the member for Preston; Cecil O'Donnell is my caucus colleague, the member for Shelburne; and Mark Parent, my caucus colleague, the member for Kings North. I always have trouble with the Kings constituencies, there are three of you, North, South . . .
Anyway I would also like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking the department for their work in putting these estimates together. I have another person here whom I would like to extend particular thanks to this morning, directly behind me is Michele McKinnon who has been the Director of Communications in the Department of Justice for quite some number of years and was particularly helpful to me as I tried to orient myself to my new responsibilities.
Michele has been with the department, I believe, for seven and a half years and today is her last day in Justice. I would like to thank her formally, Mr. Chairman, for her seven and a half years of exemplary service to the Department of Justice and the field partners that we have. She has made many contributions. I also have a big personal thanks to say to her for
[Page 435]
how well she has helped orient me to my new responsibilities and, believe me, to get into a department which is really something you don't know anything about - even in Health, everybody was an expert because they had been to a doctor at one time, so I guess I was among them, but in Justice she was particularly helpful to me and I don't know, quite frankly, how I would have coped initially, without her assistance.
So, Michele, thank you, and I would say on behalf of my colleagues in the Department of Justice and those here, we want to thank you for what you've done for our department and also wish you every success as you move to the Office of Economic Development, and good luck with straightening out Minister Clarke.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice is the largest corporate organization in government. We have more direct employees than anybody else. Indeed, in the Department of Justice, we have something like 1,400 or 1,500 direct employees. That's more direct employees than even in the Department of Health. We have a number of field partners, and the system doesn't work if the partners don't work. For example, my colleague, the member for Shelburne, he has an institution in his constituency which is an integral part of the Department of Justice. The member for Kings North, one of his neighbouring people also has an institution with an integral part of the Department of Justice. We have courts and the Public Prosecution Service, we have Legal Aid and we have institutions right across this province.
So, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice is a big department and, geographically, like others I guess, it covers the whole province, but we've got a lot of particular things. I should also add that to my right is Clarence Guest, our Director of Finance. He's not only the Director of Finance for the Department of Justice, but Clarence looks after the Corporate Services Units for the Office of the Premier, the Executive Council Office, Intergovernmental Affairs, the Public Prosecution Service, the Human Rights Commission, the Police Commission, the FOIPOP Review Office, Aboriginal Affairs, Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Treasury and Policy Board, the Public Service Commission, Communications Nova Scotia, Voluntary Planning, and the Council of Atlantic Premiers. So Clarence and his staff not only look after what we normally think as the Justice functions, but provides the corporate backup for - well, quite a large number - 15 departments counting our own Finance Department. We also provide the technology and human resource function for those entities.
Just to speak a little bit about Clarence who has been around for a number of years, Clarence had an interesting conversation with one of my colleagues the other day. There was some talk in government about shuffling around some of the human resource responsibilities and I don't know if that has been affected yet or not, anyway, when I broached this with one of the people who is potentially to be affected, she nearly had a fit. It wasn't so much about the human resource thing, but she figured she was going to lose Clarence and his service. She was very much alarmed, Clarence, so you have at least one other fan besides me.
[Page 436]
Anyway, I want to highlight some of the expenditures of the Department of Justice and note the positive impact that they have. I also think it's important that members are aware of some of the initiatives that are currently underway and the priorities we are focusing on within the Justice enterprise.
[9:45 a.m.]
I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by outlining some of the intentions with respect to technology change. As some of you may know, Nova Scotia has one of the most advanced integrated information systems for the Justice Department that exists in our country. It's called JOIS, or the Justice Oriented Information System. It has been providing on-line access to offender information for the courts, Crowns, Correction Services and the police for some number of years. This system is now being redeveloped and will have an even greater number of functions. The Justice Enterprise Information Network, which the new one is called, or JEIN - we're going from JOIS to JEIN - will help us meet the requirements of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. It will provide a case management system for community corrections, integrate provincial information relating to our Restorative Justice Program and will improve the information exchange between the police and the Crowns.
The first phase of this project, which began in 1999, cost about $70,000 and the start-up was fully funded by the federal government. The second phase of the project cost about $140,000 and the federal government's contribution was $100,000. The current phase, which is the actual construction of the system, is expected to cost about $1.7 million and we're recovering about 25 per cent of that amount from the federal government.
It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that a number of other Canadian jurisdictions are interested in the Nova Scotia Department of Justice's expertise in information management. In the very near future we will be signing an agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan to share our computer software program, which I think underscores just how integrated our system truly is.
The federal Youth Criminal Justice Act is now in effect and is having a major impact on the department and its operations. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we will spend about $3.6 million to implement this new legislation. Additionally, there will be one more provincial court judge appointed and that's at a cost of close to $200,000, and of course the support staff for a provincial court judge is about $600,000.
The honourable members may be aware that it is the intention of the Department of Justice to integrate the young offender inmates at the provincial court on Spring Garden Road, in other words to move all the young offender matters up there. Our target to do this is November 1st and there are renovations currently underway in that building to accommodate the Youth Court. We're setting aside this year about $200,000 for jury trials for youth and about an additional $50,000 in court security and prisoner transportation.
[Page 437]
Part of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act involves intensive support and supervision, and Corrections is going to receive about $380,000 to implement that program, and that will include the hiring of additional staff.
The budget documents indicate that there will be fewer beds operating in the Shelburne Youth Centre. There is a formal reduction of about 36 beds to 24, but I just want to emphasize that's more of a paper change than an actual change. The operational capacity of that centre for the past year or so has been about 24, so despite the fact that you will see the formal numbers have been adjusted, it's simply aligning what is occurring with the books. This change was in keeping with the new federal Youth Justice Strategy and it also makes good business sense. There is no sense in keeping a unit open that's not being used.
We're setting aside $189,000 for mental health assessments. Legal Aid will receive about another $700,000 for additional staff and about $550,000 for the Youth Court Support Program. This funding is part of the additional $3 million the provincial government is providing the Legal Aid system. I've said this in the House, but the additional $3 million brings the provincial contribution up to $12.5 million, while the federal government contributes just over $3 million, or the federal government contributes somewhere around 20 per cent. I point that out because Legal Aid was another one of those programs like Medicare, where you were supposed to basically be in a full partnership with the federal government - in other words, 50/50. Because the federal government, in its wisdom, has not met that intended contribution, the province this year was forced to step into that funding breach once again.
The new federal legislation recognizes the value and the importance of the restorative justice process. Because our Restorative Justice Program is so far advanced, we are well equipped to handle the requirements of the new Act. To ensure that the community justice agencies - the ones who actually deliver the Restorative Justice Program - are able to handle any increased demand related to the Act, we've set aside $1 million.
Mr. Chairman, while I'm on the subject of restorative justice, I'd like to reference a report which was released by a group last week which talked about sexual assault and domestic violence cases and their suitability for restorative justice. Indeed, the member for Cole Harbour raised that issue in the House. The Restorative Justice Program in Nova Scotia is available only to youth. Since the program began in 1999 there has been no referral of instances of sexual assault or spousal/partner violence cases to the restorative justice system. We have no plans at this stage to change that situation. On the other hand, we were welcome to continue our dialogue with various interest groups about that particular topic and others which may be of concern to them.
To continue with the subject of family violence, Dean Dawn Russell's report on the effectiveness of the Framework for Action Against Family Violence has provided an important blueprint for the department's response to victims of family violence. As you may
[Page 438]
recall, Dean Russell recommended that ongoing training be provided to justice personnel. That's exactly what the new Justice Learning Centre, which began in 2002 at the community college in Truro, is designed to provide. The response to the centre and the domestic violence training it has provided has been very positive. We look forward to providing on-line learning opportunities in using the network of community college campuses to offer more training opportunities in the future.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, in this morning's paper, members may have seen the article referring to the recent change in the Family Violence Act being supported by a number of people who have had the opportunity to study it, including women's groups. What that particular piece of legislation did on April 1st was enable those who were victims of family violence to have 30-day protection of some assets, including bank accounts and to keep people out of houses and things like that.
Our physical infrastructure is being upgraded. Construction has begun to replace the correctional facility in Yarmouth. This new $8.8 million facility will house up to 38 offenders and will replace the current building which was constructed in 1862. Indeed, if any of you were so inclined and perhaps want to see what a 19th Century jailhouse looks like, go down and visit the correctional facility in Yarmouth. I had the opportunity to be in that about a month ago, or a little bit more than that, when we turned the sod for the new facility. It's a very interesting building. One of the things that I was not impressed with, I guess, was the structure itself, but I want to tell you that you could eat off the floors in there, it's an extremely well-kept facility for its age.
We intend to double the workforce down in Yarmouth to 30. Economically, that should provide an annual payroll of about $1.4 million to the area. We expect that facility to open in the Spring of 2004.
We will also be constructing a new courthouse in Port Hawkesbury. The drawings are almost complete. I think there was some disagreement over a door and a wall, and if we can ever get that straightened out between the judiciary and the people who are going to build the building we'll have a sod turning there very soon.
Members may also recall that we've been in discussions with the developer of the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility and, of course, that's the Burnside facility. As a result of a delayed move in date to the new facility, the department had to house offenders in other areas and did incur some additional costs. Negotiations over that matter have now concluded and, I think, quite successfully; and the department did recover the costs that it was seeking. The province will receive $174,000, and an additional maintenance worker is being hired by the developer to provide on-site maintenance services for the facility.
[Page 439]
We continue to develop a program to assist self-represented litigants in the court system. This is becoming more and more prevalent and we've recognized the need to respond appropriately. We have a number of committed volunteers working on the project. Our objective is to develop realistic programs and tools to assist self-represented litigants at all levels of the courts administered by the province.
We now have a new centralized Justice of the Peace system in place. In response to a number of recent court decisions the department was forced to reconfigure the system of how Justice of the Peace work in the province. The courts were very, very clear. If JPs were to be performing judicial functions they had to be independent of government. There are 14 JPs who work out of the centre in Dartmouth and they report to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. They're responsible for issuing search warrants, warrants for arrest, and conducting bail hearings. The services of this centre operate on a 7/24 basis. Additionally there are a number of JPs in communities around the province available to perform civil wedding ceremonies, swear affidavits, for a fee. However, these individuals are not involved in performing any judicial functions in keeping with the court's direction. The new system appears to be working well.
[10:00 a.m.]
Members may also be aware that the federal government is now committed to the creation of a national sex offender registry. We are working with the federal government to prepare for that registry. We believe the registry can enhance some of the tools police currently use when dealing with high-risk offenders.
We are making sure those who have fines imposed by the courts actually pay up. In partnership with Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, our collection rate on outstanding fines continues to improve. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in the last five years since the inception of the fines collection project an additional $9.1 million in outstanding fines have been collected. For example, during the first seven months of the project, $760,000 was collected. For the period 1998-99, we collected over $1.3 million, and last year we collected over $2 million, which is a little bit more than a 50 per cent increase.
As Minister of Justice I believe it's particularly important that these fines are collected. We cannot stand by and have some offenders undermine the integrity of the justice system by ignoring the fines imposed on them.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to close my opening remarks but I hope they have provided some insight into a number of the projects that have been undertaken this year. What I wanted to do was give some context for the budgetary decisions that were made, although I'm sure there will be some more questions as we proceed through the estimates debate.
[Page 440]
Before we do that, I want to just take a couple of minutes to discuss the Public Prosecution Service. The Public Prosecution Service works very hard for the people of this province representing the public interest in criminal proceedings. I think the member for Cole Harbour did some work as a Crown? Yes. The Public Prosecution Service was established in 1990 under the Public Prosecutions Act and it was the first independent Public Prosecution Service in Canada. It now employs 86 Crowns and has a total of 149 staff members in 19 offices across the province. Last year, the Crowns handled more than 40,000 cases, and it included 38 murders and attempted murders, more than 320 robberies, 400 sexual assaults, 1,400 break and enters and about 3,000 thefts. These were prosecuted on a budget of about $14 million.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to prosecuting all Criminal Code offences in Nova Scotia, the Public Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting cases involving violations of provincial Statutes. The Public Prosecution Service also appeals decisions made by the courts where the service determines that the court has made an error in law.
Since its establishment over 12 years ago, the Public Prosecution Service has prosecuted cases that have garnered national attention, and I guess it would be fair to say some national controversy. As a service, the Public Prosecution Service delivers front-line prosecution service and continues to sharpen its skill and expertise in major and complex cases.
With reference to the Crown Attorneys, some of you may remember that in 2002 an agreement was reached with the Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys' association on a salary- setting mechanism. Salary negotiations concluded with an arbitration decision in September 2001. We're now in the midst of salary negotiations again.
Let me now turn to some of the challenges facing the Public Prosecution Service. The Canadian Justice statistics indicate that Halifax has one of the highest rates of violent crime per capita of any city in the country. In the past year, Public Prosecution Service Halifax office has handled several murders, a contract killing and numerous other cases involving violence. The problem is not unique to Halifax. We had the axe murder of an elderly Cape Breton man, and the death of a little girl on the South Shore recently, due to shaken baby syndrome. Those are but two examples of violent crimes outside of the city.
Major cases require extensive work by Crown Attorneys in preparing the case for court. There are often complex charter challenges to the proceedings. There are usually dozens of witnesses to be interviewed and prepared for the experience of giving evidence in court. There are always expert witness reports to be studied and digested, and more and more often DNA evidence is being introduced in court, which requires extensive consultation by Crown counsel.
[Page 441]
Major cases are complex and high profile. Public safety and the public perception of the justice system are influenced by the outcome of these cases. The PPS has implemented a practice of assigning at least two Crown Attorneys to each major case, one of whom, at least, would be a senior Crown.
Government initiatives to combat organized crime are expected to result in an increase of major prosecutions. The service has to have the resources to respond to the demands of these major events. Some major prosecutions are handled by members of the service's Special Prosecutions section. Crowns, attorneys in the Special Prosecutions section don't have regular court assignments, they simply devote their time to major prosecutions.
The permanent staff complement of the Special Prosecutions section involves a Chief Crown Attorney and four Crown Attorneys. This complement, of course, can handle only a small percentage of the major prosecutions conducted each year. When major cases are conducted by Crown Attorneys, other than those in the Special Prosecutions section, it means that you're taking regular Crown Attorneys into that section to work. This means that you have to backfill the regular Crown Attorney positions sometimes for weeks and months or even years. I guess we have examples like Westray, Operation Hope, and certain historical sexual abuse cases. Therefore PPS must use outside counsel hired on a per diem or term employment basis to backfill in response to major cases.
The PPS policy is of assigning at least two Crowns to all major cases. The anticipated increase in the number of cases, as well as an expected increase in Crown salaries are going to increase the service of staffing costs in 2003-04.
The RCMP investigation into allegations of physical and sexual abuse in the facilities which cared for children and youth in Nova Scotia continues. Operation Hope is the largest criminal investigation ever conducted by the RCMP. The data base containing all the documentation pertaining to the case comprises over 1.5 million documents and 5 million pages.
The RCMP have asked the Public Prosecution Service to provide pre-charge advice in relation to whether there is a realistic prosecution of conviction on any of the potential charges. To respond to the RCMP request, the service assigned six Crown Attorneys, two secretaries and IT support staff, and a paralegal. In order to provide the requested advice, the Crowns had to review all of the relevant documentation in the RCMP database. The review of that file is going to continue throughout this fiscal year. The service has employed term Crowns to backfill for the Crowns working on Operation Hope.
During the last fiscal year, PPS handled cases involving alleged illegal hunting and logging by Aboriginal persons. The conviction in the illegal logging case, Crown v. Marshall et al, is under appeal, and the service must respond. To date, the Crown has been successful in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. A decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal is
[Page 442]
currently being awaited. Of course this case involves a claim of Aboriginal title to most of the land within Nova Scotia. PPS has assigned two lawyers to the appeal proceedings.
