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

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning, everybody. I would like to welcome everybody.

This morning is the Social Services Committee for the Estimates Committee. This morning we are here to review the Department of Justice.

First of all, if I could, I would like for the Committee members to introduce themselves. On my far right, if we could begin.

MR. YOUNG: Wallace Young, St. Barbe.

MR. RIDGLEY: Bob Ridgley, St. John's North.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, Burgeo & La Poile.

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

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

My name is Keith Hutchings - I did not introduce myself - I am the MHA for the District of Ferryland. I am the Chair of the Committee.

What I would like to do now, Minister, if you or maybe your staff could introduce themselves as well. I just ask you that when each of your staff is speaking if they could identify themselves before they speak each time, for the benefit of Hansard. So, if you could.

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let my officials introduce themselves, Mr. Chairman, if that is all right with you.

CHAIR: Sure, fine.

MR. F. COLLINS: Because I cannot remember half of their titles.

CHAIR: Sure.

MR. F. COLLINS: I will introduce the gentleman on my left, Don Burrage, the Deputy Minister, and I will let everybody else go from there.

MS DUNPHY: Debbie Dunphy, Director of Finance.

MS HYNES: Anita Hynes, Executive Assistant.

MS JACOBS: Heather Jacobs, ADM, Strategic and Corporate Services.

MR. NOBLE: Good morning.

Paul Noble, Assistant Deputy Minister, responsible for Public Safety and Enforcement.

MR. MORRISSEY: Good morning.

Ken Morrissey, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

Minister, you are free to make any opening statement or we could go right into – after we call the first head, you can make any statement or we can just go to the Committee, it is your choice. I will ask the Clerk to call the first heading.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: Probably, Mr. Chair, what we could do is to – and I must say I have to get used to this position as we go through. Ordinarily, I am used to sitting over on the side, where the lads are over there, so I have to get used to sitting on this side this morning.

To sort of set a backdrop for the questions that you might have as we go through the Estimates, I just want to give an upfront, perhaps a quick overview of the new initiatives that we have in the department in this budget. Very briefly, we have a total of new budget initiatives this year of $6.5 million. The incremental or net after tradeoffs and whatnot, we were a little over $5.5 million worth of new initiatives.

Some of the significant ones that I just want to bring to your attention. With regard to Adult Corrections, we provided for two new adult probation officers: one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and one in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have provided for a manger for the Victim Services division. We have hired six new correctional officers for various institutions around the Province. We have provided funding for the installation of cameras now at all of our correctional institutions. We have had increased funding for catering costs. As you know, we have had to re-tender the catering activity after the company last year went into receivership. There is increased funding for prescription drugs that we have had to provide for. We have funded to continue the program co-ordinator who was hired two years ago to implement the recommendations of the Decades of Darkness report. So, we have kept him on staff for another year to carry on that important work.

Under the Office of the High Sheriff, we have provided for three new deputy sheriffs and we will also be funding perimeter screening for Atlantic Place. We are also funding for a new position of court security manager.

Under Human Rights, we are continuing the two temporary solicitors in Human Rights to carry on the work of catching up with the backlog and getting that division on stream, up to speed. We are also continuing with the position of a Human Rights specialist. These are all temporary positions that we have extended. We are funding the Human Rights conference this year. As well, some of that money is offset by revenues.

For the Supreme Court we have added an information management technician and an administrative officer. For the Provincial Court we have added an information management person. We have also provided funding for the courthouse opening in Corner Brook.

For the RCMP, we have funded three new officers: two for the relief unit in Happy Valley-Goose Bay so as to be able to do extra patrols in Postville. Postville is the only community on the North Coast that does not have an RCMP detachment. We have also provided for extra child exploitation officers for the Major Crime Unit in Gander. There is considerable funding for extra standby costs for the RCMP that we had to build in this year.

Basically, that is the treetop version of the new initiatives. We have extra money for legal costs, counsel, public trustee – the Public Trustee Act has been proclaimed and we now have to provide a public trustee. There will be funding for that. Completion, of course, of the Corner Brook courthouse and we are continuing the Family Violence Treatment Court. So these are the basic new initiatives that the department will be involved in this year.

Having said that, we welcome your questions on the Estimates and I will take the liberty to pass off any questions that you might ask to any one of my officials and invite them at any time to fill in details, which they will have a much greater abundance than I will.

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Okay, we will go to our Committee.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, first of all, I just missed your comment about Atlantic Place initiative funding.

MR. F. COLLINS: You might recall, Mr. Parsons, there was quite a lot of concern expressed last year with respect to security at Atlantic Place in Provincial Court. Some discussion and consideration was given to perimeter screening and that presents some challenges, of course, given the layout of Atlantic Place. We were successful in the Budget in getting some money to provide for perimeter screening in Atlantic Place and we hired three extra deputy sheriffs to accommodate that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: First of all, just a couple of questions on the – I do not have a lot on the line by line stuff, but referring you first to 2.1.01., Civil Law.

MR. F. COLLINS: Section 2.1 –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Section 2.1.01., Civil Law and Enforcement.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You alluded in particular to item 05., Professional Services, which you just alluded to when you said there was extra funding for legal counsel It looks like it is about $1.3 million over last year. I am just wondering if you could give us some idea of why the expected increase?

MR. F. COLLINS: Actually, that is a little bit misleading, I think, that figure you are looking at there. The increase for external legal counsel this year was more like a million dollars. The blue figure – oh, you do not have that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not have the blue figure.

MR. F. COLLINS: In Professional Services, the budget –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It looks like they actually spent two –

MR. F. COLLINS: - was $2.3 million, it was revised down and then up to $3.3 million; that is what you are looking at.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, you actually spent $2,025,000 and now you have it up to $3,301,000. To me, that is almost a $1,275,000 increase. I am just wondering what it is you anticipate needing the extra million bucks for?

MR. F. COLLINS: The $2.3 million in the 2009 original budget – the difference between the original budget and this year's budget is a million dollars, as you can see. Yet, it dropped down to a little over $2 million last year. There was a reduced requirement for external legal assistance because most of the Abitibi files would be transferred over to Natural Resources. This year we are budgeting an extra million dollars for legal assistance.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what I am saying. If Natural Resources are going to look after the legal fees on Abitibi, what is it you anticipate needing an extra million bucks for this year?

MR. F. COLLINS: There are a number of ongoing files that Justice is involved in, and that is just a ballpark figure that we reserved to cover off any existing files that the department has. There is any number of them actually. It is a crapshoot at the amount that it might be and we budgeted a million dollars for it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would like to think that we have a little more than a crapshoot when we are trying to come up with our budget. I realize that you do not know exactly, but you have increased your anticipated budget for civil litigation by 50 per cent. I think it is a legitimate question to ask: What is in the queue that you think is going to require you to spend an extra million bucks?

MR. F. COLLINS: I pass that to the Deputy Minister to answer.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, some of that relates to anticipated legal costs for the international trade negotiations that are underway over in Brussels, wherever they take place. We have external legal counsel engaged on those.

Some of it relates to Abitibi because while last year the fees were JV'd over to Natural Resources, this year I think we are anticipating that we will take it in the Department of Justice as opposed to JV'ing it over.

So, some of that does relate to anticipated legal costs on Abitibi. Some of it relates to anticipated legal costs on the international - I forget what it is called – the international trade stuff that is underway, we have external counsel engaged in that. So, that is in large measure where the million dollars comes from.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the phrase you just used, Mr. Burrage, about you -

MR. BURRAGE: JV'd, it means, basically, last year the legal fees on Abitibi were transferred over to Natural Resources. We did not have money in our budget to cover those fees.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, I just was not familiar with the phrase. I was thinking it meant transferred but -

MR. BURRAGE: Sorry, I picked up some of the lingo from Debbie here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: These finance people -

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, I know. It is an occupational hazard.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you undertake, Minister, as well - I have asked this question I think every time we have done Estimates and you have certainly complied in the past at all times. Of the $2, 025,000 that was spent last year by your department, could you undertake to provide us the details as to how that money was spent and who it was spent with? For example, does that include legal fees or does that include settlement as well, or are they two separate pots?

MR. BURRAGE: They are two separate pots. The $2,025,000 that was spent last year is legal fees and we can provide you with a breakdown on that. The second, the settlement account, is the $2 million you see in 09., Allowances and Assistance.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right, 09.

Could you also give us a breakdown on how the 09. was spent and how that was paid out?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, we can certainly do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: If I could just, Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: Yes, sure. Go ahead, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: -just ask and make a point at this moment.

CHAIR: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Any time that either one of us asks for a listing, can we assume that it will come to both parties?

MR. F. COLLINS: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Then I do not have to repeat. I will not go back to that question. All my questions are answered.

Thank you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any idea, Minister - you have obviously put in an extra million dollars and Mr. Burrage just explained the two reasons he thinks we are going to need some extra. So, will all of the carriage of the Abitibi piece be done by Justice in the forthcoming year, or will it be still split between Justice and the Department of Natural Resources? As I understand it and just from the cases that I have been tracking, we have what we call the data file. I call it trying to get into their data room which was one case and then we had the issues of trying to get the preferred status as a creditor based upon the Minister of Environment's regulatory notice that she issued, which is being appealed, as I understand it. Is the appeal going to be conducted, for example, in that case by counsel hired by Natural Resources or counsel hired through the Department of Justice?

MR. BURRAGE: It would be through counsel. All legal counsel is retained by the Department of Justice. It is actually an application for leave to appeal because we do not have an automatic right of appeal. So, it is a leave to appeal application in the Quebec Court of Appeal. That will be handled by the same legal counsel that handled the – WeirFoulds, I think, is the name of the firm.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right.

MR. BURRAGE: The same firm that handled the matter to date. I think the intention is for the legal fees and associated costs of that to be borne by the Department of Justice. It is certainly in the first instance, so that is the intention.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any idea when the application for leave to appeal will be heard?

MR. BURRAGE: I want to say May 15, but I am not 100 per cent sure of the date. We can certainly get you the date. There has been a date set.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, if you would please, that would be helpful.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Also, do we have anyone in our department who is on the file, or did we just farm this out to WeirFoulds in Quebec?

MR. F. COLLINS: We have one of our senior lawyers on the file. Donna Ballard is the lawyer in our department looking after that file.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you tell me - because in both cases that I am aware of, the data room file and we will call it priority file, on both those cases, those bodies awarded cost against the Province. Can you tell me what the costs were? I realize this is above and beyond the legal costs that you incur with your counsel. This is the award of cost that the court ordered. Could you tell me what the costs were in both cases?

MR. BURRAGE: There has not been a calculation of the cost. The reason I am looking a bit puzzled, I am not 100 per cent clear that there was an award of costs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: There was.

MR. BURRAGE: Okay, I am going to take you at your word on that. There has not been an assessment of the costs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. I take it therefore - do you have any idea what the costs might be?

MR. BURRAGE: I am sorry, I do not.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Could we get an undertaking that as soon as you are made aware of what the costs are that we would be notified?

MR. BURRAGE: If there is an award of cost that we are obliged to pay out, then we can tell you that, certainly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right. In both matters, the data room file and in the –

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, I understand.

That would be a matter, I believe, of public record at the time anyway.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

What is the policy at the present time of the department in a case where you do have cost awarded against the government in an action? Does that come out of your Allowances and Assistance pot in 09., or is there somewhere else that would get paid?

MR. BURRAGE: It does not happen very often. I do not know, Deb, would we take that out of –

MS DUNPHY: I think so.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, Ms Dunphy tells me it would probably come out of Allowances and Assistance, which is MO 09.

