April
27, 2016
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
The
Committee met at 5:35 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CHAIR (Dempster):
We'll get started, if everybody is ready, seeing the time of the evening.
Welcome, everybody. I'll ask the minister to introduce himself and his staff can
introduce themselves. Then we can move to this side. When you're speaking, I
would ask you to just say your name for the purpose of the Broadcast Centre
downstairs. I think that's it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
– La Poile, Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.
I guess
we'll go to my immediate right and then flip over to my left; I guess that's how
it works.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Jackie Lake-Kavanagh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Safety and Enforcement.
MS. JACOBS:
Heather Jacobs, Deputy Minister of Justice and Public Safety, Acting.
MS. ENGLISH:
Virginia English, Departmental Controller.
MR. GREEN:
Andrew Green, Manager of Budgeting.
MS. LANGOR:
Fiona Langor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Corporate Services,
Acting.
MR. STANLEY:
Todd Stanley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Courts and Legal Services.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
Pamela Ryder-Lahey, Chief Executive Officer, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
MR. MOLLOY:
Donovan Molloy, ADM, Criminal Operations.
MS. MACINNIS:
Wilma MacInnis, Director of
Court Services with the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. JOYCE:
Luke Joyce, Director of Communications.
MR. SAMMS:
John Samms, Executive Assistant to the minister.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail
– Paradise, Leader of the Opposition.
MR. COLLINS:
Sandy Collins, Office of the Opposition and retired politician.
CHAIR:
Welcome back to the Chamber.
MR. REID:
Scott Reid, MHA for St.
George's – Humber.
MS. ROGERS:
Gerry Rogers and I work for
the good people of St. John's Centre.
MR. MORGAN:
Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus.
MR. LANE:
Paul Lane, MHA for the
District of Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MS. PARSLEY:
Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour
Main.
MS. HALEY:
Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin
– Grand Bank.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
Would
the minister like to have a few words before I ask the Clerk to call the first
subhead?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Sure. I'll be very quick.
We've
all been through this stuff before. I'll try my best to answer any questions.
Thankfully, I have good staff here that will follow up if there's anything I
can't answer. If there's anything we can't answer, then I will make sure that if
you ask, I'll provide the information. Going back to what we've done in the
past, anything I provide to one side, we'll provide to the other side as well.
I'm
hoping, if you don't mind, that we can start with Donovan Molloy in the back.
He's got a function involving the Crown prosecutors, ADMs from all across
Canada. I'm hoping we can ask him and he can go back to that important matter.
Then we'll go right back to the front and let her go.
CHAIR:
What subhead, Minister, are
you referring to?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would be subhead
2.2.01, Criminal Law.
CHAIR:
Just for procedural purposes
here, we'll have the Clerk call that subhead.
CLERK (Ms. Proudfoot):
Subhead 2.2.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.2.01 carry?
Go
ahead, Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
first line, 01, would be under Salaries – we're not going to take a lot of time
in this particular area, but I do have some questions on it. The salary budget
last year was at $6.2 million and the actual revised estimate was $6.1 million.
Can you tell me where those savings or reductions occurred?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It would have been savings
due to vacancies, delayed recruitment and some new lawyers were hired at a lower
starting salary as opposed to higher up in steps. That would be the savings on
that one, I believe.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, vacancies and delayed
recruitment?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, vacancies and there
was some delayed recruitment, I believe.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So are there vacant
positions there now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I going to turn to Donovan
on that one.
MR. MOLLOY:
Mr. Davis, there is
currently one vacant position. We were, as you may recall, flying prosecutors in
and out of Labrador on occasion – well, more than occasion, I guess, last year.
We had put certain people in the Goose Bay positions, but they were working from
the St. John's office. I'm very happy to say that we're quite stable in the last
year in the Goose Bay and Wabush area. We have one vacancy. The lady who was in
the Labrador position went off on maternity leave. We had someone backfilling
but then that person got a permanent position.
We have
an articling clerk in Labrador who we want to keep, so rather than trying to
find somebody in that six-month window, which is very hard to recruit anybody
anyway because that's all that's left in a term, we decided to wait. The clerk
is getting called in June. We're going to submit an RSA to keep him on. He's
worked out fine and has expressed an interest in staying in Labrador. We
purposely waited to fill that position.
MR. P. DAVIS:
We know there are changes
coming to courts in different parts of the province. What's the impact on
salaries or on positions when it comes to prosecutions and the Crown attorney's
office? What's the impact on the closures of some of those courts?
Harbour
Grace, for example, is there a reduction in prosecution because of the closing
of the Harbour Grace court that's going to be absorbed somewhere else?
MR. MOLLOY:
No, Harbour Grace, maybe in the early '90s, was staffed locally. We had an
office there with a full-time assistant. At some point in the '90s, to the best
of my recollection, they decided to close that office and have matters in
Harbour Grace prosecuted out of our main office in St. John's. That's been the
practice for as long as I can remember.
The
only change for us is, of course, that person won't be driving back and forth to
Harbour Grace as often.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just to be clear then, there
was a prosecutor who was assigned specifically to Harbour Grace court or were
there a number of prosecutors who would travel out there?
MR. MOLLOY:
We tend to try and have it confined to one person, simply because it's better to
have continuity in any area, it leads to more efficient processing of cases, but
there were circumstances when that person might have a matter in St. John's or
there might be some conflict that we would send a different prosecutor out
there. The intention was to have it, at all times, mainly concentrated with one
person in the St. John's office.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What happens to that one
person? There are no job losses in that particular field or in that particular
branch.
MR. MOLLOY:
No, I suspect, assuming the matters are going to be dealt with in St. John's,
that those matters will be distributed in the same way now that other cases in
St. John's are distributed. Meaning they'll be assigned to prosecutors by their
managers in accordance with the current system. So that person's employment will
not be affected. I suspect more people will be handling the files. That's the
only difference I anticipate.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The Salaries under this
section, do they include as well, support staff or support staff for
prosecutors, or is this just simply – I see a bunch of heads going up and down.
MR. MOLLOY:
Yes, my understanding is it's for all prosecution staff, whatever their
function.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You said in Harbour Grace
there's one person who provided support in an office in Harbour Grace.
MR. MOLLOY:
No, that was back in 1992. They had a permanent office with a resident Crown
attorney. I'm not familiar with the reasoning at that time, but they decided to
close that office and have the prosecutions conducted out of St. John's.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What about in Labrador West
and Wabush? Is it a similar circumstance there?
MR. MOLLOY:
I think it's been since 2007, when Wabush was established as its own centre as
opposed to simply being a circuit point, that we had a permanent Crown attorney
there. The Crown attorney in that office does a number of circuits and also is
routinely back and forth to Happy Valley-Goose Bay in any event, because the
Wabush judge was sitting in Goose Bay prior to the recent announcement for a
significant portion of each month. So we're exploring options, but that person
may be able to continue to work out of the Wabush office.
MR. P. DAVIS:
As I'm looking further down,
I see in Transportation and Communications there was $294,000 budgeted last
year, $445,000 actually is the revised estimate of expenditure, but $326,000 is
budgeted for this year. Is that related to this discussion we're having now?
MR. MOLLOY:
No. My understanding, and I defer to Ms. English on this, is in going through
the budget historically this was an amount that – at least this is my simplified
understanding of it – wasn't used, or the average of what wasn't used, and so
that amount was deducted.
Ms.
English could better speak to it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, that's fine. It's not a
big difference.
I don't
know if the minister, if this is a place to answer this question, but I'm trying
to grasp an understanding of how prosecutions and court will operate for Wabush.
The Wabush court is closing, we understand. Then the prosecution cases, what
would happen with those?
MR. A. PARSONS:
What we're going to do there
– obviously, we have to work with the judiciary on it. It has to be done in
consultation. We do have some prior practice we can go back to.
Up to
2007, it had been a circuit court for 15-20 years. So I guess in this case, now
that there is a prosecutor living there full-time – so depending on how we go
about this, working with the caseload that's there, it will likely be the same
prosecutor, as I think Mr. Molloy said, that has been commuting back and forth
between handling matters in Happy Valley-Good Bay and in Wabush. So we're trying
to figure it out there.
I guess
the big change – not even a big change in some ways because the court hasn't
been permanent in many ways, given that the judge and the Crown prosecutor have
been leaving to handle matters in Goose Bay which has a much higher caseload.
These
are things we'll still be working through, obviously working with the judge and
the administrators up there. We have Ms. MacInnis here also. So these are things
we'll figure out as we move forward.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I don't know if it's of this
area. Do the prosecutor and judge actually live in Labrador West?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, that's my
understanding.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Even though I know the
Wabush court is planning to close, you still haven't sorted out exactly how that
is going to (inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, this is the thing.
We've given the notice there. They do live there but they have been commuting, I
understand, for some time. They do a fair amount of work in Happy Valley-Goose
Bay. So it's a matter of looking at what we've got there.
Again,
I can't talk about their personal circumstances, what their plan is, but I think
if we work with the judiciary and work with the people there, I think you can
still handle the caseload that's there. Instead of having a full-time court, it
may go back to a circuit court. I don't want to say anything definitively, given
that I have a duty to consult with the judiciary on that. It's our belief that,
given the caseload which has declined pretty significantly since 2007, we can
make sure the cases are heard, probably using the same exact resources that are
already there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Purchased Services, what is that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Purchased Services; rent.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The reduction from $856,000 to $557,000 is expected to be what?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I might defer to Virginia on
this one.
MS. ENGLISH:
The bulk of the money that was in the Purchased Services budget, a lot of it
relates to rent. Some of it also relates to witness fees which are paid out of
that budget.
After
some discussions back and forth with the Office of the Comptroller General, it
was determined that some of those expenditures should properly be charged to
Transportation and Communications. So there was some change between the two
budgets to reflect the proper appropriation for it.
During
a line-by-line review by the Department of Finance, it was also determined there
were some historical dropped funds there and those were removed as part of this
budget.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You mentioned rent is a good
part of it. What rent is that? What rent is changing that would have an impact
on that? I probably know.
MS. ENGLISH:
Atlantic Place is a big
component of it.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes, Atlantic Place is a big
component of it. We also pay rent in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the Crown
attorney's office and in St. George's, Stephenville, Gander and Marystown.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is there something changing
on the contract with Atlantic Place, because it's $300,000 difference, which is
a fair bit. Is there something – maybe the most major one, I would think, the
most major rental would be Atlantic Place. Was there something changed in the
contract there?
MS. JACOBS:
The contract, I believe,
expires this fall coming and where Transportation and Works is currently in
negotiation with Atlantic Place.
CHAIR:
Can I just remind Heather,
before you speak, say your name for the purpose of the Broadcast Centre
downstairs.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The only other one was on
Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Is that the normal property, furnishings
and equipment? Is there anything else there?
I'm
sorry; on Purchased Services, that doesn't include – I noticed there's a line
for Professional Services. It's not a big amount, $59,000. That's staying much
the same, but are there any other services other than that in Purchased
Services? There's nothing in Professional Services or outside counsel or any of
those types of –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No. Outside counsel I think
is mostly under a different heading, if I'm correct. That's under civil. Am I
right?
