Mr. Chairman, I think we would pay it one way or another. We would pay it through increased lease fees or we could pay it in one shot as a capital project. I guess it was determined that rather than having an ongoing charge on the O and M budget, that the best approach would be to deal with it as a one-time capital expenditure.

Thank you. Mr. Koe.

This begs another question. How long is the lease? What are the terms of the lease?

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, that is information I do not have at hand. Thank you.

Mr. Koe.

Can we get this information? I think it is relevant in terms of $663,000 of capital moneys that could be used elsewhere if there are other options that could have been considered. I am not sure of all the details that were considered and put in this item in the capital budget.

Mr. Patterson.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to get this information as soon as possible for the committee. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments on the Department of Justice. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Minister suggesting that we could pay either way. I am wondering whether or not it would be best to have the landlords do the renovations and then do it on a charge-back on the lease. Is this arrangement better than making a guesstimate of $663,000 and instead getting the actual cost?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, with the pressures on our operations and maintenance budget that we are facing, if we are faced with a long-term annual rental commitment to pay for the additional costs of these improvements, it is preferable to put such improvements in the capital plan, pay it out once and then have no additional pressures on our operating budget. In fact, I am informed by the Minister of Finance that it is a standard policy of our government that leasehold improvements should be capitalized in this manner for those reasons. So it is the way we do all other requirements of this kind. I think it eases the

pressure and gives us more flexibility on our O and M budget. Thank you.

Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of restraint. Is it the policy of the government to make improvements to leased buildings that they have? The moneys we are allocating are based on an estimate, not actual cost. The landlords of these buildings should be making the improvements themselves and billing the government for the costs of those renovations.

Are we saving money by doing it the way the Minister is suggesting? We are going to have to maintain more rooms now. Is that appropriate at this point in time? You have areas for witnesses waiting and also separate areas for prisoners, young offenders, more security for judges. Is adding more rooms saving this government money? We are allowing the capital estimates to go forward and presumably the contractor will be obliged to spend that kind of money, as opposed to the landlord doing it, then he will do it in the most efficient way to save him money and in return might save this government money.

Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should not give the committee the impression that this is a money-saving initiative. It is primarily a safety and security initiative. It is safety for the public, protection of young offenders from being held with adult prisoners, protection and security for judges, for people who are working in the sometimes sensitive area of enforcing maintenance orders, better protection for our court records and exhibits. So it is not really intended to be a cost-saving measure, but it is intended to protect the safety of the public and public officers in our system. So I cannot say it is going to cost less, but it may save some people from having their personal safety endangered.

As well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amount is an estimate. The project has been designed and would be put out to tender shortly. The actual cost may vary according to the tender bids. I assume we will get the best price that the marketplace will allow. I am not sure if this would be the case if we ask the landlord to undertake improvements. We would not have the same control over costs if it was done in that manner. Here, our Department of Public Works will be managing the project following public tenders. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan.

Thank you. Again, regardless of whether or not this government, the landlord or a contractor does it, it is not going to eliminate prejudice over the safety of the people that are going to be attending court. I am suggesting that whether or not the contractor, this government or the landlord does it, I think the end result is for safety and protection regardless. What I am suggesting is if the landlord has done it, we might save money. I do not know. I am just looking at whether or not this is an option in a time of restraint. We have to look at measures or ways of saving this government money. I think this is one way to do it; that is, to have the landlord make the necessary renovations to accommodate this government.

Thank you. General comments. Shall we go line by line?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Registries And Court Services

Buildings And Works, Headquarters, Total Capital,

Agreed

Order, please. Department of Justice, page 07-9. Detail of capital for registries and court services, buildings and works, headquarters, total region, $663,000. Agreed?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Registries And Court Services, Total Capital, Agreed

Total activity, $663,000. Agreed?