Yes, the general contingency is for claims against the Crown. So, whether it would be a judgement against the Crown, I guess, as a result of a direct judgement or whether it would be an award of cost against the Crown, either way it is a judgement against the Crown.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I noticed, moving on to 2.1.05., Family Justice Services, we have had an increase of about $300,000. I wonder is that one of the initiatives you referred to.

MR. F. COLLINS: Salaries? Are you talking Salaries?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, under the Salaries piece, 01.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, that is the four new positions approved for Family Justice Services. That is under the Poverty Reduction Strategy. Now, there are tradeoffs for these positions from the Adult Alternative Justice Program. That is the extra salary money.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I wonder if you might comment on the recruitment efforts in that regard. It looks like last year we were down about $250,000 that we did not spend for Salaries. What is the situation now? Are all of the positions that were intended funded? Have you recruited? What is the status of the recruitment? What vacancies exist?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: We recently hired a new director for the Family Justice Services program. So, there were some delays early in the fiscal year and there were some vacancies, but when the new director came on - I believe it was late summer or early fall - she has been very active in getting this program revamped, I guess, would be a good word. I think most of their vacancies are now filled. We also had some issues up in Labrador with getting some space to house the program, but that has all been addressed now as well.

Right now, there are four new positions which they will be actively recruiting. These are mainly management positions for various regions outside of St. John's. So, the vacancy right now with Family Justice is very low.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Moving on to 2.2.01., Criminal Law section, 06., Purchased Services. I am looking at an increase there. I am wondering if you might give some explanation as to what Purchased Services you expect to need the extra cash for.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Purchased Services for 2009 you will notice was $931,000, revised down to $750,000 and that is because witness costs has been less than anticipated for that particular component. It is up to $1 million for the coming year. The training budget has been re-profiled from Professional Services to this particular division.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, I just want to make a comment but my mike is not on.

Mr. Parsons, we have done a little bit of re-profiling here. We had some money, if you recall, back during I think it was 2007-2008. We got some additional monies related to the Lamer inquiry and we had budgeted some training money under the Professional Services head that really should have been budgeted under Purchased. So, some of it is just a reorganization of the budget, just operationally.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Maybe off the top of your head - I do not have the staffing book with me here - how many Crown attorneys do we have right now in the system?

MR. BURRAGE: There are forty-three permanent lawyers with the Crown and four contractual at the moment. There is one vacancy, which has been advertised.

On the civil side – I realize you did not ask that, but just for completeness - there are twenty-seven permanent lawyers and seven contractual. There is one permanent vacancy which has been advertised. That is in Labrador. I believe it is a CYFS lawyer we are trying to fill in Labrador. That is the current complement.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Does that include the legal aid lawyers, just so that I am on –

MR. BURRAGE: No, I am sorry, that does not include legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, so how many do we have over in legal aid?

MR. BURRAGE: We will have to undertake to get you the numbers for legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, because they have it broken into, I understand, civil and criminal as well, don't they?

MR. BURRAGE: I am not sure if they break it - do they break it (inaudible).

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BURRAGE: I do not believe they do, but we will get you the total numbers for legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Section 4.1.01., the RNC - that is under the Salaries heading, 01. It is roughly $1 million increase. What is the purpose of that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is down from the original budget because there were several vacancies between April and September that were not filled. These were mostly filled by graduates of the recruit program. It is up to $41 million this year due to salary increases.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So there is no staff increase here, just salary increases?

MR. F. COLLINS: These are salary increases?

OFFICIAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just for the record, the RNC do have in their collective bargaining process a binding arbitration set-up I understand?

MR. NOBLE: It is final offer selection, so it is a form of binding arbitration in the regulations.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Are you aware of anyone else in the system provincially, public service, who has such a system or is it exclusive to the RNC?

MR. NOBLE: I am not certain, Mr. Parsons. Certainly within my bailiwick, it is a fairly unique formula or arrangement. I believe corrections officers may have a form of binding arbitration if in excess of 50 per cent of the bargaining unit is deemed essential. Other than that, I think that this arrangement is fairly unique – certainly within the Public Safety and Enforcement division.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This question has come up sometimes in discussion, but also in the House and so on and certainly in the media: Could you tell me the difference between that type of final offer selection process for the RNC versus what judges have with the tribunal situation? That seems to be sort of final to me as well, or we at least have governments now come to accept that it is pretty final.

MR. BURRAGE: I have some familiarity with the judges' process, various sides of it. In the case of the judges there is a tribunal, as you know, which is established. The judges appoint a member to that tribunal, the government appoints a member and then there is a Chair. Representation arose from the Supreme Court of Canada decision which said the government could not negotiate directly with judges because of juridical independence. We had to keep ourselves separate.

So, in that circumstance, the judges, through their legal counsel, make representation to the tribunal on various issues that are of concern to them in terms of salaries and benefits. Government, in turn, makes a submission. The tribunal goes off and makes a recommendation to government, which is then brought before the Legislature. It is ultimately the Legislature that has the final say whether or not to accept those recommendations, to vary them, or to reject them. In that case, there is a final say that rests with the Legislature.

We recently had a tribunal which has to render its report, I think at the end of September, and that will be brought forward in due course to the Legislature for consideration. There is some case law around the latitude that the Legislature has to accept or reject, which I think is what you are alluding to, which does place some restrictions. If you are going to reject a recommendation - I forget what the test is but there is a legal test for rejecting it. It is not simply a matter of the Legislature having its hands tied. It does have the final say, but there are some legal tests around what latitude the Legislature has to accept or reject or vary recommendations.

That is a kind of sui generis process. It is much the same, I think, right across the country now. That is my knowledge of that process. I think it is different than final offer selection. I am not as familiar with final offer selection.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: From my recall, we spent most of the 1990s squabbling about whether we were bound to as a Legislature or what the tests were. I understand, certainly when I was there, that it finally came to the point where we accepted the tribunal process. To your knowledge, has there been any in this decade, any rejection or tinkering by any Legislature with any tribunal?

MR. BURRAGE: Oh, God; I believe the last panel, the last tribunal, was accepted by government without change. I believe that to be the case.

Prior tribunals, my memory does not go back that far. I know that there have been cases across the country, and I only know this anecdotally, where recommendations have been modified or rejected because there has been some case law which has arisen as a result.

I honestly cannot tell you, with any kind of authority, whether or not other tribunals across the country have been consistently accepted, or even whether they have been consistently accepted in this Province. I do believe the last one was accepted without modification. I stand to be corrected on that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Section 4.2.01., 06., Purchased Services. I notice there is a fairly substantial increase there. Would that be the issue of the catering service that you alluded to in your intro?

MR. F. COLLINS: Some of it would be. Some of the programming costs as well were transferred to Purchased Services from Professional Services. Again, it is a question of moving money around and the other was a significant increase in catering costs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Under that section, Grants and Subsidies, $95,000, what would they be for? Would that be John Howard type stuff?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: That is a grant strictly to the John Howard Society - just one grant.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will turn it over to Ms Michael at this point.

CHAIR: Okay, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you very much.

Let's stay with 4.2.01. 05., Professional Services, since we are there. Could you just speak to that as well, Minister, because there is quite a variance between the budget and the revised budget?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will let Debbie respond to this because this is a matter of moving money around from one division to another. So, I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, you may recall last year the department got significant funding related to the Decades of Darkness report.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS DUNPHY: A portion of which was allocated for programming costs for inmates. The majority of that money was budgeted under Professional Services, but again, we have a piece of work to do with our Professional and Purchased Services budgets because I think there is just some classification issues, I guess for want of a better word, as to what is considered Professional and what is Purchased.

So while the number is down, under Professional, it is not an indication that we had not been offering the programming or providing programming to the inmates. Some of it is just again the re-profiling of money. We have actually begun the process of digging into these two accounts now to get a better handle on where we are spending our money and how it should be classified.

MS MICHAEL: Yet, in this year's budget it is back up to what would be almost similar to last year's budget –

MS DUNPHY: Yes, right. So again, like I said, this is kind of where we are looking. We need to get this tidied up - the housekeeping, more than anything.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under 04. - I do not think this would be quite the same - there was a big increase in the Supplies line from the budget to the revision last year of $74,300.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, this was the increase for food, catering services and increase in prescription drug costs.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, when the catering company could no longer provide that service to the penitentiary we actually had to hire individuals ourselves and we actually purchased the food. So instead of some of the costs being shown under Purchased Services, we had to actually put it under Supplies because we actually bought the food.

MS MICHAEL: Sure, okay. That makes sense. Thank you very much.

Well, I do have some other line items. Luckily, some of them have already been asked. I will not repeat any of those, so I have to go back to the beginning. I am only picking up on ones where they seem to be large.

Under 1.2.02. - so we are right back at the beginning now - under Professional Services, there was a large variance between the budget and the revision – a variance of $158,000 less spent. Why exactly in that line – it might be similar answers, I am not sure, but it is a whole different area.

MR. F. COLLINS: I am going to pass that question on to Heather Jacobs to explain the delays with the Innu Healing Path initiative and delays in the Family Violence Treatment Court. Heather, do you want to respond to that?

MS JACOBS: Ms Michael, with the Innu Healing Path, there was a probation position and a Victims Services position. Neither one of those positions were filled. In addition, there was an operating budget and only limited money was spent.

With the Family Violence Treatment Court, there were delays in starting that program, but I am pleased to report it is up and running. We have the money again this year to continue with that pilot.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

I am sorry that the answer seems to be repeating what you gave as the overview, Minister, but in the overview we did not know where those pieces fit. So, this is helping us see where the pieces fit in the budget. Thank you.

Again, it is not major, but in the Purchased Services, 06., the next line, we did have a variance between the budget and the revised budget of $80,900. This year the budget is $100,000 less than it was last year, so what is changing? Maybe this is a re-profiling that is going on here too in terms of Purchased Services in this area.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will ask Heather to respond to that.

MS JACOBS: Once again in 2009-2010, it was reduced because there was less activity in interpretation services and there were delays in the Family Violence Court, similar to above.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JACOBS: Once again, there is also a re-profiling for this year of the Family Violence Court money. We had it in the wrong – Debbie can help me with the words – budget head, is it, Debbie? So we have re-profiled it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is great. Thank you.

I have to say that while it might be a headache for those who have to do it, the re-profiling of money is clearly visible. Where it is being spent, I think, is important. We were with one department yesterday and there was absolutely no reason for the money being in the line it was in – absolutely none. So, it does help.

Under the Grants and Subsidies, who gets these Grants and Subsidies?

MR. F. COLLINS: Item 10?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is 10.

MR. F. COLLINS: You are talking about the budget for the coming year?

MS MICHAEL: Subhead 10.

MR. F. COLLINS: Five hundred and seventy thousand dollars?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Item 10, Grants and Subsidies.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, I guess mainly we have a very small what we would call a discretionary grant fund. We do provide some core funding for the Search and Rescue volunteers – the association. We do have some money budgeted there that is 100 per cent reimbursed by the federal government. Again, this is mainly for some Search and Rescue initiatives.

Then, throughout the year, there are some small grants for – PLIAN has a Youth Justice Rocks Camp; they do some camps in Labrador. We have made a donation to the Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Association. We also provide grants to two communities in Labrador for community constables.