MR. P. DAVIS:
If outside counsel was
brought in, for example, in a conflict matter or something like that, where
would that be?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's a good question.
MS. JACOBS:
As you can see, this amount
in Professional Services for Criminal Law is fairly low. So if outside counsel
is brought in for prosecution we would use the money there, but quite often the
money comes out of Civil Division, Professional Services, just because the
amount here is not as much. In Civil, I believe it's usually $1.5 million, but I
believe we have more money this year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You'll probably have to
remind me of that when we get to Civil.
MS. JACOBS:
Sure.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think that's all.
That's
2.2.01, and I think that's all the questions I have at this point in time.
CHAIR:
Okay.
So we
can move to Ms. Rogers if it's okay with Mr. Davis – he has two minutes left on
the clock – and we'll cover 2.2.01 here. Then I understand that's it for this
gentleman.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Madam Chair, I'm sorry.
There
was another area I wanted to ask questions on. I can do it after, if you want.
It's up to you.
CHAIR:
Is it the same? Is it
pertaining –?
MR. P. DAVIS:
On the same area, yes.
CHAIR:
You may as well, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
On protection orders;
there's a concern in Labrador West that was a concern about processing on
Emergency Protection Orders, Child Protection Orders and so on. How would that
change? What would the implications of not having a court in Wabush be? Would
that be part of Prosecutions or would that be another area? We can leave it
until later if you want.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Feel free – if Donovan or
anybody else wants to speak to it. I will say it will probably be back similar
to what it was in 2007, before that. It's the same thing.
I don't
have the exact times here. Wilma or Donavan might be better able to talk about
when the court sat, when there was nobody there or there or whatever else. Maybe
Donovan can speak from the criminal side of it.
MR. MOLLOY:
Mr. Davis, Prosecutions doesn't have any involvement in the procuring of
Emergency Protection Orders. It's either done mostly by the applicants
themselves or a police officer on their behalf. We only become involved if a
person is charged by the police with the breach of an Emergency Protection
Order. I don't know if that answers the question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It does. It's not your area
is what you're saying. So I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to
inquire on how that would happen.
The
concern that's been raised with us is in the case of Wabush, so remote. Back in
2007 there were no EPOs.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What we can do is go back to
– when we do courts we can make sure we bring that up because Donovan doesn't
have any handling in that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sure, okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We'll make sure we do discuss that when we go back to the Provincial Court
heading.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sure.
Thank
you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much for
being here this evening. I can imagine how tough some of the decisions have been
in many of the departments with the current fiscal situation that we're in. So I
want to thank you for your dedication and your hard work, and probably some real
creativity to try and continue to fulfil your mandate, even though there is such
a strain on the fiscal situation within our province.
I
actually have no further questions. All the questions I did have on this topic
area have been answered. So I'm fine, thank you.
CHAIR:
Is it the wishes of the
Committee that we continue on in the two, or do you want to go back now and
start from the beginning?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Donovan owes you.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. MOLLOY:
Thank you very much for allowing me to go first.
CHAIR:
Okay, I'll ask the Clerk to
call the first subhead.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Oh, I have an error here. We
should have called for –
CLERK:
No, we can do that when we
do the totals.
CHAIR:
We can do that after? Okay.
Go
ahead.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 carry?
Can we
start with Ms. Rogers this time?
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much.
Under
Transportation and Communications there's a change there, an increase of
$30,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that has to do with
the minister living over on the beautiful Southwest Coast. But, no, I think that
has to do with the transportation that may not have been there with previous
ministers, I think, having been closer to St. John's. So I think that's pretty
much all of that actually, an estimated increase which, again, hopefully after a
full year we can figure out and have a better gauge of where we are on that.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
And
what a trek you have as well.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's 890 kilometres.
MS. ROGERS:
One way?
MR. A. PARSONS:
One way.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, that's a lot.
That
was the only question I had there.
Under
General Administration, 1.2.01, under Salaries, we see a reduction there of –
CHAIR:
Excuse me, Ms. Rogers; we're
still on the – we didn't call the second one.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh, I see. You're going to
do each one separately?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Fine.
CHAIR:
Well, we could do all of the
one if you want. That's fine; we've done it different ways in Estimates.
MS. ROGERS:
I'd be fine with that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might say, it doesn't
matter to me. Whatever is easier for you guys or the Chair, it doesn't matter to
me.
CHAIR:
Okay.
We'll
get a vote for all of them inclusive, but I'll ask the Clerk to call the second
subhead.
CLERK:
Subhead 1.1.01 to subhead 1.3.01.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall
1.2.01 to 1.3.01 inclusive carry?
Okay,
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Under
Salaries you see a reduction of $151,000 there.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I am correct – and I hope
they'll correct me if I'm wrong – there was a vacant communications position
that we decided not to fill and to get rid of, I think. Also, there was a
vacancy in the ADM position for a little while but that's now been filled. That
might explain the discrepancy there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
And the
vacant comms position, would that be part of the 650 jobs that were announced as
being cut?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think so. That's my
understanding.
OFFICIAL:
An attrition position.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Attrition. Sorry.
MS. ROGERS:
So it's an attrition?
Okay.
Thank you.
And
then 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support, the Salaries there; we see a
significant drop in '15-'16. Can you explain that $1.3 million?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think – and again,
Virginia will save me if I'm wrong – it has to do with the Domestic Violence
Court. There was some delay there in getting that started. So that's why there's
been – it went down because the positions weren't filled and there have been a
number of positions. I think we can probably get a list of those positions as
well.
MS. ROGERS:
That are now filled?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, that we're creating and
we're in the process of filling. Most of them, I think, are filled now. So we
can get that list. So that explains why the number is back up. I think that was
October 2015 is when they started getting filled.
There
was also a vacant clerk typist position and something to do with student budget
I also believe. It might have gone to other divisions.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Can you
give us an update on the rollout of the court now? So St. John's is fully in
operation?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Because we see also – well,
let's get at that and then we can go back to this.
Where
are we on the West Coast and Labrador? Can you give us an update on that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. St. John's is up and
running. Actually, the stats I have here in front of me say they've heard 32
cases total; 22 active, three have been sentenced and seven have opted out.
Stephenville; there's been 12 cases total, seven active and five opted out.
Stephenville; in the short period of time I've been here I've seen Stephenville
starting to get up and running now. I know a lot of staff have actually been
travelling to do the training that comes with it. Part of my mandate, obviously,
was to – and part of what we said we'd like to do is increase it to Labrador and
to Central.
I
believe, actually, last year – I might get it wrong on dates – during the summer
I think staff internally did some work, and met with the different interest
groups and stakeholders to work on what the model is going to be and how we're
going to do it. So that's something, again, I can't put a timeline on it, but
the plan is obviously to do that.
Central
is the same thing. Right now we're trying to figure out how we're going to do
it, where would you put it in one of the courthouses that are out there. You've
got different options there. So that's what we're trying to figure out.
So it's
something I'd like to see. And I think with these courts I don't think anybody
disputes the value of it. But it's like anything, too, I think you've got to get
the members of the bar on board as well and get some education there. It's not
something that everybody is obviously used to.
St.
John's is already started. I think Stephenville – as people get used to it on
the West Coast, it will see an uptake there and hopefully we'll see more go
through there.
MS. ROGERS:
And so can we go back to
Labrador?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Where is that at now? What's
the process?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We're still, internally,
trying to figure out what we want to do there, how we want to roll it out.
Obviously, there are some different challenges up there. We have a pretty busy
courthouse. It's not ready to roll out by any means yet, I don't think. It's
like anything. I hate putting timelines on anything if I can't guarantee what it
will be.
Given
that we have two models, or two up and running now and we have the two left –
and again, we all recognize that Labrador has some different challenges also
when it comes to the hiring side of the individuals that you need as well.
It is
going to happen; there's no doubt. Prior to me ever being here, I know staff
have met with a lot of the groups whether it was the Innu, Nunatsiavut – Jackie
did a lot of the work, so she is probably better off speaking to it.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
We had some meetings in
Labrador there the fall and we met with representatives from Nunatsiavut. We met
with the deputy minister and probably about six or seven of her staff. It was a
really, really productive discussion. One of the comments that they made is that
they were more interested in broad, overall issues of violence in the community
and not just violence against women or intimate partner relationships. We
thought that was interesting.
We also
met with the Chief Qupee from the Innu Nation and a couple of representatives
from the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation as well. That was a really productive,
constructive discussion, very positive. One of the things that they did say is
that they were quite interested, but there was obviously a lot of ground to
cover and a lot of discussions that would need to take place. But the initial
discussions were very positive.
MS. ROGERS:
So is there any money in the
budget this year for the rollout of the Labrador court?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, there has been budget
monies allotted to continue studying it and figure out what we want to do.
MS. ROGERS:
So how much is that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the rough figure is
$300,000.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
That's
to continue to study (inaudible) –
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would be both; that
would be Labrador and Central.
MS. ROGERS:
And Central, okay.
Again,
it's the assessment but not for any kind of implementation.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't want to say that for
sure. I don't want to go out and say implementation because I'm not convinced
that that's entirely possible this year, but again it's one of those things – I
haven't had an opportunity. I've been planning to get up to Labrador myself in
February then between weather and everything else. I want to get up there
myself. I've been up there before, but I want to get up and have the same
conversations myself. Hopefully I can get up when the House closes; it's kind of
difficult.
I'd
like to get up there – depending on when the House closes, it might even be a
summer visit. I don't want to move forward myself without even going up and
maybe talking to the people on the ground.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
If we
go back to Salaries, from the original budget of '15-'16 to the estimate for
'16-'17, we see a drop of almost $720,000.
MS. JACOBS:
Part of that is all the money for the Family Violence Intervention Court was put
into Administrative and Policy Support. When the court was started up in St.
John's and Stephenville, we transferred the salaries out to the proper areas;
for example, Victim Services, Probation, Provincial Court, Legal Aid,
Prosecutions and CYFS. So the money is now transferred out to those particular
heads.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great. That makes
sense. Thank you for working so quickly on that, once it was rolling again.
I see
my time is up.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You're probably going to
hear this question a fair bit tonight. I'm not sure if I should ask it at the
end or at the beginning or throughout. So you can judge yourself accordingly, as
long as I get the information before the end of it.
While
we're on 1.2.02, Salaries, you said the $720,000 difference is salaries that are
transferred to other budget heads. I understand that. The salary changes here,
the $720,000, are any of those positions being eliminated or lost through
attrition or vacant positions or otherwise?
MS. JACOBS:
Not at this juncture, no.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What does that mean, not at
this time?
MS. JACOBS:
No, Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It was at this time that –
MS. JACOBS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is there a plan? Well, is
there anything budgeted here for reductions in the department in the months to
come?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can speak to that.
Obviously, everybody knows, and you remind us in the House every day, we have
this one budget and then we have the next budget coming up. I can say,
obviously, we're not looking at cuts, per se. That's not where I'm going.
