The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the Executive Dining Room.

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning, everybody. Welcome.

This morning we are reconvening to hear the Estimates of the Justice Department. We had sat on May 12, and at that time there was a motion to adjourn, so now we are back to hopefully finish the Estimates for Justice.

Just a couple of reminders again for witnesses, those who are giving information, I just ask you to identify yourself each time, for Hansard, before you speak.

I turn it over to the Clerk.

CLERK (MacKenzie): One other point I should say is that Michael, the Page who is helping us, is not getting sloppy; his suit is not back from the dry cleaner. It is not a dress-down Tuesday.

MR. COLLINS: I know the feeling, Michael.

CLERK: Just for the record, was it Jason with you before?

OFFICIAL: Jonathan.

CLERK: Jonathan.

So it is only the four now, so just four today, but we have all the names.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, who left off?

CLERK: I think it was Mr. Parsons.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Good morning, everybody. I hope everybody had a good weekend.

I will do some line by lines. My understanding is, with line by lines, that we finished up to the end of section 3. I will be starting section 4, Police Protection. I do not know, Mr. Parsons may have questions before that, but I had all my line by lines done up to the end of section 3, so I am looking at 4.1.01.

I understand that some of my questions may have been covered, but in a general way and not in the specifics with regard to the line by line. Under 4.1.01., Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, 01., Salaries, I do remember the budget indicating more positions, but maybe we could just have the specifics under the line by line of the increase from the budget of 2007-2008 because we are going up from $29,913,300 to $34,616,900.

MR. KENNEDY: If you remember, there was a salary increase and retroactive pay with the Constabulary - Debbie, if I have that correctly - that there in fact had been, I do not know if it was binding arbitration but it resulted in a fairly significant increase.

MS MICHAEL: Right, I forgot about that.

MR. KENNEDY: So what you see there is more the cost of the salaries increase there, and then there is also overtime related to special investigations.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I actually forgot about the salary increase in 2007-2008 where that came from.

In 4.1.01., Employee Benefits, again with the understanding that Employee Benefits means different things under different heads and also under different departments, what do the Employee Benefits mean in this section, and why is it going up? That is subhead 02.

MS DUNPHY: Mostly what gets budgeted under the Employee Benefits for the RNC are some things related to training, like some registration fees, those sorts of things. There is an additional funding set out in 2008-2009. Again, as we discussed last week with the Lamer recommendations, some of the things are annualized on a full year basis as opposed to a part year basis. That is why there is an increase, then, in 2008-2009.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I am just curious, under subhead 05., under the same head, Professional Services went way over budget in 2007-2008 and we are down to $83,600 in this budget, but in 2007-2008 it was budgeted at $116,600 but the revision was $688,700. What were the Professional Services that were required so much over budget?

MR. KENNEDY: What we are dealing with there, Ms Michael, there were shortfalls related to special investigation, there were forensic auditors for the House of Assembly investigation, and wiretapping services provided by the Montreal Police Force. There was an investigation into organized crime.

As you can probably imagine, the costs were quite significant, especially when you are dealing with wiretapping. It is not only the cost of the equipment itself but there has to be continuous monitoring of the lines, so that results in quite a significant increase.

MS MICHAEL: And - said with a joke - obviously those two things are not related: the House of Assembly and the organized crime wiretapping.

I didn't think you would comment.

MR. KENNEDY: No comment on that one.

MS MICHAEL: I couldn't resist.

Again, the next subhead, 06., Purchased Services, the budget for 2007-2008 was $1,087,700, the revision was $1,480,000, and we staying up around that area in this budget. What has brought the Purchased Services up from the budget of 2007-2008?

MS DUNPHY: Again, some of that is related to some of the special investigations related to the organized crime. They have some car rentals, hotel room rentals and, of course, the price of gas for these rentals contributes to that as well. There has also been an increase in some vehicle maintenance and repair costs for the fleet at the RNC.

The additional budget, some of it has to do with the new officers for the drug enforcement and canine units; as well, again, the annualization of the Lamer recommendations.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Subhead 07., Property, Furnishings and Equipment, is up by $200,000 over last year's revision, which was also up from the budget. What will the Property, Furnishings and Equipment be going towards, please?

MS DUNPHY: Again, the new budget relates to some new communications equipment that was approved, the replacement of some towers and some radios; again, the annualization of Lamer.

Some of the reason that the current year's budget, the projection is up for this year, is that some of the items were actually budgeted incorrectly; they should have been under the Property, Furnishings and Equipment head, but they were actually budgeted under Supplies so we did a transfer during the year.

As well, we had some savings in a uniform allowance that we transferred as well to cover some additional equipment purchases that they had this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Obviously, because there is so much budget going towards it, there obviously has been a really big push on the organized crime side, under RNC, and I find it interesting. I think it is important. I presume it is all related mainly to drugs, and I know that lately we have had some announcements of results in terms of drug busts, I have been noticing in the media.

I don't ever remember, though - and this is not a negative question; I am just getting a handle on it - I don't ever remember a major announcement - and maybe there was - from RNC or Justice with regard to having, you know, a real push with regard to organized crime. Maybe it was in last year's budget; I don't remember it.

MR. KENNEDY: There was one seizure – it was last year or the year before last, Ms Michael - it was called Operation Roadrunner, and Roadrunner was a significant bust in that I think, if I remember correctly, there were over $200,000, approximately a quarter of a million dollars, in cash and assets seized, and there were significant amounts of cocaine.

The difficulty we have with organized crime, okay, and I can just tell you this because it is a difficulty that I have, myself, my definition of what I see, or what I used to see, as organized crime would be we think of gangs, bikers, Mafia for lack of a better term. The RNC and the RCMP have a much wider definition of organized crime. Organized crime, to them, the way they deal with it can be on a much lower level. So, any time you get a group of three or four or five people acting together, they call it organized crime.

Over the last number of years, for example, the last four or five years, I know there have been incidents where there have been twenty people arrested and they say it is organized crime. The traditional definition of organized crime and what they use as the definition of organized crime are different, I can tell you that. There has been always a push from the police perspective into this organized crime, although some of it would be more disorganized than organized in my opinion.

MS MICHAEL: That is really helpful, Minister, because I think the average public and maybe yourself, based on what you just said - when I hear organized crime in terms of our context in Canada I am thinking about bikers out of Montreal, that kind of thing - I have a feeling that the general public may have a sense of that, too, when they hear the term.

I know we cannot tell the RNC and the RCMP what to do; I am just wondering, does there even need to be any kind of education of the public with regard to what they mean by that? Because I think people do have a fear of organized crime based on the broad definition, the more common definition that you have referred to, so when they hear organized crime around drugs in Newfoundland and Labrador that is what they are thinking of, infiltration from that level.

