The House met at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

This is the first session of the Social Services Committee to review the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

My name is Robert Mercer, Chairperson of the Committee and Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Humber East. I would like the other members of the Committee, starting with you Mary, to introduce yourselves.

MR. H. HODDER: I am Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. G. REID: I am Gerry Reid, MHA for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am John Ottenheimer, MHA for St. John's East.

MR. WHELAN: I am Don Whelan, MHA for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

MR. H. HODDER: I am Harvey Hodder, MHA for Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: Those are the members of the Committee. What I think we would do is ask the Clerk to read the first head and then we will ask the minister to start with an opening statement, introduce his officials and proceed from there. So, we will give the Clerk a couple of seconds. I think I surprised her.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Head 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Head 1.1.01.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take very long with my opening remarks. With your permission, I would like my deputy to introduce the officials; I know their names but I do not know all their titles. With me is Lynn Spracklin. Lynn, of you could introduce the officials with their titles.

MS SPRACKLIN: This is Ralph Alcock, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, Administration and Support Services, which includes policing and corrections as well as the (inaudible) Support Services. George White is our Director of Finance; Theresa Heffernan is our Budget Manager; Colin Flynn is the Director of Public Prosecutions and John McCarthy is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Civil Law.

MR. DECKER: Very good! You did not know it?

MS SPRACKLIN: That is right.

MR. DECKER: The Department of Justice provides legal services to government and is primarily responsible for the protection of citizens of the Province with respect to their persons and properties. This objective is met by providing for police protection, the prosecution of alleged offenders, the operation of the courts and correctional systems for the Province and provision of services to victims of crime. The drafting of legislation in the House of Assembly, of course, is also provided by the Office of the Legislative Council.

Those are about all the general remarks I have to make, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission we could probably go right into the questions.

CHAIR: I will call upon the Vice-Chair of the Committee, Mr. John Ottenheimer, if he would like to start the proceedings. Being the Vice-Chair, John, perhaps, being a lawyer on this side, you may wish to come back and visit some of your questions later on if you do not get them all in the first time around.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I guess I will begin with just a few points here for clarification, perhaps beginning with heading 1.3.01, Fines Administration. We see a fairly significant variation under Fines Administration in the section, Information Technology. I was just curious as to why there is such a difference, I guess, between last year's figures and the estimates as they are showing. That is under section 1.3.01.12, Information Technology?

MR. DECKER: The revised budget, John, reflects the purchase of upgraded hardware/software?

MS SPRACKLIN: Sorry, 1.3.01.12.

MR. DECKER: Is it Information Technology you are asking questions about?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Okay. It reflects the NISL costs associated with making the ticket management system compliant with the year 2000; you know, the computer problem with the 2000?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It cost you that much?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Am I right?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DECKER: You are familiar with the problem we are going to have with all our computers in the year 2000?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. That is the cost to rectify that?

MR. DECKER: Yes. That is mostly what it is, yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under 02, Revenue - Provincial, just below that, we see a figure of $700,000. Is this all from this same source of revenue? Just below this, 02, Revenue - Provincial: Is this all in the collection of fines? Is that the total amount in the collection of fines?

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is my understanding. We did underestimate it for last year, (inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: That was the administrative fee and the fees for processing.

MR. DECKER: Well, look, feel free to jump in here if you see I'm getting the guts kicked out of me.

WITNESS: Let Hansard show that.

MR. MCCARTHY: The answer to your question is, yes, it is. It is the five dollar fee increasing to seven dollars.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does that take the increase into account?

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes it does.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It does.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to go on? There may be other members of the Committee who have questions under the same heading. Will we do it that way?

CHAIR: What is the wish of the Committee? Do you want to do it head by head or do you wish each member to have a period of time to review any questions that he or she may wish?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Pardon?

MR. H. HODDER: It doesn't bother me which way you do it. Generally speaking, the House functions better if members are free to ask a question. If you are on a certain topic, deal with it and then move on to the next topic.

CHAIR: Yes. So feel free to proceed with some of the heads. It isn't a problem.

Just one other point: When the officials are speaking, may we ask you to identify yourselves for the purposes of the gentleman there in the back who is making notes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let's turn then, perhaps, to Civil Law and Enforcement. I would ask maybe Mr. Minister - the heading there in 2.1.01 is very brief. It refers to "Appropriations provide for representation of Government in court and advice to Government in civil legal matters." I'm wondering if you, or perhaps one of your officials, could perhaps expand upon that somewhat. John.

MR. MCCARTHY: If I understand your question, essentially that is the Civil division, which consists of approximately twenty-six lawyers and of course support staff. We provide all of government's legal services, or 95 per cent of government's legal services, in terms of litigation, labour arbitration hearings, and of course opinions, assistance with regulations. Basically that is the cost of operating the in-house law firm that we are.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does this include the retaining of outside legal services?

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, it does. In fact, you will see down below there is Professional Services, $1.645 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So this is the providing of all legal services, all legal representation, to government from within or from the private Bar.

MR. MCCARTHY: There may be the odd case that is generated by another department of government, but 99 per cent, at least, of all legal services provided to government come through the Civil division, either performed in-house or through the Professional Services budget, whereby we hire outside lawyers.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Why is it, John, under 2.1.01.09, Allowances and Assistance, in that same section, we see again a fairly significant difference in last year's figures and the Estimates for 1997-1998?

MR. MCCARTHY: My information there is that the figure for last year was almost exclusively for the Mount Cashel settlements. To be honest with you, I'm not sure about that figure for the current year, of $3 million. I think that was put in very late in the day after my involvement in this process.

MS SPRACKLIN: Basically, there has never been in the past an appropriation in the budget traditionally for liability for claims. These are amounts paid to people who commence an action against government. It has been problematic when it hasn't been budgeted for, and last year there was an amount moved from the contingency into this heading to pay the Mount Cashel claims.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So does this amount here, this $11,289,400, represent Mount Cashel and others, or just Mount Cashel?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm pretty sure that it is just Mount Cashel. I don't believe there is anything else in there.

MR. MCCARTHY: I don't think there is anything significant beyond Mount Cashel.

MS SPRACKLIN: It doesn't include legal fees to anybody. It is the amounts paid to victims.

The $3 million is just literally a plug number. We have had difficulty establishing sort of historic amounts because in the past, generally, liabilities have been paid by the departments to which the cause of action relates.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there a reason why it's $3 million?

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, there are always a number of actions going on, and it is really just a rough guess at what may be required for next year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am wondering, for example, the Trans City pay-out, if that is not included in the $11 million figure there, is there another heading where that would be found?

MS SPRACKLIN: No. As I say, there had never been a budget before and it probably came from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation budget last year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MS SPRACKLIN: What we are trying to do, I guess, is make some provision.

MR. G. REID: So it goes back to the department which is responsible?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, it has in the past.

MR. G. REID: What about the legal advice? Do you bill any of that back to the individual departments or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, not at the moment. Some departments who have extraordinary requirements in any given year may transfer some money into our budget to hire a lawyer for a special project; but as a general rule, no.

MR. H. HODDER: Since you have reduced the salaries there by about $200,000, is there a warning to me that there have been lay-offs of legal people?

MS SPRACKLIN: There have.

MR. H. HODDER: Two? Three?

MS SPRACKLIN: Four.

MR. H. HODDER: Four?

MS SPRACKLIN: Ultimately, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: In section 2.1.01.03, Transportation and Communications, you spent $69,000 last year. You have $79,800 as the revised figure, but you are gone up to $128,000.

MS SPRACKLIN: There is an anticipation of increased need relating to the Terra Nova negotiations and discussions.