Where I
am right now, I guess being five months in, I'm still trying to get a handle of
the department to see where – I do think there are things we can do differently.
That's not code for efficiencies or anything else. I just think getting in and
trying to ask a few questions – is there something we need to change the model
on? I don't know. Is there something we need to add people to, change people?
Right
now, I'm still at the process where, quite frankly, when you first get in trying
to get your head wrapped around it and keep up with it. Then lately we've been,
obviously, bogged down between the House of Assembly and the budget. So once
that moves forward, I want to get back to looking at sort of the fundamentals of
the department on the different aspects, some that aren't concentrated on enough
and maybe other things.
Going
back to what Ms. Jacobs said, I would say the answer is no.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. I understand.
If I
can paraphrase, the change in the Salaries is not a reflection of any job
reductions or employment reductions. Having said that, you as the minister,
which I would expect you to do, will go back to the department and look at how
operations are conducted and if there are more effective or more efficient ways
to do that, that could result in a job loss, you wouldn't say that can't happen
or won't happen and I appreciate that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, I guess I've been
around long enough to know that I've got to be careful with what I say.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely do.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Because those words can be
taken the wrong way.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I've learned that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm not looking actively to
find jobs to get rid of, but I think anybody that looks at their department, or
anybody who looks at anything, you are looking at is there a way we can doing
things – are we doing things the best way they could go? So it's not something
I'm actively looking at. I don't want to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
I wasn't trying to suggest
you're trying to find a way to eliminate jobs.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's just how you do
business and if that change in business results in a loss of a job or a position
then –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess if I were to look at
something and I think it can be done differently, differently by hopefully
better, then I'm going to examine it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Under
this area there's Revenue, federal and provincial revenue, can you explain that
to me?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
Under
the provincial revenue, I believe the understanding of that is that it's
budgeted revenues from Commissioner of Oaths, Notary Public applications as well
as autopsy reports, which is kind of morbid the fact that the number actually
increased. So that makes up that information there.
Under
the federal revenue which is $30,000, I'm very happy to report that we reached
out to our federal Minister of Justice back when I got in, probably within the
first three or four weeks. So we've gotten $30,000 in funding to do a drug
treatment court feasibility study. That's something I've been meeting with
members of the bar and administrators on. We've secured the funding so that's
something that we'll be, hopefully, getting done. The feds do cover the cost of
the feasibility. So that's the first step in, hopefully, moving forward to
explore that model.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What happened in the Revenue
from a budget of $63,000 to a revised of $240,000 and now budgeted $210,000?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would say that the
$210,000 is probably a best estimate based on what we had last year. The
significant increase, if I'm right, is from increased autopsies, Notary Public
applications and Commissioner of Oaths.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Really from $63,000 to
$240,000?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I know I felt the same way
when I looked at it.
The
$210,000 would be a guess but I mean, obviously, like any kind of revenue – when
it comes to autopsies, I obviously don't want to see that revenue increase.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, absolutely.
Madam
Chair, maybe if we go back to 1.1.01 and 1.2.01, we could just clear those up.
Actually, I think you've covered everything I have on 1.1.01.
Only
that, in the Minister's Office, no change in staffing levels? There is a small
increase in salary but there is no staffing change?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No staffing change but the
salary increase would have been with one of the previous ministers didn't have a
constituency assistant. So now we're factoring in – it's the same makeup. It's
myself, the EA, you have your executive secretary, Ms. Rhonda Stewart and that's
it. It's the same staffing level.
MR. P. DAVIS:
In Executive Support under
1.2.01 – and that's all my questions on 1.1.01, Madam Chair, but on 1.2.01, the
$150,000 you said was a position that was vacant, an attrition position, no
other position changes under that area of Executive Support?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, it's a new ADM at a
lower salary scale. There was the one vacant communications position that was
removed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Maybe
in the short time I have left we can move ahead now to 1.2.03 which I think is
the next area. The first three would be completed, unless Ms. Rogers has to go
back there or wants to go back there, maybe she will.
CHAIR:
You can finish up your time
if you want, Mr. Davis, because we'll continue on before I call it up to 1.3.01.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Under
Salaries, we see an increase in salaries there. Can you explain that one,
Minister?
MR. A. PARSONS:
1.2.03, Legal Information
Management?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MS. JACOBS:
We had wrongly – we had an
Aboriginal research position that we had the salary put in the civil division.
So now it's properly put over into Legal Information Management, where it should
be.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, so it's just a move to
another subhead.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You guys do that a lot.
MS. JACOBS:
We're tangly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Supplies, what would be
supplies under Legal Information because it seems to be as very high number for
supplies, relative to other areas? Why would that be so high?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that's the
subscriptions to the different materials that make up the law libraries. As we
know, we've seen an increase in that. Even when you go from hardcopy to
electronic now, the publishers are still going to find a way. I guess we've seen
that, whether it's Memorial University or anywhere. So that's my understanding.
Is it
all subscriptions? Mostly?
Obviously, there are still the usual supplies like paper, pen, whatever, but I
think the increase is mainly due to the subscriptions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So subscriptions wouldn't be
under Purchased Services, it's under Supplies?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Purchased Services is
actually storage and record retrieval.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Your cost more than doubled.
It's a relatively small amount compared to some other areas, but it's more than
double last year and the estimate for this year is double what it was last year.
Do we
have that many more records or is it a contract?
MR. A. PARSONS:
As time goes by we are
storing more.
I think
looking back, the historical trends show that the new number is probably a
little more accurate than what was actually budgeted, previously.
I can
see this is something we've seen when you do a line by line through government.
What we're paying for record retrieval is crazy. It's a huge expense across
government. The storage is one thing, but the record retrieval is a big cost.
So the
$25,000 is probably the more – well, that's obviously what we spent, but the
$20,000 is hopefully something more accurate.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Would they be long-term
contracts? Is that how they work?
MR. STANLEY:
The contracts are tendered. I don't know if they're long, long-term. They may be
three, four or five years but that's about it. It's not a 10 or 15 or 20 year
contracts.
Most of
the expenses are in relation to the retrieval and putting it back, as opposed to
a monthly cost for storing boxes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, just to bring us back
to 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support. Under Purchased Service we see a
sharp reduction in revised for '15-'16 and then also a reduction for '16-'17
compared to the original budget for '15-'16.
Can you
just tell me what some of those Purchased Services might be and why the
fluctuation?
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) I think the big
one might have been funding for copiers which again is another huge expense. So
it's the funding for copiers, previously budgeted and was paid through this
division. Now it's reallocated throughout the department. That's the big thing
there.
The
other part of Purchased Services – obviously, we've got some money set aside
there for funding allocated for possible expansion of the Domestic Violence
Court. There will be some necessary for that and the possibility of counselling
services that would go with that.
MS. ROGERS:
So the community groups that
provide the – the empowerment groups, that kind of thing, does that come under
Purchased Services for the Domestic Violence Court?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
And all
that copying – we were supposed to become a paperless society, hey. We were
supposed to have more leisure. We have neither. It was all supposed to be that
way.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can remember, it wasn't
that long ago, hearing we were going to move towards paperless and no.
MS. ROGERS:
And computers were going to
give us a four-day week. They've given us a seven-day week.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
1.2.04
under Administrative Support; we see quite a reduction there under Property,
Furnishings and Equipment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There was a delay in the
purchase of vehicles for the Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division and the RNC.
I think the actual expenditure – and Virginia might be better talking about this
than I am because there's a bit of a convoluted explanation to this.
MS. ROGERS:
I remember a little bit of
it from last year, I think.
MS. ENGLISH:
There was $771,000 budgeted last year for vehicles, mostly with the RNC and Fish
and Wildlife. We projected $619,000 because we were waiting on approvals for the
vehicles. We've actually spent $689,000.
The
budget for '16-'17 is reduced. That was a
Budget 2015 decision.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
I
wonder, Madam Chair, are you wanting to call at the bottom?
CHAIR:
Yes. You're done in section
1?
Okay.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess before you call it,
I don't know if Mr. Davis has any more –
MR. P. DAVIS:
On 1.2.04?
MR. A. PARSONS:
1.2.04, before you call it,
you might want to have a –
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, she asked the question
and it's a fairly – there's a difference that Vanessa explained. I'm fine with
that one.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
On 1.3.01, do we want to do
that one first?
MS. ROGERS:
Sure, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Because that will end that
section, right.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Did you want to go ahead,
Gerry?
MS. ROGERS:
Sure, thank you.
The
provincial revenue, we see an expectation that there may be more.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, there's been a change
in the fees there. I think it used to take in $7 from the City of St. John's,
MUN and the hospital parking lot tickets or fines. That's been increased to $9.
MS. ROGERS:
Of the tickets that they
issue, the province would get $7 of that. Now they're going to get $9 of it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We do the processing, I
believe, and the collections. And in the City of St. John's we were doing the
prosecuting, but we're moving away from that September 1.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
I'm
good. Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay, I'll ask the Clerk to
call the –
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm sorry –
MR. LANE:
I have questions as well.
CHAIR:
Okay, my apologies.
Mr.
Davis and then Mr. Lane.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
On
1.3.01 on Salaries, same questions as before; any position adjustments or
changes under that heading?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I don't think so. Is
there? No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No. Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The salary variance might
have been due – there were some vacancies there, I think, for a little while.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
You're good?
MR. A. PARSONS:
And I will say that Ms.
English has been doing two jobs so there was a savings there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Don't remind her.
CHAIR:
Mr. Lane.
MR. LANE:
Yes, just out of curiosity,
I was listening to the conversation. I'm just wondering how autopsies wind up
being a revenue to the province? I'm just wondering how that works, just out of
curiosity and education.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If reports are requested
there's a fee that comes with it, I guess, through the Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner who does the autopsies.
MR. LANE:
But who would be asking for
an autopsy that we would be charging a fee to?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would assume the health
authority, probably. I don't know if there are private requests for autopsies as
well. I think there are private requests sometimes for autopsies. So there's a
fee that comes with that.
MR. LANE:
Okay.
And if
it comes from health, it's showing as a revenue on your budget. But obviously
it's an expense on the health care budget, right, a wash?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, I wouldn't call it a
cost per se; it's a time thing. It has to be done by Dr. Avis's office, so it is
a revenue. It sounds weird saying it when you're talking about autopsies as a
revenue generator, but there is a significant amount of work. From what Virginia
tells me there are actually quite a few requests.
MS. ROGERS:
So if my mom dies and I want
an autopsy, then do I pay for that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Autopsy report.
MS. ROGERS:
Report, okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think there's a difference
between the autopsy and the report. Am I right?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
If an autopsy is required under the legislative provisions of the Chief Medical
Examiner's office, there's no charge for that. But if somebody wants the report,
then afterwards, if they're looking for it, there may be a charge for a report.
They don't charge for autopsies.
CHAIR:
Are we good now with section
1 up to 1.3.01? Yes.
Okay,
I'll ask the Clerk to call them again.
CLERK:
Subheads 1.1.01 to 1.3.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.3.01
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.3.01 carried.
CHAIR:
The next subheading we've
done, but we won't call that. We'll continue on and do it at the end.
