The Committee met at approximately 4:30 p.m. in Room 5083.

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Tom Rideout, MHA Lewisporte substitutes for Tom Hedderson, MHA Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

CHAIR (Sweeney): Order, please!

My name is George Sweeney and I am the Chair. I will ask my Committee to introduce themselves. I think we have two more coming. Gerry, would you start?

MR. REID: Gerry Reid, MHA Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. WALSH: Jim Walsh, MHA Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. GORMAN: Wayne Gorman, Director of Public Prosecutions.

MR. McCARTHY: John McCarthy, Assistant Deputy Minister for Civil Law and Related Services.

MR. ALCOCK: Ralph Alcock, Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Protection and Support Services.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MS SPRACKLIN: Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister of Justice, Deputy A.G.

MR. WHITE: George White, Director of Finance with the Department of Justice.

MS HEFFERNAN: Theresa Heffernan, Manager of Financial Operations.

MR. COLLINS: Randy Collins, MHA Labrador West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, MHA St. John's West.

MR. LAKE: Calvin Lake, Senior Legislative Counsel.

CHAIR: Just some housekeeping before we start. First of all, I just want to explain the use of this equipment. Only six mikes at a time. If it should happen that we go over six I think we are in complete failure here. After you speak, and if you see a couple of more lights on, probably just hit the talk button and release it.

What else do we need to talk about? I will get this right before I'm finished. The minutes of the last meeting.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Just for anyone who hasn't attended these before, the procedure we follow is that I will ask John to call the first head after the minister does his brief introduction. During that first head we will continue on into the other heads of the Estimates. At the end, when discussion ceases, we will call the total of heads and the questions. Is that okay?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

CHAIR: All right, minister, if -

MR. WALSH: For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move 1.1.01 through 4.2.03.

MS S. OSBORNE: For the record, no.

MR. WALSH: I was waiting for you to look up.

CLERK: 1.1.01

CHAIR: The first head has been called, 1.1.01. Minister, would you like to do your preamble and then we will go into discussion?

MR. PARSONS: I have just an opening comment. This is my first time through the Estimates process. I certainly will have to defer to my officials for some of the information. I have only been on the job a short while but whatever I can answer I certainly will and whatever I cannot explain in detail, because I was not here or don't have ready access to, we certainly have the officials here who can comment on those questions. I look forward to a learning process.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I guess we will start on this side for our first question.

MS S. OSBORNE: 1.1.01.01, Minister's Office, Salaries. In 1999 there was a budget of $188,500, it was revised down, and then revised back up to $223,600. Could somebody explain the reason for that to me?

MR. PARSONS: The savings from what was budgeted to what the revised were was mostly due to vacant ministerial positions for that year. Minister Dicks was a minister but ordinarily the staff that would accompany a minister were not in place because he filled two positions, Minister of Justice and Finance.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: There were some positions that he did not need to have filled.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible), Tom, freezing it at that amount (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: There were oppositions in the past who used to try to reduce the minister's salary to a dollar. We could entertain that, but we are not like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) almost successful one time.

MR. RIDEOUT: We did, or you guys did. It wasn't us. (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: In 1.2.02.01, Administrative Support, Salaries, there is an increase of almost $90,000. Does that reflect a new position, and what position is it?

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me, the numbers again? Still under .01?

MS S. OSBORNE: No, the next page,1.2.02, page 220.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

MS S. OSBORNE: In the top line there, there is a difference of almost $90,000. Does that reflect a new position and, if so, what position was it?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, there is going to be a new Director of Policy and Planning position with the department as well. I think this is the first time that this has been sanctioned this year, in addition to the ordinary ministerial staff that would be there.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

The next line, Employee Benefits, there seems to be a substantial increase from $93,300 and now the estimate is up to $158,300.

MR. PARSONS: Funding has been reallocated to address increased administrative costs associated with workers' compensation.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

Transportation and Communications, line 03., do you have - you don't need to articulate everything - a breakdown of what that expenditure was for?

MR. PARSONS: Again, it would be ministerial travel, whatever was done on behalf of the minister, I guess, and his staff, plus all other department officials.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) to administration.

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me, that is administrative support, so that would not include the minister.

MS HEFFERNAN: Primarily departmental postage costs.

MR. PARSONS: Transportation and Communications?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

CHAIR: Could you identify yourself before you speak, just for the record?

MS HEFFERNAN: With regards to 03., Transportation and Communications, the majority of that budget is used for departmental postage costs. Another major portion, I guess, is for communications costs.

MS S. OSBORNE: Can you break that down a little bit? That seems high for postage.

MS HEFFERNAN: I think, Ms Osborne, it is a high figure because it deals with things like mailing of traffic tickets and whatnot.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, okay.

MS HEFFERNAN: We have a high volume of that sort of -

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, that explains it.

I am just going to skip over to 2.1.03., which is Support Enforcement. On 01., there is a salary increase of $77,300. Does that reflect a new position or a couple of new positions? That is page 223.

MR. PARSONS: Under 2.1.03.?

MS S. OSBORNE: Under 2.1.03.01., yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: That would reflect normal salary increases, the 2 per cent -

MS S. OSBORNE: The raises?

MS SPRACKLIN: The raises primarily, and I think we have a support enforcement guidelines expenditure there that will be coming back from the federal government. We have some additional salary expenditures now (inaudible).

CHAIR: Let the record show that was the Deputy Minister, Lynn Spracklin.

MS S. OSBORNE: How many people are employed in support enforcement? And, are they only employed in the Corner Brook office?

MS SPRACKLIN: Ms Osborne, I believe it is fifteen and yes, they are all in Corner Brook in terms of the collection staff. I say there are support enforcement guidelines workers employed in various courts throughout the Province to assist in the implementation of the support enforcement guidelines.