MR. McCARTHY: In fact, in the Civil Division we lost money in this year's budget related to travel. I think that is a budget decision (inaudible). We will be billing, basically, the client departments for our travel and legal expenses, not for the fees. There is that increase that Ms Spracklin just mentioned.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am wondering, for example, and again maybe, Mr. Minister, one of your officials - the case where a Notice of Appeal was filed a few days ago, I have been thinking, from the results of the arbitration and the pay equity issue, depending, of course, on the end of the day, and no one knows what that result might be, but at the end of the day obviously the award could be quite significant. I guess it goes back to the point that Ms Spracklin made in terms of projection, or having a figure in mind. Obviously that whole issue was not addressed nor, perhaps, is it even appropriate to be addressed in these headings under Civil Law and Allowances and Assistance. So my question more directly is: Under what department at the end of the day, if necessary, would a pay-out be made?

MR. DECKER: Your question, as I am sure you are aware, is hypothetical. We would certainly hope that we would not have to pay out anything, but my understanding is it would be Treasury Board. Is that correct?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MR. DECKER: If it were, but it is very hypothetical.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. Any other questions before we move to the next heading?

Under the Sheriff's Office, Mr. Minister, you will recall, just a little while ago there was new legislation dealing with the operation of the Sheriff's Office. Perhaps, in a general sense, I am wondering if somebody may wish to make a comment as to how the new provisions of the new legislation will impact upon the department, and the cost to the department, I guess, from an efficiency point of view, in terms of the new act that the Sheriff of this Province will be dealing with I believe in June, if I am not mistaken.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Deputy, do you want to tackle that one?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm not entirely sure I understand it. We have modernized our judgement enforcement legislation. There will be improvements, I think, for the Bar and business which were the primary, I guess, consumers of the service. Ultimately it is our hope that by the fall people will be able to have direct access to conduct searches and whatnot from their offices. They will be able to access the registry system directly. It modernizes, I guess, both for creditors and debtors the enforcement of judgements, and it should provide for a more efficient, more modern and more equitable judgement enforcement system. I would need a more specific question I think.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When we look at the Estimates, and we look at again last year's figures, the difference is not that great. One would have thought, I guess, that the improvements and the efficiencies that are being created by the new legislation would perhaps have meant greater savings to government, but it doesn't appear to be reflected in the Estimates.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I don't think the motivation behind the new legislation was savings. I think it was just to bring us in harmony with the rest of North America and update legislation that was significantly out of step and out of date. There are some small increased IT costs at the outset; not great, but some. I wouldn't anticipate huge savings from that legislation, though. I think there may be savings to the private sector as a result of being able to deal with Newfoundland in the same way that they deal with other jurisdictions, but I don't think that was the motivation behind the legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: At the time when we were debating this last spring or last fall, we were told there would be a period of time from January until June when there would be a program of in-service for the legal community, both those who are practising independently, and particulary for all of the courts and their officials, including the judges. I don't see any item here where that kind of in-service is being provided for. If it isn't being provided for here, then where is it being provided for?

MS SPRACKLIN: It is in fact being provided. For example, there was a session in Littledale last week for the Bar and for the commercial community, bankers or whoever wanted to attend, frankly, that was very well attended. There has been an extensive educational public information effort, and it would be in this budget. It is in there, although it wouldn't be showing up as a specific heading.

MR. H. HODDER: It isn't there as a separate item?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. H. HODDER: It is showing up there in either Professional Services or Purchased Services or whatever?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. It is largely being provided by in-house staff, for instance. Do you have anything to add to that?

MR. MCCARTHY: No. I know that last week there was, I guess, a blitz of conferences or seminars, whatever you want to call them. I think they started in Corner Brook and they ended up in Littledale, as Ms Spracklin said - very low cost. For example, transportation to Corner Brook would be included here but no exorbitant or additional costs that would need to be reflected separately.

MS SPRACKLIN: Materials, for example, were published but they were sold, so the private Bar bought its own materials, the banking community bought its own materials. So I think it was at little cost to government.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under Support Enforcement, 2.1.03, we see in Salaries some significant changes. I would be interested in knowing what types of positions have been created to allow for the increase in Salaries under Support Enforcement.

MR. DECKER: The additional funding is provided here to cover the costs associated with the implementation of the new federal support guidelines and $220,000 is in place for that. A federal-provincial agreement is in place which will reimburse the money to the Province, so we will get it back.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What would be the nature of the employment, I guess, pursuant to that agreement?

MS SPRACKLIN: We are still in the process of working that through. What is anticipated are court based personnel who will essentially provide services to clients at both the Supreme and Provincial Courts, to provide an administrative, I will call it, mediation service, I guess, to basically indicate to people that this is what the guidelines would indicate that you will receive or will have to pay, and to encourage consent orders where required to evaluate whether it is worthwhile applying for variation because of the new changes, that sort of thing.

We have currently social services' workers who assist people seeking child support now. They will be cross-trained to deal with this, and we are going to be hiring four new workers to supplement them from this money, in addition to putting out - of course, that is just that one there. Yes, that would cover the cost of the actual people who will be hired to conduct that service throughout the Province.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are these people who would actually be employed in the court, or within the various departments and provide assistance to the court?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, they will be court based. They will be essentially housed, perhaps, for example, in a particular judicial centre. If there is more than one courthouse, they would be available mornings at one courthouse, afternoons at the other. That would be known and people would be scheduled in to see them, as available. In a lot of our centres there is only one courthouse that houses both courts, so they would be in that court facility.

MR. H. HODDER: The progress that we made with the federal government relative to a better coordination between the provinces on support enforcement, every year we hope it will get better, and yet we still find out there can be significant delays in having support enforced from one province to another. There has been dialogue over the years to make that work more functional and more -

MR. DECKER: At the two ministers' conferences I have attended, it is always an issue which comes up, and everybody has the intention and desire to improve it. But I don't know, Lynn, is there any improvement or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: I suspect that it varies from province to province. We have reciprocating agreements with all the other provinces. It probably varies from province to province. Some have backlogs and others don't. With respect to the federal government, our problem has been it takes about six months to get onto the database. I'm really not sure if there has been much, if any, improvement in that.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to follow up on the difficulties with the federal database: It amazes me that you can have an employee, for example, who might be working here in St. John's with the Coast Guard, and there can be a court order that - I just think of one that I'm very familiar with that dates back to 1989. Yet, because it wasn't entered properly, now they find it causes a confusion and it is going to take six months to implement the appropriate change so that a mother and her three children can get regular cheques.

I don't understand why it would take six months to tell a computer that - in this case, the father is being paid by the federal government, the mother is living here in the St. John's area. I talked to the people in Corner Brook. It is very frustrating because the people here in Coast Guard say: You know, we are doing everything we can. But six months to have a change made! There must be a logic behind it that I do not know or do not understand, certainly. Do you have any comments on that?

MS SPRACKLIN: Me too.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is a difficult problem. From my own experience in practice, it is perhaps one of the most difficult issues to deal with because you are dealing with individuals who are obviously in need and are frustrated, and because of the reciprocal arrangements - some work, some don't - the delays can be horrendous. I think the question is a good one. I don't know if we have done anything in this jurisdiction to, I guess, assist in trying to, you know, speed up the process or work with the delays in some way.

MS SPRACKLIN: Well I do believe that our Support Enforcement Agency is pretty aggressive and, by and large, pretty quick off the mark but we have no control over the federal data banks. The federal government are constantly being reminded of it. The ministers raise it routinely and it is a constant nag, so to speak. I suspect it is very expensive to probably replace their system and I suspect it is just an older system and cumbersome, perhaps.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to say up front, that my experience has been very positive with support enforcement in Corner Brook. As an MHA, I do not get a lot of dialogue. I had more dealings with them when I was doing the study on children than I would have as an MHA.

