Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning, M.H.A., Labrador West, substitutes for Don Whelan, M.H.A., Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

The Minister will have fifteen minutes, if he so chooses, to introduce his budget and the Vice-Chair will be given equal time to respond. Following that, we will then allocate questions and answers in ten-minute intervals more or less, until we have run out of questions or until we decide to adjourn for the evening.

There are a couple of points; I would like to perhaps take a ten to fifteen-minute coffee break about midway through, which would be at about - 8:30? Okay. I would simply ask as well that the officials with the minister, if they would, when they speak, identify themselves for the purposes of Hansard. Having said all that, unless I have missed anything, Mr. Minister.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chair, I am not going to take fifteen minutes. Time is too valuable with all the questions that people want to ask about this department. It would not be proper of me to use up all the valuable time of this Committee, but before I begin on a few remarks though, I will ask my officials to identify themselves, starting with my Deputy Minister, Lynn Spracklin.

MS SPRACKLIN: Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister.

MR. CUMMINGS: John Cummings, Assistant Deputy Minister.

MR. WHITE: George White, Director of Finance.

MS HEFFERNAN: Theresa Heffernan, Budget Analyst.

MR. McNUTT: Marvin McNutt, Director, Adult Corrections.

MR. FLYNN: Colin Flynn, Director of Public Prosecutions.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As members would know, of course, it is the Department of Justice which provides the legal advice to government and is primarily responsible for the protection of the citizens in the Province with respect to their persons and to their properties. The Department of Justice is responsible for police protection; we have the two police forces, the RCMP and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Prosecutions come under this department, prosecutions of alleged offenders, the operations of the courts and the various correctional systems of the Province. We provide services to victims of crime and, of course, the other part is to draft the legislation which comes before the House of Assembly, drafting for all the different departments.

Within the Department of Justice, too, we have allocated lawyers to represent each department. For example, there will be a lawyer who will work closely with Education, with Industry, Trade and Technology and all the other departments of government. It is a department in which we encourage different requests being made from other departments as well as from Opposition Members and our own backbenchers. Often, we get quite a few calls; as a matter of fact, even today, several members of the House have been calling for various information which we make available quite readily.

Our budget this year - as you can see, Mr. Chairman, we had to take a substantial reduction in budget because of the fiscal state the Province is in; we tried to avoid as best we could, making any cuts which would interfere with the protection of people and property. One of the big cuts that we had to make was in the RCMP. We have been criticized for not cutting the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary as much in the spring budget, but the reality is, they took a big hit in January; but with the RCMP this year, in the March Budget, they took a substantial hit in one of the areas which has been getting a lot of publicity, which is the Highway Patrol, of course, and by sheer coincidence, on this 24th of May weekend, we happened to have more accidents than we have had in recent years. There were seven casualties, as you know, on the highway.

Since 1989, there have only been a total of two prior to this year and when I heard the result on the media - I was out of town - I was extremely surprised, and I said: Gee, I hope this is not a result of removing the patrol off the highway. So I immediately called my department to discover that none of these reductions have gone in place. It was just by sheer coincidence that it happened, and as you analyze the various accidents, especially the one in the case which the newspaper carried, the story about the one on the West Coast, it would be highly unlikely if we had had 1,000 patrol cars on the highway that that accident could have been prevented. So, it was an area in which we had some concern, and I believe my friend, John Ottenheimer, the next day the House was opened, questioned me about that, because he quite rightly came to the conclusion, or at least suspected, I would guess, that here were patrol cars off the road and now we are going to have a carnage on the highway. But I would like to think it was sheer coincidence.

Having made these few brief opening remarks, Mr. Chair, after the Opposition critic speaks I will be ready for questions.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly. And perhaps before we have the Vice-Chair making his introductory remarks we could have the members identify themselves, starting with the gentleman to my far right.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Wally Anderson, M.H.A. for Torngat Mountains.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, M.H.A. for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. CANNING: Perry Canning, M.H.A. for Labrador West. I am filling in for Don Whelan, M.H.A. for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, M.H.A. for Waterford Valley.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, M.H.A. for St. John's East.

CHAIR: And this is an assistant of ours, Keith Hutchings.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I have to apologize that in about approximately twenty minutes or so I have to leave, I am expected to attend a school reform function tonight, a public gathering, and I have given a commitment that I will be attending that function this evening. My colleague, of course, Mr. Hodder and the other committee members are present. I have asked Mr. Hutchings to remain for the duration of these proceedings this evening. So any points that I raise now in a couple of moments which are addressed perhaps in my absence, he can bring to my attention tomorrow.

In view of the fact it is necessary that I leave shortly, I have gone through the prepared Estimates for 1996 and I think it may be safe to say that Justice perhaps is one of the least difficult department's from an analysis point of view. I mean it is, you know, the areas of reference are quite well defined. And with the exception perhaps of the reference made earlier by the hon. minister, the cuts are not overly significant other than in the area of the RCMP cutbacks. From a general perspective as well, I would think Justice is perhaps one of the least difficult department's in which to scrutinize in these types of proceedings.

Nevertheless, I do have a few questions. There are a few areas of concern that I would like to bring to the minister and his associates. And, perhaps the easiest - I am assuming that everybody has a copy of the Estimates - perhaps the best way to do that, if I may, is to begin on page 251. There are maybe seven or eight specific areas I have underlined for which I would be interesting in receiving some explanation as to why there is the type of discrepancy which exists in the Estimates. And perhaps the best way to do that is, with the permission of the Chair, that I will just go through various areas of concern as a group. Then, if I have to leave I can get the answers I am looking for at a later date.

Beginning with Civil Law And Related Services, it is indicated there, of course, in the abbreviated form 'Appropriations provide for representation of Government in court and advice to Government in civil legal matters.' And we see under Professional Services a rather dramatic increase, approximately double for such services being rendered. My question to the minister would be: Is that a result of ongoing litigation or is it perceived or what one expects to, in fact, take place within the next twelve-month period or so? So I would be interested in some explanation from the department with respect to Professional Services on page 251, under the Heading simply: Civil Law.

MR. DECKER: Do you want to do each one as you go or just leave them?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It may be better, if it is okay, Mr. Minister, if I just go through the several that I have and then we can deal with them afterwards.

MR. DECKER: All right.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There are a number of references to increased expenditure under Information Technology. That shows up under four or five headings. My guess is the answer will be the same for one as it would be for all five. I would be interested in knowing, as critic in this department, what the government's plans are with respect to advances in Information Technology which shows an increase practically in each division of the department under that particular heading. For example, if we turn to page 252, under Support Enforcement Services, we see again under the heading Information Technology in the Estimates an increase of approximately $50,000. So again there seems to be a trend under the heading of Information Technology to show in the Estimates an increase this year over both budgetary and revised spending for last year.

Page 253, Legal Aid: Of course, as a lawyer, I appreciate the fact there are a number of lawyers sitting opposite. It is always of concern to anybody in the practise of law that there be accessible and readily available legal services for those individuals in society who can least afford it. We see a decrease - granted, a minimal one at that - but I am somewhat perhaps discouraged by the fact that if there were to be any change, it is in fact not a change upward. I think it is fair to say, in view of our economic reality in this Province today, we certainly have an increase in crime, particularly perhaps petty crime. Family distress is such that there is a lot of matrimonial break-up, a lot of custody access, child support, spousal support concerns and, of course, these are primarily the areas that legal aid would give attention, particularly criminal law and family law. I am curious as to why we see, as opposed to an increase, in fact, and if anything from the revised figure of 1995-1996, a slight decrease in total expenditure for Legal Aid.

I would also be curious in knowing if the department has any plans at all to expand the jurisdiction in the services that it provides for Legal Aid clients. Very often - and I hear it again as a member of the legal profession - people attempt to get Legal Aid services only to find out that the mandate is not there. The Legal Aid Act does not allow a particular person the services that they require. It may be a civil matter, nevertheless, it may be a civil matter which has a dollars and cents consequence to the applicant. It seems to me very often that Legal Aid, because of its limited mandate, has to, in outright fashion, simply say no to an applicant and the services are just not available because the Legal Aid Act doesn't allow it. I am wondering if there is any thought or discussion within the department in dealing with the actual jurisdiction of the Legal Aid Act and those members of society who may have accessibility to Legal Aid services. I say that again particularly in view of the economic reality that we find ourselves in. We are going to see a lot more, I am sure, of administrative types of appeals, whether that be Canada Pension, Workers' Compensation or UIC. Again, because of the constraints on the Legal Aid office and again because of the jurisdiction, it may not be possible to accommodate those individuals when in fact if there is a successful outcome, it is only to the economic benefit of the applicant. Again, it is just a question I pose to the minister and his officials and I would be interested in his response to that.