MR. KENNEDY: The other point, too, that is important to remember, though, and I do not want to minimize at all the involvement of bigger organized crime, but one example I will give is that a number of years ago there was a seizure out of Ontario where over twenty or thirty people were arrested. There was probably $600,000 or $700,000 went back and forth in the mail. That would not traditionally be, you know, again, what we think of TV organized crime, but the police certainly saw it as organized crime where there were different groups working together to bring drugs into the Province and monies were being sent out.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: So, that is there.

The difficulty is, some of these matters are still before the courts.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: But that is the definition they use; so, when you see organized crime, you have a bigger definition.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Coming down to revenue under the same head, the federal revenue, there is an expectation of a large influx of federal money this year. Is this related to any particular program or is this a new agreement between the federal and provincial governments, because the federal is going up to $894,700 from $143,100.

MR. KENNEDY: What happened, Ms Michael, over the last number of years the Conservative government has promised to put 2,500 police officers on the streets. When you break that down, it is pro-rated between provinces and I think we ended up with – again, I do not have the numbers in front of me but I think it was $5.9 million which has to be used over five years. It can be utilized in whatever way the Province deems fit, for whatever police force. So, essentially what you are seeing here is that the five years, $5.9 million, I think what you see there - is that right Debbie - it works out to be -

MS DUNPHY: Pro-rated.

MR. KENNEDY: Pro-rated for five years, so next year we will do the same thing again, but these are police officers we are actually putting on the streets.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: The RCMP and RNC.

MS MICHAEL: The RCMP and RNC, okay.

Thank you very much.

Maybe Mr. Parsons has questions on that section.

MR. PARSONS: I am just wondering, how many RNC officers do we currently have?

MR. KENNEDY: There are approximately 400. That is an approximate.

MR. PARSONS: How many are we training under the new training program?

MR. KENNEDY: There are ten per year, which has been in place now, I think, for five years – no, actually, it could be up to twenty. I have been in front of a couple of their classes; it could be as many as twenty, Mr. Parsons, and it is pretty well - if I remember correctly, there has been a push, and I might have said this last week, I am not sure, but there has been a push on for gender equity, whereby the RNC have strived to break the classes equal, female and male. I do not know if it is quite like that, but there is certainly a high proportion of females. There could be up to twenty per year. We can find that information fairly easily.

MR. PARSONS: Just a general comment: How do you find the morale now? I know a few years ago they were not getting the training that they wanted, they did not have any new recruits, their numbers were down, they were not given sufficient monies for pay raises and so on - they have had some substantial increases there. Chief Browne has apparently had a major positive impact.

MR. KENNEDY: What I will say to you, Mr. Parsons, is that the Lamer Inquiry was a difficult time for the RNC but what they did, they came in before the inquiry - a result of, I think, good legal advice, both from an individual and a collective level - they accepted responsibility. They said, we did not have the training or experience that we thought we had in terms of the investigation of the cases. They accepted responsibility.

Commissioner Lamer then, as you will see, made recommendations for training. Since then, with Chief Browne and Deputy Chief Johnson, and both Deputy Chief Johnson and Deputy Chief Bill Brown, worked their way through the ranks. Deputy Chief Bob Johnson reinvestigated the Parsons case, and I have to say that the upper echelons of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary are absolutely superb. They are having an enormously positive impact on the morale within the force.

Now, with their pay raise, there is a closer equity with the RCMP. Their training: basically today, Mr. Parsons, what I will say to you is that if the RNC want to go on a training course they go. It is an enormous budget for training. I still have to sign off on all of this, and four or five officers per week are going to training.

One of the things, Ms Michael, that you mentioned last week – I do not know, this might have been in the House; sometimes I get confused - but this whole issue of police officers on the street is something that I am going to be speaking to the chief about. It is a really good idea. It is like with the – we just had another horse. The horses are now out around, so the police force has become very professional in their training and their leadership, but I think, Mr. Parsons, to answer your question, as you put it, it is the leadership on down, and the leadership of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is superb. I am really impressed with the steps they have taken.

MR. PARSONS: Any thoughts of having the Province all RNC? I know it was always a, I don't know about a hot topic, but it was always a topic of conversation because the vast majority of the population, at least the Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook and Labrador City, are currently RNC.

MR. KENNEDY: Quite frankly, I do not think we will ever get to that stage, Mr. Parsons, for share numbers, for one thing.

There is a gap. One of the difficulties we have with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary right now is we have lots of good young officers - the last five years of training - superb young officers and then we have the senior officers. There is a gap between the ten and twenty-year levels, that we are missing officers.

However, as we speak - and I do not think you were around, in fact I know you were not around when the last RCMP contract was signed. I think it was in 1996. It is a ten or twelve year contract that is up for renewal. I can tell you quite clearly I am not pleased with this contract.

We have a new acting Assistant Deputy Minister who was actually counsel down at the RNC, Paul Noble, who was counsel at the Lamer Inquiry for the police force. One of his main assignments is to deal with this RCMP contact, to figure out are we getting our monies worth from the federal prospective. The breakdown is 70-30 paid by the federal government, but the federal government pays 30 per cent and we pay 70 per cent.

We have the increase in RCMP salaries. When I met - and I do not mind telling you this - when I met with the Commissioner of the RCMP a few weeks ago and the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP, Gerry Lynch, here in St. John's I told him I was not pleased with the RCMP contract and there would no, on this Province's behalf, signing of contract because the RCMP wants us to sign it. There are real issues there with the way this contract is worded. I will just give you one example - and I am sorry to speak so much, but this is an issue that is of real importance to me.

We have a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission. You see that in here. If someone wants to complain about the RNC we have a process in St. John's and it can go elsewhere, I think. We have a process where you can make a complaint, you get a hearing and it is investigated. You do it here in St. John's. If you make a complaint about the RCMP it goes to some amorphous group in Ottawa that we do not even know who they are or if they exist.

Constitutionally, Mr. Parsons, there is a difficultly, or they say there is a difficultly with us setting up a provincial RCMP complaints commission. I told the Commissioner that I do not buy that and that is one of things we are going to be looking at.

Our public should have the right - if you want to make a complaint about either member of either police force, it should be here in this Province. With the RCMP, what some people will be looking at this year, and I would be looking at setting up, for example, in St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, so that (inaudible) the RCMP.

Overall, though, I am pleased with the performance of the RCMP. One of the difficulties they have – and I have learned to appreciate this, I did not appreciate it as a defence lawyer but I appreciate it as a minister – one of the difficulties they have is the distance they cover.

If you look at your district, Mr. Parsons, the RCMP cover such a large distance. In my district out in Trinity-Conception or Felix's district or Keith's, the RCMP are covering areas that literally – if they get a call in Harbour Grace to go to Old Perlican, by the time they get to Old Perlican, if there is a brawl outside the bar, sure the brawl will be finished and everyone gone home by the time they get there, simply because of distance.

I think we need two police forces. I think we have to have a good look at this RCMP contract, but overall I think we are lucky to have two police forces in this Province.

MR. PARSONS: Speaking of the contract, when is it actually up?