The issue I want to return to though is: Why is it that in this country - and I ask this of the minister - have we not had a unified, consistent, across-Canada approach to support enforcement? What are the obstacles? Why is this not happening? Because, if we had a uniform approach across the country - I know that there are troubles with the whole Social Insurance Number System. You know, we have examples of where, if fathers are determined not to pay and all that kind of thing, they change jobs, they do everything that they can, they get paid in their brothers' names and all the rest of it. I mean, there are all kinds of scams out there. Until we can get a national policy on support enforcement that works, we are still going to have these things. Why have we not made progress there?

MR. DECKER: Those are really good questions, Harvey, but it is difficult to answer why it was not done in the past and, of course, it is beyond me to do that.

We can also say that in the past, in the Province, until we put the support agency in place over in Corner Brook, our own record was not that good, but now, I would suspect, that a lot of the MHAs who get the complaints, they are not so much from the parent who owns the children as from the parent who is really being made to pay up by the support enforcement agency. I think they do an excellent job within the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: They are.

MR. DECKER: Outside the Province, all I can tell you is, that it is a concern that the ministers share and maybe we should do more than talk about it, but every time we meet we do talk about it. Lynn, what is happening across the country? Are we entering into agreements as such or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, we have reciprocal arrangements with every other agency and they have interfaces with Motor Registration Divisions, for example, so that our enforcement agency can get into the MRD systems of all the other provinces and locate people that way. So, there is a lot that has happened that is positive, but I think one of the biggest problems we have is the fact that, barring having people travel from one jurisdiction to the next, you end up with a situation where the evidence of the wife may be taken in this jurisdiction and a provisional order is made and sent off to the other jurisdiction. That person in the other jurisdiction, then, has the opportunity to go into court in Ontario, Manitoba or wherever and give his or side of it. Then the order is either confirmed or not. Then it comes back here and we enforce it. All this sort of stuff takes time.

MR. H. HODDER: Take, for example, New Brunswick where, let us say, you have a father living in Newfoundland and there is a mother and child who are in New Brunswick, but there is a dispute here. You know, the father here wants to be able to bring an action to court in New Brunswick saying the mother is not providing the care that she should and all this kind of thing. What kind of reciprocal agreements do we have there? Because obviously Human Resources and Employment here is not going to pay for the father to travel to New Brunswick to appear. How do we handle things like that where there are actions potentially in a court in New Brunswick but the complainants are located in Newfoundland?

MS SPRACKLIN: A custody application pertaining to it would normally be heard in the jurisdiction where the child is located and where the evidence would be most readily available. I think, if you wish to give evidence and that sort of thing you would, of necessity, travel there. There is provision for taking commissioned evidence outside a province in both custody matters or any other kind of civil matter.

MR. H. HODDER: The last time when dealing with this, I had the understanding that the New Brunswick court was pretty reluctant to take commissioned evidence from Newfoundland in this particular case, and Social Services wouldn't pay for the father to go to New Brunswick. He wanted to have certain things happen, and it got very frustrating. I got the feeling that New Brunswick wasn't being very cooperative. I just ask the question: What are the arrangements between provinces in dealing with that? Are they all the same, or does each province have its own set of rules that it applies?

MS SPRACKLIN: The superior courts in each province basically make their own rules. Again, we would have no control over the rules in New Brunswick as such. By and large, it is within the discretion of the judge as to what evidence they will or will not accept in any particular case. They may well have good reason (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I have no doubt about that.

One further question on the delays. When people have their support enforcement here in Newfoundland and they have had the order set here, let us say the father, because as we know 98 per cent of the people we are talking about are fathers, a scattered mother, but it is a rarity. The family moves, let's say, to Alberta. The feeling I have is that when it comes to supporting the enforcement in Alberta, they tend to look after their own first, and then ours kind of go to the bottom of the list and it takes a long time, for up to six months, before we can bring that forward to make sure it is being enforced there. What is your experience across the country in terms of the level of cooperation that you receive?

MS SPRACKLIN: I can't specifically address your question about Alberta. I've not been made aware that Alberta is any particular problem. There is this issue of the time it takes to register an order; you know, take evidence here, perhaps, which is then forwarded to Alberta and there is a date set in Alberta for another hearing. You have to find the guy and you have to get him into court. I would think that potential exists with any province. I'm not aware of any particular problem with Alberta.

MR. H. HODDER: One little local issue again, and that is: When we have changes, as has happened now with the federal legislation - you know, there have been some changes as you have alluded to before. You said social workers have been counselled and made aware of the changes that might occur because of changing federal rules. Do you have, for example, in-servicing for social workers? How often is that done?

MS SPRACKLIN: These are actually dedicated social workers who assist clients on social assistance to deal with the courts in obtaining our maintenance order. They receive training on, I guess, sort of an ongoing basis, in a sense. There will be materials and training provided with respect to the federal child support guidelines which are coming in in May.

MR. H. HODDER: These programs: Are they part of the social work curriculum at Memorial University?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I wouldn't think so, no.

MR. H. HODDER: Why not? When you are talking about the whole issue of the legal basis of support enforcement, and we are talking about a school which is training social workers, I'm just asking the question: If there isn't a curriculum basis for this kind of information to be communicated at the University, why hasn't the department made sure that support enforcement, the provincial legislation and other aspects dealing with support enforcement, are a mandatory part of the curriculum that social workers would have to go through so that they don't have to learn it afterwards, that there is a basis for it right up front in the program of studies? Has it ever been approached?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but perhaps should be.

MR. H. HODDER: That is an issue that came forward in the study that I did, or was part of, I should say. To my knowledge, there are all these people out there who are trying to get an education, only to find out when they get a Bachelor's in Social Work they are already deficient in one particular very important aspect, which is the legal basis. These pieces of information, I think, are things that the minister and others should be talking about with the University or with the Department of Education, probably, to see if we can remedy that so we don't have to do as much -

MR. DECKER: It is an interesting concept. Maybe they are doing it. I would be surprised if they are.

MR. H. HODDER: I'm not saying that they aren't.

MR. DECKER: No, I'm not saying it either. Like yourself, I would be surprised if they are. It is an interesting suggestion which we certainly will follow through on.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just to conclude, I guess, in this area. From what I can understand, Lynn, from your comments, the federal funding will be primarily to allow individuals to assist in the new table or the new regime which is coming into place in terms of support, and presumably they will act primarily as mediators. Would that be correct?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I will call it mediation. I use the term a bit -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With a view to an out of court settlement as opposed to litigation.

MS SPRACKLIN: That is correct. I think the whole objective of support enforcement guidelines is to remove uncertainty and to bring some consistency to support awards and to make them more predictable, to minimize the amount of litigation. A lot of it is -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is this for one year? Is this funding available just for the first year?

MS SPRACKLIN: I gather it is going to be around for about five years. That is what the federal government has told us to date. It is intended, I think, primarily to get us over the hump of potential applications for variations of awards in the past, because the tax regime is changing and, as well, these guidelines are coming into place. There is some concern that there may be a sort of ground swell of applications by people who feel their support order should be changed as a result of all that

The federal government has offered funding for five years. That is what it is presently saying. Now, I'm not sure that it would be this amount for five years. That will remain to be seen. We anticipate it will maintain the staff for that implementation period.

MR. H. HODDER: The only thing we have left to do is do what British Columbia has done. As you know, it has privatized its support enforcement. It is the only one in the country. Much more efficient. In fact, the NDP government when it came in wouldn't change it. It is a very efficient system. However, I have to say that our system works very well. I'm not suggesting that we privatize it, but they has done that and, of course, they kept the same people employed. It is an interesting thing they have done there.

MR. DECKER: Which province?

MR. H. HODDER: British Columbia.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) questions?

