The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Perhaps we could get started. I will just welcome the minister and his delegation. I'm sure everyone by now understands the procedure we follow. We will ask the minister to introduce his officials and to give us a brief overview or any opening comments he wishes to make. We will then follow that up with the co-chair. This morning standing in for the co-chair will be Mr. John Ottenheimer. He will start off the discussion or the debate.

Before we do that, of course, we will ask the members of the Committee to introduce themselves, starting with John on my far right.

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

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

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA for Burgeo & LaPoile.

CHAIR: I'm Bob Mercer, MHA for Humber East.

I would ask, as you probably all recall, that when you do respond to a question that you would identify yourselves, primarily for the purpose of the gentleman in Hansard upstairs.

So the procedure will be that we will ask the minister to make opening comments, then we will ask the Clerk to read the first head. Then all of the discussions and debate will occur under the first head.

Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no opening statement to make. I would rather answer questions. I will just introduce myself and then I will ask the staff to introduce themselves, starting with Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister on my left. So then we will go on to John.

MR. McCARTHY: John McCarthy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Civil Law and related services.

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

MR. McNUTT: Marvin McNutt, Director of Corrections and Community Services.

MR. WHITE: George White, Director of Finance.

MS HEFFERNAN: Theresa Heffernan, Manager of Financial Operations.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Just before we ask the Clerk to call the first head, I would ask for a motion to accept the minutes of the May 4 Social Services Committee.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01, the Department of Justice Head of Expenditure.

CHAIR: Mr. Ottenheimer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not going to necessarily go in the order as they appear in the Estimates, but there are just a few areas that I would be interested in some general response from the minister or his officials.

I would like to begin with the top of the area under Police Protection, if I may. It is page 229 of the Estimates.

I know in the past number of months there has been some discussion and some issues raised with respect to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary having to place some restrictions and constraints on certain programs within the force. I know one in particular had to deal with the drug program and the force's ability on a day-to-day basis to deal in its role in protecting the public as it relates to that particular area.

My question, therefore, is quite general and I'm wondering if somebody in the department could give me some overview as to what limitations or constraints may have existed with respect to the force as it relates in its day-to-day operations.

MR. DICKS: I am not sure there are any, per se. Generally what happens is the police have to respond to different matters so that, I know, in the recent past the force had to reallocate personnel because of two murders. Of course, they give priority to the highest matter.

What we do is we carry, we believe, a sufficient number of police officers, but if you get unusual occurrences then of course it is up to the Chief of Police how best to dedicate his resources. If you get a major event such as that, then what the police will do is allocate as many men as they possibly can as soon as possible on the notion that the best investigation is the stuff done immediately after a murder, let's say for example. You are more likely to get clues at that time than you are when the trail is a little cold six or seven months later. Sometimes it is a matter of police priority and how they respond to a given set of circumstances.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Have any programs in fact been simply discontinued with respect to -

MR. DICKS: Not that we know of, but I will let the deputy respond.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am not aware of any discontinuation of programs. As you said, I'm aware of a situation recently where the Chief had to reallocate some resources normally dedicated to, I think, joint forces drug investigations. He had to reassign them but it was an unusual sort of circumstance. There were two or three fairly serious matters that required immediate attention and it was a reallocation. I am not aware of any discontinuation of programs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder, just for clarification, would the minister, or again one of the officials in the department, just review for me the actual breakdown or allocation of funds with respect to the RCMP presence in this Province? I mean the actual breakdown with respect to provincial funding and that particular formula.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am going to ask George White if he could respond to that in detail. I mean, he is perhaps in the best position.

MR. WHITE: I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. The formula between the Province and the Solicitor General for the RCMP policing is simply a 70-30. The federal government pays 30 per cent of the cost and we pay 70 per cent.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is no deviation of that at all? That is the formula, on a 70-30 basis, and that is it? There is no exception to that rule?

MR. DICKS: If I could just say this. The provinces continually argue with the federal government over sharing of RCMP cost. The theory is that the federal government should pay for federal policing in the Province and the Province should pick up whatever costs would be allocated notionally to provincial policing, which includes a criminal code. Federal policing, of course, would be any work related to customs, any interrelated work with fisheries, anything like drug enforcement, and all the federal statues.

When I was minister before, back in the early 1990s, we had an ongoing dispute with Ottawa, and it breaks down on two areas. One is what goes in the base. So the federal government was seeking to expand the base to include things such as the lab, a portion of the administration nationally and so on like this. They had pushed the percentage up over quite a number of years from about 50 per cent up to now what is now 70 per cent. There is continual effort by the federal government. You can see it as either downloading RCMP costs on the Province or else sharing, more fairly in their mind, what are the real costs of running the RCMP.

The other thing that you have from time to time are special efforts. For example, if we wanted to - and we have done this with the Liquor Corporation - do something special on the Burin Peninsula to combat smuggling, that would be an extra cost. If we have a problem as we did a few years ago, and Yvonne would know this, in Southern Labrador with the building of a lodge, we had to pay for extra RCMP to come into the Province to help with that.

If you get different situations that are fairly considered an extra burden or additional policing whereby they have to provide additional members, particularly if they bring them in from another part of the country, we have to pay for that.

If you had a specific question - because it is fairly complex. We argue over things like if we have a dog or not, (inaudible) forced me to get rid of an aircraft several years ago. You are always arguing. Not arguing, that is unfair to say, but because money is scarce both federally and provincially you are trying to make the best use of the police resources that you can. We have been chipping away at what people consider frills and unnecessary things over the years. I think in Corner Brook, some years ago, we lost a helicopter, for example, because that was not seen as absolutely necessary.

I do not know if that helps.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been a change though in the last twelve months from a jurisdictional point of view? Have we had detachments closing, or has there been a shift towards community based policing? What changes, if any, have occurred particularly with respect to the RCMP in the Province?

MR. DICKS: When the Province did program review we challenged the RCMP to provide the same services more efficiently and they did make some changes. For example, what they did with highway patrol was they downsized the number of people actually devoted to highway patrol and had the detachments have longer reaches.

