MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are continuing debate on the estimates of the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations. At adjournment yesterday, we had 14 minutes left for the NDP.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to open this morning on a different topic than I ended with last time. I wanted to ask a question about the business occupancy tax consultation, a very important initiative, and a very good one, I think. It is always worth tackling these big issues and so I think the department should be congratulated for moving that on, of course without saying what the outcome might be. There is one very important element of this consultation that I wanted to ask you about, Mr. Minister, and that is that one of the major benefits of it assumes that the federal government will just jump on board and say, fine, the occupancy tax has been eliminated, our commercial rate has gone up and we are just going to pay it.
I don't have the figure just in front of me, Mr. Minister, but it amounts to many millions of dollars that the province is just hoping to - and the word that is used in the documents, a lovely, bureaucratic word, is - "leverage" the money out of the federal government. So my question is, have there in fact been any direct approaches to the federal government on this issue to see what their reaction might be?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.
HON. ANGUS MACISAAC: To date, the conclusions that we have drawn - and I will point out that they are tentative conclusions only - are based on what the federal government has done in other jurisdictions and most recently Ontario. In Ontario, they, in fact, did what we anticipate they will do here in the province.
MR. STEELE: In Nova Scotia, has there been any direct approach to the federal government asking the question of whether they will in fact go along and pay this many millions of dollars extra that would be theirs to pay if this business occupancy tax were eliminated?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
[11:30 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: Because, for example, in CBRM, the amount of money at stake here is over $1 million and I noticed that it was included in the spreadsheets that were issued around the time of this proposal on February 27th. It included an amount, with asterisks, but it included an amount for this business occupancy tax elimination. So as far as the government knows, there is no reason to think - well, maybe I will just leave it where it is. There has been no approach to the federal government about whether they will, in fact, go along, it is simply based on precedent. Okay, I think you have answered my question on that.
MR. MACISAAC: The reference to business occupancy was included in the documents because it is a matter that is out there for consultation. It is a question that people would want to take into consideration, not just with the document, but with respect to the question of business occupancy and, as I indicated previously, the federal government has been consistent in its response in other jurisdictions to the elimination of business occupancy.
MR. STEELE: Still on the subject of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, one of the key variables in their budget is the Sysco grant in lieu. Just off the top, Mr. Minister, how much was that in the last fiscal year?
MR. MACISAAC: It was $1 million.
MR. STEELE: Will that continue in this fiscal year?
MR. MACISAAC: That was a payment that came from Sysco to CBRM. It is not a payment that came from the province.
MR. STEELE: Right, and now that Sysco has been wound down and is no longer making the payment, it has blasted a $1 million hole in the CBRM budget. So my question, I guess, to be a little more precise in my terminology, is will the province be making up that $1 million in this fiscal year?
MR. MACISAAC: There is no plan to make the payment on behalf of Sysco. That was a payment made by Sysco.
MR. STEELE: Okay, I understand, and I don't want to split legal hairs with you, Mr. Minister, that it is not being made by Sysco and it is not being made on behalf of Sysco. I guess what I am asking you is, is the province going to make up that money in this fiscal year?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. STEELE: I want to ask about the municipal infrastructure program. Part of the Financial Measures (2001) Act includes the elimination of the municipal capital grant. How much is that worth?
MR. MACISAAC: Approximately $10 million.
MR. STEELE: Has the UNSM been consulted on that measure?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: What form did the consultation take?
MR. MACISAAC: A 12 month notice last year. It was included in the budget documents, I believe, and in a letter from myself to the UNSM.
MR. STEELE: Okay, Mr. Minister, it is my understanding that capital grants are not being eliminated completely, but in some sense they are being transferred over to the new infrastructure program.
MR. MACISAAC: That is correct.
MR. STEELE: I wonder if you could just go over this with me, the provincial contribution to the infrastructure program in this fiscal year is how much?
MR. MACISAAC: Approximately $13 million this year. I did the math earlier this morning. I was going to say $10 million, but it is not equal from year to year.
MR. STEELE: Is it fair to say then that the province is contributing new previously unallocated $3 million to municipal infrastructure programs or did that additional $3 million come from somewhere else in the budget?
MR. MACISAAC: To the best of my knowledge, that would be an additional amount of money, an increase.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, you say to the best of your knowledge, do you want to check with . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I am sorry. The incremental money is not a reallocation. It is an increase in the amount.
MR. STEELE: So if I were to say to you that that is new money, is that the case?
MR. MACISAAC: New capital money, yes.
MR. STEELE: I would like to ask about the mandatory education funding. The UNSM is on record as stating that their position is that the municipalities shouldn't be expected to contribute to education, but failing that they proposed that the municipal contribution be frozen at last year's level. I wonder if you could tell me how much did the municipalities contribute to education last year, and how much are they being expected to contribute this year?
MR. MACISAAC: I think it was about $131.2 million last year, and the increase this year is about $1.6 million.
MR. STEELE: Is it fair to say that the municipalities' request to have the funding capped has not been heeded?
MR. MACISAAC: We have increased it by $1.6 million.
MR. STEELE: Just to close out my time here, Mr. Minister, I am going to give you a soft lob. What are the province's plans for the future, with respect to the education funding contributed by the municipalities? Do you see that being, at any time in the future, frozen, reduced or even eliminated?
MR. MACISAAC: Well, in the near future, which would be the next fiscal year, there is no change. Beyond that, we have not made any definite determinations. It is something that, obviously, does get discussed. If I might just point out, the whole discussion vis-à-vis the province's responsibilities and the responsibilities of the municipalities, property services versus people services, if you were to look at education, one of the interesting parts about
education is that there is a very large component of property services within education. That does not factor into the current formulation.
I recognize that this is some piece out, in terms of going anywhere, but it is interesting to note that if we were to be purists about an application of that role, I think we would have to take into consideration that there is, in fact, a property element to education as well as there being the people services element to it. I would just point that out, more for interest than anything else. We certainly are not at a stage where we are planning any actions or movements in any way, but it is a factor that I believe at some juncture would have to be taken into consideration.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have three minutes remaining.
MR. STEELE: We are progressing very well, so I won't actually end on that note. (Interruptions) No, I am sorry, my colleague, the member for Halifax Chebucto is curious about what exactly you mean when you say there is a property element to education. I assumed, and perhaps incorrectly, that I knew what you meant by that, but I wonder if you would just spell out what you meant by that for the record.
MR. MACISAAC: Buildings, buses, the garages that house buses.
MR. STEELE: Assessment services, just so there is no mystery, when our time resumes, that is where I am going to pick up. What is going on with the Citadel Hill file?
MR. MACISAAC: It is interesting, the situation with respect to Citadel Hill. We have put forward a valuation, I believe it is $37 million. The federal government has not seen fit to accept that valuation. There is an appeal process, which in the case of federal properties, is established by the federal government. The host municipality has the responsibility of filing an appeal to the federal agency that hears these appeals. We have made it very clear to the Halifax Regional Municipality that we would provide the resources of our department to them in the event that they were to appeal that assessment. I believe we are awaiting a date for that appeal. We would be at the table with HRM.
MR. STEELE: Has HRM filed an appeal?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, I understand they are looking for a date for the appeal.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Time.
MR. MACISAAC: Can I carry on talking about . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: You can answer the question, yes.
MR. MACISAAC: That is the situation. We are prepared to provide the resources of the department to defend the numbers that have been put forward. The department feels confident about those numbers, but would be anxious to have the appeal take place because it would go a long way to clearing the air with respect to the matter. It is interesting that HRM is suggesting that they would cut a deal with respect to the federal government and this assessment. That is very interesting to us because, by the same token, we have been criticized and accused of having cut a deal with respect to another property in HRM. While that is not the case, the procedures that were applied with respect to that property are standard procedures with respect to assessment.
It is very interesting that HRM, on the one hand, suggests that it is prepared to cut a deal, and on the other hand, it is critical and accuses us of having cut a deal in the past. We find there is a bit of inconsistency there. The bottom line with respect to the file is that we are prepared to go to the table with HRM and to support, through our resources, the valuation that has been put forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is time now for questions from the Liberal caucus.
The honourable member for Cape Breton The Lakes.
MR. BRIAN BOUDREAU: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will start by congratulating the minister on the efforts of your staff. It seems your department is moving along. I know your deputy minister - I have had an opportunity in the past to deal with him - has always presented himself very professionally and extended courtesies to me as a municipal councillor. All your staff, particularly in Sydney, I feel they are a real asset to you and your department, particularly in housing.
Having said that, first of all, I am going to start off with Access Nova Scotia. Access Nova Scotia, obviously, it seems to be a success. In fact, they are bringing so many government services under one roof as the single-entry point, and it has been happening since 1996. Isn't that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: The single-entry access point for the public is a constantly evolving process. The current government would have us believe that they invented the concept.
MR. MACISAAC: I don't think that is true. We are quite prepared to give credit where credit is due. We believe that we inherited a good concept, and the only thing we are taking credit for is recognizing a good concept and doing our very best to build on that and
enhance the concept and make it even better than we found it. I am sure that had your stay in government not been interrupted, you would have tried to do the same thing.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, thank you for that. What new services have been brought into Access Nova Scotia since the fall of 1999?
MR. MACISAAC: Just a few, business licensing - we will have more to say about that in the near future - in terms of the Nova Scotia Business Registry, fishing licences, hunting licences, the Registry of Motor Vehicles in terms of electronic access. Those are a few of the new services, and we have quite a number stacked in the queue that we will be coming forward with through time. In four years' time, we anticipate having about 80 per cent of all government services accessible through Access Nova Scotia. We have, of course, expanded the number of locations of Access Nova Scotia, as well.
MR. BOUDREAU: In September 2000, the red tape task force or the Tory backbenchers make-work project, whatever you want to call it, recommended to establish a one-window access to government services and, ideally, one-window access to multiple levels of government, for business and individuals. Isn't that the goal of Access Nova Scotia?