MS MICHAEL: I wonder could we have a list of those grants from last year's –

MS DUNPHY: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Okay, the next one is 1.2.03., subhead 06., Purchased Services. There had been a large budget of $431,100 in the budget, revised down to $200,000, and this year back up to $385,300. What happened last year that you seem to have an anticipation of a much higher expenditure that did not occur?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, Ms Michael, this is a reallocation and re-profiling of money, so I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: We have actually started questioning this ourselves. When Finance provides us with the budget for the learning and development funding, they tell us to put it under Purchased Services. Of course, as the money is spent throughout the year, it is spent on things like registration fees and travel plans and hiring trainers and those sorts of things, so it gets dispersed among the other budget objects in the division. We are going to speak with the officials at the Public Service Secretariat to ask is there a particular reason why we have to put it there, or, based on our past number of years of historical data, can we try to budget it more appropriately in the areas where it is going to be actually spent.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So, you made adjustments last year, but you still want to talk with them about whether or not –

MS DUNPHY: Well, yes, we are still putting it all under Purchased Services, but really it should be dispersed.

MS MICHAEL: It should be dispersed. Okay, thank you.

Under 1.2.05., the appropriations provide for the facilities planning and the acquisition of tangible capital assets. Now, I know that some facilities may have come under this that are – it has all been taken care of, and that is why they are no longer in the budget for this year, but we had major variances under Professional Services – well, all three: Professional Services, Purchased Services and Property, Furnishings and Equipment; 05., 06., and 07. There were major variances. For example, the budget for Professional Services was $2 million and only $250,000 was spent, then this year there is no need for that line, or no expenditures this year in that line. The same way in the Purchased Services, the variance between the budget and the revision was not as much but it was $646,900, so could we have explanations actually of all three of those subheads.

MR. F. COLLINS: With respect to MO 05. and MO 06. - Professional Services, there was $2 million allocated for the pre-trial detention centre in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for capital construction planning. That did not happen, so that is the $2 million revised down to $250,000. There were carry over expenses related to the pre-planning for that facility and for the pre-planning for the replacement of Her Majesty's Penitentiary. That accounts for the reduction of $2 million to $250,000. That is not on the agenda for this year so that is (inaudible) -

MS MICHAEL: Why isn't it on the agenda for this year, Minister?

MR. F. COLLINS: The construction of the pre-trial detention centre is not on for this year. We are looking at doing a complete analysis of our correctional institutions, including Labrador. That is part of the component in that complete analysis.

We are reluctant to engage in any major capital spending on our correction institutions until we have a better picture of just where we are going. We know we are out front in committing to that and we are very much cognizant of that. Part of that whole analysis to see how we can best deal with the situation in Labrador because there are a lot of needs beyond that pre-trial detention centre – so, it is going to be a year at least before we have our plans in place with regard to what we are going to do in corrections.

MS MICHAEL: If I am wrong, correct me, but it is my memory that the decision to do a pre-trial detention centre in Labrador did come from a number of incidents that were quite serious. There was a study done of that particular situation and a number of groups, the Aboriginal groups in particular, the women's community within the Aboriginal groups, all have identified this as being extremely serious and needed. Now, the planning has been put off by another year; planning being put off means beyond another year before we get it. It is very disturbing to see this since there was so much attention on that one issue, and it stands alone being very particular to this site. Why wouldn't this be something that you are dealing with, especially – my colleague is reminding me because I could not remember who did the report; it was the Citizens' Representative who did the report. So, I am rather disturbed to see it coming off the budget.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is not off the table for this year. It is not in the capital plans for this year.

There was a considerable amount of work done in response to that suggestion. We had Transportation and Works do up a number of models that we looked at with respect to stand alone – the pre-trial detention centre. We looked at a number of different models, a complete youth detention centre with all the services that would be available for remands and intermittence and people with mental health issues - women and youth. We also looked at basic lock-up type situation, glorified lock-up type situation.

The figures for both were staggering with respect to the $2 million that we originally projected. We are looking at other options for other facilities down there that might accommodate that particular need, but at this stage in the game, government is not prepared to sink that kind of money, at this stage, while we are still doing the analysis of our whole correctional system.

So, that is where it is. It is in that overall planning that we have started with respect to what we are going to do with our facilities that we have. How we can best reorganize, reconfigure, whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, well, I have the information. I will be looking for more answers, but not in this setting, obviously.

Could I push forward then? You did also mention the HMP here in St. John's. In doing the analysis that you are talking about, are you looking at HMP and are you looking at if from the perspective of what happens if the federal government continues not putting money in? Is that part of the analysis that you are doing as well?

MR. F. COLLINS: Hopefully, by the end of this year, we will have explored whatever options are available to us with regard to where we are going with all of our correctional facilities, including HMP, and the other six facilities that are across the Province. Our officials are currently engaged in planning sessions and jurisdictional examinations and whatnot to see what options there are to us, with the assumption that there is no federal prison. So, we are looking at any and all options that we can consider. We are looking at our needs first, what we need, what options will satisfy those needs. Then, we will make a proposal to government as to here is the direction we think we should go.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Would the line, the subhead on Purchased Services, be all part of this decision that has been made? As far as I know, it has not been reported publicly to any of us. This is the first time I am sort of hearing this.

MR. F. COLLINS: MO 07?

MS MICHAEL: MO 06.

MR. F. COLLINS: Furnishings and Equipment?

MS MICHAEL: The Purchased Services, is that part of the same decision?

MR. F. COLLINS: Some of the funding that was approved for the alterations and improvement for the correctional facility were transferred again to Property, Furnishings and Equipment. We bought a generator, checkpoint monitor, security cameras, additional funding for prisoner transport unit, as well as some additional equipment purchased by the RNC. That is where the money was sent in MO 07.

MS DUNPHY: If I could add to that.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, under 06., again as part of the Decades of Darkness, we were provided the $1.8 million to do some, I guess, security improvements to some of the facilities around the Province - the correctional facilities. The $1.1 million represents some of those alterations and improvements. As the minister alluded to, some of it actually involved buying equipment such as the security cameras and checkpoint monitors, so that is why the money had to be transferred down to Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

As you have probably noted, under the RNC capital, the headquarters project, we did have considerable savings and we did go to Treasury Board requesting that some money be transferred to get some additional equipment for both corrections and the RNC, which is why the MO 07. is up from the budget that was provided in 2009-2010. For this year now, for 2010-2011, that $614,500 is, I guess, our ongoing base budget for the replacement of vehicles for the RNC, as well as corrections and the sheriff's office.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Moving on, over to 2.1.04., Access to Information and Protection of Privacy, MO 01., Salaries. Under the Salaries there was a significant variance between the budget and the revision. I am assuming this must mean that they did not have the full complement of staff.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, we had a number of vacancies in that division and several recruitments. There were some transfers. There is a lot of movement in that division. Again, Debbie, do you want to respond to that?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JACOBS: Ms Michael, some of the reasons for this, the director was on maternity leave, so the lawyer for that position was doing double duty. As well, a manager went on secondment and she is still on secondment at the College of the North Atlantic. So, one of the analysts is filling in that position.

One of the major problems we have with that office is that we have three positions there and when we train these analysts, quite often, they end up then going to another department and become their co-ordinator. We are kind of like the training ground. We have kind of constant turnover, but we are working on that and we are currently recruiting.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. I am glad to know you are working on it. It is important. I do know that the workload there is fairly heavy. With understaffing, it also means that the public is not being served as it needs to be served. There are two things: one is the workload on the people there and the other is the serving of the public.

At the moment, Ms Jacobs, are you confident that this year the full complement will be happening?

MS JACOBS: Yes, Ms Michael. Hopefully, probably in the fall, we should have the full complement.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

I am hopping through here because I do not have to repeat certain questions. This one is 2.1.05., MO 06., Purchased Services. The budget was $539,000 and it was under spent in the revision by $339,000. Could we just have an explanation of that? This could have been a re-profiling also. Although I notice it is still back up to $540,000 for this year, so maybe it is not.

MS DUNPHY: A couple of – well not a couple, probably in 2006-2007, 2007-2008, Finance provided us with a $200,000 contingency fund so that during the year – and it is budgeted under this activity because oftentimes this is where the money is directed. Sometimes during the year, the federal government will come to our co-ordinator or our director, and say: We have some additional money. Do you guys have a project you can do before the end of the year to be able to spend that? What we were having difficulty with was, because it was often late in the fiscal year, the department did not have the flexibility to be able to funnel some money into that and then be reimbursed.

So, Finance agreed to give us a contingency fund of $200,000. You will note that the revenue under the same activity also varies by the $200,000. We have availed of some additional federal money, but we have not always needed to use the contingency fund. That does explain some of the variance. Then, like I said, you will see the same variance under the revenue.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that explains - thank you very much.

Moving on, under Legal Aid, 2.3.01., under this one we have the M10., Grants and Subsidies. It seems to have levelled out a bit, but could you repeat for me this year where this money goes under M10?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, Ms Michael, I will let Debbie respond to this one. Again, we are talking about the contingency fund that has not been used. Debbie, do you want to respond to that one?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

The grant here is the funding that we provide to legal aid for their operations.

MS MICHAEL: That is it, just one total grant?

MS DUNPHY: Yes. Well, we pay them monthly, actually, and they provide us with a report annually.

MS MICHAEL: Great.

MS DUNPHY: The minister noted we also have a contingency fund here. A number of years back, legal aid was struggling with – when they prepare their budget, they have a certain level of revenue that they require to assist them. That revenue, besides revenue from government, was down. So again, Finance provided us with a contingency to be able to assist them when necessary if their revenues from other sources dropped below a certain level.

Since the fund was established, we have not had to draw down upon that fund. So, we do not pay them the money automatically; it would have to be requested. That is again why there is a bit of a variance there.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask: When was the last review of legal aid from the perspective of how it is operating in terms of meeting the needs of the public? What are the wait times for people who need legal aid? What is the workload for legal aid personnel?

MR. BURRAGE: Ms Michael, I cannot tell you when the last review per se was done. I can tell you it is something that we are now looking at with respect to legal aid in terms of rationalizing the service. There have been various bits and pieces done, but in terms of a more comprehensive review, that is something that we are looking at now.

MS MICHAEL: I am glad to hear that. Obviously, it is not something that comes into my constituency office every single day, but we do, over the year, have a number of times when people have come to us who are not being served well. I do not mean they are not being served well because of the people who are doing the work, but because they have to wait so long. Because of that, I think, people are not always getting the same lawyer and having to start from scratch – after waiting for months in between meetings, then getting a new lawyer and having to start from scratch. So, I am glad to hear that you are starting to look at it. I think we really do need a review of how well we are servicing.

MR. BURRAGE: You may recall, I think it was in the last sitting of the Legislature, there were some changes made to the act to help facilitate some of that. That was just a part of that, but the process has started.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MR. F. COLLINS: I can also tell you, Ms Michael, that legal aid has always been a hot topic at the table of the federal and provincial Justice Ministers. The provincial Justice Ministers have, for some time, been trying to encourage the federal government to step up their contribution to legal aid because it is vastly underfunded by the federal government, especially in the area of civil legal aid. There has been very little response, but it is an ongoing discussion at the table.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

While we are under this head, because I did have questions: Could we have an update with regard to the process for the Aboriginal court and how that program is moving?

MR. BURRAGE: I think you are referring to the Innu Healing Path initiative?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right.

MR. BURRAGE: Last year in the Budget, there was funding for an assistant Victim Services co-ordinator and an assistant probation officer to work in the community of Sheshatshiu. There was also core funding to assist in the establishment of a residential treatment program. That was what the community had in mind, so we had money there for rent, heat, light, that sort of core funding to help them get going.