Litigation of Aboriginal rights involves the presentation of extensive historical, anthropological and archeological evidence. Presentation of such evidence involves calling numerous expert witnesses. The Crown has to pay the professional fees of these witnesses, as well as their costs when they testify. The expert witness costs relating to Aboriginal law cases could be significant in 2003-04. To respond properly to the demands of these cases, further research is needed by the service, in coordination with other people and agencies. We will seek some support from other departments or agencies in government to help fund this research. The service, obviously, has to backfill for Crown Attorneys who are assigned to conduct trials and appeals involving Aboriginal rights and claims.
A name which has been in the news recently, Cesar Lalo is a convicted pedophile. Years ago, while working as a probation officer, it was determined Mr. Lalo had sexually abused young boys under his supervision. He has already been tried and convicted of those charges, however, there are a number of other sexual assault charges against him. Some of these charges have already gone to trial, a trial which is not yet complete, and two more trials on the rest of these charges are expected in this fiscal year. Prosecution of the outstanding charges against Mr. Lalo are occupying two Crowns and one paralegal. Of course, the service has had to backfill for the two Crown Attorneys.
A former Cape Breton/Antigonish priest was charged just within the last few weeks with 26 counts of indecent assault, gross indecency and rape involving 18 complainants. There were some additional charges filed in Pictou County since the initial ones. The charges date back to the 1950s and, at the time, most of the complainants were children. The complainants are both male and female. There are going to be two Crown Attorneys assigned to prosecuting these charges, and a number of trials are anticipated.
Our Public Prosecution Service is also handling the prosecution of a New Brunswick Provincial Court Judge, a former hospital CEO and two other hospital executives on multiple counts of fraud and breach of trust. The reason for that is that there is a partnership arrangement between provinces, and when you get people like members of the judiciary and others up on charges, they try to bring in a neutral group to do it. This happened to occur up in the Miramichi region.
The Government of Canada has passed new legislation in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The legislation grants additional powers to the police, identifies new offences and establishes new court procedures. The PPS thus could be called upon to provide pre-charge advice to the police in relation to counter-terrorist investigations, liaise with other Provincial Prosecution Services, the Federal Prosecution Service, and international prosecutors on counter-terrorism investigations and prosecutions, provide
[Page 443]
advice to the Minister of Justice on these matters, participate in and conduct the lengthy prosecutions where complex challenges to the new legislative provisions can be anticipated.
To address these demands, the service has assigned one senior Crown Attorney to those responsibilities. This Crown Attorney, obviously, is busy attending training sessions and interprovincial meetings in an effort to be part of the coordination of these counter-terrorism efforts. The province's new Justice of the Peace system, as I indicated earlier, operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Because of this, the Public Prosecution Service has to have Crown Attorneys on duty after hours and on weekends.
[10:15 a.m.]
Mr. Chairman, as members can see, there are a number of challenges facing Nova Scotia's PPS this year and in the future, but I am confident that the PPS will be able to meet these challenges. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will now start with the questioning of your estimates. First of all, we have the NDP caucus, the honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage. Mr. Kevin Deveaux. Your time is now 10:17 a.m. You have up to one hour, sir.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Mr. Minister, I guess I wanted to start with a couple of comments you made in your opening remarks, more for clarification than anything. You mentioned a couple of things around the court system, one being a new Provincial Court judge to be hired, I think that is what you said.
MR. MUIR: Will be hired.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is that a travelling judge or is that a judge who will be located in one particular court?
MR. MUIR: That judge, primarily, will be assigned to the Youth Court and will sit mainly in Halifax.
MR. DEVEAUX: Maybe you can clarify it, because what was happening was there were Family Court judges who were doing Youth Court work, I believe. Is it because of the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act that that's no longer the case, or is it because the Family Court judges have now become Supreme Court Family Division judges, is that why we have the adjustment?
MR. MUIR: The Family Court operated, really, in only two regions of the province. It operated in Halifax and in metro Cape Breton. Once you got outside of metro, any youth matters were dealt with by Provincial Court. So there was not consistency across the province. The intent is to have all youth matters dealt with in the Provincial Court. It's going
[Page 444]
to take a little bit of time to get there, but that's the intent to provide for consistency throughout the province.
MR. DEVEAUX: I have a couple of questions then from that comment. Outside of Halifax and the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, then youth matters will continue to be dealt with by the regular Provincial Court judges, criminal judges?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, what happened is that under the previous system, the young-youngs were dealt with by Family Court. In other words, those who were under 15. If they were 15, then they went to Provincial Court in the city. Everybody, once you get outside of the two metro areas, were all dealt with by the Provincial Court.
MR. DEVEAUX: Provincial Court Criminal Division. We still have Provincial Court Family Division, I believe, outside of Halifax and Cape Breton, is that correct?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: In HRM and CBRM, I think most of them became Supreme Court Family Division, is that right?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: That was a couple of years ago. So in the past couple of years, in HRM and CBRM, where there would be a young offender charged under the age of 15, who was doing the trials? Would it have been the Provincial Court Criminal Division?
MR. MUIR: Under the age of 15 would have been the Family Court.
MR. DEVEAUX: If the Family Court was now Supreme Court, in the last couple of years.
MR. MUIR: Yes, that's where they went.
MR. DEVEAUX: So they would go to Supreme Court for under 14 years?
MR. MUIR: Under 15.
MR. DEVEAUX: So they were going to Supreme Court for those matters? Okay. So now we're bringing them back into the Provincial Court system. Okay, I understand. Has your office had an opportunity, given the fact there's more of a focus in the new federal Act, obviously on violent crimes, a certain focus, but for non-violent crimes, which I presume make up the majority of the charges, the focus is more on community-based restorative justice matters. Is there some sense, then, that the courts won't be required to be involved in
[Page 445]
as many cases overall of youth justice matters? Has there been some sort of needs assessment based on that, will the number of cases go down, in which the courts would be involved, given the restorative justice focus, or do you expect them to stay the same, or go up?
MR. MUIR: Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is expected that the number of youth who actually appear before a judge will go down.
MR. DEVEAUX: Will go down.
MR. MUIR: Will go down. As I understand that legislation, there is going to be every effort to keep people out of the court system. We had one of the highest incarceration rates in the country. As a matter of fact, there's an agreement with the federal government that - we are at the norm required by the federal government in our agreement now - we will not go above that. I think it was 124 people being incarcerated in Nova Scotia, young people, at any time. I mentioned that I think we were, on the average, 118 last year, if I remember correctly, from my notes. We expect to see that reduced because under that Youth Criminal Justice Act, I will use the term "young people who are really bad" this Act is going to be a lot tougher on them than the other one was.
MR. DEVEAUX: Would you say violent? Would this focus on violent criminals?
MR. MUIR: Well, those who are a danger to society. That's how I will describe them, they would be violent or whatever, a danger to others.
MR. DEVEAUX: So if it's the 10th break and enter and theft, is that considered a danger to society, even though it's a non-violent . . .
MR. MUIR: I think if you kept on doing it - I would be reluctant, as a layperson, to try to interpret what Crowns and the police may talk about. I would like to use the term "bad" because that's something that I think lay people understand. If a youngster is bad, then this Act is more restrictive for them. Whereas at one time they only had to serve part of their sentence, under the new Act, it is 75 per cent before they can be released. We are also hiring nine people to do intensive supervision. In other words, they won't be seeing the parole officer once a month or something like that, if they're let out, they are very carefully monitored. The new Act should provide, I think, better protection for the public and be more effective in reintegrating those who do offend into society.
MR. DEVEAUX: Has your department done an analysis, roughly - obviously you're not going to have it down to a number - how many fewer cases are going to be seen in court?
MR. MUIR: I don't know how much the load in the court will actually be lightened. There should be fewer cases, but I think it will be phased in because people have to get accustomed to the new Act. You can't just snap your fingers and go from thinking one way
[Page 446]
to thinking another. The trial, conceivably, will be longer. Those who do go to court will be spending a longer time there.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's fair. My only point, I guess, in all this is I was wondering, if you expect the number of cases to go down, is there an actual need for a new Provincial Court judge? Obviously you've done that assessment, presumably.
MR. MUIR: The assessment has been done, there is a backlog.
MR. DEVEAUX: In youth matters?
MR. MUIR: In both youth and in other, but because there is no judge then you have to borrow one from somewhere else, so you get a backlog. We need another judge.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, so this is a matter not only of youth but of overall backlog in both youth and adult charges being laid in the Halifax area. I'm sorry, you said earlier, is the judge to be based in the Halifax court, the Dartmouth court, the Bedford court - maybe there is no Bedford court?
MR. MUIR: That particular appointment, if I can call it an appointment, would be in Halifax, the Provincial Court, Youth Facility, down there on Spring Garden Road. We expect to replace four judges this year, so there will be others around the province.
MR. DEVEAUX: Now I wanted to talk a bit about the fact that we do have, quite frankly, a two-tiered system of Family Court in Nova Scotia. This came up particularly when we debated a year and a half ago around the issue of the Domestic Violence Intervention Act, as I think you noted, subsequent to it being implemented. In HRM and CBRM, we have a Supreme Court Family Division, primarily, I understand, because of the funding that the federal government provided in those areas, but we still have a Provincial Court Family Division in the rest of the province. There are some differences in how they apply. Is there some sense from your department, a timeline for when everyone in this province is going to have a Supreme Court Family Division and that the Provincial Court Family Division will be phased out?
MR. MUIR: It will likely be 2005, because that's when the federal government has announced that they will be making those appointments.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it's another two years anyway, before we will see . . .
MR. MUIR: And because they're going to make the appointments in 2005, I would say three years, to be quite honest.
[Page 447]
MR. DEVEAUX: You mentioned all the youth matters being moved to the Spring Garden Road court.
MR. MUIR: From metro.
MR. DEVEAUX: They were in the Devonshire Avenue court.
MR. MUIR: Yes. That will likely be phased out.
MR. DEVEAUX: Likely to be phased out.
MR. MUIR: Well, that's the intent.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it will be phased out?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: When do you see that court closing?
MR. MUIR: It would just be the youth matters in that court, Mr. Chairman.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the family matters will remain?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Now you were mentioning earlier, around youth matters, federal norms. Does the federal government, as part of some agreement, have some ballpark figure they expect you to meet with regard to how many people are actually put into Corrections under the Act? And, is that something that's revised on an annual basis or do they set it - is it based on some sort of funding agreement?
MR. MUIR: Part of the funding agreement, our magic number this year is 124. Mr. Chairman, the funding that we have is conditional on that capacity being reduced to 114 in three years. There are 124 now and we have to get down to 114.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can you just repeat that?
MR. MUIR: We are at 124 now, the agreement with the federal government calls for us to get down to 114 in three years.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is that based on how much they fund the actual Corrections component? I'm not clear on exactly why there is a number tied to funding.
[Page 448]
MR. MUIR: As I indicated, the province has had one of the highest incarceration rates in Canada. I guess it's really a way to pressure the province into going to a more non-custodial approach to treating the young offenders. There's about $7 million tied to it.
[10:30 a.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: Let me back up, how many have we been incarcerating on average in the past two or three years? Is it over 124, is it higher?
MR. MUIR: I'm going to have to look for that number, if you don't mind.
MR. DEVEAUX: Fine. No problem.
MR. MUIR: As the honourable member appreciates, that does vary from day to day. We were at 130-plus, we are now, on the average, between 114 and 118.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just so I'm clear, the federal government has given us incentive money to lower the number of youth who go to jail, in simple terms.
MR. MUIR: To do whatever we had to do to do it. In other words, it's implementing the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
MR. DEVEAUX: Sure. We have an independent judiciary in this province.
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: What if those judges decided to put more than that in jail, because they felt that because of the nature of the crimes committed there was a need to do that? How does that coincide with funding from the federal government to try to get the number down if the judiciary, in all honesty, felt there was a need to increase the numbers?
MR. MUIR: I think the judiciary is well aware of what's going on. The new Act gives, I think, a number of attractive options to incarceration.
MR. DEVEAUX: Like what?
MR. MUIR: Well, the intensive supervision, for one thing, and we're hiring people to do that, community services, other elements of the restorative justice system, sitting down and meeting with those who have been affected in the case of non-violent crimes, and things like that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is there a house arrest component in the new youth legislation?
[Page 449]
MR. MUIR: Well, the intensive supervision, I guess, would be the substitute for house arrest.
MR. DEVEAUX: So if your numbers are getting high, let's say - I assume this is monitored on a fairly regular basis - in October or November, you realize your numbers are hitting 110, 114, obviously judges are influenced by what the recommendations of the Crowns are, is there some direction or some sense that at that point, given the funding that is being provided, that the Crowns might be altering their recommendations in order to keep the numbers down?
MR. MUIR: Again, the Crowns are an independent agency, and government, as you know, other than discussing things with them, cannot give direction . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: You can give direction.
MR. MUIR: I suppose what would be done - and I think what I would tend to do as a minister - is maybe to write a neutral letter saying that the statistics show that this is the case, is there some particular reason for this? We had been here, and everybody knows what our goals are. On the other hand, there may be a very good reason.
MR. DEVEAUX: Sure. There could be a rash of crimes.
MR. MUIR: Yes, there could be very good reasons.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you do have the ability, as the Attorney General, to issue directives to the Public Prosecution Service. Has a directive been issued in this area with regard to violent versus non-violent, or exactly how . . .
MR. MUIR: No, they're bound by the law. The Public Prosecution Service is independent, it's like the judiciary. Under that Act, I meet with the Director of the Public Prosecution Service once a month or more often, as needed. In this case, Mr. Herschorn, he advises me of things that he thinks I ought to be aware of as the minister, that are going on in the Public Prosecution Service, whether there are cases coming or just what's going on. To try to dictate to the Public Prosecution Service is not something I am prepared to do.
MR. DEVEAUX: No, and that's not my recommendation. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense if you have pressure from the federal government that is providing funding in order for us to reduce the number of youth who are incarcerated, and at the same time we could potentially be in a situation, in the last quarter of a year, in which the numbers are reaching beyond that, what gives in those circumstances with regard to the funding and with regard to the numbers that we are being asked to get down?
[Page 450]
MR. MUIR: I guess in practical terms there is some pressure. We have agreed to try to get our numbers down, and I think it's a recognition by the judiciary, the Public Prosecution Service, most of those involved at the Bar, that maybe our incarceration rates have been a little bit high for people. On the other hand, as I said earlier, there may be cases where there's a very good reason why we can't meet the target, and it's an average target, sometimes there might be 100 and some other times there might be 125 in there, something like that, but any financial penalty that might be imposed I expect would be minimal, and there is really no indication from the federal government at this point that they would be prepared to claw anything back.
MR. DEVEAUX: But you did say that there is pressure.
MR. MUIR: Well, we've signed an agreement. Obviously, when you sign an agreement, you try to . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Sure. So you have an independent prosecution service, you have an independent judiciary, and you've signed an agreement that says that you will help reduce your numbers. My question is, as the Attorney General, having an independent judiciary and an independent Public Prosecution Service, how do you ensure that the pressure put on you by the federal government somehow trickles down to those independent bodies so that they have an understanding of their role in trying to reduce the number of incarcerations?
MR. MUIR: I don't think it's any secret, both the Public Prosecution Service and the bench would know this Youth Criminal Justice Act and what the parameters of its introduction in the province were. On the other hand, I expect the prosecutor would deal with each case on its own merits. I can't comment on any pressure, lack of pressure that either the bench or the PPS might feel. Certainly it wouldn't be my intention as Justice Minister to try to put pressure on them, because they're independent.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the pressure . . .
MR. MUIR: Hopefully we have good people in those positions, and if we don't have good people in there, well, it doesn't make any difference. We are going to have more problems than numbers.
