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

CHAIR (Ms Kelly): Order, please!

(Inaudible) start right in on this last Estimates Committee for the year. I would just like to welcome everybody here this morning. We will start by introducing the members of the Committee. Then we will move right on to the minister and the introduction of your officials, and then to your opening remarks.

My name is Sandra Kelly and I am the Chair of this Committee.

Mr. Vice-Chair, if you would like to start your introduction, please.

MR. MANNING: Fabian Manning, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. HEDDERSON: Tom Hedderson, MHA for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Kevin Aylward, MHA for St. George's-Stephenville East.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for the District of Port de Grave.

CHAIR: And to you, Mr. Minister.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. Good Morning, Madam Chair.

First of all I would like to introduce the officials with me this morning. My name is Kelvin Parsons, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. On my immediate left is John Cummings, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General. On my immediate right is Ralph Alcock. Ralph is the ADM, Public Protection and Support Services. On Ralph's right is Chris Curran, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Civil. Back here on my far right is Calvin Lake, the ADM Senior Legislative Counsel. Next here, over my right shoulder, is Tom Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions. Next we have Theresa Heffernan. Theresa is the Manager of Financial Operations. Over my left shoulder is Mr. Don Burrage, the Director of Civil Litigation. So, that is the crew. I did not realize we were the last department to be reporting to you but it is, indeed, a pleasure to be here.

The only opening remarks I would make vis-à-vis the general commentary that might apply to a lot of the categories in these Estimates for the Department of Justice would be with respect to the vast majority of differences you see here between what was budgeted and what ultimately became the revised figures. Much of it had to do with the 5 per cent figures regarding salary and operations. I understand in most departments there was supposed to be a 5 per cent reduction in salaries and an 8 per cent reduction in operations, whereas in the Department of Justice it was five and five. I would point out that most of the differences you see were simply because the Department of Justice could not reach the 5 per cent reduction target that had been set, and the reason for that is quite obvious for anyone who works within the justice system. I believe the other department that did not have the 8 per cent target on operation was also Works, Services and Transportation.

In Justice, for example, you have many places where you cannot cut your salaries because the services are essential. For example, Crown attorneys, you cannot lessen your Crown attorney salary bill. If you need ten Crown attorneys throughout the Province, you need ten. It is the same with corrections officers. For example, if you have a number of youth or adults who are incarcerated you have to provide the corrections officers. Regardless of how well intentioned your targets might be, you are dictated by the caseload as opposed to what you would like to have. Of course safety and security become issues in those cases and there are certain legal mandatory requirements below which you cannot go.

Policing is another example. You might wish you could save 5 per cent on your salary for policing, but as much as you might wish, sometimes it is all for naught because you just cannot get there because safety and security issues are a concern. As are sheriffs, for example.

Probably the best example would be Provincial Court Judges. You can be mandated to have a 5 per cent salary reduction in Provincial Court Judges but the fact is, by law, we have twenty-four of them. Regardless if they have five cases a day or 500 cases a day, those judges get paid their salaries by law and you simply cannot waiver their salaries.

So those would be my only opening comments. It keeps cropping up here. Mostly in the salary headings you will see these discrepancies. So I thought it is better to give the general overview of why that would have occurred in the first instance. Any questions you might have, we would be pleased to answer and provide any information we can.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you.

We will move right to the first subheading.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a few opening questions, Mr. Minister, on policing. Over the past number of years there has been some concern with the amount of policing. We have heard concerns raised by the Town of CBS, as an example. Others have raised the concern - well that is the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Others have raised the concern of the RCMP, or the lack thereof, on our highways

and highway patrol. I was just wondering if you could give us some elaboration on exactly where it stands today? Are there any improvements being contemplated by the department in relation to providing more policing in these respective areas?

MR. PARSONS: We have two police forces in the Province, as you know, the RNC and the RCMP. The RNC do Corner Brook, Labrador West, and the Northeast Avalon, with the RCMP during the balance. We had, as of last year, about - in terms of staff at least - 304, 305 RNC officers in the Province and we had about 415 RCMP in the Province.