We worked with the community throughout the year. At the end of the day, they were unsuccessful at that time in getting it up and running. It takes time. That is not a criticism of them. It is just that sometimes these things take time.

There is a new council in place now. They recently did hire a Victim Services co-ordinator for Sheshatshiu, so that piece has started. We did manage to provide them last year, out of the core funding, with some money for computers, equipment that they would need to get their program up and running.

They are actively recruiting for the assistant probation officer position. I am not sure if it is filled, but if it is not, they are on the cusp of filling it. The objective was to try to provide the community with some capacity and to have people working in the community reporting through Victim Services, because we still have to maintain some measure of quality control, of course, working in the community.

That funding for that program has carried through in this fiscal year. Now, with the new council, we are working with them to see – because at the end of the day they have to take ownership. When I say they, the Innu community has to take ownership of this. So, we are working with them to see what is their vision and is it the same as the vision of their predecessors.

Fundamentally, we are looking at a form really of a treatment program, somewhere that offenders can go to receive the kind of training or treatment that they might need so when they come back before a judge on sentencing, they have been through that process. Then the probation's report, which they are referred to as Gladue reports, would reflect that. It is ongoing, but it is baby steps to be quite honest. That is fine; you have to crawl before you can walk.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. The process is moving, so I think that is important.

MR. BURRAGE: It is, very much so.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask - it is not budget related but with regard to the program - has the goal of the community been to try to have Aboriginal people in those positions?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, okay.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, fundamentally, the focus has been Aboriginal positions. We also have two-and-a-half interpreter positions that were approved previously: one for Sheshatshiu, a half position for Natuashish, and one for Nain. The Sheshatshiu one is now filled.

We have had some issues with the amount of funding allocated for those positions because it is difficult, in Labrador, to get people on reserve to work for low wages if they are going to be subject to tax on those wages as well, but it is working.

MS MICHAEL: It is working.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, slowly but surely, we are making progress.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

Section 3.3.01., Court Facilities, appropriations provide for the planning, design and construction of court facilities. So MO 05., the Professional Services, what was that related to?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sorry, Ms Michael, could you repeat that question again, please?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, 3.3.01, subhead 05., Professional Services. You had $166,000 designated and spent, and so I am just looking for what that was spent on.

MR. F. COLLINS: During the year, we did a considerable amount of assessment and planning options with regard to reconfiguration of the court. That was the one-time spending of $166,000 spent then on that planning and assessment.

MS MICHAEL: The court here in St. John's?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, for St. John's.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I remember that now.

Then under Purchased Services there was a huge budget last year that was under spent by $885,100, and this year is down to $1 million. So there is a major change happening in the line of Purchased Services there.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, what happened there, the $7 million revised down to $6 million because of delays in construction in the Corner Brook courthouse.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: The $1 million in this year's budget is for the completion of that project.

MS MICHAEL: So it is all around Corner Brook? Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Michael, do we want to change up or are we going to keep going?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I think we can say I am finished because all the other ones that I have raised, except for one line, all the others were raised by Mr. Parsons. So I just have one line, if you want me to do that –

CHAIR: Okay, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Section 4.1.04. is the Newfoundland Constabulary. This has to do with the new facilities related to them. So under 05., the Professional Services, this year there is no budget at all, so that means all the planning has been completed, is it? Is that why?

MR. F. COLLINS: The planning money, that was planning for the RNC refit headquarters.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Then under 06., where we are going from $8.4 million up to $15.9 million, is this –

MR. F. COLLINS: That represents the different phases of construction of the RNC headquarters.

MS MICHAEL: So it was the construction?

MR. F. COLLINS: Tenders for this year came in much lower than anticipated and the $15 million is for the next phase.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Well that was good to have a tender come in lower than anticipated. It does not happen very often, does it?

MR. F. COLLINS: A rare occurrence, you might say.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Under 07., there is nothing in the line for Property, Furnishings and Equipment for this year, whereas it was $1.5 million last year.

MR. F. COLLINS: That was a one-time funding, Ms Michael, for the purchase of accommodations in Lab West. There were eight living quarters set up for the RNC.

MS MICHAEL: I remember.

Thank you very much. They are all my questions at the moment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, the Auditor General provided an update on the adult custody review performed by your department back, I think, in 2007. The Auditor General found that the department had only implemented four of the twenty-one recommendations as of September 2009. Can you provide us with an update now as to where we stand with those, particularly what has been done to control the use of sick leave and overtime?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let someone else respond to that, Mr. Parsons, but suffice it to say, I think the Auditor General is, at this stage, satisfied with the response of the department and corrections have virtually closed the file on that particular issue. Paul?

MR. NOBLE: Yes, to be honest with you, Mr. Parsons, I am not sure off the top of my head. I know that a recent response went back to the Auditor General requesting an update. A number of those recommendations certainly are still in progress. I think a lot of these issues, either they were subsumed by Decades of Darkness, or were overtaken within the last year or two by the more pressing issues identified in the Decades of Darkness review.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: When you say overtaken, does that mean they have not been dealt with?

MR. NOBLE: No, I would not -

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think he alluded at one point, in one of his reports, to overtime to the extent of 350 per cent or something increase.

MR. NOBLE: Yes, that probably is a reflection of the staffing levels at many of the institutions perhaps lower than they needed to be. With Decades of Darkness, one of the predominant themes in that review was around staffing issues and issues of human resources and morale. There has been, for example, over the last two budget years, an additional increase in the numbers of correctional officers. One would anticipate, over time, to see some of those expenditures in the areas of overtime and sick leave, for example, are proportionally reduced.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So where are we exactly now with the Decades of Darkness?

MR. NOBLE: Decades of Darkness, the bulk of the recommendations have either been implemented fully or continue to be works in progress. I think of the seventy-odd recommendations there may be only three or four that have been deferred to this date.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Which ones would they be? Was there some legislation required, as I understand it?

MR. NOBLE: Yes. The act is now being reviewed internally within the department. In fact, Dr. Carlson who was one of the consultants, as you may recall, on the Decades of Darkness report has now been tasked with the co-ordination of preparing a new corrections act. So, he is leading a working group within the department to accomplish that.

There was a recommendation, as I recall, involving moving senior corrections personnel from HMP to the Department of Justice. We have sort of reconsidered the prudence or the wisdom of taking senior operational people out of HMP and relocating them to the Confederation Building. We are not sure that is the wisest move at this juncture. There were a couple of others. I am sorry; I do not recall off the top of my head exactly what they were.

MR. F. COLLINS: There was one that I recall, the hiring of university students to replace casual call in for hospital escorts or whatnot, but it was not deemed to be prudent at the end of the day.

MR. NOBLE: One of the recommendations related to hiring Memorial students to relieve classification officers at HMP - and the superintendent of prisons is of the view, and rightly so, that there are corrections officers within the system who have the background, the knowledge, skills and training to actually temporarily take on the duties of classification officers. Hence, there would not be any reason to actually go outside the corrections community to fill those positions temporarily.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On the HMP issue that was referred to - and the Decades of Darkness, of course, had several comments about correctional officers and HMPs and where it fits in our system and everything. Minister, have you personally had any conversations or discussions with anyone at a federal level with regard to HMP? Where are we going with that?

MR. F. COLLINS: At our last federal-provincial ministers' conference, we made it a point to buttonhole the Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Van Loan at the time, to get a response because there had been ongoing communication and correspondence back and forth between ministers. We were given the impression from Mr. Van Loan that at this point in time there was no money available for federal prisons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think he actually made a pronouncement federally that the feds were not going down that road with any federal pens any time soon.

MR. F. COLLINS: In fact, he suggested that with all the media coverage that had been made prior to that meeting - you might recall all the investments that the federal government was going to make in federal prisons. He was very leery of the fact that they may not even have enough funds to look after their own needs as far as federal prisons were concerned.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Rather than have an unreasonable expectation level, should we just assume right now that this is off the radar for the foreseeable future?

MR. F. COLLINS: I referred earlier to our discussions and planning for our correctional institutions that we are currently engaged in and will be engaged in for some time, considering all the options that are available to us. I think we are proceeding on the basis of the fact that we do not have a federal prison.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Last year in Estimates, the minister said - again on the Labrador correctional facility - that he would be approaching the federal government to look at a cost-shared project there as well. What is the status on that now, on LCC?

MR. F. COLLINS: We do know that we have a major problem with overcrowding at LCC. With respect to the status of that federal cost-sharing, we are involved currently, as you know, with the per diem cost-sharing with the federal government to look after federal prisoners in our system. With regard to that particular issue you raised, Paul, do you want to respond to that?

MR. NOBLE: Yes, general overtures were made in that direction, Mr. Parsons. Again, there appears not to be any particular appetite or reception on the part of the federal government to move in that direction.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has the fetal alcohol specialist for LCC been hired?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. The Aboriginal navigators for the Clarenville facility -

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - all of those positions are filled?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I noticed my colleague raised questions about the women and the youth detention centre for Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I never saw any press releases on this or anything.

It was pretty significant. We had the Citizens' Representative in this Province dealing with this, went and did a special report, filed the report, the department made the report public, and the department committed and government committed that they were going to build a facility. It was quite a significant item in the media and raised in Question Period numerous times. Yet, it quietly, I would suggest to you - not suggest, it has quietly been swept under the rug.

We would not know anything about this if the Leader of the NDP did not ask this question this morning. How would we ever know that you had no intentions of proceeding with this?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think, Mr. Parsons, we would eventually be making a statement with respect to our overall planning with respect to our correctional institutions. To consider any major expenditure at this stage of the game might be premature with respect to our overall planning focus. That is not to say that we are going to go in any one particular direction in any of our correctional facilities. At this stage in the game, I think it would be premature for us to make something one way or the other with regard to any one particular facility because it is all in the mix now as to where we are going with regard to our planning.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is understandable, Minister.

My concern right now is you obviously do not know where you are going at this point, but an equally important concern is that this very important issue about how we treat women, particularly Aboriginal women who are incarcerated, has been quietly shelved. Did you discuss this with the Minister of Labrador Affairs or the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs? Do you any idea, an explanation as to why the public has not been informed of this? You are the open and accountable government. This was a public safety issue. This was a respect issue. Is there any reason why we have not heard from this other than picking it up through an Estimates Committee?

MR. F. COLLINS: What I would say is that at this stage of the game we are in the preliminary stages of planning. We are not in a position at this stage to make any definite statement with regard to any one particular facility. To say that we are not going to build a pre-trial detention centre in Labrador ever would not be a prudent statement to make. We have to look at our Labrador facilities. There are some other public buildings down there that might be an option that we can use, but it is all in the planning and organization and that is why no particular direction has been given at this particular point in time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I do believe, from recalling from last year's budget, you had allotted $300,000 for this issue. Last year, you got $250,000. We have over a half a million dollars gone. What do we have to show for any of this money other than the fact that you do not know where you are going?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think the $250,000 was a figure that was spent on planning, Mr. Parsons. I do not know where you get the half million. See, $250,000 spent on planning and –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: There was $300,000 last year for planning; you got $250,000 more. At what point do you decide that we are going to stop investing in the planning if we do not know yet what we have planned?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, see, what the planning turned up was a number of models to deal with that particular issue, the cost of which were just out of sight. Based on the cost that came in on them, we had to go back and regroup and look at some other ways of handling this issue.