MS S. OSBORNE: There have been a lot of calls to my office about how slow it is. I will just give one example. There is a couple who are divorced, obviously, and they are on very good speaking terms. He works at Revenue Canada and, for instance, he wants it deducted from his cheque and funneled right out to support enforcement. That makes everything very easy for him. That is a choice that he has made. His wife sometimes takes two or three months to get the cheque, even though it is being deducted regularly. She has called me a couple of times. I have had to call out and get a hustle on. Would it be at source where they deduct it? We haven't been able to track down why the delay, but it is constantly deducted so it should be rolling even if one was deducted in November and she didn't receive it until January, then December's she should receive in February. Do you know what I mean? Do you have a time line on how long it takes to get from when the deductions are made, channeled through Corner Brook and into the person who is receiving the support enforcement?

MR. McCARTHY: Ms Osborne, it shouldn't take two to three months if it is being deducted at the source, two or three weeks would sound to be normal. If there are any peculiarities to this particular situation I will be happy to address them because I tend to deal with a lot of these complaints.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, then what I will do is call you because it does seem awful, especially with Revenue Canada deducting it. That is pretty legitimate.

MR McCARTHY: It very seldom takes that long.

MS S. OSBORNE: When she calls and says: Look, I didn't receive any money. He shows her the cheque stubs where the deductions are made. It has been happening rather regularly.

MR. McCARTHY: That should not take that long. I deal with a lot of complaints and that generally is not one of them, so there must be something unusual about that situation.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Mr. Rideout.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few matters that I would like to address to the minister. Perhaps, before I turn any attention to going down through the heads, I will address a few areas that are more general that I am sure the minister would like an opportunity to comment on.

Under the subheading 2.1.01, Civil Law, I think it is an opportune time for the minister to tell us what is happening now in the Department of Justice, if anything, with regard to the civil division. I don't say this as a reflection of anybody who works there, but the general public out there is getting shell-shocked with settlements and decisions that are going against the government. Perhaps over the last two or three years there appears to be more civil litigation involving the government than at any other time in our history. I can't recall that there were ten or twelve cases before the courts at any given time involving the government. We don't seem to be - just going by media reports - doing very well with it. Can the minister sort of give us a heads up as to what is happening, how he sees this unfolding, and what in particular are any changes he thinks might be necessary so that the position of the taxpayer is protected as much as possible?

MR. PARSONS: First of all, let me say that whether we do win or lose a case I certainly would state empathically that it has nothing to do with any lack of competence on behalf of the Department of Justice staff. As you would be well aware, as a solicitor, quite often one deals with the facts that one has. Then, of course, the judges in question apply the law to that particular set of facts.

I did an interview recently with The Telegram in which I thought I gave them a pretty comprehensive overview of the cases that government has been involved with in the recent past. Fortunately or unfortunately, whichever way you want to look at it, it didn't get carried.

Since 1996 government has had about fifty-nine cases that have gone before various levels of court in this Province in a civil field. Of those, the track record is not as devastating as one would believe. It depends upon the publicity that various cases get. Of the fifty-nine cases, government lost twenty-six of them and won the balance of them. I guess we only ever hear about the losses. In terms of the fifty-nine cases and those twenty-six, some cases are decided upon and judges make decisions that you have lost and you shall pay x amount of damages; and there have also been some cases that have been settled. I think right now, in the case of Mount Cashel, for example, in cases that were settled, there was about $12 million in settlements that were made by government since 1996. Of that $12 million, $11.4 million of it was for the Mount Cashel cases. We can argue or debate whether or not it was proper for a government to settle with the Mount Cashel victims, but government chose that it was the proper route to follow. In the case of the settlements - that is quite a substantial majority of that $12 million in settlements - it was for the Mount Cashel cases.

With regards to the judgments, there were approximately $11 million in payouts in the court judgments. That is on, if you want to call it, the losing side, if you were to lump together the figures for what you have paid out in settlements and what you pay out in judgments. On the winning side, government has gotten back approximately $11 million from the cases that they have won. We have had a recent decision involving the Harvey Road fire that took place which was $3 million. If you were to only listen to what you read, then yes, it appears to be a very negative position.

Some of these cases, no doubt because of the people involved, the individuals, and the circumstances, do take a high public profile, but those are the facts of the situation. In some cases you have $600,000 in settlements. Given that you are involved in dozens of cases, forgetting about the Mount Cashel settlement of $11.4 million, to spend $600,000 in settlements is not, I would suggest, unusual in the circumstances at all.

MR. RIDEOUT: I thank the minister for his response. On the issue of Mount Cashel, can the minister take the opportunity to tell us -

CHAIR: Excuse me, Mr. Rideout, could you hit your button again?

MR. RIDEOUT: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

On the issue of Mount Cashel, I wonder could the minister give us an update on where we are with our legal position vis-à-vis Christian Brothers in Canada, their property, and the legal proceedings in British Columbia?

MR. PARSONS: Yes. We have retained counsel in British Columbia. For the information of others who may not be so familiar with it, government is pursuing an action against the Christian Brothers to try to recover money from their properties in order to - of course, again, we have paid out $11.4 million, so if government can possibly recover any of that amount we would like to do so. We suggest that the proper parties to get it from of course would be the Christian Brothers. Now I say government, but there are obviously a lot of other parties who want to get a piece of any properties that the Christian Brothers have.

There are two principal properties in B.C. that the parties were trying to get at. As we speak, in fact, the case is ongoing in British Columbia to decide if those properties in fact can be gotten at through judgment creditors.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not settled yet, is it?

MR. PARSONS: It is not resolved yet. It is before the courts as we speak. They anticipated when it started back in the first week of March that it would possibly last about nine to ten weeks, and they don't expect an immediate decision. They would think it is going to be reserved and a written judgment would be filed some time after that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Flip over to the Law Courts on page 226 of the minister's Estimates. I have not been practicing law very long in the Province but I can tell you my experience is that the workhorse of the system is the Provincial Court in various parts of the Province. I have had occasion now, over the last couple of years, to appear in a number of them. In many cases - not all cases, but in many cases - the facilities, support staff and the backup for the Provincial Court system is atrocious. You go out to Baie Verte and you are in the basement of the Anglican Church to try to do a three-week forty-odd count fraud trial where you cannot even lock up your documents. You go to Corner Brook and it is pretty good. Gander and Grand Falls have fairly good facilities. Down at the Provincial Court in St. John's, it is not the best in the Province, I can tell you that. I don't know if the minister has ever had occasion to be down there.