MR. WHELAN: I've been through the Estimates here. I don't really see anything there that is of any great concern. I suppose, what we could have done with it from the beginning is you could have walked us through it and we could have asked questions as we went. We are pretty near through it now I believe, John, are we?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A few more areas.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. Basically, I almost feel obligated to ask a question before we finish up. I wanted to ask some questions about new recruits into the RNC. Are we still taking people from Holland College and, if so, how many?

MR. DECKER: I am sorry?

MR. WHELAN: New recruits into the RNC?

MR. DECKER: The RNC has not trained anybody over there for two or three years. We do have eleven seats there. People are being trained; they pay their own way.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, this is what I am getting at. Now they pay their own way, but we do use the Holland College to access students for the RNC?

MR. DECKER: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: I think it is just the RNC. How many students are we taking?

MR. DECKER: Ten or eleven, Ralph?

MR. ALCOCK: Our allocation from the Atlantic Police Academy is twelve students, so we can identify twelve individuals who would attend the Atlantic Police Academy in any given year on the basis that they will have one class in a given year. The next class is September of this year, and the RNC have identified a number of names, somewhat in excess of twelve. Of course, the Atlantic Police Academy goes down through these in order. They are prioritized, and if the individuals are prepared to attend then, of course, it is up to them to attend.

MR. WHELAN: Attend at their own risk as far as finances are concerned. There is no commitment from the RNC.

MR. DECKER: That is correct.

MR. WHELAN: Well, they don't need a commitment from the RNC to be hired before they gain entrance to Holland College, do they?

MR. ALCOCK: No, we have not given a commitment to hire at the RNC for several years. The last class that went through were not hired and we do not anticipate, of course, that this class will be hired, either, by the RNC at this particular point in time; however, the individuals have other job opportunities. We have not made a commitment for three or four years that we will, in fact, hire after they graduate.

MR. WHELAN: I understand that a few years ago they would probably take twenty or twenty-one students from Holland College and for one reason or another, through attrition or retirement, you would go through twenty-one. But, as you say, that is down to about twelve now? Or am I wrong in that number? Because I was up there a few years ago and attended a graduation, and that is what they were telling me at that time. That was about three or four years ago.

MR. ALCOCK: My history with this is somewhat short, in the order of three to four years, but I understand that it would have been prior to 1991 when that particular number of recruits would have been hired. In the last four years - certainly the last three classes - there were twelve, maybe thirteen at one particular point in time, students only. As a matter of fact, in 1991-'92 and 1992-'93, I don't believe the RNC identified anyone to attend the Atlantic Police Academy. That is because of a number of things that were happening with the RNC at that particular point in time. The force was being reduced in size from approximately 1989 to 1993.

MS SPRACKLIN: Just to add to that a little bit, what we realized was happening was that other provinces were sending people to the places that Newfoundlanders used to occupy; not necessarily with any promise to hire them, but they were sending them and they were getting jobs elsewhere, so we sort of felt that we had to give Newfoundland students the opportunity to get the training because they are being hired in other provinces.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you subsidize their education?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but if we hire them, of course, we give them the opportunity to (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: So we don't pay anything to keep those eleven or twelve seats there exclusively for our purposes?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. ALCOCK: Two things. Number one: before this current class, in the two years prior to this, we provided loans to students, for part of their cost, which were basically handled like student loans - basically the same criteria as a student loan. The way the agreement works is that if we have students - in other words, we are allocated twelve seats. If Newfoundlanders fill up these seats there is no cost to the Province, but if these seats are not filled up then the Province would have to pay an amount of money, depending on how many seats are vacant. For example, if these twelve seats were filled by New Brunswickers, the Province would benefit by that. Even though we don't finance these people, if they attend and fill up the seats then equally we do not pay.

CHAIR: Gerry?

MR. G. REID: Yes. On the remand centre or the youth correction centre in Whitbourne, Salaries are $5 million (inaudible); does that include the teaching staff or is that paid from the Department of Education?

MR. ALCOCK: The Department of Education.

MR. A. REID: Under Revenue - Federal: Maybe there is something I am missing here. Who do you get revenue from?

MR. ALCOCK: There is a cost-shared agreement with the federal government under which they contribute an amount of money towards both open and closed custody for youth. This is the closed custody component of those monies.

MR. G. REID: That will give us the 2.6, is that what you are saying?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes. The numbers are changing virtually as we speak. They are for 1997/98. That is the number.

MR. G. REID: Salaries were reduced by about 30,000 last year? Were there any teaching positions eliminated out there this year, do you know?

MR. ALCOCK: There were no teaching positions eliminated. The salaries are considerably more. I think you said $30,000 but they are considerably -

MR. G. REID: Three hundred thousand, sorry.

MR. ALCOCK: No, there are no teachings positions being eliminated.

MR. G. REID: There were positions eliminated though, were there not?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes, there were.

MR. G. REID: What was the total number?

MR. ALCOCK: Twenty-two positions.

MR. H. HODDER: What is the staff complement now at Whitbourne, part-time and full-time?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't have the answer to that question. Theresa, can you help me out here?

MS HEFFERNAN: Up until these reductions, we had 117 I think, permanent. Temporaries vary, I guess, with casuals and what not.

MR. ALCOCK: There are probably in excess of 200, because I believe that there is approximately the equivalent of full-time positions in temporaries. I believe you are probably talking in excess of 200 positions.

MR. H. HODDER: A year or so ago, when I made the inquiry, they were over 200. What is the number of youths out there now?

MR. ALCOCK: There are sixty beds in that institution which are generally - we are still using the old building for overflow and, of course, we have then the remand centre here in St. John's as well. In the new facility there were basically sixty beds.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been an increase? I am on the same topic of the Whitbourne centre. Has there been an increase in, I guess, professional staff? I am thinking particularly of child psychologists and those individuals who can give the special kind of support, obviously, to young people who require that sort of assistance. Has there been any change, hopefully for the better, in terms of numbers of those kinds of individuals, on staff, either you know, from time to time or permanent staff at the Whitbourne centre?

MR. ALCOCK: I do not believe in the last year or so that there has been an increase in professional staff. Approximately three years ago there was an increase in the professional staff when they moved into the new facility. I believe that is maybe three or four years ago. So there has been an increase in professional staff.

Since youth corrections was transferred to the Department of Justice, our initiative is to increase the delivery of professional services to the youth and to integrate the youth care workers more into the delivery of services to youth. Many of these youth care workers are professionals in their own right. I guess what we are attempting to do is to integrate them into a different model for the provision of services to the youth. I can only think of probably one position in the last maybe twelve months of a professional nature that has been added.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That isn't to say, of course - I mean, we realize those services are available for people on probation, for example. Those same individuals are not included in the people whom you mention, is that correct? I'm thinking of a young person who, on one of the terms of a probation order, would be for counselling or professional help through the Janeway, for example. These are not the same individuals whom we are referring to when you talk about those individuals at the Whitbourne centre.

MR. ALCOCK: No, they are not.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I say that is because counselling is obviously available to a young person prior to incarceration, in addition to while that young person is incarcerated.

MR. ALCOCK: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: The last time I was looking at data I was a bit concerned about the very high number of young people at Whitbourne who were there for property offences. I expressed a concern then about how effective we were really, and it causes me concern that young teenagers would be at Whitbourne. We recognize the ages that are there.

Have we tried to address that issue of the high ratio of people who are in Whitbourne for property related offences as opposed to offences against people? Have we been able to do anything with that in terms of targeting it for counselling, or to do an examination as to whether or not Whitbourne indeed is the best place for that kind of person? Is there any dialogue occurring on that?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think, though, even on a national basis there is a resolve to review incarceration of young offenders, and adults for that matter, in terms of property type offences. I guess you have to be very careful, if you are going to try and deal with it in the community, that you have the resources there. I think we are all undertaking a substantive review right now of youth corrections nationally and provincially in an effort to see -

MR. H. HODDER: That issue is being brought forward on the agenda.