Carrying along, on page 255, again it is only a reference to - under the heading Legislative Counsel. I realize, of course, that this is the office which is responsible for assisting us, as members of this House, but again we see a somewhat dramatic increase in Information Technology. I'm sure the answer to that first reference will be the same for this one, but it is just a point that I want to bring to the attention of the minister.

If I could go to page 258, under the heading Provincial Courts, 3.2.01: "Appropriations provide for the administration of the Provincial Courts including Youth Reviews." Simply, a question again under Salaries. I'm curious as to exactly what would allow for such an increase of approximately $100,000 in Salaries simply for administration of our provincial courts. Is that increased judicial - you know, appointment of judges or administrative staff, clerical staff, or whatever the case might be?

On page 260 under Police Protection, Mr. Minister indicated initially that the significant cuts - and I concur with him - were in the police services provided by the RCMP. However, we do see a reduction in the estimates at least in both the administration of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in terms of the total administration costs, and in Police Services being provided or performed in the northeast Avalon, Labrador West and the City of Corner Brook. My question is: What in fact has caused this discrepancy? Again, from our point of view, why is it in fact a decrease from the revised spending to the estimates of this year? As I said, this is both in Administration and in Police Services being provided by our provincial force, the R.N.C.

With respect to Police Services (RCMP), other than just a general concern, as the minister pointed out, this was discussed during Question Period. We have had some opportunity, through press releases and through responses being provided by the minister, to analyze this issue with respect to the reduction of spending concerning the R.C.M.P in this Province. Obviously, it doesn't satisfy our concerns, but I would have to admit that the responses that we have at least explain the concerns, to some extent; other than to say that, as critic in this area again, it is distressing to find that there has to be a cut in police services in this Province by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I mean, we have come to rely on their expertise and their services in this Province throughout all communities. I realize over recent years that the R.N.C. has expanded throughout the Province, nevertheless the R.C.M.P has always had a very respectable presence. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that the presence is in fact being diminished. Although we can make no correlation with respect to what happened last weekend in terms of the carnage on our highways, the concern is that we had that sort of situation at a time when in fact the changes had not commenced. My concern is, and this was really the thrust of the question that was raised in Question Period, once it is known by the general population of this Province that there is in fact a significantly reduced police presence on our highways, how will the populace, from a general point of view, react to that? Will it just be an opportunity to try to get away with breaking the law and, of course, putting their own lives and the lives of others at risk.

It is, again, a general concern that I have. In fact, it is one that we, on this side of the House, share as a caucus.

With respect to Adult Corrections and Community Services, I refer you now to page 263. I think it is fair to say that, second to the actual reduction in the police protection, from a cost point of view, would be this particular area, Correctional Facility Operations. I see that Mr. McNutt is present and he may be able to deal with this issue at a later date. We see total facility operations being reduced by approximately $2 million or a figure approaching $2 million. I am interested in getting some grasp as to what in fact would account for a reduction in facility operations and what is it, in terms of services or amenities that are provided for those people who find themselves within such correctional facilities? What is it they had, that they now do not have? There may be a simple answer to that, I don't know but I simply ask the question and we are interested in the response to that.

On that page as well, under Victims Services, it is described as, "Appropriations provide for assistance to victims of crime in the form of support, information and counselling services." Clearly, I see this as an area that needs constant attention. Very often, compensation, I suppose, education and professional development - these are the types of issues which not only offer assistance to victims but act as an element of education and offering of general knowledge to those members of the public. Again, we see a decrease in the projection for this year and I am curious as to why that would be. Again, I would be interested in seeking a response from the minister and his colleagues as to specifically why they saw fit to have a reduction in that particular area.

Finally, I will now go to page 264, under Youth Correction Facilities. Of course, again it is described: "Appropriations provided for the construction of a new remand facility." I need some clarification on this and I would ask the minister and his officials to simply indicate in perhaps a global sense what the reference is here to Youth Correction Facilities? What facility are we talking about specifically? Why is there again a decrease of approximately - what's the figure there? No, I am sorry there's not. There is no change in that particular figure but I am just curious as to the reference, `Youth Correction Facilities', what the details of that reference is on page 264 of the Estimates?

In conclusion, what I have attempted to do is simply point out the areas of concern that we feel have to be addressed. I don't think it is a particularly onerous task. As I said, the nature of this department is such that it is not as highly detailed as we would find in others. In looking at Education and Social Services, for example, it appears to be much more detailed and perhaps much more difficult in many respects to analyze. Nevertheless, the Justice Department is a very important department within our civil service, performing many outstanding and significant functions in society. These are the few references that I made and I will be interested in knowing your responses to those questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Before you reply to those, perhaps we could have the Clerk officially call the first head and confirm that we will proceed in discussions in block rather than line-by-line.

MADAM CLERK: 1.1.01

CHAIR: 1.1.01.

MR. H. HODDER: The total procedure, as a general rule, at the end of the discussion period we tend to call them in some order rather than go through them line-by-line. I think doing it the way you are proposing, Mr. Chair, might prolong the evening and the discussion.

CHAIR: Oh, I don't propose. I am just simply asking what is the consensus of the members?

MR. H. HODDER: I would prefer to have all of the heads called at one time, at the conclusion of the evening.

CHAIR: Questions asked, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could, under the rules that were provided to me by the House Clerk. To start the debate, the Clerk will first call the first subhead, i.e., 1.1.01. So that will be just a normal - he is not saying, though, that we should -

CHAIR: No, no, not call the vote, Harvey, just as a normal part of the record, that's all, just to get started.

MR. H. HODDER: In other words, she should have already done that.

CHAIR: Exactly.

MR. H. HODDER: I assumed she had.

CHAIR: Mr. Minister.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member quite rightly points out that there are some decreases and there are some increases in the department, of course. Last year our budget was supposed to be $111 million, we actually spent $107 million. This year we are requesting $101,603,200. Now, it is a little difficult to compare last year with this year because there have been some changes in the Department of Justice. For example, the Youth Services was not part of the Department of Justice last year. The Registry of Deeds, a lot of the commercial section which is now gone to Ernie McLean's department was not with the Department of Justice. So it is difficult for us to get a starting figure on any figure. But the reality is that we had to take some cuts in Justice, just as every other department of government did, except for the Department of Health. I am sure if we had our rathers, we would have had an increase. I think every department would say the same thing. But we had to find some savings and we went through our expenses and came up with some.

Mr. Ottenheimer talks about on page 251, The Civil Law And Related Services, and you flag an increase there, I think, under .05 - Professional Services, which is doubled. There is some additional funding provided under that heading for the Aboriginal issues. We have allocated an additional $100,000. There is the Terra Nova Oil Project, which we expect will come on stream or on which we will be in a position to sign a deal sometime in the not-too-distant future, and in order to do that we will have to have some legal services. We have budgeted an additional $500,000 for that. I think, maybe last year the money where we were anticipating a deal might have been budgeted in a different department. I believe it was Industry, Trade and Technology, if I am not mistaken. But this year it has been budgeted in the Department of Justice. So that explains the increase there.

Under subsection 01, under Salaries, there is also a decrease, and that reflects the elimination of three solicitor positions. Last winter when we had the 5 per cent exercise, the minister of the day allowed two positions to go, two solicitor positions, and in the latest round we let an additional one go. So that explains the reduction in Salaries there.

On page 252, I flagged Information Technology, under Subhead 12; there is an increase there. Now, this is an increase which we plan to - no, that is the (inaudible). Page 252, 2.1.03.12, are attributed to improper estimates received from NISL for the mainframe costs?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is the one. The estimates that we received from the old NLCS, from the NISL, its estimates were below what they should have been, so we had to pick up the extra money for them there. Was there another one on page 252, John, or not?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Actually, it is 2.1.02, the same heading, Information Technology, under the Sheriff's Office.

MR. DECKER: Information Technology under the Sheriff's Office. We plan to provide and implement a judgement enforcement system in the Sheriff's Office, and we allocated some extra money for that one.

Page 253, you are talking about the decrease in Legal Aid, and you asked: Are there any plans to expand Legal Aid? As much as we would like to do that, considering the situation in today's economy, as you pointed out, it would probably be a desirable thing to do. However, unfortunately, no. We might have all the desire and a wish to do it but we don't plan to expand on Legal Aid. As you are quite aware, I'm sure, a couple of years ago the department stopped going to the private Bar to hire lawyers for Legal Aid. We now have lawyers on staff who do that.