MR. DEVEAUX: So I'm clear then, the pressure the federal government is putting on your department goes no further. The buck stops with your department.
MR. MUIR: It stops with us, simply. We have a couple of the adjustments that were made, obviously. You can see, we've talked about the case of Shelburne, where we formally adjusted the number down, but that simply reflects what-ifs. It's not a change.
[Page 451]
MR. DEVEAUX: My last question on this, is the federal government - I mean we are unique in Nova Scotia, I believe, with the independent prosecution service . . .
MR. MUIR: We were the first ones. This came after the Marshall Inquiry, if I remember.
MR. DEVEAUX: Are there other provinces that have an independent one, I can't remember now? I don't think there is.
MR. MUIR: Not to the same degree that we have in Nova Scotia.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the federal government has tied strings to money given to a department that has no real influence over the sentencing through the prosecution service or through the judiciary as to how it's implemented. Would you agree with that?
MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, I don't hear as well as some people.
MR. DEVEAUX: The federal government has provided money to your department with strings attached in order to try to reduce the number of incarcerations, but in actual fact, since we have an independent prosecution service and an independent judiciary in this province, your department has no real ability to actually influence how many incarcerations we have.
MR. MUIR: We can't dictate to them. No, we can't. On the other hand, I think, certainly, the rate of incarceration in Nova Scotia vis-à-vis other provinces is well-known and I think if we simply concentrate on incarceration, we might not be giving the justice system its full due. I think the objective is to bring people back in so they can function. I guess the decision now is that there are better ways to do that than putting people in jail.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to be clear for the record, our Party has always supported that non-violent criminals should not be incarcerated. That's not my point. I was just amazed to think that the federal government was tying money up trying to adjust numbers that, quite frankly, is part of an independent process in this province, and I was trying to get some sense of that.
I want to talk about police services to some extent and I want to talk about the recent issue of marijuana possession. The Public Prosecution Service in this province doesn't deal with marijuana possession, it's done through the federal Justice lawyers, but it is the police in this province who are the ones who lay charges. I don't think you've clearly spelled out what your department or its police services are recommending since the decision that was in Nova Scotia recently to not - the judge who threw out the charges . . .
MR. MUIR: I think actually there were two cases in Nova Scotia.
[Page 452]
MR. DEVEAUX: There's one on Prince Edward Island and then the one in Ontario last year. Has your department given any direction to the police services - and I believe you do have the ability to issue actual directives, I think, to police?
MR. MUIR: The law is still on the books, Mr. Chairman, and we expect that the police will use the same wise approach to the law that they've always used, use their discretion.
MR. DEVEAUX: I think the federal Justice Department has appealed those cases as well?
MR. MUIR: They did, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So as far as you're concerned, or your department is concerned, it's the status quo with regard to . . .
MR. MUIR: Absolutely.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is it your understanding that the federal Minister of Justice is intending to change the rules with regard to . . .
MR. MUIR: I had a discussion with the federal Minister of Justice about a month ago. We had a number of topics on our agenda. There is federal legislation pending regarding marijuana possession. I think the minister indicated that he hoped to have that in the House by June. There are still some areas of disagreement between the federal Department of Justice and other bodies about the issue of impairment, what constitutes minimal possession. If somebody is on a school ground, for example. There are a number of very practical issues which the minister is trying to wrestle with before he tables his bill.
MR. DEVEAUX: It's your understanding then that any prosecutions under those, any changes would still remain under the federal Department of Justice, if the federal minister has said anything to you about the changes, decriminalizing, for example, resulting in the Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia having to be involved or would they still remain under the jurisdiction of the federal Department of Justice?
MR. MUIR: It's still federal, is my understanding.
MR. DEVEAUX: You mentioned in your opening remarks about the Justice of the Peace centre, the JP centre in Dartmouth. You said something interesting, that all bail hearings are done through that centre. So do they travel around the province for the bail hearings? I'm not clear how that works. Are all the people who have bail hearings taken to Dartmouth? I'm not clear.
[Page 453]
MR. MUIR: I guess there would be two things. Off-hour stuff is what we're talking about, as opposed to regular stuff.
MR. DEVEAUX: Right.
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, I conferred with my colleague and it's as I thought, bail hearings that can be done over the phone are done over the phone. If there is need for a personal appearance, then they would go to court. The local JPs can't do that any longer and so it's all coordinated through Dartmouth, but search warrants and things like this are issued out of Dartmouth, and I guess the service is 24/7 which is the big thing about it. I just go back, there were a couple of court decisions - I can remember my predecessor, when he brought this matter to Executive Council - there had been a couple of court cases, and indeed you may be more familiar with them than I am, which clearly indicated that if JPs were going to be involved in judicial functions they had to be really independent, as judges were.
MR. DEVEAUX: I was just trying to get a sense of it. So those are done over the phone, there's no travelling involved?
MR. MUIR: That's correct.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: Just before the House opened you announced extra funding for Legal Aid. I was trying to remember in your opening remarks, how much did you say is the increase this year in funding to Legal Aid?
MR. MUIR: We put in an additional $3 million this year, a little bit more than that.
MR. DEVEAUX: When I look at the Supplementary Detail, Justice, Page 13.4, Nova Scotia Legal Aid, your Forecast for last year was $10.29 million and you're going up to $12.49 million. So it's $2.2 million - I don't mean to split hairs, but I'm just trying to get a sense of where the $3 million versus the $2.2 million is. You're looking at the estimate maybe?
MR. MUIR: The grant goes up from about $12.5 million to $15.5 million and that's the $3 million and that's provincial money.
MR. DEVEAUX: So then I look at the Estimates Book, not the Supplementary Detail, on Page 13.5, and it shows, your Forecast from last year is $13.5 million - as a grant - to $15.5 million which would be $2 million?
[Page 454]
MR. MUIR: Yes. That particular amount involves some things over and above what we actually count as Legal Aid service. It involves ITs and court-appointed reporters, counsels, things like that. That's really funded over and above the estimate and the same thing will occur this year. If those costs occur this year, it will be $15.5 million plus those additional costs.
MR. DEVEAUX: So $3 million, and you said in your opening statement $700,000 to new staff, or was it staff salary increases? I wasn't clear.
MR. MUIR: Legal Aid will receive about $700,000 for additional staff and about $550,000 for the use of court program.
MR. DEVEAUX: So does that mean that the extra $1.75 million, if we take $3 million from that, is for private tariffs? Where is the other $1.75 million going?
MR. MUIR: Could you go back through that again, please?
MR. DEVEAUX: There is $700,000 for staff, $550,000 for implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice. That's $1.25 million. That leaves $1.75 million. I'm wondering where is that money going?
MR. MUIR: Okay, salary increases in that amount, the straight salary increase is $700,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: The $700,000 isn't for new staff, it's for salary increases?
MR. MUIR: Salary increases, yes. The additional staff is about $1.24 million, and then there was $200,000 for staff in the secure treatment centre which is opening in Truro, and also the JP centre in Dartmouth.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you can actually meet Legal Aid staff directly in the Truro centre?
MR. MUIR: We have to provide services for them. Then there was the increase in the tariff fees to the private - the per diem, what do you call that? - certificate lawyers . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: How much is that?
MR. MUIR: That's about $0.5 million, but the Legal Aid Commission will be the one that will determine how that money is distributed. Then there was an additional miscellaneous expense for rent increases and things like this of about $400,000.
[Page 455]
MR. DEVEAUX: Of the $1.25 million for new staff, is that all allocated by Legal Aid or do you have some understanding of where that new staff will be located or is that all done by Legal Aid itself?
MR. MUIR: The budget committee of the Legal Aid Commission will be making that determination, they met last week, but I think their final deliberations are at least two weeks away, maybe three.
MR. DEVEAUX: I think there was a question asked at the press conference when you announced the extra $3 million or so and it was around the contingency of how much the federal government was going to put in, do you have any sense now as to how much extra the federal government will be putting in in the next year or longer term?
MR. MUIR: When we made the announcement, we had indicated that there was no commitment by the federal government to put anything in this year and we haven't received anything from . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Anything extra.
MR. MUIR: There may be something coming, but we have had no correspondence with them of what it would be if it is to come. The money we got this year was announced last year.
MR. DEVEAUX: Your commitment for the $3 million, hypothetically - and maybe you won't answer because it's hypothetical - if in 2004-05 the federal government increases their commitment by $1 million, how would that impact on your funding in 2004-05? I mean do you see this being a zero-some gain or . . .
MR. MUIR: It's kind of hard to predict what's going to happen next year and in the future, it would be another budget year. Certainly Legal Aid costs keep increasing, you know the budget for Legal Aid would increase and if we got an additional $1 million from the federal government, and one over 15 is about 7 per cent and the annual government costs, it (Interruption) We have made the commitment not to pull our dollars if more federal money comes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the $3 million isn't just a one-year commitment, it's a long-term commitment?
MR. MUIR: It's a long-term commitment, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: You've got a new Police Act coming out at some point, do you? You've been doing consultations on a new Police Act?
[Page 456]
MR. MUIR: That had been expected to be tabled, I think actually this Spring was the initial schedule for it. There was a fair bit of discussion surrounding a number of the items in it, and as you know there was a consultative process with the municipalities and the police forces and anybody else who might be interested in policing. That consultation was intended to stop, I think in December - originally in December and we extended it into April, and we had another request to extend that. We have not really accepted that and I guess how we dealt with it, or at least my suggestions were to the people who were dealing with that - if we're going to deal with that, go straight ahead; if we have finished dealing with a section of the Act, we aren't taking any more submissions; if your submission was in before we get to it, then it would be considered. I think really the department has been pretty fair in extending that period of consultation. This has been on the go for three years.
MR. DEVEAUX: There was some discussion you may recall, in Springhill specifically around the local police commissions and the ability for your office to be able to put some constraints or put some guidelines in for them. Do you know if that's something that's being addressed?
MR. MUIR: I think there were a number of points and I read most of those submissions that came in, although to be quite candid some of them were quite lengthy. It seemed to me that in talking with staff a number of the concerns which were articulated reflected a lack of understanding what the draft legislation was going to do. Now that may have been a failure on our part to communicate that well enough or it may be that there were lay people reading that and they had the same limitations in their understanding as I did. So it would probably be the combination of two things, and I will give you an example of that.
Mr. Chairman, we got a couple calls saying, if you're going to disband local police forces and put in the RCMP as a provincial police force - well, the fact is that under the current legislation the RCMP is named as the provincial police force, and it was simply formalizing something that has been in existence for a number of years and that was one of those kinds of misinterpretations. In the case of the Springhill situation, that group, if I remember did write and articulate a number of their concerns and they are being reviewed along with all of the others.
MR. DEVEAUX: You would agree that the Police Act does spell out - I recall the current one does - a role for local police commissions?
MR. MUIR: Yes, it does.
MR. DEVEAUX: So concerns around local police commissions do come under the Police Act if it is revised, you would agree with that?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
[Page 457]
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to talk a bit more about restorative justice as well because I know you've raised that. You had mentioned that it's youth only and I thought that there was a pilot project, at least a pilot project that had ventured into the adult realm of diversion programs as well, and I'm just trying to get a sense - first of all, am I correct, was there a pilot project that dealt with adults?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And it just ended there or was it extended? Does the Adult Diversion Program apply across the province as well?
MR. MUIR: It's the adult diversion program which is provided in the Criminal Code.
MR. DEVEAUX: And does that come under restorative justice?
MR. MUIR: Well, it is restorative justice techniques, I guess the diversion program. The other one that I would know of, I'm sure that I've read about it, I believe at some of the First Nations communities there was a Restorative Justice Program there for adults.
MR. DEVEAUX: The RCMP has their own in certain places as well, so I'm not clear, when we talk about restorative justice and you said it's youth only, are you saying then that if someone is over the age of 18 and they're charged, that they would not have the opportunity to access restorative justice?
MR. MUIR: Yes, although, the Adult Diversion Program is a standing program. They may be going into that program.
MR. DEVEAUX: And where would I find funding for the Adult Diversion Program in the estimates?
MR. MUIR: It's part of the Community Corrections budget. There's no line item for that. It appears on . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: I found it. That's Page 13.6 of the Supplementary Detail, I think, is it? Yes.
MR. MUIR: Page 13.7 is where you will find that.
MR. DEVEAUX: So both restorative justice and adult diversion come under that Community Corrections Programs, is that right?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
[Page 458]
MR. DEVEAUX: Among other things.
MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, not restorative justice, no.
MR. DEVEAUX: Where would I find that?
MR. MUIR: It's on Page 13.5 in the Supplementary Detail.
MR. DEVEAUX: And that is just for youth, is that what you're saying?
MR. MUIR: That's for youth.
MR. DEVEAUX: So when certain guidelines are put out as to the four stages of when someone can be diverted from the court system - I'm trying to remember, there was pre-charge, post-charge, and I'm going to get them mixed up, there's post-conviction upon sentencing, I think those are the four, I'm trying to remember, and that only applies to the Restorative Justice Program, not to the Adult Diversion Program? There are four stages, four possibilities and there are certain charges in each one as to when someone can be diverted from the court system. For example, for shoplifting, the police officer, instead of charging them, could make an agreement that they will go into a sentencing circle or restorative justice?
MR. MUIR: It's kind of like the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that's one of the options.
[11:00 a.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: Right, but this was before that was all passed. I was trying to get some sense as to whether those - if there were certain guidelines that the Department of Justice had identified as to which charges could go under which stages, so shoplifting, a non-violent could be pre-charge. I think minor assaults, minor sexual assaults could be post-conviction or post-charge, and then there were also certain ones that would only be post-sentence. I was trying to get a sense of that list, that guideline. Does that just apply to youth restorative justice matters or does it also apply to - I'm sort of getting a nod of the head - does it also apply to the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: The matters to which you're referring are restorative justice guidelines.
MR. DEVEAUX: So do we have separate guidelines to assist Crown Attorneys and police officers in regard to the Adult Diversion Program? You can't see, but I'm getting nods in the back.
[Page 459]
MR. MUIR: Adult diversion isn't structured with four phases like the restorative justice . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: I'm sorry, it is or it is not?
MR. MUIR: Is not.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is not. So adult diversion, just so I'm clear, does it have the same concept that a police officer has the power to divert prior to charges being laid, a Crown has the ability to divert post-charge, pre-court, or the judge has the ability to divert between conviction and sentencing, do they have those same concepts?
MR. MUIR: A post-charge assessment is made and the Crown Attorney would then make the determination of whether the person would be eligible for diversion or not.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it's basically the Crown that would be the one making a decision?
MR. MUIR: The Crown does it.
MR. DEVEAUX: So there's no opportunity for the . . .
MR. MUIR: By the way, may I introduce Martin Herschorn who is the Director of the Public Prosecution Service.
MR. DEVEAUX: So there's no opportunity for a police officer to divert prior to charging, is that correct? I mean obviously they can decide not to charge them I guess, but there's no mechanism?
MR. MUIR: It's premised that if formal diversion takes place, there has been a charge laid.
MR. DEVEAUX: Does a judge have the ability to divert post-conviction pre-sentencing?
MR. MUIR: No.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it's really in the hands of the Crown that way. Have there been any directions or guidelines, either from the director or from yourself, to Crowns as to how those situations should be handled and which charges are sort of off limits with regard to diversion?
[Page 460]
MR. MUIR: We haven't given any directions to the Crown; they're independent. The Crown Attorney's manual, I know they have a copy in the library by the way, has directions to Crowns about that.
MR. DEVEAUX: So there is a policy of the PPS with . . .
MR. MUIR: Under PPS, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: I looked at it awhile back, does that document spell out specific charges that are off limits for diversion? Like murder, I'm assuming murder is not one that we're going to divert, but is there some other?
MR. MUIR: It does set out those things which would be eligible.
MR. DEVEAUX: Eligible for diversion?