The point I am trying to make is that - this is not disrespectful of the Supreme Court - it seems that the Supreme Court - which is not the workhorse of the system; it is necessary, but it is not doing the workload that the Provincial Court is doing - seems to have much better facilities in all the areas of the Province where they are operating than does the Provincial Court. I am wondering. I am sure the minister as a practitioner out there, particularly in rural Newfoundland for years, must have seen the same kind of things that I see, and I have only been on the block for a couple of years. What is his prognosis for the future? Are we going to be improving the Provincial Court delivery system in the Province to a degree where the system can deliver justice on a reasonably assessable basis to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter where they live?

MR. PARSONS: I would certainly concur. I have had the benefit, since the appointment to this position, of doing a cross-Province tour - at least along the Trans-Canada Highway anyway - to determine what facilities that Justice are involved with, courtrooms being one of them. Now, in my twenty years of practice of course I had the benefit of being in a lot of the courtrooms, as you say, throughout this Province, many of them circuit courts: Burgeo, St. Anthony, Springdale and so on. Port aux Basques was actually converted, a few years ago, back to being a circuit court as well. Also in places like Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Clarenville.

We were recently in Labrador in regards to some issues, visited the Supreme Court, and saw the Provincial Court facilities in Goose Bay. Nain, of course, operates on a circuit court system with, basically, fly in justice, they call it I guess, where everybody - the prosecutors, the defense counsel, the judges and everybody - flies in. I would concur that with regards to circuit courts there ought to be appropriate places where the courts take place. It is difficult in some communities. For example, in Burgeo there is a circuit court that takes place down there, and if you get into a lengthy trial in Burgeo you have a problem, as you say, in terms of council rooms, where to store your equipment, where to do interviews with clients, because they rent facilities such as the community hall in Burgeo. They do that in a lot of circuit courts and quite frankly, albeit it is not the best, I can't see making major investments in infrastructure in places of circuit courts where you go there, in the case of Burgeo for example, once every three or four months.

There are alternatives in that case. If you are doing a four month trial you can certainly ask to have it moved to somewhere where it is more convenient for recording, storage and so on. I would also concur that there are some places in this Province that are simply atrocious. For example, the Clarenville Provincial Court is simply atrocious. I agree as well, in the case of Goose Bay, that there needs to be some major input of dollars to improve the infrastructure that these judges, these staff persons and lawyers work in, and that accused persons go to have their charges heard.

I visited the Clarenville one. I was quite shocked, to tell you the truth, with the state that it is in. We have requested, as a department, not in my time but many years ago actually, to have some capital expenditures. On the list of priorities Goose Bay is slated as number one and Clarenville is slated as number two. Like all departments of government that have buildings, we are into the situation that you get what you can for the dollars that you have, and so far they just don't have the dollars available to have seen these projects. It certainly is a concern and it certainly is a priority with us to see that it is improved.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will just say one more thing on that and then I will move on, Mr. Chairman.

To go up to the sixth floor of the Sir Richard Squires Building in Corner Brook and look at the Supreme Court facilities, and come down to the ground floor and look at the Provincial Court facilities and go in and spend days in there at a time, there is not even an interview room - well there is a storage room. You can get in there with the garbage cans and so on and interview a client. This is the year 2000 and we are delivering justice in that way. That is certainly not a circuit court. That is the Provincial Court building in Corner Brook.

I certainly appreciate the minister's view. I know there are a thousand priorities lapping at government's feet and justice is, perhaps, not at the top of the list all the time. From the perspective of the person who is involved in the judicial system, justice is very important and, for the lack of appropriate facilities, if it can't be delivered on a timely basis, when some of the other courts in the Province are not working near capacity - that is what gets my goat the most. The Provincial Court is the workhorse of the system and it doesn't appear to be that they are the priority of the system when it comes to financial support.

MR. PARSONS: Point taken.

MR. RIDEOUT: On the two police forces that we have in the Province, minister, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP, there were some significant cutbacks in - I suppose the right word is person power in these days - but in the number of people - vacancies left in the RNC for quite some time have gone unfilled. You hear complaints quite frequently from some RNC jurisdictions like Conception Bay South, in particular, Corner Brook and Labrador as well. Then there was, over the last few years, some significant cutback in the RCMP personnel in the Province as well. I wonder can the minister tell the Committee whether or not we have turned the corner as far as that goes and that funding at appropriate levels for police protection for the population is once again a priority with the government.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I guess in terms of total government priorities, health and education have been given the headline, shall we say, rankings in terms of where the priorities lie. From a justice perspective, yes, public protection and policing is obviously a major priority. During program review, no doubt, both the RNC and the RCMP experienced severe cutbacks. In the RCMP, for example, the highway patrol system was virtually decimated in terms of cutbacks.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not much better yet.

MR. PARSONS: Well, they went from thirty-nine, as I understand it, down to thirteen officers on highway patrol. Again, deemed to be a necessity in terms of saving some monies, that is where justice got struck with making the cuts. Fortunately we do have, as I understand it, some funding in there this year at least to begin the, shall we say, clawback or start to put back into the system. We hope to see three or four more persons headed back to the highway patrol system for the RCMP this year.

Also, as you are aware, there is an extra initiative in Northern Labrador with regards to some policing, in Makkovik, Postville and Rigolet and well as in Cartwright. In the RCMP we have certainly seen some. There is also some additional funding - I think it is approximately $1 million - that went to the RNC that will be used for a variety of things including a few staffing positions.

In the case of the RNC, you referred to CBS. Again, I guess, you look at your options and try to use the resources that you have. The RNC have just adopted this district policing model. As compared to having detachments in the various communities, they have adopted a district - the Northeast Avalon will be divided into four districts so that you get better use of the resources that you have. For example, you may have in Conception Bay South a problem with speeding incidents, in which case you direct the forces that have to that particular problem in conjunction with your advisory group in that community. Next week in another district arson may be an issue, in which case you have to redirect your resources.