In this year, we will be asking the House to change the Act. Right now, for some crimes, a defendant is entitled to go to the private Bar and get a lawyer, and Legal Aid would pay it. We are going to discontinue that practice, so that no matter what crime the person is accused of, he or she will have to take a Legal Aid lawyer. We plan to ask the House for permission to do that.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Excuse me. May I just question on that? You mean in terms of duty counsel, is that what you are referring to, or are you referring to just a Legal Aid staff lawyer being available? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the last part of that.

MR. DECKER: Alright. Right now under certain crimes - for example, if you are accused of a crime for which the penalty could be life in prison, under the present Legal Aid Act you are allowed to literally choose your own lawyer and Legal Aid would pay for it. We are going to change that. If you are accused of a serious crime for which the penalty could be life imprisonment, then you will no longer be able to get outside counsel.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You would have to rely on a staff solicitor.

MR. DECKER: That is correct, yes. Assuming the House will give us permission to do that.

On page 255, savings on page 255. Was that the Information Technology one again, on page 255? Yes, okay. You are talking about .12 again, your favourite one, the Information Technology. This provides funding for electronic access to Newfoundland statistics and hardware maintenance on the laser printers.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Minister. I have to excuse myself, there are people waiting, and I have to go to this other meeting.

MR. DECKER: We wish you luck.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: After today it should be interesting.

MR. DECKER: I would suggest you are going to have a much more interesting evening than this one here.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It could very well be. Mr. Hodder and Mr. Hutchings, of course, will help with any responses and bring any good news to my attention tomorrow. Thanks for your help.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr, Chairman.

MR. DECKER: The next page that was flagged was, I believe, page 258, where you asked about the increase under subsection 3.2.01 there, Salaries from $350,700 to $450,700. I think it is the savings of last year we - what is the explanation on that one, Deputy, I don't understand that note. The first section: The savings were realized due to the vacancies in the court reporter overload program in the headquarters staff.

MS SPRACKLIN: We had savings last year that were related to vacancies, basically.

MR. DECKER: That is the only one on page 258. The other one was on page 260 -

MS SPRACKLIN: The only thing I would like to add with respect to salaries is that a lot of temporary positions have been made permanent, so you are going to see an increase in some salary headings as a result of that. It doesn't mean that there are more people, it is just that they are showing up in the salary figures as a result of being made permanent, I think.

MR. DECKER: Then on page 260, Mr. Ottenheimer talked about some increases there; I am not sure which ones they are. There is a decrease in Professional Services there now; last year there were some increased expenditures there, due to the cost associated with the Escott trial, so last year was the aberration and we are back to the $30,000 this year.

Administration, and Police Services, he said there was a decrease there. I am not sure what he is talking about; there is a $2.5 million decrease or a $2.3 million decrease but that is part of the overall request by government for the department to find the decrease. We are making these decreases and there is no point to try to cover them up, what we are doing there.

On page 261, the total facility operations - which one is he talking about here? Was it a general concern there? I think he was probably talking about a general deduction to the Police Services. Now, what we did with both police forces was, we recognized that the department, like other departments, had to take a decrease in our budget for this year. The reality is that significant parts of our budget go to the police forces. The RCMP for example, is $36 million, I believe it is in that range.

Now, with a budget of $100 million, you just could not leave the RCMP totally out of the picture, I mean, $36 million is about a third of your budget, a little more than a third.

WITNESS: Thirty-nine million last year.

MR. DECKER: Thirty-nine, so it is a little more yes, last year. So it is more than a third of your budget. But we, in the Department of Justice, are certainly not qualified to say: Look, RCMP, do this or do that. We went to them and said: `We want 9 per cent savings' - or indicated whatever the amount was. `You tell us where it would have less impact.' Of course, they, like us, would prefer to take no cuts, nevertheless, facing the reality of the Province today, they came back and said: `Here is what we would do rather than the other.' First and foremost, they see their mandate as protection of persons and property.

They came forward and suggested that with highway patrol, they would rather take off highway patrol than they would close up the equivalent of a number of detachments, for example. So, they put it forward and we went back and forth to them; there still would be thirteen out of - there were forty-three before the cut, there still will be thirteen left on the highway.

In addition to that, the normal detachments which have two, three, four and five and ten or a dozen police officers working out of the detachment, in Clarenville, for example, there will be times when the workload is such that they can deploy some of their police officers on the highway to do highway patrol in their area. So it is not right to think that in all of Newfoundland and Labrador, there will only be thirteen police officers patrolling the highway. There will be thirteen plus the other officers who are available from time to time. This will be the case in the investigation of accidents within the jurisdiction of various towns or even outside the jurisdictions of towns. It would be quite probable and quite likely that members of the RCMP attached to various detachments will end up investigating the accidents.

The other area that the RCMP came forward to, which in many ways I believe, will probably be positive even though it will save money -they are talking about the storefront operations. In some places, for example, down in St. Lawrence, parts of Labrador, different parts throughout the Province, they will be centralizing the administration into one community. But they will be leaving the policemen, not in all cases, but in some cases, the police officer will actually live in the community. In the case of St. Lawrence, in the case of Botwood, the police officers will live in the community. There still will be a storefront operation in the community that they will work out of. But much like government is doing, much like the companies are doing, the administration will be centralized at one strategic location. This will give more police presence out in the community. I have been advised that also this will tie into the new concept - what they call a new concept - of the community-based policing, where the police officer is living right in the community. For the first time in my life, last year I met a couple of RCMP officers walking through the town of Roddickton, and it frightened the life clean out of me. I thought they had a flat and I offered assistance and they told me, no, this is community-based policing - we are out walking downtown instead of driving down. And it was good. It was great, you know. It is about as new as the year 1876 or 1871 whenever the RNC started in Newfoundland, because that is how you policed in the old days, you went out and walked. Hopefully, we might be able to tie community-based policing in with the necessity to save money. So I can see it as a progressive thing.

The other area that Mr. Ottenheimer talked about was page 263. He talked about the Facility Operations. It has been reduced by $2 million, and I believe that would come under Mr. McNutt's department, would it not? Maybe, Marvin, if you could give us a few words on that area.

MR. McNUTT: Yes. Mr. Chair, Marvin McNutt, Director of Adult Corrections. Basically, the reductions in the Correctional Facility Operations is contributed to the fact that we have, as of December 30, 1995, closed the Clarenville Correctional Centre as a male correctional centre. We subsequently transferred the women who were in the Stephenville Women's facility to that facility on April 1. That really explains the major portion of the reduction there; it amounts to around $800,000. But there were other reductions as well, such as the use of casuals to cover off for call-back and overtime. Historically, we have used a substantial amount of salary dollars to call back our permanent correctional officers staff, to cover off for other absences in our institutions. We had been trying to negotiate with the union for some time to get them to agree to a policy of using our highly qualified trained and experienced casual correctional officers to cover off those shifts at a much reduced cost. They would not get a premium salary, they would provide the same work at a much reduced cost. And we are projecting a $250,000 net savings as a result.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Marvin.

Mr. Ottenheimer also mentioned the Victims Services. Madam Deputy, could you maybe add a few words to that for me.

MS SPRACKLIN: What page is that?

MR. DECKER: It is on page 263.

MS SPRACKLIN: All right. Yes, Victims Services have been reduced. I think, Mr. Ottenheimer's question related to why we had reduced the Community Corrections, the Community Grants portion. I guess, the answer to that is that we had to absorb a reduction and we wanted to do it with least effect on direct services to victims.

The Community Grants portion has gone unexpended in past years, to some extent, and we chose instead to redirect some funding to the provincial strategy on violence, which will see para-professionals retained in small communities to provide assistance to victims. I guess it just simply seemed to be the area where we could do the least harm in reducing the funding.

If I can give you an example, in 1994-1995 we had budgeted $230,200 for community contribution fund. We, in fact, expended $131,000. In 1995-1996 we had budgeted $230,200 for community contributions, we spent $130,000. This year there is $16,000 there. In that area we have put $50,000 toward Professional Services in small communities, and we have also managed to retain the counselling services. We will be able to provide the same level of counselling to individual victims, and we have retained our district offices open throughout the Province, which also provide direct services to victims.