The second thing they did was that instead of using the patrols on the highway they did more stationary patrols. That does not sound like much, but of course they saved a lot more in gasoline and things like this. The other thing they did was move to a regional policing model, so that they kept a lot of the same presences but there would be storefront operations. Rather than having a resident police force, they would have a detachment there and they would have members coming and going.

The other they have done is consolidated a lot of their telecommunications to try to bring it up to date. One of the other things they did was install computers in their vehicles so that they could eliminate the need for a lot of additional staff back at the detachment, so they could directly input from their cars any pertinent information. That also helps them with policing because they can more immediately get in contact. It is not called CPIC now, I forget the acronym for it, but these policing computer mechanisms that they have are to detect and just try to find if somebody is wanted and things like that.

They have made a lot of internal changes to try to be more efficient. Part of it is generated by us; the other part is actually part of a national effort to make the police, as they see it, more effective and more efficient.

I do not know if anybody would want to add to that. (Inaudible) George? It is a pretty -

MR. WHITE: (Inaudible) that is part of their program. They also made an effort to cut out some of their bureaucracy so they have fewer levels of command from the officer level to the decision making level. I think they have made an effort to have that level of command, either the two or the three at a maximum.

They set up a series of what they are calling storefront offices where, instead of a full detachment, they would have two RCMP who would occasionally go into a community. With the cooperation of the community they would have an office located there where they would schedule - for example, every Tuesday and Thursday they may have RCMP officers in a community at that storefront. The administration will be done at the detachment level.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Have the actual numbers of RCMP officers in the Province been reduced?

MR. WHITE: They have not been reduced in this year. In fact, they have been increased. We have had four additional officers, I believe, in Labrador and two additional officers last year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I would like to, if I may, just go to another area, another heading, under Other Legal Services, and in particular Legal Aid and Related Services on page 226 of the Estimates. I know an issue that has come up from time to time is this issue of choice of counsel and what it has meant, I guess, for a number of individuals in this Province who have been charged with relatively serious offences. There has been some restriction placed on these individuals' ability to have choice of counsel simply because of the legislation.

My question is, I suppose, one of a general nature as well. Is there any flexibility? If so, what efforts are made by the Director of Legal Aid in the Province to perhaps give some consideration to individuals who perhaps would like to see representation of his or her choice as opposed to maybe, for whatever reason, the limitations being placed on that individual because of the wording of the act?

MR. DICKS: Lynn or John.

MS SPRACKLIN: Minister, I am not sure that the wording of the act would preclude choice of counsel. The wording of the act previously compelled the Legal Aid Commission to give choice of counsel for certain offences. What has changed is the removal of that compulsion. I think the ability still exists.

The task that we are faced with, however, is trying to allocate the funding that we have available for legal aid from federal and provincial sources, to allocate it, I guess, to maximize the service we can deliver to the public. The reality is that we can do much better with staff lawyers. We are still struggling - as you may have heard on the radio this morning - to try and expand services available to women, for example. We are trying, as best we can, to allocate our resources and maximize the benefit.

It is also not unusual to see choice of counsel in some serious offences for a variety of reasons. There may be conflicts. A lot of these cases that we have ongoing now arose some years back and people already had their counsel and they have continued on. In unusual circumstances it is still possible.

MR. DICKS: May I just add something to that, as well? Back in the early 1990s the federal government shared legal aid 50-50. They then capped the program. You can see that we spend $5.579 million. The federal government now only contributes $1.650 million. They have capped it. Part of the challenge we have had is that as the demand rose, which inevitably it does for a government program, the federal government's contribution is limited. That hampers us in some respect.

Just on the notion of choice of counsel, I do not think personally that that necessarily means an absolute choice of counsel. Just because a person qualifies for what is essentially a social program - which legal aid is for those people who cannot afford to provide their own representation - they should have reasonable choice of counsel. At the same time, a person who doesn't qualify for legal aid is hampered by other things. If you want Eddie Greenspan, you have to pay his fees, get him in here from Toronto, meet his schedule and so on like that.

I think it should be subject to appropriate choice of counsel. That is more the issue. What we are trying to do as much as possible, on the issue of cost, is provide as much of that in-house as we can. Because the department's view at least is that is more cost-efficient than farming it out to the private bar. Although the private bar, from my conversations with them, have a different point of view.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In the past while, of course, we have had the establishment of what is known as, I believe, a Conflicts Office with respect to legal aid. I wonder if you could perhaps help me with that. I guess its purpose is obvious, but maybe if you could perhaps expand upon it, and give some indication as to, from your point of view, how the establishment of this office is or is not of some benefit to the Commission overall and to the public.

MS SPRACKLIN: The purpose of it, as you say, is fairly clear. We would end up with situations where, for example, both husband and wife in a divorce were looking for representation. That is one example. There are other situations where that sort of thing arises.

Again, in the interests of trying to maximize the service we can deliver with the money we have, the Commission - and we have evaluated this and are satisfied that it is accurate - feels that it is best to use staff counsel. So the Conflicts Office, I guess, allows us to maximize use of staff counsel. It is physically a separate office. It is funded by government, but so would a private practitioner be funded by government. I think the argument that the fact they are both funded by government means they still have a conflict is one I can't accept. Because if we had a staff lawyer at Church Hill or wherever they are - now they are down in Steers Cove, I think - representing one side, and we are still funding the private lawyer from the other side from the same scheme, I don't see any difference in that. It allows us to do it with salaried lawyers. It has proven more efficient for us and allows us to get better bang for our buck.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does this Conflicts Office act as a provincial Conflicts Office?

MS SPRACKLIN: It can, yes. There are situations where it may not. I mean we may, in some circumstances, use counsel from another community, I think.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: How many lawyers are presently employed in the Conflicts Office?

MS SPRACKLIN: Mr. Ottenheimer, to be honest with you I'm not sure. I think it is two.

WITNESS: Two or three, I think, yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Would they do work other than just conflicts work? Are they general staff solicitors or is their work reserved to just dealing with areas of conflict within the Commission?

