The Committee met at 9:10 a.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning, everybody.

Welcome to the Estimates for the Department of Justice, reviewed through the Social Services Committee.

First off, if I could, I will go to my right and ask the Committee members if they could identify themselves. We will start to my far right.

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Kevin Parsons, Cape St. Francis.

MR. COLLINS: Felix Collins, Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, Burgeo & LaPoile.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan; I am with the NDP.

CHAIR: Keith Hutchings, Ferryland.

As well, if I could, the Committee members have before them the minutes of the Department of Education, April 8, 2009.

I would ask for a motion to adopt these.

MR. CORNECT: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Cornect.

Thank you.

Do we need a seconder for that, Elizabeth?

CLERK: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Our general protocol in terms of the Estimates has been, Minister, that we will go to you. We will ask you, if you could, to identify your staff, or the staff can identify themselves. As well, you will have fifteen minutes to make any opening comments you would like to make.

As well, I would like to remind people, when they speak, if they could identify themselves first, for the benefit of Hansard.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

With that, Minister, I will pass it over to you.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am Tom Marshall, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. To my left is Donald Burrage, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General. To Don's left is Debbie Dunphy, who is the numbers person for the department. Debbie, what is the official title?

MS DUNPHY: Director of Finance.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Director of Finance.

Behind me, on the far left, is Ken Morrissey, the Director of Communications, and Jackie Lake– Kavanagh, who is our policy person in the department. What is it officially?

MS LAKE-KAVANAGH: Director of Policy and Strategic Planning.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Director of Policy and Strategic Planning, and the real jewel in the crown of the Department of Justice, I might add.

Heather Jacobs, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Legal Services and Strategic and Corporate Services; and Paul Noble, who is Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Safety and Enforcement.

I guess it is the fourth time that I have had the honour and privilege to go through this process in my capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I did it for three years and then I moved over to the Finance Department for two years. I remember when the move took place, my feeling was that there was a piece in the Department of Justice that had not been finished yet and I was kind of reluctant. I was reluctant, in a way, to go; but, of course, as you know, you go where you are put. It is not a question of choice.

You can look at the Department of Justice the same way you look at a criminal trial. At the beginning there is the police, and the police are the institution in our society that have a very important role in that they are the ones who determine whether or not an investigation is to take place, and they are the ones in Newfoundland and Labrador who determine whether or not they are going to lay a charge. That is a very important institution.

I know back in 2003-2004 we had the benefits of the recommendations of the Lamer Inquiry and we invested heavily in police. The next stage, of course, is that once the police decide to lay a charge it moves over to the Crown Attorney's office, the Prosecutor's office. Again, coming out of Lamer, following the recommendations of Lamer, we invested in the public prosecution office.

One of the things I know that is certainly important to me, a very important thing in our society, is legal aid. I know Mr. Parsons, when he was Justice Minister, felt the same way. I am very pleased that we have made major investments in legal aid over the past five years. We are now at a point, when you look at the number of lawyers we have, I was surprised to discover the other day that we have a certain number of lawyers in the civil law and we have lawyers in public prosecution, but the most lawyers now are in legal aid. We have certainly come a long way there.

Where I have failed is that I have been unable to convince my federal counterparts for the federal government to put more money into legal aid, particularly civil legal aid. We have made a number of attempts. I know the first federal Justice Minister I dealt with was Minister Cotler, who was certainly supportive of legal aid, but he was attempting to get Minister Goodale, who was the Finance Minister at the time, to put additional funds into legal aid, and particularly civil legal aid, but he called – I remember the phone call, when he called me - and said that he had failed in that regard.

Subsequent to that, the Conservative Party of Canada became the federal government and my dealings were with Minister Toews. Every year there is a Federal-Provincial-Territorial meeting of Justice Ministers, and Newfoundland and Labrador hosted it a couple of years ago. We hosted it in Humber Valley, at Strawberry Hill Resort, and Minister Toews and Minister Stockwell Day, who was the Minister of Public Safety, came down. We had a chance to really work on them, to try to convince them of the importance of legal aid, and that it is about protecting people who are vulnerable in our society, it is about protecting the poor, it is protecting women, it is protecting Aboriginals.

We claim to have a wonderful justice system, but if you cannot get into the system, if you cannot afford to use the system, then it is no good. Legal aid is the way to ensure access to justice.

What we managed to accomplish with Minister Toews, we managed to get him to agree that he would take our request – the provincial Justice Ministers' request, and territorial ministers as well – to the Finance Minister, because I do not think Minister Toews was really with us, but he agreed to do that.

The provincial and territorial ministers were unanimous about legal aid - there is unanimity there - unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful to convince both the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government to put additional funds into legal aid.

So, when I became Finance Minister and I went to the Finance Ministers' meeting, I raised it with Minister Flaherty. Of course, his response to me was: Why are you bringing that up here? I said, because the Justice Ministers had asked.

They were always being told that justice could not convince finance to do it, so I made the representations to Minister Flaherty; but, while they have renewed legal aid funding, they have not made additional funds, which I think is very, very unfortunate.

Continuing with the system, I think the budget for human rights is six times what it was. We have made investments there, but the piece that was missing was the corrections piece. I am pleased that, while I was in Finance, Minister Kennedy contracted with I think it was Gregory Brown and Simonne Poirier; they were retired senior management people with Correctional Service of Canada. They came down and did a report, an independent review, on our correction system. It was called Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light. They made seventy-seven recommendations and I am very pleased, for the first time in a long time, that the remaining piece is now being dealt with in terms of funding.

The Department of Justice budget is about $236 million. There are new funds going in this year of about $20 million. Adult Corrections is getting $6 million of that; Civil Law, that is two lawyers for Child and Youth Services, one in Labrador and one in St. John's; Family Justice Services is getting $240,000; the Human Rights Commission is receiving $466,000; Inland Fisheries Enforcement is getting $110,000 for equipment and a boat; Legal Aid, there is $436,000, approximately; the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, there is $72,000 for shipping remains.

Don, I know there was not enough money to get the remains back and forth to the Chief Medical Examiner. Go ahead and explain that.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, the issue relates to the transportation of deceased persons to the Coast of Labrador. We ran into a situation last year where, if somebody dies on the Coast, the RCMP will fly that individual, fly the body, down for examination by the Chief Medical Examiner. If it is found that there is no foul play then the Chief Medical Examiner is responsible for getting the body back to the Coast. He will typically fly the body back to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and then the body awaits the next freight plane to the Coast. Of course, if you happen to arrive on a Monday and the last freight plane has just left, then you can have a circumstance where deceased persons are sitting around for two or three days while the family is on the Coast waiting for them to arrive. They have funeral arrangements made, and so on and so forth.

What we did last year, in that circumstance, we chartered a private plane to fly the remains back to the Coast rather than having the deceased person sit around in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for three or four days.

The additional money enables the Chief Medical Examiner now to do that in order to expedite the return of remains to the Coast of Labrador. That is what that is for.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Just to finish this off, the new courthouse in Corner Brook will open this year, and there is a need for an additional Sheriff's Officer there.

With respect to the RCMP and policing, the biggest issue, or the priority for the RCMP this year, was some funds to take care of some underfunded pressures, so there is $700,000 there.

For the RNC it is mainly capital. There is $1.5 million to acquire living quarters in Lab West. The living accommodation in Lab West was so expensive that our RNC officers really could not afford the rents. So we determined that we would follow the process that the RCMP has followed in purchasing officers' quarters, so there was $1.5 million there.

The RNC are also going to host an International Women in Policing Conference. That is going to take place in a couple of years, so we have started to provide funding for the planning for that conference to the RNC.

The big capital project is $9 million for the redevelopment of the RNC Headquarters here, and the Annex, so that process will go ahead. There is $9 million that will be spent on construction this year.

The Provincial Court has asked for many years for a financial manager and an information manager, so those positions will be provided. There will also be an Aboriginal court clerk. I think last year there was an Aboriginal court clerk. I think that was an Inuit; now this will be an Innu.

In the Supreme Court, the Estates Branch has been ignored for many years and it now needs investment. The start of that will be an assistant estates administrator. Also, there is $666,000 for the pre-planning and pre-design for a new combined court facility in St. John's.

If you want, would you like me to break down the corrections money?

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible) asking for it.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay.

In terms of the corrections, there is $200,000 for an increase in the food budget and for the purchase of new equipment. There will be fifteen new correction officers. There will be eleven at the Pen here in St. John's, of which six are female designated. There is one correctional officer going to the LCC in Labrador, and there are three correctional officers going to the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women. There is $522,000, approximately, for training for our correctional officers. There is funding for a fetal alcohol syndrome project co-ordinator for the Labrador Correctional Centre. There will also be an Aboriginal liaison officer. That is for the women's prison in Clarenville. That is a contract, a fee-for-service. There will also be an Aboriginal trainer. There will be a psychologist as well as an addictions coordinator who will be at HMP but will also service the women's prison in Clarenville.

In terms of programming enhancements, there is about $670,000 there. That will include addictions counselling, drug awareness, violence prevention, structure-leisure activities, mental health improvements, and women's programming. Also, at HMP there will be a comprehensive program to be established to do screening treatment and contact tracing for communicable diseases. There is $100,000 there. There is funding in the Budget for the team that is headed by Terry Carlson, former Executive Director of the John Howard Society. That team will oversee the implementation of the recommendations.

In terms of capital, I guess there is $4 million there. For all facilities purchasing cameras and DVRs there is $290,000. There will be capital improvements at Her Majesty's Penitentiary of $585,000. As you know the problem that the Pen is having is a space problem, because how do you provide the programming if you do not have the space to provide it? Three years ago we thought we were going to have a new Pen. Our relationship with Stockwell Day was such that we thought there was going to be a new Pen. We do not have one, as you all know, but I am pleased to say that officials for the Correctional Service of Canada met with our officials in Moncton, I think it was, a couple of weeks ago and federal officials will be here on May 5, tomorrow. to take a look at HMP.