MR. KENNEDY: 2012, but once it is signed, it is signed for like twelve or twenty years. This next contract is a crucial, crucial piece of work for us. Quite frankly, the way the federal government – this is not just our mantra – but the way the federal government works, they say, here is your contract, sign it. It is not going to be like that.

MR. PARSONS: So, what are the options?

MR. KENNEDY: Well that is the other side of it.

MR. PARSONS: Are there any binding arbitrations or anything like that, that could get us out of such an impasse? If you say no, and they say take it or leave it –

MR. KENNEDY: If you remember, Mr. Parsons, there were discussions back around 1996. I think Mr. Tobin was here then. There were some real discussions about the expansion of the RNC at that point, but it fell apart at the end. I do not know the details. The contract that was signed, sir, I have to tell you was signed without any negotiation. The wording of the contract leaves a lot to be desired.

We will have to see whether they are going to be willing to negotiate and discuss this with us, and if not, we will have to look at – and if you look at the RCMP numbers, and I have not looked at this, but if you go to the next page or wherever it is, we are seeing $53 million under the RCMP. That is $39 million for the RNC for around the same numbers. That does not include the 30 per cent that the federal government is contributing.

The RCMP costs around $60 million or $70 million a year, and then we pay all the costs. Apparently, the cost of the equipment in that contract was very – and I am not blaming it on whoever was there. I am not saying that whoever was there in negotiating the contract – it was just the way the federal government worked at the time, whichever federal government, it did not matter if it was Liberal or Conservative: here is the contract you signed.

MR. COLLINS: My question is: Is that par for the course for the rest of the provinces, that Ottawa just brings them a contract and says: Here, sign it?

MR. KENNEDY: I think, Felix, what happens, to be quite frank with you, and I have seen it, and Mr. Parsons would have probably seen it himself because I am sure this whole issue of civil legal aid was one that went back to probably his days in terms of discussions with the federal government, there is lots of discussion; you get the ministers in the room. I only went to one of these federal-provincial meetings. You get the ministers in the room when everyone is going to tell the federal government what to do, and then the federal government walks in and it is yes, sir, no, sir.

Unfortunately, I think the other provinces are so concerned about their relationship that they will not stand up, so we cannot count – basically, when we get to the negotiation or renegotiation of this contract, even though there are right now a lot of complaints from the other provinces, when push comes to shove, I am not sure how much they will stand up.

I do know that there is a lot of dissension out there right now, and I do know that Paul Noble, for example, will be going to a contract policing meeting; is it in the Northwest Territories, Don?

MR. BURRAGE: The Northwest Territories.

MR. KENNEDY: Or somewhere within the next couple of weeks, where all the provinces are going to be talking about the RCMP contract.

MR. PARSONS: If I could just go back for a second here to page 234, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2.3.03., under heading 01., Salaries, $225,200, is it just Dr. Avis in that office?

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, where are you?

MR. PARSONS: Page 234, item 2.3.03., Chief Medical Examiner.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: Under the Salaries, is it just Dr. Simon Avis there in that office?

MR. KENNEDY: I am not sure how that is set up these days. I think there is a Doctor Denic who does some work. I think there is a Dr. Barter who – is that correct, Debbie? I am not sure. Did Dr. Barter do some work there also with the Medical Examiner's Office.

MS DUNPHY: Under the Salaries portion it is Dr. Avis, and he has some clerical support as well in his office, and some summer relief for the secretary, but the other doctors that the minister is speaking of, we usually cover those out of Professional Services because it is like filling in when Dr. Avis is on holidays. Under the salary portion, it is just Dr. Avis and the clerical support.

MR. PARSONS: That would come under 05., Professional Services?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, the other examiners.

MR. PARSONS: How does Dr. Avis, as a pathologist, fit into the system in the sense of we have all of the pathologist issues going on now with the Cameron inquiry, and pathologists threatening to leave the Province, and stuff like that? I realize he is the Chief Medical Examiner, but he is also a pathologist. How does it all fit together?

MS DUNPHY: Well, Minister, I can just add a comment that over the past year we have increased what we pay Dr. Avis to include him in the $60,000 stipend that pathologists did get back in February, so he did receive that increase from us, as well, as a pathologist.

As for how he fits, I cannot answer. I do not know if Don or the minister can provide anything additional.

MR. KENNEDY: Essentially, what is going on, he is the Chief Medical Examiner. The act was brought in a number of years ago. There have been discussions, Mr. Parsons, for many years. As a forensic pathologist, there are only a number of them in the country. We have the Charles Smith inquiry ongoing, or it just finished in Ontario now, so he has extended powers now under the act. He has extended powers in terms of going to the scene. His relationship is not meant to be simply taking direction from the police but I think, in fact, he can get called and go and give direction to the police in terms of maintenance of the integrity of the scene; because in the Gregory Parsons case and in the Randy Druken case, two of the big issues there were the way that the scene was not properly secured, and we had people walking around, cigarette butts under things, so the purpose of the Chief Medical Examiner's act is to give him more power in terms of the protection of scenes, independence from the police, et cetera.

MR. PARSONS: It seems to be a linchpin type of position. I guess fortunately for us he married a Newfoundlander. She refuses to let him leave, if he wanted to leave.

Like you said, forensic pathologists are pretty rare. I just thought, given the standard of rate of pay for pathologists generally in the country, for a forensic pathologist that seems to be fairly low. We seem to be getting a bargain price there.

MR. KENNEDY: What is his salary now?

MS DUNPHY: That is not his full salary. The university actually pays Dr. Avis, and he is a Chair as well. We reimburse the university for half of his salary costs, which are budgeted in here. Then we also top up his salary to cover such things as his court appearances and weekend things, those sorts of things. Plus, then, in addition, some of the reason for the increase was that we gave him the $60,000 stipend as well.

MR. KENNEDY: Isn't he up around $350,000 now or something?

MS DUNPHY: In total, yes, probably; but, like I said, that is fully not here because we are only paying half of the university's cost.

MR. PARSONS: That was my understanding, at least in Ontario, forensic pathologists, medical examiners, $350,000 or $400,000 (inaudible).

MS DUNPHY: Yes, he is probably closer to that for sure.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know if it is exact but I know he is closer.

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Just moving on - I don't mean to be all over the place here - on page 240, Adult Corrections, subhead 4.2.01., I realize my question is more of a general nature as opposed to line by line. I just refer you to there so that you can see the figures, because there is quite a substantial federal revenue. What are the statistics like now in terms of what percentage of our inmate population today are averaging, like federal inmates?

MR. KENNEDY: What we have, Mr. Parsons, and let me just try to get this correct now, the institutions that we currently have, we have approximately 150; our daily count at any given time shows approximately 150 people at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, which is including double bunking. We have federal inmates who are at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. In other words, the Province can choose to keep the federal inmates here. Under the Terms of Union we were given that right to choose the inmates here.

In Stephenville it is predominantly federal, although there can be provincial inmates and there can be up to fifty inmates there. In the Labrador correctional institute, thirty-eight is the capacity but we are up to, at any given time, around fifty-two or fifty-three up there.