In addition to the 415 that we have contracted with the RCMP, of course, the National RCMP have other federal officers of the RCMP that are in the Province that do not come under our contract with them. Yes, there has been a lot of strain. In particular, the capital city region when it comes to additional police officers being requested. The RNCA were quite vocal in their concerns as well and did several public forums throughout the Province. We realize and we would like to have more police officers than we have and I think we have made some major strives this year towards that goal.

For example, there has been additional funding put into this budget to have fifteen new permanent RNC positions. So that will go a long ways. We used to have about 360-370 in the Province back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and that has declined. We are hoping to get back, eventually, to where we need to be because we also have in the Northeast Avalon, besides the reduction in the numbers that we have had in the past ten years, we are getting an increase in population in the Northeast Avalon. So it would make sense to have to put more bodies back in. That is the goal. This year we have made the first major, positive step by getting these fifteen new permanent officers back in the system.

In addition to that, we also have a commitment that we will fill vacancies. What happened before was not the case of laying off any RNC workers but what happened, because of budgetary restraint, was you did not fill vacancies. It came from about 360-370 over the course of ten to twelve years down to the current 304-305 because vacancies were not filled. We have changed that policy. As vacancies occur now we will be refilling vacancies, plus we will put back in the additional fifteen. That will go a long ways towards, hopefully, starting on a road to recovery with the number of staff that we need.

MR. MANNING: These fifteen new permanent positions, some of these were already in the system? Would that be right?

MR. PARSONS: Some of the bodies may well stay in that fifteen. What we had last year was - because of the need again, we made an urgent plea to have some additional bodies for the summer months. We had a situation where - if you are understaffed of course, you run into problems when it comes to people who want annual leave. There were cases of stress and people were taking sick leave. So we needed the extra bodies, particularly last summer.

When the end of the summer came we made an additional plea to keep these people on. These were temporary positions and we had gotten additional funding. In fact, one of the special warrants, for example, came about as a result of needing additional funding to keep them on. We knew where we wanted to go, but until the budgetary process played out, we did not know if we were going to get there or not. So we kept those nine on last summer. We extended them into January 1. Then we got an extension to take them into March 31, because we knew where we were headed and wanted to get fifteen new bodies.

The budget, of course, does provide for the fifteen new bodies. Of those fifteen, we anticipate that the nine who were there previously as temporaries will indeed apply. If they are successful and pass all the necessary grades, which we would assume they will since they have already been officers, they will become nine of those fifteen. Now we are not just advertising for the fifteen. There may well, in fact, be more than fifteen because there are some vacancies left. So we expect the nine that were there as temporaries will become permanents. The other six, up to our fifteen permanents that we are going to have, will be hired, plus any vacancies that exist there since that policy started. So we are looking at probably eighteen coming in the system in a very short order.

MR. MANNING: Another topic which I deal with several times during the year - legal aid. Sometimes there seems to be some discrepancies in who can avail of it and who cannot. Can you give us some explanation, or some clarification may be a better word, on the legal aid process, for the record, in regard to anybody who requires - I know why a person would attempt to obtain legal aid, but in relation to the financial side of it.

MR. PARSONS: Right now, the legal aid system is basically used in Newfoundland. It is a criminal based system. If somebody is charged with a criminal offence, you go and get legal aid depending upon a financial needs test. They have a formula that they use, based upon your income and your expenses. If you meet a certain range, you do or do not qualify under the Legal Aid Commission.

That is not government who decides the criteria, for example, and administers the criteria. That is done by the Legal Aid Commission. They have their own chair and their own body made up of people from around the Province. They have legal representatives on it, lawyers. The chair, I believe, right now, is actually Nick Avis, and they have a number of people from around the Province, so many lawyers and so many lay persons.

If a person is dissatisfied with a decision that is made, there are appeal mechanisms in place where you can appeal your decision to see if you can indeed get legal aid. It is principally for criminal type situations, but we do have some legal aid lawyers for some family type situations in some cases. If there has been one party, for example, who comes in with a lawyer, there have been cases where legal aid have agreed to appoint a lawyer for civil purposes - but, again, based upon need as being the means test. That is how it operates, principally for criminal.