I'll
ask the Clerk to call the next one.
CLERK:
Subhead 2.1.02.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We didn't do 2.1.01, did we?
CHAIR:
Yes, we did that with the
gentleman that left.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was Civil Law, wasn't
it?
OFFICIAL:
That was Criminal Law.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was Criminal Law –
OFFICIAL:
Sorry, you're right.
MR. A. PARSONS:
– this is Civil.
OFFICIAL:
Yeah, Civil Law.
CHAIR:
I'm glad somebody is awake.
MR. A. PARSONS:
How dare you skip over my
Estimates here?
CLERK:
Subhead 2.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The
same questions as other headings. Under Salaries, any position changes under
Civil Law.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, that's where we talked
earlier about there was an Aboriginal research position. That was the change
there. But I can probably go out and – do you know what? To save us some trouble
going forward, how many positions did this budget – in our department? It's 31?
Thirty-one positions, I think, total.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay so –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah. Am I right to say
that?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Do you have a breakdown of
those available?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I can definitely get
you a copy of that. Some were vacant, some were filled. I think there were 17
associated with the courts, am I right? Close?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Minister, do you have that
as FTs or, actually, people?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm pretty sure that's
people, isn't it – or positions. Now, again there were a number of them vacant
too, I think, wasn't it.
Let's
see. There are nine vacant, four layoff notices issued, 17 notice of notice
issued and one called continued arrangement. It's a total of 31, but what I can
do is I certainly don't mind providing a sheet with this information as well.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What was the last one you
said, one what? Notice of –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, there was a layoff
notice issued, notice of notice issued and then continued arrangement.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's a notice of notice
issued?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh, that's the prosecutor in
Wabush. There is not a position gone there. She's not losing her job, but
there's a change, I think, in the status of it. Where she's in Wabush, where is
she going to go. That's one of the ones we are still working on.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So you said 37 in total?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thirty-one.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, sorry, 31 in total.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Nine vacant, four layoffs,
actually got notices; 17 –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Notice of notice.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Notice of notice.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's the courts, I
believe, and sheriff's officers involved with the courts.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Which is the next heading,
which we'll get to.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I want to discuss that a
little bit further.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Under Civil, there are no
impacts?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Also, in Professional
Services we see a big change from what was budgeted to revised to the estimate
for this year. Can you explain that one?
MR. A. PARSONS:
What is it we're
anticipating this year?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll let Mr. Stanley answer
that; he'll do a better job than me.
MR. STANLEY:
This year, based on our past
experience with some of the expenditures we're having in various files relating
to mostly energy related matters but also files for where it's Attorney General
appointments of counsel in court, we went forward and asked for additional
funding, just in anticipation of some of the files that we see coming. Based on
our historical numbers, as you can see, last year we exceeded the budget as
well.
Just
for reference, this budget supports both government's outside counsel retentions
but it's also the budget that is used to pay for counsel when the court appoints
counsel in criminal matters. That's something we're seeing a lot of growth in
and we have no control over it. We're basically just required to pay the bill
when they come.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm sorry, maybe you can explain to me in a little bit more detail when that
would happen. I know it happens from time to time but, generally, when does it
happen?
MR. STANLEY:
There are a couple of
mechanisms under which an individual who is charged with a criminal offense can
apply to the court and ask for the court to appoint them, or appoint for them a
counsel at the expense of the Attorney General. There's a provision under our
Legal Aid Act, if someone is charged
with a homicide they can opt – sorry.
Traditionally, there's a provision under the
Legal Aid Act. It's still there for
people to apply for to get their own counsel. What we're finding is that we're
having a number of instances where people are claiming they can't find counsel
at the rates that we used to pay for outside counsel under legal aid, which was
about $60 an hour. So people were claiming they couldn't avail of counsel under
the Legal Aid Act; therefore, they
wanted the court to appoint counsel paid for by the AG at market rates.
In the
last couple of years we've had a swing where we've had a number of these people
appointed where we're paying – we're paying significant amounts of money per
hour for these criminal appointments, and these trials, once someone gets
appointed, can take a couple of years to wind through. So we've had some
significant bills come in, and we're anticipating some significant bills on that
next year.
To
minimize or reduce this activity, that's one of the reasons why we increased the
legal aid's outside counsel rate last year to $115 an hour, to try to keep it
within the legal aid system as opposed to coming straight to the Attorney
General for funding. We're starting to see some benefit of that, in that we're
getting more people willing to take up certificates at a legal aid rate.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Legal aid rates now are $115. Where do market rates run?
MR STANLEY:
For criminal, locally we can see up to $200 an hour. Maybe even a bit more,
depending on who the practitioner is. Actually, we've seen, I think, up to $300
an hour for one or two people but the usual rate is something (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Does legal aid have a
conflicts office?
MR. STANLEY:
Yes, they do, here in St. John's.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And that hasn't been an
avenue when a person can –
MR. STANLEY:
Well, when legal aid – if an individual gets assigned legal aid counsel and then
has a problem with that legal aid counsel and wants another lawyer, legal aid
will assess. They will use the conflict office if they think that the reason the
person wants to get rid of their first legal aid lawyer creates a potential
conflict.
Legal
aid is always very sensitive to conflict issues, but a lot of the times we have
these individuals who've gone through three, four, five lawyers at legal aid and
then claim they can't form a solicitor-client relationship with anybody at legal
aid. They can't form a solicitor-client relationship with anybody in the private
sector at legal aid rates; therefore, they want the Crown to pay for the lawyer
of their choice.
We have
those applications. It's sort of a yin and yang thing. We're back and forth with
the courts fighting them. Sometimes they're successful, sometimes not. Not every
one of those applications is successful.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is there a time or a case
where an accused would say I need two lawyers? Does that happen?
MR. STANLEY:
When we've done these AG retentions, we have agreed to pay for a second counsel
on a file where it's a significant matter, such as a homicide. We usually
require some kind of a discount for the second counsel.
We've
also been agreeing, actually in the last year or so, to pay for a paralegal just
in an attempt to keep the cost down of the overall processing. Because of the
amount of paperwork and everything that can be involved, records and disclosure
for a significant criminal trial, like a murder, can be substantial.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might add, I do have a
list here of all the legal expenses paid out. So I'll make sure I provide that
as well, money paid out, mostly for civil, but obviously it covers off just
about everything. It's mostly counsel but I think there are some consultants,
expert witnesses and stuff. So I'll make sure that I do provide that.
I know
when I was there I used to ask for it all the time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I have
a couple of minutes left in my time here. I'd like to move to 2.1.02, if I may,
Madam Chair, under Sheriff's Office.
You
mentioned there are a number of sheriff's positions being eliminated. Can you
outline that for me?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, let me see now.
I think
the total is eight positions from the Office of the High Sheriff. I think most
of these people are engaged in bumping. So I don't know if there's actually
anybody – there are vacancies that are there. I understand that these people,
when they go through the process, will not actually end up out of a position or
job.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So there are eight
vacancies?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Eight positions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There are eight vacancies
they will move into.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Would I be right in thinking
there will be a reduction of eight positions when this is all done?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, and I think that's
associated with the courts.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There are eight positions
but there are eight vacancies. Essentially, what's happening is you have eight
vacancies that are being eliminated. No one is losing a job.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Well, what it is, there
are the four courts: Wabush, Harbour Grace, Grand Falls-Windsor and Grand Bank.
So I think those eight positions are tied up mostly with that, and there's one –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, which ones again?
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I'll do, I'll let Ms.
Jacobs talk because she's got it off the top of her head better than I do.
MS. JACOBS:
There were six positions associated with the closure of the courts. As Minister
Parsons indicated, there are vacancies that if they, for example, want to move
to another position, there are vacancies in other areas to be able to fill.
There were two other positions, I believe, in headquarters. There was a vacant
IM position. As well, there was a realignment of duties and there was one layoff
in that position, in a management position.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So it's the Information Management, six sheriff's positions, and what was the
other one?
MS. JACOBS:
Manager of Judgement Enforcement.
MR. P. DAVIS:
In the case of a sheriff's
officer, say in Grand Bank, what are their options? Are you saying they can bump
to Gander or Corner Brook or St. John's?
MS. JACOBS:
Sorry; in Grand Bank, I believe they'd all be absorbed, maybe over in the
Provincial Court there because the Provincial Court won't be closing in Grand
Bank. It's the Supreme Court there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The Supreme Court, yes.
Okay.
In
Grand Falls-Windsor?
MS. JACOBS:
The Provincial Court is remaining open there. So I'm assuming, Mr. Davis, now
I'm not 100 per cent positive, that there are vacancies there.
I think
maybe what you're getting at, if in Wabush, would the person be willing to move
to Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MS. JACOBS:
I don't know the answer to that question at this time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
If they did, if they bumped
to a vacant position – I know it's hypothetical and difficult to answer and if
you'd rather not, I understand. But if there was a vacancy in Happy Valley-Goose
Bay, then does the employer relocate the employee at the expense of the
employer?
MS. JACOBS:
I think I'll leave that to
my HRS friends because I'm not sure of the answer.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We can ask Dan on that one,
though. There might be some HRS tie-up in that. I definitely don't want to speak
for that crowd.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Of course the same thing for
Harbour Grace if someone had to relocate because of a –
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
There are three
positions in Harbour Grace that would be identified that would have
opportunities elsewhere.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Mr. Davis, in the interest
of time, can we now move to Ms. Rogers?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, certainly.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
I'm hoping that we can stay
within up until 2.1.04 and we'll call that before we move on.
MS. ROGERS:
Sure.
If we
go back to 2.1.01, Civil Law, you had mentioned that some of them were energy
cases. Can you tell us what energy cases they might entail?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm going to refer to a
resident expert Mr. Stanley.
MR. STANLEY:
The biggest expense that we
have is in respect of arbitrations with the oil companies in respect of
basically the ongoing maintenance of the royalty regimes we have offshore. So it
isn't litigation that is actually in the courts; it's actually through the
arbitration processes that are in the arrangements or the agreements with the
oil companies.
I think
the biggest ones last year, we had one to do with Hibernia and I think there was
one on White Rose. We're finding that it's a constant turn, that there's always
issues and we try to negotiate them and if we can't get them, then we are in
arbitration.
MS. ROGERS:
So you go with outside
counsel for that?
MR. STANLEY:
Oh, sorry; we handle those
files with a combination of outside counsel and internal. We're trying to move
it to internal more and even going to look at doing a business case to see if we
can possibly even staff up to avoid the costs, because they're becoming bigger
files than we were expecting them to be and we're consuming a fair amount of
resources on outside counsel.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Is this
where the tobacco file would be?
MR. STANLEY:
It is. We actually didn't
have any expenditure last year on tobacco-related matters at all.
MS. ROGERS:
Is there an expectation that
there will be this year?
MR. STANLEY:
The matter has kind of been
in abeyance because we've been waiting for a decision or two from the Supreme
Court on preliminary jurisdictional matters. I think the decision has been
received or it is anticipated shortly, so we could have expenditures this year
but we're not expecting it to be significant.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Will it
be with the same law firms who were initially handling this file?