MR. MUIR: For diversion, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And if something isn't on that list, then it would not be eligible, would it be safe to say that it's only non-violent crimes that can be diverted?
MR. MUIR: Generally speaking, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So that means that generally speaking there are probably a couple of exceptions, so I'm hoping maybe you might be able to spell out to me - I'm assuming common assault, for example, might be diverted, would that be correct?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: What about aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm?
MR. MUIR: Probably I would have to refer to the document before I answer that question.
MR. DEVEAUX: Do you know if sexual assault, either minor like indictable or summary offence ones, are "divertable", if that's a term?
MR. MUIR: There is some scope for latitude, but in general they would not be diverted a whole lot.
MR. DEVEAUX: So let me be clear then, let me understand. Within the scope of what adult crime defendants can be diverted post-charge, they potentially, if they are charged with a sexual assault, could be diverted from the court system?
[Page 461]
MR. MUIR: If you're looking at diversion as sort of being in that restorative thing, that hasn't been done in this province; in fact there was a moratorium put on it for a serious sexual assault. Now, again for me to comment on the legal definition of a sexual assault, I won't comment on that, but I would think they would be very minor sexual assault.
MR. DEVEAUX: If there is such a thing.
MR. MUIR: Well, my learned colleagues . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: I know what you're saying. Okay, here's my point. In your opening remarks you said that women's groups had made their comments about sexual assault and you said there was a moratorium . . .
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: . . . and I'm trying to clarify, the moratorium is on restorative justice, is that right?
MR. MUIR: Well, in Nova Scotia, except for that pilot project, the diversion project to which you referred, restorative justice has been restricted to youth.
MR. DEVEAUX: So there is an official moratorium by the Department of Justice on restorative justice applying to sexual assault or violence against women?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: But we've also understood today that . . .
MR. MUIR: And I think it's important to note that when you put a moratorium on it, it implies that it was done. It was never done.
MR. DEVEAUX: No, no, I understand, and I want to talk a bit about the moratorium because the moratorium is not permanent at this point, is it?
MR. MUIR: Well . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: You still have guidelines that spell out and potentially could someday involve minor or major sexual assaults being part of the restorative justice system?
MR. MUIR: My deputy has just confirmed what I was saying. This government, in general, if they so choose - and they have a majority, they can do what they want - but in practicality the way the system has operated in Nova Scotia is there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders, and if any change was contemplated then the normal process
[Page 462]
with people who might be interested or affected would continue. There would be no intention to do something like that unilaterally.
MR. DEVEAUX: Right and I guess this is the point. There are two documents that sort of stand out. There are two potential documents, written documents, and one is that piece of paper that spells out the four stages of when restorative justice can be initiated?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Right, and in that document - and correct me if I'm wrong - in that today, if I was to go to the Department of Justice and get one, it would say under stage three that sexual assault and violence, assault and aggravated assault matters could be part of the restorative justice system? There's a moratorium against those components being used, but that actual document spelling it out still says that those are potential ones?
MR. MUIR: The restorative program does include the so-called moratorium.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. So let me just clarify that then. For purposes of policy of the Department of Justice, restorative justice does not apply to domestic violence assaults or sexual assaults?
MR. MUIR: That's correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: All right, so the use of the term "moratorium" may not be right. Basically, it's just not part of it. Moratorium makes it sound like it's temporary or . . .
MR. MUIR: And I guess that was my point of saying if you use the term moratorium, it applies that you stopped something.
MR. DEVEAUX: Yes, or that it could be revoked.
MR. MUIR: That hasn't started, it has never been practised in the province.
MR. DEVEAUX: All right, so the moratorium or the application of those potential offences to the restorative justice system doesn't apply to restorative justice? Do you agree with that?
MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, to the what?
MR. DEVEAUX: Under restorative justice, which is for youth crimes, violence against women and sexual assault matters do not fall under, cannot be brought into the restorative justice process?
[Page 463]
MR. MUIR: Under current policy, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So that is for the restorative justice system?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And that applies to youth only in Nova Scotia?
MR. MUIR: Yes, it's the only place for restorative justice right now.
MR. DEVEAUX: So we have also understood that there's an Adult Diversion Program in Nova Scotia?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And under that program violence against women or violence issues and sexual assault matters could potentially come under the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: Potentially, yes, but the policy as reflected in the PPS document precludes that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, that's why I wasn't clear earlier. So the PPS document specifically spells out which offences can be diverted?
MR. MUIR: There is a program laid out under the Criminal Code and what the PPS has done complements that federal directive.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the Criminal Code spells out which criminal offences can be diverted?
MR. MUIR: The federal government and diversion program, and there is a program which is authorized by the Attorney General of the province which right now restricts these things from adult diversion, and these of course are part of the policy manual of PPS, if you are indicted for weapons use, serious sexual offences, perjury, spousal or partner violence, and Criminal Code driving offences.
MR. DEVEAUX: Driving offences? Okay, so for drunk driving or impaired driving. Those are ones that are not under the diversion program?
MR. MUIR: That's correct.
MR. DEVEAUX: So aggravated assault, that's non-spousal or non-domestic, could potentially come under the diversion program?
[Page 464]
MR. MUIR: Well, I think that probably is covered by serious assault.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, I wasn't clear if that's what you read. So when we talk about serious sexual assault, we're talking about indictable offences under sexual assault, how do we define "serious" or is that up to the Crown?
MR. MUIR: It would be the indictable offences, the ones that are summary conviction.
MR. DEVEAUX: So indictable offences, sexual offences are not under diversion. Again just to clarify, is that the Criminal Code that spells that out or is that a federal program that funds diversion programs for adults?
[11:15 a.m.]
MR. MUIR: The authority of the program does come from the Criminal Code, but the details are determined by the Attorney General.
MR. DEVEAUX: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia?
MR. MUIR: Nova Scotia.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the Criminal Code doesn't spell out which crimes can or cannot be diverted?
MR. MUIR: No.
MR. DEVEAUX: That is something that is done through your office or through the Public Prosecution Service?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Honourable member, your time is over for questioning. I will allow the minister to answer and then I will go to the Liberal caucus.
MR. MUIR: The actual program is being administered under Correctional Services and it's developed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Public Prosecution Service and other groups that might be affected or interested.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time of the NDP caucus for the first hour of questions for the Minister of Justice has now expired. I will now go to the Liberal caucus. Mr. Samson, your time is 11:17 a.m.
The honourable member for Richmond.
[Page 465]
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I understand that your Communications Director, it's her last day today, so I made a commitment to her that I would try to cause as much havoc as possible.
MR. MUIR: She may still be able to help me if I'm still here a little bit later on, but formally she leaves the department today.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, so I promised her I would try to cause as much havoc today just to make her last day on the job interesting.
In all seriousness, Mr. Minister, the government had made the decision to join some other provinces in opposing the gun law and I believe we had intervener status on that matter when it went before the Supreme Court. I am wondering if you could indicate to us what was the cost to the province for participating in that matter?
MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, what was the matter?
MR. SAMSON: The Supreme Court challenge to the new federal gun law, the province was an intervener in that matter and I'm curious what the cost was to the province for participation in that.
MR. MUIR: The intervention was handled by staff lawyers, a few thousand dollars for travel, but we didn't hire other people to do that.
MR. SAMSON: Were there any outside legal opinions sought on that matter?
MR. MUIR: No.
MR. SAMSON: How many lawyers were sent for that matter?
MR. MUIR: One principal lawyer who may have had some assistance from a more junior person.
MR. SAMSON: Could you indicate how many hours of research were involved in preparing the province for that matter?
MR. MUIR: I don't have that information.
MR. SAMSON: Could you obtain that information?
MR. MUIR: We can get an estimate. We don't log hours the way private practice lawyers do necessarily.
[Page 466]
MR. SAMSON: But I'm sure your experienced lawyer would have an idea of how many hours were spent on that. Although they are staff lawyers, if they're being used on this matter, there are other matters they're not working on, so I would argue there certainly is a cost involved. If they're working on this, they're not working on other matters. So I would appreciate if you could get that information, and who was the staff lawyer who was sent on that?
MR. MUIR: I'm going to have to confirm that. Michele, our corporate memory person has just stepped out for a minute. She might know the answer off the top of her head. I believe it was Ed Gores or Louise Poirier, it would be one of them - it was Ed Gores.
MR. SAMSON: The member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley made reference to a recent trip to Ottawa and I believe he indicated that you attended with him, and possibly a few other members of your caucus. Could you give us the specifics on the nature of that trip?
MR. MUIR: Yes, as you know the position of the province on that gun registration has I think been pretty straightforward. We had asked for a moratorium. We think it's probably a bad piece of legislation and it has been even worse legislation when it was implemented. By the way, the federal people, for what it's worth, will acknowledge that the implementation of that has been a real nightmare.
I had spoken to Minister Cauchon about that thing, and indeed I had hoped to go visit Minister Cauchon. We had it scheduled. In dealing with federal ministers, as you would know from your former life, it's sometimes hard to get together. So I had spoken to Minister Cauchon about this matter, along with a number of others, I suppose about a month ago. The matter was supposed to switch over to Minister Easter as the Solicitor General on April 1st and you will perhaps remember that announcement. Therefore, inasmuch as he was going to be the person who was responsible for that, we made the request of Minister Easter that I could meet with him and present the province's position on that gun control law.
We finally got a meeting scheduled. Two members of caucus, Bill Dooks, the member for Eastern Shore, and the Speaker, Honourable Murray Scott, the member for Cumberland South, also participated in that meeting. They attended as MLAs, I went as the Minister of Justice, and we met with Minister Easter and I guess I can say as Minister of Justice that we had a very frank exchange about the merits of that position. He told me that the federal government had no intention of changing its position. I asked for a moratorium, the same thing I had said publicly here, put it to him, and also asked if they would be prepared to take the long gun registration out of the bill. He indicated no.
Another person who was present along with some political staffers was Bill Baker who is now the head of the National Gun Registry. He was present. I had also spoken with Mr. Baker about - well the same day as I had spoken with Minister Cauchon, he was there
[Page 467]
too and they acknowledged that there were serious problems with the implementation. We talked about the issue. I said eventually that we didn't think the long gun registration was going to do much to enhance public safety - and I have yet to have anybody explain to me how it is by the way. So we met with Minister Easter for an hour and I would say had a very frank exchange. He told us that the federal government had no intention of changing the law, but they were going to improve the implementation.
MR. SAMSON: This meeting took place in Ottawa?
MR. MUIR: Yes, it did.
MR. SAMSON: So you were there, Bill Dooks and Murray Scott?
MR. MUIR: That's correct.
MR. SAMSON: Was there anyone else from the province there?
MR. MUIR: No.
MR. SAMSON: You are certainly aware that the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and you made an interesting statement that no one has been able to convince you of how it's going to provide better safety. Prior to you going to Ottawa, did you have any meetings with either the head of the RCMP here in Nova Scotia or the head of the Police Association here to discuss their positions on this new law prior to . . .
MR. MUIR: I met with the chiefs of police - interestingly enough that was not part of our discussion. They set the agenda. That was after I had made my statement on that. No, I didn't talk with the RCMP, no.
MR. SAMSON: So you enunciated a position as the Minister of Justice for Nova Scotia on the belief that this law could not provide better protection, without even consulting either the RCMP in this province or the police in this province as to what their position was, is that correct?
MR. MUIR: Yes, yes.
MR. SAMSON: Do you not believe that it would have been prudent, realizing that most of the Police Associations throughout Canada have come out saying they support this legislation . . .
MR. MUIR: I think you're mistaken on that. I think you're going to find that when that bill was introduced five years ago, when they got the endorsement of, I think it was the police chiefs of Canada, to do that, I think there were five conditions attached to that
[Page 468]
endorsement. I'm told that they were not met and I can also tell you that the position of our caucus, virtually to a person, is the position which I stated.
MR. SAMSON: But, sir, with all due respect, you are the Attorney General, you are the Minister of Justice. Do you not believe you had some form of a duty to at least consult with those who are entrusted in upholding the law here in this province as to what . . .
MR. MUIR: I talked with staff in the Department of Justice and, to be quite frank, I've got to tell you, and I seriously say this, I spoke with the federal Minister of Justice, I spoke with the guy who's running the program and asked them both, tell me how this is going to enhance public safety, and I didn't get an answer. I mean you can beat this all you want, but the fact is that the people in Nova Scotia don't endorse that. Our caucus doesn't endorse that particular law, and if you were to go around and take a free vote in our Legislature you will find that most of the people in the Legislature think it's bad legislation. So to get into the technical aspect of this, this is a Nova Scotia thing. I have had numerous letters from interest groups. Do you want to know something? I didn't get one letter in the time I've been Attorney General supporting that piece of legislation - and by the way, not one phone call.
MR. SAMSON: Again I simply find it very surprising that, as Attorney General, you would not see fit to contact either the RCMP or our local Police Associations to see what their position was on this before enunciating your position as Attorney General that this law will provide absolutely no increase in safety in any which way or form when one looks at the public statements that we have heard . . .
MR. MUIR: If we're talking about the long gun registration . . .
MR. SAMSON: Well, regardless of what we're talking about . . .
MR. MUIR: As a matter of fact, there are other things in that that we do endorse. Again I told both ministers and I've said publicly the issues of proper endorsement of people who are going to use firearms, no problem with that, proper safety, you know proper storage of firearms, certainly endorse that. The handgun registration I think has been around since 1932. There are weapons in this province which are restricted and you're not allowed to own, you know the issue was long gun registration and its contributions to public safety, and to be quite frank I still feel - and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise and you won't either - that spending $1 billion on long gun registration was the most efficient and efficacious use of public money? I don't think so.
MR. SAMSON: Are you encouraging Nova Scotians with long guns not to register their firearms?
MR. MUIR: Absolutely not, because it's the law.
[Page 469]
MR. SAMSON: Therefore, if it's the law, why is the Minister of Justice not respecting the law?
MR. MUIR: I do respect the law. As a matter of fact you know we administer that portion of the program for the federal government.
MR. SAMSON: Then how can you say you respect it when you're openly coming out and condemning it publicly and saying that you're opposed to it, and as Attorney General you are telling Nova Scotians they should . . .
MR. MUIR: You know there are a number of laws which I can tell you where points of disagreement I would have with the law . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask honourable members to be respectful of each other while answering and asking questions. I don't like to hear interruptions. I like to have a question asked and be answered, but not concurrently.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your government last year undertook significant reductions in court services by reducing the number of county courtrooms throughout the province, and also a significant reduction in the amount of jail cells in communities throughout the province. I'm curious are there any plans to make any further reductions in those services in either this budget or in the immediate future?
MR. MUIR: I guess in terms of courtrooms there was some consolidation, obviously for some critical mass reasons, to make the service more efficient and if it's more efficient, probably more effective. There are no present plans to make other adjustments.
MR. SAMSON: There was a period of time where the province under your administration, was sending inmates out of province due to a lack of capacity here in the province. I'm curious , as we speak now are any Nova Scotia inmates being housed outside the province?
MR. MUIR: None that we've sent out. I expect that, unfortunately, there are Nova Scotians housed elsewhere . . .
MR. SAMSON: I didn't understand the last part that you said.
MR. MUIR: We haven't sent anybody out, but Nova Scotians sometimes get in trouble in other jurisdictions and might be incarcerated there.
[Page 470]
[11:30 a.m.]
MR. SAMSON: When was the last time there were inmates from Nova Scotia sent out of province? If my recollection is correct, I think P.E.I. used to be one of our favourite destinations to send inmates at some point. When was the last time we had Nova Scotia inmates outside the province?
MR. MUIR: During the period when, as you are aware, the opening of the Burnside centre was a bit delayed, some of the other facilities were closed and in anticipation of an opening date, which did not materialize, there were some people sent out then.