MR. MACISAAC: Precisely.
MR. BOUDREAU: There is always room, I would suggest, for improvement and adding new services, that is for sure.
MR. MACISAAC: And we are always open to suggestions, as well.
MR. BOUDREAU: What new services does Access Nova Scotia plan to introduce?
MR. MACISAAC: We process and will be processing applications for other government services, but the area where we will probably make the biggest impact in terms of providing service to Nova Scotians is through the Department of Environment and Labour. We are going to work with them in terms of making their licences and permits, that are required from that department, available through Access Nova Scotia. I believe that is probably the most significant initiative that we could take - you referenced the red tape task force in terms of reducing red tape, and facilitating citizens of the province as well as businesses in the province.
The other is, of course, with many of these the payment options. We are now accepting credit cards and will be accepting debit cards. Those are improvements in the services, as well.
MR. BOUDREAU: The Honourable Ronald Russell said on November 11, 2000 that Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations will handle 80 per cent of the government's interaction with businesses and individuals, and already has a presence in every county. It will become a leader in electronic commerce and alternate service delivery, offering 80 per cent of its services on-line, anytime and anywhere in the near future. Mr. Russell seems to be referring to the business registry project started by the previous government. Is that what he was referring to when he made those comments?
MR. MACISAAC: As fair and as accommodating as I would like to be with respect to giving credit where credit is due, I think it would be a stretch to say that the previous government had envisaged this much service or that extent of service being available. As I indicated earlier when I attempted to be fair and provide credit where credit is due, I indicated that we were prepared to build on the concept. In building on that concept, we are moving toward achieving a level of 80 per cent of all services being available. I believe that we have, in fact, expanded the concept considerably and, to be fair, I think it is appropriate that we do accept some modest amount of credit for what we are being able to achieve.
MR. BOUDREAU: But you do agree that the single-window access was a prior goal for Service Nova Scotia.
MR. MACISAAC: Yes. The extent of the access, I guess, is what we might want to debate.
MR. BOUDREAU: On January 28, 2000, the Business and Consumer Affairs Minister, Neil LeBlanc, at the time, was singing the praises of the business registry. This initiative was also started by the previous government. Isn't that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you tell me when that started, Mr. Minister?
MR. MACISAAC: In 1996.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you feel there was any attempt by your government to politicize this process?
MR. MACISAAC: Pardon?
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you feel that your government has attempted to politicize this process?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. BOUDREAU: The Auditor General has indicated that user fees have to be justified; in other words, there has to be some sort of rationale for their existence. The cost recovery measure has to be justified, as well, I believe. Has the minister done a comprehensive review of user fees in his department, to see if it is justified, and if not, why not?
MR. MACISAAC: We have, underway, a review of all the fees that are being charged by the department. We have completed some of that, and we are satisfied in ones that we have completed. For instance, the Registry of Deeds clearly demonstrated that the current fee level of $40 plus so much a sheet does not come anywhere near covering the cost of providing that service. We are reasonably comfortable with where we are on the fees, but we are conducting the review.
I might point out that the major advance we feel we are making with respect to Service Nova Scotia is in the area of providing electronic access to government services. When we talk in terms of providing 80 per cent of services of government, we are talking about achieving that electronically. We feel that is a major advance.
MR. BOUDREAU: You are not concerned at all about the fact that user fees have to be justified?
MR. MACISAAC: Not at all, no. We are quite prepared to justify all of the fees that are being charged. In the course of the review, if we find that we are unable to justify those fees, then we will take appropriate action.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you feel that if these fees were ever challenged in court the government would be successful?
MR. MACISAAC: At this stage, yes, but I would remind you that we are still reviewing some of those fees. Those fees that we have reviewed, and completed the review, we feel that, yes, we could justify them.
MR. BOUDREAU: I know you have referred to the land registry, that is fine. Could you explain the other fees that you are looking at, some of the other fees you are reviewing?
MR. MACISAAC: An example would be driver's license fees and fees associated with obtaining a driver's license. Those were reviewed, and they were reviewed, and they were adjusted last year as part of the budgetary process. The objective of that adjustment was to put them on a cost-recovery basis.
MR. BOUDREAU: But, as you indicated, that was last year. Are you reviewing any now? Are you constantly doing this, or are you doing it as they arise, is that how you are reviewing? What is the process you are using to reviewing these?
MR. MACISAAC: We are doing it program by program.
MR. BOUDREAU: It is a slow process, you are just gradually going . . .
MR. MACISAAC: It is an ongoing process; it will not stop.
MR. BOUDREAU: But it is not a directive for your staff to go out and investigate all these fees to justify their existence or the amounts?
MR. MACISAAC: Within the Department of Finance, the government is currently involved in improving and enhancing our capacity to do an analysis of fees relative to the fee itself versus the cost associated with it. I think you could appreciate that being able to ascertain precisely what costs would be associated with a particular service is something that can be worked on continuously. That process is underway. When we have concluded that, we will be in a position to better analyze fees that are in place, and the ongoing process will utilize that improved analysis.
MR. BOUDREAU: Just so I can be clear in my mind, is your department doing this review or is it the Department of Finance?
MR. MACISAAC: The Department of Finance is doing the review of the analysis of the costs vis-à-vis the fee that is applied, and the system that is applied in order to pull out those costs.
MR. BOUDREAU: So, your staff is participating in this review?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, we are participating in sort of a consultative manner. That is one review that is taking place. The other review that is ongoing is within the department, relative to all of the fees that we apply. We will be able to do a much better review or a more comprehensive review of the fees that we charge once Finance has completed its analysis of the structure that it uses for the analysis. I presume we are talking about software, the accounting systems and everything else that is employed.
I can point out that the lady to my right, Cathy Smith, sits on that committee with Finance. She is our financial support person within the department. I simply point that out to you to illustrate the fact that there is a consultative process in place between the Department of Finance, and Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations with respect to this process, and of course other departments are involved as well.
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you indicate if this committee is just staff or does the minister himself sit on this committee?
MR. MACISAAC: No, I don't sit on it. I probably wouldn't understand their discussions, it is very technical.
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you indicate which other departments are participating, as well?
[12:00 noon]
MR. MACISAAC: Any department that the fee is related to would be involved. We, for instance, provide the service of hunting licences or fishing licences. We provide the service to the people with respect to the sale of those licences, but yet the fee and the determination of the fee is something that is set by the Department of Natural Resources. We are involved as the provider of the service, Natural Resources is involved as the department responsible for the issuance of the licences and, of course, Finance would be involved in assisting in the analysis.
MR. BOUDREAU: Is it fair to assume that it is a pretty extensive review?
MR. MACISAAC: It is.
MR. BOUDREAU: Could you give the committee some sort of idea how much cost is associated with this review?
MR. MACISAAC: It is really sort of an ongoing process of government, and the costs that are associated are the costs of staff and the time that they would spend doing the analysis of these fees. I believe, in the long run, the benefits to be derived will be for the benefit of all Nova Scotians in the sense that the fee structure will, because the analysis is being done on an ongoing basis, reflect, as closely as possible, the fee versus cost of providing the service. It is a staff function, and the costs that are associated with it are, for lack of a better description, part of the natural cost of doing business of government.
MR. BOUDREAU: Therefore, it appears that the fee structure is certainly not a priority, it is just something that is ongoing within the various departments. Is that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: I wouldn't agree with the analysis that it is not a priority. We believe it is a priority. The fact that Finance is involved in enhancing our capacity to provide a proper analysis is an indication of the priority that government places on the process of fees. It is a matter of interpretation, I suppose, but my interpretation is that we do consider it to be a priority, and that is why it is an ongoing process. It is not one that is simply done for a short period of time, but it is an ongoing process and will be an ongoing process.
MR. BOUDREAU: In regard to your department - I guess it is fair to ask you, you are the minister, sir - your department has undergone significant restructuring in the past year; is that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: Absolutely.
MR. BOUDREAU: What are the transitional costs?
MR. MACISAAC: The only direct cost related to it would be internal staff time, dedicated to the effort of doing the reorganization.
MR. BOUDREAU: It is just an everyday, regular work day. There is no priority put into the planning of your staff or the direction that your department is heading?
MR. MACISAAC: Oh, yes, there is, but it gets worked into their work schedule. The reorganization is part of the work schedule. Any, I suppose, additional costs would, in my view, be more than offset by the savings that have been achieved as a result of the elimination of the minister's office, the deputy's office, the elimination of managers and executive directors. There have been significant savings with respect to the process. Granted, effort had to be applied to achieving the reorganization, but I believe that effort also results in some very positive results because it focuses people's minds on what it is that they do and enables them to think in terms of finding more efficient, more effective ways of providing the services that they provide.
I believe any organization that is worth its salt would be going through the same sort of exercise that was accomplished with the reorganization, whether reorganization had occurred or not. I believe it is imperative that any organization continuously re-evaluates what it does - re-evaluates its structures, re-evaluates its processes - ensuring that the objectives of the department are in keeping with where people should be, vis-à-vis the services they are attempting to provide. While we can say that they were involved in a reorganizational effort, a large part of that reorganizational effort is something that should be part of the ongoing efforts of any department, or any organization or structure for that matter. The net costs, I believe, would be minimal relative to what is being accomplished.
MR. BOUDREAU: Are you indicating that your staff determines your restructuring?
MR. MACISAAC: I am indicating that staff had a very definite role to play in the restructuring, but obviously government had a role to play inasmuch as government set the direction. I had a role to play inasmuch as I attempted to provide the direction to the department, relative to the government's objectives. My own view of the world, and what that is worth in the long run I am not sure, but you do bring to any organization a particular perspective. The concept of service is something that has interested me all of my life, and I have had some things to say about how service should be accomplished and what we could
do to provide service. I have been instrumental, I hope, in providing some leadership in that respect.