MR. STANLEY:
Yes, we haven't changed
those retentions at all.
MS. ROGERS:
So that would be Roebothan
McKay Marshall, and then Humphrey, Farrington & McClain?
MR. STANLEY:
Yes, in the US.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. STANLEY:
Yes.
Yes,
sorry, it is the same firms; we haven't changed those retentions.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, so we expect some
activity after the federal court decision?
MR. STANLEY:
We've been waiting for – the entire matter has been held up with preliminary
matters. I'll have to double check, because actually I haven't looked at it
recently. We were awaiting decisions from our Supreme Court. I think we got a
decision, but then it may be under appeal. But it's all preliminary stuff on
jurisdiction and who can give affidavits and requests – the churn.
MS. ROGERS:
So this can still be a
really long time?
MR. STANLEY:
Oh yes, this is a marathon, not a sprint for this kind of litigation.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might jump in there, I
think the tobacco companies are very consistent in that they like to expend as
much resource as possible to extend their cases long, which means their product
continues to sell.
MS. ROGERS:
Who can stand the longest,
huh? Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
What?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Pretty much.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
So if
we can move on to 2.1.03?
MR. A. PARSONS:
2.1.03?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MS. ROGERS:
The only issue that I'm
drawn to here is Purchased Services. I can see that there was a spike there in
the revised in 2015-16?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, that would be banking
fees.
MS. ROGERS:
Banking fees? They are high.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, we know that this
division there is a government rate that comes with the banking fees. But across
government, again, this is another one of those areas where I think a lot of
departments are dealing with it. I think it's something that needs to be looked
at.
I will
say, while we're on this topic, obviously Mr. Scott and his department aren't
here but the good news is we're very lucky that we've got probably, if not the
best, one of the best Support Enforcement Divisions in Canada. The rate of
return is tremendous. They always get high marks, so we're pretty lucky to have
them. And the people that use the service get good return on that. So they've
been doing good work for a number of years.
MS. ROGERS:
And what would you attribute
that to?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think it starts with the
leadership within the department. I think Mr. Scott – again, I used to deal with
him back before I was ever in this. I just think he's a good manager. He knows
what he's doing and it leads to perhaps higher productivity. It's just a case of
a good leader. We've got good systems in there. It's just a good department.
Maybe we have people in this province that want to pay their child support, I
don't know.
MS. ROGERS:
I was just wondering if that
was part of it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Whatever they are doing, it
seems to be working because they do extremely well there. Again, it's one of
those things where obviously we don't see any revenue but that revenue is going
to the parents, which is excellent.
MS. ROGERS:
It's going to be interesting
to see what happens now in the downturn in the economy, particularly those
people who have been commuting back and forth to Alberta and whether or not
there'll be any who've lost their jobs, whether there'll be any impact on that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There's no doubt and that's
why I think it's also important. We've seen movement in the past but you have to
continue at it when it comes to interjurisdictional support orders. We have to
have that co-operation. We've been dealing with Alberta, which is obviously one
of the big ones, but I think you're going to see more co-operation amongst
provinces to make that easier to get through. We don't need parents having to go
through a lot of rigmarole to get the money that their children are entitled to.
But
again, I agree, when you see that downturn that's going to – you may see a lot
of applications to vary, changes there. Will they go through the normal route of
every year submitting their notice of assessment, or not submitting it and
getting the 10 per cent? If they're losing their money, they're going to have to
start making their applications to have their own varied because you can't just
say that you're going to pay less because you're getting less. It still has to
go through that route, which is difficult for everyone involved.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
2.1.04,
under Salaries we see a reduction in the revised amount and then a reduction
again in Estimates in '16-'17.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that was three
positions that actually ended up in Support Enforcement. The one that we just
did, there was an increase there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that is what that
was. The budget and three staff transferred to Support Enforcement for
recalculation, but I think Mr. Stanley will also speak to it as well to provide
some context.
MR. STANLEY:
Yes, we had, under the Family Justice Services Division, a very small office in
Corner Brook that actually – it's a recalculation service so people who have
support orders can submit new tax information and get the order recalculated
every year.
The
office, we realize, in Corner Brook would be better from an administrative
management point of view if we brought it under the Support Enforcement office,
which is also located in Corner Brook and does very similar work.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. STANLEY:
So we just moved the three people from basically one division head to another
and they physically co-located with the Support Enforcement people, and it's
working out fairly well.
MS. ROGERS:
And there were no job losses
in the transfer?
MR. STANLEY:
There were no job losses or anything out there.
MS. ROGERS:
Great.
And,
under 01, the federal revenue, we see a significant change there.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, that would have been,
I guess, catch up. That was revenue for two years. You'll see that in a couple
of headings under here as we move forward. I think Legal Aid is the other one
where you'll see like a big –
MS. ROGERS:
I remember that, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So this is the same thing.
It's caught up so the number for this year should be one year.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
Are we
finding that people – how is the use of counselling remediation going? Is there
a big uptake? How is it working?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess I can speak
anecdotally; it's something I dealt with prior to getting into this. I think
it's a great service to have these people, whether it's to counselling and
mediation. I still think there's room to – I wouldn't say grow, but to change.
I've seen cases in the past where I had clients that would be mailed DVDs.
Sometimes I wonder whether that's actually getting used or not. Sometimes these
people have to travel, which, again, is a cost on them.
I think
you can also – and this may require coordination amongst departments. I'll just
use Port aux Basques, for example. We don't have Family Justice Services out
there all the time; they come out, I think, during circuit courts. But there's
no reason somebody, if they had to do a teleconference, couldn't go to the
hospital or to the college and do a teleconference with somebody in
Stephenville. So it takes away that travel cost which really isn't necessary,
it's not a medical appointment.
So I
think there are things we can do there. I think it's a necessary service. I
think anybody that uses it will find it – and I think in many cases if you can
resolve a dispute through a method like this rather than going the full gamut, I
think it's better on everybody involved, especially when you have children,
obviously, involved in the matter.
Again,
I think we have a new gentleman that has stepped into that role there. Is it
Derrick Oldford?
MR. STANLEY:
Yes. Wilma MacInnis, who's sitting behind me, moved from Family Justice Services
to Provincial Court. So in Wilma's stead we actually have appointed sort of an
acting director, one of the lawyers who was working in that area before from the
Civil Division. He's now serving as the acting director while we have some HR
issues in positions we have to determine and that kind of thing, and then we'll
be filling the position full time.
Just to
the issue of success, the service is very successful mostly – outside of St.
John's it has a very high success rate and the courts are very pleased with it.
The courts are always driving us to make this service as useful as possible
because it facilitates easier access and movement of matters through Family
Court.
In St.
John's we have a slightly lower success rate. It is still fairly successful, but
we find that you have more complex cases that are more difficult for people to
sit down and just mediate. We have more cultural issues and that sort of thing.
We are
working to try to improve and we've had a couple of HR issues in our office here
with people off. So we're working to improve the FJS service here to get it up
to the level. The Supreme Court judges here in town are constantly ensuring that
we try to maintain high levels of service.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
So
where are the services located in the province?
MR. STANLEY:
I'm going to defer to Wilma who used to be in charge.
MS. MACINNIS:
I've been dying to talk about Family Justice here.
MS. ROGERS:
Great.
MS. MACINNIS:
Offices across the province were located in St. John's, Clarenville, Gander,
Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Goose Bay and Stephenville. I don't know if I've
missed any, Todd.
Just
last year, actually, we went through a process just in terms of efficiencies.
Because at one point we were jointly delivered by two government departments and
there were certainly some challenges in terms of that process. So last year we
had a transition process where, as Mr. Stanley referenced, in terms of the
movement of the Recalculation Office to Support Enforcement. But, also, right
now all Family Justice Services are provided solely by Justice, plus Justice
staff.
As Mr.
Stanley referenced as well, we certainly do have good relationships all across
the province with the courts and it is a free service. Just in terms of the
promotion of that, the courts certainly do a good job in promoting that. Any
applications that are filed with any of the Family Courts, they automatically
send those to Family Justice Services before they get a date in court so that at
least we have an opportunity to contact them and say: Are you even aware that
this free service exists?
There
is certainly a lot of uptake in that. Sometimes people aren't aware so
certainly, yes, as Minister Parsons mentioned in terms of the promotion of that
as well is very important.
MS. ROGERS:
That's great. It's just
wonderful.
What
other department was involved before it was all consolidated?
MS. MACINNIS:
It was Advanced Education and Skills.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Interesting.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Is everybody good up to
2.1.02 so we can call that and move on?
Okay.
Go ahead.
CLERK:
Subhead 2.1.01 – do you want
2.1.04?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No two, you said.
CLERK:
You said two.
CHAIR:
Oh, we didn't go beyond –
CLERK:
We did go, we went –
CHAIR:
We did go to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Did you want to finish the
other two first?
CHAIR:
Pardon me?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Did you want me to finish? I
just had a couple of quick questions.
CHAIR:
You have a couple of
questions on 2.1.04. Well, go head.
MR. P. DAVIS:
2.1.03 and 2.1.04, actually.
I have just a couple of questions on it.
I thank
you, and I have to tell you, I was going to comment, and I will comment on this
before we finish up tonight, but I think these are two areas that are very
challenging work for officials and people who work on front lines under your
department, Minister.
I can
tell you that I personally have a great deal of admiration for them who do that.
It's very difficult work to do. I know that some of them – Wilma MacInnis
is a good example of it – that work very, very well. Turn around there for a
second, Wilma. She's got a great background and experience in dealing in very
trying and difficult circumstances. I'm not surprised to hear her say she has
good relations with the courts because she's got a history and record of that.
This is the type of person that we need working in these
areas, does a fabulous job and, as I said, sometimes under very stressful and
trying circumstances. So for you, minister and deputy and to your staff, I have
a great deal of admiration for all of them, but particularly these two areas. I
know they're very tough.
On positions, my understanding is the only change was three
positions moved from under Family Justice to Support Enforcement. That's all
that's taken place, as far as any changes there.
I noticed in Transportation, changes in both of them. Under
Support Enforcement it's fairly significant, from $41,000 budget down to
$14,000, and under Family Justice. Is there a change in how business is
operating? What would be the reason for each of those?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think actually these trends started back in 2013. I think they actually
started looking at different ways to reduce this cost if they could. I think
that relates to both sections there, Support Enforcement and Family Justice
Services. They're going on historical trends.
I thank you and I agree 100 per cent with your opening
comments there about the staff in both of these divisions. I mean, that's tough
work. When you're dealing with Support Enforcement, we all know some of those
phone calls they get are not pleasant. You're dealing with upset people and
people going through serious times.
I think, especially on the Family Justice side, there's a
way we can still make sure the service is accessed. I think technology can play
a big role in that. I've seen that done. I think it can still provide the same
service.
I don't know how much of it has to do with telephone costs
or whatever else, but in terms of the actual travel –
MR. P. DAVIS: I
was going to ask that. I know in the last few years there have been fairly
healthy investments in technology: video conferencing, those types of things. So
that's what some of that is.