What we have then in Clarenville, of course, because of the females, there are a lesser number of females. I don't have the exact numbers but it can go as low as eight up to ten, twelve or fifteen. Bishop's Falls now also have some. I forget the number for Bishop's Falls, but it is again smaller than Stephenville. Out of those 250 – I think I have given you around 250 – at any given time there can be sixty to eighty federal inmates.

We are then paid a stipend per day by the federal government on the number of inmates we keep here in this Province; however, we are at capacity and that is one of the reasons that we are looking for the new prison. If not, we are simply going to have to say to the federal government: Look, we can't keep these inmates here. The overcrowding in our prisons, and the failure to be able to provide the programs, requires you to take them into your institutions in the mainland.

MR. PARSONS: What is the daily stipend that the feds pay?

MR. KENNEDY: I am not sure of that, but it is -

MS DUNPHY: I don't know again, exactly, but I know it has increased recently, so that is -

OFFICIAL: We can provide it.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, we can certainly provide it for you.

MR. KENNEDY: This number will probably put things in perspective for you, Mr. Parsons. I think, and again I am going by memory on all this, but I think that right now the feds may spend $120 million - $107 million to $110 million to $120 million - a year in Atlantic Canada, but they have major institutions in the Atlantic Institute in Renous; Dorchester, Westmorland in New Brunswick; Springhill in Nova Scotia; the Nova Institute for Women in Truro. They have some major institutions. It could be up as much as $100 million to $120 million a year. The federal government, by comparison, spends, and again I am going by memory, but it could be $7 million a year in Newfoundland and Labrador. Whatever they contribute back, that is as much as we get. That includes their programs, et cetera.

MR. PARSONS: Speaking of the prison, I realize, I have been following in the media your commentary about meetings that you had with the minister and so on, and you will be putting a proposal to the federal government. Where exactly are we with the proposal?

MR. KENNEDY: I think, Mr. Parsons, if I remember correctly, you had raised the issue in the House and I had come back from Ottawa - that was around April 2, early in April - and shortly after that a letter went to Minister Stockwell Day reiterating the content of our meeting, that we wished to have the federal government co-operate, be partners in this project at a 70-30 cost ratio, and I have heard nothing back since.

MR. PARSONS: So what is your sense of talking to the feds, you are getting? Were they warm about it, open about it, or any sense at all?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Day is not really warm about anything, as you know, quite frankly, so I couldn't get much of a sense from him but he did not turn us down or throw us out of his office. I do think, to be fair to the federal government, they understand the need and they understand if you do not spend it here you are going to have to spend it elsewhere. I do expect at some point that they will come back with a proposal, but we have nothing at this point.

MR. PARSONS: When you use the word proposal, are you saying that there is actually a prepared plan, that we want a facility of this size, that houses this many people, that has this programming, these services, or are you saying proposal at this point at least is a letter to Mr. Day saying, look –

MR. KENNEDY: No, we know how much this is going to cost.

Basically, there are two options, Mr. Parsons, okay? We know that Her Majesty's Penitentiary has to be replaced. I don't think there is any question about that. So, there are two options. One, the Province would have to bear the cost which, quite frankly, would be very significant; and, in this day and age, the infrastructure needs we have in this area right now, between schools and hospitals, it is going to be hard to justify, even though it is needed.

We are saying to the federal government: Look, contribute on a federal-provincial facility that would take all of our inmates, repatriate all our inmates, bring them back to Newfoundland where they are closer to family and friends, and that would allow us to set up.

We could be looking at, if that were the case, Mr. Parsons, a 200-250 bed facility. If that does not work, we are saying to the federal government: Well, look, build a federal prison. We will have to look after the provincial side. Build a federal prison.

So, we have put forward a number of options at this date. The option that we have put forward to them, really, is the federal-provincial institute. We have not given them the other options at this point.

MR. PARSONS: This is combined federal-provincial right now, a 70-30 split, you feel?

MR. KENNEDY: A 70-30 split, we have asked them, and we did this by numbers. We did not just haul this out of the air. We basically looked at the cost of over thirty years, the cost of the inmates, keeping our federal – the offenders in the mainland et cetera. What we have done, really, quite frankly, for sixty years now, is let the federal government off the hook, because they should have had to build this federal penitentiary a long time ago. There were discussions back in the 1980s.

MR. PARSONS: It seems like, and I guess it is natural when these things happen, you get talk about a penitentiary and there is a possible economic boon to some areas. There are at least five or six different communities around the Province –

MR. KENNEDY: There is, yes.

MR. PARSONS: - who have all vied for: We want the pen. We want the pen.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: It seems to me, or my understanding is, at least, that, whether or not the penitentiary will be built in a certain area, one of the big factors is the programming services that are available to inmates.

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct.

MR. PARSONS: For example, a lot of these inmates require violence type training or anger management training, psychological, psychiatric – especially if it operates as a remand centre at the same time. You are talking about numerous court appearances and so on. Realistically, if we were to get a federal penitentiary, and rather than have some of these communities that are vying for the place, maybe investing substantial dollars to try and make their case, there seems to be certain criteria. For example, I cannot imagine, with all due respect to a place like Buchans, which was in the bidding, one of the names - I just picked that one off the top of my head that I heard. In terms of the psychological support needed, the psychiatric support need, the social worker support needed, how do we deal with that now?

MR. KENNEDY: I have tried to maintain a cautious note to people, Mr. Parsons, Ms Michael, in that. I am saying, look, there has to be a significant influx of funds from the federal government in order to make this happen.

Transportation and Works had been – and this was before me becoming the minister, and I have said this publicly. There were three sites put forward in terms of costing three sites. One of them was Stephenville, one was St. John's and one was Harbour Grace. That was put forward last year. It could have been March, April, May or June. Transportation and Works were asked to look at these three potential sites. Since then, there have been a lot more sites express an interest. You are right on the point that there has to be, in order for this to work, the availability of services. However, does it have to simply go in St. John's? Well, St. John's might think so but that may not necessarily be the way it has to work.

We are still at the very early stages. Now, if it was a federal prison, Mr. Parsons, it can go anywhere. We have seen them build prisons in Westmorland, which is in Dorchester, which is the little community in the middle of nowhere. They have built that prison there successfully. Springhill is not terribly close to anything and they have built a prison there. A federal prison, in fact, is different than a provincial federal prison because the provincial federal prison does have to be – you are right, there has to be the ability to transport prisoners back and forth to courts.

MR. PARSONS: Before I leave the prison thing, my last question: you had undertaken an independent review, I understand, of HMP?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, we have.

MR. PARSONS: What is the status on that?