It is not only the staff, but in order to accomplish the reorganization you obviously need the involvement of staff to do that. I could not sit at my computer and do a flow chart or an organizational structure and type in all of the names and put the persons associated with the name and push a button to send the e-mail out and say here it is. That is not the way it is done. I think we, as government, provide the overall objectives and define the basic principles upon which a reorganization would occur, and I play a role in translating those principles to the deputy and coming to an understanding of the principles, and to a lesser extent others involved with the deputy were working on it. Then it is the department's responsibility to take the principles that have been put in place by the government and by myself and to respond with proposed organizational structures that would achieve those objectives. To that extent, obviously, you have to have the involvement of staff.
MR. BOUDREAU: Did you lose any staff as a result of the restructuring?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: How many, sir?
MR. MACISAAC: We lost a minister, a deputy, a secretary to the minister, a secretary to the deputy; that is four I can think of, but there are more than that. Two executive directors, a director and two managers.
MR. BOUDREAU: Is that a total of eight?
MR. MACISAAC: There were staff in other divisions who were relocated to other departments, as well. Also, in Communications, we have saved two positions there, as well.
MR. BOUDREAU: Now, that is 10; is that a fair figure?
MR. MACISAAC: I wasn't keeping count.
MR. BOUDREAU: I want to get a clear understanding in my mind. What you are actually indicating to the committee is that you really didn't have a plan for the transition in your department. You sat down on a daily basis with staff, or you directed your staff to come forward with suggestions on how the direction of your department would go forward; is that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: We involved the staff in the process. We developed a plan through Priorities and Planning, the Cabinet developed a plan based on principles. We had that part of the plan. We worked with staff in developing a plan as to how those principles
could be achieved and what structure and what principles would have to be incorporated within that structure in order to achieve those overall objectives. To say that there wasn't a plan, any plan has to be developed, so we put in place the process for the development of the plan. When the plan was developed, then it was implemented. It is being continuously implemented.
MR. BOUDREAU: The plan came from Priorities and Planning, is that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: The principles came from there, yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: You participated in that process?
MR. MACISAAC: I was a member of Priorities and Planning when that was discussed, yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: When you were appointed minister, you didn't have a plan. It was developed later on; is that what I am understanding?
MR. MACISAAC: When I was appointed minister, no, I didn't have a plan in my back pocket.
MR. BOUDREAU: The government didn't have a plan, this was developed through Priorities and Planning.
MR. MACISAAC: The government had a principle upon part of which we campaigned, which was to provide a more effective, more streamlined, smaller government, and we got elected. So, we had a commitment to carry out that objective. As part of government process, the appropriate agency for developing plans and principles in order to achieve the objective, that is the function and the role of Priorities and Planning. As a participant and a member of the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet, then we developed our principles and developed our plan to be able to take to the department, and we created a new department, which was part of the plan we developed. We then had to go ahead and have the department respond to that initiative and to provide us with a structure and an organization that could achieve the plan.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, you have already indicated to the committee that that process was well begun before you came into government. Actually, if I am understanding what I am hearing correctly, you just continued to proceed in the direction the previous government was . . .
MR. MACISAAC: No, absolutely not. There was no direction left over from the previous government with respect to organization.
MR. BOUDREAU: So, the organization itself was reviewed by Priorities and Planning, and initiated by you and your government. Is that what you are indicating?
MR. MACISAAC: It was initiated by the government. Priorities and Planning had the responsibility of developing principles and an overall plan in order to achieve the objectives as outlined by the government. Then, we went to the department and involved the department in the development of structures in order to achieve those plans. I suppose, to go back to a previous question, you asked me if I had a plan when I came to government, the government had an objective and some principles upon which they were elected, with respect to government structure and organization. The government, from that point, began to initiate the process which resulted in the reorganization.
MR. BOUDREAU: I would like to ask the minister for a figure, how many actual positions your department has lost through the transition.
MR. MACISAAC: Both the Departments of Business and Consumer Services, and Housing and Municipal Affairs, in total had 1,060.9 full-time employees. The 2001-02 proposed target is 922.2 employees. Now, some of those, for instance in Housing services, were transfers; the financial services were within the departments previously, but have been transferred to the Department of Finance, so those numbers would be transferred out. The financial institutions went to Environment and Labour, for instance, nine positions went there; audit services transferred to Community Services, that would have been for housing, one; policy and research, three; administrative support services, three; CSU financial services, two; and Housing services that I indicated previously; Nova Scotia Business Registry, Native and Tobacco, that was an upward adjustment of four; regulations of credit unions is two. But the net change is from 1,060.9 to 922.2. That is as a result of the reorganization. For the new department, those are the net figures.
MR. BOUDREAU: Wouldn't you suggest that is a significant number?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: What about the duties, the regular duties these employees had? Who is now assuming those duties?
MR. MACISAAC: A large number of people, for instance, were transferred. The Housing services, 89 positions there, were transferred to Community Services. Those duties are now being performed by those people in Community Services. That function and duty carries on. Others have been transferred to other places. Nine people from financial institutions to Environment and Labour, so those positions are now being carried on in Environment and Labour. That work is still being done. There have been some positions transferred into our department, as well. Some of the positions have been eliminated, we
spoke about 10, relative to the reorganization; others are achieved as a result of the reorganization and efficiencies achieved within the department.
MR. BOUDREAU: What is the saving to your department?
MR. MACISAAC: In dollars? Let's see. Organizationally, the savings are, as I indicated before, of a minister and a deputy section of one department, and we reduced the total number of divisions to five from seven, and of course we will be able to achieve longer-term savings as the department moves forward.
MR. BOUDREAU: Do you have a projected figure of how much those savings would be?
MR. MACISAAC: It is approximately $450,000.
MR. BOUDREAU: How many actual people went home?
MR. MACISAAC: In terms of restructuring, four people left the department; others were transferred to other responsibilities in other departments. In terms of the restructuring, there were eight positions but four of those were vacant, people did not fill those positions, so the positions were eliminated. Four others left the service.
MR. BOUDREAU: We did lose a deputy minister, too; is that correct? What is your explanation for why we didn't lose a minister?
MR. MACISAAC: We did. The minister's office was eliminated.
MR. BOUDREAU: But we still have the same number of ministers.
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, we have the same number of ministers. The responsibility rests with me now. Previously, part of the responsibility was under the Minister of Finance because he was the Minister of Business and Consumer Services. Part of the responsibilities are now under the Minister of Community Services, because my responsibilities for Housing transferred to that department.
MR. BOUDREAU: Why didn't we lose a minister? If your government is so focused on providing this new era of government, why didn't we lose a minister?
MR. MACISAAC: Because before the reorganization you had ministers covering several portfolios, and as the restructuring occurred then the number of departments decreased. Instead of the Minister of Finance also being the Minister of Business and Consumer Services, the Minister of Finance is now the Minister of Finance only; and the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs is now the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and
Municipal Relations, having taken on the old department of Business and Consumer Services and having relinquished the Housing services of the Department of Housing and Municipal Affairs.
If you go through other departments, for instance there was a Minister of Labour, there was a Minister of the Environment, and there is now one minister, the Minister of Environment and Labour. There was a combination of departments there. The Minister of Labour, prior to those two departments being combined, was also the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When the two departments were combined, then you had the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations also being the acting Minister of Environment and Labour. Of course, when the new member of the Cabinet, the Honourable David Morse was brought in, then the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations relinquished the acting minister's job and the new minister took on the Department of Environment and Labour.
That explains the reorganization that occurred. You had single ministers having multiple departments to look after prior to the reorganization. You now have ministers looking after single departments. It is the same number of ministers, plus one - no, not plus one because one resigned due to health.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, do you feel that a single minister can look after all these portfolios, and then, as a result of the restructuring, I am hearing, I am getting the understanding that your workload is lessening, you don't have as much responsibility as a minister, how can your government justify keeping the same number of ministers? Why weren't the duties shuffled around to eliminate one or two ministers? If the taxpayers are going to benefit from this restructuring, I would suggest it should be done at the top as well. I always get concerned that the cleaning lady gets the best kicked out of her, but the people at the top remain the same. You are indicating to the committee that with this restructuring the responsibilities you have are much less today than they were a year ago or a year and a half ago. Why . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I don't think I ever suggested that my responsibilities were less. If I could illustrate, when I was Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs only, I had the responsibility for 481.7 full-time employees; I am now Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, and now have the responsibility for 922 full-time employees. That is not a diminished workload. I would suggest that it is an increased workload compared to what it was when I first entered the government.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, you just sat here and explained to the committee that, on a daily basis, there is ongoing restructuring and reviewing of these fees, and it is quite obvious, what I understood at least from your comments, that your staff is certainly a busy staff that has the planned direction in which it wants to go. I would suggest a number of employees wouldn't increase your responsibility as a minister.
[12:30 p.m.]
What I am asking you is simple, restructuring has eased the workload on ministers, why has Priorities and Planning - and you indicated to this committee that you were part of that - not initiated a review of the Cabinet?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe the review, in fact, was initiated and in fact took place, and we have a government that is structured differently than it was previously. The ministers of that government have the same responsibilities, I believe the responsibilities have been streamlined, made more effective, the organizations better reflect the functions of the government, but the responsibilities of the ministers and the budgetary responsibilities - if you don't believe that the number of employees is not an added responsibility then certainly the increased budget is an added responsibility - the increased number of programs which you are responsible for is added responsibility. I just don't think your political gamesmanship adds up, that is all.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, you just sat here and basically boasted, and I agree, about the ability of your staff, and that your staff was doing the actual footwork, they are the soldiers who are out there initiating this restructuring initiative by your government. If you indicate, and you have indicated very clearly to me at least, that the workload, in regard to a minister's responsibilities, has been downloaded, why has Priorities and Planning - and you indicated that you are part and parcel of Priorities and Planning - not initiated a review of the number of Cabinet Ministers?