MR. DECKER: Thank you. The last point that John raised was about the Youth Correction Facilities, 4.3.02, on page 264. The $4.3 million, that refers to the Whitbourne centre and the Remand Centre down in Torbay, I think. Those are the expenses. He also expressed some concern about: "Appropriations provided for the construction of a new remand facility."

Government, Mr. Chairman, we considered over the past few years building a new remand centre. We talked about one in Labrador and one in Corner Brook. We actually allocated funding to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to do some preliminary engineering work on that. Of course, this year we have decided that we aren't in a position to go ahead to build these facilities. As a matter of fact, we are reviewing whether or not we will be requiring them in the future. I think those were all the questions that he raised.

CHAIR: Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first item I want to refer to is Fines Administration, which is item 3.2.03 on page 259.

In the 1994-1995 estimates, in the budget, there was provision of provincial revenue of $400,000. Later in the revised budget, that was changed to be taken out, and then the total amount to be voted went up to $917,100. A similar thing occurs in all the budgets. Is that an administrative thing? For example, last year we had the same thing, $400,000 identified, and then in the revised budget it is taken out altogether, indicating that the total Fines Administration for last year was $807,300. Then the matter occurs again. Why is that occurring consistently, that the Fines Administration - you indicate that you are going to collect $400,000, but then, there is no indication that in fact that did happen.

MR. DECKER: Which one are you talking about? Is that the Revenue - Provincial there?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, the Revenue - Provincial.

MR. DECKER: The $400,000.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Yes. We anticipated collecting $400,000 because of the legislative changes that were required with the municipalities, the ticketing. Do you remember that legislation?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: That legislation did not go through and was not proclaimed time enough. So we ended up not collecting $400,000 that we had anticipated collecting.

MR. H. HODDER: But, on the other hand, that appears consistently for the last - any number of budgets and it got put into the budget in '94-'95, '95-'96, '96-'97. So therefore, each time when a budget is revised it is reduced down to be zero. One of the things I wanted to find out is how much is owed in fines in the Province? If there is some data, which I am sure you have -

MR. DECKER: I am not sure you would want to know. It is about $11 million or $12 million.

MR. H. HODDER: You know, if we are spending $376,500 on Information Technology, it should be very easy to find out what the total accumulated fines are, what is outstanding and into what categories they would fall.

MR. DECKER: John, do you have that information?

MR. CUMMINGS: No.

MR. DECKER: It seems that nobody has that information, Mr. Chairman. We will have to get it for the hon. member.

MS SPRACKLIN: Sir, it is significantly recognized there are some significant outstanding fines but on this issue here, the delay, this $400,000 is actually an administrative fee for collecting on behalf of municipalities and whatnot, their fines. The delay, I guess, resulted from, number one, delayed implementation to allow municipalities to adjust their fines. Secondly, there were delays on our part because we ran into considerable technical problems in terms of the ticket forms and coding and all that sort of thing. It was just a lot more complicated when you got down to the detailed work than we had anticipated initially, but we have it all ironed out now and the legislation is in place and proclaimed.

MR. H. HODDER: The new legislation was passed in the spring session, which granted some very wide sweeping kind of enabling legislation that should address some of that problem. I think all hon. members would like to see, when a fine is imposed by the court, that there is a concerted effort to have it collected. If not, then there is something that falls apart with the administration -

MR. DECKER: You asked about the outstanding fines, now the number is immense. Is it $14 million?

MR. H. HODDER: If I remember correctly, the number last year was -

MR. DECKER: It is between $12 million and $14 million in outstanding fines and there was just no way under the sun to collect it. For example - I believe the newspapers carried a story on it some time in the winter - one young man doesn't have a driver's license and he has been fined about seven or eight times for driving without a license. You can't take his license because he doesn't have one to take. He is driving without insurance and he keeps on - there was nothing you could do with him. Now, under the new legislation, hopefully, we will find that some day, some time, there is going to be something that person is going to need from government, a moose license or whatever, and we will have at least the enabling legislation, if we so wish, to make it possible that you would be refused certain services, a certain moose license or what have you, but failing to renew the license is not going to have much impact on that fellow because he doesn't have one anyway. That is one of the problems that we have but there is a tremendous amount of fines which are outstanding, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: If a person would drive without a license and without insurance, what guarantee will we have that he would bother to get a license to shoot a moose? None.

MR. DECKER: That's right.

MR. H. HODDER: You are probably right and -

MR. DECKER: Well, the reality is, you know, in a democracy, in our kind of democracy - and we no longer have a debtor's prison so there is not a lot you can do when you get a person who has nothing and is just not going to play by the rules. The old methods have been discontinued and I would not want to see them re-enacted, so there is not a lot you can do about every single human being, but I think the legislation which we have on the books now will enable us to collect a lot more fines than we could in the past.

MR. H. HODDER: Is the minister doing an analysis of the outstanding fines, monitoring the success of the new legislation as implementation to see if, indeed, the measures we have now taken as a province are going to have some success, as opposed to the previous system which, in many cases, was ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying the fines as ordered by the courts?

MR. DECKER: We haven't put a process in place right now, but within the next year or so, once we get the regulations in place, there is no doubt we will monitor to see was it worth our while to change the legislation. I think that is the logical conclusion, isn't it, Deputy?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: I mean, with all that technology there, there shouldn't be any difficulty at all to just enter the thing into a computer program and find out exactly how you are doing from time to time; particularly if you had a situation where municipalities and other people who have the authority to track, see how often there is an interaction that occurs. Therefore, if you had a networking of analysis occurring, you could find out exactly, according to maybe the social insurance number of the individual or whatever, how many cases there were, instances where the person had made an effort to pay, or where, in fact, the system of denial of benefits and privileges had worked, shall we say, its purpose.

Going to another issue, I want to talk about the policing services, again, the RNC and the RCMP. We spent approximately $14 million for the RNC, there at the bottom of page 260, and $36 million. You indicated that the RCMP's priority is the protection of people and property. We would argue here that the protection of people and property includes a determination to do that on the highways as well as anywhere else.

In terms of the numbers of people who live in the Northeast Avalon, Labrador West and Corner Brook, as a proportion of the population that is protected directly by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and then the proportion protected by the RCMP, has the department done any real analysis of the cost of those two police forces, and in terms of what society expects? My real question is: Is there any intent on the ministry's part to extend the policing of the RNC to more centres than those which we have identified now?

MR. DECKER: We have not given any consideration to any major expansion of the RNC. The RNC is responsible for about a third of our people, as you can appreciate. Maybe in the Corner Brook area, where the RNC is responsible for the city of Corner Brook, but not for the towns of Pasadena or Steady Brook, or for the north shore of the Bay of Islands. Now, more for convenience, we might consider expanding the RNC in that area. It is one area that we have considered.

From time to time, someone suggests maybe we should have only one police force in Newfoundland, let the R.N.C. do it all, or let the RCMP do it all. It would not be practical to expand the RNC. It would cost a fortune. For example, wherever there is a detachment of the RCMP now, most likely there would be a detachment of the RNC, if you expand it. But we would have to buy all that property. It would be a significant amount of property that we would have to buy (inaudible) - they own it, you know, per se.

The other reason is, there are a lot of positives in having two police forces. In the last little while, for example, we had a problem down at Her Majesty's Penitentiary at St. John's, where the prison guards walked off. Now, say, for example, not saying it did happen, but if, for example, the RNC refused to go down and cover for us, you know, we would have a second chance, we would have the RCMP. If there were only one police force and that police force refused to go and cover, you would have no second choice. And it doesn't hurt to have two police forces. Some other provinces have - I think Nova Scotia has thirty-six or thirty-seven police forces. We would not want to go to that extreme. But there are a lot of positives. In the event of a labour dispute, I know the RNC is not allowed to go on strike, but they have had the occasional wildcat. There has been the occasional time when they refused to provide service or something. So it is always a good policy, I believe, to have at least two police forces available.

The RCMP - we also get funding from the Federal Government for them. We pay 70 per cent of the cost. It is 70/30 funding. So on a per member basis they are an expensive police force. But the province ends up getting 30 per cent of it paid by the feds, so we are no worse off as far as that goes.

The other argument that has been put forward to keep the RCMP: There are some parts of our Province, as in other provinces as well, where officers do not want to go for any length of time. It is a problem you have getting doctors to go North, getting teachers to go in certain areas.