In addition, there is funding for the Women's Centre, $179,000; there is funding at Bishop's Falls for $152,000; there is funding for Stephenville, $230,900; Labrador Correctional Centre is $100,500; and the Corner Brook Lockup, there is $250,000. There is also funding to provide increased rental costs for probation victim services; and there is $2 million in the Budget for a pre-trial detention centre for women and youth in Labrador. That was announced by Minister Kennedy last year. It is deemed to be a twelve-cell unit: four for youth, four for adult women, and there were four designated for mental health, but the Department of Health has objected to that, so we will continue with the twelve units for female youth, male youth, and adult women.

Labrador is the one area where we are seeing an increase in population, in terms of the Aboriginal communities, and the LCC in Labrador is at full capacity. I think 94 per cent of the inmates are Aboriginal. Our Aboriginals are over-represented in the corrections, and under-represented in other areas of the justice system. We are trying, over the last number of years, to address that under-representation. That is why you see these Aboriginal positions in the courts and in the prisons.

We are going to have to have discussions with the federal government, in terms of the Labrador facility. We have Aboriginal offenders from this Province serving federal time in federal facilities, and we would like to see them be able to serve their sentences in Labrador. That is a discussion we are going to have with the federal officials as well, about their possibly joining with us in the expansion of the LCC.

That is pretty much an overview, and I think I will stop there. My fifteen minutes is up, I guess?

CHAIR: Yes. Thank you very much, Minister.

We will go to our Committee.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, I took an opportunity and went back and just checked the 2002-2003 Estimates, the Departmental Salary Details, just to get a comparison of where we are, some six or seven years out, in terms of the numbers of employees. Back then, we had what we called approved positions of 1,156, and today we have 1,365, almost 200 more than we had back then.

What basically has caused the increase of about 200 employees over that period of time? Because in addition to that we had the slash and burn budget, we call it, of 2003-2004, whereby there were actually cutbacks.

I am just wondering if you can give me an overview of where, in six years, that 200 increase has basically gone. I am aware that some of it, of course, is with the RNC and recruitment efforts and so on, but I am just wondering if you can give me an overview.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, I do not have that analysis in front of me, where the 200 positions are. I will certainly undertake to provide that to you, to give you a breakdown.

Off the top of my head, we obviously made major investments in policing, in the RNC in particular. We have also increased the number of Crown Prosecutors. They are the two major areas. There are a lot of lawyers and a lot of police hired. Court security: I recall back then there was only court security offered in St. John's, and we have extended that across the Province. Also, Family Justice Services did not exist, and we have now extended that right across the Province. We brought in Victim Services for children, so there were additional people hired there.

I will undertake to get you a breakdown.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just for the Chair's benefit, I am not certain if I appeared with yourself as the Chair, but normally what happens is, rather than delay or take time, normally we would ask for an undertaking for the information and the minister would agree to give it. That usually saves a lot of time.

CHAIR: What was the exact request, Mr. Parsons?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The question was the explanation or the overview of the numbers, I guess, as to why we have had a 200 increase in what they called approved positions - now they call it permanent positions – from 2002-2003 to now. The minister has agreed to provide that information to us.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I took a look at that budget as well, and there is essentially about $100 million in new monies in Justice over that time period.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering, as well: The salary details for this year talk about 1,365 permanent positions. How many approved positions are there? I take there is a difference between approved and permanent, in the sense that there are some permanents and there are some temporaries. Are there temporaries? This talks about permanent positions. Whereas most departments have permanents, you also have allowances built into your estimates for a certain number of approved or temporary positions as well. Are there additional positions that are not referenced here in the documents?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I would ask Debbie Dunphy to answer that one.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, Mr. Parsons, obviously Justice has a lot of temporary/casual positions with the 24/7 operations, with the penitentiaries especially.

I do not have hard numbers on the number of temporary positions we have, but it is certainly something we can provide. The salary details, as you say, when they talk about approved positions are still only talking about the actual permanent positions in the department.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: My question leading to that, of course, is: If the documents are showing us what the permanent positions are and the dollars that go with that, and then we go to the Estimates book and we see all kinds of different headings with salary components in them, can you give us a breakout as to what monies the department spends each year, or will spend this year, for these temporary positions?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The number of positions, roughly. I realize they may change, but roughly the number of approved positions and how much money you spend on an annual basis on those temporary positions.

I am wondering as well: We found throughout the Estimates this year that, depending on the department, there are a fairly substantial number of unfilled, permanent positions, particularly, for example, in the Department of Health where there were a lot. I guess it is the nature of the skill sets that were required. How many of the permanent positions and approved positions in Justice are not filled at this time?

MS DUNPHY: We will certainly get you the exact number. That number is quite low. If you recall, back in 2006-2007, which was, I think, the year that we made the biggest increase in positions mainly related to the Lamer inquiry recommendations – in 2007-2008 and certainly 2008-2009 there was a big push on getting all of those positions filled. I know this past year we did have some vacancies with the Crown Attorneys just in terms of recruitment, and some of the positions were frozen for the Crown positions that were approved. We spoke with the DPP on Friday past. They are just about full to capacity and what is not filled the ads are done, may be closed, and competitions are underway. Our vacancy rate is very low.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Just to go back to my traditional request as well: I am wondering if you could provide me with your list of all lawyers who you paid money to outside of the Department of Justice in the last year, the firm names, the lawyers involved, and the amounts; and likewise, if you could provide what I call the settlement list. Government, over the course of a year, pays out sums of money to different court cases. I am wondering if you could provide me with the details involved in that in the past twelve months.

Also, my other annual one is: What is the status of the health care cost recovery case?

MR. T. MARSHALL: With respect to the first two requests, we will undertake to provide that information, of course.

With respect to the health care recovery case, I will say initially that, as I am sure you recall, we have retained a firm in Missouri. I think that happened when you were the Justice Minister. The government of the day entered into a contingency agreement with this law firm in Missouri to conduct the case on our behalf. A number of the other provinces are now joining with us and the other provinces in looking at this issue, which was spearheaded out of British Columbia.

I am going to let Don Burrage, the Deputy Minister, answer that, because he is more directly involved than I am.

MR. BURRAGE: Again, I have to strike a balance between disclosing where we are on the case and not at the same time prejudicing us.

The firm that was retained, Mr. Parsons, back in those days is still retained. That firm continues to act on the file. They have had discussions with some local counsel, and I cannot get into the details of that, but they have also had discussions with New Brunswick, who recently, you may recall, started their own initiative with health care recovery. I think New Brunswick entered into an arrangement with an American firm as well. They have both Canadian firms and American firms working for them on their case.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did they use the same American firm as the Province?

MR. BURRAGE: No, it is a different American firm, but interestingly, they adopted a very similar approach to ours. They hired an American firm on a contingency fee arrangement, and that arrangement was made public at the time. They also engaged local counsel as they had to. I think their rationale was much the same as our own, and that is to tap into the expertise that existed in the United States rather than trying to invent the wheel all over again. The American firm in that context provides that background, if you will.

I know that our American counsel have been speaking to them. I have not been part of those discussions, myself, but I know that they have been doing that, and it is still in the works, if you will. We have not issued a statement of claim, as you know, and we have not proclaimed the legislation yet. One will follow the other, once we are ready to proceed. It is still being worked on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any timelines as to when you think it might get issued?

MR. BURRAGE: I would be hesitant to put a timeline on it, because timelines, as we know, tend to move, but there is an active file.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We were sort of shadowing the BC experience. Where are BC right now in the course of their action?

MR. BURRAGE: The last I checked with B.C., they are still proceeding in the same manner. They have the same firm, Bull, Housser & Tupper, retained on a fee-for-service basis. I believe, and I stand to be corrected on this, the last time I checked they were still two or three years, if not four years, away from trial. They have been through the discovery process. I think most of the constitutional challenges are behind them now. That was not a year ago. About six months ago, I think it was, I was told they were still a couple of years - two or three years, if not four years - away from trial.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, you have alluded to, and we are all aware, of course, of the numbers of RNC officers that we have gotten over the years, and the improvements that have been made to the RNC not only in numbers but in terms of training, equipment and so on. Yet, we had this unfortunate incident a few weeks ago involving the young man who had autism.

I am just wondering - and I have followed the news reports as to, for example, the RNC are going to undergo some sensitivity training and so on - was that particular incident possibly related to the fact that we grew too fast? We have done a lot of requisitioning and training and whatever, and just from my observations of it, and watching the media and seeing that young man on TV and whatever, it seems that a dose of common sense might have avoided a lot of issues here.

I am just wondering is it because possibly the training that we gave to the new recruits in the first place was not up to snuff? Maybe it was not even a new recruit involved here; it might have been a veteran. I do not know. I am just wondering.

Also in that vein, the sensitivity training that is going to be given to the RNC, will it in fact be done for correctional officers as well and those officers at the lockup and so on?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The RNC officers have received the Changing Minds programming from the Canadian Mental Health Association but this particular case was an autistic young man, and there is a difference. There is a difference here. Obviously, I do not know much about autism but I understand it is a neurological illness as opposed to a mental illness.

The ironic thing here is that the RNC had contacted the Autism Society in Newfoundland to provide that training, and that was in the process of being provided. It was not provided, but the planning for it had taken place.

I think what happened here is that – we have to bear in mind that I think when the officer approached the young man it was early in the morning. I think it was around 12:15; it was dark. I think the officer had seen a car swerve to narrowly avoid hitting the young man, so the officer turned around to suggest the young man get off the road. Unfortunately, there was a minor altercation and the young man was brought in to the St. John's lockup.

I would speculate – and, of course, it is speculation – that, given the darkness, maybe there was not enough time to assess the situation there on Topsail Road or Torbay Road – Topsail Road, was it?

Obviously, when the young man was brought in to the lockup, with the lights and with everything calmed down, I think common sense could have applied. There was a policy in place that would permit the young man to call his mother, and his requests, which he made on more than one occasion, to call his mother, were denied. He was told he could call a lawyer. Obviously, the policy would have allowed the young man to call his mother, and I think common sense would have allowed that as well.

So, we are providing the training. We are arranging the training with the Autism Society for not only the RNC but also for the correction officers, and the RCMP have requested that training as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You mentioned the penitentiary. In addition to the need that exists, it seems, in my view at least, under the watch of Minister Kennedy, it became a bit of a political football between him and, at that time, I guess, MP Manning, as to one-upmanship sort of thing.