MS SPRACKLIN: It is certainly a large one. The federal government, just to give us a little extra incentive, is essentially, I guess, trying to encourage, through the funding mechanisms, alternatives to incarceration for youth.

CHAIR: John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have a question with respect to Legal Aid and Related Services. I have never seen the figure, and I guess it would be in the annual report, in terms of the number of clients that would be seen by our legal aid offices in the Province. I'm wondering if anybody, Mr. Minister, any of your officials, would know approximately what that number would be in the Province. Do we have an approximate number?

MR. ALCOCK: I'm sure the information is available but I wouldn't have it here now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I'm not familiar with what it would be, which is why I just asked the question. The reason I'm asking that is because I'm surprised to see an overall decrease in the Legal Aid and Related Services at a time when one would think that the demand would be greater. When we think of, perhaps, the fiscal reality and our lack of employment and the many problems that we face in our Province, criminal law and family law are two areas which are usually, in terms of legal service, often required. I'm just wondering why is it, at a time when one would think that the need for legal aid is perhaps greater, that we have a decrease in the overall expenditure in that particular area?

MS SPRACKLIN: The reductions have all been accomplished through administrative efficiencies and there will be no reduction in legal services or the number of lawyers engaged.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When you say administrative, what -

MS SPRACKLIN: I will give you an example, and I have to be a little careful here because it all has not been implemented, but if you introduce a fairly inexpensive accounting program on existing computer hardware, it may make a difference of up to, say, four administrative positions, for a $1,000 software program.

There have been other changes as well that will reduce administrative burdens. The cost-sharing agreement, the formula will not require nearly as much detail, I guess, and input on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway, it has all been accomplished, by and large, through administrative efficiencies.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So there has not been a reduction in legal aid staff solicitors, is what you are saying?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, nor will there be.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It has been simply administrative.

WITNESS: And there are no offices opposing this (inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been any growth in that area? Have there been offices opening or an increase in staff solicitors within the past year of which you are aware?

MS SPRACKLIN: Not in the past year. There has, over the last few years, been a move from using the private Bar to staff solicitors because it is much less expensive and much more efficient, but I don't believe there have been any increases in the last year. I know that process is finished now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I see the federal contribution to legal aid is quite significant. If somebody could just indicate: What are the areas in particular that are funded, either partially or totally, by the federal government in terms of legal aid services? For example, I know immigration law was an area that was either partially or totally funded, I believe, by the federal government. It was done through legal aid but it was funded by the federal government.

MS SPRACKLIN: All of these legal aid agreements are being renegotiated as we speak. I don't think they have been signed yet, but we are close. In the past there has been a young offenders criminal legal aid cost-sharing agreement, there has been an adult criminal legal aid cost-sharing agreement, and the civil stuff was covered under the Canada Assistance Plan; you made your claim under that. That has now been absorbed, obviously, in the block funding arrangements, the new CHST - is that what it is called, CHST? - Canada Health and Social Transfer payments, and the criminal legal aid agreement are being renegotiated. Canada is moving toward a per capita over a five-year period. It will not affect us dramatically early on, but our payments will decrease over the next five years. We are not sure what it looks like yet because it has not been finished yet. The formula is still under discussion.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I don't know if there are any other questions on that.

WITNESS: Keep going.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. I would, perhaps, like to go back to Ralph for a second. I know a lot of this was discussed, Mr. Minister, in the House in terms of the policing issue and the obvious reduction in policing, in particular in terms of the RCMP. We see a decrease of, I believe, over $2 million. I am just wondering, specifically in terms of the policing services available in the Province, what specific examples do we have where - I know highway patrol, for example, is one that comes to my mind right away, but what are the specifics in terms of that $2 million plus reduction?

MR. ALCOCK: Approximately $1 million of that amount is an annualization of initiatives that were begun in the prior fiscal year. It takes the RCMP a little longer to react to reductions than it would take us, for example, within the Province. As a result, $1 million of that amount is related to these initiatives that took place almost a year previous to this, precluding highway patrol and some other areas as well.

In addition to that, the RCMP is implementing what we call a `district policing model' and by this district policing model, it requires less of both officers and administrative staff doing work within a detachment and results in putting more police officers out on the street where, of course, we all believe they should be. The implementation of this model has resulted in the RCMP being able to save some additional monies.

In addition to that, the RCMP are implementing a regional approach to administrative services, the administrative services being information technology, financing, general operations and human resource management. So the RCMP will have a regional structure throughout the country, the Atlantic Provinces making up a region. The concept is, that each one of the provinces would have one piece of this smaller pie. In other words, Newfoundland may have human resources, and instead of the four Atlantic Provinces having twenty-five resources, there will be twenty resources but they will all be in Newfoundland. Nova Scotia then would have information technology or New Brunswick would have finance and general operations, whatever the case may be.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: From what you are saying then, there has perhaps been a reduction in all provinces in terms of the RCMP. Would that be a fair comment, you know, if this model has been adopted throughout the country?

MR. ALCOCK: Keep in mind that what I am referring to is administration, and they are in the process of doing this at this point in time. It will be done over an approximate three-year period, I believe, so you are not seeing a whole lot of savings at this particular point in time, but the savings get greater as we move on through this. The RCMP have recently announced, for example, that they are setting up the regional office in Halifax which is a very small office, I might add, but an individual has been identified for that particular office. There are a number of committees in place that are currently working on rolling this out throughout the provinces. There are, as I say, four of these regions throughout Canada.

One other comment I would make is that, none of these initiatives that we have looked at this year will result in the elimination of officers on the street.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But the district policing model results in the closing of detachments in certain communities, does it not?

MR. ALCOCK: It may result in the closing of detachments in communities, full-fledged detachments, and the RCMP then deliver by a different model and they will be delivering through a store-front requiring a resident RCMP in the community, for example. So, in terms of full-fledged detachments, yes, you are correct, it may very well be that they will be eliminated in communities. Often-times, what will happen, however, is that the individuals are transferred and actually work out of some other detachments as their headquarters.

MR. WHELAN: Could you just elaborate a little further on this store-front detachment, I think you called it?

MR. ALCOCK: Store-front? The RCMP and, as a matter of fact, the RNC in a couple of cases, are attempting to do the same thing. They will operate out of a community office. Quite often the RCMP, as our partners, have been trying to work with communities to identify a part of, let us say, a community building, where the RCMP officer can work out of that particular building when they are in that particular community. That part of the model is that they will actually rent space in a community and operate out of that particular space. Ordinarily, it is not manned by clerical staff or an RCMP officer being in the building at all times.

MR. H. HODDER: Is that similar to what they are doing in Conception Bay South and Mount Pearl with the RNC now?

MR. ALCOCK: In Mount Pearl, Mr. Hodder, I would classify that more as a detachment office. In Conception Bay South, on the other hand, it would operate more like a store-front kind of operation.

MR. H. HODDER: There is a little variation?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: While we are on this, I see you have allocations for a public complaints commission. I have no idea what the situation is, but I see that particularly applies to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and difficulties that individuals might have with officers. In the case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, just a few weeks ago in the public press there was a person who expressed great concern about the way they were treated by a member of the RCMP. What procedures are in place to give that person the same kind of access to have their complaint heard by independent people as you would have with the RNC? What set-up do we have for individuals who have complaints against members of the RNC, as a consequence of some involvement they may have had or some incident they may have had in their enforcement of the law, in the case of the RCMP, or to the person's response?