The problem again with legal aid is the money. We have had a case over the last number of years - I have mentioned this in all of the Estimates Committees I have attended in Justice - we have a downsizing or a down contribution by the federal government as to what they put into legal aid. Their contributions have declined drastically. I think they have gone from somewhere like $3 million a year contribution down to about $1.6 million a year.

WITNESS: From 90 per cent to 39 per cent.

MR. PARSONS: From 90 per cent contribution by the feds to 39 per cent contribution. What happens, of course, is we, as a Province, have to make up the difference. That is why it straps us, because the feds, like many things, have downloaded - they make the laws. The federal government makes the criminal law. We, as a Province, administer it, and you would think that they would do their share when it comes to putting their money in the pot, but they have backed out to the tune of, from 90 per cent to 39 per cent. We are left picking up the slack here.

MR. MANNING: So, in regard to civil action, legal aid not necessarily can be obtained for that?

MR. PARSONS: No, if you have a civil problem with your neighbour, for example, over something, that is a matter between your and your neighbour. That is a civil matter and you would not qualify for legal aid on it.

MR. MANNING: Okay, most of the legal aid funding - well, not most of it - pretty well all of it, is spent on criminal -

MR. PARSONS: Criminal, unless there is some family law initiatives where a child might be involved or there may be a custody access issue or a violence issue, in which case legal aid would step in and help out.

MR. MANNING: The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner falls under your department also. Have there been any, I guess, questions raised to you in regard to - again, it is like everything else, it is at different times of the year - not being enough staff there, things being delayed because of not having enough staff to deal with that?

MR. PARSONS: No, not that we are aware of. Doctor Simon Avis is the Province's Chief Medical Examiner. We have certainly had no indication that there has been insufficient staff of any kind or of anything. In fact, the only compliments we have had have been to the contrary, that it is a very efficiently run system.

MR. MANNING: Last year, on salaries, as an example, the budgeted amount was $168,900 and it went to $198,600, a $30,000 increase. I was just wondering, why was that? Was it overtime or was it...?

MR. PARSONS: No. What happened there, in that department there was a reclassification of a administrative officer, and also the pay equity adjustment, so that is where that money -

MR. MANNING: Again, under the same subhead, 2.3.03.05. Professional Services, there is a $10,000 increase. It went from $130,000 to $140,000 but we are back to a budgeted amount of $130,000 this year. I am just wondering, can you -

MR. PARSONS: Again, it depends upon the nature of the cases that the medical examiner is involved in. For example, if he needs an additional pathologist for any reason, if he wants to get a second opinion, that is his prerogative to do, as the Chief Medical Examiner for the Province. Or if he, for example, cannot get out to Labrador or over to Corner Brook or whatever for some reason, he can in those cases hire a local doctor out there rather than incur the expense of himself to go out and back; or, if he is busy here with an autopsy he can hire a medical examiner in Corner Brook, a pathologist there, to do an autopsy. That is pretty commonplace. Of course, those doctors would charge for the services that they would render. That would be considered a purchased service.

MR. MANNING: Just below that now, you mentioned purchased service, you went from $132,000 down to $90,000 which is a $42,000 saving. Again, your professional services increased and purchased services decreased by $40,000.

MR. PARSONS: I think I said in my last response that if you had a medical examiner, it would be a purchased service. Actually, it is a professional service. In case of purchased services, again, it may be, for example, you may in any given year have to transport ten bodies from outside of St. John's because the Chief Medical Examiner operates here. He does not normally go to the site; they would be brought here and done at the Health Sciences. If you, in this year, have ten bodies that are transported in, there is one cost; whereas next year, if you have two bodies that end up being transported in, your purchased services could indeed be down. It depends upon the nature of where the event takes place and how many bodies in any given year, and investigations that he would be involved in.

MR. MANNING: Is there a time limit from the time a person arrives at the hospital here until the examination takes place?

MR. PARSONS: I will leave that to the DPP, who probably is more familiar with it.