Where are we, actually? I have taken into consideration here your comments you made in opening, but did we burn bridges so badly back in that confrontation – and that is the only way to put it - the confrontation between this Province and the federal people at that time, have we scorched the earth so badly that any future penitentiary is off the radar on the federal piece? Is that just a pie in the sky thing now?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, from the point of view of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador it is not. We certainly are prepared to work with the federal government in the construction of a joint-costed facility. I guess you will have to ask Minister Van Loan or the Prime Minister to answer your question directly.

Obviously, I think it is in the joint interest of the federal government and the provincial government to get together on this particular issue. They have a responsibility, as well, to house federal prisoners. We are housing many of their federal prisoners.

You may recall, under an agreement between Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador at the time of Confederation, Newfoundland and Labrador has the rights to insist that federal prisoners stay in the Province and be housed in our facility.

I understand that, as a result of that, federal prisoners that are housed in our facilities, both here in St. John's and in Stephenville, are housed at a lower cost than the federal government themselves pay to house federal prisoners, so it would be beneficial to them as well as to us.

Obviously, we cannot wait forever. I have written, as Minister Kennedy did before me, and as I did before Minister Kennedy, and I am sure you did as well before me, to the federal government to join us in this. Again, I am optimistic that federal officials – and I think Minister Kennedy's last letter that was answered by Stockwell Day, when he was Minister of Public Safety, was that we should refer to the senior Correctional Service of Canada official in Moncton.

Our officials and I think Assistant Deputy Minister Noble was at that discussion. Maybe he can elaborate a bit, but the federal officials will be down here tomorrow to review the Pen, and I am cautiously optimistic that this will now reactivate that process.

Paul?

MR. NOBLE: Thank you, Minister.

Superintendent Rogerson and I travelled to Moncton about three weeks ago to meet with the Deputy Commissioner for the Correctional Service of Canada responsible for the Atlantic Region. As it happens, the three of us are all relatively new to our positions so our purpose in meeting with her was to discuss a number of common issues between her agency and the provincial Department of Justice. We also took the opportunity at that time to discuss the possibility of CSC making a capital contribution towards the construction of a new facility in Newfoundland and Labrador.

A fair amount of pre-designed work has already been done towards a new facility and we took the opportunity to share some of the preliminary drawings that we had, just to show her that we have come a certain distance with this.

I thought the reception, actually, was quite good. Clearly, they could have said right there on the spot that they were not interested in cost-sharing on such a project. We did not get that response or reception, and I did not get the impression that they were not prepared to consider it seriously.

Following up on that meeting, the deputy commissioner, as the minister indicated, will be in St. John's tomorrow, and she and her officials will be touring HMP. Of course, the current state of the facility - as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words – certainly will speak for itself.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will just add that Thérèse LeBlanc is the deputy commissioner for the CSC, and she will be touring the facility and meeting with Deputy Minister Burrage tomorrow.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just lost as to the process here. I would have assumed that when the department, besides writing a letter to the ministers – these things happen. Have we turned the wheel around the other way now?

We started off by having discussions between our top person, the minister, and Stockwell Day and the Justice Ministers and yourself, and now we seem to have said: Okay, that route didn't work; we are going back now and we are going to start with Corrections Canada officials.

I would have thought that you put it on the radar politically by talking shop to shop, and then that work would have all been done. Why are we changing things around now? We are starting at the bottom again to start to climb the hill, but it has to come back. Unless we get some nod of approval, I would think, from the federal people, that they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, the corrections people can do all the visits they want.

If we cannot get it on the radar with the feds, why do we expect or have an expectation that the federal corrections people are going to put it on the radar with the feds?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The response to I do not know if it was my letter or Minister Kennedy's letter to Stockwell Day, who was Minister of Public Safety at the time, his response was that we have discussions with the senior correctional officials, or the senior correctional official with Correctional Service of Canada in the Atlantic Region.

Unfortunately, the person in that position at the time was about to retire, so that person retired and Ms LeBlanc took over. Now we have met with her, and we are carrying on the process that Stockwell Day suggested in his letter to us.

In fairness, Mr. Parsons, I can tell you that I have not had communications from Minister Van Loan in response to my correspondence to him.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Mr. Parsons, we are about twenty minutes in now. Do you want to clue up this part of your questioning or –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Go ahead.

CHAIR: We will move on to somebody else?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Go ahead.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to pick up a little bit from –

MR. T. MARSHALL: My light is still on, Lorraine. I do not know if yours –

MS MICHAEL: Mine is on. You could not hear me? I am sorry.

I want to pick up just a little bit, at least, from Her Majesty's Penitentiary issue, asking a different type question.

Minister, you referred to the fact which we all know, of course, in your opening, that programs for HMP are almost impossible to think about because there is no space to have programs put in place.

Even though we do not know yet whether or not the federal government is going to take part in the building of a new penitentiary, I would like to know what the department's position is with regard to the penitentiary if the federal government – if you find out after this week, next week, whatever, with the negotiations that are going on, that you cannot get support from them, what is going to happen, what is your intent.

Then, the second part of that is: Is the department, or are personnel who are involved in corrections, in preparation for building, looking at the types of programs that one would like to have there and in our corrections system in general, but particularly at the new penitentiary? Obviously, the types of programs are going to dictate the size of the building and what is going to be in the building, so I would like to know if that kind of discussion is going on and if there is any content around that, that you could share with us today.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think, from my own point of view, that we are going to give it one more shot with the feds. Obviously, there comes a time, if the feds are not going to join with us then we are going to have to decide to do it on our own.

As I said earlier, I think it makes sense from their point of view and our point of view that we join together and do this. I think it is in everybody's best interest; it is a win-win situation. Obviously if they, at the end of this year, refuse to do it, we have to consider other alternatives.

With respect to training, I know when I was in this position three years ago the feeling was that you have to get a new Pen - that is where our priority was – before you could offer all of the programming. Recognizing that, even if we are successful in obtaining a new Pen, there are going to be a number of years go by before we actually complete construction, we have put money in the budget, major monies in the budget, to provide programming there. As I indicated, there is about $700,000 worth. That has been done after consultation with Canadian Mental Health, with Turnings, with Iris Kirby, and there is one more that I cannot think of, so I am going to ask Don.

MR. BURRAGE: Stella Burry.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Stella Burry.

I am going to ask the deputy minister now to comment on the types of programming that we are going to be offering this year.

MR. BURRAGE: What we did last year at the end of the fiscal year was to add two trailers to HMP to alleviate some of the programming issues, recognizing that you do not want to put a lot of money into infrastructure in a penitentiary that dates from 1859. We did add two trailers to assist on the medical side and also on the teaching. So there are two of those temporary-type trailers. We did add those.

The objective in the budget process was to try to build capacity in programming that we could then import into the new facility. We put as much into the budget as we need in order to maintain the penitentiary, because obviously it is going to be five or six years before this new penitentiary is built, even with federal participation. We had to put a certain amount of money into the Pen so it does not fall down around you. That said, the focus then was to build capacity and programming that could be transferred to a new facility.

We have entered into an arrangement with the Canadian Mental Health Association, Stella Burry, Turnings, and the John Howard Society, of course. We did that last year, and there is money in the Budget to continue with that programming this year as well.

Of course, there are new positions, as the minister referred to, which again can all be imported into a new facility when it is eventually built, because I think sooner or later it will be built. It has to be built. That has been the focus.

MS MICHAEL: Last week I was at a presentation which talked a bit, actually, about some of the programs that are going on. I need to be careful in the way I am going to say this, because I am not downplaying what I saw, but I want to broaden the discussion around programs. One of the things that was presented at this luncheon gathering that I was at was, you know, was the sorts of arts and crafts kinds of programs that were going on. I do not want to downplay arts and crafts programs, but I can remember thirty years ago having people I knew being at the Pen and getting arts and crafts from them.

Arts and crafts, obviously, is a profession, and there are people who make a good living at arts and crafts, but I would hope - and I guess that is the point of my question - I would hope that the programs that are being looked at for the future, as we go into planning for a new facility, would be able to deal in a more programmatic way with the issues of illiteracy, which we know is an issue at the Pen, also with having programs that maybe tie into an analysis of the market in terms of employment opportunities for when one gets out. Obviously, IT would be one of those areas. There are many things that could be used.

I understand the nature of what is happening there right now in terms of space capacity on that. I am just a bit concerned at the limitations of the programs when you are looking at things like arts and crafts. I do not know if you have any more to say in response to that comment.

MR. BURRAGE: I take your point on having market employment opportunities in dealing with the fundamental issues such as illiteracy. Last year, towards the end of the year, there was some money left over and we received a request from, I think, Labrador, Bishop's Falls, and the Women's Centre in Clarenville, in particular, for some money for arts and crafts to enable them to do something along those lines in the woodworking shops. I just recently came back from Clarenville and Bishop's and saw the product of that.

I know what you are saying, you do not want to downplay it, but it did make a difference in those institutions for those who are involved in the programs. I think that sort of thing we would like to see continue but not to the detriment of the larger long-term issues.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

I guess the concern for me would be that it is important that the opportunity is there so that inmates can not only do something that is really going to improve their life while they are incarcerated but also will build towards their future when they leave, so making sure that we are not too limited in what is being offered from that perspective. That is my concern. Thank you.

Minister, in your opening you really covered an awful lot of things I was going to ask questions about, so I may go into some line items because I do have a lot of questions on line items. I just want to check through some of the stuff that you put out there. I think I will just go straight into line items in that case, and I will pick up, I think, as I go along. Anything that you have already answered, I will try not to repeat a question if I can remember that you answered it.

If we can go to the lines and go to subhead 1.2.01, Executive Support, under 01, Salaries. Maybe this was a move towards a permanent position being covered, but the revised for last year was $152,700 more than the budgeted item.

Could we have an explanation of that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There was an assistant deputy minister who retired, and that was primarily due to the payout of severance and paid leave for the retiring ADM.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I think, then, the $143,000 difference this year, or $100,000 or so difference, is just the variance this year, is it, Don, in the estimate for this year as compared to last year's estimate?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is about a $58,000 increase?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, that is the salary and the twenty-seven pay periods.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. So the ADM retired.

Last year, under 03, Transportation and Communications, travel was up by $57,500. Now, the minister, last year, had expressed concerns over travel the year before, yet last year the travel was up again.