In the meantime, a considerable expense was put into the RCMP lock-up to improve that facility and that has improved the situation considerably up there. It does not address the issue that was put forward two years ago.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I do not think there is any connection, Minister, with all due respect, between what you put in the RCMP and the fact that we had Aboriginal women in a facility that was totally inappropriate.

MR. F. COLLINS: At the same time, we did not see the prudence of spending a significant amount of money to put a glorified lock-up in Labrador. That was not what was required; that was not the intention. To put a stand-alone pre-detention centre with all the bells and whistles was a figure that just was not in the budget this year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, Minister, how much would your glorified lock-up facility cost based on the estimates you have, as you describe it? Some people would think it was a pretty essential facility. The Citizens' Rep certainly thought it was, regardless of how many bells and whistles it had.

What were the estimates that you had?

MR. F. COLLINS: Let me revisit that. We looked at a number of models. The stand-alone pre-trial detention centre would cost a significant amount of money.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the figure?

MR. F. COLLINS: We were talking in excess of $15 million. To build a lesser facility than that, we were really only talking about a glorified lock-up, and that was not what was wanted. I am not referring to a pre-trial detention centre in Labrador as being a glorified lock-up; that was not my intention. The two models that were proposed - in order to get the costs down to a reasonable cost of expenditure, then all we were talking about was a glorified lock-up, and that was not what we were looking for.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, who is doing this analysis of our correctional facilities? I believe you said you expect to have it concluded by the end of this year.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, right now we are doing it internally and we will be deciding in the next short while whether or not we need to involve more resources to do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Based on my question so far, HMP is a pipe dream right now. LCC - nobody is on board from the feds to say where we are going to go. The penitentiary for women in Labrador will be just out of the realm of possibility at the $50 million cost you referred to. A women and youth pre-detention centre is not in the works. It sounds like we are in pretty rough shape, isn't it, when it comes to facilities. You are still, as a department, analyzing where we are going to go.

MR. F. COLLINS: I would suggest to you, Mr. Parsons, that it is all the more reason why we have to sit down and plan where we are going to go.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In the meantime, what is being done to address the issues - the concerns that were raised by the Citizens' Rep? Let's flashback now, let's get out of the physical facility piece and what they cost. What has the department done to address the concerns of the Aboriginal women as they were found, dealt with, documented by the Citizens' Rep?

MR. F. COLLINS: With respect to corporate facilities, the only thing we have done is improve the RCMP lock-up.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, moving on now, the department announced a review of probation services after, I believe it was, murder charges were laid against a certain individual who was supposed to be on probation in this Province. I believe the murder actually took place outside the Province. Can you give us an update on the review at this time, where we sit with that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, retired Provincial Court Judge William Baker has been retained as the commissioner to do the full-scale review of probations. He is currently engaged in that and his mandate is to do a full-scale review of all components of the probation system and make recommendations in a timely fashion. We would hope to have them certainly by early fall.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Pardon?

MR. F. COLLINS: We certainly hope to have them by early fall.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So, has he been given a timeline or has he just been given an open-ended -

MR. F. COLLINS: He does not have a timeline, as I understand, but it should not take that long. It is not a big scale operation. We anticipate he can do that review in two or three months.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The reason I was somewhat concerned about the deadline - of course I have asked questions here in Estimates in the House of Assembly about the Marshall report that is supposed to come out of the Premier's office for years. It seems like when you give one of these retired judges or justices an open-ended mandate we do not see very much.

We have gone through the Freedom of Information for two and three years running and I am just concerned that this important issue - if we are getting an analysis done on facilities for penitentiaries, we are pushing out the probation review and giving a judge an opportunity for as long as it is going to take him to do it, surely there must be something that we can mandate here, or ask him can you do this in six months, can you do this in four months. Otherwise, we just seem to be pushing stuff out.

MR. F. COLLINS: With respect to the probation's review, we have had a number of discussions with Mr. Baker and we see no reason why that review cannot be finished in a timely fashion.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The Auditor General commented as well, I believe the probation services did one report back in 2006, I do believe, four years ago. The Auditor General commented on the fact that at the time your department was asked to comply with the policies and procedures related to case management, including risk assessment, supervision of offenders, training staff to use a computerized database, ensuring timely input of the data and so on. At the time, the Auditor General, of course, said that the cases were not being completed within the required timeframe or not being done at all. Risk assessments were being left incomplete. Offenders were not being effectively supervised. Plans did not target relevant criminal factors. No progress reviews were being completed. No training had been provided to staff on data management and there was no training or user manual.

It has been four years since that happened in probation services, since you were told that you had to do this. From what we understand, according to the Auditor General's update in the fall, last fall, it still has not been done. Is there an explanation for this? That is four years out.

MR. F. COLLINS: I cannot respond to that particular report, but I will ask my official to do so in a minute.

I will say that we recognize the need for more people in probations, and this Budget provides two extra adult probation officers: one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and one in Central Newfoundland, where the bulk of the problems exist. The other official may want to respond to the question.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, I need to see the actual report that you are referring to - the updated report. I know that there has been a lot of work done in probations directed toward fulfillment of the Auditor General's request. I am aware that not all of it has been done, but in terms of the details and the way you characterize it, I would need to see the report. I guess Judge Baker, when he gives us his report, will provide us with an update in terms of the status of things.

We did recognize that in probations we had some resourcing issues in Central Newfoundland and some resourcing issues in Labrador, which we sought to fill this year without waiting for Justice Baker to finish his report.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, an Adult Alternative Justice Program was developed, after quite extensive research, dating back to 1995 on the benefits of restorative justice. This program was cut by your department. In fact, even the way that it was cut seemed to be a bit, again, non-disclosing.

As I understand, it was always part of your strategic plan. All of a sudden, we get a new strategic plan for your department last year and we just happened to notice. Again, there was no announcement, no press release, no justification or rationale given to the public as to why you had ceased this program, but all of a sudden it was just cut. Why would you drop this from part of your strategic plan after all of the research went in, after the program was being developed, implemented, and so on?

In fact, what I found very ironic was that we were hosting in this Province a conference on restorative justice in November and here you were - you gutted it at the same time. Is there any explanation for this stuff?

MR. F. COLLINS: The department took an in-depth look at its programs last fall to see where money was being spent, what programs were being successful, and what, if any, monies could be reallocated to more effective programs. It was the consensus of the department that the Adult Alternative Justice Program was a program that had been on the go for a couple of years. As a matter of fact, it was one of the first initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

The program had not gotten off the ground. The people had not been hired; there was one manager and one director who had been hired. The consultations had not been done and there were no clients engaged at that point in time.

It was the collective decision of the department that the program did not seem to be going anywhere. Our focus was on the implementation of the Decades of Darkness recommendations. We felt that that money could be better used in another area so we moved it to Family Justice Services because we felt there was a better bang for our buck in doing that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, is there anything you can provide us with other than just the verbal explanation that you were not getting the bang for your buck? Was there any kind of analysis, or review, or study done on that that you can show us? From what I have found is we spent $600,000 and we trained fifty employees in this government in this Province to be able to work with this kind of program. Again, we seem to be deciding after the fact that is not working. Can you point us to something in particular, what justified the department's decision to shut this down?

MR. F. COLLINS: Your information of fifty employees, I am at a loss to know what you are talking about there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Apparently, Minister, that is in your annual report. We are getting that information from your 2008 annual report.

MR. BURRAGE: If you could tell me what that information is again?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The point is here we are asking about the Adult Alternative Justice Program which we put years of research into, lots of money into. We are to the point where we are even hosting conferences here on restorative justice of which this was a facet. All of a sudden, you quietly, without telling anybody, take it out of your strategic plan, issue a new strategic plan, and do not give anybody any warning about it. Employees are, I would think, disbursed or displaced or shifted somewhere else and the program is quietly shut down.

Now, you brag about all the things that are good, and I am just wondering why are you not upfront in telling the public about this stuff when you shut something down. If you have reasons why it was shut down, it is helpful if we are told that upfront, otherwise you are left to wonder why did this happen.

MR. BURRAGE: My question is related to the fifty employees and the $600,000. I am trying to understand where that number came from.

MR. F. COLLINS: There were two employees hired for the program.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We will recheck the figures on that.

MR. BURRAGE: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It is in the annual report. We will check it and give you our written explanation of where we are coming from here.

The bottom line is, I would still like your answer as to what information did you have to justify the cessation of the program? That is the question here.

MR. F. COLLINS: I guess, Mr. Parsons, it is a matter of making the decisions of how best to spend your dollars in the department. This was a program that never really got on the road and we felt the money could be better used elsewhere in Family Justice Services.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Moving along here, the issue of restraint devices, not an earth shattering piece but we had a little media incident where some prisoners, of course, were taken to a local hospital back some time ago and apparently they made off with the restraint devices, or somebody did. We have also had issues in the past year of guns being left in vehicles, incidents of theft in our police forces, misconduct within our facilities such as drugs, the smuggling of drugs - actually smuggling by corrections officers is the allegation and so on.

What has the department done or doing in terms of safeguards or inventory controls in the wake of these incidents?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will refer that question to the ADM for Public Safety.

Mr. Noble.

MR. NOBLE: In situations where there are specific incidences of misconduct, of course, that has been addressed internally by various leaders either within the correctional service or within the RNC. The RNC have, certainly over the last couple of years, enhanced their internal audit capabilities. I think the incident that you are referring to specifically, with respect to the firearm, was not so much a situation where a gun could not be accounted for within internal procedures, this was obviously a case of specific misconduct which is now being dealt with through the courts.

The issue with respect to internal theft at the RNC, I do know that the Chief of Police has recently tasked a senior commission officer within the RNC with direct responsibility and supervision for the Property Control Centre within Fort Townsend.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Has there been any action taken with regard to complaints that correctional officers deliberately – there was some incident I recall of an inmate who made a comment to the media about the stolen restraints and so on. He subsequently alleged that he had been abused by the correctional officers for doing so – tattling, I guess, or ratting on somebody. Has that incident been brought to your attention in the institutions?

MR. NOBLE: As I recall, the incident was the subject of an internal investigation within Corrections. I do not recall that those allegations were substantiated as a result of that investigation. Certainly there was an issue with respect to the restraints that went missing from the hospital room. There is no question about that. Those restraints were not recovered.

I do not recall that the allegation of mistreatment was subsequently substantiated.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just again, asking questions – because you hear a lot of these things in the public domain and you wonder if they are factual or a figment of somebody's imagination.

The issue of your famous segregation unit, commonly called the hole, I guess. There is such a beast. There is such a facility, I take it. Is it as bad as portrayed on the Open Line shows, that it is actually a dirty, filthy place that people get subjected to in Her Majesty's Penitentiary?

MR. NOBLE: Certainly there have been improvements to that unit as a consequence of the attention that it gained through the consultant's review of corrections – the so-called Decades of Darkness. There have been some infrastructure changes so that now natural light is allowed into the segregation unit.

It is a harsh reality, of course, of corrections across the country that there have to be secure holding areas known as segregation units for a certain segment of the prison population. I do believe that there has been less reliance on the segregation units in the last year or two, and perhaps more reliance on what is called the special handling unit in its place.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I understand the Citizens' Rep is carrying out an investigation of psychiatric services being provided at HMP. I am just wondering if, first of all, you could confirm that. If that is indeed the case, when do you expect him to conclude his report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I can point out, Mr. Parsons, psychiatric services are now available to all our institutions. All six correctional institutions now have psychiatric services. I am not sure what the number of hours is per week at HMP but they are now available to all our institutions. That is a new initiative following the Decades of Darkness report. In addition to the psychological services that were already provided.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: My understanding is that the Citizens' Rep is currently, as we speak, doing a further review, aside from the Decades of Darkness and what was done following it; he is doing a review as we speak of psychiatry services at HMP in particular. I am wondering if you could confirm that is correct and when you expect to hear back from him.