MR. MILLS: I really would not know. I only know in relation to criminal matters, and we have very few autopsies in relation to criminal matters because that would relate to homicides and I could not speak to it otherwise.

MR. MANNING: I have been told that at times maybe a body would arrive on Friday or Saturday and not be looked at until Monday.

MR. PARSONS: Again, there are obviously medical reasons why it must be done, I guess, within a certain period of time. There are laws set down which govern; you cannot leave it there forever. There is obviously - doing it in a timely manner, but we certainly have never had any indication in this Province that there have been any untoward delays or any delays whatsoever. Occasion by our medical examiner or a replacement not being available, some replacement pathologist, we have certainly had no indications of that here.

MR. MANNING: I am going to pass it over to my colleague for now, and reserve the right to come back.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you.

Just to go through some of the headings, Fines Administration, heading 1.3.01.-

MR. PARSONS: What page?

MR. HEDDERSON: Page 203.

Just under that, Minister, obviously you have increased the salaries of - I do not know if that is through equity or whatever. I do not know if you have added or what. Just me a general sense, with the Fines Administration, how successful are we in collecting, in the general sense, what is outstanding, just where we stand on it?

MR. PARSONS: Right now in the Province there is about $27.7 million outstanding in fines. That is broken down to $20.9 million, which would be owed to the Province, and about $4.3 million, which would be owed to the federal government - if it is a fisheries act conviction, for example, a fine would go to the federal government - and other third parties. For example, the City of St. John's, Memorial University and hospitals around the Province collect fines but they go through our court system. We have a system whereby we do the collections through our system. That is about $2.4 million, so that gives you a total of $27.7 million.

In the last couple of years we have had a number of initiatives to try to improve the collection rate. There is a whole host of reasons why people do not pay. Some people just do not pay. Other times, there have been appeals launched and the matter is held up in the system for years. Other times, people just die. Other times, people just leave the Province. Out-migration, I guess, impacts in more ways than one. If some of those migrants have a fine outstanding, they tend not to pay them sometimes when they leave the Province.

We have done a number of things to try to correct that, like non-renewal of your driver's licence or your vehicle permit is one way to try to do it; late payment penalties is another portion of that. We put a system in place last year or the year before where we actually do make the outstanding fines become a lien against your property. If you have a fine that is outstanding, you may not pay it now but we have taken it from our fine system and through our Supreme Court process, we made it an attachment to your home. So, eventually, if your home is sold we will get our money, unlike before.

We have taken a number of these initiatives, but the main or most positive way it seems to collect fines, I guess, is to have someone calling you, being insistent that you pay, and staying after the debtor. So that is why you see the major increase there under the heading 1.3.01.01. Salaries. That is a new initiative this year, to hire two more collections officers and a clerk for the fines collection project, because every time we have boosted up the attention, shall we say, to the delinquent files, we get a good positive response.

Last year, for example, we collected $7.3 million in fines, which is about $800,000 better than we did in the previous year. So, we are seeing results for the work that we are putting into this, and it makes good sense, I think, to put a few additional resources in to extract a return on the thing. That is basically our Fines Administration in a nutshell.

MR. HEDDERSON: With regard to the revenue that is generated, like the fed money, do we get anything in return from that?

MR. PARSONS: No, I think we get a portion on the actual collection costs.

WITNESS: Seven dollar fee.

MR. PARSONS: Seven dollar administrative fee. Other than that, it goes directly back to the feds.

MR. HEDDERSON: The same way with provincial revenue, does that come back into your coffers or does it just go into the general coffers?

MR. PARSONS: Provincial comes back into general coffers.

MR. HEDDERSON: There is an incentive obviously, but there is nothing that comes back directly to the police force or -

MR. PARSONS: Justice would love to get a collection fee for justice.

MR. HEDDERSON: No, I am just fishing here. I certainly would be supportive of that, Minister.

On page 204, Civil Law, 2.1.01. Again, Minister, I am just highlighting some of the areas just to get a general sense. Obviously, you represent the government in court on any number of issues. Right now, how many are carried over from last year, and what can we anticipate this year?