I think I see your deputy nodding her heading in agreement.
Instead of having to travel for meetings, you can do it through those types of
ways.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes, and historically, as Minister Parsons was saying, when we did the line by
line, historically, the travel money wasn't used. So rather than have dropped
balances, the money was
removed from the budget.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I think staff in the
past have argued that they needed it, but good for you.
If you
want to call those, I'm fine with those, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Yes, please.
CLERK:
Subhead 2.1.01 to 2.1.04
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.1.04
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.1.04 carried.
CHAIR:
Now, I'm going to suggest –
we're about halfway through – that we take a five minute break; strictly five
minutes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Sounds good to me.
Recess
CHAIR:
We'll get started again.
We've called 2.2.01, so we'll move on to the next one. I'll ask the Clerk to
call the subheads.
CLERK:
Subheads 2.3.01 to 2.4.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.3.01 carry?
It is
Mr. Davis now?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think so, yes.
CHAIR:
Yes, go ahead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I
understand how budgeting works with Legal Aid, but, Minister, can you give me an
overview of the current structure in Legal Aid? How many staff do you have
there? Have there been any changes in this year or in recent times, or any
anticipated changes in how they operate, or staffing levels?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will defer to Todd on
this. He will probably provide a more conscience answer than I'm able to. I
don't think there's any change in the staffing –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, I'm more interested
in the structure. Just explain to me the structure of Legal Aid, how it
operates, where they are located and so on.
MR. STANLEY:
Legal Aid has approximately 125, 130 staff. That's split about 50/50 with
solicitors and administrative staff. Legal Aid has a higher than you might
expect, at first instance, administrative staff for two reasons. They handle all
of their own corporate administration. They do their own HR, their own
accounting. They avail of none of government's back-office stuff, as a
stand-alone entity.
Also,
they have a fair amount of staff who are dedicated to processing and assessing
eligibility for legal aid claims, which takes a fair amount of time, having to
get the necessary information from people and do the assessments.
They
have 11 offices, I believe, around the province. I'm not sure I can identify
where they are. There are two in St. John's. They have one right now in
Carbonear, Clarenville – I'm going to say Grand Bank, but I'm not sure that it's
actually in Grand Bank or if it's in Marystown – Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander,
Stephenville, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush.
I'm not
sure, is that the basics or –
MR. P. DAVIS:
It is. I was hoping to
understand the change in the budget from $16,900,000 last year to $17 million
this year. It probably just reflects changes in the cost of operations.
MR. STANLEY:
Yes, there are actually three separate things going on in that. There was the
final addition for implementation of part of three solicitor salaries to do with
the Royal report. We had a three-year, phase-in plan for the Royal report and
this year, the last year of the phase-in, required us to fund three solicitor
salaries.
We also
put money into Legal Aid in relation to the Family Violence Intervention Court.
There also was an offsetting reduction for some of that increase with Legal Aid.
Through this budget process, they eliminated two vacant positions. They laid off
an individual and there was a solicitor salary removed from their funding
relating to the closure of Harbour Grace. Whether or not Legal Aid actually lays
off a solicitor, or however else they might manage that, is really up to them
because we just adjust the funding that they get. So, one person, I think, was
laid off as part of the budget process and two vacant positions were eliminated.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So when you go through your
process, your budget with them, do they come in and make a presentation to the
department on what they're seeking and you discuss their budget or what they've
requested?
MR. STANLEY:
Yes.
CHAIR:
You can go ahead, Minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will let Todd (inaudible).
MR. STANLEY:
Legal Aid, both in terms of what they're looking for and in response to a
request from us to see what savings they could bring in, the executive of them
go through their board, get approval and they bring it in to us to say here's
what we could do and here's what we need. In the end, with us, it boils down to
the gross grant amount that we give them.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So there could become a time
they come in with a presentation, you ask them to go back and find more, change
more, look really in certain areas or that type of thing.
MR. STANLEY:
Entirely, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, Minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will jump in here again. I
can say too that during, I guess, the short time I've been here, I actually did
take the time to go down to Legal Aid, down to the commission, and I was told I
was actually the first person to actually go and visit in ages. So I went down,
met with the board, met with all of the solicitors and had a chat. They actually
did come up to our office and meet with us as well, plus they met with Treasury
Board, if I do recall correctly.
They've
done a lot of work catching up, too, on the financial side. You'll see there in
the federal revenue, the discrepancies there – I'll sort of jump ahead, and this
is what Gerry was talking about earlier – where they're catching up on the
amount that is owed by the feds.
This
year it's only $2.1 million. That's because they're finally caught up, I guess,
basically filing their paperwork with the feds and getting reimbursed. It was
behind for a number of years and they are finally caught up there.
Hopefully, this will also change at some point because I think part of the
federal budget is there's actually going to be increased Legal Aid funding. The
10-year arrangement just concluded. Again, one of the holdups there is that they
negotiate with all of the provinces and they're not doing one-offs with
everybody; it's everybody at the one time.
So this
has been a contentious issue for years – you go in; we want more money. So now,
this year, we do understand that there is going to be an increase. Figuring out
how much it is going to be, we'll figure that out. It's not for sure. I think we
have an idea, probably even in the range of a couple hundred thousand, but
again, we don't want to say for sure because I don't know for sure.
Legal
Aid has come in, they'll tell us – I have to say they've been great to deal
with, the whole board and solicitors there. I've dealt with them in the past,
knowing the workloads that they have, and I think half of their problem in the
past has been perception.
I mean,
people have this perception; we talked about it earlier when you get an
appointed counsel. Oh, I don't want a legal aid lawyer. That's garbage, as far
as I'm concerned. Legal Aid has great lawyers. They have huge caseloads. They
have fantastic solicitors to do a lot of work and travel and stuff. I've said
that before, I'll say it again, they have a great staff. They've done a lot of
work to make sure they function as good as they can.
One of
the issues we all hear, I guess as MHAs, is we get clients come in who are
trying to access the – trying to fill out the applications and get through that.
Sometimes that can be a challenge too. It's like anything. I think they're
improving on that. They have good staff doing the work there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I mean I agree. It was
common one time to hear complaints about legal aid. Slow response, I can't get
to speak to a lawyer. I have to make a decision or a legal decision, those types
of things. You don't seem to hear those as much as we used to or I don't anyway.
The phone will start now tomorrow because I said that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But hopefully that's a
reflection of improvements on it.
Madam
Chair, I'd like to move to 2.3.02 under Commissions of Inquiry. Can you explain
that heading to us, Minister?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
What
you'll see there, and I think for the last number of years, it's always a budget
of $1,000 which I guess was just a cursory amount that was put in because there
was no Commissions of Inquiry anticipated or planned.
Obviously, this year part of my mandate letter, and something I've spoken about
on a number of occasions, is that I've been mandated to conduct three inquiries.
So we've allocated $1 million to hold – the plan is to hold an inquiry this
year.
So
we've based that on, I think you'll see salary there was to anticipate
administrative support officer, anticipate 12 weeks, eight hours per day, X
dollars per hour. Then you have the T and C, Supplies, Professional Services.
The Professional Services would actually be the anticipated cost of counsel for
anybody that's involved in it. We came up with the figure of $1 million which is
anticipated.
I'd
like to think that like anything you'll do what you can to, not reduce cost, but
if you're going to need space there's lots of government-owned space out there
that you can use. I think we've had people come to us that have said look, we
have the space here you can do it. So that's obviously something that we would
consider. That makes more sense than going and renting space.
Depending on who your commissioner – who's going to head up the inquiry, is it
judiciary? Is it somebody else? These are all things that we're factoring in as
we come up with terms of reference and stuff like that.
So
that's what's factored in there, but I know there are probably more questions so
lay them on me.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I know the three inquiries.
Do you know which one you're going to call this year?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We're anticipating that we
will go with the Humber Valley inquiry this year. I've said our logic behind it
– obviously there's the federal one. I call it the Winters's inquiry, young
Burton Winters. That one involves a bit of co-operation with the federal
government, given that there's joint services there. So I don't think that one
is quite ready to go because it requires a bit more co-operation.
The
second one, obviously, is the Donnie Dunphy inquiry. We've all heard and seen,
that one requires the police report, I guess, to figure out where that goes. We
don't know when that matter is going to be heard but I don't think it's sensible
for any inquiry to go ahead until you have the conclusion of that matter, which
I can say here and I'll say anywhere, I have no idea when that will happen. We
know that matter was investigated here. It's been referred to Alberta. That will
come back at some point. That one, we don't know when that will be.
So,
Humber Valley, in terms of readiness to proceed, was the first one we think was
ready to go. You have a static set of facts and timelines. So that's the one
we've anticipated going first. I don't think it has anything to do with
importance per se. It has to do with which ones are ready.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's the intention of an
inquiry?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, the intention of any
inquiry, I think, is two-fold. Number one, any inquiry I've ever read about or
seen, the first thing you want to do is identify a particular set of facts, what
happened no matter what it is. This province has a history of inquiries, whether
it was Cameron. I think there was the Gushue inquiry back in the day of nursing
homes. So that's the first thing that comes out.
Obviously, the set of facts has to be such that there's public interest in it
and different cases. Some of them involve loss of life, some involve public
confidence, some involve a set of facts that we feel is important enough to
investigate.
The
second part of any inquiry is to come up with a set of recommendations to
prevent said fact pattern or fact scenario from happening again.
That
would be the purpose, I guess, of any inquiry. I don't know if that's a
Webster's Dictionary version of that, but that's just sort of how I would take
it off the cuff, I guess, or that's sort of how I see it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm inclined to think when I
see $1 million – to be honest with you – my first thought was that wouldn't be
enough to hold an inquiry.
Do you
have any idea from previous inquiries – Cameron was a very extensive inquiry. In
recent years, there were the Norman Reid and Darryl Power inquiries. Do you have
any idea what they cost?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the Cameron inquiry
was up in the $5.7 million. That one was established July 2007 and received in
March 2009. Lamer was a three-year inquiry. It took $7.6 million.
Now, I
tend to think that the fact patterns and the time patterns are substantively
different, but I've said this before, and I think it's documented that I've said
it on – I don't know if it was radio or an interview or something I did – it's
not a case of cutting a blank cheque. It's not a case of skimping. I don't know
if I'm using the right words. It's not skimping, but at the same time you don't
cut a blank cheque. You have to have cost controls put in place. That's why you
do things where you have the office space and work to do what you can to keep
that.
It's
like anything that any government or any business or any person does, you want
to do what you can to ensure your costs that you anticipate stay at the level
that you anticipate. We're confident that the number we've proposed here will
cover off the cost of that inquiry and what goes into it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Madam Chair, I know my time
is up. I'm just wondering if it's okay with Ms. Rogers, if I could just continue
for another few minutes, and I'll be sure to –
MS. ROGERS:
On the inquiries?
MR. P. DAVIS:
On inquires, yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, if that's okay
with the Chair.
So in
the case of Norman Reid and Darryl Power, which I think was around 2003.