MR. BURRAGE: It is Don Burrage, Mr. Parsons.

There is a review being done by the Citizens' Rep which includes, I think, the psychiatric services. I am not sure if it is directed specifically at the quality of medical treatment, if you will, as much as it is the facility itself and what is available for people who have mental illnesses. I am not sure of the full scope of it. I do not know when it will be available.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Was he asked to do this by the department or was this an initiative of the Citizens' Rep based upon what he was hearing about HMP or specific complaints?

MR. BURRAGE: He was not asked to do it; it is an initiative of the Citizens' Rep. What prompted it, I do not know.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

There was an issue, a local lawyer - I cannot even pronounce his last name, Ray Kuszelewski. That is not a very close approximation even. He spoke out in The Telegram recently when we had issues of convicted MHAs being released prior to what he felt was an appropriate period of time. He made a comment to the effect that you just do not know what the rules are and you cannot predict what the rules are in our system.

I just wonder if there has been anything looked at in your department about that, because there was some concern in the public that maybe certain individuals were not getting equal treatment or being treated the same as everybody else.

MR. F. COLLINS: My recollection at the time was that when we looked into that issue with regard to one particular MHA being released, according to the public outcry, early, basically what the rules are - and again I will let Mr. Noble respond to it - upon admission to the institution, every inmate is apprised of his options with regard to his release, when he can apply for temporary absences, when he can apply for parole, and what options are available to him with respect to release. That particular MHA took advantage of a particular option that was open to him and that was open to everybody else. The only thing is, of course, that there are criteria for getting temporary releases and certain individuals do not necessarily meet that criteria while others would.

To expound on it further, if Mr. Noble can add to that?

MR. NOBLE: There are criteria set out in policy, and I believe the issue was in respect of temporary absences from correctional facilities. There are criteria set out in the policy and there are also statutory criteria which are used to determine if and when an inmate is suitable for a temporary absence.

I should point out that those decisions are made by corrections officials and ordinarily would be made either by the Superintendent of Prisons or by the Chief Adult Probation Officer. The department is never consulted as a matter of practice and there is no reason for the department to be consulted as to when and if any given inmate is eligible for a temporary absence.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, the issue of the caribou hunt by the Quebec Innu, we have seen that they once again participated in an illegal hunt of endangered caribou apparently as a protest over lack of recognition, they say, from our government. Where are we on this?

We do not seem to be getting too far when it comes to these people who can go slaughter the caribou and we never, ever see any charges come to fruition. Why not? Why are we not treating the Quebec Innu like we treat anyone else, or is it a case that we think that they may actually have a right to hunt and so on? Explain to me, if you would, why we are treating these citizens differently.

MR. F. COLLINS: The actual issue of conservation and rights to hunt lead to other departments. I can only comment on the laying of charges.

The option taken by the government, of course, was to sit back, do surveillance, and try to garner enough evidence to lay charges down the road, as opposed to going in, forcing arrests, or taking on any kind of a situation that might endanger public safety. The methods of surveillance, both from the air and from the ground, were conducted. We anticipate or hope to have enough significant surveillance information to be able to lay charges.

The last hunt, last spring, only one charge resulted out of that. We hope that our surveillance methods have improved - the technology has improved. We are anticipating that we will have more information through our surveillance evidence to lay further charges in this latest hunt.

With regard to the issue of whether or not they have rights to hunt, the whole conservation issue, I would refer that to my colleagues in the other departments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I understand, Minister, I believe you made a media comment that you would be asking for a meeting with those Innu groups.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is obvious that there is a need for collaboration on this whole issue. This has to be addressed through discussions with the Labrador Innu and the Quebec Innu. Certainly we have to come to the table to try to bring some sensible solution to it. There is no doubt about that. Again, the departments responsible for that would not be the Department of Justice, although we would probably be involved to some extent. Hopefully, some sensible conclusion can be drawn about, and I suggest the only way it can be done is by bringing all parties to the table.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am getting mixed messages. I understand you, as the Minister of Justice, asked for a meeting with the groups, and then I hear that the groups are saying no, they cannot get a meeting with you the minister. Which is it?

MR. F. COLLINS: To clarify that, at the time of the Quebec Innu hunt, I was the lead minister in the government on talking to the media about that particular hunt. The Minister of Natural Resources ordinarily would be the person who is responsible. She was out of the Province, as was the Premier. Down the road, any possible negotiations, meetings, conferences or discussions between the various groups would be in the purview of the other departments.

I do know if the deputy minister would like to respond to that as well.

MR. BURRAGE: A request to meet has been sent to the Quebec Innu groups, I believe, by Minister Johnson, who is responsible ultimately for conservation. To my knowledge, a date has not been set for a meeting but I know that offers have been made to the Quebec Innu to sit down and discuss conservation issues related to the caribou, to share information with them as to why there are areas in Labrador which are closed zones, to share data with them on the numbers of animals that remain, and to try to reach an understanding that hunting in a closed zone will ultimately lead to the eradication of that species.

So I know that – because I have seen the correspondence and obviously this stuff gets vetted through Justice – requests have gone to the Quebec Innu to meet from Minister Johnson's department, but to my knowledge there has not been a meeting at this point.

CHAIR: Excuse me, do we want to go to other Committee members or do you want to continue on?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions and I do have an appointment at 11:15 p.m., so if I can ask those questions and then slip out?

CHAIR: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I just have a question with regard to the Correctional Centre for Women in Clarenville. I know $100,000 is going into that, but I am just curious, Minister, does the programming at the corrections centre still include a support group for Aboriginal women; and if so, how is that funded?

MR. F. COLLINS: Could you repeat the question, Ms Michael?

MS MICHAEL: Sure. I am talking about the Correctional Centre for Women in Clarenville. I know that money is going into that for the physical space renovation, but I have a question with regard to programming. Is there still a support group for Aboriginal women at the corrections centre; and if so, who funds that support group, who funds that program?

MR. F. COLLINS: We have a contract with the Stella Burry group who is doing a lot of work in the women's institution in Clarenville. I assume that is the group that –

MS MICHAEL: Would not the Friendship Centre be involved in the program for Aboriginal women?

MR. F. COLLINS: Which centre?

MS MICHAEL: The Friendship Centre?

MR. BURRAGE: Ms Michael, there was funding provided for and there is a person hired as an Aboriginal liaison that goes out to Clarenville. This is an Aboriginal person and that is funded through the department. It was part of the Decades of Darkness recommendation, so that support is in place.

Mr. Noble might be able to, but I cannot tell you how often she goes. I know that that position has now been filled.

MS MICHAEL: Two questions – again, one would be, of course, how often? Two is: To whom then is she accountable? Is she just there as an individual going out on her own or does she have a body back here that she is part of and is accountable to?

MR. BURRAGE: I believe she reports through the Stella Burry, and we, of course, work closely with Stella Burry in dealing with issues in Clarenville. I am trying to recall now if the contract is with us or with Stella Burry, but I am not sure.

MS MICHAEL: Could we get more detail on that after the fact? We do not need to have it now, but if we could get more detail on it, I would really appreciate it.

MR. BURRAGE: Sure. That is no problem.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

My other question has to do, Minister, with the Human Rights Code and the work that has been done. I know that the consultations were completed, et cetera. I am just wondering when we are going to see the results of the consultations that took place with regard to the Human Rights Code.

MR. F. COLLINS: You are right. Extensive consultations were held, along with a lot of other planning and gathering of information as well from jurisdictional scanning and whatnot.

The Human Rights Code, we are currently in the drafting stage. I cannot make a commitment to when we might see it. It is almost ready to go. It is our intention, hopefully, to have it in this session of the House, but at this stage of the game there is still some work to be done on it. It would not be prudent for me to say that it will come in this session of the House, but hopefully we could work towards that end.

MS MICHAEL: When you say this session, because you know how we have the complication of a session and a sitting, do you mean the spring sitting?

MR. F. COLLINS: Spring session.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I cannot guarantee that.

MS MICHAEL: I understand that.

MR. F. COLLINS: There are some discussions and consideration being done before it is available.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I understand that. I just wanted to be clear what exactly you meant.

My third question which is different item - I think all my other questions that I had here have been covered in different ways. With regard to the issue that came up this week concerning the expropriation of AbitibiBowater, was that legal work done within the Department of Justice with regard to the expropriation, resulting in what has been admitted by the Premier to be an inadvertent expropriation, a mistake having been made?

MR. F. COLLINS: What is your question? What department is responsible for the mistake? Is that what you are saying?

MS MICHAEL: My question is what department did that work? Was it done within the Department of Justice?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let the deputy minister respond to that because that was a collaborative affair between a number of departments.

MR. BURRAGE: There were a number of departments involved, Ms Michael, in the preparation of the legislation for the expropriation of Abitibi. Obviously, legislation is drafted in the Department of Justice. The schedules and so forth attached to the legislation have to come from various departments. There were a number of departments involved, so I do not think it would be fair to single out any particular department as so-called responsible.

MS MICHAEL: I understand that.

Is there an attempt being made, I do not know, I am presuming the Department of Justice would be the lead department, maybe it is not, maybe it would be Natural Resources, but are there any estimates being pulled together with regard to what the cost to the Province of this mistake might be down the road?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, Mr. Burrage will respond to that.

MR. BURRAGE: The responsibility - if by the cost, you are referring to the environmental remediation costs -

MS MICHAEL: There could be legal costs as well; I am not sure.

MR. BURRAGE: Under our Environmental Protection Act, responsibility for the environmental cleanup rests with the company or the individual who caused the pollution. It is the polluter pays principle. So, the fact of expropriation of the mill in and of itself does not remove Abitibi from any responsibilities for environmental cleanup. So there is no cost, if you will, associated with that. Whatever the costs are associated with the general environmental cleanup of Abitibi sites across the island that would be with another department.

MS MICHAEL: Do you anticipate that there could be more legal action with regard to this expropriation if Abitibi is saying that they will not do the cleanup? So, it is not just the cleanup I am thinking about, it is also legal costs.

MR. BURRAGE: There is legal action, of course, currently underway. Mr. Parsons referred to it in the context of the CCAA proceedings where we continued to seek a ruling to hold Abitibi responsible for the environmental costs associated - not the cost but the environmental cleanup associated with its former sites in Newfoundland.

That is the case with respect to all of the sites. As I mentioned before, there is an application for leave to appeal before the Quebec Superior Court. So that is the legal action that is currently underway.

MS MICHAEL: There was a large figure quoted with regard to legal costs with regard to the whole AbitibiBowater issue in the takeover, et cetera, I think of $8 million. Is there a breakdown of that $8 million, where that money went?

MR. F. COLLINS: We do not have a breakdown present. These were JV'd - to use the term mentioned earlier - to Natural Resources. With respect to the actual breakdown and what it was spent on, we do not have that figure. We do not have that at the moment.

MS MICHAEL: If it is under Natural Resources, I can seek for that information there if you cannot get it. When we request other breakdowns of legal costs that do not seem to be a problem, it seems to be public record information.

MR. BURRAGE: This is Don Burrage again.