MR. KENNEDY: What we have done is there are two individuals, Simonne Poirier and Greg Brown, and in fact we have added a third person since then, Terry Carlson, the former Director of the John Howard Society. We felt that there was a need for another perspective and Mr. Carlson had been the Executive Director of John Howard. There were concerns that the prisoners' voices be heard, that families' voices be heard, so Mr. Carlson has been added to that group. From what I understand, although I have had no discussions with them, Mr. Parsons, since they have started, my understanding is that they are diligently working on the whole review.

MR. PARSONS: Any indication of time lines?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, the timeline I gave when we started this was that I would like to have it within a couple of months, but I am not sure. I am hoping that that timeline will be kept. I have no indication at this point that it will not.

MR. PARSONS: Go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

If we could come back to 4.1.01 for a moment. I forgot I did want to ask one more question there.

Under Revenue, subhead 02, the provincial revenue: what is the source of the provincial revenue under this head?

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, where are you?

MS MICHAEL: 4.1.01, the Revenue section, the provincial revenue.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, I got you.

MS DUNPHY: Minister, I can answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: It is Debbie Dunphy.

That is mainly people going looking for certificates of conduct, accident letters, fingerprinting services and towing services. We will charge people if they have had to tow the vehicle and they will have to repay.

MS MICHAEL: Pay for service kind of fee?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, pretty much, as well as the tuition – the third semester for the RNC recruits is kind of an on the job training, and there is a charge. It just covers such things as the ammunition they use, the basic supplies they need in order to do the on the job training portion for the new recruit class.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Then if we could come down to the next head, 4.1.02, again the Revenue. I think I probably know the answer to this, but just to be sure. What is the source of the provincial revenue here?

MS DUNPHY: That is under the RCMP?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right.

MS DUNPHY: Actually, as I look at that, that is an error, because the main portion of that is the police on the streets money from the federal government. That is the biggest portion of that. There is a smaller portion that relates to – the RCMP provide an officer to Conne River, and Conne River in turn reimburses the Province for that cost, but the majority of that is actually the federal revenue related to the police on the streets.

MS MICHAEL: So, you are saying it is in the wrong place?

MS DUNPHY: It is.

MS MICHAEL: It should be up above, should it, under RNC?

MS DUNPHY: No, it should still be under RCMP, but it should be a federal revenue.

MS MICHAEL: A federal?

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Off the top of your head, how much of that would be federal then, for the police on the streets?

MS DUNPHY: $750,000.

MS MICHAEL: You are good. Police on the streets – so that is an error?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, as the minister indicated earlier.

MS MICHAEL: That would make the rest of it comparable to what the Budget was last year.

MS DUNPHY: It is the same. The $1.5 million we received this year is split in half, 50-50 between RNC and RCMP.

MS MICHAEL: Obviously the Professional Services is what we pay the federal government for the RCMP.

MS DUNPHY: That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 4.1.04, this is the appropriations for planning and construction of new facilities and/or extension of existing facilities. I know this is spelled out in the Budget, but just for my notes in this section, could we name the actual facilities that this head is covering, 4.1.04?

MR. KENNEDY: The $1.4 million is in relation to the renovation of Fort Townsend.

MS MICHAEL: Is it?

MR. KENNEDY: As apposed to building a new headquarters for the RNC, which would mean moving then off site, actually we are now in the planning and design stage whereby the renovation of the RNC - but also the old fisheries building, the old Memorial University, the annex, is also planned to be renovated and utilized by the RNC.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. That is what this is for, the $1.4 million.

MR. KENNEDY: The planning and design. We have gone through pre-planning, we are now into planning and design.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS DUNPHY: Minister, just to add: Property, Furnishings and Equipment, that $850,000 is to construct a duplex in Churchill Falls.

I do not know if you can recall, but last year in the Budget there was funding provided over a three-year period to build a house each year in Churchill Falls for a member of the RNC. However, the cost of building in Churchill Falls has grown astronomically so the proposal was put forward this year that instead of doing it two years, to try to cut back on shipping costs and basic foundation work. They have opted this year, instead of doing two more houses, to doing one duplex this year.

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry?

MS DUNPHY: Instead of doing a house this year and a house next year, they are going to build one duplex this year. They did complete one house in 2007-2008.

MS MICHAEL: That is helpful. I forgot about the renovation of Fort Townshend.

Head 4.3.01, Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods: looking at the Budget for 2007-2008, it looks like this has gotten off to a slow start because there were no expenditures under Salaries last year. Rather than go line by line, maybe we could have an overall sort of explanation because there were no salaries but there was money spent – not a lot – in Transportation and Communications, $3,500. Obviously an office must have been set up because $25,000 went into Property, Furnishings and Equipment, but it looks like things are moving very slowly. Could we just have an update on what is happening?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. In the SCAN office, we are currently in the process of hiring a manager. An offer has been made, it is my understanding, and I am not quite certain whether it has been accepted. Then there has to be a number of investigators hired. We are, again, not at the stage of hiring the investigators at this point, so it is moving slowly but it should be operational in the not too distant future.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask: since this was put in the 2007-2008 Budget and even though things are not set up yet, have there been inquiries from the public with regard to the program?

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. McNutt, who is retiring at the end of the month, would have been dealing with this. When you say inquiries, are you talking about –

MS MICHAEL: Well public thinking. This was in the budget and it is already set up and making reports thinking that there is a program in place.

MR. KENNEDY: I am not aware of that.

MS DUNPHY: Over the last year, which contributes to some of the transportation costs, we did do a public information session across the Province and in Labrador, so there were some general discussions and looking for some input from various interests groups or whatever. As to has there been anyone calling to say, can I make a complaint, again I do not think there has been anyone to field those calls.

To make a comment on the equipment, yes, we have purchased some of the surveillance type equipment and a vehicle as well, so that we do have a person within the division who is working on some of the initial set up. As the minister indicated, it is just not on the ground yet.

MS MICHAEL: Right. When you have the full complement, how many investigators do you expect to have and where will they be located?

MS DUNPHY: My recollection is two investigators and a manager, but I would have to confirm that for you.

MS MICHAEL: They will be located in a central office, or will one be in one place and one in another?

MR. KENNEDY: Again I am not aware. My guess is that there will be a central office, but there are a number of difficulties with the beginning of this program. When we get calls from the Coast of Labrador or we get calls from Port aux Basques or we get calls from St. Anthony, I mean investigators are going to have to travel. There are still logistics, Ms Michael, be quite frank that have to be looked at. I mean we are not going to revisit all of the issues that were raised. I think you raised in the House about the consultative process. I met with various women groups throughout this and their concerns have certainly been heard by me loud and clear.

MS MICHAEL: I guess, one of the things I am looking at, Minister, is that if there are two investigators and calls are coming from around the Province that the Transportation and Communications line, it seems to me there will have to be a lot of - I do not know if a lot of. That is why I was sort of asking what the interest seems to be out there at this moment. Maybe there will not be that much travel, you know, but it could be that the travel line will have to go up. That is what I am thinking about. I guess, what we will have to do is just see how it goes, sort of get a sense for the program once it is up and running.

Let me see if I had any more.