MR. SAMSON: What was the total cost incurred for sending inmates out of province?
MR. MUIR: Are you just looking for that Burnside period?
MR. SAMSON: Yes, sure.
MR. MUIR: We will have to get that information for you.
MR. SAMSON: What is the vacancy rate at the Burnside facility right now?
MR. MUIR: You mean today?
MR. SAMSON: Yes.
MR. MUIR: Are you looking for the average occupancy rates?
MR. SAMSON: Pardon?
MR. MUIR: Are you looking for the average occupancy rates or are you looking for what the situation today is?
MR. SAMSON: I guess the question is, is the facility?
MR. MUIR: Today? It does run pretty much to capacity, but I guess we could make a phone call to the superintendent and ask, are you full today or are you down one or two. They might have an extra one there, too, because somebody is going to get moved out.
MR. SAMSON: The question is, do we have the required capacity right now to meet our needs and the needs . . .
[Page 471]
MR. MUIR: I think the answer to that is yes. Your first question indicated, have we been sending people out of province, the answer is no. The figure for the out-of-province incarceration during Burnside was $174,000.
MR. SAMSON: I take it that was paid to the Government of Prince Edward Island?
MR. MUIR: In a number of jurisdictions that money was recovered from the developer.
MR. SAMSON: That was recovered from the developer?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: When the Burnside facility is full to capacity where are inmates sent?
MR. MUIR: That's a difficult question because it is about managing your inmate population. There are situations where people are moved from one institution to another on a regular basis because of incompatibility, or for safety reasons. For example, when we toured the facility in Antigonish, it seemed to me we had some metro residents there and there was a good reason for putting them in Antigonish. If you go to Burnside you may find some Antigonish County residents or your Richmond County residents. As a matter of fact, I think we did run into some Richmond County residents on our visit in different places. It's managing a population. In this day and age the issue of how inmates are treated and the concern for their safety is probably greater than it used to be.
MR. SAMSON: The question is, do we have the capacity here in this province, based on the consolidations that were undertaken and the amount of community jails that were closed in the last year, do we, today, have the capacity required to meet the needs of our justice system?
MR. MUIR: Yes, we have.
MR. SAMSON: As we speak today, could you give us a ballpark figure of how many empty cells there are available in the Province of Nova Scotia?
MR. MUIR: We would have to get that information. I can tell you that I have visited four of those facilities since I've been Justice Minister and there has been vacant space in them all.
MR. SAMSON: Is there any direction or pressure put on the PPS to try to avoid people going to incarceration based on the consolidation and limited amount of cells that you now have?
[Page 472]
MR. MUIR: No - as you know, the PPS is independent and they carry out their function as they see fit. We were the first independent Public Prosecution Service in the country. I think Justice has sort of changed. At one time, incarcerating people was probably the norm and I think the correctional system was then called the penal system. If I think penal, it kind of means punishment. Now we have a correctional system. The objective is to return people to society to see if they can live according to society's norms and within the law and be a productive citizen. As part of that, I guess the punishments, there are fewer incarcerations than there used to be. There are different types of punishments. But is there any pressure on the PPS by the Attorney General to stop recommending incarceration, the answer is no.
MR. SAMSON: I do appreciate your comments and I certainly agree with the idea of not looking so much to incarceration as the solution to dealing with offenders, but we're getting mixed messages from your government. Your predecessor, in one sense, spoke about restorative justice, yet in the other sense wanted to put everyone in jail and kept sending some mixed messages as to what his priorities were. Now you're coming here and saying that you agree that we should not focus so heavily on incarceration and more on the rehabilitation side. So there are some mixed messages, and the blue book is quite heavy on this old style of justice, in bringing back the old style justice system to this province, so I'm pleased to hear that you haven't fallen into the trap of your predecessor when it comes to that.
MR. MUIR: I guess I would make a comment that the Criminal Code is a federal matter and we adhere to the Criminal Code and administer it. The new Youth Criminal Justice Act, as I explained to the honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage, and undoubtedly you would be well aware, is more severe with young people who are, what I will call, bad; those who get themselves into trouble, probably a little bit more lenient. In other words, incarcerate fewer, but those who are incarcerated are there longer. So, I can take your comment for what it's worth.
Mr. Chairman, I do have some other information for the honourable member. You had asked how many beds in the province. We have 437 adult beds in the province, and today 336 are occupied. The other thing to do with capacity, if we should reach capacity, which we're looking there at about 25 per cent vacancy rate, I guess, we have an agreement with the federal government which would work both ways. Just one other thing to point out, and I know the honourable member knows this, the capacity, the bed count is higher on the weekend because we have a number of people who serve intermittent sentences and go in on Friday night and get out on Monday morning.
MR. SAMSON: I just wanted to touch on a subject and it was a bit of a sensitive topic with your predecessor and with some of the legislation brought in dealing with the PPS and the relationship between the PPS and the minister. In your opening comments I know you did list off some of the matters that the PPS is dealing with and some of the charges that
[Page 473]
are being pursued. What communication takes place between yourself and the PPS when these types of matters arise?
MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, could you repeat the first part of that, please.
MR. SAMSON: There was some sensitivity with your predecessor, and we've had that discussion before about what he viewed as his role as Attorney General and his relationship with the PPS when it came to determining whether charges should be laid in criminal matters that the PPS would be pursuing. In your opening comments you listed some of the matters that the PPS is currently working on, such as Mr. Lalo, I believe you mentioned. You also mentioned a certain priest who is also under investigation. As a new Attorney General, I'm curious as to what communication takes place between the PPS and your office, as minister, when it comes to these charges and the PPS's decisions as to whether to go forward or not with these matters?
MR. MUIR: First of all, I meet with the Director of PPS about once a month, or more, if necessary. I think we're required by law to meet 12 times a year. During those meetings he advises me of administrative matters in PPS, but he also advises me of judicial or legal matters with which the PPS is going to be involved, I guess you could say in high-profile cases. To give you one example, I had spoken in my opening remarks about the judge up in New Brunswick who is being prosecuted by our PPS on an exchange arrangement. The director told me that they had been asked by the people in New Brunswick to go up there and to conduct that prosecution, and he told me that they were doing that and he expected the charges would be formally laid. So we might have that type of conversation about what is coming, what the status is of a particular, let's call it a high-profile case. In the case of the priest, it's just a matter of course that there has been a priest - there have been allocations to police. It was known that the investigation was ongoing and that charges would likely be forthcoming. In terms of talking about or me giving him or the Public Prosecution Service direction in any specific case, that's not part of our conversation.
MR. SAMSON: So you haven't made any sort of comments or recommendations as to how the PPS should proceed on any matters. Have you been asked to make such comments?
MR. MUIR: No. I guess, too, as I understand how the system works, is that the police are the ones who lay the charges and determine if charges are going to be laid. It's the PPS whose advice would be sought - is there a reasonable chance that these charges could stick and should we proceed with them, and if the answer is yes, then the PPS goes to work.
MR. SAMSON: One of the other topics I wanted to touch on, I wrote to your predecessor on numerous occasions, and it was the issue of providing bilingual services both through the sheriff's office and through the court system. I'm curious if you could indicate
[Page 474]
to me under your tenure what are your views on the enhancement of those services and what actions are being taken?
MR. MUIR: Well, I can say there is a bilingual court down in Yarmouth that operates now and I think you're aware of that. Quite candidly, my feeling, and staff, is that if there are sections of the province where French certainly is a predominant language, then it's very helpful not only in the interest of justice, but in the interest of the people probably more important. If we can provide people who have facility in that language, and I think the common sense thing kicks in, is what I'm saying. In a community that speaks only French, it wouldn't make much sense to have a receptionist who spoke only English.
MR. SAMSON: Well, I'm pleased to hear that, but I'm sure if the minister makes his tour around the other communities in the province, unfortunately the norm is that it is English-only services that are being provided, and one of the recommendations and suggestions that I've been making is no one wants to see any current employee of your department displaced. My recommendation all along has been that when openings do come up and if it's in a community where there is a significant French population, then use the opportunity with that opening, if there are applicants who are bilingual, there should be some consideration given to that. It was my understanding that your department did agree with that . . .
MR. MUIR: We do, and that has been the practice.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, well, unfortunately, and I can give the Port Hawkesbury example. I was told that that would be one of the goals and there was a temporary employee who did apply for that position who was bilingual and had been an employee of the department for a number of years. I was disappointed to see that that person did not get the position and the one who was awarded the position could only speak English.
[11:45 a.m.]
MR. MUIR: Was that somebody who had transferred in, just out of curiosity? I don't know, I can't comment on that specific position, I have no idea, but, as you know, sometimes there are closed shops for advertisements.
MR. SAMSON: I didn't hear your last part. There is what?
MR. MUIR: I said sometimes in unionized positions there is a closed shop.
MR. SAMSON: Yes, that might have been.
MR. MUIR: That's why I asked if that was somebody who transferred in.
[Page 475]
MR. SAMSON: That might have been the situation. That was one example where it could have been because I have seen, myself, in my other career where there are situations where people who do not understand English sufficiently, when they are in that situation and they have the sheriff trying to communicate something to them and explain, in many ways, as I'm sure you're aware, it is the sheriff's position that tends to communicate to people what the judge has ordered, what instructions the judge has given, and we're seeing in many situations where the accused does not clearly understand the instructions that are being given to them by the sheriff. So that's a vital position in our administrative process of our justice system and I can't encourage you enough, for the key communities where this is identified as a need, that those efforts would be undertaken. I'm curious, have you had an opportunity to meet yet with the French Lawyers Association?
MR. MUIR: No, I haven't.
MR. SAMSON: You haven't, okay, because I know that they have . . .
MR. MUIR: The deputy has met with them, I haven't, and the PPS has as well. To be quite candid, I don't remember a request to meet from them and I haven't gone the other way on it.
MR. SAMSON: No, no, and that's entirely possible that they haven't made that request yet. I will certainly encourage them to do that, because I know they met with your predecessor, I believe on a couple of occasions, and with senior staff. I know there are a number of projects being worked on and they are pursuing in conjunction with the support, both, I believe from your department and through the different federal agencies that are assisting. I was a member of that association prior to being elected, and they've come forward with a number of interesting projects and I would encourage, when they do come calling, that you meet with them and continue to work with them.
MR. MUIR: Certainly if they request a meeting, I would be pleased . . .
MR. SAMSON: One of the other questions here, looking at some of the line items, you've announced an additional $3 million in additional money for the Legal Aid system?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: When we're looking at the numbers, something just doesn't seem to add up here. You're saying that the additional $3 million should bring you to $12.5 million. That's what your press release is saying. When we do our numbers, if you're adding a full $3 million to what you had before, it should be coming up to $13.3 million total. I'm curious what that discrepancy is for.
MR. MUIR: Are you on Page 13.5, Page 13.4 or . . .
[Page 476]
MR. SAMSON: I have Page 13.4 here.
MR. MUIR: You're on Page 13.4?
MR. SAMSON: I have Page 13.5 also.
MR. MUIR: Well, if you look at it, you will see in the Estimate for 2002-03 it is about $12.5 million, the grant is $12.5 million.
MR. SAMSON: Which page are you on, Mr. Minister?
MR. MUIR: It's Page 13.5 of the Estimates Book. Do you see it? If you look at the Estimate 2003-04, the Estimate is $15.5 million. So that's $3 million, and that is provincial money.
MR. SAMSON: Under what exact line item are you looking at?
MR. MUIR: The grant to Legal Aid.
MR. SAMSON: Okay.
MR. MUIR: If you look, go across there, the 2002-03 Estimate, it's $12.484 million. Then you go over to the 2003-04 Estimate, it's $15.509 million, and that's actually a little bit more than $3 million, it's $3.02 million.
MR. SAMSON: Where is the $3 million coming from? Where are you finding those funds?
MR. MUIR: They're additional revenues that came from the Ministry of Finance.
MR. SAMSON: Is that revenue that is generated from the Department of Justice?
MR. MUIR: From the consolidated fund.
MR. SAMSON: So that's revenue . . .
MR. MUIR: No, we didn't relocate money if that's your question, no, it's new money.
MR. SAMSON: It's new money that's coming from additional revenues to . . .
MR. MUIR: To the province.
[Page 477]
MR. SAMSON: Yes, okay, not just from your department?
MR. MUIR: No.
MR. SAMSON: I'm curious, why $3 million? Why not $2 million, why not $4 million, why not $5 million, why not $1 million, what was the reasoning behind the figure of $3 million?
MR. MUIR: The Legal Aid Commission identified that as a number they could live with.
MR. SAMSON: They don't need any more than that?
MR. MUIR: Well, I mean they could always use more. We could use more money for virtually anything, but the Legal Aid Commission presented a figure they felt was manageable and also government felt was manageable.
MR. SAMSON: Is this $3 million-something you intend to continue next year?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: For how many years after?
MR. MUIR: Well, basically it will be rolled into the base funding.
MR. SAMSON: The reason I'm asking is, the way this was spun out was you're saying there is federal money coming, it's not available yet, so here's $3 million and . . .
MR. MUIR: No, the federal money we would expect would go on top of that. I mean this is going to be base funding.
MR. SAMSON: So this is base funding, so we can expect that this additional $3 million . . .
MR. MUIR: If we get additional money from the federal government this year, which is not yet confirmed by the way, we're looking in the order of between $200,000 and $400,000. It's going to help, but it's not going to make us rich.
MR. SAMSON: For whatever federal dollars that are coming, basically, that's just going to be on top of what you have given. Do you intend to continue this new base funding year in and year out for Legal Aid?
[Page 478]
MR. MUIR: That's our intent now, although I mean to be honest, you know as well as I do that someday we will get into long-term funding in Justice, we aren't there yet, so budgets are prepared on an annual basis.
MR. SAMSON: One of the other issues which your government is being faced with is the legal action brought forward by Mr. Jim Spurr dealing with the increase in speeding tickets and other motor vehicle offences which the fines were put in place before the bill actually became law. I'm curious as to what arrangements your department is making should it so happen that Mr. Spurr is successful and that the fines collected during the period in question are overturned.
MR. MUIR: Yes, the thing is that our department believes that that particular case does not have merit and that's not going to be an issue.
MR. SAMSON: Have you made any arrangements at all in the case that he is successful? Have you made any arrangements at all or a contingency plan or a reserve fund should it happen that he is successful?
MR. MUIR: Again, let me say that we believe that the complainant in that case is not going to win that case.
MR. SAMSON: Who is dealing with that from your department?
MR. MUIR: That was a municipal ticket, so we aren't directly involved in that.
MR. SAMSON: So your department hasn't been providing any legal advice or legal services to the municipality in this matter?
MR. MUIR: PPS has provided advice to the people in the city, but in terms of I guess you would call some formal involvement, that has not occurred; that has been, as I understand, mainly collegial conversation.
MR. SAMSON: My understanding is this has moved to the appeal process. Is it your statement today that the PPS or the Department of Justice will not be involved in the appeal process?
MR. MUIR: Justice or the PPS is not intervening although, I guess, if we're asked for assistance, we would provide it.
MR. SAMSON: So at this point you're just going to leave it to the city to deal with this matter even though there is . . .
MR. MUIR: I think it's a pretty closed case.
[Page 479]
MR. SAMSON: Only time will tell I guess. The Minister of Finance in the last 24 hours, and the Premier, have indicated that they have received legal opinions on the contract with the casino. Could you indicate who in your department has provided legal opinions to either the Premier or the Minister of Finance?
MR. MUIR: You mean who was involved in that initial contract when the thing was dealt with in the first place?
MR. SAMSON: No, no. There was a bylaw passed by the city on Tuesday evening, by Wednesday, the Premier indicated that the legal advice he had received on the contract was such that he felt that he needed to bring in legislation. The Minister of Finance again today is referring to legal advice he has received. My question to you is, who in your department is providing them with the legal advice they are referring to?