MR. MACISAAC: Mr. Chairman, we could go back and forth with this. I have given the answer, I have given the functions of government that have been changed and streamlined; they are more effective with respect to the delivery of programs; a common theme has been identified in all of the departments; the ministers and the number of ministers who are responsible for those, they still have the same level of responsibility, they are in a position to be able to provide the functions, in our view, in a more effective manner, but the responsibilities of the ministers have not been diminished as a result of the process. If you have a different view, that is fine, you are entitled to the view.
MR. BOUDREAU: Mr. Minister, I am not disputing the responsibilities of a minister, definitely not. I agree with your explanation. What I am asking you about is, the workload of these ministers has obviously diminished, why has P & P not initiated a review of the Cabinet? You are a member of P & P.
MR. MACISAAC: We reviewed it. You don't like the results of the review.
MR. BOUDREAU: So, you have reviewed the number of Cabinet Ministers?
MR. MACISAAC: That is really the responsibility of the Premier, it is not mine. The Premier obviously has reviewed and has made his determination. The number of ministers, I think there are still four ministers less than the previous government, and that is a pretty good accomplishment.
MR. BOUDREAU: At a higher cost, I might add.
MR. MACISAAC: Less cost for the ministers.
MR. BOUDREAU: I want to be clear on this, Mr. Minister. Did P & P review the number of Cabinet Ministers, or did the Premier's Office review the number? I want to be clear on that because it is important to me.
MR. MACISAAC: Both. The Premier is the Premier of the province. The Premier, ultimately, has the responsibility to determine who the members of the Executive Council will be. He has the ultimate responsibility to assign responsibilities to those ministers. So to that extent, the Premier, obviously, has been involved. The restructuring of government is an effort which was accomplished through Priorities and Planning. So that would suggest that there was, in fact, a review of the structure of the Executive Council by Priorities and Planning.
MR. BOUDREAU: Okay, but this review, I am little baffled by this. You did this review of the number of Cabinet Ministers prior to the restructuring? Your department has been restructured this year. When was this review done, the size of Cabinet?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe the process began before my entry into Cabinet. I came in on October 6th, I think, to Cabinet and the review was underway then.
MR. BOUDREAU: So the review was done prior to the restructuring?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. BOUDREAU: So that would tell me, at least, as you indicated to the committee, that some ministers had numerous municipal responsibilities. Those workloads now have been downloaded - which is the term we normally use when we dump on municipalities. So you are eliminating the workload of ministers. This year, changes have been made to various departments, but you reviewed the number of Cabinet members prior to the restructuring and that doesn't make sense to me, Mr. Minister.
MR. MACISAAC: What we have done is we have created a situation where instead of ministers having up to three deputy ministers reporting to them, they now have one deputy minister reporting to them. That is an organization as it should be, with respect to government. That is what has been accomplished so that the size of the Cabinet is no longer
16 Cabinet Ministers; it is now 12 ministers. So we have a net saving of four Cabinet Ministers and that saving was accomplished on day one, August 16, 1999, when the Cabinet was appointed. At that point, the government and the size of the government was decreased and that decreased size carried forward from that day. It is still at that level.
MR. BOUDREAU: How much were those savings, at a decreased cost, prior to the previous government? How much were the savings?
MR. MACISAAC: Just about $1 million. That is a ballpark figure, $1 million, four Cabinet Ministers, deputies and all the support staff, executive assistants.
MR. BOUDREAU: So is that a guess or an estimate?
MR. MACISAAC: Well, it is a reasonably good estimate. I would say that by eliminating four ministers, that you have probably saved close to $1 million. And that saving was accomplished on day one, when the government was appointed.
MR. BOUDREAU: How many casual employees do you have employed at your department?
MR. MACISAAC: Somebody is looking for the number.
MR. BOUDREAU: While we are looking for that, do you mind if I ask another question, Mr. Chairman? Is there any move to make casual employees full-time employees of your department?
MR. MACISAAC: The process of casual employees becoming full-time employees is sort of an ongoing process. As the circumstances warrant it, then casual employees become full-time employees, but there isn't any specific plan in place to say that we have 10 casuals and, by this time next year, those 10 will be full-time. As the situation warrants, then casual employees may, in fact, become full-time employees.
Just to point out, when people become full-time employees, there is, of course, a competition for that. So it isn't an automatic that the casual becomes the full-time, because the competition process has to be respected.
MR. BOUDREAU: Did we get the number on casual employees?
MR. MACISAAC: We will have it in a few minutes.
MR. BOUDREAU: I just want to ask a quick question for my own benefit, Mr. Minister, going back to Cabinet. Does your government have a plan in reviewing the size of Cabinet?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe we have completed that.
MR. BOUDREAU: You completed it? It is complete and you don't have any plan in the future to revisit it?
MR. MACISAAC: Not that I know of, but there is a higher authority than I to whom the question would be better put.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has now expired. I am going to ask for clarification on time and process here. I understand the NDP caucus has planned to have another hour of questions for this minister. I am not aware if the Liberal caucus is prepared to have another full hour and, after that, I understand the NDP may have more questions after the Liberals are done with their time. So there may be an opportunity, we may be getting to the Honourable Ronald Russell, maybe later this afternoon. There is that possibility, unless both caucuses wish to expire the full four hours here, but that is my understanding.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: I think what you just described, Mr. Chairman, is a fair summary of our intention. I don't know about the Liberal Party's intention.
MR. BOUDREAU: We will check with our House Leader.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time now is for further questioning by the NDP caucus.
The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Minister, I would like to go back to the subject of assessment services. My understanding is that the province last year announced its intention to have the municipalities pay for this service. There have been some differing numbers about exactly what that service is worth. The number $12 million has been put out, but I understand from the budget announcement that the actual value is more in the order of $14 million. I wonder, Mr. Minister, if you could say exactly what that number is.
MR. MACISAAC: The assessment budget of $14.2 million represents the first year costs for the proposed special operating agency. It is made up as follows: $10 million from the Assessment Division itself and approximately $2 million in charges, such as leased space costs from other parts of the department that either relate to the delivery of this service or are its share of overhead, approximately $2.2 million on one-time charges for next year. They are made up of $1.2 million for a new IT system and approximately $1 million for potential gas pipeline litigation. The $1.2 million for the IT system is a number that the new agency would have to make a decision on with respect to whether that is something that they would want to invest because it is identified as a one-time expenditure that needs to be made at some juncture, if we deemed it appropriate to include it within the budget figure. The $1
million for the potential gas pipeline litigation is a funded number so that the money is there to pay for that. It is not a number that would be passed on to the new agency.
MR. STEELE: Okay, the budget line item, which I don't have just in front of me, showed every cent of the $14-some million budget being recovered. So am I right in saying that every dollar of this amount will be recovered from municipalities?
MR. MACISAAC: No, that is not correct.
MR. STEELE: Educate me.
MR. MACISAAC: Okay, I am trying. It took more than one run at this for me to get it, too. The $12 million in recoveries by the special operating agency from municipalities, $1.2 million will be recovered from a capital budget should the decision be made to replace the IT system. You can appreciate that the capital funding would be much different than the operating funding. So the number could be amortized over a period of time. So there are two things with respect to the number that need to be appreciated. One is that it is a capital item and the other is that it is something that the new agency would need to determine as to whether or not they are prepared to go forward with it, and as they would go forward with it, then, of course, the decisions with respect to the capitalization would be made by the new agency. So there is that number.
The other number of the $1 million for potential litigation is a number which is already provided for and would be provided to the new agency if they in fact needed to go to court to defend the assessment figures. So that is not something that the new agency would be asked to pay for.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, I am sure you are aware that the transcript of this session won't be typed up probably for several months. Would it be possible for you to outline for me and for my benefit, perhaps, in a letter what you have just explained to me?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, sure.
MR. STEELE: Just so I understand. I have been joined here by my colleague, the member for Hants East, the Leader of the Opposition, and he has a few questions on a completely different subject, so I would like to share my time with him at the moment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Hants East.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity and, Mr. Minister, I appreciate the chance to ask you some questions. So what I am going to ask, I guess, for maybe more explanation, is around the question in the House the other day around the $25 HST rebate program, the $25 fee for that. I know you started to state how much in
value that rebate amounts to. So I guess what I am really getting at is the farmers pay a $25 fee to register for farm registration.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask for clarification? You said HST and I assume that is the federal excise tax you are talking about.
MR. MACDONELL: It is an HST rebate for fuel they use on their farms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it is the federal excise tax.
MR. MACISAAC: It is not HST, it is the gasoline fuel tax that we all pay.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay. It is a rebate for fuel tax. So I guess my question is, wouldn't they already be paying by paying a $25 fee to register their farms? Isn't that all that would be needed for them to get their rebate?
MR. MACISAAC: The difficulty that is arising with respect to this situation is one where there isn't a clear determination as to who is and who is not qualified because of changing circumstances over time. This fee was brought in initially in 1996 and there were grandfathering provisions provided for the agriculture sector at that time. But it was found that people who were no longer legitimately involved still had the ability to purchase the fuel. The attempt here is one where we are attempting to put in place a structure which would allow us, as I indicated in the House, to ensure that those who deserve to have the benefit applied to them, in fact, are the ones who are receiving the benefit.
That is the objective here. There is also a question of the cost of providing the service, to administer the service. We are looking after a program where people get a benefit of $25 million to $30 million and you have to be vigilant about who gets that. The costs associated with that are in the vicinity of $300,000 a year. The fee would raise about $160,000, or maybe even less than that. So the fee would not come close to covering the cost of administering the program. That is where the matter stands.
The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has had discussions with me with respect to this. I have not closed the door on him and told him to go away permanently, but we are having discussions and he has a perspective that I am certainly prepared to listen to. But I believe that we in the department have a responsibility to ensure that whatever is in place is adequate to ensuring that the taxpayers' interests of an amount of $25 million to $30 million is adequately looked after.