I think I will turn it over to Mr. Parsons or to the Chair to decide who is next.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Just to move along to Page 242, Inland Fisheries Enforcement. I just wonder if you could clarify for me; a few years ago, I think, our enforcement efforts used to be under Environment and Conservation or Fisheries - it was all over the place. Am I correct now in understanding that all inland fisheries enforcement costs by the Province are under this heading, or is there still another piece over in Environment that I am not aware of or I should be aware of?

MR. KENNEDY: This is a tangly issue, Mr. Parsons, because we have, I think, three different groups of enforcement officers. We still have forestry and wildlife officers. We then have the environmental – are they under Environment or Natural Resources, Debbie, do you remember?

MS DUNPHY: The conservation officers for Forestry and Wildlife are still under the Department of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Then we have inland fisheries which is meant to deal with our rivers and the enforcement program there. A lot of these officers, I think, come from a conservation or a fisheries background, and there is meant to be a sharing of equipment. I do not even know, but are there officers who go from one to the other, Debbie?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, that is correct, Minister. Some of them work the forestry job for six months, then come and do the fisheries job for six months. It is, as the Minister indicated, tangly to say the least.

MR. KENNEDY: But these are the numbers right there.

MS DUNPHY: For inland fish.

MR. KENNEDY: Right there, yes. For that inland fisheries program, the numbers are right here.

MR. PARSONS: Even though a person might be employed with Forestry and Wildlife - which would fit them in what department, for those six months?

MS DUNPHY: Natural Resources.

MR. PARSONS: Natural Resources. I guess it is the terminology too. We say Forestry, which I could see fitting under Natural Resources and Wildlife, but then you said Environmental and Conservation as well, which I always thought was under Environment and Conservation. The bottom line is, whether they are doing forestry, wildlife, environmental, conservation or fisheries, they are all paid for out of this fund?

MR. KENNEDY: No, when the Inland Fisheries program starts – it is probably starting up now - it goes from May till September or October, and then a number of them are kept on to prepare for (inaudible). No, this budget deals for that, if I understand it, four or five months that they are on the Inland Fisheries program.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, but they are actually provincial government employees.

MR. KENNEDY: They are provincial government employees, yes.

MR. PARSONS: I am familiar with a company called Seawatch that used to do, I do not know - at least a lot of federal enforcement work would be contracted out. So these people, I am trying to establish here that they are not employees. You do not contract it out to Seawatch or anybody like that?

MS DUNPHY: No.

MR. PARSONS: The feds are apparently doing that a lot. They have contracted out to somebody for their security.

MR. KENNEDY: These are provincial government employees.

MS DUNPHY: These are provincial employees. There are about, I am going to say, thirty-seven conservation officers being paid.

MR. PARSONS: How many in total?

MS DUNPHY: I am thinking it is thirty-seven.

MR. PARSONS: Well, obviously we all understand that inland waters are supposed to be – or at least the feds in the past had been paying and were supposed to pay for enforcement things but the Province stepped up to the plate when the feds fell down on the job.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Where are we in terms of discussions to say, pull your socks up, feds, and get back in the ballgame here, like you should?

MR. KENNEDY: I am not aware of any discussions, Mr. Parsons. Now, I inherited this particular program and my understanding is that the reason this program was created was because the feds simply did not see within their mandate to do the inland waters. There was concern about the rivers, the poaching on the rivers, and that is how the Inland Fisheries program was developed.

MR. PARSONS: It is a federal responsibility. The inland waters were always enforced by the federal government. What happened was there was a lot of poaching and the outcry came from environmentalists, fishing groups and whatever who said, look, put more people in the field. The feds would not and the Province reacted, I believe, appropriately by putting more people in. My understanding was, that was a short-term thing. We are not taking responsibility for this on a long-term basis, you should put your money where your mouth is and your responsibilities are. I just wondered if anybody continued to carry that forward or are we just saying, okay, we are going to –

MR. KENNEDY: I am not aware of that, Mr. Parsons. The two individuals who would have been dealing with this would have been Chris Curran, who has since moved on, and Mr. Marvin McNutt, who is retiring now, I guess next week. I am not quite certain of the status. We can certainly check on that. Obviously, if there is any room for any argument that there is a federal responsibility we will make it, but basically my understanding is that this program is with Justice now and that we have had to step up to the plate, as you said.

MR. PARSONS: Just to switch gears here: security breaches. We have had at least, I believe in the last twelve months or so, four breaches of government or government agency type private information issues. Where are we with that now in terms of making sure it does not happen again?

MR. KENNEDY: This is something I had on the tip of my tongue there a while ago, but basically what happened is each breach was identified. I will deal with the one from the public health lab first. There was a LimeWire sharing program from a government computer that was being utilized at home. The file sharing program resulted in the breach. As a result of that breach, Mr. Parsons, there were firewalls developed and there were particular programs. It is my understanding now, if a government employee on a government computer tries to go into LimeWire that there is a blocking process that you cannot get in there. You cannot utilize that file sharing program. OCIO is continuously developing these programs. I know in January when we had the Workers' Compensation breach that caused different issues to arise because we had an outside group contracting with a government agency, board or commission. That was addressed, Don, through the use of contracts and again through the use of similar programs. I know there is the use of firewalls, there is the blocking of programs, there are the education programs and there were a number of different issues like that.

MS DUNPHY: And guidelines sent out to employees.

MR. KENNEDY: And guidelines set out to employees. I would refer to that, Debbie, under education.

MR. PARSONS: How does a person find out what the actual protocols are? I wrote a letter to OCIO, and it may have been copied to your department, back when these things were happening and said, what are the protocols that government currently has or expects third party contractors, for example, to abide by, and nobody ever responded to the letter.

MR. KENNEDY: The third party contract would have been the Worker's Compensation breach.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and we were getting different issues over time, like you say.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not remember seeing that letter, Mr. Parsons, because that is something that we certainly would have - and I am not saying you did not send it, but that is something that we would certainly respond to because it is an important issue for all of us, any member of government or the Opposition.

MR. PARSONS: It was (inaudible) to the office of the information person.

MR. KENNEDY: We will check on that for you today. My understanding is that there are guidelines now online, but we will certainly check on that for you. That is certainly a fair request.

MR. PARSONS: Just a minor issue, I guess. We had some problems back some time ago with the jury selection process. I am just wondering: has that all been ironed out now and working effectively?

MR. KENNEDY: It is my understanding that it has, that the Acting Sheriff, John MacDonald - to be quite frank, Mr. Parsons, what happened there was unacceptable, that simply the Sherriff's Office was not updating the list, they were not going into Motor Vehicle Registration. We were picking juries from a restricted pool. As you are aware and Ms Michael, obviously if you are seeking a jury of your peers then you want the largest possible pool and you do not want an age group restriction because; well, we cannot have young people because they are not on the jurors' list.