The amount of money expended in legal fees associated with it, I think it is something we can provide -

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. BURRAGE: - obviously because we pay it out and we charge Natural Resources back, but the overall figure that has been out there, I do not know that we have that because it would include more than legal fees I suspect.

MS MICHAEL: Right. In terms of the legal fees, if we can have the breakdown of where it went?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, we can provide you with the legal fees.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

That is all, Mr. Chair, for me.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Maybe just to follow up on that, Minister, a few questions. What we are hearing now about the mistake that was made when we accidentally ended up with a paper mill, who did the piece of work originally, legally, to advise government of what went into Bill 75, particularly what we were expropriating?

MR. F. COLLINS: It was a matter of a number of departments. The actual specifics of it, again, I will get Mr. Burrage to speak to it. As he just mentioned to Ms Michael, this was, as you all know, an activity that came about in a hurry and was done in a compressed period of time, but a number of departments, Natural Resources and Justice - Mr. Burrage can add more specifics to it.

MR. BURRAGE: I can. As Mr. Parsons knows, and Ms Michael, I was part of the briefing originally before that legislation came into the House, so I cannot really disavow myself of it entirely. The preparation of the legislation, as I mentioned to Ms Michael, was done through the Department of Justice in collaboration with lands, natural resources, forestry, and I am trying to remember who provided the information on hydro. The information that made up the schedules attached to the legislation, the things which were being expropriated, obviously came from various departments and the legislation itself was drafted by the Justice Department.

As I said to Ms Michael I do not think it is fair, and I am not going to point the finger at any particular department, including Justice, as responsible, if you will, for the error in the expropriation. It was a collaborative effort by a number of different departments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you explain the nature of the error just so I understand what it is exactly we made an error on?

MR. BURRAGE: What happened was there was a piece of land expropriated which was a former Reid lot, and contained in that Reid lot is much of the Town of Grand Falls, including the paper mill. In the case of the Reid lots, you may recall, the legislation expropriated those lands currently held or still owned by Abitibi. Obviously, in the Town of Grand Falls a lot of properties have been since sold off to third parties and the expropriation did not reach in to get those properties, but the extent to which properties were still owned by Abitibi as part of the Reid lots, then they were expropriated. As it turns out, this paper mill was part of that - I forget what Reid lot number it was, but part of a particular Reid lot.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In terms of your comments about cost of the cleanup, just educate me here because my understanding of the bankruptcy court action, which you are now seeking leave to appeal, was that our Minister of Environment issued certain statutory orders to Abitibi and said: We want you to give us your plan of how you are going to remediate the damages that you have caused.

The comments of the judge in the case - because I have read them - were: Why did it take you so long to do that, number one? Number two: You have not given me very good evidence to suggest the nature of the cleanup anyway. I think there were a few media reports or something filed initially with the court case. The judge made this comment about this is preposterous - he used the word preposterous. You are suggesting that you go in, you take somebody's property from them and then you issue an order to them saying: Tell me what you are going to do now to clean up the property that you no longer own that I just took away from you.

It is just rational thought it would seem to me, that he is not half wrong in the common sense piece of it. What do you see as grounds of appeal to that? Where did he error in this situation?

MR. BURRAGE: Obviously, I do not want to argue the appeal here. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the judge's remarks, but the application for leave to appeal is a public document and there would be no difficulty in providing a copy of that if you do not have it already. That lays out the grounds for appeal. Suffice to say there are allegations of error of law, errors of fact and so forth. Rather than going through it, if you wanted a copy of the application for leave to appeal that is a public document.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That would be great if we could have a copy of that.

Is it a correct statement that if you are denied leave to appeal, which means we are left with the judge's decision as rendered, are we then in a situation where we are not going to be able, as a Province, in any way, shape or form force Abitibi to clean up? I will just leave it at that.

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think we can prejudge the outcome of the appeal.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I am not suggesting we prejudge the appeal. What I am saying is are we in a situation whereby if we are not allowed to get to that stage and we are stuck with the judge's decisions as rendered and comments, are we in a position as a Province that we are not going to be able to recover and force Abitibi to do the environmental cleanups that we had hoped to?

MR. BURRAGE: It is Don Burrage again, Mr. Parsons.

I do not think, from my perspective at least, I would want to speculate on whether or not there are other avenues that might be available in advance of the application for leave to appeal. I do not think it would be prudent to do that. To say that there are no other avenues, I would not want to go down that road at this stage legally.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you explain to me the comment that the judge made in his decision when he talked about – well, he made his decision that we are not going to give the Province priority status vis-à-vis other creditors. In fact, I believe he used the word at one point that what the Province had done was disingenuous, the way they went about it.

There was also a comment there about we were out of time in the other normal procedure that you would take under the bankruptcy law. What did he mean by that? Did we miss timelines here?

MR. BURRAGE: There was a deadline set for filing claims in the CCAA and these would be monetary claims against Abitibi. The Province did not file a claim in the CCAA process prior to that. That was not an accident.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, so what type of claim –

MR. BURRAGE: That is the deadline I think that he is referring to. I think he also says in his decision he opens up the possibility if the Province wished to, in light of his judgment, seek an extension of that time, that the Province could do so. Of course, what we are doing is we are seeking leave to appeal his ruling.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You use the word monetary claims, the ordinary monetary claims that you would file against Abitibi; would they be inclusive of environmental cleanup costs?

MR. BURRAGE: They could be. There is a distinction in the CCAA process, as you know because you have read the decision, between regulatory orders and claims of creditors. The essence of that particular case, the judge concluded that he felt that it was in essence a creditor claim as opposed to a regulatory one that the Province was making. That was his decision. That is, as you know, under leave to appeal.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will just take this a step further now. If he has ruled that it is a regulatory claim, therefore it did not fit to give us a priority, we are now seeking leave to appeal that.

MR. BURRAGE: No, he ruled that it was not a regulatory action. He felt that in essence the Province's action was non-regulatory, and we take issue with that, which is why we sought leave to appeal.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So if we do not get leave to appeal, and we are out of time, unless we get an extension on doing it through monetary claim route that you would normally file, what off the cuff other possibilities and options do we have?

MR. BURRAGE: I do not want to get into the legalities, especially off the cuff, of what other options might be available at this time. It would not be prudent to do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am pleased to hear your comments that this was done in a very rushed circumstance and a hurried circumstance. I am not sure if was yourself or the minister who alluded to how these briefings took place, because the Premier seems to suggest in media pronouncements that maybe the Opposition in some way, shape or form should have found this mistake that was made. We would not have had a paper mill if we had been on the ball. I guess there are a lot of people in a lot of departments who missed the boat here. So I am very pleased to hear your comments that it just was not an inobservant Opposition who did not pick up on that.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, I did not say that. I am just a simple bureaucrat. What I said was that there were a number of departments involved in drafting and preparing the legislation.

MR. F. COLLINS: It was my comment, Mr. Parsons, that this activity was done in a compressed timeframe.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right. I was not sure which one of you it was, but putting two of it together, your comments and the deputy minister's comments as to how many parties were in this, and all I am suggesting is that sometimes even the Premier makes statements that are of a political nature, shall we say, as opposed to factual.

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think the Premier's statement in any way contradicted that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Anyway, what are the options, Minister, that we have now that we have made the mistake? Now that we have made the mistake and we ended up with a paper mill, which we obviously did not want to own in the first place, what options do we have? Are we going to look to sell it? Are we going to look to operate it? Are we going to clean it up? What is the latest?

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think it would be the purview of the Department of Justice to answer that question, Mr. Parsons. The Department of Justice was involved in the legal transactions to begin with. In regard to the future and the ownership of that mill, I do not think that it is the purview of this department to respond to that question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, can you tell me when the error first came to the attention of the Department of Justice, the time? When was it you first knew that an error had been made?

MR. BURRAGE: It is Don Burrage again, Mr. Parsons.

I am trying to recall exactly when it was. It was sometime I think during the summer. We had retained a searcher to look at the Reid lot and to ascertain the various properties and so forth. That is when it was brought to our attention, but I cannot recall exactly when that was.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Correct me if I am wrong here. Bill 75 went through this House in December 2008, as you say, in expedited circumstances. The Opposition even gave leave to do three sections in one day based upon the information we had been given. So you are saying this error came to light in the following summer of 2009?

MR. BURRAGE: I would have to go back and check my records. I can certainly do that. I do not recall exactly when. I recall how. It was when we were actually looking at an engaged search service to go in and to define more discreetly the properties that were contained in the various Reid lots.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: If you would verify for us, because I think that is very important in the public realm as to when this information first came to the attention of government that there had been a mistake made.

My recall of when the public first became aware of a mistake was February 2010. There was a press release that came out of government that said we own a paper mill, or we have taken over a paper mill. So I just need to verify that we have had somewhere, six or seven months, that this is government knowledge, that the public does not have any knowledge of the fact that we have made this error.

MR. BURRAGE: I would need to go back and check. I cannot say at this stage.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I take it then that there would have been a little bit of to and fro from the Abitibi officials and government officials before we ended up with a government release in February 2010 saying we now own a paper mill.

MR. BURRAGE: I cannot comment, just from lack of knowledge. I was not privy to any discussions with Abitibi, myself, during that period. So I do not know.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A couple of other issues now, Minister. There was a report done, and I am wondering if you could confirm this. We receive a report a copy of a report that was done internally by your department on the Provincial Court. It talked about they wanted increased administrative independence and so on. I am just wondering if you could verify that there was such an internal report done.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, at this stage the person – there are always ongoing discussions with the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court with regard to structure and organization and whatnot. These discussions are ongoing. I do not think it would be prudent for me to comment publicly on where they are at this point in time. There are discussions ongoing with the Provincial Court and Supreme Court all the time with respect to – judges come forth with proposals and plans and these are being discussed with officials of the Supreme Court all the time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not referring, Minister, to ongoing discussions, whether they are operational or otherwise. I am referring here to the existence of a report that was specifically done by a consultant for the Department of Justice that dealt, in particular, with some infrastructure and security deficits that existed within the Provincial Court structure. As a result of that report, there was a request - either it was a recommendation by the consultant or a request by the Provincial Court that they would have increased administrative independence, and that report was rejected by your department.

MR. F. COLLINS: I think you are referring to –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This is more than a to-fro discussion between your department and the Provincial Court, this is a live document.

MR. F. COLLINS: Are you referring to the Norris Report? Is that the report you are referring to?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not personally aware of the name (inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: That is the only report that comes to mind. The Norris Report was a report that was commissioned by the Supreme Court. It was commissioned by the Supreme Court and for the Supreme Court by a private consultant who suggested a number of organizational changes and proposals with regard to the court structure and court organization.

That was a report that was commissioned by the courts, not by the department. The department basically did not accept a lot of the recommendations in the report. The report rests with the court and not with the department. I think that is the report you are referring to.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there any way we can access a copy of that report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I understood you already had it because your leader made some comments in the media with respect to that report. She made comments directly related to some of the provisions of the report, so I assume that she had read it or had it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I can assure you, Minister, we probably have the brown paper version of it. I am just wondering are you prepared, now that we all know about the existence of the Norris Report, can we have a copy of the Norris Report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I would suggest you would have to approach the court for that report because they commissioned it. It is not ours to release. That would be in the privy of the Supreme Court who requested it and commissioned it in the first place.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister Marshall last year – there was money in the budget about a pre-design for a new court facility in St. John's. I am just wondering if you can give me an update on the status of that at this time.

MR. F. COLLINS: There has been a considerable amount of planning and looking at various options for the reconfiguration of the whole court precinct in St. John's. There is one study, in particular, that is ongoing with respect to what options are available with respect to the reconfiguration of our court system.