MS SPRACKLIN: My understanding is that they do strictly conflicts work.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions, but should I continue or do you want other members to have a turn?

CHAIR: No, you may continue.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay, thank you.

I have a question that relates to the Sheriff's Office, 2.1.02, on page 224 of the Estimates. This is just for clarification I guess. We see that we have an amount allocated for the obvious running and the day-to-day expenses of the Sheriff's Office. I am just wondering why wouldn't revenue be shown there? I'm sure it is somewhere in the Estimates but I'm just not sure where. For example, the various expenses like Sheriff's certificates that are obtained on a day-to-day basis or conduct pay or whatever. Where is that actually shown in the Estimates?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm going to have to ask the accountants that because that is something that I have never been able to (inaudible) frankly.

MR. DICKS: It is under current account revenue in Finance.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Current account revenue.

MR. DICKS: In Finance. Theresa, do you know which heading it is?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You mean within the Department of Finance?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So it does not show at all in the Justice Estimates?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I asked that is because for example, under Fines Administration, 1.3.01, there is reference to revenue, but I'm assuming that revenue is not what is collected. Is that correct?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, that is in fact an administration fee that we charge to third parties, for example the City of St. John's. We process tickets that result in revenue to the City of St. John's and we charge an administration fee on that. That is what that revenue relates to.

As I say, I've had an ongoing inability to understand what is related revenue which shows up in our Estimates and what is revenue that shows up in Finance. That is because I am not an accountant, I'm sure. With respect to the fines management, that is what that number is, and the ticket revenues would should up under Finance's Estimates.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Any revenues or monies that may directly relate to Justice issues would show up under Finance?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DICKS: As general revenues of the Province.

MS SPRACKLIN: They are general revenues of the Province, you see. I guess this is. I know that what does show up in ours, for example, if we have related federal revenue it will show up in ours. For example, with the Legal Aid budget here you can see the related revenue. Our fine revenue is part of the general revenues of the Province and it goes in under Finance.

MR. DICKS: If I could just say this. Some of the expenses are allocated the same way. For instance, you may build a courthouse but the money does not show up in Justice. It would be in Works, Services and Transportation. The same thing with hospitals. There is a notional allocation in government, and Lynn says it is challenging to understand the rationale for it, because it could just as easily be in Justice, I would think. I suppose for simplicity's sake they consolidated it in Finance because that is where you add up most of the central expenditures of government.

In a case like this where the court administration you would think is the one that is collecting the fines, you would think it arguably could show up there. For example as well, a lot of the personnel, we pay the salaries, they show up in the departmental estimates, but the personnel costs - the costs of remissions or remittances for the Canada Pension Plan, EI matching plan and so on - they are all in Government Personnel Costs in 1.3.01 under Finance. Arguably, those should be in the department as well. To the extent that the departments do not show all the revenues, they do not show all the salary costs either.

There are funny little things of that sort. I am not an accountant either. I just know it is done that way and there is probably a reasonable argument to do it another way.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am assuming as well, just on that same topic, under Supreme Court, page 228 of the Estimates, that, for example, the cost of issuance of originating documentation or probate costs, would not be reflected in Justice Estimates. Is that correct? They, too, would be shown under the Department of Finance?

MR. DICKS: Yes, with the exception that, I think, if you look at the 3.1.01, and you look down to Revenue-Provincial, .02, my advice is that that is the administrative fees for the one-time clearing of undistributed estates. I suspect that doesn't include all the estates that are done in the run of a year.

MS SPRACKLIN: I think it probably does, actually. I think the increase is additional.

MR. DICKS: The increase is the additional part, okay.

MR. WHITE: For the Supreme Court, the administration fee, again, is what shows as related revenue. I think for undistributed estates there is a fee of something like 2 per cent. That would show up in our Estimates, whereas the actual undistributed estates, that revenue would show up in Finance.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I'm sorry, Mr. White, could you just repeat that again, please?

MR. WHITE: With regards to the revenue for undistributed estates in the Supreme Court, there is a fee that the Court charges for processing the undistributed estates. The fee itself shows up as related revenue under the head for the Supreme Court in Justice Estimates. The dollar value of the undistributed estates does not show up here, it shows up as current account revenue.

I believe the distinction as to what is current account and related is something that is determined by government accounting, and we are generally told that this money is either current or related. I am sure there are logical reasons and they make the distinctions as opposed to the department.

MR. DICKS: Yes, I was trying to clarify it with the deputy. For example, if you get in an estate probate and you pay the fee for the probate of the estate, I think that gets allocated in the same way as a fine does to the general revenues of the Province, but the fee the registrar charges for the administration of an estate, and ones that he has on an ongoing basis, that shows up in this account. Go figure. We would be happy to have it in Justice. On the other hand, I am happy to have it in Finance.

MS SPRACKLIN: But it does not matter where it shows up -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Either way you have it.

MR. DICKS: That is right, we have it. (Inaudible).

MS SPRACKLIN: We have it, yes. That is one point that should be made. Just because this revenue shows up here does not mean that we get it. It is still part of the general revenues of the Province.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I asked the question, it is significant public -

MR. DICKS: If I can?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Go ahead.

MR. DICKS: If I can just give you (inaudible). If you go to page ii of the Estimates, right near the front you will see General Revenues. Isn't a Roman numeral double i? I call it two. If you follow down to the second paragraph more or less, General Revenues, you see Registry of Deeds, Companies and Securities for example, $12.1 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Then you see Fines and Forfeitures, $6.260 million. This stuff is consolidated here. I'm not sure what "Other" here would include offhand. I don't have that level of detail here of course, but it is consolidated in Finance under the current and related revenues.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: We are talking significant public dollars just to administer or probate an estate or just to issue a statement of claim. I believe the cost is now $63 or $73, and to issue divorce documentation is $60 or $70, whatever the exact figure is. Those are significant public dollars. For example, the minister just mentioned Fines and Forfeitures, but unless your assumption is correct the "Other' may in fact represent some of those costs that I just referred to. Is that possible?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think it does.