MR. A. PARSONS:
2001?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think it was 2003, maybe.
Do you
know what the cost was on that one?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It was $1.2 million.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It was $1.2 million.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The fall of 2002 was the inquiry. So Power and Reid, that's right because those
incidents both happened pretty close together. The report was submitted December
2003.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, when was it put
together?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It started fall 2002, report
submitted December 2003.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So fall 2003 is when the
inquiry actually began to call evidence. Is that what you mean?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, the information I have
is the fall of 2002. The report was submitted – Judge Luther's final report came
out December 2003.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. So was that when the
inquiry was called and actually began? Is that what you mean or was it when the
inquiry began, in the fall?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think my information is
that it was the fall of 2002 the actual inquiry started. Again, I don't know how
long that took.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The reason I ask, Minister,
is that my recollection was it took some time to find counsel and Judge Luther
had to clear his schedule. It took several months for all that to happen before
the inquiry actually got underway.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess so. I'd have to talk
to whoever the Minister of Justice was at that point. I can't remember who that
feller was, but –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Have you had any discussions
with any potential commissioners?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I can say that I've
discussed internally where do you go, what kind of pool do you want to go from?
I can
tell you, I think there's a protocol that comes from, I think the Supreme Court,
that you should follow in the cases of inquiry. So, obviously, if you were to go
the judicial route, getting a justice or a judge, then obviously you have to
talk to the chief judge or justice of those courts because they've got a
schedule that they've got to maintain as well.
We do
know there's a protocol that has to be followed. I don't know, I'm assuming it
was followed in the past, but it's been made clear to me that you should follow
it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So are you having any
discussion with people or contacted anyone to say this is – as potential
commissioner for the inquiry. You haven't reached out to anybody. You've only
had discussions internally is what you're saying.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I have had the chief judge
send me the protocol.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
As
well, what about commission counsel? Have you had any discussions there on who
would be commission counsel?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not that far yet, although
I've had people – obviously they'll say to you in passing I'm interested in
that. Everybody that's involved will need counsel, right. So we're not that far
yet in terms of figuring out who that is. And I might be wrong; I think there's
obviously some choice of the people involved.
I think
the commissioners themselves would get counsel, so they're probably going to
have a say in who that is. And then the people involved would probably have a
say in the counsel that they get because I don't know if you want to force
counsel on somebody.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
My
understanding is that there are precedents. I don't know if you know this or not
– or maybe some of your staff can discuss it – but there are precedents, such as
the case with Mr. Dunphy, where investigative steps are still underway when an
inquiry is called. And the fact there's an investigation doesn't pre-empt an
inquiry from being called.
You
said until it's done you shouldn't call the inquiry. My understanding is that
there are precedents for calling an inquiry in the circumstance that exists
similar to where we are with Mr. Dunphy.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can say I'm not aware of
that. If you have that, by all means, I would look at it. I don't know if
somebody else has any information.
I guess
from my perspective it seemed to us when you looked at it, if you have a matter
that's still going through the investigative phase where we've had an
investigation done and this investigation has been referred to Alberta – but we
don't know what's going to come out of that. Again, this is a case of where are
charges laid, are charges not laid?
It
would seem that it prompts the very strong possibility of causing issues if you
were to go ahead and start that when the matter is still not completed. But if
there's precedent to that, I don't know. In the cases I've always seen, the
matter has been done and passed and there are no facts left to happen. But I'm
certainly willing to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
But the police investigation
is actually over, right?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the RCMP
investigation is over, yes. The RCMP has referred that to the Alberta SIR Team,
ASIRT, I think. So that's going on there.
Now,
what the return on that is, I don't know. I don't know what will come out of
that. I don't know if that will recommend no charges, charges, more
investigation to be done, we should have done some else different. I have no
clue what goes on there.
That
was sort of what prompted us to make that decision, was the possibility of stuff
happening that you can't control, you don't know where it going to go.
MS. JACOBS:
Mr. Davis, my understanding as well is the RCMP investigation is not considered
completed because ASIRT may be coming back to them saying, well, you should do
this, look at that. So until ASIRT kind of puts a bow on it, we wouldn't
consider that investigation completely finished.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I'm
interested in the perspective of if you consider an inquiry to be a process to
identify and understand clearly the facts of a set of circumstances of an event
or events surrounding a matter, and if you look at that the intention is to find
recommendations to prevent those circumstances from happening again, in some of
these cases, particularly in the search and rescue Burton Winter's matter and
also in the matter of Donald Dunphy, wouldn't there be some urgency to hold an
inquiry to prevent a set of circumstances like that from happening again?
Because
if I hear what you're saying, Minister, there may be an inquiry called this
year. It may take some time for it to be established and set up. It probably
will run into next year and it would be some time before you called the second
one and the third one. So we're talking potentially four years from now before
the inquiries are completed. These are around matters that are important to
life. The idea and the intent of an inquiry are to prevent loss of life under
similar circumstances in the future. Wouldn't there be an urgency to get to
them?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Obviously there's a
difference in those that involve loss of life. That's even in
the Public Inquiries Act, I think,
because depending on what the fact pattern is, that can dictate what kind of
inquiry you do.
When it
comes to the Dunphy one, basically on that, as I've said, we did have a loss of
life but the matter is not closed, which is what's preventing the moving forward
on that side.
When it
comes to the search and rescue one, we do have the passage of three years, I
believe – no, it might be four years. Was it 2012? 2012 I think it was, so we do
have the passage of four years there.
Again,
it's a different scenario in that when it comes to that one – what I say now
might be different than the terms of reference. I'm just sort of speaking as I
see it. You have to come up with a terms of reference here, but that may require
some co-operation with the federal government. Given that we've only been in a
position really since December 14, and you're going to have to co-operate with
the federal government there as well, that presents some logistical challenges.
We made it quite clear from a long time ago that we obviously think it's
important. We want to get it done and it will get done.
Then,
when you go back to the other one that we're going to do – which I still think
is a serious matter. It doesn't involve a loss of life, obviously, which I think
we're all glad to see, but it involves something we can handle in our
jurisdiction quickly. We have a fact scenario, or supposed fact scenario, that's
constrained within, we think, a certain period of dates. Again, I think it does
have issues when it comes to public confidence.
So
doing one before another doesn't diminish anything in terms of importance. I
think the important thing is that we've said we're going to do three; I'd like
to see all three done and done right. I don't want to do something that may –
again you're not going to do it. There's a term I'd use here now, I don't want
to use it half – we want to do them right. So that's our perspective.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And to be clear I wasn't
suggesting –
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, no.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– that you try to rush them
or hurry them, it's just that it wasn't very timely.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, it's a fair question
you're asking.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I may
come back when Ms. Rogers is finished as well.
CHAIR:
Okay, I was going to suggest
that actually.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
Minister, I just want to double-check. You said that you were confident that the
$1 million will cover the Humber Valley Paving inquiry in its entirety?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh. Okay.
Why
would you not have the Auditor General look at this issue?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the Auditor General
did look at it.
MS. ROGERS:
So why would we move on to
an inquiry?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Because there were five
components of it that the Auditor General – when he looked at it he boiled it
all down, at the beginning of the report, to five things, five questions. He
answered three and two he didn't answer. There are still unanswered questions
there, so we felt it was –
MS. ROGERS:
What are those two
outstanding questions?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's funny; I don't have
that right here. But I think there was some question as to why everything was
concluded on the date that it was concluded and why we had multiple Cabinet
ministers contacting the deputy minister of a department at the time, the day
before the closing.
The
Auditor General came back – the first three he came back, and it's more of a
contractual point of view – and said, I found some discrepancies, some stuff
that you shouldn't do it like this. He answered those questions, but the last
two he came back and said, no, I don't know.
MS. ROGERS:
Right.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The other thing I will say
is that the Auditor General – and inquiries, too, there are things. An
inquiry has more of an opportunity for questioning, cross-examination, that
vehicle of truth seeking.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
I'd
like to take us back to Legal Aid. The legal aid offices in Carbonear and
Wabush, what will happen with those offices now that the courts have moved on?
MR. STANLEY:
Legal aid is still trying to determine how they're going to handle that, whether
they're going to move the positions, what they're going to do in respect of the
office that's in Carbonear. As I understand it, they haven't confirmed to
themselves what they're going to do. There was some thought that they might
leave it open as a service centre, because there is a certain – almost like a
storefront retail operation with legal aid dealing with clients, but I'm not
sure if they've concluded that's feasible with the people who are going to be
travelling, the lawyers who'll be travelling to St. John's to appear. So they're
working that out.
I don't
think right now they have a strong feeling there's going to be a requirement for
layoffs. I don't think they're seeing that. I think they may be moving staff.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, because the same amount
of work still exists.
MR. STANLEY:
Yes, the work isn't going away. It's just the physical location.
MS. ROGERS:
So if the solicitors are
moved to, for instance, St. John's, then folks from that area, from Conception
Bay North, would be required to go to St. John's to see a lawyer to get
assessments?
MR. STANLEY:
Yes. If the legal aid office moved the lawyers into St. John's, yes. In order to
meet with your lawyer, the default would be anyone in that area would have to
come into St. John's to the legal aid office to meet, but there are times these
days already where things like that can occur.
If the
local Carbonear office is in conflict on a particular matter, then there are
people now who might have to travel into St. John's to meet with their legal aid
lawyer because the Carbonear office couldn't handle the matter. So it can be
kind of complicated getting legal aid staff and people physically matched up
because they can be required to assign staff from offices all over the Island
already.
MS. ROGERS:
Do you know how many staff
are in both of those offices, Wabush and Carbonear?
MR. STANLEY:
I can get you that information. I think I know but I don't want to misstate. We
can get that information for you.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
So that
would be staff who were permanent positions in those two offices.
MR. STANLEY:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
There
was some talk about some of the work going to Clarenville was there, from the
Harbour Grace closure, or is everything going to St. John's?
MR. A. PARSONS:
There is some going to
Clarenville, depending on the location of the matter. That's the plan we had.
Clarenville just opened up again. When did the judge –
OFFICIAL:
September.
MR. A. PARSONS:
September, yes. That's when
that court reopened. So I think there is the possibility of some of the matters
going to that court as well.
MS. ROGERS:
When we see the work kind of
splitting, going to maybe Clarenville and St. John's, will judges move as well?
How will that –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, there's a judge in
Clarenville. There's one judge in Harbour Grace. That judge would have to be
relocated. Likely to St. John's, I would assume. That's the move there, I think.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
I'm
good with that.
Commissions of Inquiry; I'm fine.
The
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; under Professional Services we see a
significant variance there.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think that's the funding we put in to do a review of the Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner. That's underway as we speak, in terms of acquiring the
services of the person that will do it. That's something we're hoping to move
quickly.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
The
variance in Purchased Services; we see an increase in the revised amount for
2015-16.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I believe that's the
transportation of human remains.
MS. ROGERS:
Wow, that's a lot. There's
quite a jump there in revision.