MR. PARSONS: Cases?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: It varies. We could have anywhere from 300 to 400 cases active at any given time in the run of a year. So many of those would be settled and so many of them would be decided by the courts. For those that you settle or get finished and concluded, of course, come off your list. You always have so many more cases that get started. So it is an ongoing process. It varies from year to year, depending upon what (inaudible) situations arise in any given year, but it is in the 300 to 400 range that could be active.

MR. HEDDERSON: The budgeted amounts indicate that there is no anticipation of a spike or a decrease?

MR. PARSONS: No, you try to anticipate, but I guess the best made plans (inaudible) of everyone it does not work out sometimes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Page 205, heading 2.1.03., Support Enforcement. Minister, we get a number of calls on these sorts of things. I think you are working through - is it through Corner Brook?

MR. PARSONS: Corner Brook.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, right. I am again looking at it, and I know there is a little spike there, a little increase. Again, just give me a general sense, if you could, as to how we are doing with this? I get the calls, of course, of non-support payments or payments not coming.

MR. PARSONS: You are talking in salaries issued here?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, basically, just as a general sense. Again, there is an increase. For example, just to go down to the totals: $767,000, basically $369,000 and ended up $821,000 and we have some federal money coming in. I notice that there is a spike in the federal revenue coming in, one-point something. Could you explain those to me?

MR. PARSONS: Are we on the same - last year, okay.

MR. HEDDERSON: The bottom line seems to be okay right across, but I am just looking at the federal revenue. Is there any reason why there is a spike there?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, underneath our salaries one, for example, where you go from $901,000 to $1 million - right there in that one - that is, again, federal funding that we get to go into our family justice services - formerly known as the child support guidelines thing. What seems to be happening is there are any number of new programs that might come on from year to year. What happens quite often is if we see an opportunity to access some federal funds, then we take advantage of it. That is another issue that was raised in the special warrants, for example. Questions got asked as to: Why would Justice, for example, in the middle of the year be asking for more money for support enforcement? Well, the way the system works is we may find out in September that the feds have a program, but we cannot get our money unless we spend the money.

What happens is, even though it is not in our budget, we have to go spend it (inaudible) sometimes you need a special warrant for, but we are getting it back on a 100 per cent basis. So, that is why you can see jumps like this, and that varies every year, depending upon the programming that the feds might be engaged in at any given time and it varies sometimes depending upon how good they want to be to us and how successful we are in lobbying them. Likewise, you will see sometimes there are drastic drops. The reason is that programs have ended. We had the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, for example, that has been on the go for the last couple of years. We were getting federal funding coming in for getting geared up for that, but now that it is supposed to be here and done, and we are supposed to have everybody trained, you will see in the budgets that those figures drop off drastically because it is supposed to have been done.

MR. HEDDERSON: The next section, Freedom of Information. Of course, just following up on some discussion we had last year - because one of the big things about the Freedom of Information was setting up and allowing, I guess, some order to the requests that would be coming in for records that were probably twenty, thirty years old.

I see the little spike there in Salaries, up to $105,000, but overall the bottom line seems to be pretty even right across. What I am asking, minister, is there a handle on the records so that - do you know what I mean - everything is flowing smoothly? What kind of speed bumps have you gotten over? Is there anything in the future that we could see which would interfere with the smooth -

MR. PARSONS: First of all, to distinguish between our role in the Freedom of Information versus the role of the Commissioner. He, of course, has his funding from the House of Assembly.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. So this is not reflective here at all?

MR. PARSONS: Not at all. This year only reflects because all departments of government had Freedom of Information coordinated through the Department of Justice. This is one Department of Justice that is taking the seventeen, eighteen departments in government and coordinating everything so that we can have a reasonable flow of information because if someone makes a request of Municipal Affairs, for example, we want to know. Somebody has to coordinate it so that you try to make sure the timelines that are in the Freedom of Information Act get complied with all the time, because you never know, where the system is so big and includes so many, it could very well get lost. It does not reflect well on government if somebody says: Oh, I forgot to do it. The hope is to have it properly coordinated so that you can meet these timelines.