MR. DICKS: Yes. You can look at it a number of ways. For example, Hydro dividends show up in Finance as well rather than in the Department of Mines and Energy, where someone might argue: That department is really an energy department, that should come back to us.

You would find, I think, in the department - certainly Justice would love to have it as related revenue because then you could say: Look, it costs this to administer the department and we are collecting all this additional revenue, so we want more money for this, that and the other thing. I guess all the programs of government are driven by revenues. If you do that, is it fair in the Department of Health where there are no user fees? If you have a choice between having another clerk to help out a probate or you want a nurse in a hospital, three guesses who wins normally, even though there is no related revenue to having a nurse in a hospital.

I suppose if you put it in the department there may be a feeling, and I am not saying there is, but notionally people - the decision may have been made to allocate it centrally. Because out of whatever revenues come, regardless of what source, are funded the general activities of the Province. Perhaps it might allow the departments too strong an argument to come in and say: This is our money, we want to do this, that and the other thing with it. Whereas the general needs of the Province are really what drives government decision-making, or at least the needs of the government (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have a question -

MR. DICKS: The deputy says perhaps that is why the Supreme Court of Canada said they were taxes instead of fees.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right. That wasn't that long ago, was it?

MR. DICKS: That is right, but I think that had more to do with the magnitude. They were right to the point they made.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I believe it was at last year's Estimates Committee meeting that this issue came up but I would like to ask about it again, because it is always of interest to me when we look at the housing of our provincial courts here in St. John's in Atlantic Place. I am advised - I don't know whether it is correct or not - that it is only within the past fiscal year that a new lease has been entered into with respect to the premises in Atlantic Place. I would like to know some detail on those costs. It seems to me public funds, my guess is significant amounts, are being used on the year-to-year basis for the housing of our provincial courts in Atlantic Place.

I have two questions. Specifically, what are those costs to the public? Secondly, can you confirm that a new lease has been entered into, and if so, what is the term of that lease? I guess the third question is this. Has the department ever given consideration to do what is done in many communities in our Province, which is essentially the establishment of a provincial court building which presumably, at some point, can be owned by the Province rather than the continuation of ongoing year-to-year expenses, which I assume are quite significant?

MR. DICKS: We will provide you with the information. I know that we looked at it in the early 1990s because we were leasing space at the Atlantic Place. At that time we were moving the prosecutors down because the prosecutors were up on the hill, the old Premier's home there, whatever it is called, the Mount Scio House. We were looking at the cost for renting space but at that time, at least, the cost of constructing a building compared with the cost of rental space favoured rental space because, of course, there was surplus then and the lease was relatively favourable, I think. Whether or not that is still the situation I do not know.

I should say, as well, that all the leases are consolidated in Works, Services and Transportation. These things come up as a matter of course and if the department still needs the space after, say, a five-year term runs out, they survey the market, go to the department and ask: Do you need the space? We say yes or no. Then they go out and do a comparison. If there is a right to renew and they believe that going out for tender would result in a higher cost, they often renew if they have a renewal option. Other than that, they go out for tender. I was not aware that it was renewed but we can check out and see what the amount per square foot was and that kind of thing.

MS SPRACKLIN: Generally speaking, the department's capital budget is prioritized. If the government has $50 million they will decide whether they need schools or hospitals or courts. I guess the reality is that the priority for the last few years has been -

MR. DICKS: Chief Justice Hickman always says: There are no votes in justice. That is why it is so hard to get money. Usually, you get ugly problems there, but building a courthouse does not get you votes the way building a hospital does. That is his view of the world, and perhaps one that is shared implicitly by most people who hold elective office.

MS SPRACKLIN: The reality is, too, that you can rent space that is adequate for provincial court and you cannot rent a hospital.

MR. DICKS: That is right. The other thing, too, is that buy and large the rental market over the last decade or so has been, if you can find appropriate space, cheaper than actually constructing. Because the thing you have to face is all the long-term operational and maintenance costs as well. Whether or not that is still the situation or not I do not know, because I was not aware the lease had been renewed.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In this year's budget there was mention, once again, of the Remand Centre.

MR. DICKS: I should say just one thing, John. Back in the early 1990s when I was minister before, someone came to see me and had this great proposal to expand on Supreme Court and house the Provincial Court. It would only cost us $30 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is all the courts, or just provincial?

MR. DICKS: That is tying in the Provincial Court to the old Supreme Court, while the building across the street there a new building that would house some additional Supreme Court rooms and the Provincial Court. The price I think at that time was $30 million. It may have been a little grandiose but it will give you some sense of the magnitude of the cost. That was the only capital proposal I had seen. It was a little elaborate perhaps but I suspect it would have been tens of millions of dollars to build that many courtrooms, judges' offices and so on.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A question, perhaps maybe for Mr. McNutt, in terms of the budget announcement of the Remand Centre. Perhaps I could just get some indication as to where we are with that, and maybe some idea as to a completion date, and when we can expect to know, from an updating point of view, where we are with the Remand Centre which, as you recall, was specifically referred to in this year's Budget.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) the monies allocated, we are just trying to find a place to build it, as you know.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I understand the Topsail Road site has been now restricted from the list, hasn't it? That is out?

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are there other sites that perhaps you can share with us that are being considered at the time?

MR. DICKS: The only one I remember is that there was one down in Pepperrell somewhere, but it would cost about $600,000 or $700,000 to demolish the building on there and so on like that. We have asked Works, Services and Transportation to give some advice on what, if any - if they have an inventory. Marvin may be closer to it than I've been. Is there any word back from Works, Services, and Transportation, Marvin?

MR. McNUTT: We have a short list actually of seven sites now based on very objective site selection criteria. There are two sites actually in Pleasantville that are still under consideration. The original one, which is owned by the federal government but which, perhaps, may be designated for other uses by the federal government, is one. We have been advised that it might take, even if we were fortunate enough to acquire the property, at least two years to do that. The other site would have been the site of the former children's rehab centre. That site however is fairly limited, and as the minister has already pointed out, there would be substantial site development costs.