MR. ALCOCK: The RCMP basically has the exact same thing. There is a complaints commission that is headquartered in Ottawa. The only difference in an RNC having a complaint investigated by our public complaints commission, if a complaint got to that particular stage in the RCMP set-up there is a complaints commission that is headquartered out of Ottawa and the investigation -

MR. H. HODDER: Let's say someone, for example, in Marystown feels they were not treated properly because they were stopped by a vehicle and there was some question. We have to understand that RCMP officers are individualistic and are trained to be black-and-white. I mean, that is their training. I have family members who are involved, and I know the kind of training they have. In fact, I've been to Regina and know their curriculum fairly well.

Anyway, you are just an ordinary citizen in Marystown, something happens and you are very unhappy and want someone to look into this: What are the procedures? How do you get this actioned? Who do you go to? You start off, I guess, at the local office, but what happens after that?

MR. ALCOCK: Ordinarily the complaint is investigated locally by the RCMP.

MR. H. HODDER: By the chief.

MR. ALCOCK: Well, by someone delegated by the chief, yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: We would have an internal investigation.

MR. ALCOCK: It may very well be that, depending on the nature of the complaint, the particular detachment may look at it. They may have someone from St. John's look at the issue. It depends on what the issue is. But at the end of the day, if the individual is not satisfied with the response, they are given the address and so forth of the complaints commission in Ottawa and the complaint can be referred to the complaints commission in Ottawa.

MR. H. HODDER: They would call into your offices as well, I suppose.

WITNESS: Some have, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Because you have been entrusted with the administration of justice. Then you people would assist and have a resolution that recognized their rights and I guess the rights of all involved. So the access is not a cumbersome -

MR. DECKER: Oh, no. You see, even though the complaints commission is in St. John's, the complaints are usually taken to the chief of police or some superior officer. Many of them are dealt with internally without ever going to a complaints commission. It is only when there isn't a satisfactory resolution there that we go to the complaints commission. The same would be with the RCMP.

MR. H. HODDER: Have you any idea how many complaints would go to the complaints commission in a year, say from the RNC in St. John's?

MR. DECKER: I wouldn't want to make a stab at that. We get a report every month from both police forces, and there is a substantial number which are dealt with internally. The first thing the department would get is a notification that a complaint has been made against Lieutenant or Sergeant John Doe. Then shortly thereafter you get a report of what the police themselves are saying about it. Some of them would then be referred off to the commission and in due course we would get a report from it. I couldn't give you a number. I could probably get it for you. Ralph?

MR. ALCOCK: The most recent report of the public complaints commission is about to be tabled in the House.

MR. DECKER: It was tabled today, actually. It was tabled today, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: There was one tabled today.

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is the RNC. That is the public complaints commission for the Province, yes.

MR. ALCOCK: If you are interested, I have a document in my office that deals with the federal complaints from the RCMP.

MS SPRACKLIN: The last time I looked the numbers were about equal, interestingly, of complaints.

MR. DECKER: Yes, and I've noticed that. There is really no difference. I get complaints, and the complaints are remarkably similar, too, you know; someone cursed on me, or somebody was not a gentleman, they put me in the back seat. It is usually the same thing.

MR. H. HODDER: The usual.

MR. DECKER: Yes, and most of them are resolved internally and don't go any further, but the ones that are not go off to the commission. I suppose the ordinary citizen has recourse to the courts if he or she wishes.

MS SPRACKLIN: Oh, yes. They do a fairly thorough investigation.

MR. DECKER: They certainly do.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, we have lots of questions. I have only gone through one set of notes yet.

I want to go back to Fines Administration. What is the total amount now of outstanding fines within the Province?

MR. DECKER: Still $19 million, I think? Ralph, do you want it? Go ahead, give us those figures.

MR. ALCOCK: Approximately $19 million.

MR. DECKER: $19 million.

MR. H. HODDER: As a consequence of our going and agreeing in legislation to take a number of sanctions against people who don't pay their fines, from their driver's licence to not being able to get a moose licence or whatever, we have taken a whole series of measures to encourage those responsible to recognize their obligations under law. What has been the success rate of the sanctions that have been imposed in order to encourage people to live up to their responsibilities?

MR. DECKER: Ralph, do you want to pick it up?

MR. ALCOCK: Well, I believe that our collection rate is in the order of 85 per cent or thereabouts in terms of the collection of fines. The difficulty with the numbers, of course, is that the best way that we can collect is through MRD; and you will find we collect these amounts of money but it may take a considerable period of time. So if you go into three years - let's say four years - we are collecting very substantial amounts of the total amounts outstanding, in the order of 85 per cent or so.

MR. H. HODDER: At what point do we start to write these off? Is there a point where you say that with the money we are spending now, we are chasing the dog's tail, you might say, and we are never going to get anywhere? Do we have a policy whereby we write off these uncollectible, unenforceable fines, or do we just keep them there and settle them at the grave site?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't know that we have a cut-off of two years, five years, seven years, or whatever the case may be. That kind of cut-off is not there. Every now and then, there are submissions made to Treasury Board for the cancellation, for various reasons, of amounts outstanding, and I guess our collections officers certainly have a reasonably good profile of what may or may not be collectable and, of course, they concentrate on the areas which they deem to be collectable. Now, six months ago there was quite an issue in the press on this. I believe a young chap was interviewed who owed $14,000 or $17,000 in fines, and he said he is never going to pay, he is on social assistance, and all the rest of it. Well, we obviously don't spend a lot of time trying to collect from an individual like that.

WITNESS: But I believe a new judgement enforcement system will help us immensely in this when it comes into effect, and when that does we will be implementing some additional means of collection.

MR. DECKER: The computer system is not in place yet to handle that, is it? There is no way the people issuing moose licences can know whether John Doe owes a fine, is there?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, that is not all implemented yet.

MR. DECKER: It is not implemented yet, no.

MR. ALCOCK: That part isn't implemented, no.

MR. H. HODDER: My next question would be to deal with the fact that we have on the books somewhere the authorization for some sanctions. Which sanctions have been implemented and which ones are waiting to be implemented?

MR. ALCOCK: Well, the major one that we are waiting to implement will be to go after garnishment of wages. Because of a number of administrative issues, including who is best positioned to be able to do that garnishment, we have not done that to date. We will be doing it very, very, soon with the new judgement in force.

MR. H. HODDER: Will that apply to the federal employees in the Province as well as provincial employees? You know, the federal government sometimes is not very co-operative on the garnishment of wages. Do you have an agreement with the federal government on that?

MR. ALCOCK: I am not familiar with any agreement with the federal agreement on that. Is there?

MS SPRACKLIN: No. I would think that it will be the same. You know, it would normally just be the same as enforcing any other garnishee against a federal employee.

MR. H. HODDER: So you do not expect any difficulties?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. H. HODDER: Okay, that is the one thing you have not done. There must be some that you have done.

MR. ALCOCK: Well we have transferred, for example, the court fines to MRD, which was not in place before the new provincial enforcement act came into place. So we have implemented, several months ago - I cannot be precise here on the date - can you think of any others that have been done, George?

MR. WHITE: Well, there are the sanctions themselves, and a debit, credit card system for ease of payment.

MS SPRACKLIN: We are accepting credit cards now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When you say court fines - I am just curious - are you talking about court fines you say have been transferred to Motor Registration?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But is that only court fines with respect to motor vehicle violations, or all court fines?

MS SPRACKLIN: All court fines. It used to be just parking tickets basically.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right, but I mean, if a person is convicted and you know it is $100 fine for shoplifting, it has nothing to do with Motor Vehicle Registration. That fine can now be collected through Motor Vehicle Registration?