Was that a one-time unexpected thing? Well, it is Transportation and Communications, so it may not have been travel.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, Travel and Communications.

This is primarily due, obviously, to increased travel requirements, as well as a larger executive team than there was at the time the budget was established. An increase had been requested the previous year, but had been turned down. I am told it is mainly due to increased travel because of the RCMP negotiations. We are negotiating our contract with the RCMP. I understand there have been a number of trips to Ottawa on those negotiations, as well as trips to pursue the new prison.

MS MICHAEL: So that is why this year it is back down to $37,300? You do not expect that.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Although, you could get into increased travel if negotiations heat up with regard to the prison, which would be good. Thank you.

Next section, 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support, under Salaries, the revision last year was $316,300 over what had been budgeted.

Could we have an explanation?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It was down.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, it is down.

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is down, yes.

MS MICHAEL: It is down, it is not over.

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is down $316,000.

MS MICHAEL: It would still be good to have an explanation. Sorry about that.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

There was a vacancy in the FGO, and I was told what that was a few minutes ago but I forget.

MR. BURRAGE: Finance and General Operations.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Finance and General Operations.

There were delays in recruitment under the interpretation strategy, the policy, and there were delays in the implementation of the Family Violence Court.

MS MICHAEL: Thanks.

This year, the estimate is down from last year's estimate. Does that mean that you have a drop in personnel?

MR. T. MARSHALL: We have the increase in salary, of course, and that has been offset by reallocation of money to proper accounts for the family violence court and the interpretation strategy.

Maybe Debbie can explain that.

MS MICHAEL: Because it is down this year, so is somebody being moved?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

When, initially, we received a budget of monies for the family violence court it was all basically put in one area. Now that the court has been established and we have done some work over the past few months in setting up a proper budget, it is down because initially there were monies budgeted in salaries that really should not have been salaries. It was more contract work with another department, Legal Aid or whatever. That is why you will see some ups and downs in various budget items there.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under Transportation and Communications, asking for a bit more this year: Is that just a normal increase or are you anticipating more travel? That is 1.2.02.03.

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) the family violence treatment court for one full year.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MS DUNPHY: If I could just make a comment.

When we initially had this initiative approved last year it was meant to be a pilot with six months last year and six months into 2009-2010, but during this budget process approval was granted to extend it for the full 2009-2010 fiscal year which causes the increase again in several of the line items.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Under Professional Services, 05, you under spent this year. The revision was down by $83,000. That was for last year, but for this year's estimate it is actually up $68,000 over last year's estimate. Could we have an explanation? This is probably a family violence project, as well.

I presume that you did not expend as much but you are carrying over the budget, but I will let you explain it. That is what it seems to me.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think it is the same answer.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The increase for next year, the extra $68,000, is because family violence court will be for the full year. The decrease this year: The spending was less than was anticipated. Again, there was less than anticipated activity under the interpretation services and the delays in starting the family violence court.

MS MICHAEL: I am assuming that the $92,000 is being carried over, is that correct, which makes for the increase in this year's estimate?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The $92,000 –

MS MICHAEL: It is more than $92,000. The amount that you did not spend is what I am asking, that is just being carried over into this year's budget and that is why it is not really an increase, it is the money that was carried over. That is what I am trying to establish.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I may not have been clear. Nine o'clock in the morning is not the best time for me.

Under 06, Purchased Services, again was under spent last year by $53,000, and this year's estimate is about $85,000 more than last year. Could we have an explanation on what this Purchased Services was about?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is the same answer as the last two.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. That is fine, I do not need it. I was just making sure of that. Thank you very much. It is all related to the same program.

Coming down to Grants and Subsidies, subheading 10, you are asking for a fair bit less this year under Grants and Subsidies. I do have a list from last year of some the things that were covered here; so just a little explanation of what is happening under Grants and Subsidies, because it is down by $244,000.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The reason it is down is that last year there was a one-time funding to the Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association. That will not take place this year. That is why it is down over last year.

In 2008-2009, it is $25,000 more than budgeted, and that was because of a grant to the St. John's Citizens' Crime Prevention Committee. Those crime prevention committees, as you know, do a lot of good work in addressing the routes that could lead to crime, and they do a lot of good work. That particular request went to Treasury Board and was approved.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

The money that went to Newfoundland Search and Rescue last year, was that mainly for the national conference?

MS DUNPHY: No, Ms Michael. Basically we had a three-year agreement with the federal government for a particular funding for training. It was a helicopter high line, I think it is, and they have a couple of different initiatives on the go. Each year, obviously, it is in but then it is offset by federal revenue. If you look down to the federal revenue, you will see that is also decreased for this year, because the funding is removed, and also the federal money received is down as well.

The conference was a one-time. That was, I think, $25,000.

MS MICHAEL: I was going to say, it would have been way too much.

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: I note, last year at Estimates we were told that it was a three-year federal agreement, so we are into the final year of that agreement.

MS DUNPHY: This is year three.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I might mention the importance of these crime prevention groups. The Department of Justice deals with crime, but there are groups out there that try to prevent crime. They used to get a lot of money from the federal government, but now we are seeing cutbacks there and those groups are starting to come to us to look for the Province to fund it, and that is going to put additional pressure.

MS MICHAEL: Minister, could you give us an idea of who some of these groups are?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The various crime prevention groups, you are referring to, or the people who get these grants?

MS MICHAEL: The ones who get the grants, yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, you have an advantage; I do not have that list. You have it from last year.

MS MICHAEL: No, it just says –

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will let the deputy reply.

MS MICHAEL: I do not have the names; all I have is community policing grants –

MR. T. MARSHALL: Oh, okay.

MS MICHAEL: – and it does not have the list.

MR. BURRAGE: I do not have the entire list of groups for you. We can undertake to give you that.

MS MICHAEL: If you would do that.

MR. BURRAGE: That particular grant, that $25,000, was matched by a grant from the city, and it was to be used to hire a person to run the program. It was a one-time grant to hire somebody, and that person's job will be to keep the program self-sustaining.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. BURRAGE: In other words, to keep themselves employed, they have to look for businesses, to get grants from businesses and so forth.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. BURRAGE: That was a partnership with the City of St. John's on that particular initiative.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I look forward to receiving a list of the community groups who do receive money, different community policing groups.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Moving on to 1.2.03, Strategic Human Resource Management, under Employee Benefits 02, I just want to clarify. I think Employee Benefits here covers workmen's compensation payments, do they?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes? Okay.

There was an unexpected rise last year in the amount that was paid, from what was budgeted. Was there something particular that happened there?

MR. T. MARSHALL: What I have is that for 02, Employee Benefits, and also for 03, Transportation and Communications, which was up $100,000, and also for 04, which is Supplies, which is up by $20,000, I am advised that the budget for learning and development is in Purchased Services, and as expenditures occur the budget is reallocated to the proper main object.

Debbie, I had better refer that one to you.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, Minister, basically what he said is correct.

Ms Michael, I guess also in the Employee Benefits as well as the workers' comp, which is the bulk of it, there are some people who go on courses or trainings. Like, if you have to pay a registration fee, they also get charged there. As the minister said, it is the reallocation of the learning and development budget among the different main objects that reflect the variances. You will see an offsetting savings, I guess, under the Purchased Services line.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

I am noticing that the expenditure – you had much less there than you were going to allocate under that line, under Purchased Services, because it was under spent by $150,000.

MS DUNPHY: Yes. When the Department of Finance allocated the monies to the departments, all the learning and development was put under Purchased Services for some reason.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, fine.

Thank you.

Well, we covered that one off quickly.

Under 1.2.04., just because I do not have a note on this from last year –

MR. T. MARSHALL: Salaries.

MS MICHAEL: No, Salaries are fine.

Under 04. Supplies, what is covered under that line?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: That is mainly the purchase of law books and legal materials for the law libraries within Justice, the courts and the Crown Attorney's office, as well as the office supplies for the headquarters.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS DUNPHY: I have a comment that – I guess the West Coast and Gander libraries are funded jointly by the law society. We help them out some and then they offset with some revenue to the department, but it is mainly the law library.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Ms Michael, would you like to take a break, that is about twenty minutes now? We can move back if you want.

MS MICHAEL: Sure. That will be fine, yes.

Thank you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not know if there is anyone else on the Committee who wants to question.

CHAIR: No, questions.

Go ahead.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, on the Cameron inquiry piece, I am wondering if you could provide me with the breakdown? As you are aware from the public media last year, the Premier and the minister of the day had some concerns about the amount of money that the Cameron inquiry was costing, and actually published, I do believe, copies of the legal fees that Mr. Coffey was charging. Just so that the public does, indeed, have the full record, I am wondering if you could give us the full breakdown cost on the Cameron inquiry and the breakout as to what we paid lawyers, what we paid for other staff, rentals, everything.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We can certainly do that. I can tell you that the total amount spent to April 19 of this year is $4,398,994. If you like, I can break that down for you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You can just provide it to us. That will be fine. It will save some time.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay.

MS DUNPHY: If I could just ask a question, for clarification. Do you need a breakdown? Do you want each employee as well or just a salary block, or do you want details?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would like the breakout particularly for legal counsel.

MS DUNPHY: For legal counsel, that would be fine.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The rest of the employees can be just lumped in one block that is fine.

MS. DUNPHY: Okay, thank you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I notice there is so many thousand dollars -

MR. T. MARSHALL: I could do that now if you want.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Sure.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Counsel for parties with standing, $1,099,747.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Who was the counsel involved?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The counsel for parties with standing was Martin Whalen Hennebury & Stamp, $452,956 and Ches Crosbie Barristers, $646,791. So the total is $1,099,747.

For the Commission of Inquiry, Smith Coffey, Bernard Coffey Law Office, co-counsel, $831,929. Cox & Palmer, $734,306 and Cox & Palmer legal research assistant, temporary legal assistant, $253,227.

MS DUNPHY: I would just like to add a comment. Just to verify I guess, Mr. Parsons, this was up to April 19. So it is quite possible there has been - I know for a fact actually that there have been a couple of bills processed in the last week of April still relating to the old fiscal year. So when we provide you with the written, I will have it updated to that point.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That would be great. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I notice there is $1,000 allotted this year in the Budget for inquiries. I am just curious as to the process. Under Commissions of Inquiry for this year we have allowed $1,000. I thought we normally budgeted a certain amount every year, maybe I am wrong here, or do we just sort of whenever commissions of inquiry happen we go looking for the money and it shows up next year? We do not anticipate there is going to be an inquiry and budget something for it?