Police forces have the same problem, for whatever reason. I will pick Roddickton because I belong there. Roddickton is not considered to be a desirable place. I don't know why, I think it is the best place in the world. But it would be difficult to say to a police officer, you go there forever. With the RCMP, where they are so big and they operate on a national scale, they can send some of the young recruits into a place like Roddickton for two or three years and they can promise them that they will move them to another part of the country, which they would see as a promotion. It is more difficult to do that if you were just confined to one province. That is one of the areas.

I am sure there are arguments on both sides. But the answer to your question is: we have not given any serious consideration to going either with the RCMP doing all of Newfoundland or the RNC doing both. As a matter of fact, we believe the positives of having two police forces far outweigh any gains that we could make with one police force.

If we were doing it all over again - at the time of Confederation, as you know, we had the Ranger Force and we had the Newfoundland Constabulary. The Newfoundland Constabulary policed most of the Island. Maybe if we were starting from scratch and you had to buy the detachments, we might consider one or the other. But since the situation is as it is, in the fiscal realities that we have, it certainly would not be the time for us to consider expanding the RNC to police all of Newfoundland or vice versa. Because if we expanded the RCMP, we still end up having to buy some or in the case of the province owning it may not be as expensive.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Minister, why then, did I hear the other day that there is going to be also a decline in the number of RCMP officers assigned to enforcement on the Burin Peninsula, particularly in the area of monitoring of the illegal trade that occurs between St. Pierre-Miquelon and the Canadian part of the peninsula?

MR. DECKER: Yes, the excise in customs, the federal presence will still be there. Two or three years ago we put in place some extra RCMP officers that the province paid the shot for to put them there. There was an increase in smuggling, we perceived, and we put the extra police people there; it involved the customs. The federal presence will still be there at the airports, on the Burin Peninsula and what have you. We are going to discontinue the provincial one at this time in an effort to save money. It is difficult to determine whether or not we will actually lose revenue by doing that, some could guess, but there are no hard facts to prove that that might or might not be the case. Of course, it is one of the things that we will have to monitor. But it would not be wise for a smuggler to think that there is no police on the Burin Peninsula, so I will go down and get my winter's liquor. The reality is that the federal presence will still be there.

MR. H. HODDER: They have been doing it for many years before you were born and I guess they will do it for many years after that. It is one of the thriving industries that is left on the Burin Peninsula, some people would say. But, at the same time, we have to be careful.

MR. DECKER: If the people in St. Pierre are consuming the liquor that they buy, there are not very many people left sober at any given time on St. Pierre and Miquelon.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I think there are stats on that and you and I know exactly what happens in spite of our best efforts. For every effort that is made by the Department of Justice to control and monitor, there are counter-acting moves taken by those people engaged in that particular activity, and my concern is that the public perception of a decrease in the number of police officers assigned to that particular function might, shall we say, give encouragement to those who might be principals to engaging in the smuggling business, and there have been some concerns expressed by some people who live on the Burin Peninsula -

MR. DECKER: Yes. It is a case, though, of perception but not reality, because, if you are caught smuggling, you are not going to ask the guy whether he is a federal police officer or a provincial police officer. The fact of the matter is, he is a police officer, and I don't think the smuggler is too concerned who he is. And there will still be a federal presence.

MR. H. HODDER: The other thing I want to talk about is Support Enforcement Services, on page 252. Last year, in the estimates, we were discussing the Reciprocal Enforcement Support Orders system across the country, and I had asked at that time, if records were being kept about the length of time that it takes to have the orders enforced from one province to the other, and if there were data files being maintained on that, because the complaint one receives is that, when you have children, and most often it will be the female spouse involved, and when you have lengthy delays in enforcement then, you know, entire families can be at risk. There was some comment made by the former Minister of Justice that they were monitoring the situation, and I am wondering if some member or yourself could comment on that as to the progress and, you know, the co-operation that is going on across the country.

MR. DECKER: You will notice that we have included three additional enforcement officer positions in this year's budget. Despite the tough time we have had with finance, we have three new positions. I am going to ask someone else to speak on that, but one of the major problems, of course, is getting co-operation from the other provinces and with the Federal Government as well; but the climate has been improving over the last two years, so I am sure my predecessor would have been able to say, too, we are getting more co-operation with the other provinces so that we can enforce these orders. Is there someone who would speak to that? John?

MR. CUMMINGS: I don't know if we can be as precise as to give you an average number or how long it takes to enforce one of these orders, but there are a number of things going on.

First of all, we have dedicated one enforcement officer and one of our support staff to deal exclusively with what we call: RESO out-files - those are the files that are leaving this Province and have to go to another Province to be enforced. So that is a new measure that we are taking this year, and taking advantage of some federal money that is available to us through an existing federal program.

In addition to that, all the provinces meet regularly to discuss these problems, and the focus has been to deal with problems that exist in some of the larger provinces, because these are where the blockages seem to be, particularly in B.C. and Ontario. BC has now done, we think, a pretty good job of simplifying their court procedures so that it is a lot easier now to send an order to British Columbia, have it registered with their courts and get it enforced much more quickly than we could in the past. It looks like Ontario is going to do essentially the same thing that B.C. has done, hopefully in the next - well, less than twelve months, so that we will also see an improvement there. I can't give you any numbers but things do look better in those two provinces. And they are the big problems in the country, because that is where a lot of people are going, of course, to look for work and so on, so that all the other provinces finally have a lot of orders that need to be enforced in these two provinces.

In addition, we don't have the details yet, but the Federal Government have announced that they are going to be prepared to spend another $12 million or $13 million over the next few years, whatever that means, to try to improve support enforcement services across the country. So again, the focus is going to be on this interprovincial enforcement. That is still in its infancy and we don't know exactly how it is going to work out, but hopefully, that will be another initiative that will make a difference. Nevertheless, the files that we have to send to other provinces to enforce remain our single biggest problem with the support enforcement agencies, there is no doubt about that.

MR. H. HODDER: I should make the point that in my time in the Legislature, as a member for an urban area - and Mr. Cummings heard me say this before - that I rarely have a complaint against the support enforcement people. I have had several, but in terms of the overall numbers of complaints that one receives, and where credit is due I think we have a responsibility to say so, that that particular agency operating out of Corner Brook - and as Mr. Cummings knows, I have been to Corner Brook and have visited the agency there because it is one of the things that I have some concern about.

In terms of the negotiations with the Federal Government in having a network, a nationwide network that can readily intercept funds so that we don't have to have these long weeks and months of waiting when deadbeat dads are moving from province to province or job to job. We were having some resistance, I believe, from the Province of Quebec and maybe one other province, to having that kind of network established where any earned income can be very quickly intercepted so that we don't have the lengthy delays that we now have. How is that process coming, and what have been the results of it to date?

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, the key for us is the Federal Government because in this Province we have a lot of transfers of federal money to individuals. A significant portion of the money we collect does come from federal sources, so our focus is always on trying to get two things from the Federal Government. One is greater access to their information on where people are, where they are working, and things of that nature. Secondly, it is getting greater access to federal sources of money, because UIC, the TAGS program and pensions and so on, it is very important for us to get that money. I think we are doing a pretty good job of getting access to those funds but there seems to be problems in the federal system, where sometimes it means that there are long delays in getting the money. So that is our focus, trying to get more access to the federal system and trying to get the Federal Government to deal with our request for information and money more quickly and more efficiently, and I think that is slowly coming down. When I got into this game, at one point you could wait as much as eight months trying to get an attachment of a federal revenue in place. That seems to have come down substantially. It is still too long, I think - probably more like about four months now, at this point. But it is getting better and there is reason to think, I believe, that the feds are going to do more in that area to reduce these time periods.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chair, I have had a fair length of time. I still have some more questions but I would yield to my colleagues at any time if they have questions that they would like to put.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) but that's fine. Perhaps it is about time for a coffee break.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Ten to fifteen minutes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Mr. Andersen, do you have any questions?

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, a couple.

Mr. Minister, I talked to my colleague here - and we are fairly new at this. There are some questions we would like to be ask, but we feel they should be asked by our coming to you on an individual basis.

One part here that I have a great concern over is the police protection. I won't speak specifically to any amounts, but in the Cartwright area, I know it is a severe blow to the community. I'm not here to speak for the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, but certainly I've heard it through phone calls to me from there, the Cartwright community area, from individuals, that they are very upset and very concerned.

As you know, there are many communities now, particularly in Coastal Labrador, which are in the process of trying to get native community policing on the go. They feel the cutting back of the RCMP in the Cartwright area and other parts is a very severe blow to them. The question in particular I want to raise is on page 253 under 2.3.03, Labrador Legal Services. The budget for 1995-1996 was $230,000, and the budget for 1996-1997 is $208,100. It concerns me because it deals with a lot of the people in my riding.