MR. STEELE: I can appreciate that. I think I would expect no less from government, for sure, and Nova Scotians would expect no less. I guess I will just echo the concerns of the individuals who came to me who feel they are already paying. I can understand trying to ensure that the people who receive the benefit, basically, the rebate, are legitimate, that they
are the deserving ones. So I can see that as being significant. So I am not really positive as to why there is a problem identifying those unless there is a certain - I would think the registration forms that would identify registered farmers would indicate who would be eligible and is that not the case?
MR. MACISAAC: I am not moving around the question here, I just want to make something clear. The permit is a permit not to get the rebate, but to purchase the fuel without the tax.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay. That is helpful.
MR. MACISAAC: And that distinction, I think, is valid because if you qualify, then you can, in fact - it is another way of doing it - go out and save your receipts and then you can apply for it and you can get the rebate. The process of providing the permit is one which provides a cash flow benefit to people in the farming, fishing and forest community so that they don't have to tie up this money for a period of time. So the question is, and I believe this is the question you are asking, is there a legitimate way to determine those in the agriculture industry who would, in fact, qualify for the permit? That is the question that I presume the Minister of Agriculture is going to try to persuade me that there is, in fact, a way of doing that. As I said, I am open to discussions with him.
MR. MACDONELL: Well, perhaps I will think about leaving it there then. I remember, at one point, I had such a card, I think, that would allow me to buy - well, actually, I don't think it was even just fuel. I think it was a number of things you could buy. I was working in the woods at that time, plus I was a member of the federation, so I had a lumberman's card and a farmer's card. So is it the distribution of those cards that is actually the fee that you are applying now to cover that process?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes. The card is for identification purposes, to tell the fuel distributor that you, in fact, are entitled to receive this fuel free of tax. The purpose of the fee is to assist with the upwards of 2,000 audits a year that are done in order to ensure that those who have the card, in fact, are legitimate and should have the card. I believe that what the audits were showing - and correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is that the audits were showing - that there are people out there with these cards who shouldn't have the cards. So that is where the need to try to do something arose. It is an attempt to be vigilant with respect to the taxpayers' interests.
MR. MACDONELL: So I see there is not necessarily a correlation between being a registered farm operation and actually qualifying for the card and I don't know if there is a registration form for fishermen?
MR. MACISAAC: There is. The single application that you would receive in the mail would have three sections that could be filled out and, depending on which occupation - I looked at the form because I thought first when I heard about it that there was some concern that the form is extremely complex and even I was able to fill it out in about three minutes. So I didn't think it was too complex.
MR. MACDONELL: Well, thank you. I will probably just touch base with you from time to time to see how you are coming along with your negotiations with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
MR. MACISAAC: Perhaps you could allow more than 30 seconds at the end of Question Period to do it. (Laughter)
MR. MACDONELL: Yes, I will try that, too. When your opportunity comes up, you take it, whether it is 30 seconds or not.
MR. MACISAAC: I appreciate that.
MR. MACDONELL: My last question is around what I think is $4.5 million that is infrastructure money. Is this the program between the municipalities, the province and the federal government for infrastructure within the municipalities, I guess? Have I got the right number in dollars?
MR. MACISAAC: The total infrastructure program that we signed with the Government of Canada is for $195.7 million and that is to be expended over a period of six years. Our share in the current fiscal year is anticipated to be in the vicinity of $13 million of that.
MR. MACDONELL: Well, I will tell you where I am going and then you might be able to say, I know where you got that or I don't have a clue where you got that. I had a call from the Indian Brook Reserve, one of their development people there, and they're trying to put a proposal together, I think, to build a rink. They wanted to know if there was infrastructure money that they could apply for. I didn't know what the hoops were or whether that was possible.
[1:00 p.m.]
MR. MACISAAC: It is intended that the program be a municipal program and that is where the bulk, if not all, of the initiatives would come from - I better ask before I say anything. If they were to have the municipal unit sponsor the project, then it would, of course, receive consideration.
MR. MACDONELL: Okay, well that may be helpful.
MR. MACISAAC: I guess the other thing that we should keep in mind with this program is that the predominant expenditures of the program are intended to be green infrastructure.
MR. MACDONELL: That was another question and actually when this was raised with me, it was also raised that they thought this may not even come under that umbrella, that their request may not apply there. But that is helpful information and I can take that back to them.
MR. MACISAAC: If you have further questions relative to that, you can contact Marvin MacDonald within the department and I just don't know his number offhand, but we can certainly get it for you. He understands all of the details of the program and deals with it on a day-to-day basis.
MR. MACDONELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and staff. I appreciate your time.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Fairview.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Back on the subject of assessment services, Mr. Minister, it is my understanding - and you can correct me if I am wrong - that the Oasis Computer System currently used for purposes of assessment will need to be replaced within the next few years - it may be the IT project you referred to - at a cost of several million dollars. Is that a cost that will be borne by municipalities or by the province?
MR. MACISAAC: That is the $1.2 million to which I referred. It references that system. That would become part of the assessment services and it is something that would be paid for by the agency that would be created.
MR. STEELE: Which would be funded by the municipalities?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: Okay, so it is almost like you are selling the municipalities a car that badly needs a new engine. Do the municipalities know that they are on the hook for this cost?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe your question reflects that, yes. Yes, I believe they are aware of that.
MR. STEELE: That this is a cost they are going to be expected to bear in the future?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, but the decision as to when that cost is implemented would be the decision of the new agency.
MR. STEELE: Okay, let's talk about the new agency then. I want to turn to this new agency because, to my way of thinking, it is one thing to download the cost of assessment services onto municipalities and it is quite another to reorganize the way those services are delivered, quite another thing entirely. The language of the special operating agency is one that I don't think is familiar to Nova Scotia, but certainly it is familiar in other provinces. I know the Progressive Conservative Government in Manitoba set up a number of these so-called special operating agencies. What is the advantage of spinning this off into such an agency?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe the fundamental advantage is that it provides a vehicle whereby the municipal units that will be paying for the service would have the bulk of the say in the operation of that service.
MR. STEELE: What assurances can you give, Mr. Minister, that this so-called special operating agency will have all the accountabilities that are built into the current structure?
MR. MACISAAC: I guess the fundamental accountability within the assessment system is the appeal mechanism and that appeal mechanism will remain intact and operate as is currently the case. The other matter that we have to recognize here is that the province, while it is turning over the operation of the Assessment Division to a special operating agency, the province will maintain responsibility for legislation, regulations and assessment policy vis-à-vis the process of assessing and those standards will remain with the province.
MR. STEELE: Will the new special operating agency be subject to audit by the Auditor General?
MR. MACISAAC: I would anticipate, yes.
MR. STEELE: Will the new special operating agency be subject to the freedom of information Act?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: Will you, Mr. Minister, still be accountable in the House of Assembly for the operations of that agency?
MR. MACISAAC: I don't anticipate being responsible for the operations of the agency. I do anticipate being responsible for the legislation, the regulations and the policy with respect to it, but in a sense that is the relationship between the Minister of Environment and Labour, and the Workers' Compensation Board. It is very much an arm's-length organization, but yet the minister is accountable and does from time to time have to answer questions. So I don't expect that one would be able to deny any accountability at all.
MR. STEELE: The relationship of the Workers' Compensation Board to the province is one of the few subjects that I feel I actually know quite a lot about.
MR. MACISAAC: I know more about it than I would like to know too.
MR. STEELE: Yes, that's right. Mr. Minister, the relationship, if this new special operating agency will be functionally the same as the WCB, that is a significant departure from the current accountabilities because the Workers' Compensation Board is to all intents and purposes independent of government and except for one or two minor items that are explicitly set out in the Act, the minister is not legally allowed to offer any directives of any kind to the WCB, is not truly accountable for the WCB, except by way of amending legislation.
MR. MACISAAC: Perhaps I could save you a bit of time. My purpose in using that as an example is simply from a point of view that while the minister doesn't have any role with respect to the accountability of that board, he does wind up answering questions in the House and it is that analysis only that I provided. The separate operating agency is still a work in progress in terms of putting it together and some of the very questions that you're raising are questions that I am raising with respect to how this organization is going to look.
I can tell you that there needs to be a way for there to be some window by the province with respect to this operating agency and we're going to make sure that that window exists, but we don't want the window to be so large that the municipal units would feel the provincial draft could knock them off course. The purpose of the window is to look in and to see, it is not to influence or direct necessarily because the majority of the operations should be in the hands of the municipal units. So the analysis with the Workers' Compensation Board, from an organizational perspective, and an accountability perspective was a poor analysis on my part, or poor comparison.
MR. STEELE: Is there any - how should I put this? - is the government currently giving any consideration of any kind to privatizing assessment services?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. STEELE: Has the government received any representations of any kind from anyone respecting the privatization of assessment services?
MR. MACISAAC: No. (Interruption) We have not. We understand that some municipalities have been approached by outside interests suggesting that they would like to look after their assessment service.
MR. STEELE: So, for example, the province has received no representations from the firm of Cole-Air-Trumble of Ohio, or any other firm, with respect to the privatization of assessment services?
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. STEELE: What assurances can you give, Mr. Minister, that the people currently employed by your department as assessors have security of employment now and into the future?
MR. MACISAAC: It is our intention that they would carry on with the benefits that currently exist to those employees and that the responsibility for providing that would be passed to the new agency.
MR. STEELE: Are your assessors unionized?
MR. MACISAAC: They are members of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union.
MR. STEELE: And have there been any discussions with the NSGEU about this transition to the new special operating agency?
MR. MACISAAC: Not at this time, no.
MR. STEELE: Are there any plans for the future?
MR. MACISAAC: There will be discussions in the future. We are not at a stage where we can have those discussions.
MR. STEELE: At what stage, Mr. Minister, do you think we might expect to see legislation coming forward to enact this special operating agency?