Yes, we have a problem with the numbers but the district policing model will hopefully make better use of the numbers that we do have so that they are used more efficiently to address the problems that we do have.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

Under subhead 1.3.01., Fines Administration, the revenue for the Province is $700,000.

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me, 1.3.01.02.?

MR. COLLINS: Yes, subhead 1.3.01.02.

MR. PARSONS: Provincial revenue?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

Is that the source of fines collected, or things that have nothing to do with that?

MR. PARSONS: Justice administers the fine collection system in the Province - for example, for Memorial University or the City of St. John's and so on - and that is a fee that we charge to those bodies for administering their tickets. We incur the costs, but -

MR. COLLINS: Seven hundred thousand, I figure I own half of that.

MR. PARSONS: If you get a ticket in the City of St. John's, for example, the administration on the payment of the tickets and so on, and the mail-outs, are done through one coordinated group in Justice but we charge a portion back from those tickets.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

Subhead 2.1.02.12., Sheriff's Office, last year both revised and budgeted were $35,400 and this year it is $117,600. There is about an $85,000 difference there. I was just wondering -

MR. PARSONS: The difference in the revised in the salary column there?

MR. COLLINS: No, the revised and budget last year were the same but this year the estimate is $117,600 up from $35,400.

MR. PARSONS: Under the Information Technology?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: That is the additional funding that is being provided for remote electronic registration and enquiries to the new judgment enforcement system.

MR. COLLINS: It is technological.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. There is a new judgment enforcement act, and what it will allow is that people in remote locations who have law firms, for example, or people who wish to use the judgment enforcement system, can do it by using the technology rather than by mail. It is electronic.

MR. COLLINS: Subhead 2.3.01., Legal Aid and Related Services, I would just like to ask the question: What is the demand for legal aid in relation to what is provided? Is there a much greater demand than can be met by the lawyers who are providing the legal aid services?

MR. PARSONS: I guess it is a question of how you interpret the demand, because there are a lot of people who make a request for legal aid services but there is a criteria that they have to meet in order to get legal aid representation. Yes, there are a lot of requests that do not -

MR. COLLINS: What I am concerned about is people who meet the criteria to apply for legal aid. Is there much of a demand over and above what can be provided with the services?

MR. McCARTHY: As the minister pointed out, if an applicant meets the financial eligibility criteria, it is a question then of the nature of the matter. Obviously, for example, some of what we consider very minor matters, maintenance matters for example, that are factually based as opposed to involving legal issues, legal aid does not send a lawyer. We don't have the resources to do it, but in most cases there is no need for a lawyer in any event.

In one sense there is a greater demand, even amongst those people who are financially eligible for legal aid, but then there is the type of work or the legal issues involved that will determine whether or not legal aid will send a lawyer. Obviously a serious criminal charge, for example, will be defended. Some minor criminal charges that will not result in incarceration, legal aid does not send lawyers in those cases, for example, in the main; but, by and large, we are meeting all the demands for significant legal problems.

WITNESS: I cannot think of anyone, or I am not aware of anyone, who was qualified under the criteria - requested legal aid and qualified - and did not get representation.

WITNESS: Could I just interrupt, Randy, if you don't mind? What is the criteria to qualify for legal aid? What is the benchmark on employment - or income, I should say?

MR. McCARTHY: There is no absolute salary level for the income. There are words, if you like, or criteria, set in the act talking about an ability to provide yourself with legal representation without having to incur extraordinary costs, that sort of thing. I don't have the exact wording here; but, for argument sake, obviously if somebody is on social assistance and charged with a criminal offense they will receive legal assistance from legal aid.

Some of the so-called working poor, somebody may have a job and may have a serious legal issue - let's say criminal charge - and may have to support three or four children and a mortgage, and may not be able to afford a private lawyer. Somebody like that as well may qualify for legal aid. We don't arbitrarily set a ceiling in salary because that would be unfair. That would (inaudible) a lot of hardship. The situation is addressed in each individual case.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

Public Protection, page 227, subhead 4.1.01., I would just like to ask a question. In Labrador West - and I have not been current on it in the last little while - I know for most of last year the Labrador West branch was short one sergeant. I will just explain what happened in order to show you why.

With the RCMP, if an RCMP officer is transferred, applies for a transfer and is transferred, they put their house on the market and if it is not sold at fair market value - I think in a period of three months - their house is purchased by the government and they go on their merry way. With the RNC, if someone is needed in Labrador, for example, and they are living in Manuels or the Goulds, and they want to go there, and they put their house on the market, if it is not sold then nothing happens. That prevents, sometimes - I know in one case for sure it has prevented a position in Labrador West from being filled because the person could not go unless their house was sold here first. I guess my question is: Why is there a difference between the RCMP in the way they are treated and the RNC in the way they are treated under similar circumstances when we are paying both?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't think that you are correct in terms of the RCMP policy for housing. There have been a number of RCMP policies over the last five years for housing. The one that currently is in place provides for some support for officers when they are relocated. We have been looking at a similar program for RNC officers who are transferred, and basically the program works on the basis of the loss that would be incurred by a police officer on the sale of their house. Some of that loss is paid for by the employer, whether it be the - well, in the case of the RCMP, of course the RCMP, and it would be by Justice in our particular case. We have researched the policies in place for the RCMP as well as the OPP in Ontario and have been crafting a similar policy for implementation for the RNC.

MR. COLLINS: When you say it is paid for by the employer, the RCMP, wouldn't the RCMP's money come from the Department of Justice?

MR. ALCOCK: It does come from Justice but the RCMP has a contractual relationship with Justice. We pay a lump sum for services rendered on a yearly basis.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, but I still think it is fair to say that whether it is 100 per cent of what I described or whether it is 60 per cent of what I described, there are still differences in the way both forces are treated under identical circumstances.

MR. ALCOCK: I am not sure, quite frankly, whether or not that particular policy applies to the 70-30 cost split. We would have to check that out. George White is here. George, do you know if that is a part of the cost?

MR. WHITE: Yes, it would be part of it. (Inaudible) pay 70 per cent.

MR. COLLINS: I guess the second part of that question is: Is the Labrador West branch still short a staff person, staff sergeant?