More importantly, the reason why it concerns me is that the first thing I had to do when I won the nomination was to go to Mr. Roberts, the previous Minister of Justice, because the funds had run out. Labrador Legal Services provides translators and interpreters for Native peoples in the courtrooms. It came down to a point where the funds were all gone. It came down, I guess, to the part where the people would not be entitled to a fair trial. To see it cut down, knowing that the budget wasn't big enough last year and they ran into severe problems, it concerns me greatly to see that the budget will be cut even further again this year, knowing we ran into a shortage the previous year.

These are my concerns that I address to you and your department. I think that is the only question I do have. Like I said, the rest of the things, I will come to you as an individual or to your group.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleague that it was by no means an easy decision. It isn't something you want to do, to close a detachment or to make cuts to legal services in Labrador.

In the case of Mary's Harbour and Cartwright, when we asked the RCMP to find the savings, they recommended just the store front in Cartwright. Actually, they were debating whether to cut back on Mary's Harbour or Cartwright. They considered all the factors. One of the factors - not the only one - was that in the case of Cartwright, the detachment building there, they told us, and I am speaking from information from the RCMP, is in a very bad state of repair and it would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $700,000 or $800,000 to bring it up to the standard that they would require. In the case of Mary's Harbour, that one, too, is below standard and they would have to spend somewhere, I think, around $100,000. That was by no means the only factor.

The other factor that they used was the crime rate and the population rate, and that sort of thing. And the accessibility of Cartwright from Mary's Harbour - now, I am quite aware, it is not like driving out to Topsail. But in their opinion, they felt that by Labrador standards, it was reasonably easy to get into Cartwright. They will still be making regular visits to Cartwright. I believe it is on every two-week period, that sort of thing. You are quite right, it is not something you would like to do, but it is based on consideration of the problems we are up against.

For the Legal Service - I will ask my deputy if she might want to speak to that issue as well, because every Canadian is entitled to certain legal protection, a right to a lawyer in certain cases and all of that, and we have to live by the law of the land. I think what we are doing is pretty well making the minimum services that we are required to do available in most cases. You can be assured, though, that any person's entitlement under the law, under legal defence, whether that person is in Labrador or anywhere else in the Province, we are obligated to make sure that it is provided. But I think some of the services that we are providing are not required by the Act, and we will not be doing them as much as we would like to, as good as they were.

Deputy, do you want to add to that?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, actually, with respect to court translation services, this would have nothing to do with court translation services, per se. This would affect the liaison officer position at the Labrador Correctional Centre. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SPRACKLIN: I am sorry, that is what I thought he was referring to, the Labrador Legal Services budget. Could you refer me to a page; I am sorry, I have the wrong item.

MR. DECKER: Page 253. 2.3.03.

MR. ANDERSEN: It is down some $22,000.

MS SPRACKLIN: Okay. Yes, again, it shouldn't affect court interpretation services, I am sorry. A constitutional right that people have, quite simply, is to interpretation services before the courts. I think, in addition to that, translation services may also be provided to assist people interact with their legal aid lawyers and in circumstances apart from the court setting. It would be my hope that we would still be able to provide services where necessary, but we simply had to find some money from this program as well as others.

MR. ANDERSEN: Again, my only concern was that if they didn't have enough money last year to provide the adequate translation and interpretive services for the Native people going to the courts, what happens this year when the budget is cut again?

MS SPRACKLIN: Again, by making cuts in places, operational efficiencies, and in administrative functions, my hope would be that they could preserve their front-line direct services to people. I guess that remains to be seen. I will be talking to Linda Andersen and trying to see how we can continue, the best way possible, the direct services to people. But it may involve some administrative and operational cuts. I will have to deal with her on that, I guess, and try to determine. Certainly, it is our wish to continue the direct services to people.

MR. DECKER: That has been our policy as you know, Wally, right through this budgetary exercise. We have tried not to cut the front line. The person in Postville who needs the services of a Legal Aid lawyer, we want to make sure that Legal Aid lawyer is there, subject to what we are required to provide. But if there are some savings that we could make in the administration of that program, whether it is the Legal Aid or whether it is the correctional facilities or whatever, we want to deal with the administration first.

I believe the Minister of Finance has said, and I believe, that something like 30 per cent of the cuts in this round of budget, or somewhere in that vicinity, was in administration. We tried to protect the front line. I'm hoping, Wally, that we will be protecting the front line so that the individual who needs a lawyer to go with him or her to the court will be there. There might be some displacements at the administrative level and that is what will happen.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay.

MR. DECKER: Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: I'm sure that I will be -

MR. DECKER: I'm sure, yes, indeed.

MR. ANDERSEN: We will hopefully work together, you know, like -

MR. DECKER: Right.

CHAIR: Ms Hodder.

MS M. HODDER: I have a few concerns and suggestions which I believe could be brought up at another time and in another place.

CHAIR: Mr. Canning.

MR. CANNING: I would just like to make a comment. I guess the mandate of the department is for the protection of people and property and it must be painful for those who are charged with the responsibility to try to do more with less. I just took the time to look at what we pay in interest every year. Let me just say, it is $546,587,000. We pay for the protection of people and property $101,603,200. We pay five times more for interest than we pay for the protection of people and property. That is an extraordinary result of what we have done in years past.

I want to say, too, that I looked at the percentage of reduction and it is, what, 5.6 per cent or thereabouts? which is somewhat less than the reductions of other departments. It is laudable that the government has been able to find some way to do as much as they can with less. We talked somewhat tonight on technology. I would like to pose a question with respect to technology. One of the ways we can perhaps save some money without affecting a lot of things, like Wally's need for adequate services on the north coast, is through this electronic monitoring of individuals, where you have these types of electronic bracelets on wrists or ankles, I suppose. I would just like to see and hear what the department is doing in that particular area. How is it that we can monitor individuals with these electronic gadgets to save money?

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chair, I am going to say something because Marvin might be too modest to say it, but I am going to ask Marvin to explain the Electronic Monitoring Program that we have in the Province and, of course, the department is responsible for it but Marvin McNutt is doing some outstanding work there.

There has just been an evaluation done and a substantial number of groups across North America have been evaluated, and it turns out that Newfoundland - where are we, where do we come?

WITNESS: In the top 10 per cent.

MR. DECKER: We are in the top 10 per cent of what we are doing in electronic monitoring and we are extremely excited about it. It has caught the attention of other jurisdictions in Canada; the Federal Government are keenly interested in what we are doing. And there is no doubt there are a lot of people in our correctional facilities who should not be there, low-risk offenders. At this moment, it is confined to the Avalon and to the eastern region. Is that right, Marvin? And we plan to expand it to all of Newfoundland and Labrador. But Marvin, would you explain for the benefit of our colleagues just what the program is and what you have been doing with it? Don't be afraid, don't be modest. I mean, it is a good program and let's take full credit for it.

MR. McNUTT: Yes, Mr. Minister.

Marvin McNutt, Mr. Chair. We are quite proud, I think, of what we have done here. The evaluation report that the minister mentions was only released on Friday. It was commissioned by the Federal Government. It is an independent evaluation of the quality of the program, and of the 230 programs that have been evaluated in North America so far, Newfoundland is in the top 10 per cent, in terms of the quality of this particular programming initiative. It is a lot cheaper as well; we spend $115 a day keeping an inmate inside who is really no threat to the public; it costs us $45 a day to have somebody electronically monitored and we provide the programming that they need to reduce the risk of re-offending as well, and that is the key.

The electronic technology itself is only a tool. It is really a transmitter that you wear on your ankle and is for men and women. About 10 per cent of the EM offenders who have gone through the programs so far have been women. There is a receiving device that is connected to your telephone in the home, and that receiving device is picking up signals from the transmitter consistently. You can only go outside a certain range. If you go outside that range, the host computer at our office immediately alerts our staff and it could be by a pager. Our staff person could be home asleep in bed and he is paged with an audible alarm that this person has violated the conditions of his release.