Last year, again, being the implementation year, we had an extra contractual position to help. We contracted an extra body to give us some help to get that done.

MR. HEDDERSON: So everything is settled then? I guess you have answered my question, saying that everything is smooth here.

On page 206, heading 2.3.02., which is the Commissions of Inquiry. Just to explain, the budget last year was $1.4 million and changed to - looking at $650,000 and now it is up to $2,201,000. What is in the works this year, minister?

MR. PARSONS: First of all, the $1.4 million last year dealt with the Reid inquiries, the Power inquiry, and the North Atlantic Refinery Limited inquiry. We had three judicial inquiries on the go. The Reid and Power inquiries have concluded to the point where submissions have been made. Judge Luther is now doing his written submissions. We expect to have that some time this fall, and certainly before the end of the year. There will not be any further expenditures on those inquiries from a counsel cost. The counsel are all finished. Everybody who had counsel have made their submissions and the case has concluded. The North Atlantic Refinery one is still ongoing. So there will be some continuing costs there as well.

The biggest cost, the spike really, for the $2.2 million for the coming year is going to be the Lamer inquiry. We appointed former Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada to be the commissioner for our inquiry regarding the Parsons, the Dalton and the Druken matters. We anticipate it is going to take around - we have allotted $2 million to look after those costs. That inquiry is supposed to have its report filed by the end of December, 2004, but this amount here will only take us, of course, to March 31 next year.

MR. HEDDERSON: On page 207, heading 2.3.04., Human Rights, I see a drop in salaries. Again, I am not questioning that part of it; it is just the need, Minister, with regard to this particular division.

MR. PARSONS: We have left the executive director's position vacant. That is why you are seeing the drop here. We felt, again, you only have so many resources, of course, to use in various places. The person who occupied that position had retired and we felt, given the workloads at the Human Rights Commission right now, and the staff that we already had, that we could get by for a while without filling that position. So that is a vacant position. The position is still there but we are deliberately not filling it in the short term.

MR. HEDDERSON: On page 209, heading 3.2.01., Provincial Court, just to go back, I will use this heading. I do not know if it is under this or not, Minister. I think last year the system of recording in the courts changed and we went digital.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: I just want a report to see how that panned out.

MR. PARSONS: Fantastic. The thing about it was, we used to have the tape system, reel to reel, of course, and with technologies and whatever, over the years, we had more advanced systems come along with digital, so we put in a new recording system. Again, I believe that was referenced in a special warrant throughout the year.

The reason, of course, again, questions got asked about why you would not budget for such a thing. What happened was, despite the state of the technology and your hopes to get this stuff, we had cases where the records were getting lost. That is the official record upon which our system is based.

We had several cases where the Chief Justice came to us, Chief Justice Green and Chief Justice Reid, and said: Look, we cannot risk having cases thrown out or lost because we cannot produce the record. It was a very urgent matter and that is why we had to get a special warrant to put in the digital recording. It has been done and is working fantastic.

MR. HEDDERSON: The final section on page 212, under 4.2.02., Youth Secure Custody, of course, again you understand that I have a little bit of a vested interest in this facility and this heading. I am just looking down, and under Transportation and Communications - where I am going, Minister, too, is that there seems to be a lot of traffic going back and forth between the facility in Whitbourne and St. John's, especially under the remand. Could you just give me a sense of - like, I noticed last year that the transportation was $84,000, and $67,000 was spent and it is back up to $84,000 - I just want to get a sense as to where we are with the remand and how it will affect that facility.

MR. PARSONS: As you are aware, the Pleasantville facility that we had has been closed out, decommissioned, which was the plan announced a couple of years ago with the extension being built on the RNC. That facility on the RNC has been completed and is in use, so what happens is, the reason for the transportation back and forth is that you may have someone who is in custody in Whitbourne and they have to come in for court. They have to come in for medical treatment. They have to come in if they have to get some kind of counselling. What happens is, they would be brought in, whether it is one person, two persons or whatever, and they would go to the facility down at the RNC and then they would be taken out from there as needed to go to court or - if they need to see doctors or whatever, I guess it is the hospital facilities, but there are also rooms there where they can see their lawyers and so on to prepare for their cases and so on.