MR. ALCOCK: Again, I cannot answer that. I can get the answer for you. There are basically nineteen positions in Labrador West. I think you will find that in terms of the police to population ratio that is a very attractive police to population ratio in Labrador West, particularly if you look at the level of crime in that location. The number of police officers that are actually providing the service is very good in terms of a policing service and our ability to provide police officers throughout the Province, or in fact anywhere in the country for that matter, in terms of the population and the number of police officers.

MR. COLLINS: What I am saying is that their requirement and their staffing levels call for two senior officers - if you want to put it that way - for a whole lot of administrative reasons I would imagine, outside of policing.

MR. ALCOCK: There is one management position in Labrador West. The sergeant, while it is a relatively senior position, is a unionized position. From time to time in any location, I guess, we do have vacancies that we carry. The RCMP are in a similar circumstance. They have vacancies as well that they carry. I think you will find in any large detachment - Corner Brook or St. John's - that there are, from time to time, vacancies.

MR. COLLINS: 4.2.03.19, Youth Corrections Facilities, Voted in Other Departments: Development of New Facilities, page 229. That is the new facility that is being built here.

MR. PARSONS: That is correct.

MR. COLLINS: I am just wondering if we could get a breakdown of the $3,245,000? Is that solely for the purpose of -

MR. PARSONS: That is for the access, the design, the construction of the facility.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, because I noticed before that the budget for that was $1,800,000 and the revised was $700,000.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, the work that was allotted for that particular year, 1999-2000, it was anticipated that we would go $1,800,000, but what happened was that there were various delays - as I guess anybody is aware - last summer about the location of the building. Because of those delays the amount of work we had anticipated getting done did not get done. Hence the reason why the expenditures were less.

MR. COLLINS: So full guns ablaze this year? Okay.

CHAIR: Would anybody on this side like to ask a question?

MR. WALSH: No, Mr. Chairman, we are going to follow through as we have done in past days. We are going to allow our colleagues to ask as many questions as they like. There might be the odd time we might want to, because of a subject they brought up, but in fairness it gives them an opportunity to receive all the answers that they would like to have.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS S. OSBORNE: 4.2.01, Adult Corrections. When you were going across the Province, minister, did you drop in on the women's facility in Clarenville?

MR. PARSONS: I did.

MS S. OSBORNE: Has the expansion begun?

MR. PARSONS: Yes. It was completed, I believe, except for one final door that they were putting in from the old to the new.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are there still the same amount of cells? Was that just an expansion on the recreation facility?

MR. PARSONS: Also the educational facility.

MS S. OSBORNE: There are still the same amount of cells out there, are there?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: How many women are housed there? What is the maximum and for how long a period would it be full?

MR. ALCOCK: The facility was originally constructed as a male facility. It provided for twenty-six residents. When it was converted to a female facility it was reduced down for various reasons to twenty-two residents, so twenty-two is the maximum capacity. The maximum number of residents that has ever been there, I believe, is fifteen. On average it is in the range of six to ten residents at any given time.

MS S. OSBORNE: How many cells are there, Mr. Alcock? I was there but I can't remember, I really can't. I think there are seven or eight.

MR. ALCOCK: No, my guess is that they are probably in the eighteen to twenty range. I am not 100 per cent sure on the number of cells. Let me put it this way: there are more cells than we have ever had residents, female residents.

MS S. OSBORNE: When I was there I spoke to some of the females who were there and their concern to me was mostly centered on privacy. I saw one cell off the cafeteria - the eating area - and I don't remember how many are going down on each side. Is that all the cells that are there, or are there more?

MR. ALCOCK: No, that is correct. I think the one you are referring to off the eating area was actually a segregation cell. It is not used for that purpose any more but what you are referring to as the block is, in fact, where all of the cells are.

MS S. OSBORNE: There are not eighteen cells there. I thought there were something like ten or eleven. They gave me a figure and I honestly don't remember it, but when it goes to - I think it could accommodate ten or eleven, and when it went more than that there were two in a cell. While I subscribe to the fact that folks should be incarcerated when they commit a crime, I think incarceration is the penalty, not humiliation, I suppose. The women did express to me a lot of concern around bathroom facilities and things. I don't know if you noticed that the cell doors don't close, only from the inside or with a key, so if the women need to go to the bathroom - there are male guards there, too - and if there is not another female around to keep the door closed, then there you are. I saw that physically myself. I just wondered in the expansion if something was done to provide for more privacy for them.

MR. ALCOCK: The only requirement that has been identified for expansion has been in the programming area. There has been 500 or 600 square feet of programming area provided. It has never been identified to us that there has been a problem with the number of cells. Quite honestly, I can't tell you as to exactly how many cells there are there. I can get that information for you.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. ALCOCK: In addition, there is a gender staffing ratio so we always have female employees on staff in the institution to deal with privacy issues that may arise for the residents. Quite often, in the staffing ratio actually, there are two females who are on staff at any given time. As a matter of fact, when the minister and I were there, on that particular day there were two females.

MS S. OSBORNE: What I experienced when I went in - you know the main area where the cells are - they brought me in there, and then there was a female sort of down in the middle of where the cells are, and one of the male employees was about to walk down. Basically what she said was: Somebody is on the potty. If she wasn't there, then what would happen to somebody who was on the potty? I saw that and I suppose, being a female, I had a lot of empathy for that particular person. They did speak to me about it and I think it was also addressed in the report from the Elizabeth Fry Society. I remember speaking with Mr. McNutt about it. I have brought it up on a couple of occasions and I just wondered, in the expansion, if it was addressed.

MR. ALCOCK: Again, no, it hasn't, not the cell space.

MS S. OSBORNE: The privacy space, basically. I don't know what to do to fix it but I think it is something that probably should be looked at again to be fixed.

MS SPRACKLIN: Ms Osborne, I have had some discussion with the staff out there on this issue. Staff are very carefully trained to announce their presence on the block to the residents and seek permission before proceeding down the block, in particular male attendants, so that they would not go parading down through the block without announcing their presence and making sure that there is nobody in a compromising position.