MR. MUIR: The person who I guess you could say sort of had the lead is Jennifer Palov, and there could be others too. In our department it's Jennifer. Then, on the other hand, as you know, there are Justice lawyers in various parts of government.
MR. SAMSON: So on the casino contract, it is Mrs. Palov who has provided the legal opinion that the Premier and the Minister of Finance are referring to as to why they need to bring in this . . .
MR. MUIR: I guess what I'm going to have to say is that I do know that Jennifer Palov has provided advice, but you would have to ask the Premier who he got his advice from because, for example, there are two Justice lawyers in Health and they may have been asked to comment because they were providing service to Minister MacDonald, I don't know.
MR. SAMSON: But I guess with all due respect, Mr. Minister, you are . . .
MR. MUIR: The Gaming Corporation, as you're aware, has their own lawyer and I do know that that lawyer has been asked for her opinion as well.
MR. SAMSON: Who would that lawyer be?
MR. MUIR: Colleen Keyes, but she's not employed by the Department of Justice, she's employed by the Gaming Corporation.
MR. SAMSON: As the Attorney General of this province who's responsible for the lawyers that we have, is it your statement today that you do not know who provided the Premier or the Minister of Finance with the legal interpretation of the casino contract which . . .
[Page 480]
MR. MUIR: I know that Ms. Keyes provided advice to the Gaming Corporation and I know the Minister of Finance is responsible for that, therefore she would have provided advice for him, and I know that a staff lawyer in our department, Jennifer Palov, was asked for her opinion.
[12:00 noon]
MR. SAMSON: Are you aware of whether any outside legal opinions were sought by either the Premier or the Minister of Finance on this matter?
MR. MUIR: Well, I guess technically the person from the Gaming Corporation is an outside lawyer.
MR. SAMSON: So she's not in-house counsel?
MR. MUIR: She is not a Justice lawyer.
MR. SAMSON: And she's not in-house counsel at the Gaming Corporation?
MR. MUIR: She is employed by the Gaming Corporation.
MR. SAMSON: And she works full-time at the Gaming Corporation?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: So other than these two individuals, you're not aware of any other individuals providing the Premier or the Minister of Finance with this legal opinion?
MR. MUIR: You would have to ask those involved that question.
MR. SAMSON: Have you, as the Attorney General of this province, responsible for the PPS and the Justice lawyers in government, been asked to instruct your staff to provide a legal opinion to government as to the particular contract and the clauses . . .
MR. MUIR: Have I as the Attorney General? No.
MR. SAMSON: No. Okay.
One of the other issues is the increase in the freedom of information fees. You've indicated that the requests have fallen by 26 per cent, and it was your statement that the 26 per cent represented frivolous requests. Could you indicate to me what number of requests you have received which you would consider to be frivolous?
[Page 481]
MR. MUIR: As you would know, ministers don't receive freedom of information requests.
MR. SAMSON: Could you ask your staff to indicate how many requests were received that were deemed to be frivolous?
MR. MUIR: I don't talk about freedom of information with my staff.
MR. SAMSON: Okay. Well, you have two of them sitting right next to you right now. Could you please ask them . . .
MR. MUIR: Ministers aren't supposed to know about freedom of information requests; however, now that you ask, I will give you three examples of frivolous requests. Frivolous requests - and I hope your Party wasn't responsible for these - all communications to Peter Spurway in the Premier's Office, all e-mails sent or received by Alison Scott, all of Karen Oldfield's time schedules while in the Premier's Office. Would you consider those to be serious requests or frivolous?
MR. SAMSON: Depending on the situation that they're attached to, I wouldn't consider those to be . . .
MR. MUIR: There was no situation attached to them. That's the type of garbage that sometimes the freedom of information people have to deal with. So don't tell me that there aren't frivolous requests coming from political Parties.
MR. SAMSON: Twenty-six per cent is a big figure, and you've just listed three examples.
MR. MUIR: I beg your pardon?
MR. SAMSON: Twenty-six per cent is a large figure, and you've just given three minor examples of . . .
MR. MUIR: You call those minor examples? That somebody would have the nerve to put in a request that all communications, all communications - this guy is the Director of Communications in the Premier's Office and somebody wants to see a copy of all the communications that go to him, or all e-mails sent or received by the Clerk of the Executive Council? You're telling me that that's not - let's get serious about this, no wonder the freedom of information thing is being abused, if that's your attitude.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, Mr. Minister, any employee who is being paid by the public, the public has a right to ask questions and for you, sir, to make the judgement as to what you feel is important and what you feel is not important, it would be my position
[Page 482]
that, sir, it is not your authority or your position to be making such judgements on behalf of Nova Scotians, to say what I feel is frivolous and what I feel is not frivolous.
MR. MUIR: Well, if you feel that those aren't frivolous, then I would question your values.
MR. SAMSON: Well, you can question my values. With all due respect, Mr. Minister, you have a Clerk of the Executive Council . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please. Order, members. I would like to remind honourable members in committee, I ask that a question be asked and an answer be given, but hopefully not concurrently. Telepathy may be a gift, but I am not a telepath here, so I would like to have the answers not be concurring or colliding with each other.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, Mr. Minister. You have a Clerk of the Executive Council who allowed fines to be put in place before a bill became law, which as a result of that you now have legal action which would have repercussions in the millions of dollars for your department. So, asking what communications took place between that individual and why we had this kind of bungling take place by a Clerk of the Executive Council, with all due respect, when there is millions of dollars of taxpayers' money at risk, I do not believe that to be frivolous, sir.
MR. MUIR: Could not the request have been for e-mails that related to that?
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, I have had experience with the . . .
MR. MUIR: You're trying to defend that type of question. I'm ashamed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please. I would ask again. Allow the question to be asked and an answer be given, please do not interrupt one another.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, I have personal experience where when asking for information, the information that comes back, when you're too specific, is not the information you're looking for, and the response comes back that you were too specific, you didn't indicate, you didn't give us enough of an openness as to what we could provide you with and, as a result of that, that's why you're not getting the information requested, that's why we're going to have to wait and all this. So, I've seen where people have asked open-ended questions with the idea being I have had staff come back to me . . .
MR. MUIR: . . . going fishing, because they don't know what they're doing and they're looking for somebody to do their homework for them. That's the type of thing . . .
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect . . .
[Page 483]
MR. MUIR: . . . that is taking up the resources of those people. Legitimate requests, no issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order. Order. Mr. Minister and the honourable member for Richmond, I would ask that you not badger one another. I would wish that the questions would be asked and answers be given, but not concurrently. Please do not have colliding of conversations. Please have decorum in here.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, you just made an interesting statement. You said that with these freedom of information requests that people are "going fishing". My response to you, sir, is if you were running the open and accountable government that you claim that you are, there's nothing they should have to go fishing for, because there shouldn't be anything that you're hiding in the first place. But by indicating that you feel people are going out fishing, you're clearly admitting that there is stuff that you don't want to get out there . . .
MR. MUIR: No, what I'm telling you is that people want something to do, including the Liberal caucus office and the NDP caucus office . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, honourable members. Honourable members. Order, Mr. Minister. Mr. Minister. I don't want to hold anyone in contempt here, but if I have to invoke the orders of the House and start using the procedures used in Chamber, of having the questions and the answers channelled through the Chair, I will do so if I have to to control the decorum in here. I would ask honourable members to be more respectful of one another, ask the questions, answer the answers, but do not interrupt one another. Please be patient with one another.
MR. MUIR: I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Minister, you first started off by saying you weren't aware of freedom of information requests, then you just listed off three of what you call frivolous requests. Prior to your receiving that note from one of your staff, were you aware of those requests?
MR. MUIR: I had heard about them, I think last week or the week before.
MR. SAMSON: Who informed you of that?
MR. MUIR: That is privileged information.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, sir, how is it, under what privilege . . .
MR. MUIR: It wasn't my staff.
[Page 484]
MR. SAMSON: Pardon?
MR. MUIR: It wasn't my staff.
MR. SAMSON: And what rules of privilege are you invoking in not disclosing who gave you that information?
MR. MUIR: I guess you would say ministerial privilege.
MR. SAMSON: I don't understand - you're too close to the mike.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He said ministerial, ministerial privilege.
MR. SAMSON: Well, your ministerial privilege lies in Cabinet, other than that, unless you have solicitor-client that you want to invoke as a member of the Bar, you don't really have privilege to invoke, Mr. Minister, with all due respect. So I ask you again, who made you aware of this information?
MR. MUIR: I'm not going to answer that question.
MR. SAMSON: On what basis?
MR. MUIR: I think, Mr. Chairman, I'm not required to answer that question.
MR. SAMSON: Since when?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have to take that up with the Speaker, but I believe that when we're here in debate of the estimates of the House, and debating the estimates of the department, when it comes to a discussion of privilege, that's a question I would like to have clarification on from the Speaker.
MR. SAMSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You indicated, when you started your comments, that you as minister and Attorney General were not aware of freedom of information requests, what their nature was or how many there were. Now you're telling us that you were aware of at least three requests. So which one is it? Is there only these three requests you're aware of, or are there other requests that you have been made aware of?
MR. MUIR: As you would know from your previous experience, at least maybe you don't, because I don't know what effect that law had, but under the freedom of information we have the most open laws in Canada. Freedom of information - and this is one of the problems, I guess, that each department has people who deal with freedom of information requests, not to mention the freedom of information offices. The amount of money that was received in fees for freedom of information requests nowhere, no way, I guess you could say
[Page 485]
they are a very minor part of the operation of freedom of information service. Now a lot of people just look at the office, which I think the bill for Darce Fardy's office is around $300,000, something like that. But every department - certainly, when I was in Health, we had people who virtually did nothing except freedom of information requests. That's what occupied their day. Every department is like that.
The costs of freedom of information - I can tell you quite seriously, people don't come, at least to this minister, and tell me that they have freedom of information requests that have been received. To be quite frank, if you were to ask me how many freedom of information requests have come into Justice since I have been minister, I couldn't tell you. I have absolutely no idea. I don't know of any, but I assume that there are.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, you say you don't know of any, but you were aware of at least three of them and you are aware of what they were asking for. You've just admitted to that, that you were aware of these three that you were handed, what the nature of it was, what they were asking for, and that they were deemed frivolous. I'm curious as to how many . . .
MR. MUIR: I deemed them frivolous.
MR. SAMSON: Pardon?
MR. MUIR: I said they were frivolous.
MR. SAMSON: Were they responded to?
MR. MUIR: I have no idea.
MR. SAMSON: You deemed them frivolous, you used them as an example why this information should not be given and yet you're now saying you're not aware if the information went out or not. You're sending an awful lot of confusing messages here, Mr. Minister. You seem to be aware, you don't want to tell us how you were made aware of it, first you said you weren't aware of any . . .
MR. MUIR: I can tell you this, I had forgotten, but I am entitled as a minister to know what the applications are, although people in the departments I've had don't bring them to me and I haven't really asked, but you aren't allowed to know the identity of the person who asked them.
MR. SAMSON: So now your interpretation is that you are to be made aware of any freedom of information requests that come in . . .
MR. MUIR: No, I didn't say that.
[Page 486]
MR. SAMSON: . . . what the nature of it is . . .
MR. MUIR: What I said was . . .
MR. SAMSON: . . . what they're asking for . . .
MR. MUIR: . . . I am entitled to know what applications have come in, but I'm not entitled to know who made the requests.
MR. SAMSON: So you know what's being asked, you know what's being requested, you know what the nature of it is, and that that is discussed with you . . .
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, do I have to repeat myself again? I thought I made myself very clear when I said that in the Department of Justice I am not aware of any freedom of information request that has come into that department since I have been minister.
MR. SAMSON: Yet you are aware of at least three requests that have gone into other departments that you have admitted to today, and you won't tell us how you were made aware of that, why you came to be made aware of that and - what's surprising to me - if they were for another department, why would you even be made aware of that . . .
MR. MUIR: I guess what I would say is clearly . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order. Order, Mr. Minister. I have asked, I think this is the fifth time now, that there be no interruptions when a question is being asked or an answer being given, so I would ask for decorum, and respect be given to each member. Please allow the question to be asked in its entirety and allow the answer to be given in its entirety, without interruptions. I would ask the members, again, for cordial conduct.
[12:15 p.m.]
MR. SAMSON: Do you want me to repeat my question?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Repeat your question, please.
MR. SAMSON: My question to you is, you said you were not aware of any freedom of information requests that have come to your department since you were there, but you have admitted that you are aware of three requests made to other departments, you are aware of the specific information that was requested, so I ask you again, how were you made aware of freedom of information requests for other departments for which you have no responsibility?
MR. MUIR: I thought I had answered that question.
[Page 487]
MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record you may want to clarify it for him.
MR. SAMSON: Does the minister feel it is appropriate as the minister, Attorney General, for him to be made aware of freedom of information requests that are going into other departments?
MR. MUIR: There's no problem with that.
MR. SAMSON: You see no problem at all with you being made aware of . . .
MR. MUIR: Under the legislation, there's no problem with it, but that's not the practice. I don't know about other ministers, but freedom of information hasn't been real big on my agenda in terms of what information has been asked for or given out. We have people who deal with that and they don't come and ask my advice about what information should be given or what shouldn't be given; furthermore, I don't even know where the requests came from.
MR. SAMSON: Well, we will have to take your word for that, I guess. Other than the three requests you have just given as examples, have you been made aware of any other requested information dealing with other departments?
MR. MUIR: No.
MR. SAMSON: You've only been given these three examples?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. SAMSON: And again I ask you, who gave you this information?
I'm going to ask you one more time, Mr. Minister, who gave you the information regarding freedom of information requests dealing with other government departments?
I will ask a third time, Mr. Minister, who gave you the information . . .
MR. MUIR: No, no, you're wrong, this is six times.
MR. SAMSON: I will ask a seventh time, who, Mr. Minister, gave you the information about the nature and the requests for information in the freedom of information requests that were filed with another government department?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe he may have given the answer earlier, about ministerial privilege.
[Page 488]
MR. SAMSON: Again, Mr. Chairman, there is no such ministerial privilege that the minister can invoke here, unless he has solicitor-client privilege or Cabinet privilege that he wishes to invoke, but the minister does not enjoy any such privilege, and he's not a member of the Bar, so there is no such privilege for him to invoke on this. He has been given information about a freedom of information system dealing with other departments, which he has freely given out here today. I ask him again, how would the Attorney General come to know about the requests made to other departments, if the system is truly well run, open and accountable, and that this has not just become idle chit-chat around the Tory caucus table?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, is the honourable member informing this group that it was his caucus that made those requests?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time for the Liberal caucus has now expired. I believe it is not appropriate for the witness to be questioning the questioner at this particular point.
At this time, I would ask now for the NDP caucus to continue the questioning. The time is now 12:17 p.m. Just to alert members of the committee, our four hours will be reached at 1:13 p.m., so you have roughly 56 minutes remaining in your time here today.
The honourable member for Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: I wanted to start with a clarification, Mr. Chairman, what happens if - I think they're going to finish before us over there today because they didn't go . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand the House Leader is going to probably recess over there, just for a couple of minutes, to allow us to finish our four hours.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Minister, I want to go back to the restorative justice issue that I started an hour ago. Just to refresh our memories, you had said that under restorative justice there is a moratorium on diversion of charges relating to sexual offences or domestic violence, I believe, is that right?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Under restorative justice there is a moratorium on diverting sexual offences or domestic violence offences under the Restorative Justice Program.
MR. MUIR: There is a moratorium, but again I would like to clarify that restorative justice applies only to young offenders here, and you know that, but also that never occurred.
[Page 489]
MR. DEVEAUX: Understood. My question then is, around the Adult Diversion Program, which is separate, is there a moratorium on offences on sexual assault or violent offences not being diverted under the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: Serious sexual offences and domestic violence issues are not diverted.