MR. ALCOCK: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: Have we noticed any increase in the numbers of people who have not renewed licences or people who are driving without licences or insurances? If there is a reaction, is the reaction that people who get their motor-vehicle licences renewals and it is going cost them $514 instead of, you know, $120, that they choose to say: Well, I will drive without it? Do we have a mechanism, for example, to say - there is a high level of probability that John Doe, who lives at 14 Barclay Avenue in Mount Pearl or wherever, who has not renewed his licence - is there somewhere then that we can have a monitoring of that or, how would you go then and deal with that? Will you say: Thank you very much, we are not going to follow up. If you get caught, you get caught.

MR. DECKER: It is very early yet for us to do any tracking to see just what is happening there. This is somewhat anecdotal, but in my own district I get calls every month or so from someone calling me, as their MHA, that they cannot get their licence because they did not pay a fine or whatever. We have not done any amount of tracking and I doubt very much we will until we have it fully implemented, you know.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. I had one today with 800 and some odd dollars in traffic fines.

MR. DECKER: I guess all the members are getting them. That is my guess.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, you get them all the time. Drive better! But, do you have a program in place that is going to sequentially get the clerical data and make sure that this will be followed through so that we know what the success rate is and all the rest of it?

MR. DECKER: We don't have a specific program, do we?

MR. ALCOCK: We aren't monitoring or trying to track down individuals who do not renew their licences for any particular reason, and try and follow up or direct them towards the police, to try and find out whether or not they are in fact driving or they have left the Province or whatever. We have no particular plan to try and identify people from MRD who don't renew their licence.

MR. DECKER: I suppose it could be done if you really wanted to do it.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. What I'm saying is, if we have sensed that we have people who aren't renewing their licences, then we are going to have a further risk on the highway. We are going to have people without licences and probably without insurance as well. There is the problem of enforcement at that point, of course. But we haven't identified it and done any follow through?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but what we do track though is the payment of fines. We age date them. So we know, for example, that, as Ralph said, 85 per cent of fines are paid when you get into year four, I think it is. Is it?

WITNESS: Four, I believe it is.

MS SPRACKLIN: And back down the line. We can tell you how much of the $18 million is outstanding, one to six months, six to twelve months. I guess if you watched those figures, if that remains constant that people are continuing to pay, one would have to assume they are getting their licences renewed, I guess.

MR. H. HODDER: When I asked this question first, which was about in 1993, we had $16 million in outstanding fines. Now we have $19 million.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, but that may not represent any more fines. The fines have increased. Quite often it may in fact represent fewer fines but larger fines.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Vice-chair, the next hour and a half is yours.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I really don't have any more questions. I think we have covered the areas which we were certainly interested in pursuing. I thank you for your answers and comments. Thank you.

CHAIR: Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to just get one more question in on Forensic Pathology. Before we go for the night, I have to do this. (Inaudible) absolutely off without getting into a little bit of the area there.

WITNESS: It should bring us all to life.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. It will bring the minister back to life.

The new system we have put in there now in terms of - you know, we are having far fewer enquiries, that kind of thing. The cost here is going down as well, and there may be reasons for that. Maybe you aren't paying the forensic pathologist as much as you did before. Someone lost $32,000 there anyway in Salaries. There may be other reasons for that.

What has been the experience thus far with the new arrangement for the pathologist? As you know, we do have a new arrangement. How is that working? Are you seeing any difference now? The whole purpose of it was to make it more effective, more immediate, and to avoid having the enquiries that were unnecessary because a competent forensic pathologist was able to establish the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt, and the circumstances surrounding it. You have had not quite a year's experience in that. What has been the experience?

MR. DECKER: It seems like it is working very efficiently, Harvey. I remember before the office was set up, whenever there was an unexplained death or whatever, there would be screams and cries for a judicial enquiry and all this sort of thing. Now the process is all in place. The chief medical examiner goes in, does his work, and if he feels there is a need for an enquiry he makes a recommendation and all that sort of thing.

It seems to be working, because everybody knows what is expected and everybody knows what to do,. I don't know a whole lot about what it was like before, but I do remember, as an ordinary citizen, hearing the complaints that were made. It seems to be working much more efficiently.

Deputy, do you want to add something?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I think two things have happened. One is that a lot of unnecessary autopsies are avoided. Secondly, the medical examiner has a process that he goes through. Families have access to all of that information through this new system, and consequently there is less demand for traditional enquiries which were of limited utility, I have to say, to anybody, frankly, in a lot of cases.

MR. H. HODDER: They were more comforting than anything else.

MS SPRACKLIN: In instances where there is a public interest to be served by conducting an enquiry, they are still available. So, it seems to be working well. Colin?

MR. FLYNN: Just to add to that, it certainly has helped the police forces as well, because under the old regime both police forces would have to do an investigation which would involve an awful lot of report writing and so forth, and they would be submitted in the end to my office for a decision, and you would get 600 or 700 of those a year. Now the process is streamlined through the on-site medical examiner, or deputy medical examiner, dealing with the cause of death and the circumstances of death fairly quickly and competently, which they are trained to do. It has helped both police forces with regard to their work in that area.

MR. H. HODDER: So we can avoid, for example, the situation at the Grace Hospital there a few years ago when there was some question as to the procedures that were followed by the medical personnel, and under the direction of the people who were there who - there was evidence, or there was some suggestion certainly, that certain crucial evidence may have been compromised. So the chief medical examiner can arrive on site very quickly, make a judgement as to what has happened, and be able to deal with that?

MR. FLYNN: Yes. Under the act the chief medical examiner has control of the scene of death and can indeed take samples, and take equipment and whatever, that would be necessary for his determination of the circumstances and cause of the death.

I just would add, though, with the Grace Hospital, my recollection of the evidence was that the destruction of the (inaudible) in that case was inadvertent rather than some attempt to...

MR. H. HODDER: No, I didn't want to suggest that -

MR. FLYNN: No, I just wanted to make that clear.

MR. H. HODDER: - there was any deliberate thing, except that perhaps the procedures were not as clear cut then as they are now, and I think that was the evidence that came out in the enquiry, that the procedures were not as precise and not as directed as they would be now and, as a consequence of that, there may have been some compromise of evidence but nothing that was a deliberate neglect on the part of anybody involved.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let me just ask a question which comes to my mind. It combines both enquiry and legal aid issue.

You will recall, Mr. Minister, awhile ago - I am referring specifically to the incident in Point May - where a family, I think, had made a request for legal aid, and in the final analysis there was no representation in terms of legal aid representation for that family. Do you see, perhaps, the department reviewing its policy? Clearly there was a request made by the family. It was quite emotional, as I understand it, and it seemed to me that would have been an appropriate case for the family to have felt that there was somebody there for them asking the appropriate questions, and that just did not happen. Could you comment on that?

MR. DECKER: Colin, maybe you could address that issue. You gave me a very clear briefing note on it.

MR. FLYNN: I am glad I did.

WITNESS: I remember, the answer was quite good.

MR. DECKER: It was a good answer, but I don't think I would do it justice.

MR. FLYNN: As you know, under the present legal aid structure and legal aid rule they cannot take on this particular type of case. There was a request made to legal aid to deal with this, and I don't know the detail of their structure. Anyway, as it is set up, they cannot take on that type of case. It is not covered under their agreement, I assume, and their funding process.

There was a request, then, for the department basically to pay for counsel for the particular individual. I think the minister and the department had great concern about that because: Where does that end; I guess, was the question. When do you say: Yes, we will supply counsel and pay the cost? When do you say: No, we won't do that in an inquiry situation?