The other important thing, I think, here is that we made an early commitment to the public in Newfoundland that violent offenders would not be released under this program. We made a clear delineation between those who are violent and those who are not, and we continue to maintain that commitment today. Sex offenders and male batterers are not released under that program. So we save money, we are contracting with the John Howard Society for excellent programming here that receives excellent evaluations and we are able now, through expanding the program, to realize federal revenue rather than closing the Stephenville men's facility and losing another twenty-four jobs or twenty-five jobs, we are able to maintain those jobs, safely accommodate our provincial offenders in the community on the West Coast under electronic monitoring, bring back the lower-risk federal inmates to this Province where they can maintain contact with their families, and it is much easier for them to plan for their own release back into the community and the Federal Government will reimburse the Province for accommodating those federal inmates.

So, the opportunities were there and because we have developed the partnerships with the communities, and with agencies like the John Howard Society, I think it has been an immeasurable success.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CANNING: I thank you for the answer. You say we are in the top ten. It seems obvious that the reason why we are in the top ten is that you have obviously thought it through to do a job with as few resources as you have at your disposal. When I hear of the Department of Justice working closely with the John Howard Society, I think that is a good thing. It is a laudable thing. I appreciate the answer.

MR. DECKER: The key, as Marvin quite rightly pointed out, is to have the program in place. That is, I believe, why we are among the top 10 per cent in the country. You are quite right, the John Howard Society - do we have any other community groups involved besides the John Howard Society, Marvin?

MR. McNUTT: Well, when we expand the program, Mr. Minister, yes, we will be contracting with other community groups as well.

CHAIR: Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

If I could refer to item 2.3.02 which is dealing with legal aid. What proportion of the Legal Aid budget is designated or is any part particularly designated in providing legal aid to children who are in need of legal assistance? That is not to be confused with legal aid to parents, but legal aid directly to children who may be involved in custody battles between their parents or legal aid to children who are directly involved in the court system, particularly those who are in, shall we say, the juvenile age group?

MR. DECKER: Go ahead, Deputy.

MS SPRACKLIN: Mr. Hodder, I can't answer a question on the proportion. I can tell you that young offenders are routinely represented in Youth Court. Where they are not eligible, a judge cannot (inaudible) that they be represented, and that happens routinely. So I would suggest that there are very few youth in Youth Court who are not represented if they wish to be.

With respect to Legal Aid to children involved in civil custody matters, that is not something that is provided, that I am aware of. You know, there are mechanisms available to try to ensure that the interests of the child are attended to, particularly at Unified Family Court, for example, where home studies and assessments are done and whatnot. They are done by a neutral party. It is also felt frequently that between the mother and father, generally all the information comes out and, of course, the judge is there and their principle is to attend to the best interests of the child. But we have not added a third lawyer to that mix, in other words, you have the mother and father most often represented.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the criticisms that I have run into consistently is the criticism that in custody battles, legal assistance is provided for the mother and the father, who most often will get the respective lawyers and would pay for them personally. But the child, who is often the real victim in these circumstances, is either not represented or is under-represented. I am wondering if that particular issue has been discussed by the department and if there is any effort to address it? It often happens that the child is represented by a social worker, as an example, or has dialogued with somebody, because sometimes these children are, in fact, under the care of the Director of Child Welfare.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Therefore, the child who is at the center of this battle is not represented by adequately trained legal counsel. It is a concern that has been identified in some of the work I've done on behalf of children. Is there any discussion on that at all in the Department of Justice?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, Sir, to be frank, there is not. I used to do the legal work for the Director of Child Welfare. There were occasions when a parent would be represented, and the Director is represented, but the obligation and duty of the lawyer for the Director of Child Welfare is to advocate for the best interest of the child. Albeit, you rely on the social workers to be your liaison with the child and to advise you, I guess, on what they feel is in the best interest of the child, and you lead the evidence. But no, we have not given any consideration to providing separate representation of the children, unless there is an obvious - I have been involved in a few cases where we have, but there were obvious conflicts there for one reason or another.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the criticisms that has come across my desk and in my dialogue with teenagers who are, shall we say, foster children, this kind of thing, is that very often when they have ended up in court, their dialogue with the lawyer has been, shall we say, ten minutes before the court session began. Often they tell us that they felt victimized by the system. There is some anxiety that the rights of the child - what I'm saying is that the Ministry is represented, the Department of Justice, shall we say, the parents are represented, and that the child has felt that he or she has been under-represented, and when he or she has had representation, it has often not been after lengthy consultation or court preparation time with them directly.

MS SPRACKLIN: I've never had those concerns brought to my attention. I would be more than happy, if you wish to provide us with the information that you have, to take it up with the counsel who do the child welfare work and see if we can't improve upon it.

It isn't that frequent that we find ourselves in court with respect to teenage children in child welfare situations, because it is almost impossible to impose a child welfare order with respect to teenagers. The reality is that if they want to remain in their homes you almost have to leave them there, because if you remove them against their will, they run. They will not stay in foster homes. So it is very unusual, from my experience, that we find ourselves involved in court proceedings under the child welfare act unless the child wants to stay out of their home.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the common age groups would be the children who are between ages sixteen and eighteen. As you know, they are still designated under legal terms as infants, or they fall under the child category, by the law. However, they fall outside of the child welfare act. When these children are involved in various actions within the court, particularly as it relates to family, they have said to us they felt that they didn't have even the benefit of a social worker. They were kind of on their own, you might say. They felt they were not adequately represented. The sixteen-to eighteen-year old group falls outside of the child welfare act but still are not yet adults. It is one of the age groups that we would have some concern about.

MS SPRACKLIN: Would that be in the context of divorce proceedings then or -

MR. H. HODDER: Well, in some cases, yes, because they had been, in some cases, foster children and, of course, they have gone beyond the three months. And you know they could continue being in foster care beyond age sixteen but only if they have been in foster care before that. There was some concern expressed to us that some of these, we will call them children, felt that neither parent was really representing them in court and neither were the parents' lawyers. They felt totally - they could not hire a lawyer and they felt that their rights, as sixteen and seventeen year olds, were not represented by anybody.

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, under the divorce act, you know, you cannot make a custody order with respect to a child over sixteen. So, in fact, the custody of these children would not be an issue before the court. So the bottom line is that they live with whomever they choose. Now, there be a parent who doesn't want them and they want to live with, but a court could not really enforce, again force - I guess I am having difficulty with the context in which - because there would not be court proceedings with respect to a seventeen-year-old under the Child Welfare Act. If the Director of Child Welfare wishes to keep them in care, he or she can, or to provide them with assistance, the director may, but only with their consent. So I guess I am having a little difficulty understanding the context in which -

MR. H. HODDER: When the issue was brought up in a couple of instances - I remember one in Corner Brook, and it had to do with, in this particular case, children who were under sixteen years of age. There was a point being made there by an advocacy group that they felt that everybody else had lawyers in the judicial system but that children did not. In some cases, they felt that children should have a guarantee of legal representation, particularly if that child was in care. There was an argument put forward that in some instances children who are in the age group of sixteen to seventeen, that their rights in deciding family assets even, should have some representation guaranteed to them and, of course, one issue is custody and the other issue is the children's rights to benefits resulting from a divorce proceeding.

MS SPRACKLIN: The custody issue, there are some jurisdictions that provide some representation for children in custody disputes. Ontario got involved and frankly found that they had to withdraw in divorce cases. It just became too onerous and, in a lot of cases, unnecessary.

With respect to maintenance, I can understand that there may be situations where parents may separate and inadequate provision is made for the support of children, and they may find themselves without support; they have not been heard and sufficient attention has not been paid. That I can see as a possibility but, as I said, I think it is important that these issues be brought forward so that we are aware of where the concerns are and then we can try to address them as best we can.

MR. H. HODDER: Another issue that I had, along the same line, is on the issue of court training and sensitivity for children; that is, in terms of the courts being sensitive to the needs of the child and training for lawyers, for judges, in making sure that if there are children who are victims of abuse - or where there has been violent circumstances in the family, whether there has been sexual assault. And while some of the courts throughout the Province, particularly the court in Grand Falls, have been very, very good in terms of the rights of the child to be separated from the accused and that kind of thing, there appears to be tremendous inconsistency in the way in which children are treated within the court system. Is there any provision to have a consistent policy and a directive to have the courts really operate in the best interest of the child rather than on who is going to win the case?

MS SPRACKLIN: Again, in the context of criminal proceedings, I think efforts are ongoing to try to attend to the needs of all victims, including children. There are initiatives that involve children giving evidence on video, there are initiatives involving children giving evidence behind screens. With respect to waiting areas and whatnot, there is a lot of inconsistency, because we have some new facilities that have been built with those sensitivities in mind. The old facilities, I have to say, were very neglectful of the needs of the clients of the court.