What we are trying to determine now, and the list is on its way to the minister now, the other factor here, of course, is the anticipated level of public resistance. That is not so objective or predictable as the other factors we have utilized in terms of ranking. We have looked at actually twenty-two sites within the city boundaries and a few outside the city boundaries as well.

With respect to where we are in terms of planning, we have a general concept that has been developed by the architect. Of course, the detailed floor plan and detailed architectural drawings cannot commence until we actually have selected a site. If we do select a site, say within the next two or three months, then we could start construction in the fall. It would probably take a year and a half before the facility was completed.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

One other question before I ask my colleagues to continue, I guess, and it is with respect to support enforcement in the office in Corner Brook.

WITNESS: That is your baby.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder if there are some numbers you could provide in terms of how many people now actually use the services that are provided by the Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook. It has now been in existence for quite a number of years. How many people, in fact, use the provisions of this office here in our Province?

MR. McCARTHY: I don't have that information with me but I think I can dig that up for you fairly quickly, Mr. Ottenheimer.

MS SPRACKLIN: There is, in fact, an annual report, I think that we could provide you with that has a fair bit of - am I correct in that?

MR. McCARTHY: There is an annual report, yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: It has a fair bit of detail.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Maybe if I could have a copy of that. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DICKS: I should just say for the record that that agency was relatively successful. It changed the default rate from 85 per cent to around 15 per cent. I do not know what its current level of the servicing of these orders is but it was very successful in its intent. That is credit to the current Ms Verge, the former minister.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I would now just welcome to the Committee Mr. Tom Osborne, the co-chair.

Could I remind the officials that before they answer a question they please specify their name? The young gentleman upstairs looks at me every now and then and I'm sure that is what he is wanting me to say to you. Please mention your names.

Kelvin Parsons first, and then we will go to Mr. Osborne.

MR. PARSONS: On page 224, 2.1.01, Civil Law, I am just wondering what would get classified under Professional Services versus Purchased Services?

MR. DICKS: Quite a bit, I would say, judging by the relative figures.

[At this point a portion of the meeting was not recorded]

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) because I noticed looking on page 225, under Criminal Law, 2.2.01 -

MR. DICKS: Purchased Services are usually contractual things for equipment and so on. That would cover photocopier leasing and printing. It is a fairly small expense for Purchased Services. There would be witness costs as well, transcription costs. So they are relatively small amounts that are fairly defined and often are subject to fixed term contracts.

You will see it a little more or so under the office, administrative support. Purchased Services there are often things like leases, photocopiers, anything on which you have a fixed long-term thing. Professional Services are basically lawyers' fees. In some other departments it would be engineering fees or architects' fees and so on. Those tend, for some reason, to be more substantial than the (inaudible) on the photocopiers.

MR. PARSONS: I noticed last year under Civil Law, 2.1.01 that Professional Services were budgeted at $1.490 million. So we spent almost as much in outside lawyers as we did on salaried staff?

MR. DICKS: Those were monies that were spent on the Terra Nova project, the Nova Scotia boundary dispute, Hibernia, Voisey's Bay and things like that. It is always a balance as to how much you contract out and how much you do in-house. So you have to make a judgement. Government makes a judgement from time to time, not always the department. Government may decide to engage outside counsel, sometimes as a result of conflict. Sometimes you do not have the same level of expertise, particularly on these - no affront to the department, but you get into some fairly detailed areas of oil and gas law. You are negotiating contracts or royalty regimes and so on with some of these - and there are only two where we had a royalty regime negotiated, Terra Nova and Hibernia. It gets fairly complex and a portion of that money is used to retain firms in Calgary as well.

MR. PARSONS: Under the same heading, .09, Allowances and Assistance, does that represent the settlements that government has paid out in the last year?

MR. DICKS: Yes, it does, judgements or settlements. An unfortunate aspect of governing is sometimes you and your officials do not always do it the way they should, according to the court's view of the world, and sometimes according to your own view of the world, so liability accrues and we have to pay out on a number of claims. That is consolidated in Justice even though it is a liability of other departments or other departmental (inaudible). It is the reverse of the fee issue. We don't get the credit for the monies but we get to pay for the expenses. It is an unhappy circumstance, from our point of view.

MR. PARSONS: I have no further questions.

MS SPRACKLIN: I have some numbers here now that Mr. Ottenheimer was looking for earlier on regarding Atlantic Place. The lease is $543,600 for a year, which would include Provincial Court holding cells. The lease is from 1997 to 2002. In addition to that, we pay $11,000 in property taxes.

MR. DICKS: Per annum.

MS SPRACKLIN: Per annum. So the total is $554,600.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne first, and then we will go to Ms Hodder.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I have a question regarding the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, page 229, 4.1.01. I guess I will lump a couple of questions together here for expediency. Under Revenue-Federal, last year we were expecting some $8,000 federal revenue which under the revised numbers was not there, but it is again this year. We expected $210,000 in provincial revenue, we received $140,000, and that is back to $210,000 again this year. Could you provide some brief explanation as to where this revenue comes from and why the discrepancy in numbers from what we were expecting last year and what we received?

MR. DICKS: If I can just say - no, I am going to stall a little bit and give Lynn time to figure it out.

I will go with the long answer, Lynn, you just work on it for a few minutes. Each department had to target savings and/or revenue options in program review back in 1996 when we had a large deficit looming. Each of the departments set targets to either raise revenues or to cut expenditures. What happened was that we were targeted with - well, one of the things the department undertook to do in order to balance it out was to raise revenues $210,000 in each year. Are we close, Lynn?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Last year we only got $140,000. What that particular option was I don't know but Lynn is going to give us the details.

MS SPRACKLIN: It related to certificates of conduct. I guess we had overlooked the fact that we ought not to be charging these to people like foster parents, charities and what not. The bottom line is we were unable to achieve the revenue because we decided to back off on that issue.

MR. DICKS: On the charitable (inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, on the charitable groups, foster parents and what not.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Where does the federal allocation come from?

MS SPRACKLIN: George, would you like to answer that?