As you are aware, the Provincial Court in Atlantic Place is less than desirable given the physical facilities down there. The Trial Division, the old courthouse has some challenges as does the Court of Appeal. So there is ongoing planning and deliberation with respect to possible configurations for a potential new court precinct for the city.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did we spend any money to date, Minister? What has been spent to date?

MS JACOBS: Mr. Parsons, this is Heather Jacobs.

We spent $250,000 on an option study.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have we determined based on that a preferred option or what our options are for a new court facility?

MS JACOBS: Not at this time, Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there money in the budget this year for further design or study?

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think so, no. That was a one-time spending this year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is that options report subject to release?

MR. F. COLLINS: I would not think as of yet because it is still being analyzed between the courts and the department.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We did have a commitment from your government, of course, that all reports that were done would be released within sixty days, I think, of whatever. So how long ago did you get the report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am not sure of that. The revised edition was recently.

MS JACOBS: Mr. Parsons, we received it, I would say, the last week of March.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Your answer regarding the release, will we, within the committed timelines of government, receive a copy of the report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think that is a stated policy of the government, Mr. Parsons, so it is safe to assume that you will.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just some issues that have been kicking around for some time now. Last year during a Private Members' Day in the House of Assembly, the Opposition moved a motion with regard to changing the laws on pain and suffering compensation and the Survival of Actions Act, which the motion was unanimously agreed to and supported by government. The Minister of Justice at the time agreed to take this back to the Department of Justice and see that the appropriate amendments were brought forth.

I am wondering if you could tell us the status of this and if we are likely to see this during this legislative session.

MR. F. COLLINS: That work is well underway and had been under review, in fact, prior to the private member's motion. Again, the draft bill is in the stage that we hope that we can present at this sitting of the House, and we fully anticipate that it will be. Again, there are some final considerations, as always with these bills, to get final approval before they come to the House.

I gave notice in the House of a couple of bills and I am almost sure that one of them was the Fatal Accidents Act amendments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Usually we do not get them just based on notice; we do not get them until you do first reading of them. So they have not been circulated yet, I would think.

That would be the one you are referring to because it was the Survival of Actions Act –

MR. F. COLLINS: I gave notice of motion yesterday and I am almost sure that it was the Fatal Accidents Act, or it might have been the Small Claims Act.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The one I heard yesterday was the Small Claims Act, but I understand that we require amendments to the Survival of Actions Act and the Fatal Accidents.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Fatal Accidents Act is being revised and hopefully will be presented to this House in this session.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, as I said, there is final consideration, as always, to have these things approved. While we would hope to have it here, that would depend upon on some considerations –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The other issue on legislative changes - a Mr. Brent Rockwood has been quite vocal in the request, at least, to allow people to represent themselves. You cannot, in this Province, apparently, represent yourself at certain levels of court. He has come forward, he has made representation and we have made representation on his behalf.

We have had letters back from the former minister saying that the bottom line is if you are incorporated, you might be running a business, but you might be incorporated, you are the sole shareholder, or you are the sole director, and yet when your company gets into some issue, you cannot go to court to speak out for your company. You have to go get a lawyer and possibly, no doubt, cost you thousands of dollars. Where are we on that request to do that?

MR. F. COLLINS: The position of the department on the issue of having sole proprietor corporations being represented by the shareholder or director, the department's decision has been that we will be staying with the status quo. We will not be changing the regulations to allow individual shareholders or directors to represent a corporation.

As you are aware, the Law Society Act states that only a lawyer can – a person can represent himself, but not anybody else. The Corporations Act or the rules of the court act says the corporation has to be represented by a lawyer. Now it might be in reverse, I am not sure. When we looked at all the considerations, we checked with the Law Society and we did some jurisdictional scanning, and had a lot of discussion on that. It was a big issue. Everybody in government, on both sides of the House, is aware of Mr. Rockwood, because has had e-mails on the go for a long, long time. Our position at the end of the day was that we will not be changing the legislation to accommodate.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, you do not consider it ironic that we are going to be the only province in Canada that does not allow that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, be that as it may, our position is to stay as it is.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Would it be fair to ask if that decision was reached after – did the Law Society speak out against it?

MR. F. COLLINS: We had the Law Society recommendations, and the Law Society recommendation would be against it, yes. They were considered in part of the deliberations.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I guess being a lawyer it would probably be treasonous to say that I disagree with that position.

MR. F. COLLINS: I know you do.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I alluded to it earlier, just with some cleanup stuff here.

Justice Marshall's report on inland fisheries, where exactly are we with that? Is that in your shop or is that in the Premier's shop? Are you aware of it? We got a partial report from FOI. We managed to get a partial report and we are continuously told that Justice Marshall is going to file a final report. I think we have been told that now for two years. Do you have any idea of where we are?

MR. F. COLLINS: Let me say that the Inland Fisheries Enforcement Program is operating very successfully and has from the beginning. The first year we had a very successful operation. The second year we have some human resources problems and conflicts that caused the results to be somewhat less than desirable and it was at that point that Mr. Marshall was brought in to do a review of that whole program.

We do not have Mr. Marshall's report. There is no deadline or decision as to when the report might be available. When the report comes in then whatever recommendations he makes we will consider at that time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In all seriousness, Minister, do you expect the final report? Have you asked him about it? Has anybody gone to Justice Marshall in the last two years and said: When can we expect your report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sure there has been, but with respect to any deadlines, I cannot give you anything definite as to when that report might be expected.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has he given you any response to this thing? We still regularly get e-mails from people in the inland enforcement who is saying: We are looking for some direction here. Government undertook, the Premier personally undertook and appointed Mr. Marshall to go do this. Notwithstanding the success of the inland enforcement in year one - and everybody appreciates that - you still have individuals involved who are saying: We need some direction.

MR. F. COLLINS: The only thing I can tell you, Mr. Parsons, is that when Mr. Marshall has his report ready, that we will consider it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On the health care recovery file. Where are we right now with that particular file? What is the status (inaudible) -

MR. F. COLLINS: That is a very active file in the department, and has become increasingly so in the last few months. There is a lot of activity going on across the country with regard to the various provinces jumping on side now with respect to this whole tobacco issue. What I can tell you is that the department and this government are very active on the file.

As you know, we have a law firm from the United States who are actively involved in pursuing that claim for us. They have a firm here in the Province that acts in the Province on their behalf. It is a very active file. That is where it is.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Active – could you be a little bit more specific? What stage are we at? Has there been any statement of claim issued, served, responded to? What is the status in terms of the court action?

MR. F. COLLINS: At this stage, I do not think it would be prudent for me to release that information except to say that all of that is ongoing. With respect to the statement of claims, proclamation of the act, the negotiation between the American lawyers and the courts and the lawyers in the Province, as well as I mentioned the other provinces now are all developing their activity and we are paying close attention to them. It has taken on renewed life in the last six months.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not asking you to get into the merits of the case. Have we proclaimed the act, first of all.

MR. F. COLLINS: The act has not been proclaimed as of yet.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So I take it, until we proclaim the act, we have not actually started the court action.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is right.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On the Whitbourne Youth Centre, could you tell us how many people do we currently have employed at that facility? I have hit just about everything else in the Province this morning: HMP, LCC and Clarenville; I might as well inquire about the Whitbourne Youth Centre.

How many people do we have right now working at Whitbourne? I do not mean just the staff that does the maintenance and the cleanup. I am wondering could you tell me how many teachers we have there, how many psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors of any kind?

MR. F. COLLINS: We may, Mr. Parsons, be able to give you a general overall number, but I doubt very much you will have a break down today on the individual positions you are asking for. I refer to Paul. Paul might be able to (inaudible) specific numbers, I doubt if we have that. Paul?

MR. NOBLE: I may have to enlist the assistance of Ms Dunphy on this question, if she happens to know off the top of her head. I am sorry, I do not.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Maybe someone can provide us with a list of exactly who is working there and what their job descriptions are.

The reason I ask the question, Minister, is it is my understanding that the number of students we currently have at Whitbourne are extremely low given what we used to have.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, it is public knowledge. As a matter of fact, there was a public release on it not long ago. That institution has a capacity, I think, for sixty-odd residents. The numbers have held in the teens, the low teens to high teens, and even less than that in recent times.

The one thing you have to remember with regard to that institution is that regardless of the numbers we have to retain a certain level of staff. Of course, there are a lot of staff vacancies that are not filled because the numbers are low. Regardless of numbers, we have to retain certain services, whether the numbers are ten or forty.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I agree. We had a similar situation at a place called Salmonier some years ago which we do not have any more. I am just wondering, has it got to the point where – I am told, for example, that on any given day you might have six or seven students and you might have six, seven, or eight people involved in counselling them, teachers, principal – I understand there is a principal there now. Maybe the principal teaches as well, but the information we have is that you have four or five teachers, you have a principal, and if you have those numbers of bodies for six or seven students, the question becomes the return on your investment and is there some other way to do it.

Have you given any serious thought to maybe looking at another option? Maybe Whitbourne is not where we need to be now.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will repeat that the numbers of service providers, while they remain constant regardless of the numbers of residents – because school has to be provided. These are youth, so we have to provide school facilities. We have to provide counselling facilities, psychological services and so on. These numbers have to be maintained regardless of the resident count.

That situation in itself speaks to the need for consultation and analysis. That is ongoing with the department to see what options are available there, the continued use of the facility as it is. At this time, that is where it is. We have to look at the numbers and the institution and the facilities, but at this point in time what options are available to us and where we will go from here are still open.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering where we are on the Human Rights Code?

Ms Michael might have already asked the question, I think, on this.

MR. F. COLLINS: I responded to Ms Michael earlier on that.

We have had all our consultations, there has been a significant amount of input and information gathered, and we are in the drafting stages. Like a lot of the legislation that we propose for this session, we would hope to be able to bring it forward to this session, but there are always final considerations that have to be given. Depending on these, we would hope to have it in this session.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just one final question.

Where, if anywhere, is the department on this George Street camera piece heard about in the media recently? Is there anything currently ongoing looking at this?

MR. F. COLLINS: We have had discussions with the RNC on that particular issue, and there is no doubt that the position of the government is that that is a very popular spot down there, a lot of usage, and we would like to make it safe for the people who are there. If cameras can do that, then so be it. We are also cognizant of the fact of privacy invasion and whatnot.

So we are doing the necessary consultations and discussions to make sure there is a balance between safety and the intrusion of people's rights. So that is an ongoing discussion.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any idea when we might expect to hear or see something on that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Your question again?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any idea when we might expect to hear or see something on –

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, we would hope, and I think the Premier has made the statement that we may see cameras on George Street sooner rather than later.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

If you would call the first heading?

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CLERK: Subheads 1.2.01 to 5.1.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 1.2.01 to 5.1.01 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01 through 5.1.01 carried.

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

CHAIR: Minister, I would like to thank you and your officials for your time this morning, as well as to thank Committee members.

Before we adjourn, the Committee members should have the minutes from the Social Services Committee, Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I ask for a motion to approve those minutes.

MR. RIDGLEY: So moved.

CHAIR: So moved.

A seconder?

MR. CORNECT: Seconded.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: I want to remind the Committee that we will meet again tomorrow morning, Wednesday morning, here in the House for the Estimates of Health and Community Services.

If there is nothing further, could I have a motion to adjourn?

MR. CORNECT: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Cornect, thank you very much. We are adjourned.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.