The last I had heard, Mr. MacDonald in the Sheriff's Office had done some very good work, that the issue had arisen in a trial that by the time they picked the jury the next time the lawyers who had been involved in raising the difficulty seemed to be satisfied. To my understanding it has been rectified and I think, in fact, jury pools have been extended quite significantly in terms of age groups, the use of the data bases, the use of the MCP and Motor Vehicle Registration especially. It was a matter of updating it on a weekly basis is all it was.

MR. PARSONS: Some concerns now that were raised by the Auditor General's Report. He says: our review indicated there are no long term goals and objectives relating specifically to adult custody services. There are no operational plans relating to the provision of adult custody services and centres are not reporting, example, overtime, sick leave, training and food services quarterly to the superintendent as required by policy.

Where is the department now with that?

MR. KENNEDY: I can tell you, Mr. Parsons, that prior to the incidents that we had at the penitentiary with the death of Mr. Alyward and the suicide of the other gentleman, based on the Auditor General's Report alone, I was considering an independent review. I was that concerned by the Auditor General's report, especially with the overtime. I have to tell you that concerned me.

One of the main reasons for ordering this independent review, initially, was the Auditor General's report and still is. It is just that now it has widened with what has occurred in the penitentiary and the issues that have arisen. In terms of the Terms of Reference, I think, Mr. Burrage, it is one of the issues of the independent review. We want them to look at the Auditor General's report and find out what is going on.

One of the reasons I say that is because the Auditor General's report was critical of, not only the reporting relationships within Adult Corrections but with our department. If I read the Auditor General's report correctly, there did not seem to be a whole lot of interaction or the proper reporting between Adult Corrections and the Department of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Who is the superintendent now?

MR. KENNEDY: The superintendent's name is John Scoville.

MR. PARSONS: When the Auditor General gave his report, what was the date he actually made these findings?

MR. KENNEDY: I thought it was in late December. Am I wrong on that? I thought it was in late December or early January. I could be wrong on that, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Another issue that he pointed out was this talked about callback, overtime and sick leave are not being adequately monitored and controlled and it has increased in three years. For example, callback and overtime increased by 158 per cent in three years. Sick leave increased by 33 per cent in the last three years. Are those issues included in the independent review as well?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, they are.

I will put this in prospective for you again, without casting any judgement on anyone. We have approximately, and again I think this is only Her Majesty's Penitentiary in St. John's - excuse me with all these numbers because I am just going by memory. Let's say there are 120 correctional officers at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, then we have forty casuals. One of the difficulties with the casuals' list is it is based on seniority. The supervisor, when someone calls in sick or they need an extra person, they have to start with the list and go down through the casuals' list. Then, if they do not reach person one or two, how long do they keep going?

That is one of the issues that causes me concern, because the use of casuals is one of the ways of getting new correctional officers, and we have an high attrition rate. I think 60 per cent or 70 per cent of all the correctional officers in this Province can retire in the next five years, so if we do not get the casuals into the system - and that is one of the reasons why I have asked the independent review to look at the use of the casuals' list, to look at the callback, and to look at this seniority clause that was in the union contract.

MR. PARSONS: The Auditor General also talked about purchasing and (inaudible) and indicated that the department did not comply with the Public Tender Act in regard to six purchases totaling $94,000; and the Financial Administration Act, eighteen instances totaling $87,000. Will the independent review also consider the issue of the public tendering?

MR. KENNEDY: We have asked them to look at everything, although the Public Tender Act is one that we are certainly aware of , Mr. Parsons. They have been asked to look at everything in the Auditor General's Report. If they come back and say: well, look, the Public Tender Act is something that is outside our realm of expertise - I do not think it will be though because I am sure every province has a similar provision. Ms Poirier was a warden in both Dorchester and the Atlantic Institute in Renews, so she would have dealt with public tendering. Mr. Brown was a deputy warden in two or three different institutes, so I am hoping that they will be able to deal with that. They have been asked to deal with it, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: That is what I am wondering. I just want to clarify, that in their Terms of Reference all of the items raised by the AG, they are going to have to look at.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: So, we will not have a case where they come back and say, oh, we were not told that.

MR. KENNEDY: No, no. They have been asked and the Terms of Reference are public. I mean, my understanding is that the Terms of Reference are wide. Anything raised in the Auditor General's Report in relation to adult corrections should be looked at.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just a couple of more line items. Mr. Parsons is covering a lot of the points I wanted to raise, so that is good. I will not repeat any of those.

Head 4.2.01, Adult Corrections, subhead 01, Salaries: I note that in 2007-2008 the revised budget was over $600,000 more and in this budget it is back down. What was it that happened in 2007-2008 to put the budget up by over $600,000?

MR. KENNEDY: These are the overtime. Again, I do not have the Auditor General's Report, but I think there was close to – was it $600,000, Debbie? Do you know the number in terms of overtime? It is close to $600,000.

MS DUNPHY: Some of that was for sick leave.

MR. KENNEDY: That was increased sick leave at several institutions, long-term sick leave, overtime due to difficulty in obtaining female casuals, increased inmate count, et cetera, but it was mostly overtime, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Do you think that is going to be more under control this year?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, I would hope so. That is a significant issue.

MS MICHAEL: You have not budgeted for it.

MR. KENNEDY: It is a significant issue. We just had a binding arbitration come down in relation to the correctional officers. They are ready now to start negotiating a new contract.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: So they come out of a binding arbitration. We are hoping that all of this will come together and this is one of the issues that we will be able to address. That overtime, we are going to be left without any correctional officers because we cannot get the casuals into the system, and look at the overtime costs.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. KENNEDY: So the independent review is being asked to look at that.

MR. PARSONS: If I could just interject for a second?

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

MR. PARSONS: Just before we move on, I am a bit lost there. You say they just came down from binding arbitration (inaudible)?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, apparently they were without a contract, Mr. Parsons, for four years. There was just a binding arbitration decision, I think, on March 31.

MR. PARSONS: Then you made a comment that they are getting ready to negotiate -

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, apparently they are ready to negotiate a new contract.

MR. PARSONS: I am a bit confused. I would have thought, with binding arbitration, that the issues were –

MR. KENNEDY: That was going back three years or four years ago. That is their past contract.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, so that is over with.

MR. KENNEDY: They have been without a contract for three or four years, so this binding arbitration relates to that contract.

MR. PARSONS: Were they pleased with that contract?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, I don't know if pleased would be the word. There were a couple of significant issues there. They were given the same financial raise that everyone else would have in the public service.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: There were some other issues that were addressed also.

The overtime and the use of casuals is a crucial issue.

MS MICHAEL: I know it is a major issue.

With the attrition that you quoted for the next five years, this is a big problem if you do not get that resolved.

MR. KENNEDY: This has to be resolved in terms of casuals and there being some attempted gender equity within the prison system.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That should be good.

MR. KENNEDY: Historically, it has been a male dominated profession.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. KENNEDY: So, again, it is an issue that we are working on throughout government.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under the same head 4.2.01., Professional Services, what are the Professional Services that would be covered under that subhead 05., because you keep a constant there?