MR. MACISAAC: Actually the legislation is currently before the House enabling the agency to be established.
MR. STEELE: So just that one section in the Financial Measures (2001) Act is all the authority that you feel you need to set up this agency?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: On the same topic, or what to me is the same topic anyway, I would like to turn to the question of what is happily known as "alternative service delivery" which is a major operating unit of your department, Mr. Minister. I wonder if you could list for me, which services have been identified as candidates for alternative service delivery?
MR. MACISAAC: Perhaps what we should ensure is understood by alternative service delivery, is that it is not simply a mechanism to achieve what we are achieving, for instance, with respect to assessment services or will attempt to achieve with respect to assessment services, but it is also a means of finding other ways of providing service, for instance, to other departments of government.
Also, we're finding ways of enabling our department to provide services to outside interests, private interests such as is currently taking place with respect to our Land Information Services Division where we do business with other governments; we do business with other departments of government; we do business with private enterprise in the sense of providing service to private enterprise; we provide service to the military; we have the potential of providing service to the Coast Guard for search and rescue. These are all services that we have which we can provide to outside agencies and there's a whole host of outside agencies that are involved in this particular process.
MR. STEELE: Let me be a little more specific then, although I am not going to let that question go quite that easily. I want to read from your department's business plan and I am going to ask you to explain exactly what is meant by this sentence. This is not the one that appears in the book called Government Business Plans, but the one that is available, I think I took this from your department's very helpful website which goes into a little bit more detail than the one that is actually in the book called Government Business Plans. On Page 5 of this document, which wouldn't be the same as the one in the coiled binding, appears this sentence: "Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations offers several services that are not essential roles of government and may be better provided by an external service provider."
So my question for you, Mr. Minister, is which services specifically are you referring to in that sentence; which are the services that are not essential roles of government that might better be provided by an external service provider?
MR. MACISAAC: Assessment service is one obviously. It is no surprise to anyone at this table that the department is currently reviewing a proposal from the RCMP with respect to providing some of the vehicle compliance services. No decision has been made on that, but yet the proposal has been received and it is being evaluated. That's another example.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, in this same business plan actually assessment services is referred to in the next paragraph. So just the way it is laid out, it doesn't appear that that sentence I read to you refers to assessment services because it is referred to explicitly
elsewhere. It says, ". . . several services that are not essential roles of government . . ." So there's vehicle compliance and the others would be what?
MR. MACISAAC: We have not identified any others at this stage.
MR. STEELE: Okay, so when it says there are several services that are not essential roles of government and may be better provided by external service providers, you really were just referring to two?
MR. MACISAAC: Well, the operative word there is may. We believe that it is essential that we be able to respond to opportunities if opportunities are presented and that is the function that's being put in place here.
MR. STEELE: All right, on Page 7 of the business plan it says that one of the department's goals is to develop a government-wide strategic plan for review of potential alternative program delivery initiatives. At what stage is that development of a strategic plan and have other government services been identified for - and I will use this word in the ordinary sense of the term, not in any technical sense - privatization; what services of government have been identified by your department as candidates for privatization?
MR. MACISAAC: None.
MR. STEELE: None, that's the answer?
MR. MACISAAC: This is much broader than the concept of providing services by other agencies, or outside agencies I should say. In fact, it does relate to doing such things as providing fishing and hunting licences, for instance, on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources by Service Nova Scotia. It will, in fact, play a key role in enabling the services of Environment and Labour, the licensing, the permits and things of that nature which are required by Environment and Labour, that we have in place a mechanism to ensure that we are able to achieve those objectives as well. So it is broader than simply the farming out issue, if you like. It is broader than that.
MR. STEELE: Okay, it is broader than that, but speaking specifically of farming out, or privatization as I prefer to call it, your answer is that there are currently no programs or services that have been identified for privatization? There are no initiatives underway in your department.
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. STEELE: And just for the record, you're shaking your head, you're saying no.
MR. MACISAAC: No, but I guess I had thought I had said no previously.
MR. STEELE: Yes, one of the first lessons they teach young lawyers is to say a word into the microphone so that there's something for the transcript, that's all.
MR. MACISAAC: I noted that from previous questions from your seatmate who, I believe it was in Housing Estimates, came and he asked a single question and once the answer was read into the record, he left and I presume that he was satisfied because he wanted to ensure that - it was on the same issue of privatization - we didn't have any plans to privatize Housing services, is that correct? (Interruptions) At the time I actually thought it was the most effective question that I had been asked all day.
MR. STEELE: My colleague says that it wasn't him who asked effective questions. (Laughter) On the subject of Residential Tenancies, Mr. Minister, as far as I could tell, there's only one mention of it anywhere in the business plan and that is the carrying through of a Progressive Conservative platform commitment for the eviction of criminal tenants. I think that's the phrase that's used - that's your government's phrase, not mine - eviction of criminal tenants, yes, that's right. Mr. Minister, where is the consultation process on amending the Residential Tenancies Act which has stopped and started a number of times over the last few years? There was a discussion paper issued under the Liberal Government. What has happened since then?
MR. MACISAAC: There have been and continue to be consultations through the department with outside interests and within the department with respect to this whole question, and I can say that I am probably finding it one of the most difficult processes to try to achieve a level of balance that is required. We are still attempting to achieve that level of balance and I can say that certain things we were considering doing, based on observations in other provinces, all of a sudden we hear that another province has reversed itself on something we were considering doing. So you say, what is going on here? We are trying to find out and ascertain what is happening in that regard. It is not progressing as quickly as I would like to see it progress.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, what are the next steps in the consultation process, as far you are concerned? When are we going to see this process move forward?
MR. MACISAAC: The honest answer to your question is I don't know at this juncture. I would like to be able to provide a more definitive response. What is going on currently? We are currently looking at some changes that have occurred in other jurisdictions, and we want to examine why they have reversed themselves, and we also want to examine why another jurisdiction has made the decision to move in a direction opposite to the province that has reversed itself. That is the current matter that is under consideration.
MR. STEELE: I am sure I won't tell you anything that you don't know, Mr. Minister, if I say that there are some pressing needs out there. I say pressing both on the tenant and the landlord side, particularly small landlords who are not able to take the burden of difficult
tenants. A very great number of issues from the tenancy side are basically on hold, and we need to move forward on this. I would just encourage your department to see what you can do to put it back on the front burner.
MR. MACISAAC: I appreciate your comments very much, and I do share them. I can also say that to find the balance is extremely taxing.
MR. STEELE: Yes, it is. I appreciate the difficulty your department is working under. On a completely different subject, Mr. Minister, just as I was going through your department's business plan one figure that struck my eye and seemed odd to me, on Page 10 of the business plan, the target for customer satisfaction in Service Nova Scotia, which is defined as the percentage of customers who are "satisfied or very satisfied" with the service they receive is 75 per cent. That didn't strike me as being very ambitious, that 1 in 4 people who have contact with Service Nova Scotia would go away unhappy. Why is that number only 75 per cent?
MR. MACISAAC: I am told that we have exceeded that number and it is now at 80 per cent.
MR. STEELE: So the actual level of satisfaction is 80 per cent.
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. STEELE: Which is fine, but it seems to me then that the target should be more like 90 per cent, shouldn't it? What purpose is there in having a target you have already exceeded?
MR. MACISAAC: Obviously, they tell me that we have now exceeded the target, we hadn't exceeded the target at the time the target was set.
MR. STEELE: This is the target for the fiscal year that has only just begun, so you can't have met your target already for the fiscal year that has only just started.
MR. MACISAAC: Well, I have just learned that we have exceeded the target, and that it is at 80 per cent. I suppose if I were going to sit down and put this target in place today then 75 per cent wouldn't be there, it would be some other number. I would anticipate that next year, if we are able to continue to achieve the success that we have, even if we aren't, I would want to see that number increased. The reason that we can't achieve a 100 per cent figure - and I can't tell you all of the reasons but part of the reason you can't receive a 100 per cent figure - is that in the survey process if someone feels that the fee, for instance, was inappropriate to their expectations, then that would register negatively in any survey that you would do.
Considerations of that nature have to be taken into account when you set your objectives, that while you may seek a response, the response that you would get is not one that is going to be a positive response, it may not be related to the service you are providing, but there is something about the process that would cause a person to respond negatively.
[1:30 p.m.]
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, sure, I am the first to say that you will never get 100 per cent satisfaction, it is just not human nature for everyone to be happy with everything.
MR. MACISAAC: That is to come.
MR. STEELE: It is just that 75 per cent struck me as being relatively unambitious. I guess I am just confirmed in that way of thinking by knowing that your department has already exceeded that, so if it is to be a meaningful target and resources are to be devoted towards achieving a high level of customer satisfaction, you need to have a target that you haven't already reached, if you know what I mean.
MR. MACISAAC: I believe that in the future we will set a more challenging figure.
MR. STEELE: Okay. Mr. Minister, I want to finish my time . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I am told, by the way, that the 75 per cent number came as a result of that being an industry standard.
MR. STEELE: Which industry?
MR. MACISAAC: In the business of customer satisfaction, providing service to customers, the industry standard of service is 75 per cent.
MR. STEELE: If I were a lawyer and I sent away 1 in 4 clients unhappy, I wouldn't be a very successful lawyer.
MR. MACISAAC: Well, how would a lawyer - and this is the great argument I used to get when I was a teacher, the great complaint that people had about teachers is that they had no choice, you had to accept the teacher that was given. So, there was always a measure of some satisfaction one way or the other because the people were captive within your classroom. If there was a level of dissatisfaction it showed up. If there is a level of dissatisfaction with the practice of law or the practice of medicine or of a surveyor or things of that nature, it is in the fact that people don't come back. I don't know how you measure that.