MR. DEVEAUX: I'm not talking about serious, I said sexual offences, so that means it could be whatever the term minor sexual offences are and other violent crimes could still come under the Adult Diversion Program, is that right?
MR. MUIR: Violent crimes, in general the answer to that is no, although I guess there might be . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: In general?
MR. MUIR: Yes, I don't . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. My question was, is there a moratorium under the Adult Diversion Program for any sexual offence or violent offence to not be - well, let's just start with the sexual offences . . .
MR. MUIR: Well, violent offences - sexual offences, if they are of a serious nature, then the answer is yes, they won't be diverted.
MR. DEVEAUX: That wasn't my question. I understand, but that wasn't my question. Is there a moratorium on any sexual offences being brought into the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: The answer is no.
MR. DEVEAUX: In the end, with regard to serious sexual offences, is it the discretion of the Crown as to whether or not they are brought under the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: Ultimately, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you as minister have the ability to actually issue directives to the Public Prosecution Service with regard to the activities of Crowns, you would agree with that?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
[Page 490]
MR. DEVEAUX: I know you haven't been minister for very long, but has the issue arisen as to whether or not you should be issuing directives so that no sexual offences could come under the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: There has been no pressure on me to do that, no.
MR. DEVEAUX: Would you agree, though, that it wouldn't be a good idea for an adult who is charged with a sexual offence, any sexual offence, to be diverted to the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: I have difficulty answering that for two reasons. First of all, my background is not in jurisprudence, or prosecution, or any of that stuff, but secondly, clearly, serious sex offences, no diversion, absolutely, I agree with that, but I don't know what a minor sexual offence is. For example . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: I agree.
MR. MUIR: . . . if I was to, the young lady sitting back there, go up and put my hand on her shoulder and she charged me with sexual assault, diversion might be better than jail. I don't know. I don't know what those things would be termed under the law.
MR. DEVEAUX: I could get into the argument as to lay people being Attorneys General, there's an issue around that. My point is that as the Attorney General it's your ultimate decision, and you're ultimately responsible for the justice system in this province, are you not? As the minister in charge . . .
MR. MUIR: Absolutely, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: We were talking only a few minutes ago, where you said that serious sexual offences could go under the diversion program at the discretion of the Crown Attorney.
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: So if that's the case and we, here today, are saying that sexual offences, and particularly serious sexual offences, shouldn't come under the diversion program, has it not crossed your mind, maybe, to put forward a directive to the Public Prosecution Service to prevent them from having serious sexual offences come under the Adult Diversion Program?
MR. MUIR: I guess I said that my perspective is that the Public Prosecution Service is independent. For the most part I expect it has acted wisely and served the people well. It certainly hasn't been an issue and, other than during this particular conversation, nobody has
[Page 491]
drawn that matter to my attention. I assume that what is in practice in Nova Scotia is probably serving the people well.
MR. DEVEAUX: Last week when the women's groups came forward with their report, Pam Rubin's report, I assume you were briefed, or you at some point have some knowledge of what they're saying . . .
MR. MUIR: I guess my problem with that, when you asked that question, it was a report which I hadn't read . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: I understand.
MR. MUIR: . . . written by a group that I didn't know, talking about a situation that didn't exist.
MR. DEVEAUX: Understood. I'm not talking specifically about my question in the House last week. My point is, though - I'm not talking about them - even since then, you've been briefed, I presume, on the issue.
MR. MUIR: The briefing that I had from staff, to be quite frank, with regard to that issue wouldn't be much different, in all candour, than the briefings which I received as a member of the Community Services Committee five years ago when we went around in 1999 . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: In 1998.
MR. MUIR: Well 1998. Certainly your colleague, Maureen MacDonald, was the chair of that committee, and many of the points that were made in the briefing that I received from staff, it had been articulated by groups with whom I have met in the past five years on a number of cases.
MR. DEVEAUX: So I guess my point, I'm not thinking about the women's groups, in particular as much as I am - you're telling me that today is the first time that you realized that the moratorium that we're talking about only applies to youth, it does not apply to adults who are diverted. The first time you heard about that was today.
MR. MUIR: I think the issue in the report, as I understood it, they were talking about restorative justice, and right now restorative justice only applies to youth, but there is a, I guess you can call it a formal moratorium on something that never occurred.
MR. DEVEAUX: Then there's a very similar program, adult diversion, in which there isn't a moratorium?
[Page 492]
MR. MUIR: That's correct, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: The first time you heard of the lack of moratorium for adults who were diverted, similarly to the restorative justice, was today?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: I want to switch a little but on the same theme, relatively same theme I guess, the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre, do they receive money from the Justice Department?
MR. MUIR: I think we gave them $21,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: Under which program heading do they get that, just under general grants or is it under specific programs?
MR. MUIR: It is under grants. You will find it there under grants. It's transferred to the Department of Community Services which disburses it.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you transfer it to Community Services?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: It is general grants. Victims Services - I remember this last year over the Michael Tran issue - Victims Services gets its money through the victim surcharge on fines?
MR. MUIR: That's correct, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: That money now, you guys, when you first came into power decided it would only apply to counselling services, it's limited to counselling?
MR. MUIR: The surcharge fund didn't deal with counselling or compensation.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, not so much the surcharge fund, but the surcharge fund goes into Victims Services and there are regulations under Victims Services as to how that money can be disbursed, is that correct, or is it the victims compensation fund or Victim Compensation Board? I'm trying to remember which one.
MR. MUIR: In the victims assistance fund - and this is set up from a 15 per cent surcharge on fees and you would be aware of that - the funds in 2000 and 2003 that were received from that 15 per cent were just about $850,000. What that is used for is, last year it was about $182,000 and went to the Child Victim Witness Program, and close to $840,000
[Page 493]
went to regional programs. Now, if you add that up, it is more than came in in the 15 per cent surcharge fee so the department - the shortfall on funding, in this case it was about $170,000, I guess, $170,000 was taken from the balance in the fund. In other words, there was more money in the fund to start out with and you treat it as a reserve; there's about $500,000 left that is not committed.
[12:30 p.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: And when you say it goes to regional programs, what type of programs?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: What type of programs, I mean do you have a list of who gets the money?
MR. MUIR: I think in every region of the province there is a Victims Services office which has staff, and among other things, for example, if you were the victim of something or other and you needed advice about what remedies were available to you, that person or those people could provide you with that advice. They would direct you to perhaps other agencies or people who could assist you. I think the office is in some ways mainly one of facilitation to people who are victimized, they have somewhere they can turn to.
MR. DEVEAUX: So are you saying all $800,000 goes into those regional offices?
MR. MUIR: A little bit more than that, yes, those are mainly staff costs.
MR. DEVEAUX: But there is, if you recall Michael Tran, remember the gentleman who was stabbed . . .
MR. MUIR: I remember him well.
MR. DEVEAUX: There was an attempt to try to get funding for physical changes to his house in order for him to return home. There was a fund, I assume it was the Victims Assistance Fund, there is a fund that provides grants to victims that originally used to provide physical infrastructure changes and now it's limited to counselling and if I'm not talking about the Victims Assistance Fund, maybe you can tell me which fund I am talking about?
MR. MUIR: That's the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund.
MR. DEVEAUX: And where does the money come from for that?
MR. MUIR: It's just part of the budget of Victims Services.
[Page 494]
MR. DEVEAUX: And how much was it last year?
MR. MUIR: The net budget last year was $893,000 and the net estimate this year is $904,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: And does that come from the victim fine surcharge or does it just come directly from the general funds of the Department of Justice?
MR. MUIR: It's funded from the department.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, thank you. So there is my clarification. That fund though - the criminal injuries fund for short - money can only be given for counselling, I believe, counselling services and not for infrastructure or . . .
MR. MUIR: I'm sorry, which fund?
MR. DEVEAUX: The Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, I think is what it's called - the second one we were talking about.
MR. MUIR: It's probably better to call it a program than a fund.
MR. DEVEAUX: A program, thank you. But that's just for counselling, I believe, is that right?
MR. MUIR: That is counselling now, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And is that just given to individuals who request it? Because this is my point, Avalon Sexual Assault Centre, as you probably know from the media, has had concerns about their budget and I was wondering, considering they are the only one in this province that provides counselling to victims of sexual assault - and some might lay charges, some may not, obviously depending on their circumstances - is there any opportunity for them to access even a fraction of that money as a means to help them ensure they can continue to provide the counselling services they do to victims of sexual assault which is . . .
MR. MUIR: We have provided money to the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre and I guess . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Does it come out of that fund, out of that program?
MR. MUIR: No, this is strictly for individuals, this money, so it was additional money that came from the department.
[Page 495]
MR. DEVEAUX: Is there anything in the rules or regulations of the program that prevents any of that money going to a group or to an organization that provides counselling?
MR. MUIR: The way that works is that people who are going to receive counselling, there is a roster of qualified counsellors and they are given x numbers of dollars to go out and procure help and . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Is there anything preventing them from going to a counsellor at Avalon Sexual Assault Centre then or do you know if any of them are recognized counsellors?
MR. MUIR: They're recognized cousellors and on the roster.
MR. DEVEAUX: They are on the roster?
MR. MUIR: I don't know.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, I'm trying to help find a political answer . . .
MR. MUIR: No, no, I understand, I mean I understand where you're going.
MR. DEVEAUX: I think that, I mean given the fact that they are saying they need the extra money, if there's any way in which that program could be accessed . . .
MR. MUIR: I appreciate where you're going with this.
MR. DEVEAUX: . . . I would encourage you to look at it because I think there is a political solution there that might help them and also help others.
Maybe we could bring Mr. Herschorn up here for just one minute again - it's probably my last question on PPS, I can't promise that, but I hope, and he will probably be familiar with this one, it's one of my favourite things I like to put on the record - you talked about special prosecutions and you talked about the difficulty having two people on murder trials and stuff, and I've always, and I will continue to reiterate this point but I will ask it as a question first. One of the recommendations of the Richards inquiry from Westray was that there be a full-time prosecutor of occupational health and safety and labour issues - you could actually make it environment and labour if you wish . . .
MR. MUIR: You haven't asked this question before, have you?
MR. DEVEAUX: Oh, I think I have, probably every year, it's an annual question - so has the department done anything toward implementing that recommendation from the Richards inquiry?
[Page 496]
MR. MUIR: There has been no specific individual allocated to that position although, in response to that, training for prosecutors has been enhanced.
MR. DEVEAUX: I will just go from there for a second, I mean this is a job I used to do in Ontario so it's one I'm familiar with and I've seen the benefits of having someone who's a full-time prosecutor in this area, particularly because these are much like fraud trials, and I'm saying this because I know you're new as minister. They're very complicated trials. They're more complicated than even criminal trials which, in many cases, the prosecutors and judges don't have an opportunity to appreciate. They see these as provincial offences, like starting a fire in your backyard without a permit, but they're much more complicated, as are the environmental ones, and so I always try to take a little time in each one of these estimates every year to try to make the point that - particularly now, the more you talk to people within the Department of Labour, they will tell you that the biggest barrier to their ability to do their job in many cases - and maybe this is just passing the buck - they will say is prosecutors who don't either take the prosecution seriously or don't have the skills to deal with the specific type of offences that are involved, and we're talking about people who are dying or environmental people who are being exposed to serious hazards.
It's a very special type of prosecution, as I said, like fraud, with detail, a lot of paperwork, in some cases into white collar - well it is - it is a white collar crime, or quasi-crime I guess, in which you are going out and having to do paperwork and forensic review in order to identify who is directly involved in the situation and so I just make to you as a new minister, I will make the same pitch that I made to the old minister which is, in your monthly meetings with the director maybe it's something that can come up at some point. It was in the Richards inquiry's recommendations and, as far as I'm concerned, it is a vital component of ensuring we have legitimate prosecution and enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Environmental Protection Act, and the sooner our province recognizes that I think the better we will be able to recognize the rights of workers and those in environmental hazards. So I will leave it at that.
I wanted to talk about a compensation program - I call it the Shelburne compensation program, but you know what I mean - how much has been paid out to the people who claimed abuse at the hands of employees of the Department of Justice? I don't mean this year, I mean overall.
MR. MUIR: The awards total to date is about $31.5 million - just shy of that.
MR. DEVEAUX: Those are payouts to the actual victims?
MR. MUIR: Those are awards and, yes, they have been paid.
MR. DEVEAUX: I'm wondering about associated counselling and legal fees. How much has been paid for that?
[Page 497]
MR. MUIR: The counselling is about $8.1 million - a little less than that.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's on top of the $31.5 million?
MR. MUIR: Yes. The legal fees up to this point, to the end of 2002-03, have been about $5.3 million. Family Services Association did the counselling on our behalf, which you're aware of, and that's about $1.66 million. Other professional services were $1.8 million. The total on that - I guess you kind of see that as $52.5 million. The Internal Investigation Unit files, the cost of whoever did this, was about $7.7 million.
MR. DEVEAUX: IIU, I think it was $5.7 million.
MR. MUIR: No, $7.7 million. The employment assistance program for the Shelburne employees was about $5.4 million and the Kaufman review itself cost pretty close to $1.6 million, so the total for that, with the clock still ticking a bit, is $67.2 million.
MR. DEVEAUX: So, $67.2 million. Okay. Are you still paying counselling fees, legal fees, or payout to claims in this fiscal year - or is that all done? - to the people who claimed abuse?
MR. MUIR: To the awards, yes. To the counselling, yes. And some legal fees have been paid this year as well.
MR. DEVEAUX: These are to the alleged victims of abuse?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay.
MR. MUIR: No, I'm sorry. Some of the legal fees are being paid on behalf of people who were alleged abusers.
MR. DEVEAUX: Right. Maybe for purposes of our discussion we'll call them abusees and abusers - is that appropriate?
MR. MUIR: Staff and residents.
MR. DEVEAUX: Ah, thank you. Mr. Brian Johnson was the person I think appointed to deal with the result of the Kaufman inquiry, is that right?
MR. MUIR: Yes. This file is now in the Public Service Commission, so some of the questions, if they're real recent, I may not be able to respond to them.
[Page 498]
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. Legal fees and disbursements to Mr. Johnson - is that something that you can answer?
MR. MUIR: Yes. That's Stewart McKelvey he's with and, last year, about pretty close to $520,000, less than $525,000 - $516,000 actually.
MR. DEVEAUX: And how much is budgeted for this year?
MR. MUIR: His work is pretty much finished. I've been informed we're budgeting around $100,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: For this year.
MR. MUIR: Yes.
[12:45 p.m.]
MR. DEVEAUX: So you say his work is pretty well finished, directly representing the department in negotiations with the staff?
MR. MUIR: No. His position came about, I think it was Kaufman recommended that if you were going to get this matter resolved, you should have an independent person do it. No, I'm corrected on that - after Kaufman, it was requested that the government obtain independent legal advice and that's where Mr. Johnson came in.
MR. DEVEAUX: So he's not the one directly involved with negotiating with staff as the independent counsel?
MR. MUIR: He's the one who signed the letters communicating the - I'm sorry, I can't remember whether he signed the letters, but certainly he was there and he's the guy that is determining what's in the letters, dollar-wise.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay. How many alleged abusers, former staff, are we talking about roughly, if you know, or an exact number?
MR. MUIR: I think the number of letters that went out was 181.
MR. DEVEAUX: How many people have accepted the offer in the letter?
MR. MUIR: Mr. Chairman, as I said, that's being handled by the Public Service Commission now and we'll try to get the information, but I don't have it simply because the communication would go back to them.
[Page 499]
MR. DEVEAUX: The deadline is over though for them to accept it, isn't it?