Our difficulty with providing for privacy in these institutions is that, regrettably, we also have to concern ourselves with inmate safety. We have a lot of people who are intent upon self-destruction, unfortunately, so it is very difficult to balance. We are doing a very difficult balancing act between doing what you would like to do to protect privacy and also putting ourselves in a position where we can ensure that inmates are not in a position to harm themselves. We are very conscious of it and I think they are very conscious of it in their procedures.

MR. PARSONS: If I might just comment as well, when I toured that particular facility I made a point of speaking not only with the management and the correctional officers but with the staff as well, and that wasn't raised as an issue at that time certainly. I seem to recall however that you mentioned on the potty. I think every cell there has a decal that you can hang.

MS S. OSBORNE: One of those little tags on the door.

MR. PARSONS: If you are going to be on the potty you hang it out so that anybody who is on the block, they do not have to come to your cell because they can see before they even get there, through the small window, that you have your sign up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, but also the door won't pull right to. They don't close right to. They are ajar like this, and when you push them they come open about this much. You can't close the door in the cell unless one of the staff physically locks it. It won't close and snap to without being locked like an ordinary door.

MR. PARSONS: I see what you mean.

MS S. OSBORNE: It stays open a bit like that. The inmates there did express to me a concern about that and because they were so concerned - I think one of the inmates out there did it with needlepoint or something - they have those little tags that they hang on the doors. It is a problem and they demonstrated that their only way of addressing the problem was to make the little decals.

I can't imagine going into a bathroom where the door didn't close. The doors are always open like this and the toilets are right inside the door and on an angle. I thought the rest of the facility was fine. They did need some expansion for recreational facilities and stuff. I didn't have a problem with the structure and things, but that was one of the things that has profoundly remained with me, the fact that they don't have privacy because the doors the doors won't close, only if one of the guards are there to close it. They stay ajar.

CHAIR: I guess we could probably say that is a point well taken.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, beaten to death now.

CHAIR: Minister, you may want to have some of your officials check into it and see just what the procedure is.

MR. PARSONS: Again, the privacy and the protection issue has to be balanced.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, but I don't know that their protection will be compromised if the door could close.

MR. PARSONS: Point taken.

MS S. OSBORNE: Just close the door, not lock, just close rather than be in there and have the door open so much.

I will move on to another heading, 4.2.02, and that is the Youth Corrections. I know the minister hasn't been there very long, but how many of the recommendations in the Linda Inkpen report have been acted upon?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't have the numbers precisely. I can tell you my recollection is that there were fifty-two recommendations, I believe, from the Inkpen report. My recollection is that all but probably in the order of five or six have either been completed or are in the process of being completed. It is a small number compared to the fifty-two recommendations that were made in the report.

MS S. OSBORNE: Would it be possible - not now, but some time in the near future - to get a copy of what has been done, what has been acted upon?

MR. ALCOCK: Sure.

MS S. OSBORNE: That would be fine.

I would like to go back to Police Protection, 4.1.01. I have been told a couple of times that, on any given evening, between Cape St. Francis and Seal Cove there are seven RNC officers on patrol. It doesn't seem to be a lot.

WITNESS: From where to where?

MS S. OSBORNE: From Cape St. Francis to Seal Cove or Kelligrews, out in that area, there are seven officers. Can anybody confirm or...?

MR. PARSONS: Certainly the number of police in any particular area would be an operational decision that would rest with the chief and his staff. We certainly wouldn't dictate to the RNC or the RCMP how they deploy their resources.

MS S. OSBORNE: I think it is because of a lack of manpower available to put out there. That was the impression that I was given, and that doesn't seem to be a lot of people. As a matter of fact, what triggered that in my head was that this morning there was a presentation from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It also triggered another recollection that I had at being over at the Health Sciences Centre when the police were arriving with a person who had just been killed as a result of an alcohol related, drunk driving accident. I knew the policeman and I just said: Oh, my, that is terrible. He said: Yes, it is drunk driving related. Unfortunately, we don't have enough people to patrol. He said the statistics that show how many people are picked up with drunk driving does not reflect the amount of drunk drivers that are on the road; it is just that more people are not being caught because the resources and the police are not out there to catch them. What we are seeing on paper is how many people have been apprehended; it does not reflect the number out there driving around. This is what I have been told consistently.

MR. ALCOCK: The answer to the first part of your comments, Ms Osborne, is that there are approximately twenty-eight or twenty-nine - I can't tell you the exact number, I don't recall it - police officers who are a part of what we call the patrol division that would be in the Northeast Avalon area at any given time. In addition to those officers, of course, there may be other officers working that may, for example, be a part of identification services, the dog team, the CID, or whatever the case may be.

It is fair to say that of those twenty-eight or twenty-nine individuals at any given time as well there may be someone off sick who is not replaced, or there may be some other reason why that number may be down somewhat.

MS S. OSBORNE: There are twenty-nine on each shift, in each of the three shifts, two shifts, or whatever they do?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes. Of course, during the day you will appreciate that when the majority of the force are working there is quite a large number, much in excess of that particular number. That is the patrol division, I guess, what I am referring to, the people out in the cars (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. ALCOCK: I guess the only comment I would make in terms of your second point is one of agenda. Oftentimes the representation that is made to individuals, particularly to politicians, may fall within the agenda of the Police Association. Of course, part of the agenda of the association is to - bluntly put - recruit more members and pay more dues.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

WITNESS: I can safely say I have not had that representation made to me.

WITNESS: His or hers?

WITNESS: The Police Association.

WITNESS: I thought that is what you meant.

MS S. OSBORNE: Just as a matter of interest, what population of the Province, what percentage of the population, is served by RNC and what percentage is served by the RCMP? This is just a matter of interest.

MR. PARSONS: The vast majority is the RNC, of course, given that the majority of the population is on the Northeast Avalon; plus, you have Corner Brook and you have Labrador West so the more populous centres would be serviced by the RNC.