MR WHITE: The RNC had an officer, I believe, contributing to some training that was at the federal police academy. This was really just revenue for the salary of the RNC officer who was offering that training. I expect that the revenue did not come in. I guess we are still chasing the federal government for the $8,000 which is why we had budgeted $8,000, but the revised shows nil.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will redirect the previous question, I guess part of it, to Ms Spracklin again. You mention that you had reversed the decision on the certificate of conduct and therefore were not expecting the $210,000 which is the reason for the revised figure of $140,000. That is showing, again, $210,000 for this year. Why the increase again this year if some of the certificates are not being charged for?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think we probably have to categorize that as a mistake. Would you agree?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: An overly optimistic projection.

MS SPRACKLIN: In frankness, I think that probably should have revised. We looked at that the other day when we were preparing for this and the best answer I could get is that we probably should have changed that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. Under Salaries for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, 4.1.01.01, the revised amount for 1998-1999 was $17,091,700 and this year it is $16,616,800. Why is there a reduction in the amounts budgeted considering the fact there was a 7 per cent increase in many of the salaries and considerably higher in some others?

MR. WHITE: The 7 per cent wouldn't have all been in one year. It is spread over a period of time. (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I will correct, a 2 per cent increase, I guess.

MR. WHITE: Yes. As well, the salary for 1998-1999 included a twenty-seventh pay period which 1999-2000 does not have. There are twenty-six pay periods. Generally, the salaries would show a decrease simply because of the pay period. The extra pay period that existed last year doesn't this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One pay period would equate to approximately 2 per cent, so that the budget should be almost the same?

MR. DICKS: I'm trying to remember, but the figure for a government pay period is about $26 million or $27 million, I think. If you delay a period - our total salaries is about $1.7 billion, so one of the things we did this year was we were going to - just an accounting thing - pay it April 1 rather than the end of March. That would have saved us, on our books, about $27 million. Instead we paid it which is why it was there last year so it picks up our books a little bit. Yes, it is pretty considerable. I haven't done the mathematics on this but it is the same magnitude. One was $26 million, and $1.7 billion, something about that sort. Pretty substantial.

MS SPRACKLIN: There are no layoffs planned or anything of that nature. This figure would simply reflect the removal of the twenty-seventh pay period and it should reflect the 2 per cent increase. There was no reduction in manpower contemplated or anything.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are pretty keen. I think that was the direction. The $500,000 discrepancy because of the -

MR. DICKS: The extra pay period. That seems about right when you think about it. There are twenty-six pay periods in a year so, say, $500,000 per pay period, plus a few odds and ends and incidentals and so on, probably gets you up in that range of $16 million or $17 million. In any event, as the deputy says there are no guise here, we are not downsizing or anything like that. It is a straightforward accounting entry. Most of the stuff is just generated by taking in the number of employees you have on staff, adding the 2 per cent, figuring on the pay periods, and you get the figure and that is it. Sometimes there is a vacancy factor which comes into play if you have turnover but we have not used that to any marked extent.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Let me get back on that. I know $500,000 is a fairly significant sum of money, or at least I would consider it to be. The extra pay period, I think, would account for the difference in the 2 per cent increase this year but there is still a discrepancy of $500,000. If there are no layoffs planned, would there be any other explanation for that $500,000 discrepancy there?

MR. DICKS: It is not a discrepancy. Last year there were twenty-seven pay periods, this year there are twenty-six. I don't have a calculator but if you take $17 million and divide by twenty-seven, and take the figure and multiply it by twenty-six - does anybody have a calculator?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, but he is saying if you take that off but then add back another 2 per cent (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, the 2 per cent increase in pay. One pay period would amount to approximately 2 per cent, and then there is a 2 per cent increase in pay for this year, so it should work out to approximately the same.

MR. DICKS: No. The 2 per cent, as I recall, was April 1 last year. There is another 2 per cent that comes into play this year. I do not know if it is April 1 this year or if it is June 1. September is the next 2 per cent, is it? Those are staggered, they are not always coming into effect at the same time.

Basically, what we did is we negotiated an agreement with NAPE on a certain implementation. It was 2 per cent April 1 last year and then one of the years it was in September, then in the last there is another 1 per cent, I believe in February. I just do not recall when exactly the pay increases were calculated for.

I have the list. If you look at the Departmental Salary Details book, which I now have here, if you go down through them - do you have this book? I can give you the salaries. Chief of Police $78,554, Deputy Chief of Police $133,007. There are two of those, and so on. It gives you a total activity of $14,853,869. Add on the Public Complaints Commission of $45,409 and the actual sub-total of the RNC is $14,899,278. That is a total of approved positions of 390. How that rounds up to $16.6 million I do not know. You can compare the Salary Details with last year's Salary Details. I should say this gives you the base figures for what the salaries are and, of course, that changes depending on the number of pay periods in any given year. Does that make sense, Tom? Do you want to see this?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, that is quite alright.

Page 231, section 4.2.03.19, Youth Corrections Facilities, there is $1,800,000 under the development of new facilities. Is that going to be directed specifically towards new facilities or is there any provision there for upgrading to current facilities?

MR. DICKS: No. That is the development of new facilities. That is the Youth Remand facility. You see it is Voted in Other Departments. That is voted in Works, Services and Transportation. Most of the maintenance figures do not occur here. They would be in Works, Services and Transportation as well. They have a general vote that they have for all government buildings and they allocate that to various departments depending on need. That is the only new facility we have.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What would the next expected expenditures be this year? I guess, more specifically, towards the Whitbourne facility on improvements or upgrades.

MR. DICKS: Don't ask. A lot of money. That building was built in 1991. I went out and saw it, I guess, in January with the Deputy, Marvin. We are spending - is it $500,000 or $900,000? There is a lot of money being spent to upgrade things. Some stupid things were done there, just quality of construction, but Marvin is a little more knowledgeable about that. We are spending a considerable sum of money aren't we, Marvin? Is it $900,000 or more?