MS. DUNPHY: You are right. It is basically just a notional amount to keep the activity open. Generally, when these things come up, like the Cameron commission last year, we sit down and, if necessary, look for Special Warrant funding or plan for the next fiscal year if possible. It is just to keep the activity there appropriate.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Referring to page 237 of the Estimates. I am just trying to get into some comparisons here, RCMP vis-à-vis RNC. How many total police officers do we have in this Province involved with the RCMP versus how many officers we have for the RNC?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am going to refer that to Paul Noble.

MR. NOBLE: There are currently approximately 370 RNC members, and there is a class, of course, training now. So it should bring the number up close to 400 for this fiscal year. Approximately 450 RCMP officers devoted to provincial contract policing.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Do you have the rough numbers available of the support staff, like that is the officers themselves? How about how many support staff would be involved with each of these?

MR. NOBLE: I believe there are approximately 100 civilian support staff employed by the RNC. I am sorry I do not have that number readily available for the RCMP.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Of course the RNC, probably easier to put it that way, geographically the RNC do St. John's, Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook, Labrador City, the more populated areas, but the RCMP do all the other rural areas.

MR. NOBLE: That is correct.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has there been any thought given to that old traditional discussion about should we have all of one and none of the other or are we okay with where we stand right now? Looking at a cost basis, yes, the RCMP cost about $14 million more a year, but the RCMP do not have the benefit, shall we say, of economies of scale in terms of they are representing every little nook and cranny out around the Province. What is the latest on that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: When you say: Have we given it any thought? I guess we always give it thought, but I can tell you that the position of the government, at the present time, is that we like the idea of having more than one police force in the Province but we do not want more than two, and that is our position right now.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Say that again, please.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We do not want more than two. We do not want additional police forces. The concern we have is with municipalities wanting to have police officers. We want the municipalities to have municipal enforcement officers but we do not want them getting into policing because we get into some major issues of standing. So we like having the RNC and the RCMP, two forces, but we want to limit it to two.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The RCMP, as I understand it, was a seventy-thirty basis. Is that still the formula?

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is right. We pay seventy, they pay thirty. When I first came here I thought it was the opposite, but I was quickly taught the realities of life here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So is that shown here, the thirty? Where does it show the -

MS DUNPHY: It is the 70 per cent that is reflected in these numbers.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is just the seventy?

MS DUNPHY: That is just the seventy.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. From reading these documents of the Estimates we would not get any – we cannot figure out from looking at this that the actual cost of the RCMP is another 30 per cent tacked onto this. Unless you knew the -

MS DUNPHY: Yes, to break it down, I mean, they have - there is actually portions that they bill less than seventy for certain administrative areas. It is actually closer to sixty, forty but that is minimal.

There is also in here community tripartite agreements with four communities in Labrador which is a lower rate again, but to look at these numbers this is what it is costing the Province for RCMP, not what it is costing -

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So when I said it is costing $58 million a year, that is only the 70 per cent figure?

MS DUNPHY: Correct.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Paul, you can correct me if I am wrong, that the RCMP also have their own federal officers here.

MR. NOBLE: Yes, that is correct. They have members within Newfoundland and Labrador that are dedicated exclusively to enforcing federal legislation and statutes and the RCMP then would pay 100 per cent of the cost of those members in this Province.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, just to flip now to the Inland Enforcement piece, I have asked you some questions in the House about it. According to the numbers, the staff complements, you have seven inland fisheries personnel, one being a director, one being a chief of enforcement and five actual enforcement officers. Now I understand that our actual full enforcement effort is split between these officers and there are also officers over in Natural Resources.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Who were seconded to Justice in the summer.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Again, and I say this because I am personally aware of it, I have had officers approach me who do not know where they are. They are in no man's land in the sense of they do not like at all – well, first of all, the issue seemed to be that you took people who are, shall we say, enforcement officers, that is in their blood, they go out and look for people who are committing offences versus people who are in Natural Resources who have spent a lot of time, whatever they do in Natural Resources, gauging trees or that kind of stuff, forestry officers as opposed to enforcement officers. So you take a bunch of these people and you put them together, and I guess it started back when you put a forestry guy in charge of these enforcement guys and some fellows did not like that, and they did not think that was the most effective way to run an enforcement, was to have a fellow who dealt with trees telling you how to go catch poachers. Now that has been continuing, and we are aware, through Freedom of Information, of some information from Justice Marshall who provided a report to the Premier, 100 page preliminary report. We are still waiting for the final report.

As of Saturday, I had, to my face, another complaint from an enforcement officer who is just complaining in the sense that he is totally lost. He works six months of the year, he is told to go do this, another six months of the year he is told to do that. Absolutely, dedicated individual who loves what he is doing but has no stability in his employment whatsoever. Apparently, this is not just him. He tells me that virtually everybody who is involved in this enforcement initiative have these problems. By the way, these are not people who do not like their jobs; these are people who love their jobs. They just want to know that they have a job from year to year.

For example, little things that most of us might take for granted. He cannot even plan a vacation, and has not for the last four years because he gets brought over to the department to go to work in the summer, which is the poaching time. So he has not had a vacation in four years because he is dedicated to his job, but he would like the certainty of knowing if he is in Justice - do you know that I am saying? It is causing your employees a lot of aggravation. When are we going to get some stability in the system so that these people know where they are? What does it matter whether they are over in Forestry? If their job was to be over in Justice, why aren't they in Justice? Can't something be done to make that a better system?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Let me give you some context to this. Wildlife enforcement is in the Department of Natural Resources, as you know, and forestry enforcement is over there as well. I understand that a number of years ago, by the previous government, somehow they were combined. They were in different departments and they were combined.

On July 13, 2004 Premier Williams announced the creation of an Inland Fisheries Enforcement Program. It was established to address concerns that people were raising, and the government was raising, our government, conservation groups and recreational anglers who believed the federal government was not living up to its constitutional responsibility to provide adequate enforcement of inland waters. This program that was announced was placed in the Department of Natural Resources. So you had inland fish enforcement along with wildlife enforcement, along with the enforcement of forestry regulations.

The program is designed to target the most serious poachers, those involved in large scale poaching activities involving the commercial element. In 2004 the initial responsibility for this program was placed with the Department of Natural Resources and it was managed and coordinated by the special investigation section of the legislation and compliance division of that department. It had a budget of $100,000 and it had twenty experienced conservation officers who were deployed. The program was run under, what I am going to call, the enforcement model. The program ran for twelve weeks. It was very successful. There were 165 fishery charges laid against 104 individuals, and the program was the recipient of the 2004 Public Service Award of Excellence.

The following year the program remained with the Department of Natural Resources. The budget was increased to $800,000 but the supervision of the program was realigned under a different model within the Department of Natural Resources. Responsibility for the program was run, not by what I will call the enforcement model, but it was run under the existing Department of Natural Resources organizational structure where multifunctional management and field staff delivered the programming. That year there were sixty-nine fisheries charges.

In 2006 – well, let me say first of all, there was a difference of, obviously a difference of opinion within the Department of Natural Resources as to which management style, which model should be utilized in inland fish enforcement. This is where retired Justice William Marshall comes in. He was asked to give the government the benefit of his advice after his research into which of these models is the way to go. Obviously, there are employees in the department that have very strong views on which of these management structures is the way to go.

The program was transferred to the Department of Justice in 2006. In that year there were thirty conservation officers. We continued to employ conservation officers from DNR to Justice to carry out the program. The program operates under the model that was followed in 2004 in the Department of Natural Resources. It is headed by a director, and under the director there is a chief enforcement officer. As I said, the conservation officers come over each summer to carry out the program.

Last year, in 2008, there were forty-two staff and the budget was over $2 million. The program has been awarded awards from the Salmon Preservation Association of Western Newfoundland, the Ches Loughlin Conservation Award. It has also been awarded an award called the Guenter Behr Award for the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland. The program is working extremely well. It is now a division of Justice, as I said. The chief, or the director there, reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Enforcement, Mr. Noble, who is here. It has a very good relationship with the federal enforcement officers. There is a Memorandum of Agreement executed. The Province and the feds share equipment, they share information, they share intelligence. They do joint investigations together. There were two undercover operations last year. I think they are doing an outstanding job in protecting the inland fish resources of our Province. I am very proud of the work that they are doing each and every year to combat poaching of our inland waters and I offer them my full support. I await with great interest the recommendations of Mr. Justice Marshall. He will take the time he needs, as I indicated in the House previously, but I think his recommendation will deal not only with inland fish enforcement but also with wildlife enforcement as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

You alluded to the women and youth detention centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for which there was money first allotted last year. You also mentioned that the Department of Health objected to using part of the facility for people with mental health issues. Can you give us some more detail surrounding that? How did that impact the construction timelines? When do you expect to have it? When is this going to go to tender and so on? What was the problem the Department of Health had with it?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Department of Health, as I understood it, did not want people who suffer from mental health to be in the same institution, to be in a prison. They felt that mental health suffers should be in a hospital not a prison. As a result of that, I think we made the determination that we will proceed anyway and use the four cells that were originally to go to mental health sufferers would be to - we would have four for female youth and four for male youth and four for adult women.

I am looking forward to the discussion that the deputy minister and my officials will have with the federal prison officials because as I said earlier, the situation in Labrador with LCC, LCC is full and it is full 94 per cent. I think 94 per cent is the correct figure, are Aboriginals –

OFFICIAL: Only Aboriginals.

MR. T. MARSHALL: - and that population is growing. What we generally find is that crime is committed by the other elements of our society, that demographic. The more young people you have the more crime you have. As your population ages and declines, then we are seeing the need to access the justice system in many ways, our courts goes down, but in Labrador where you have an increased population, it is the opposite. I think we have to deal with that facility. In line with that, we know that there are Aboriginals from Labrador serving federal time in federal correctional facilities and my preference would be if we could, I don't know if repatriate is the word, but bring them back so that they could serve their time in Labrador close to their family and friends.