That just leads to the transportation costs and it depends again upon how many residents do you have in Whitbourne, how many cases do they have, how many hearings do they have, how many doctors appointments they have, how many times they have to go see their lawyers. That can jump from one year to the next but you make your best guess for your budget.

MR. HEDDERSON: Also in that heading, a little bit of concern because Professional Services, as it applies to youth custody, I am assuming that is maybe counselling - I am not sure - but the amount was $338,000. That went to $288,000 that was spent, and it is even further reduced this year to $216,000. I am just again wondering, Minister, Professional Services, if you could just articulate what they are and is it going to affect the services? Is that directly to our youth?

MR. PARSONS: It is the new Youth Criminal Justice Act that I alluded to earlier. That has a lot of implications. First of all, to go back for a second to the transportation costs that went down to $67,000 in the earlier line, the new Youth Criminal Justice Act led to less remands, less custody under the new system, the theory and how it works. That is why you had less transportation as well, because there are less people being put in remand and put in the centre.

Again, under this one right here, it is directly related to the end of the federal monies and the injection of cash that they gave us to get geared up and ready for the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, so that is over for now.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. That is reflected in that federal bottom line there, too, is it?

MR. PARSONS: That is right. The $216,000 you are looking at would be normal, we will say, whereas the spike came because the feds have put the extra money into putting the new act in place.

MR. HEDDERSON: Absolutely.

Minister, certainly I will stop there.

Before I sign off, congratulations to you and your department. I have dealt with your department, and I see Ralph there. Ralph accompanied me out into my district one night and certainly gave a good account of what is going on in the department on that particular issue. Just a personal thank you, Ralph, for doing that.

Any inquiries that I make with your department, Minister, they are answered promptly; not always the answer I want to hear, I might add. I consider Justice - and this is why I am not picking at the dollars here this morning - essential, it is necessary, and I, for one, will go on record as saying that I would perhaps like to see more funds put towards Justice, especially with regard to our police force, our community services and so on.

Again, thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to working with you for yet another year.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

Are you finished, Mr. Hedderson?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, Madam Chair.

MR. MANNING: No, Madam Chair, I am fine.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Butler?

MR. BUTLER: No, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Aylward?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I have one comment.

I want to thank the minister and his officials for their effort on pursuing the action on Port Harmon in Stephenville. I want to thank the officials for their work on preparing the case. I hope that we are successful. I think that it is unfortunate that we have to go this route but I feel very confident knowing that our Department of Justice is there in a case like this when we do get such unilateral federal decision making that is so insane, that we do have a legal process that we can use to try to deal with it. I do want to thank the minister and the officials for putting forward the case which I believe is very logical, and we will hope for the outcome.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: I just have one comment, mostly because lately I have not been checking at all out in my district, where we have been here so much. The new family justice system that was put in place - I forget the name of it now, but Chris was very involved in - I know was extended into this year. I understand it is still working well, both in Corner Brook and in Gander. Is it our hope that this would continue into the future and be extended into other areas?

MR. PARSONS: That is the hope, not only to keep it in family justice western and central but also to have it eventually around the Province. It is a continuing battle, the feds case again, of justification. The evaluations have been done on the Corner Brook and central one and they have been excellent, as I understand it. I spoke personally to the Minister of Justice, Cauchon, when he visited here last fall. I think he was actually very impressed with the fact that we had done this. We clued him in as to how it works and the intentions of it. It was just a matter of squeezing some more dollars out of it.

MADAM CHAIR: I know that the reaction out in my community has been exceptionally positive from many people who have been exceptionally negative in the past, so I think that is a sign of how well it is working.

If there are no further questions, I will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.02 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Before we adjourn, we need a motion to accept the minutes of the Social Services Committee of May 5, 2003, from the Department of Education.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MADAM CHAIR: On that note, thank you all very much. This has gone quite well this morning and I would ask for a motion to adjourn.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.