MR. McNUTT: We have already spent considerable monies, as the minister has indicated, as the result of a security and life safety review that was conducted just after the Department of Justice took over the facility. As a result of the recent escapes from the facility, we are investing considerable money as well in terms of upgrading what we call the perimeter static security system. That is, the doors and the locking system for the facility. We do not have an estimate of the cost for replacing those doors. We have already replaced some of them with heavier gauge steel doors but it still does not meet the kind of standard that we want to achieve with respect to the perimeter security.

We are also expanding other features and improving other features such as the ventilation systems throughout the facility, particularly in the living units themselves. It has been rather uncomfortable during the summer months at least. If you have visited the facility you will see that work being conducted right now. I don't have exact figures in terms of the total cost but it would certainly be close to $1 million, as the minister has pointed out.

MR. DICKS: I should say that in answer to your general question, on page 78 of the Estimates, under Works, Services and Transportation, 3.3.01, the total amount that is spent on alterations, renovations and so on is $5.8 million.

MS SPRACKLIN: Again, that is block funded and each department has to basically make the case for the priority of their projects, in the big scheme of things.

MR. DICKS: That is right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Those are all the questions I have. I think the critic for the area had asked a number of the questions I had anticipated asking.

Thank you.

CHAIR: First Ms Hodder, and then we will go to Ms Jones.

MS M. HODDER: I just have one question here and that is on 4.2.01.10, Grants and Subsidies, $107,900. What is included in Grants and Subsidies?

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mary, which one?

MS M. HODDER: It is on page 230, under Adult Corrections, and it is 4.2.1.10, Grants and Subsidies. I am just wondering what is included in the Grants and Subsidies. Adult Corrections.

MR. McNUTT: Basically that includes an annual grant to the John Howard Society of $72,000, a grant to Labrador Legal Services of $38,000, and then there is another smaller grant of approximately $5,000. I think that is the total sum.

MS M. HODDER: Okay, thanks.

Just one more point, and this is not concerning the Estimates, but I was just wondering what the department's policy is pertaining to the appointment of JPs now?

MS SPRACKLIN: Generally speaking I have to say that we are still resisting the appointment of Justices of the Peace. We are trying, so far as possible, to use Provincial Court staff under the supervision of Provincial Court judges. We are trying to revise that whole system. It is hazardous to say the least, post-Charter, to have search warrants and the like being granted without appropriate training programs and what not.

To make a long story short, we are having difficulty getting a new program up and running. I am hoping sincerely to have it ready by next fall but (inaudible) we are still struggling with that, to find a way of training people appropriately.

MS M. HODDER: My concern in that is that we could experience a shortage. (Inaudible) several JPs in my area at one particular time and a lot of these have passed away during the last couple of years. I know a couple of people who have been interested and the RCMP have expressed the need to have an extra person at least.

MR. DICKS: The issue is, as the deputy points out, one of concern, because years ago the JPs were given out in the same way you give out Commissioner of Oaths. Most people that have a JP designation basically just were signing documents. Under the Charter in particular, and really under the Criminal Code, there is an obligation of a JP that is really judicial or quasi-judicial. They really have to conduct a hearing as to whether adequate grounds exist to issue process, for example, laying information against somebody and so on like that.

Unfortunately, if they are not properly trained and you give it out to someone without properly training the person, they just write and sign it the same way as they would witness a deed. It is a different thing entirely. You really have to do a mini-inquiry of sorts into whether or not there are adequate grounds to issue the information. If it is not done properly, you can have the information quashed as an abuse of process at a very preliminary stage.

We have resisted. This is not a new issue. It has been around since I was here before, in 1990. At that time we were not giving out any JPs. Most people who would write would be content to have a Commissioner of Roles because that is really what they were looking for, the ability to witness documents in their area. Often, I think, there are JPs associated with the court who have a higher level of skill and training. It is an issue that we have to address, and being in the ninth year of intent we might even do something about it this year or next. Is that fair to say, deputy?

MS SPRACKLIN: I hope so sir.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MS M. HODDER: No further questions.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My questions are directly related to the Estimates. However, I wanted to ask about the Tripartite Agreement that the RCMP is initiating to implement in Labrador, including the Aboriginal rural communities. I'm wondering if your department has been involved in that process, and if there is any framework agreement they have put in place.

MS SPRACKLIN: No. How to start? The federal government is trying to persuade the provinces to contribute equally to Aboriginal specific programming. It is the position of the Province of Newfoundland that this is a federal fiduciary responsibility. If they are going to have an Aboriginal specific program, they would have to fund it.

The short answer is that the Province is prepared to provide provincial policing services to Labrador communities as they are to every other community. If, however, there is to be a separate Aboriginal police presence the federal government needs to bring the money to the table.

What we have tried to do, however, is to cooperate with any program where an Aboriginal community - for example, Davis Inlet, procured funding from the federal government for some band constables. We facilitated and worked with them by designating as RCMP supernumerary constables, and entered into an MOU so that they could carry out those policing duties. There is a bit of a problem with respect to this whole tripartite notion for all of Labrador.

It would involve the Province in effectively providing a double - if I can put it that way - we would be funding provincial policing in addition to funding any second parallel system.

MS JONES: Is the federal government not willing to make additional investment to put this program in place? Because they have done it in other parts of Canada. I'm just wondering did those areas have to buy in or was there further investment?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, some of the other provinces have bought into the notion of tripartite policing agreements.

MR. DICKS: The difference to remember too is that the federal government has never accepted the full extent of its Aboriginal responsibilities in Newfoundland. We have never had the same level of services provided by the federal government to our Aboriginal peoples that they have in other provinces. You remember recently there was an application, I think, or the Sheshatshiu or Davis Inlet band were going to apply for federal Indian Act status.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. DICKS: They came to us. We would support that because basically it provides a lot of benefits. The federal government has never, ever seen fit to do it, never accepted that responsibility. When they come to us and say: We want you to pay one-third of this, we say: Excuse me, but what about all the other services that we have been providing that you have done nothing about for the last fifty-odd years?

To an extent, there is a legitimate concern of the Province that, in asking us to accept additional liability for these, above and beyond the duplication issue that the Deputy has stated, the federal government has not lived up to its constitutional responsibilities to provide the same level of service to our Aboriginal peoples as they do all elsewhere in the country.