MR. ALCOCK: Just to clarify and add to that, it is the more populous areas. I guess the three areas that the RNC serve are the Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook and Labrador West. In terms of actual numbers, approximately one-third of the actual people population is policed by the RNC and approximately two-thirds of the people population is policed by the RCMP.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

I have one other question, and it is back to Provincial Court, 3.2.01., that my colleague referred to as the workhorse. Can you tell me the approximate time it would be from the time the person, an accused, goes before a preliminary hearing, before the transcript of the preliminary hearing is received?

MR. PARSONS: It depends on the particular transcript, number one. You mean, if he has had his preliminary and he has gone on to the Supreme Court?

MS S. OSBORNE: Between the time that he appears for the preliminary hearing, not from the time he is brought in and then put over for the preliminary hearing, but from the time of the preliminary hearing until the typed transcript is received so that person can proceed to trial.

MR. PARSONS: First of all, once the preliminary is conducted, as I understand it, it depends on the length of the preliminary. If you have been involved in a preliminary that only took two days, obviously it is a far shorter time to prepare that transcript then it would be if the preliminary took two months.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, say a preliminary hearing that took three days, just as an example?

MR. PARSONS: I did have a stat sheet on that. A couple of months ago one of the Justices in the Court of Appeal had made a comment about preparation of transcripts. I guess generally the best thing to say is that it is very timely. In the case of criminal, for example, anybody who is awaiting a transcript, whether it be not necessarily a preliminary hearing but any kind of transcript from a trial, if anybody is going to be - if their liberty is at risk as a result of waiting for it, they certainly get priority.

MS S. OSBORNE: So it has been speeded up. A person who I knew went before the preliminary - his preliminary hearing was in December and his court date was in May. His court date had to be postponed because the preliminary transcript was not typed. Has that been speeded up any? This was probably seven or eight years ago.

MR. PARSONS: Was it a criminal or a civil matter?

MS S. OSBORNE: Criminal.

MR. GORMAN: I don't know the facts, obviously, of that particular case but I can tell you just in a general sense that over the last few years we have found a real improvement in getting our indictments filed in terms of getting transcripts from the preliminary inquiries. I don't know what happened in that case but it does not appear to be a major problem these days.

MS S. OSBORNE: This particular person told me that from the time he was arrested until he was exonerated by the Court of Appeal was twenty months. That is a long time for somebody to be held up.

MR. GORMAN: That is a long time. That could easily occur. For instance, if it goes to the Court of Appeal, once the appeal is argued we have absolutely no control over how long it takes the court to render its judgment.

MS S. OSBORNE: The court process was pretty untimely, from December for the preliminary, and when the court date was set in May the transcript was not ready so it had to be postponed. It was ready in the fall. That is a long time. Like I said, that is seven or eight years ago but it is a long time. I just wondered if it had been speeded up. Nobody has spoken to me about that since but I just wondered, for my own information, had that been speeded up.

MR. GORMAN: Generally speaking there is not a big problem with the preliminary inquiry transcripts.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions for the minister now and we are pretty well finished, I guess.

On the issue of legal aid, is the private Bar involved at all in legal aid now?

MR. McCARTHY: Most of the work is done by staff lawyers at legal aid. There is the odd time when a (inaudible) is sent out to an outside lawyer for unique reasons, but obviously for cost purposes it is much cheaper to have staff lawyers than to assign these cases out to private practitioners.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do I understand that we send legal aid people now, say, from Corner Brook to the various circuit courts and so on? Is that the way it works?

MR. McCARTHY: I am not sure if I understand your question.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do I understand that, say, whenever a court goes on circuit - Baie Verte is the area I know best; it does not happen in my district because they go up to Grand Falls or Gander - if the court goes on circuit from Corner Brook to Baie Verte, is there always a legal aid person to travel with the court?

MR. McCARTHY: I don't know if it is always, Mr. Rideout. I know if there are criminal charges, like first appearances, there is usually a duty counsel to assist. Certainly if individuals have been charged in advance of the circuit court they apply for legal aid and they are assessed individually. There will be lawyers present for those particular people.

MR. RIDEOUT: I found your answer interesting in terms of criteria and how you assess it. Is there a cutoff limit for family income at which point legal aid won't consider helping a person at all?

MR. McCARTHY: I don't think so, minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is wide open?

MR. McCARTHY: I could check that for you. Certainly, when I looked at it last there was no income ceiling. If I may be a bit simplistic here - I touched on this earlier - you may, for example, have a young man charged with a criminal offense who is maybe working part-time and making $12,000 a year. That doesn't sound like much, but if he is living at home with mom and dad with no expenses he may not get legal aid or he may be required to contribute to his legal aid expenses.

On the other hand, for example, I know of a situation where a woman required legal assistance quite significantly. Her salary was maybe $25,000 to $30,000, she had four children at home, and a mortgage, and the ex-husband was paying nothing. She did qualify for legal aid. She did have to contribute to the cost over a long-term, but to my knowledge there is no absolute salary ceiling on legal aid. I could certainly check the regulations to see if there has been any changes lately but it hasn't come to my attention.

MR. RIDEOUT: I appreciate that and your commitment to check it. I worked with a legal aid clinic in Ottawa when I was going to law school, and I can tell you that there was a limit on what Ontario legal aid would consider as family income. That was in the days before the dirty Tories got in office too in Ontario. I don't know what the situation is in Newfoundland.

One final question for the minister, and that is about the federal gun control legislation. We asked your colleague the other night when we were doing the Resource Estimates, the Minister of Forestry and Agrifoods, about the yellow envelope, I believe it was, that appeared in the moose license applications that went out across the Province a few months ago.

WITNESS: That is why they were delayed.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is why they were delayed. Your colleague told us at the time that he has had so much reaction to it that if he had his time back again he wouldn't have sent the yellow envelopes out with the moose license applications.

I guess my question is: Where is the Province on the federal gun control legislation? Did we take intervener status at the court case that is still pending, have we kept quiet and done nothing, or have we been vocal in the support of the federal gun control legislation?

MR. PARSONS: I am certainly not aware - maybe my Deputy is - not since I have been here if there has been any actions in that regard.