I would think if you have new people coming to your door and you are able to retain 75 per cent of them on a repeat basis, you would probably be doing reasonably well. I know that most car dealers I know would be quite happy if they could retain 75 per cent return business.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Minister, I want to go back to the topic I started with on the last day. You had undertaken to find the answers to some questions I asked, and I am just going to ask you again to see if you do have the answers. There was contact on February 27th between your department and the Cape Breton Post. Who initiated that contact, was it your department or was it the Cape Breton Post?
MR. MACISAAC: The contact was initiated by the department, but it was initiated well after the story was being pursued by Global and many in the metro media. It was well into the day when that was pursued. There is one matter I should clear up, I think I said the meeting occurred at 11:00 o'clock, it was actually an 8:30 a.m. meeting that occurred. I believe that the UNSM meeting was slated for 11:00 o'clock.
MR. STEELE: There was contact on that day as well between your department and The Halifax Herald. Who initiated that contact, was it the Herald or was it your department?
MR. MACISAAC: We did.
MR. STEELE: Another question that I had for you last day was that you said that a number of mayors or wardens were contacted before February 27th in order to test the proposal. I think the words you used were to test the proposal. In other words, a number of people were given an advance look at the proposal.
MR. MACISAAC: A number of municipal units were.
MR. STEELE: I was wondering if you could tell me, how many and which ones?
MR. MACISAAC: I have it here somewhere.
MR. STEELE: I am happy to move on, Mr. Minister, if you will undertake that during the next hour when the Liberal caucus is asking questions that I will get a copy of whatever you have in writing there.
MR. MACISAAC: The Mayor of Mulgrave was made aware; the Executive Director of the UNSM, in early January, was made aware; the Chief Administrative Officer of CBRM was made aware; the President of the UNSM was made aware; the full UNSM staff was subsequently made aware; the Town of Wolfville; the Director of Henson College; and the Town of Stewiacke.
MR. STEELE: Do you, Mr. Minister, have the dates when they were made aware?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, and, also, I might point out that there was contact with HRM, as well.
MR. STEELE: The same kind of contact? Were they given every detail of the proposal?
MR. MACISAAC: Not every detail, but they were given the principles of the proposal.
MR. STEELE: On these other contacts - Mulgrave, UNSM, CBRM, Wolfville, Henson College and Stewiacke - were they given the complete package with all the details?
MR. MACISAAC: I wasn't present at any of those, so I couldn't say to the level of detail that they were given.
MR. STEELE: Do you have the dates on which they were made aware?
MR. MACISAAC: Mulgrave, December 20th; Executive Director of UNSM, early January, I don't have a specific date; CBRM was January 24th . . .
MR. STEELE: Can you remind me again who it was at the CBRM?
MR. MACISAAC: The CAO.
MR. STEELE: Okay, thank you.
MR. MACISAAC: The President of the UNSM was January 30th and the full UNSM staff was February 1st; Wolfville was February 8th; Henson College was February 9th; Stewiacke, February 13th; and HRM was February 26th.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have six minutes.
MR. STEELE: Well, being the generous person that I am, I would now like to share my remaining six minutes with my colleague, the honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member for Halifax Chebucto.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Mr. Minister, I wonder if you could help me understand the current state of play with respect to Halifax Harbour. Given the short amount of time, perhaps I might briefly lay out for you what I think is the current state of play, and you might tell me if I am right or wrong and add to that. Would that be an acceptable way to proceed? You are nodding yes. I am going to do that then.
My understanding is that HRM has had, under serious consideration now for a few years, the possibility of going ahead with some treatment plants for them in the current contemplated configuration at various places around the harbour and the Northwest Arm or, actually, out at Herring Cove. The project has a capital cost of about $315 million in order to build these treatment plants. They have said, on various occasions, that they are hoping for financial contributions from both the federal and provincial governments to help them with the capital costs. The last identified numbers that I have seen them come forward with was a plan that suggested that about one-third of the capital costs should come on a 50/50 split from the federal and provincial governments. That would mean that the provincial government would be looked to to take the burden of half of $105 million.
At the same time when this proposal went to the provincial government, I think about a year or so ago now, the Premier, Dr. Hamm, wrote back to HRM and said, at the time, that the province was in really no position to make that kind of financial contribution or, indeed, any financial contribution to HRM towards this particular project. I forget the exact date of this letter, but I have seen it. It was circulated, I think, at the Resources Committee of the Legislature. Since that time, however, there has been a federal infrastructure program announced and come forward. Of course, in the province's latest budget, there is some infrastructure money for provinces.
So what I wonder is whether the Premier's letter from before remains the position of the province. Is the province's position still that there is no money going to be available for this particular project or can you update us on this?
MR. MACISAAC: Excuse me, I just wanted to ensure that I was responding accurately. First of all, we have requested from HRM a priority list of projects and the list we received from them was not prioritized, in a sense. They provided three groupings and we wrote back and said, we need to have your list prioritized from one down to whatever. We are still awaiting receipt of that list. Now, I can't anticipate what they will come forward with in terms of that final list. If elements of the harbour cleanup were to appear on their list, then, as part of the infrastructure program, we would certainly be prepared to entertain those proposals. But I can assure you that there wouldn't be sufficient funds within the infrastructure agreement, given HRM's share, to do the amount of work that needs to be done. So that is my answer, at this stage.
MR. EPSTEIN: I have to say that it is my understanding of the discussions at HRM that I thought they intended the list to be read as the harbour project being, in fact, their first priority. But I suppose they will make their wishes known in more detail, if there was any ambiguity. The fund you are talking about is a $13 million fund that you were talking about before. Is that right?
MR. MACISAAC: It is $13 million that we are spending, our share of the expenditure this year within the province. So that would be approximately $39 million spent province-wide.
MR. EPSTEIN: So $39 million, but when you say $39 million . . .
MR. MACISAAC: Perhaps this will help put it in perspective. The total share from the infrastructure program that could be spent in HRM over the course of the agreement, the six years, would be approximately $36 million. That includes everybody's share.
MR. EPSTEIN: I guess we will have to get back to this. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has now expired for the NDP caucus. I understand there is a question from the PC caucus.
The honourable member for Cape Breton North. I would also like to extend Happy Birthday wishes to you.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: To my Liberal colleague, this is going to be relatively short, so feel free to stand by for your opportunity. Mr. Minister, there was one matter brought before you the other day that had direct implication to myself and I want to provide or seek clarification on that and provide a brief preamble with regard to a question that would lead to an assertion that I would have had knowledge, or people around myself or my campaign team, when I was involved with an election, with regard to matters of equalization. I want to, first and foremost, state that that wasn't the fact.
I believe the question to you was, did I, or anyone on my campaign team, have that knowledge. I think the same question can be asked that that was indeed not the case. I think, without clarifying that, it would leave opportunity for some people to look into that and/or make some sense that there was some strategy in place that just was non-existent. I want that on the record and I believe the question is to you, do you affirm that we had no communication on that matter?
MR. MACISAAC: I certainly do confirm that there was no communication on the matter and there was absolutely no communication with yourself, members of your campaign or anybody else for that matter.
MR. CLARKE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify and for the benefit of the honourable member and his line of questioning, I will provide a very quick overview of any history I would have had with the minister and/or his department.
My association with the minister prior to my seeking office would have involved two separate meetings with representatives of community development initiatives in very recorded formats that were on community-based activity and development initiatives that went beyond this government's term. In fact, it was work initiated with the previous provincial Liberal Government as well as work with the federal and municipal levels and community development groups. So, any communication that I have ever had with the department would have been based on community-based economic development initiatives and that is the extent of my involvement and role.
The only other time, and a third and only other time that the minister would have been in my presence, would have been the night of the nomination meeting of which I would have only spoken with him afterwards at that time and it was mere congenial talk about the meeting. So, I think it is important that the public record note that that is the history. It is very brief, it is very identified, it is very recorded and I would always leave it open to this House at any time to clarify any of those points. I think it was important because it raised concern within my area with regard to any sense that there may have been something less than legitimate involved with my campaign. So, I thank you very much.
MR. MACISAAC: I would confirm everything that the honourable member has said. I believe that to be fair to the honourable member, the success that he achieved is in large measure due to his own candidacy and how the government was perceived within his constituency. The matters that were discussed previously were not in any way part of any conspiracy or effort, and that simply the contact wasn't there and certainly people within my department would not be party to such a conspiracy. Those who know me well, seriously doubt that I would have the capacity to execute such a scheme.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now after that topic has been finished we will get back to the relevancy in regard to the estimates that are before us.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on a personal note I would like to congratulate the member for Cape Breton North, personally, on his resounding victory. I think it was well earned and I believe the honourable thing to do is congratulate people and not be digging up old bones and building on sore wounds just because people can't get their way. So I congratulate the member.
I want to follow up on a previous line of questioning with regard to the proposal that was made by the RCMP re the highway compliance officers. Would the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, be kind enough to indicate who made that proposal? Did the department ask the RCMP to submit a proposal?
MR. MACISAAC: I was not part of any of the discussions that lead up to the proposal coming forward so . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Who was?
MR. MACISAAC: What I can do is attempt to provide you with what my understanding of the history is. It is my understanding that discussions took place with members of the RCMP and initially with Justice.
MR. MACKINNON: So, was it the government that asked the RCMP to submit a proposal or did the RCMP on its own volition make a proposal to government?
MR. MACISAAC: To the best of my knowledge the RCMP were told that if they made a proposal that it would be viewed but it wasn't a request to make it. They were wondering if the government would look at a proposal if it came forward. That is my understanding.
MR. MACKINNON: It sounds a little irregular that the RCMP would do such a thing on their own volition. Obviously somebody in government - you indicated that the government suggested to the RCMP that if they made a proposal it would be considered, right?
MR. MACISAAC: In response to a question, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Who in government approached the RCMP to submit the proposal?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe that it was the other way around.
MR. MACKINNON: So, the RCMP on their own approached the provincial government and asked to submit a proposal?