I am going to ask Don, the Deputy Minister, to elaborate on it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes. This facility is supposed to be a twelve-unit facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, as I understand it, for women and youth.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Now, originally women, youth and people who suffer from mental health.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right. So now it is going to be a twelve-unit facility. Aside from all the other stuff about federal people and what component are Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal, where are we with this now in terms of the timelines of when we are going to get it?

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, a design consultant has been engaged by works, services and transportation and has been meeting with representatives of Women's Policy, the department, corrections, obviously, to come up with a design for the facility. Heather Jacobs has been spearheading this on our end, but I understand that their design is actually within the next week or so.

MS JACOBS: Yes, we are meeting the consultant this afternoon and we should get a preliminary drawing of the facility.

MR. BURRAGE: We recognize that it is Labrador and it is a short season, and to get a shovel in the ground you have to move very quickly. So that is where we are with it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So we are certainly not going to see it this year. There is a whole tendering process and everything –

MR. BURRAGE: That is right. There will be that process as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So it would be fair to say that the earliest time the shovel is going in the ground is next year?

MR. BURRAGE: I do not know. We are trying to move on it as quickly as we can without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, to get the job done.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So given that the plan went off the rails in terms of the four units that you had originally anticipated might be for people with mental health issues, where is that now? What process is in place or correspondence in place and discussions in place between yourselves and health, because we still end up with a lot of offenders, not just women and not just youth, but adults who end up with mental health issues? It is fine for Justice to say we did not want it to be part of this facility, but what is your understanding of how was it resolved that we would deal with offenders who have mental health issues?

MR. BURRAGE: I have not spoken directly to the Department of Health recently on that, but I know that they had plans afoot to deal with those with mental health in Labrador, but I would have to get back to you on the details to be honest.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

We just recently dealt with, here in the House last week actually, the new Revenue Administration Act where they are bringing together all of the different pieces of legislation that deal with taxation and revenue collection in the Province and so on. The Auditor General of course talked about, in his last report, fines outstanding in the Province. We are all aware that it is a perennial problem. Courts impose the fines but payment and getting them collected is a different thing.

Is there any interaction between the new changes in the Revenue Administration Act and where we are with our fines? In fact, maybe you can just make a few comments as to what kind of success rate we are now having with fine collection. I know some years ago there was an additional program set up or people hired specifically to go after people who had not paid. Maybe you can just give us an overview now of where we sit with that.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, I am going to let Heather Jacobs answer that in detail, but I recall we made a number of legislative changes in an attempt to deal with fine collections in a major way, including incarceration of people who refused to pay. Our success rate, I do not know whether that has been as successful as we thought it would be but I am very optimistic because now we have finally put in place the federal set-off program. I think for the first time we are going to make a major dent in the outstanding fines because I think that program will be successful.

Heather, do you want to take it?

MS JACOBS: Yes, thank you, Minister.

This is an area that we are working very hard and diligently on. In 2003 we had three collection officers. Now, in 2008, we are up to eight collection officers. I am happy to report in 2008 we collected $8.2 million in fines and this year we have increased that by $1.5 million and we have increased it to $9.7 million in collection.

I know this is a number that the AG always speaks about, that our outstanding receivables keep increasing every year. Once again, we do work hard but one of the reasons it increases is because the fines that are imposed are increasing, the penalty value. Victim fine surcharge was introduced in 2006. Also, with just having more officers on the street we are doing more ticketing. So that is why the fines outstanding are increasing. We have also assigned a civil lawyer to a pilot project to help us assist in the collection process and we have done some debtor, creditor examinations and that is still a work in progress.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Totally change of pace here now. What is the – we had a problem last year, it has been ongoing I guess, about parking at Atlantic Place. What is the status on that today? I remember there were staff members who were really upset because they have to go to work there, they were not getting any breaks on their parking. Judges get their parking paid for. There were several complaints filed. We asked the question last year: Did the department intend - I believe the union got involved on behalf of those workers as well. Was anything ever resolved?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It has not been on my desk since I took over Justice again. So, Don, you can - maybe Jerome took care of it last year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not think.

MR. BURRAGE: No, it has not been resolved. The issue is broader than the Department of Justice and includes other employees from other departments who also work downtown. The issue has really been deferred to the PSS as part of the collective bargaining process. Those who are seeking to have some form of compensation for their parking, it has not been resolved to my knowledge, but it has deferred to the Public Service Secretariat.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, you alluded in your introductory comments to legal aid and reductions. Apparently, from what I am reading here, the feds used to fund the legal aid program in this Province to the tune of 90 per cent back in the 1980s. We declined to 25 per cent. Now, this year, it looks like we are down to about 16 per cent of the cost of our legal aid system as being funded by the feds. Is there anything that you see or any options that we have other than begging the federal government to put more money into this, or do we just give up that argument, we have been at it for so long, stop beating our head against the wall, say get on with it, it is our responsibility, let's find the funds to fund the system properly?

MR. T. MARSHALL: As I said earlier, we have – what page is legal aid on in the Estimates?

OFFICIAL: Page 232.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Just bear with me a second.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It cost $14.3 million a year; the feds are putting in $2.3 million of it.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Province has invested heavily in legal aid, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, since 2004-2005. As I said, we now have more lawyers working in legal aid than any other branch or sub-branch in the department.

The provinces and territories are united in their quest to try to convince the federal government to put additional funding into legal aid. As I said, it has not happened. It just has not happened. It has not happened with federal justice ministers who support legal aid in principle because Mr. Cotler indicated to me he had failed to convince Minister Goodale to put more money into legal aid, that was under the Martin government, and there has been nothing from the federal government apart from renewing the existing arrangement. I think it is renewed for a year. I believe, as you do, that legal aid is extremely important, and if the federal government will not come onboard than we have no alternative but to continue to fund it on our own as best we can.

Civil legal aid, most of it arises out of federal law. Most of it is family law. In family law, divorce law is an act of the Parliament of Canada. I have been there three times. I have made lots of speeches at that table imploring the federal government to invest in legal aid, and civil legal aid in particular, but I believe Minister Nicholson took the point of view that the federal government did not have responsibility for civil legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The Conservative government preaches of being tough on crime but they are not putting their money in the other end of it, in support pieces.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, you know, if you invest in one area of the Justice system, if you put more into policing that means there are going to be more charges, that means you need more legal aid lawyers, that means you need more judges.

As Heather Jacobs said earlier, more police on the streets, more tickets; more tickets, you need people to collect the fines that are outstanding.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Do we have all of our legal aid lawyer staff positions actually filled in the Province right now? Am I correct, someone tells me that we have a shortage?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Some vacancies?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Vacancies.

MR. BURRAGE: I do not know what the current (inaudible) –

OFFICIAL: I am not sure, I can certainly find out, but I am thinking there may be some vacancies in Labrador.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I cannot recall right now either where I am hearing it, but we have had several calls and complaints about, for example, the positions are funded but not filled. I am just wondering if that is part of the issue. God forbid, if we do have the money in there and we are not hiring the people to do it.

MR. T. MARSHALL: There was the legal aid position in Labrador West that was unfunded. Oh, I am sorry, not unfunded. We had a lot of difficulty filling that but that is now filled. If you recall that Labrador West has not had a judge after Judge LeBlanc moved out. That was many, many years ago.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He moved to Corner Brook.

MR. T. MARSHALL: So a new judge was appointed, after all these years, for Labrador West, but of course that means you now need Crown counsel, that means you need legal aid, and it means you need a holding facility to put the people who are awaiting trial, criminal trial, but that position has now been filled.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I notice from the media - in fact, you commented here in the House about Judge Reid's - I guess he is finished now, technically.

MR. T. MARSHALL: He finished on the thirtieth of April.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On the thirtieth of April. Are there other vacancies as well in the provincial court besides his that -

MR. T. MARSHALL: There are two others, there are three.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No doubt that slows down the process too, I guess, or -

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, Judge Reid and I had - Judge Reid is Chief Judge of the provincial court, is also the Chair of the Canadian Judicial Counsel, and as you know, it is the – not the Canadian Judicial Counsel, forgive me, but the provincial counsel, judicial counsel, and it is important to note that it is the judicial counsel who advertise and seek candidates for the provincial bench and it is the judicial counsel who do the interviewing and then they make a recommendation to the minister as to who is qualified to be a judge.

The only role of the Minister of Justice - now I think many people will find this interesting. In dealing with provincial judges the only role of the Minister of Justice is to pick a name from a list that the judicial counsel provides. The minister cannot pick a name who the judicial counsel does not recommend. The minister does not even decide on what the pay of the judges is after they are appointed. That is decided by another independent tribunal. The minister does not discipline provincial court judges. There is a different group that does that, a branch of the judicial counsel. I think you will remember we amended the law last session.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right. So what do we do now when he is gone? You do not have a chair on your –

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, I had a discussion with Chief Judge Reid about him starting the process, doing the interviews. It was then determined, and he decided that it would be better to let his successor chair that process. The Associate Chief Judge is the Acting Chief Judge until the new Chief Judge is appointed. He will now start that process with the other members of the judicial counsel. They will do the interviewing. I understand there are forty-four applicants.

The other thing is that we asked Professor Ed Ratushny, who I am sure you will recall as he was counsel to Commissioner Lamier at the Lamier Inquiry. We asked Professor Ratushny to come down and to give us advice on the selection process for provincial court judges. There is the issue of, well, is his advice given to the minister or is his advice given to the judicial counsel? He has given me his advice and we have passed that on to the judicial counsel. They are now engaged in the interview process and I look forward to receipt of their recommendations. At that point, the Minister of Justice will then take three names from that list and recommend them to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who will do the appointment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

If I may?

CHAIR: Yes, Ms Michael, go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I would like to come back to one of the issues that you were talking about because I have a further question. It had to do with the facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for youth, the pre-trial facility. Ms Jacobs talked about the consultation that was going on.

I am just wondering, I know the Elizabeth Fry Society is not sort of officially here in Newfoundland and Labrador but I know that the director occasionally does make visits here and does watch what is happening here with regard to women. I am just wondering if the Elizabeth Fry Society is part of the consultations with regard to that facility?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will refer that to Don Burrage.