MS SPRACKLIN: The regime is administered by the federal government in Newfoundland. I think it is safe to say that the Government of Newfoundland (inaudible) or the department was supportive of any measures which would enable police to deal more effectively with the illegal acquisition of guns. You can have all sorts of arguments about whether this particular scheme is good or bad, I guess, but I think in general government or the Department of Justice supported the desire of the federal government to restrict access to guns. We don't in principle have any difficulty, I don't think, with the principle of registration of firearms. We have not been involved in the particulars of this particular regime. It is administered by the federal government here.

MR. RIDEOUT: Minister, maybe you would know the answer to this. I have heard that there are fifty - that is the number I heard - active RCMP officers taken out of active duty and put in the firearms registration centre in New Brunswick. If there are fifty active officers doing that, then that has to have negative implications on policing, property protection and so on. I would assume it has negative implications for Newfoundland as a contractual partner with the federal government on police services, as it would have for any other province in Canada. I heard that in an interview as late as this morning. Is there anything to that or is it just a bunch of foolishness?

MR. PARSONS: As I understand it, we have a contractual arrangement based on the money that we can afford to pay. If we have enough money to buy 100 officers in our contract, based on our 70-30 split between the Province and the feds, if that is what we bought that is what we get. We don't contract for, say, 100 officers based on the contract and then they turn around and take ten to put on gun control. If they do then that is something that they decide to do as a federal government responsible for the RCMP -

MR. RIDEOUT: Out of their complement.

MR. PARSONS: - but it would have nothing to do with our contract.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is all I have.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. SMITH: If I could get in to interject here, Mr. Chairman, that it is interesting (inaudible).

They won't have any problem paying for it. I went through the process myself before Christmas. Just to license a shotgun and a rifle it is $50 just for the licensing. Right now there is quite a debate brewing, and we have been a little late off the mark here in Newfoundland, but in my district now I am hearing every day from people who are really upset about the whole process. Having gone through it personally, now that I have gone through the process I have to say I have some difficulty with it as well. To me it is intrusive. Particularly I had great difficulty with the fact that I had to provide, in addition to the $50 fee, a head and shoulders photo, a passport photo, that now somebody has on file somewhere in New Brunswick.

Now it is not bad enough they have my social insurance number; I can't go anywhere but now there is a picture floating around somewhere. They not only know my number but now they know what I look like. I think that is the debate that is out there. A lot of people are very upset and they have no difficulty with - the thing that I have (inaudible) had some difficulty with, for the life of me I don't understand how the federal government knowing that I own a shotgun and a rifle and have it in my residence in Lourdes is going to do one damn thing in terms of reducing crime and everything else in this country. I really have great difficulty.

MR. PARSONS: Now we have two, because we also have you on your driver's license.

MR. COLLINS: A driver's license photo, hardly anybody is going to recognize you from that one.

WITNESS: Good point, Randy.

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of things, one on the gun control. Most people are saying - and really I think it is true - it is just another tax grab that Ottawa has imposed upon people. I agree with Gerry, it is not going to do a thing for crime control, but it is putting people through a heck of a lot of bureaucratic paperwork and at substantial cost. I have been asked about this a number of times. I think there are six provinces that are fighting the federal government on this issue in court, that have signed on. I would have thought that given the ruralness of this Province and the lack of a lot of big urban areas that our Province, for sure the people of this Province, would state quite clearly that they are against that in any form. Not that they are against crime prevention, automatic weapons or handguns, but certainly when it comes to hunting rifles and shotguns most people do that as a basic right of living in this Province and certainly will oppose any restrictions to it.

However I would like to go back, and I would like to say first that I don't necessarily agree with a comment that Mr. Alcock made when I talked about policing to a question that was asked by Sheila, that if you hear from the police there are not enough officers that they are just interested in increasing their numbers and increasing their dues. I don't believe that for a minute. I think the police officers of this Province take very seriously their job of public protection and they are the ones that are on the road. They are the front-line workers in that and they know better than anyone else, I would suggest, whether or not there are enough people to do what is required of them. I don't think it is a fair statement to say, when you hear things like this from a police officer, that they are interested in increasing their numbers and increasing their dues. I take exception to that.

Going back to the policy -

MR. WALSH: If I could, just for a moment. I understand you wanting to take exception to it, but from where I am sitting I have difficulty when I hear a spokesman for the police officers on an open line show in the morning making reference to the fact that they may decide which laws they are going to enforce over the coming weeks, that they might not give speeding tickets or they might not do something else.

MR. COLLINS: That is a different issue altogether. That is not what I am raising.

MR. WALSH: The exception that can be made, though, is that exceptions could be made on both sides and -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I think we are getting a bit into the philosophical part of the agenda here.

MR. COLLINS: My basic question is this, on the policy. When I asked the question earlier about the relocation assistance to officers of the RNC versus the RCMP, you said your policy is being worked on or drafted, as I understood it. There is the policy being worked on? If so, I will just ask the question: When can we expect that to be brought forward?

MR. ALCOCK: I would anticipate that the implementation of the policy would probably be within the next number of months. The policy is pretty much drafted. We are going through, I suppose, the final fine tuning of the policy at this particular point in time. We are getting some input from a couple of other sources and I would anticipate that that policy would be in place in the next several months.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much.

MS S. OSBORNE: I just have one more question. (Inaudible). It is on legal aid.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I am going to double it up so that I will get away with just one. How many lawyers are employed at legal aid and how many people, on an average, will be served, say, for a year? That is all.

MR. McCARTHY: I am not sure I can answer that myself. I think they have approximately fifty staff lawyers throughout the Province. I couldn't tell you how many people are served per year, not without checking.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Does that conclude discussion?

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move 1.1.01 through 4.2.03, but before I make the actual move I wonder if the minister could add some credibility to the rumor that you may be looking at building a new facility on Bell Island.

CHAIR: I want (inaudible) for Harbour Grace actually.

WITNESS: That is federal, (inaudible).

CHAIR: I would still ask.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.03 carried.

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

CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister and his officials for coming today and being frank and pleasant with us.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I express my thanks on behalf of myself and my officials. This was certainly a learning experience and it is nice to be able to have an opportunity to justify, I guess, and hopefully next year I will be more informed than I was this year in terms of some of the details.

The Committee adjourned.