MS SPRACKLIN: Just to illustrate the change they have taken, Conne River, for example, is a reserve, and they have been funded by the federal government for a good many years now to retain their own police force. The Province has designated - again, in the spirit of cooperation and to facilitate that - the RCMP work closely with the constables. They are designated supernumeraries. They have authority on the reserve but they are paid by the federal government.

The federal government has now changed their position on that and they say: We are not going to do that any more. The Province must contribute to the cost of the additional band constables. They have changed their position and I guess the bottom line is that we are resisting it, frankly.

MS JONES: It is unfortunate because from my knowledge of the program and how it is working in other places it seems that it has been able to offset a lot of the cuts in RCMP services in smaller, remote areas.

I think what they have done in the Northwest Territories, which is what I have been most familiar with, is help to fill the gaps where a lot of policing services have been taken out. This is my concern right now in Labrador, because a couple of years ago our services got cut in various areas and we are mostly being policed by storefront operations, with the exception of Davis Inlet and Nain, where you have full service detachments.

My next question -

MR. DICKS: If I can just say, the experience is mixed though. Having the band council take responsibility for local policing isn't always a resounding success, for a variety of reasons. So you have to be careful about what you are setting up and who is - obviously the Aboriginal people would run it. It is like any other program where the government runs it, the Aboriginal people run it, we do it ourselves. They are not always wonderful, resounding successes. There is a certain element of political rhetoric involved in all this as well. We have had some experiences with them and they have not always been beneficial.

MS JONES: Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

I would just like to make note that our last remaining committee member has shown up. Tom, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, that is (inaudible).

CHAIR: Are there any other questions from any member of the Committee?

Mr. Osborne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have one remaining question and it is more to do with RNC policy and, I guess, for lack of better words, their ability to pay. Last year there was a trial run or a test run of a program in a particular downtown area of my district where there were a couple of officers assigned to foot and bicycle patrol because there was a very high level of vandalism and so on in that particular area, and from the feedback I have received it worked quite well. The vandalism, the complaints and so on had been reduced a great deal. I had inquired as to whether or not that procedure would continue, but unfortunately they are unable to continue with it, although they had great success, because of a lack of ability to pay or subsidize that type of activity or performance by the police.

I was just wondering if your department, Minister, was willing to consider, or take into consideration, a subsidization of this type of performance by the police in certain areas, most especially the urbanized areas that they patrol, to reduce the amount of vandalism, more particularly, I guess, in the downtown areas of St. John's.

MR. DICKS: Let me just respond. It should not be a subsidization issue. If they were able to do it last year - we have the same amount of money in the Budget, so it should not be a matter that we are giving them less money. If it was a policing measure that was efficient and worked, and if they see the necessity for it to continue, it really should not be hampered by the amount of money we voted to the RNC.

Years ago in St. John's, as you know - not that many years ago, I think in the 1960s - they used to patrol on foot for the most part. You know, (inaudible) put them back on the street on foot and so on, and there is a theory that that is more effect policing.

We really do not run the RNC in a sense. We have discussions with them at a fairly high level, as to what their policies are and this kind of thing, but we leave the actual method of policing - whether or not you need people on foot, whether or not you patrol this area or that area - largely to the police, because they have to respond on a need basis.

I am not familiar with the circumstances, but I will ask the officials to respond. To my knowledge it should not be a money issue. Why it would cost more to have people in the area on foot as opposed to having a vehicle; theoretically, it should cost less because there is not as much gas and there is not as much need for vehicles and so on.

At some point, if you put everybody on the streets and eliminated vehicles, you might have to increase your complement to allow for the fact that they are not going to be able to have as much coverage or they cannot be everywhere as quickly. You could still have a number of police in vehicles to respond to situations in different parts of the city. In your case, I do not know if that is driven by economics. I will ask the deputy to respond.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I may intervene for just a second. I know last year they made very clear, upfront, that they were doing this just to respond to a particular need in that area, but they had mentioned that they could not afford to put their officers on foot patrol, that it was just a test that they were going to conduct in that particular area to see how well the residents responded to foot patrol and how well the reduction in vandalism and that type of thing correlated with officers on foot patrol. It may be purely political, but the response was that they could not afford the manpower. They felt that their manpower was lacking as it was, so they could not afford to put people on foot patrol, that they could get greater mileage out of people in patrol vehicles, although the system had worked quite well.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am afraid I cannot be of much help here, but Mr. Ralph Alcock who is, I guess, in the most day-to-day contact with policing issues is in negotiations today actually with the RCMP who are here from across all the provinces. He is negotiating with the RCMP as we speak, so he is not here and I am not familiar with the project that you mentioned. You are not referring to the Bannerman Park situation?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, it was down in the Cabot Street-Livingstone Street area.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am not familiar with that, so I am afraid I cannot answer the question, except to generally observe that if you are going to have your police on foot, you obviously need a lot more police to patrol an area that stretches from Conception Bay East & Bell Island to Torbay than you would if you have them in vehicles. So, I guess, to that extent you would be looking at a very different model of policing if you had all foot patrols. I think they have, in response to specific problems in specific areas - for example, Churchill Square recently had some problems and they mounted a particular effort to deal with it.

Interestingly, you can get one neighbourhood that is being crucified, put some people on the ground there for a week or two, you catch the people that are doing it and the problem generally goes away; at least until they get out again.

I don't know if that would explain the Livingston Street thing, if they felt they had the problem solved. I can find out for you, I just don't know the answer to that particular -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Any further questions from any member of the Committee?

Not having any further questions I would ask the Clerk to call the heads inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.03, carried.

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

CHAIR: Thank you very much. I thank the minister and his officials for being with us this morning and remind the members of the Committee that the next meeting of the Social Services Committee is on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. in the House, and we will be looking into the Estimates of the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

A motion to adjourn.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, before you put the motion may I just thank the Committee and yourself for your kindness in seeing us this morning and for the fairness of the questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

On motion, Committee adjourned until Wednesday, May 12 at 7:00 p.m.