MR. MUIR: I thought it had been extended. We'll check on that too. I stand to be corrected, but I thought it had basically been extended, but again, the Public Service Commission . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: So the actual payout to those who've accepted, is that something under your budget?
MR. MUIR: No, that's from the Public Service Commission budget.
MR. DEVEAUX: So you can't answer how much?
MR. MUIR: I can't answer that question. I can tell you about Mr. Johnson, if you go back to him, we are paying for Mr. Johnson out of our budget.
MR. DEVEAUX: There's a memorandum of agreement between the province and employees back in June 1988. I'm not that familiar with it. Is that right, some sort of memorandum of agreement around the issue of how staff . . .
MR. MUIR: There was a memorandum of understanding with the NSGEU, yes. That was the line item for the Shelburne employee assistance program and that total was about $5.4 million.
MR. DEVEAUX: In total? Not this year, in total?
MR. MUIR: No, in total, about $5.4 million. Last fiscal year it was $987,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: Last year - and this year?
MR. MUIR: It's demand-driven.
MR. DEVEAUX: There's no number put in for it? Obviously it's an estimate.
MR. MUIR: We have an estimate. Just to go back, you had asked about the number of people who had accepted offers. The answer is 41. There is no imposed deadline. Those 41 people, the amount paid to them was $374,500.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, thank you. So, when we talk about the 181, that's the 181 who got letters of apology. That's what we're talking about, right?
MR. MUIR: Yes, 181 letters went out containing an apology. Those letters, at least some of them, I know I co-signed some of those letters.
[Page 500]
MR. DEVEAUX: Do you have a number - 41 obviously have accepted, but that leaves 140 if my math is correct. How many of those - how do I say? - have indicated or filed a statement of claim, have let you know that they're not accepting it in some form and therefore are proceeding with litigation?
MR. MUIR: Again, not trying to not answer your question, the Public Service Commission - we have notice from one person who is definitely suing us.
MR. DEVEAUX: Just one at this point?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: And that's through a statement of claim, I take it?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is there somewhere here that identifies how much money has been set aside for settlement of the 181 cases, or is that again under the Public Service Commission?
MR. MUIR: That's under the Public Service Commission.
MR. DEVEAUX: Do they actually have a number that is identifiable?
MR. MUIR: I can't answer that for you.
MR. DEVEAUX: Operation Hope. Is it still going?
MR. MUIR: It is, yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: How much of that is being funded by the province? Are there any other sources of funding for that or is it all provincial money, and if so, how much?
MR. MUIR: Our contribution to the investigation would be our provincial contribution to the policing costs of the RCMP - I think it's 30/70 or 70/30.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the feds, as part of the RCMP, are doing the investigation?
MR. MUIR: Yes. Obviously we would be paying for the prosecution.
MR. DEVEAUX: And there are two prosecutors I believe - is that right? - involved in Operation Hope?
[Page 501]
MR. MUIR: There are five.
MR. DEVEAUX: So, two questions, the 70 per cent of RCMP is equivalent to how much, and how much is the PPS budgeting for the five staff?
MR. MUIR: We pay an annual contract to the RCMP.
MR. DEVEAUX: Oh, I see, it's all part of that. Okay, so there's no separate line item?
MR. MUIR: I'm just going to confirm that, Mr. Chairman. No, there wasn't.
MR. DEVEAUX: And for the Public Prosecution Service, do they have a line item as to Operation Hope?
MR. MUIR: While they're looking for that, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Richmond asked about the costs incurred by the Department of Justice in supporting the appeal of the federal gun law, and I didn't know the number, but I have it now. It's $4,412.64. There was no tracking of the hours. We had an agent in Ottawa and the bill for that was $1,900. The lawyers who were involved in that were Reinhold Endres, now retired, and Louise Poirier. The budgeted amount for Operation Hope for this fiscal year is $710,000 for the prosecution service.
MR. DEVEAUX: This is more of a policy question, do you see this winding down at some point; how long are we going to continue with Operation Hope, what is its mandate now; and is it still looking for prosecuting staff or has it now turned to possible irregularities in claims made by residents?
MR. MUIR: We think the clock is approaching midnight on this. We can't really predict when it's going to end. Really what happens is that the information brought by the RCMP is what the prosecutors are dealing with.
MR. DEVEAUX: Can you tell me if their mandate is just on prosecution of staff, alleged abusers, or is it also residents who made false claims, potentially, allegedly?
MR. MUIR: Operation Hope dealt only with alleged abusers. The RCMP had a parallel investigation of their own dealing with people who they felt . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Alleged fraudulent claims. So it's not part of Operation Hope?
MR. MUIR: No.
[Page 502]
MR. DEVEAUX: I wanted to switch gears and talk about the Maintenance Enforcement Program. Does that come under your department?
MR. MUIR: Yes.
MR. DEVEAUX: I'm going to talk anecdotally here, just speaking as a member of the Legislature and maybe the others might, if they want to chime in, but I don't know how many calls I get from women who are a part of that program who cannot even get their phone calls returned, and maybe as an MLA you've had some experience with this as well.
MR. MUIR: I don't think there's probably an MLA in the province who hasn't had calls about maintenance enforcement.
MR. DEVEAUX: I've always wondered why it is so difficult. Is it just underfunded? I mean that in all honesty - I'm not trying to make political hay of this. To me, it's just an important issue. Is there a lack of funding? Is it a lack of caseworkers? Why is it that women who are in this program find - and quite frankly, what ends up happening is I end up making a call - it's actually very unproductive - to the executive director, and then they get the call immediately, so the squeaky wheel gets the oil. But if you're not empowered enough or you don't have the foresight to make a call to an MLA or to whomever, to your office maybe, you don't get that call back. This is a problem. It's a problem.
I think the women in Nova Scotia - mostly women, presumably - are enrolled in this program because it's supposed to make it easier for them to ensure that they continue to get court-ordered payments, and then they find the system lets them down. I guess I'm hoping you might be able to shed some light on why that's happening and what your government intends to do about it.
MR. MUIR: I would first like to comment as an MLA, that's where I was first introduced to maintenance enforcement. The problem that was given to me as an MLA was not the one that you've recited about not hearing back; that wasn't the major thing. The major thing was, okay, you do hear back, but I'm still not getting my cheque. That's the problem. We are trying to put in a 48-hour deadline standard, a maximum to get calls returned.
MR. DEVEAUX: What's the file load for each caseworker? How many caseworkers and how many clients do they have?
MR. MUIR: There are 43 caseworkers in maintenance enforcement.
MR. DEVEAUX: That's a fair number. How many clients are we talking about?
MR. MUIR: I don't have that information. I will see if we can get it.
[Page 503]
MR. DEVEAUX: Sure, we can get back to that one. I just want to check my time to see how much time I have. I have 13 minutes - 12 minutes?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have 13 minutes remaining in our time here this afternoon.
MR. DEVEAUX: And I have four minutes after that, is that right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have an additional four minutes after that. If you want to give me a minute for some rule procedures, I will give you five minutes the next day.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, you let me know then.
I wanted to talk about speeding tickets. I remember this issue came up back in December or January. Now maybe you are going to say it's in the courts, and if that's the case then we will just stop here. The whole issue around the issuing of tickets and so forth, have the regulations been adjusted since that issue arose last December, or is it something that comes under Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations? Let me just start with that. Is it something that comes under your department?
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. MUIR: The Motor Vehicle Act is Transportation and Public Works and the Summary Proceedings Act is Justice.
MR. DEVEAUX: So these regulations came under the Motor Vehicle Act, I believe - no, no, I guess they weren't, they were the offences under the summary offence Act.
MR. MUIR: No, they were summary offence. I guess it took me a while as a new person to understand - most people don't - is that you're charged under one section but you pay under another. They are two separate things. So the ticket and the offence are different.
MR. DEVEAUX: Right, and I have to refresh my memory in going back to this and the question wasn't whether you could be charged with an offence, but whether the offence could be a summary offence ticket, I think. Therefore there was a question as to when the regulations were passed, were they retroactive, et cetera. My question is, since this issue came up, has Cabinet adjusted the regulations or changed the regulations to correspond with the timelines that originally were imposed?
MR. MUIR: There has been no regulation change, no.
MR. DEVEAUX: In the summary offences Act since . . .
[Page 504]
MR. MUIR: Yes, going back to that particular case, the one that got the headlines I guess, the opinion of the department officials is that the other side really doesn't have any case and I guess the Justice of the Peace, whoever heard it the first time, took that position as well, and I understand it's going to appeal. Whether it has actually formally gone there, I don't know.
MR. DEVEAUX: So it's up to the courts, I guess, at this point? Your department feels comfortable that you're on solid ground?
MR. MUIR: All the advice that I've received indicates that we're comfortable in our position.
MR. DEVEAUX: You mentioned the Yarmouth Correctional Centre and it gaining staff, are there correctional centres in Shelburne and Digby Counties?
MR. MUIR: In Shelburne there is the Youth Centre.
MR. DEVEAUX: Adult?
MR. MUIR: No, no adult, not in Shelburne.
MR. DEVEAUX: In Digby County, do they have their own county correctional centre?
MR. MUIR: There are local lock-ups for police, but the actual place where you go to do time, we have Yarmouth, we have Antigonish, we have Burnside, we have Sydney, Amherst, that's it.
MR. DEVEAUX: What was the last one, Amherst?
MR. MUIR: Amherst.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the one in Halifax was supposed to close Lunenburg, Kings, Colchester, Guysborough and Halifax, and they were going to be coordinated . . .
MR. MUIR: Well, whether you can say that Guysborough is really closed because of Burnside - it came at the same time, but . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: It was meant to centralize central Nova Scotia. So is the one in Yarmouth being built, was part of that that there were other county correctional centres that were being closed and they're going to be consolidated into Yarmouth, is that what happened?
[Page 505]
MR. MUIR: No, the Yarmouth facility was built in 1862. I don't know, but if you're ever down there you may wish to visit it sometime. It's not really a fully-functional institution because the people who are housed there would be ones who have been sentenced to be incarcerated, but - how would you describe them? - they would be low risk. There are fire marshal restrictions on the numbers of people who can go in there, but in the new facility it would be able to house the full range of offenders.
MR. DEVEAUX: So there has never been an adult correctional centre in Shelburne County, Queens County, Digby County, Annapolis County?
MR. MUIR: I don't know the answer. I might ask my good colleague there, the member for Shelburne, if he knows the answer to that. (Interruption) He's saying no.
MR. DEVEAUX: There was never in the other counties either, they all went to Yarmouth, or if Yarmouth couldn't handle them for fire reasons, they went somewhere else. You talked about increasing staff. Is that because all the offences are now going to be able to be in the one in Yarmouth, is that the point, or is that why we're having an increased staff level in the one in Yarmouth?
MR. MUIR: The day I visited there were two or four people in there, I forget which it was, and they were in there for property crimes, I guess, or impaired driving. I mean, not that that's not - they weren't deemed as being a real hazard to the public.
MR. DEVEAUX: So did the rest go to central here in Burnside?
MR. MUIR: They went to Burnside or they would go to Antigonish or Sydney.
MR. DEVEAUX: So this is a good thing because Yarmouth, the people in that part of the province have an opportunity to have their loved ones closer to them.
MR. MUIR: One of the things with the criminal system now is, it used to be a pretty local thing, particularly here in metro where most of the crime occurs, there are gangs and a variety of other undesirable (Interruption) Anyway, sometimes you have to separate people - if you're from Halifax, you can't go to jail in Halifax, to be quite frank.
MR. DEVEAUX: Okay, got you.
MR. MUIR: One of the things that put the finger on that I guess was that unfortunate incident out in Sackville where they had two folks from the same community.
MR. DEVEAUX: Or the one in Moser River. Yes, that's a few years ago now. Did we get a number on how many clients there are?
[Page 506]
MR. MUIR: Yes, we have, it's coming.
MR. DEVEAUX: You will undertake to give it to me if it doesn't come . . .
MR. MUIR: Yes, we will get it to you.
MR. DEVEAUX: Thank you. I had a couple questions in estimates, the Supplementary Detail. On Page 13.3, you estimated FOIPOP under Administration to be $242,000. It's $168,000 and now you're saying it's going to go up to $271,000 this year. What's the difference?
MR. MUIR: They will be at full capacity, indeed they are now. They had a couple vacancies in there that weren't filled. The new program last year, there was $75,000 difference and that's because the program didn't start up as originally planned. There is a wage settlement that went in there too, an increase in professional services.
MR. DEVEAUX: On Page 13.5 of the Supplementary Detail under Court Services, the fourth one down, Provincial Courts - Halifax, in 2002-03 you're estimating $6.35 million. It was actually $7 million. What was the difference?
MR. MUIR: That was $13.5 million, Mr. Chairman.
MR. DEVEAUX: Yes; Provincial Courts - Halifax.
MR. MUIR: Yes, the increase is about $645,000, and that's what you're asking about? The new Justice of the Peace program was $200,000-plus more expensive than we had anticipated and that was largely due to building maintenance costs, salary costs and per diems paid to adjudicators. The renovations done on Spring Garden Road were projected to cost about $325,000, and then there were some ID purchases of about $70,000, and the per diem judges, I don't know, they were about $80,000 over budget there.
MR. DEVEAUX: On Page 13.6 under Correctional Services, Community Corrections Programs, last year was about $6.5 million, it's going up to $7.3 million, $7.4 million. What's the difference this year?
MR. MUIR: Yes, last year it was $6.5 million and it went up to $7.4 million. I'm just going to have to look on Page 50 and find that for you. The major portion of that increase was due to the increase in salary expenses as the result of wage settlements and then the probation officers were reclassified. The Intensive Support and Supervision Program under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is projected to cost $380,000.
MR. DEVEAUX: How much time do I have?
[Page 507]
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have two minutes.
MR. DEVEAUX: Is that including your one minute?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, one minute then.
MR. DEVEAUX: Gun Control on Page 13.8 - sorry, Policing and Victim Services on Page 13.9, I take it the federal government was funding this until this year and now we're funding it, is that the difference?
MR. MUIR: No, what happened in that and I know that one without looking it up and I can't remember what the difference in the number is, but it's basically a cost recovery program. Last year we were overfunded.
MR. DEVEAUX: To the federal government you mean?
MR. MUIR: The federal government gave us more money than we were entitled to.
MR. DEVEAUX: So the federal government does fund it, but because of an overpayment this year, you're going to have to cover the difference.
MR. MUIR: We're getting less this year.
MR. DEVEAUX: Under Funded Staff, Administration, 2001-02, you're at 98.5 staff.
MR. MUIR: What was that, I'm sorry.
MR. DEVEAUX: On Page 13.9, in the Supplementary Detail, Funded Staff.
MR. MUIR: Okay, go ahead, please.
MR. DEVEAUX: You were at 98.5 in 2001-02. You're at 105.8 in 2002-03 and you're going up to 121 this year. Any particular reason why that increase?
MR. MUIR: The net increase is 3.9. Just in trying to answer it, I guess in a couple of ways. First of all, we have picked up some more lawyers who are assigned to various departments for which we get . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: That's always a good thing.
MR. MUIR: I beg your pardon?
MR. DEVEAUX: It's a good thing.
[Page 508]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before we adjourn today, I just wanted to raise the issue of privilege and stuff. I have advised the Speaker's Office of the proceedings in here and told him there might be a consideration of a matter of privilege. I had advised the Speaker of that so it is with the Speaker's Office where it rests there. I did not ask any questions about relevancy or repetition, I felt that the question of the freedom of information requests pertained to the budget and departments, so I felt that it was a question that was rather relevant and pertaining to the budget, but the question of operational procedures versus expenditure, that's a discussion I think that you're going to have at a later date.
We stand adjourned at 1:13 p.m. and we will reconvene here again on Tuesday, April 22nd, after Question Period. Our four hours are complete.
[1:14 p.m. The subcommittee rose.]