MR. MACISAAC: Apparently there is a history of discussion that went on within the Department of Justice and the RCMP with respect to this matter. Those discussions went back and forth and as a result of those discussions there were discussions with Service Nova Scotia. Those discussions went on and that would have been between Service Nova Scotia and Justice and so part of the discussion would have entailed the question, would
government consider a proposal from the RCMP? The answer that was given to that question is yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Who initiated the discussions?
MR. MACISAAC: I wasn't there. I . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Could you give an undertaking to the committee?
MR. MACISAAC: I will undertake to provide as much information as I possibly can. It is very difficult to know exactly how something starts when individuals may have come upon the idea as a result of meeting one another and talking. It didn't arise out of a formal discussion and a request for a meeting to discuss this thing. It arose out of discussions that were occuring within - your question might be better put, if you want to know who initiated it, to the Minister of Justice because that is where the discussion started.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, so what you are telling us then, Mr. Minister, is that you don't know who initiated the discussion.
MR. MACISAAC: No, I don't.
MR. MACKINNON: So, you don't know if it was government or the RCMP that initiated the discussions that lead to the proposal. Is that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: That is correct. The only thing that I can tell you is that the idea came about as a result of a discussion between people in the Department of Justice and a member or members of the RCMP.
MR. MACKINNON: Was there anybody from Service Nova Scotia involved in those discussions?
MR. MACISAAC: At the beginning?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. MACISAAC: No.
MR. MACKINNON: Okay, through the course of the discussions?
MR. MACISAAC: Well, obviously, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Is there any documentation or any record of those discussions or who made what proposal?
MR. MACISAAC: Whatever information I can get for you by way of background with respect to that, I will provide when we can make it available.
MR. MACKINNON: Just one final note on that . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I don't know who keeps track of these things when we are supposed to get back, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MACKINNON: I would suspect your staff.
MR. MACISAAC: Okay, but I just want to make certain that that is noted and that we would get back to you with the information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Normally the chairman is sent a copy just to verify it sometimes. I will table that with Hansard.
MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, it is just that I am a little concerned. You are indicating rather high-level discussions. Nobody seems to know who initiated them. There doesn't seem to be a paper trail on it, at this point, from your department's perspective. The proposal that was submitted by the RCMP, is that in written form?
MR. MACISAAC: I believe it is, yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Would you table that for the committee?
MR. MACISAAC: Not at this stage because it is still being evaluated.
MR. MACKINNON: I see. Are you able to give any information as to what the implications are for staffing levels within the department? It is a budgetary line item, I would imagine, at some juncture . . .
MR. MACISAAC: The proposal is before my department. I have not received a recommendation with respect to that proposal and before I could provide any information, first of all the decision would have to be made by me to bring a recommendation forward to Cabinet. So I haven't seen anything prepared.
MR. MACKINNON: Has it come before P & P?
MR. MACISAAC: No, anything that would go before P & P would go over my signature. I have not seen the proposal. It is still being evaluated.
MR. MACKINNON: Has anyone in your department seen the proposal?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, people in my department are evaluating it, as well as others.
MR. MACKINNON: And you haven't seen it? Okay, so is there anybody in your department that knows who approached who first?
MR. MACISAAC: Certainly we know who signed the proposal that was received from the RCMP, the written document.
MR. MACKINNON: But that wasn't my question. That is not the answer to my question. My question is, do you know of anyone in your department that has a knowledge as to who approached who?
MR. MACISAAC: I don't know if anyone in my department knows that.
MR. MACKINNON: Does your deputy?
MR. MACISAAC: I can't tell you who and I don't believe anybody in the department, at this stage, can tell you who said the first thing to whom with respect to this.
[2:00 p.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: So you are confirming that the deputy wouldn't know and doesn't have knowledge on it. Is that correct?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Let's move on to the next question, Mr. Chairman. Several weeks ago, Service Nova Scotia appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, on Wednesday, March 21, 2001, to be exact. I asked a question as to whether Service Nova Scotia made recommendations to the program review committee from P & P, or whatever Cabinet membership that was doing the program review or spearheading it, and they gave an undertaking that they would provide a list of the recommendations that were made to this particular committee. One particular recommendation that was made and was acted upon was the issue surrounding the Government Book Store. Do you have a list of the other recommendations that were made?
MR. MACISAAC: What I have before me is programs eliminated as part of the program review. Would that be helpful?
MR. MACKINNON: Well, that would be helpful, as well, if you could table that. But, also, there was a list of recommendations that were not acted upon, according to your representatives at that particular hearing. Would you provide a list of those recommendations that were not acted upon?
MR. MACISAAC: We will have to check and get back to you on that because I don't have such a list in front of me.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, your staff, I believe, the lady to your right, was in attendance at that particular committee hearing and I am after forgetting her name. Would this be Ms. Smith?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, she is the lady who gave the undertaking, in fact, Ms. Kathy Smith. Now that was three weeks ago that the committee was given an undertaking . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I have been informed that the responses to your questions are being worked on and are being prepared.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, if it is a list of recommendations that was submitted to this program review, it should be simply just a matter of photocopying it and providing it to the committee.
MR. MACISAAC: Well, the department, as you know, was two departments previously, at the time the program review was undertaken. So it does require some co-ordination and gathering of information in order to put it together. The commitment was made to provide you with the information. It is being worked on and you will be provided with it.
MR. MACKINNON: Would the minister have any recollection of what some of these recommendations might be?
MR. MACISAAC: No, I don't.
MR. MACKINNON: So you have no recollection of what recommendations your staff would have made to P & P?
MR. MACISAAC: I don't have any, at this stage. I can tell you about the decisions that were taken and I am quite willing to share that with you.
MR. MACKINNON: But you are saying that you don't know what your staff did in relation to the program review?
MR. MACISAAC: What I am saying is that until the matter is compiled and prepared, at that time, we will answer your questions with respect to it and I will reserve my answers until that time, but we will provide the answers. The commitment was made, the undertaking given and the answers will be forthcoming.
MR. MACKINNON: When?
MR. MACISAAC: Soon.
MR. MACKINNON: Three weeks ago, we asked for this information and we were advised that we would get it, and I believe, quite earnestly, the response was, certainly. We understood that, within a few days, we would have that information. That was three weeks ago and we have Ms. Smith with us here now. Perhaps through you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Smith could give us some indication, since she is here before the committee, as to when that information will be forthcoming. Why is the department hiding it?
MR. MACISAAC: I understand that the Hansard of the committee meeting was made available just last week and they awaited the arrival of that so they could respond precisely to the requests that were made. Of course, in the interim, we were also involved in preparing for the estimates as well so that once the copy of Hansard arrived then shortly after that the process of compiling your answers was begun.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, with all due respect, the question was quite clear and precise and it was quite simple. What is the list of recommendations that were made to P & P that were rejected? She said, quite clearly, that only one was accepted and that was with regard to the Government Book Store process. Mr. Poole answered that part and it is quite simple, does anyone have any indication as to what recommendations were made but were rejected? Is it 1? Is it 21?
MR. MACISAAC: The list is being compiled and it will be made available to you.
MR. MACKINNON: And you don't know what they are?
MR. MACISAAC: We will share that information when it is compiled . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No. Mr. Minister, my question is quite direct. Do you know what the recommendations were? Or, do you know any of the recommendations . . .
MR. MACISAAC: I do not have the list of the recommendations in front of me at this time.
MR. MACKINNON: So you don't know what recommendations were made? That were rejected.
MR. MACISAAC: I don't have the list in front of me. And, if I were going to provide that information, I prefer to do it from a list so that it would be complete and accurate. There was an undertaking given to you that the information would be provided. Now, the word "certainly" does not imply any time frame. It simply implies that the request will be done.
MR. MACKINNON: With all due respect, perhaps the honourable minister may want to check the traditions and the customs of the House and indeed, certainly with regard to Public Accounts. When such an undertaking is given, it is generally understood that within a week to two weeks, at the outside. That has always been the practice, it doesn't matter what government was there. For the minister to kind of skate around that, not even knowing what recommendations, how can we appraise the estimates within your department when you don't even know what is going on in your own department? You don't even know what recommendations have been rejected so we will certainly wait for the recommendations, but I think it is very unfortunate.
From our understanding, I would certainly draw the minister to Pages 28 and 29 of Hansard for Public Accounts on that date and perhaps he might be better informed about what is going on in his department. If he doesn't know and he was part of the program review, then what kind of a job was done? That is what concerns me. And what are the cost implications? What jobs would be affected? Why would only one recommendation dealing with the Government Book Store be the one that would be recognized?
We could certainly shift the focus a bit. We also asked, with regard to the red tape task force, what input did your department have into the red tape task force? What recommendations did your department make to the red tape task force?
MR. MACISAAC: We made no specific recommendations to the red tape task force. We did supply them with information as to items or programs that were ongoing within the department.
MR. MACKINNON: Did your department prepare any type of a report or response to the red tape task force?
MR. MACISAAC: We noted the recommendations of the red tape task force. In particular, we noted that many of the items that were cited in that report were items that the department is, in fact, implementing. There was a very close correlation between recommendations of the red tape task force and the programs of the department.
MR. MACKINNON: So there was no report prepared in response to that then?
MR. MACISAAC: We did an analysis of the report internally and the analysis showed us that most of the items that had relevance to us were in fact being addressed by the department.
MR. MACKINNON: Was that analysis done in written form?
MR. MACISAAC: Yes, it is the red tape task force interim recommendations of November 10, 2001 and this document is the status at February 15, 2001. One recommendation is on process and the recommendation says to develop a "single window access" system for the public and for business. Then it goes on to describe, more than anything else, this is what the people want. This "single window access" system should be the place for transactions, information, permits and advice. People are tired of waiting, tired of going from one department to the next or one level of government to the next. Whenever a business person or a consumer needs something from government, this should be the destinat