MS DUNPHY: I can answer that.

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, mostly under Professional Services it is a lot of the programming areas, like the medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, optometrists, all of these types of services; as well, the fee-for-services provided by the assistant probation officers and the victim services assistants, as well as the counselling and therapy services, legal counsel for victims, and the instructors in the various correctional facilities.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

Subhead 10., Grants and Subsidies, that is a constant; there is obviously something. What would that be, $95,000 under Grants and Subsidies?

MS DUNPHY: That is an annual grant to the John Howard Society.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Under revenue, the provincial revenue, what is the source of that provincial revenue, the $624,000?

MS DUNPHY: In the last few years there has been a victim fine surcharge put on various fines that are issued in the courts, so the provincial revenue under Adult Corrections goes towards the Victim Services Program and victim services for children, so that is the charge imposed on the fines.

MS MICHAEL: That is interesting. I didn't know that existed. It doesn't matter what crime the fine was related to?

MR. KENNEDY: The victim fine surcharge was brought in. I think it was a minimum of $35 and could be $100, so it can be waived. In most crimes, though, that I am aware of, Ms Michael, from shoplifting on, there is a victim fine surcharge that is imposed.

MS MICHAEL: Interesting.

MR. KENNEDY: It can be a percentage but it generally ranges around – my recollection, now, from the last few years - $35 to $100, to $125.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I will just have one more question, I think, with regard to line items.

Head 4.2.02., the next head, and then the subhead Salaries, I notice in 2007-2008 you did not seem to have a complement of staff there because $6,059,700 was budgeted but only $5,790,000 was spent. What was that about?

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: This is the budget, I guess, for the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre. There is a significant budget again provided here for call-ins, for overtime, casuals, those sorts of things; so, of course, the resident count has been down at Whitbourne so therefore the need is not there for as many staff on call and those sorts of things.

We maintained the budget because obviously we need to keep the budget available for capacity, but in the past year it has not reached that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I know, Minister, that you do have concerns about – they use secure custody in making sure that things are running well. Are you satisfied yourself with how things are?

MR. KENNEDY: It is still being studied, Ms Michael. We are still looking at issues out there. For example, we are still looking at the use of the detention centre here in St. John's, but quite frankly there are issues that have to be examined.

We have bargaining units within unions who are - I am not going to say fighting with each other, but there are union issues that have to be looked at. There are issues of who should transport someone from St. John's to Whitbourne, who should transport someone from the Youth Centre to the court, and we are trying to work all of these out. We are still looking at the issues of the strip search of the residents, so we are not where I want to be. There have been some improvements, but we are still not where I want to be on this.

MS MICHAEL: With regard to strip searches, may I ask, have they been discontinued totally?

MR. KENNEDY: No, they have not been discontinued totally, because one of the difficulties I have, Ms Michael, as the minister, of course, when you are dealing with safety and security of an institution, these people are hired to determine safety and security.

There are a couple of things we have done, and my understanding is that they are in place ever since this issue arose. There was a strip search policy, for example, that if a person other than a lawyer met with a resident, then when they left the room the resident was strip searched. Now there are glasses that have been installed or are installed where people can look at what is going on in that room and thereby decrease the number of strip searches.

To me, some of this is a matter of being practical and common sense, but in this day and age the use of video conferencing should be a no-brainer in my mind, as opposed to taking fifteen- and sixteen-year-old kids over the road every day into St. John's. Now we have video conferencing set up. Every time they left, when they came back they had to be strip searched. Now they are not leaving the institution, so that decreases the number of strip searches.

We are still looking at it all, but that is a couple of tangible efforts that have been made to decrease the number of strip searches, but we will never see the total discontinuance of the strip search because of the concern for contraband, and we all know that it enters these institutions.

MS MICHAEL: That is understandable, but the two things that you have put in place at the moment certainly look like a good direction in which to be moving.

MR. KENNEDY: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Mentioning the video conferencing, I know that it has been a concern of yours, not just with regard to the youth but also with regard to Labrador as well. Have other efforts been put in place generally around the Province with regard to video conferencing?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, actually, I was in Nain - myself and Mr. Morrissey were in Nain - a couple of weeks ago, was it, Ken? When we met with the staff sergeant at the RCMP station in Nain they were using video conferencing at that point. So, as opposed to travelling - I am not going to call them inmates, because they are individuals who were charged with offences - they were doing bail hearings by video conferencing. So, the use of video conferencing in Labrador was certainly in Nain.

Do you remember, Ken, where else it was being used on the coast? I thought there were other places on the coast that were starting to utilize it, too.

MR. MORRISSEY: I can't recall.

MR. KENNEDY: I do specifically remember a staff sergeant talking in Nain.

MS MICHAEL: It would be interesting, actually, to have a report on what is going on. Could your department get an idea of how much video conference is going on, on the coast, and give that to us?

MR. KENNEDY: Also, too, Ms Michael, in the task force efficiencies report there was certainly a recommendation for the increased use of video conferencing.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, there was.

MR. KENNEDY: That is a very significant factor, so at the end of the day the money that is put in up front will be saved in terms of the transportation costs.

When we look at what happened with some of these incidents - and the reality is, until we build that new facility in Labrador, we are still going to have some difficulty. It is much better to have, you know, if there is a female, for example, who is in Springhill, well, do they have video conferencing capabilities so that she can make her appearance from that institute as opposed to travelling back to where we know there are potential problems?

MR. BURRAGE: It is used in Natuashish.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Burrage is saying it is used in Natuashish also.

Could someone make a note of that, so we can check on that?

MS MICHAEL: That would be great.

I think that is it, Mr. Chair.

MR. PARSONS: I don't have anything further.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, I just wanted to clarify, do you want video conferencing information for the entire Province or just specifically Labrador?

MS MICHAEL: I would be interested in the entire Province, actually.

MS DUNPHY: Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Anything further?

MR. PARSONS: No, just that we look forward to getting the information on the various undertakings that we have asked.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion subhead 1.1.01. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 1.2.01. to 5.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.2.01. to 5.1.01. inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, ‘nay'.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01. through 5.1.01. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Justice carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Justice carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Now, at this time, we have before us the Department of Health and Community Services, the minutes for that sitting of the Social Services Committee.

Could I have a motion to adopt those?

MR. PARSONS: So moved.

CHAIR: So moved.

A seconder?

MS MICHAEL: Seconded.

CHAIR: Okay.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Chair, if I could just say a special thank you to the minister and his staff -

CHAIR: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: - for the very helpful responses from everybody, and for your willingness to come back for the second session.

Thank you so much.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you.

CHAIR: As Chair, as well, to the minister and his staff, for spending the time and answering all the questions, I certainly thank you for that.

On a final note, the Social Services Committee will meet tonight for the Department of Education, at 5:30 p.m.

OFFICIAL: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn, it being 10:30 a.m., and we adjourn until 5:30 this evening.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On motion, Committee adjourned.