MR. BURRAGE: Ms Michael, I do not – to my knowledge – know at this point, but it is something I will take under consideration.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MR. BURRAGE: I do not believe so, as of yet, no.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Now, it could be that the Women's Policy Office is consulting with them but I just think, because they are the community group that does deal with women and the justice system and have so much expertise in that area, and because the executive director does come here occasionally and has spoken out on issues as she has seen them here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would just think it would be very wise to have them involved.

Thank you.

Now, I am asking a question that is not really in your budget but it is related to two things in your budget, and I am trying to get an answer to a question that I actually asked of Transportation and Works. With regard to section 1.2.05., Administrative Support, which deals with facilities planning and the acquisition of capital assets, and relating that to 3.3.01., looking at both of those, Court Facilities, which has to do with planning, designing, construction of court facilities, I have a question, and that is. When I went through the Estimates for Transportation and Works they had an expenditure in there which was an unplanned expenditure of $700,000. It was for a building on Duckworth Street, 317 Duckworth Street, which is in one of the blocks that I call lawyer's row to the west of the courthouse. It is a small building. As you come down Church Hill it is the little building that is immediately in front of you as you go onto Duckworth Street. It is just right there.

I was trying to get an answer from Transportation and Works as to why they were buying the building. I understand – we have been talking to them since, even though in the Budget it says that it is a revised line because they had no money there to do a purchase, but they said they got word that this building became available. My understanding is, from calls that we have made to them, they have not finalized the purchase but they are in the process of negotiating around this building. So I am wondering, because of where it is located, it says to me that it must be some kind of planning around justice. I am just curious, are you aware of Transportation and Works looking at 317 Duckworth? Because I would love to get an answer to why they are looking at 317 Duckworth, which we have been told is probably - the price that is being asked is actually pretty high for the building, is what we are being told by some retail people. So I am trying to get an answer around that building.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay. I think the building you are referring to is a building presently occupied by the judges of the Court of Appeal.

OFFICIAL: Trial Division.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Trial Division that is presently leased and that the building has now been offered for sale.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think it is the Fagan Building.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. It is the Fagan Building.

MR. T. MARSHALL: In terms of negotiations, I do not know.

OFFICIAL: All of those are done by Works and Services.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That part is done by Works and Services.

MS MICHAEL: I am getting a clearer answer from you than I got when I asked at Works and Services.

Ms Jacobs has her hand up if you would not mind letting her -

MS JACOBS: I think, Ms Michael, that that building was purchased at the end of this fiscal year.

MS MICHAEL: It was?

MS JACOBS: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Do you know if $700,000 was the final price?

MS JACOBS: It was either $600,000 or $700,000 and I cannot remember now. I am thinking it was $600,000, but I can find out for you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, I would appreciate that.

As far as you know the purchase has been finalized?

MS JACOBS: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: That makes sense. It was already being used by trial judges and was being leased.

Okay. Thank you. That is the clearest answer we have gotten on that. I am glad I asked it.

Section 4.3.01. Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods; now, remember that this was a program that was going to look at "the investigation of complaints from the public regarding the use of residential or commercial property for illegal activities which compromise the safety of the neighbourhood."

When this issue came to the floor of the House of Assembly I really questioned this whole program. I now notice in the Estimates that while there was a lot of money estimated for the program, $330,600, in actual fact this program was not put in place and it does not look like it is being put in place. Am I correct, and if so, what was the discussion around this program and why did it get stopped?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, first I will tell you how it got started. It got started in - I was at an FPT meeting, and while discussing with other justice ministers, they talked about doing it and how they found it as a quick means to shut down buildings and homes in which illegal activities were taking place, such as grow-op operations and drug operations. You could do it by way of a civil remedy. It was quicker than a criminal going through the criminal process where you had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

There has been a lot of objection from the women's community. On reflection, we decided to listen to the advice they were giving us. We also felt that it was a feeling by the police that they could accomplish the same objective by having the money in their shop. So we have deferred this, or cancelled this at the present. We have heeded the advice we were given.

MS MICHAEL: Well I have to say, Minister, I am delighted to hear that because in the House I was reflecting the voice of the women's community when I spoke against it. So I am really glad to see that you did a second think on this and did follow that advice. Thank you.

I am just really quickly now going to slip through some line items, and I do not want to ask questions for the sake of asking them. I just want to make sure I am asking ones that are important that we ask.

Under Civil Law, 2.2.01., there is a big increase in the Salaries again this year.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Which one again?

MS MICHAEL: Oh, I am sorry, 2.1.01., Civil Law, under Salaries an increase of $455,600.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, that is made up of the 4 per cent salary increase and the twenty-seventh pay period, but also there are two new lawyers being hired this year. They are both being hired in Child and Family Services. There will be one in Labrador and there will be one here in St. John's.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Under Professional Services, I think under this one these cover law firms that are hired, is that correct, by the department?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Professional Services?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The $500,000 drop this year over last year?

MS MICHAEL: Well, that is one question. There was a drop of $500,000.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay. I am advised that is due to removal of one-time funding for the environmental assessment in Churchill Falls.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So removal of one-time funding for the –

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am going to ask the deputy minister -

MS MICHAEL: Because the environmental assessment is going on.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Pardon?

MS MICHAEL: The environmental assessment is going on.

MR. BURRAGE: That is - how do I best describe it? It is funding to assist Aboriginal groups in participation in the environmental assessment for Churchill Falls. So there is a panel which has been set up which is jointly funded by both the Province and the feds through CEA, which will allow for participant funding for the various Aboriginal groups so they can participate in the environmental assessment process. So that is what that $500,000 is.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, good enough. But what I am curious about is that this year's estimate is $500,000 less than last year's. Last year it was $2, 801,000 this year it is $2,301,000.

MR. BURRAGE: The $500,000 was paid out of last year money into the group.

MS MICHAEL: Oh, okay. That is the answer. Thank you very much.

MR. BURRAGE: We do not need it this year.

MS MICHAEL: No, okay it was paid out.

Under Professional Services, could we have a breakdown of who gets covered under this, where the monies go?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, we have undertaken to get that.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Under 09. Allowances and Assistance; we were told last year in questioning that this line is a contingency fund for paying out claims. For example, the Dalton claim was one. So do you consistently keep $2 million there or are you aware of things that are coming up this year?

MR. BURRAGE: It will be $2 million this year as well. It is basically $2 million every year.

MS MICHAEL: Right, you just keep -

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, we just keep the consistent number.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Okay, thank you.

Contingency on all levels.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes. The total amount paid out last year out of that fund was $2,025,017. So it approximated the $2 million number.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. BURRAGE: In some years we have had extraordinary payments where it has gone over that.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

As I said, I do not want to ask questions just for the sake of asking.

Under 2.1.03. Support Enforcement, "Appropriations provide for the enforcement of Court ordered support payments…" I just have a general question, actually, for this. I know that efforts have gone into improving this program. How is it going? Is there an evaluation of how it is going? Have we increased the number of people who are in arrears? Have we been able to deal with that issue?

MR. T. MARSHALL: They certainly do valuable work, and raise a lot of money for the people in this Province who need it. Obviously, in the collection of child support and spousal support there is a lot of emotion involved. I was there over Christmas; I attended their Christmas party. I did not hear any complaints, but I think I had better refer it to Don.

MR. BURRAGE: My sense is that the program is working very well. I met with all of the staff there. I am trying to think now, if it was before Christmas. I think it was just after Christmas. I do not have the actual statistics in my head at the moment but I recall asking for the statistics. My impressionistic evidence I am giving you is that I was generally very pleased with what I was told.

MS MICHAEL: I wonder: Could we have up-to-date statistics on that?

MR. BURRAGE: I can undertake, to the extent that it is available, to let you have that, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Subhead 2.1.04, ATIPP, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy, under Salaries, last year was heavily under spent by over $304,000, and this year the estimate still is not up to the estimate from last year. Could we have a bit of explanation around Salaries at ATIPP?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Last year the spending was lower than had been budgeted because there were several vacancies and several recruitments. I will get Debbie Dunphy to elaborate on that.

In terms of the budget decrease, there will be the 4 per cent salary increase and the twenty-seventh pay period. That is going to be offset by the removal of temporary salary dollars for two temporary privacy analysts.

Debbie?

MS DUNPHY: As the minister said, I guess, when the program or the division of ATIPP was initially set up, what Finance agreed to provide us was four permanent privacy analysts as well as the director of support staff, whatever, and they also gave us two temporary analysts for two years because they anticipated initially there would be more work. So, as he said, this year for 2009-2010 those two positions, or the funding for those two positions, have now been removed.

During 2008-2009, I do not know but we lost all the privacy analysts we had just in terms of the turnover, so there were periods of time when we had two on staff and two empty; you would get the other two filled and the other two were gone. It was just kind of a juggling act for a little while, but that is why there was less than anticipated funding or salary dollars spent; however, right now I think we are still down two?

MS JACOBS: We are in the process of recruiting an analyst. In addition, the director is on maternity leave so the lawyer is wearing two hats. That is why the money is down, and it is basically the two analysts that were only temporary money to the end of March of this year.

MS MICHAEL: What is the impact of all of that on the service that the department is going to be able to offer? My memory of discussions that we had with ATTIP is that they are pretty overwhelmed with their work. Am I hearing that there are going to be fewer people now doing the work, and what is the impact of that on people being able to access this service? The public I mean.

MR. T. MARSHALL: When we talk of ATTIP I think there are two offices. There is the Information and Privacy Commissioner; that is an office of the House, and that group seeks their funding from the Management Commission, of course -

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. T. MARSHALL: - and there is the ATTIP Office of the Department of Justice.

Heather?

MS. JACOBS: We are hoping to have the last analyst hired; all the interviews are done. That office seems to run very well, and the acting director there feels that three analysts are adequate. I do not hear any complaints from departments or municipalities that are using that group, so we will keep an eye on it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Subhead 2.1.05, Family Justice Services, last year was under spent. The revision was an under expenditure of about $172,500; however, I do note that this year the estimate is $436,200 over last year's estimate, so just an explanation of the positions there, please.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The difference this year over last year is the 4 per cent salary increase and the twenty-seventh pay period.

MS MICHAEL: There must be a new position, though, is there, because the $436,200….