If you go down to the main courthouse here in St. John's, there isn't a single waiting area, and there isn't even a chair for people to sit on while they wait to go into court, let alone separate waiting areas for accused and victims and whatnot. We are doing our best, is all I can say to you, to try to address those issues as and when we can. The Victims Services workers are doing what they can, both to educate, sensitize, and provide direct assistance to victims and their families. It is an issue that we are very conscious of and we will take every opportunity to try and address.

MR. DECKER: It is my understanding that the Committee on Children's Interests addressed that and I think we are about to - I don't know if we can make it public yet or not, but we are hoping to soon get a report from that committee. Of course, you were a member of that, weren't you? Yes, that is correct.

MR. H. HODDER: Vice-chair of it.

MR. DECKER: You still are?

MS M. HODDER: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

Of course, some of my comments are a consequence of having listened to 200 presentations over the last little while.

My last question has to do with the Whitbourne facility. I had the opportunity in the last couple of weeks, as did the minister himself, he spent I think a day out at Whitbourne, I was informed, a couple of weeks ago. So did I. I spent a full day at the Whitbourne facility and was treated out there very kindly by the professional staff, and had a limited time to have some discussion with some of the young people there.

I wanted to, however, have a look at the cost of the facility. I'm not talking about the work ethic or anything like that. In terms of the fact that we have - the day I was there I think there were sixty-six, something like that, young people there. We are looking at a budget of $4 million. The average cost per person in Newfoundland appears to be out of order with the average cost of similar facilities across the country. I wanted to wonder as to if there are any reasons we can put forward for that.

MR. DECKER: I'm glad you went out to visit that facility because it is probably one of the most underrated facilities in the Province. It is a very progressive facility. When you say it is out of line with the rest of the country in cost, I would suggest that there aren't a whole lot of facilities across the country in the same class as that facility. The emphasis is clearly on rehabilitation. We might be able to probably do it a little bit cheaper if we sharpened our pencil a little finer and made some cuts.

But when you compare - if we can intercept these children at that age and make them contributing members of society, which is the intent, then the $100,000 per child, I believe, would be a good investment. Because if we don't rehabilitate them at that stage they are going to end up costing more hundreds of thousands of dollars as they end up in other correctional centres and become a problem for the rest of society.

I am not overly concerned about the $100,000 per person as long as the program is as good as that program is because, I had the surprise of my life when I went out to visit it, after hearing all the bad media and press they have been getting. And when I went out and saw a group of conscientious individuals who are doing the best they can with very difficult children; I mean, the fact of the matter is, as you said, there is an average of sixty-odd there at a time, and we have in this Province as you know, 110 children of school age and only sixty-six of them were in that facility. So you are dealing with children who have come through very difficult times and you just can't rehabilitate them without having any cost, and I don't consider it in any sense of the word to be a waste of money. Perhaps if we could do it a little more cheaply I would be glad but I don't want to risk that program if there is any way to do it.

There might be a few more of them who could be in the community as opposed to being in that facility. Maybe, sixty-six might be a little too heavy and we should be doing more community work. Of course, some in society will tell you there are people in the community who should be in there as well, so the mix might not be proper, but the $100,000 per child is an investment, I believe, in our future, and I hate to see them not being rehabilitated because we refuse to spend money on them.

MR. H. HODDER: I think the emphasis, however, in some cases, Mr. Minister, has come a bit too late. In other words, while I would not disagree at all with spending money on rehabilitation obviously that is the goal of the program; it would be probably from a total governmental perspective, in terms of you know, prevention, if we could have them identified a lot earlier, that is, those who are at risk, then we might be able to do some better prevention at an earlier age. And for every one that we could prevent from ending up in Whitbourne, or the other secure custody facility, then you know, it would be money well-spent.

I think the emphasis has to be on prevention at the community level, and giving encouragement to community initiatives, as is happening in Port au Port, where the community is taking responsibility in a real way for some of those issues and are combining their efforts. And I don't see, you know, here - and probably this is not the place where it would occur anyway.

I think the real success will be when communities say: These children are our children and when we have courts that, in their frustration, of knowing what to do with these children - because sometimes they won't go to school and they are out of school and are hanging around the shopping centres, that kind of thing. Then often the indication is that the numbers who are in Whitbourne for violent crimes as opposed to the number who are there for crimes against property and I mean - you see, people who you know are breaking into businesses or whatever, then I think we have to kind of separate some of those and be a little more sensitive to the reasons why these children end up in Whitbourne. We need to be more pro-active at the early age levels and also then, not look on Whitbourne as a punishment but look on it as an opportunity to rehabilitate those who really need rehabilitation.

In some cases, the monitoring that was referred to by my colleague, the Member for Labrador West might be even an option, although I understand that has not been even explored. I'm not aware of any study ever done into it. But there must be other ways in which we can monitor some of those young people without having them go to Whitbourne for, shall we say - because we don't have any other real alternative.

MR. DECKER: But we do have an alternative. Whitbourne is not the only facility or the only way we deal with problem children. There are a lot of community groups doing it, you know.

You talk about prevention. Don't forget, we have a tremendous amount of prevention in this Province. It is called day school, it is called Boy Scouts, it is called Boys and Girls Clubs, and the list goes on. The reality is that out of 110,000 children, sixty-six at a given time you have to put into custody for their own safety as well as for, in some cases, the safety of society. In a utopia there would be nobody, but the reality is that human nature is such that there are children with whom we have to resort to that.

It is not seen as punishment. The concept of punishment has gone out, thank God, since the Middle Ages, and there is no boot camp, there is no whipping. It is an attempt to rehabilitate, and there is no concept of punishment. If it were, we would bring out the cat-o'-nine-tails. But that concept, thank God, is gone and eradicated from this Province, and there is no attempt at punishment. What we are hoping is that there will be - after a child is released from Whitbourne, we probably have detected where we need the ability - and we don't have it - the ability to follow up.

For example, some of the people - I'm sure when you visited you noticed a person who would be unable to cope in a normal school was finding himself working with his hands in the carpenter shop or the metal working shop or what have you. He is sent there for three, four or five months. But when he leaves, there is no longer a follow-up and the thing drops. Of course, we don't have the legal right to follow the person after he serves his or her time, sort of thing. It is one area I wish we could do something about for the sake of the child, to do that sort of thing. But it is a good facility. I bet you got your eyes opened when you went out there, as I did.

MR. H. HODDER: I've had some familiarity with it before, of course, but I have to say that I was pleased to see the on the ground commitment to rehabilitation. As I said, I spent (inaudible) -

MR. DECKER: Do you still want boot camp?

MR. H. HODDER: Pardon?

MR. DECKER: Do you still want boot camp? You don't.

MR. H. HODDER: I never did want a boot camp.

MR. DECKER: I heard you on the radio saying you wanted boot camp.

MR. H. HODDER: My commitment is to rehabilitation. However, there are some alternatives to the Whitbourne-type facility -

MR. DECKER: Absolutely. John Howard has some, the Salvation Army has some.

MR. H. HODDER: - that we should be exploring. I, shall we say, would reject a comment made by a psychiatrist in Corner Brook to the extent that he believed spanking was okay, and that if he had his way, there would be a lot more Whitbournes built. I found that to be astonishing, incredible, that a leading child paediatrician psychiatrist would make that statement in a public forum. That bothers me that there are those out there who have that kind of philosophy and that these are leaders in our communities.

That is what bothers me about Whitbourne. But I am pleased to see that it is committed to rehabilitation. As I said, I spent the day there, and I had an opportunity to talk to the staff, to talk to the people who were there and to spend some time talking to some of the young people there, particularly those over in the carpenter shop and the sawmill area, that kind of thing, and I was invited to go back for their summer festival, which I intend to do.

Mr. Chair, that is all I have, Sir. I suggest you call the Heads.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly.

Are there further questions from any members of the Committee? Not hearing any further questions, Mr. Minister, I thank you and your officials for being here this evening, for your prompt attention to all of the questions and the very detailed answers that you have provided. Thank you very much.

Now, I will call for a motion. I will ask for a motion to approve the Heads of the Department of Justice.

MR. H. HODDER: I move that the Social Services Estimates Committee accept, without amendment, specifically estimates Heads 1.1.01, page 249 to 4.3.02 page 264 inclusively.

MADAM CLERK: 1.1.01 through 4.3.02 inclusively.

MR. H. HODDER: I think that includes your salary, Minister.

(Inaudible) set it back to zero.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) after all.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.3.02, carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total Heads, carried.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.