The approach that the department took was, in essence, that we are not equipped to deal with that issue because it is really a private concern. However, what we do, and what we did do in the Point May case, was that we had enquiry counsel appointed. As everyone knows, whenever there is an enquiry there is an enquiry counsel appointed. For a summary proceeding such as this, a Crown attorney is generally appointed as the enquiry counsel, but that individual acts, frankly, independently of government. They are enquiry counsel to the enquiry, and it is the judge who gives them direction as to how they should act, what they should do, what types of witnesses should be subpoenaed, and generally the focus of the enquiry. So in that particular case, indeed, the counsel involved was from our special prosecutions unit, took his instructions from the enquiry judge with regard to it, but in addition met on a number of occasions with the family of the deceased, and as well with one member of that family who was a spokesperson; dealt with that person, explained the system, and in addition, in that particular case, was provided with general concerns, general questions, which he discussed with the judge and was pursued.

It is not what the family wanted, and it is not what would have made them most comfortable, but it was a process which allowed them to have a type of legal representation in the court room.

MS SPRACKLIN: The purpose of these enquiries is basically a fact-finding mission. It is not to establish fault or blame. That is an issue for a civil case, and once you get involved there with respect to one party - we have, at any point in time, maybe five, six, seven or eight enquiries going and they almost all involve public institutions of one sort or another, a hospital, a jail, but they all involve public institutions. As soon as you start providing representation for the family, then you have nurses and technicians and doctors and employees, and they all feel, all of a sudden, if there is somebody in there who is paid to perhaps be targeting them, that they have to be represented -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Maybe an amendment to the legal aid act would resolve it.

MS SPRACKLIN: - and the function of the thing gets lost.

MR. H. HODDER: I have a couple of more questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your kind indulgence. I am not apologizing for keeping you here or anything like that.

On the issue of child sensitivity for court officials, there has been some concern that we treat children in court the same way we treat adults. We know that children are not adults, but we don't recognize that in court as much. There was some talk that there would be some programs put in place for judges, for lawyers, that would set some more acceptable parameters. (Inaudible) that, and I forget the gentleman's name now but he wrote the legislation for children in the Yukon. He used to be in Nova Scotia - he worked over there - and now he is in Scotland. I forget his name. Some of you lawyers will probably remember his name. You probably did courses from him. The last time I talked with him, he was in Scotland; and he was saying then that - Bisset -

WITNESS: Bisset-Johnson?

MR. H. HODDER: Johnson. He was telling me then that we have to make sure that courts, court officials and departments, recognize that a child is a child. There are certain suggestions he was making. Have we moved anywhere to make the courts safer for children's interests or are we still operating on the procedures we have always had, and leaving it up to the individual judges? So you find a judge who you feel, like the judge in Grand Falls, is very, sensitive to these things.

When you hear a social worker say: If my child were in trouble, I would never want to bring my child to a court in this community; it causes me great concern, because that social worker is bringing children to court in that very community. That has happened. Have any programs been put in place to address the issue of children and the court system?

MS SPRACKLIN: How can I answer that? Vis-à-vis the judiciary?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: Nothing specific in place in this Province for our judiciary. Having said that, I think there are national judicial training initiatives that are aimed at sensitizing the judiciary to all sorts of issues, including gender issues, children's issues, aboriginal issues, and it is a far more acceptable way to present it to the judiciary. They assert their independence, and quite correctly so. For me, for example, to go and say: I want to train you on this or that.

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MS SPRACKLIN: But there are training initiatives, I think. Yes, it is being dealt with again, I think, on more of a national and less confrontational way, and perhaps not aggressively enough, but there are training initiatives (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Having talked to Professor Bisset - Mr. Johnson and others, they indicate that this is one of the areas where Canadian practice is lagging far behind in terms of our sensitivity to children. To draw an example: The Jamie Batten case where we have people in the court system representing the family, the father and that kind of thing; well represented. We have the Department of Social Services who is out there at some point and, yes, they are representing this child, but in reality, they are also protecting the decisions of the bureaucracy. Many people feel that nobody represents Jamie Batten in a designated way.

There are two issues here. One is the sensitivity of the court system which is a different issue altogether. Then you have the issue that I am referring to with Jamie Batten in which you say - in cases like that, there are people who believe in custody cases that get so aggressive, the interest of the child is not protected. Is there any provision whereby somebody can appoint somebody - because this child at this point is a ward of the state. He has been taken into custody by the social services department. Many people feel that, when it gets like this, the social services department cannot do both roles which are: protect the interests of the department and its decisions, and also be the advocate for the child, which might not be exactly the same interest at all.

In this battle here - and I just mention this child but there are many others in the system - is there any provision whereby we can have greater assurances that when these children get into these kinds of relationships that destroy their whole childhood and innocence, that we can have some recognition, that we better have somebody appointed, other than the Department of Social Services, to look after these children and their interests?

MS SPRACKLIN: I mean, that is generally the function of the director, to intervene to protect the interest of the child.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: I hear what you are saying, that there are cases where at least there may be an apprehension, if not a reality, that the interests may be diverging. It is not unusual in those cases for an independent counsel to be appointed to represent the child. Now there is no process, there is no requirement, but it is not unheard of.

MR. H. HODDER: But who makes that judgement call?

MS SPRACKLIN: The director on occasion, or counsel for the director. The court may suggest it or ask for it to be considered. It is not unheard of.

MR. H. HODDER: So if the court were to ask for it, I assume that it would be automatically granted.

MS SPRACKLIN: I would think that, in that context, it would probably be very difficult not to. I mean, it is hard to answer that hypothetically.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I know. What I am really saying is that, there are children who go through the court system - and all of the studies indicate that in most custody cases children are not protected the way they should be because very often they are property that parents fight over. You know, the idea of my children, the word `my' is in the possessive case. Therefore what I am saying is, in cases like that, where children are the centre of the custody, should we not be doing more to protect the legal rights of that child as a Canadian citizen? Everybody is protecting everybody else. I mean, there are all kinds of lawyers for the adults but when are we going to get some lawyers for the children?

MS SPRACKLIN: There are, you know, circumstances again where it probably would be helpful. That depends upon the age of the children and their ability to instruct counsel. I am not sure if it is necessarily a legal question as to what is in the best interest of the child. It is quite frankly a question of fact and a question of judgement that may not necessarily be any better exercised by a lawyer.

For example, in Unified Family Court, they use social workers to conduct home studies and assessments. That may be far more both cost-effective and effective than hiring a lawyer to get in there, and put a third lawyer in the court room. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I am not suggesting that the lawyers would operate outside the total realm of the child. You know, you cannot have a situation where you can neglect the social worker and that kind of thing, but in cases where, say, the director of child welfare or the court itself or even the social workers believe that it might be best to have independent counsel representing the child to promote that child's best interest. I guess what I am asking the minister is: If that is requested, then it will be granted?

MR. DECKER: Didn't we have one or two occasions, actually, when a lawyer was available to a child?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, I have (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: There have been occasions when that has happened. It is a judgement call I suppose. I believe, since I have been minister, there have been a few cases where we recognized the child's problem and we appointed a lawyer for that child. So the process can, but it does not happen all the time.

MR. H. HODDER: No, nor should it happen all the time, but we should not wait either until the child is marginalized to such an extent - we have to be proactive and preventative it in these cases; an interventionist to keep in mind that the centre of this battle is often the child and the child may be the only person in court who is not really represented by counsel.

I will leave it that.

MR. DECKER: It is just a suggestion, and it has been done on a few occasions I know - but whether or not it should be done more often.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chair, you may call the heads now, if it is agreeable with all other hon. members.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions from any of the other members? John?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. I have no questions.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): 1.1.01 to 4.2.02.

MR. H. HODDER: Just call them from the beginning to the end.

CHAIR: Yes, they are inclusive. So, we will call for a motion now to accept the heads inclusive, for the Department of Justice.

MR. G. REID: So moved.

MS M. HODDER: Seconded

On motion, heads 1.1.01 through to 4.2.04, carried.

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and your officials for your attendance.

Committee now stands adjourned.