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think there would be a director position. The difference between last year's budget and last year's actual is saving from several vacancies and several recruitments.

Heather, you can tell us if those vacancies are now filled?

MS JACOBS: Yes, Minister.

I know that they are in the process of hiring a director. That is not an area that I am really familiar with, so that is one I can undertake to get back to you on.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I should mention that Family Justice Services originated out of a pilot project in Corner Brook that was originated by Mr. Justice LeBlanc, and it got national recognition. People were coming from all over the country to see it. Federal Minister Cotler, who was the federal Minister of Justice, provided us with some funding so that we could have Family Justice Services in Central as well.

There was a plan put forward by federal Minister Martin Cauchon, but we had anticipated receiving up to four or five Supreme Court family judges. There was a program, I guess five years ago now, where we were going to expand the Unified Family Court, along with Family Justice Services, right across the Province. Unfortunately, with the change of government that changed so we decided that, even if we were not getting the judges, we would expand Family Justice Services across the Province. That was done, and it is an excellent program involving education, mediation and alternate dispute resolution.

This year we were advised that the federal government did appoint a new Family Law judge, Judge David Peddle, who was elevated from the Provincial Court. He has been appointed to the Unified Family Court and he will be assigned – I understand he will be moving to Corner Brook when the courthouse opens. I think he is going out in June.

This is a great program and it has come a long way.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Minister.

Subhead 2.2.01, Criminal Law, last year in Salaries it was under spent by $1 million and this year you are asking for $260,000 over last year's, so just an explanation of why the under expenditure last year.

MR. T. MARSHALL: This, of course, is the prosecution group, the Crown Attorneys. The increase over last year will be because of the 4 per cent salary increase and the twenty-seventh pay period. The fact that it was down this year: it appears that there were several vacancies this year, savings for three months of the 8 per cent salary increase.

Do you have anything to add there, Don?

MR. BURRAGE: No.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Heather?

MS JACOBS: I know that there was a policy position that was frozen, that they are now in the process of recruiting. There was another prosecutor position that was vacant, and they are also almost ready to fill that position as well.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Thank you very much.

I am just quickly going through here.

Under Human Rights, it is not a line item but I am just wondering: When is your hope for the release of the report of the Human Rights consultation that has been going on?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry; I didn't hear you.

MS MICHAEL: When do you hope to have the report finished with regard to the Human Rights consultations that are happening, or have been happening? They are probably over now.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think they are over now.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, but when do you hope to have the report released? I am assuming there is going to be a report. You are working towards changes to the act.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Major changes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

Will there be a report as well, or will it just come out when you bring legislation to the floor?

MR. BURRAGE: I do not know that a report, per se, is contemplated.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. BURRAGE: We received input from various interest groups, both written as well as oral. I cannot tell you at the moment whether we actually anticipate coalescing that into a report in advance of going forward with proposed legislation. It will probably be more in the nature of proposed new legislation.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Do you have a sense of when you think you would be ready to propose changes to the legislation, Minister?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think we were hopeful that we could bring legislation forward in this session, but I do not know how realistic that is.

MR. BURRAGE: Now, this week?

MS MICHAEL: I think I just got the answer.

[Laughter]

MR. BURRAGE: Having recovered from his heart attack….

[Laughter]

I think it is fair to say that it will not be in this particular sitting of the House. Maybe in the next; we will see.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Thank you very much.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I should say that I think one of the most interesting proposals I have heard so far is the Government House Leader has suggested that the Human Rights Commission no longer report to the Department of Justice, but be another institution that reports to the House of Assembly. I have noticed that the Ombudsman, or the Citizens' Representative, has recommended that it report to the Labour Relations Agency, which is interesting.

I look forward to the debate on that.

MS MICHAEL: In our presentation – because I made a presentation here in St. John's – our position is that it should be treated in the same way as the statutory offices; that the Human Rights Commission should be the same as the statutory offices and report to the House.

It would be an interesting debate. The Ombudsman's recommendation I found extremely curious, because there is much more to the Human Rights Commission than issues that happen in the workplace. While the workplace is major there is more to it than that, so there will be an interesting discussion I suspect.

Under subhead 3.2.01, you may already have explained this in your opening but that is so far back now - it is almost two-and-a-half hours - I cannot remember. Under 3.2.01 there is a big increase in salaries over last year's estimate.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Is this Provincial Court?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Salaries?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Again, the 4 per cent salary increase, the twenty-seventh pay period, and there is approval of three new positions in the budget.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Remember, there was an information manager, a financial manager and an Aboriginal officer.

MS MICHAEL: Right, for an officer to do training.

Thank you. As I said, it was so long ago now I cannot remember all the points that you made.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The increase this year, in 2008-2009, from what was budgeted to what was actually spent, there is $305,000 there.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is due to severance and leave payout for two judges. One retired and one, Judge Peddle, was elevated to the Supreme Court.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I think maybe all of my other points have now been answered. I think that is it, Mr. Chair. I do not think I have any more substantial questions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

I have just a couple of quickies here, Minister.

We inquired in the House in December 2008 about the medical examiner report into the death of Austin Aylward, who died while he was in custody. I am just wondering if anyone can confirm whether that report was, in fact, subsequently delivered to his family, or released to his family by the medical examiner? There are a lot of issues around the release of it.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, we met with the father and mother. I met with them on two occasions. We have - I cannot recall –

MR. BURRAGE: I think I know the answer.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay.

MR. BURRAGE: We did meet with the family on a number of occasions. We reviewed the findings of the report with them. I do not believe we actually gave them a copy of the report.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there any reason why, because when we met with them as well that seemed to be his main issue? Like, you talk about it but you will not give it to him. Is there any reason why you will not give the medical examiner report to him?

MR. BURRAGE: I do not recall it being an issue when we met with them.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He came to us, met and asked us to raise it in the House. That is why we raised it in the House of Assembly. So I assumed it was an issue.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Parsons, we did meet with him on a couple of occasions. I do not know if you are aware of this but we met with the family, we talked about different options that we would have. It was agreed that we would retain the services of a retired judge. We have retained retired Judge Robert Wells to review the circumstances surrounding the arrest, the incarceration and death of their son, and take into account his personal, medical and legal history, and to make recommendations which may be necessary in desirable (inaudible) circumstances.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So that has been done by Justice Wells?

MR. T. MARSHALL: He is in the processing of doing that now.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He is in the process of doing that now?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, and we met with the family. We discussed different options and the family were happy with that particular –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is fine. Thank you.

I noticed government over the past couple of years have changed the criteria – because of inflationary and other costs, they have changed the financial assessment tools for a lot of government programs. I am wondering if any thought has been given to making a similar type change for the legal aid financial tool.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The assessment -

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Access, for example, to the home heat rebate, there are usually different levels of funding that one has to meet to qualify. It does not appear to have been the same inflationary piece to legal aid applications.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Legal aid is a separate commission. Nick Avis is Chair. There are other members of it. Newman Petten is the Executive Director, as you know. I have not had any communication from them where they felt that there was a need to change the assessment but I will certainly raise it with them. Of course, we have legislation that will be debated in the House, it could be as early as today, in removing an impediment that exists to qualify for legal aid now that delays the process of a rule.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right. That is one of the questions I was going to have for today. It is on today, by the way, in the House.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Am I reading it correctly, that we do not have any funding this year in the Budget for the Safer Neighbourhoods and Communities program?

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: That has been answered.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You asked that, did you? Okay, I missed that.

It is not in there?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will just reread the Estimates when I get the answer, when it gets printed.

The last one for me is: Can you give me the status report on the bar owner's case against the government who says you unfairly, illegally and improperly took their money, or took someone's money as a result of the taxation piece? The bar owners association took you to court. I think there was $5 million or $6 million involved. They are saying government should not have the money. You people passed a piece of legislation to keep it and I believe they have sued you saying that you should not have done that. Where is it to? We know where the money is though, but where is the case?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will turn it over to the deputy minister.

MR. BURRAGE: There was a time when I would have had that right on the tip of my tongue, Mr. Parsons. I confess, I do not at the moment, but I will get back to you on it and tell you where it is.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I appreciate that.

MR. BURRAGE: It is still somewhere in the hopper but I have not gotten a note on it recently.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right. I have had a few inquiries from different bar owners around the Province saying they want to know. I guess it might even be a communication problem with their person who is driving it for them. I said I will ask the deputy minister.

MR. BURRAGE: I know that there was an issue regarding representation, who was going to end up representing the bar owners and that was – of course, that is sort of a sidebar for us, but that was ongoing for some time. I think that has been sorted out but I will tell you where it stands.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I appreciate that.

Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: Just a very quick question, it has to do with the Youth Secure Custody, section 4.2.02. Last year there was under expenditure in every area except Employee Benefits. I may know the answer to it but I thought I would ask anyway. Is it because you had lower numbers of residents in custody last year, of youth residence, because everything was under spent?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Where is that?

MR BURRAGE: Subhead 4.2.02. It is on page 239.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry, is it 01.?

MS MICHAEL: Well, all of it. You are under spent throughout the whole thing, so I was wondering why that happened last year.

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is capacity for sixty people there, but rarely does it go over twenty – am I right on that?

MR. BURRAGE: The average is 16.1.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Okay.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We have a lot of people there looking after those kids. What is the number, Don?

MR. BURRAGE: The average is 16.1. Oh, the number of people?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: I think it is in the order of 100.

MS MICHAEL: On their staff?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: That includes twenty-four seven.

MR. BURRAGE: Education, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, right.

MR. T. MARSHALL: After you do your tour of HMP you should go out and tour that one because it is so enlightening after you see that. You do not see guards; you see teachers and guidance counsellors and social workers.

MS MICHAEL: Right. I look forward to doing the tours that we are talking about, you and I.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

CHAIR: I will ask the Clerk if she could call the heading.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01. to 5.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. to 5.1.01. carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 5.1.01. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CHAIR: Thank you.

Minister, I would like to thank you and your staff for participating this morning, as well as our Committee.

I remind the Committee that this Committee will reconvene on Wednesday morning to hear the rest of the Health and Community Services Estimates.

Thank you very much.

Motion to adjourn.

MR. CORNECT: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Cornect, thank you.

On motion, Committee adjourned.