I'd
also like to bring up the issue of the death of two women from Newfoundland and
Labrador at Nova. In the case of Ms. Strickland, the investigation was
completed. Is there a role for our Chief Medical Examiner to look at the
situation of the fact that we had two women from Newfoundland and Labrador who
both died within a few months of each other while incarcerated?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess what I'm saying here is just my assumption. I don't have what I think is
the definitive answer, but I think given the jurisdiction was in Nova Scotia, I
think that it would fall under there. I don't know if they've reached out to our
Chief Medical Examiner or not.
Would
there be a role? It's hard to tell. I know the two matters are serious. They're
sad when you think about it. I'm definitely aware of the case of Ms. Strickland.
MS. ROGERS:
I guess I'm looking at the role, not only of the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner but also the role of our Department of Justice knowing that we had two
citizens, two women who were incarcerated in a facility in another province –
and I understand it was federal. One of them chose to go federally so that she
could get appropriate psychiatric care, and she died in that facility. There was
another woman who died in that facility. I believe there is a provincial role to
look at what is happening. Those were two deaths within a close period of time
for each.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, what I would say on
that – and we've all heard it, whether it's those cases or anybody who watches
the news. We're hearing more frequently now, people saying they sought a higher
sentence so they would have to go federal, and they want to go federal because
they get services. It's unfortunate when you're hearing that. That's something
I've recognized, and I think it's been recognized by a lot of people. We saw
that on the all-party committee. We had the opportunity to go down and talk to
the people down there.
So
that's something that is on our radar. That's something we've talked about. I've
been down on a number of occasions, even since then, and talked to the people
providing the services. I can't remember the name of the body; they had the
mental health day. I agree with you there. I think when you have a citizen that
leaves and has that happen – they're leaving to get access to services – I think
that concerns us. It might not just be a justice issue, that's a health issue.
I tend
to agree with you in theory. That's something I'm working with, and we'll talk
about it once we get the corrections I'm sure. I've got concerns about not just
the inmates but the staff, because a lot of these divisions and areas we talk
about, it's high stress stuff, and down there it's especially high stress. So
that's one of the things I've considered as well. Whether it's your inmate
population or the people who are down there providing the correctional services,
it's tough. So we need to make sure we're doing what we can there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
2.3.04
–
CHAIR:
Can we just call the –
MS. ROGERS:
Yeah, sure.
CHAIR:
– quickly, because we have
to call the subheadings on those.
Thanks.
CLERK:
Clauses 2.2.01 to 2.3.03
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.2.01 to 2.3.03
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.2.01 through 2.3.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Did Ms. Rogers have time on
the clock?
CLERK:
She did.
CHAIR:
Yes, okay.
You can
call the –
CLERK:
I already called those.
CHAIR:
Oh, you called those?
CLERK:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Okay, Ms. Rogers, I'm not
sure what you had left on the clock.
MS. ROGERS:
I don't think I had anything
left on my clock.
CHAIR:
Okay, so is it okay –
MS. ROGERS:
Absolutely.
CHAIR:
Thank you for your honesty,
since I've clearly had a long day and I'm ready to go home.
Mr.
Davis, would you like to start, 2.3.04.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Did you want to call those,
or you've already called them? Oh, you already called them. You just said that,
didn't you?
Madam
Chair, I'm cognizant of the time, and I'm sure all the officials in the room and
MHAs, my colleagues, are all aware as well. Under Human Rights I just very
shortly wanted to have a discussion regarding concerns expressed about access to
services from them, and if there is anything there to deal with. I want to make
it clear to the minister that I have a number of questions regarding policing.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And some on public
complaints, and also on Adult Corrections and Youth Secure Custody.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Do you want me to do this
and if you want, we can jump ahead to make sure you get those and then work your
way back to the other ones, whatever – I don't care what order you want.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'd be fine doing that
unless –
MR. A. PARSONS:
It doesn't matter to me.
MR. P. DAVIS:
If you want while we're on
Human Rights, we could come back to it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Human Rights I'll just
put out there, obviously I don't think there was a significant reduction there.
I think the reduction has been in non-personnel. It's been in T&C, Supplies –
and that's been the normal line-by-line process everywhere. I've had the
pleasure of going over there now and sitting down with the board and sitting
down with Remzi – actually I'm going to hopefully sit down with him again soon.
I think
what we're seeing is an increase in numbers. There are more people coming
forward, which you can look at it and say it's positive that more people feel
they can go to this group and have their concerns heard. The bad side is that
obviously we don't want to see more complaints. So I don't know if it's a case
of increased complaints or increased reporting.
But
again, that's something that we do take seriously. I could sit here and go on
about it, but I don't want to use up the time. What I can say is I've sat with
them, sat down with Carrie, and they've been pretty easy to deal with; a really
good bunch, doing good work.
There
was a story a little while back on that. I don't know if it was in the paper.
Was there a story on that?
MR. P. DAVIS:
There have been lots of
stories on it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I haven't had any actual
complaints brought to me, that I'm aware of it. I haven't seen it but if there's
something brought forward, obviously, we have to look at it, consider it and
deal with it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, I appreciate that. I
bring it to your attention because I've heard the concerns in the past from
people who are long periods of time waiting for investigations to be finished
and findings, and quite often will signify that it's a result of resources don't
match the number of investigations and requests for services from them.
More so
than ever before, I think it's an important branch that provides an important
service to the people of the province.
MR. A. PARSONS:
This is a group, if I recall
correctly, that went through a significant downsize in 2013. I think we're
trying to stabilize that, but at the same time you have to look at the demand.
I'd
like to think that going forward they will come to us, if these concerns are
raised. I think we have a pretty good relationship going in that if they have
concerns, they're willing to come to us and talk about it. Are there ways we can
do things more efficiently? Are there ways we can do things differently? I'm
willing to sit down – so far they've been really communicative. They've been
open to me coming over and certainly both ways.
Again,
if we see more, I hope it's people reporting it as opposed to the actual number
going up.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Madam
Chair, I have some questions under courts as well. We mentioned EPOs and CPOs
earlier, but being cognizant of time, I wanted to have a discussion around
policing resources, as I mentioned, and also Adult Corrections and youth
corrections. So I don't know if we can –
CHAIR:
What subheading are you
referring to?
MR. P. DAVIS:
4.1.01.
CHAIR:
4.1.01.
Are you
both done with 2.3.04 to 2.4.01 or will we need to come back because if not, we
can –
MS. ROGERS:
I have one question on
(inaudible).
CHAIR:
Can we ask one question and
just clear up those two pages, skip over to four and come to three.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, absolutely.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MS. ROGERS:
The Human Rights Commission,
part of their mandate is not simply to receive complaints but also be proactive
and to do outreach and education. Do you know if they are able to do that under
the current budgetary restrictions and staff that they have?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, when I met with them,
it's not something that I can recall being brought up. I think they're like
everybody. You can look at Justice – I can remember reading the letter to Chief
Justice Green dated 2004 where we talked about Justice resources. That's been an
issue, I think, for years. It's always an issue; we always need more in Justice.
But, Human Rights itself, when I met with them that's not something they
mentioned specifically to me. If it was an issue, then I would have that chat
because, again, I agree with you that there's an awareness component and
education component.
MS. ROGERS:
Which I think is so vital.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Definitely.
What I
would suggest is if there was something there, I'm willing to listen and to
figure out ways that if we can do more there, by all means – and I did actually
suggest if there were ways that, through existing Department of Justice
resources, whether its communications or whatever, then if there's a way that we
could help spread the word, do what we have to do, that's the co-operation part
that we're trying to get to.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you. I am good
there.
Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission, I'm fine.
CHAIR:
Sorry, I didn't hear you.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, I'm fine there.
I
imagine the variance in the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission was
because of our change in our boundaries.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think some of that funding
was before the year-end. I think some of it might have been actually paid for by
Finance as they figured out where it went. So I think there was monies expended
before March 31, 2015, and then this year money would have been expended after.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Under
Legislative Counsel, I do have one question. Minister, it's about the request
for a buffer zone around the Athena clinic. Can you tell me where that is at?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Actually, I've asked my
staff to continue working on that. Again, I've had the pleasure of having people
come to me and feel comfortable enough to come to us and say, look, this is an
issue, because it wasn't something I had dealt with before. Again, we've had
this chat.
I know
there's legislation being drafted elsewhere. I know I have staff that are
actually working on it and I'm thinking that I can maintain the commitment that
I made – I'm hoping, which is I didn't anticipate us being able to get it on the
legislative agenda for this session, but I'm aiming for a fall agenda just given
there's a lot of work being done now. That's not, obviously, to diminish the
importance.
The
other thing, though, is that having seen jurisdictions that have gone there, I
think the good news is we can use their experiences to guide us both in the
drafting, and are there things they would have done differently or changed. I am
supportive. I think it's necessary, and the stories I've heard on it are enough
to make me think that I'd like to get it done.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, and there are people
who go to that clinic for various reasons – it doesn't just provide abortion
services – who are also being harassed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's right.
MS. ROGERS:
I understand the last
contact they had with the Department of Justice, it was recommended that the
owner of the clinic go the injunction route, which would be very costly, and was
told that perhaps a buffer zone wouldn't withstand a Charter challenge. Although
we know BC has instituted buffer zones, and they have survived a Charter
challenge on their buffer zones. So I'm wondering if someone could clarify that
for the clinic.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm not aware of that,
that's for sure.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
So
maybe I'll see that they contact the department.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, but I can say, given
that I had the opportunity to meet and have that face-to-face contact, I'm
probably the person to deal with.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Maybe it's a case, too, of – I would imagine any solicitor would suggest all
options available right now, given that the legislation's not available. I think
any solicitor – again, this is what they do. They suggest the possible issues,
challenges. I would toss out that, yeah, maybe there's a Charter challenge. So I
also agree with you. I think it can withstand that, and given other places have
gone through it, we've got that opportunity to see how they did it and what they
went through.
So in
my case, what I've said to the individuals I met still stands.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
That's
good news. I know they would like it sooner, but the fall is not so far away.
It's an important issue and a matter of safety and dignity and respect.
Thank
you. I'm good.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
Clause 2.3.04 to 2.4.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.3.04 to 2.4.01
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.3.04 through 2.4.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Now, is it my understanding
we're going to skip 3 and we're going to start at 4.1.01, that's your wishes and
we'll come back?
Okay.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
So
minister –
CHAIR:
Oh, sorry.
We just
need to call it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, sorry.
CLERK:
Clause 4.1.01 to 4.2.03.
CHAIR:
4.1.01.
Go
ahead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Minister, maybe we can start at Salaries, and maybe you can give us an overview
on budgeted last year, revised and estimates for this year.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the difference
there, we went from $47 million budgeted, $45 million spent and back up to $46
million estimated. That comes down to there were savings due to retirement
vacancies, other vacancies, trying to fill positions, and then there have been
junior officers hired that are coming in at a lower pay scale. That's my
understanding.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Then
the salary change for this year?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that's based on –
again, you would know, obviously you've dealt with this. We certainly know your
background.
In this
case, depending on what comes in, the Chief knows who's going to get hired and
not. The workforce, I believe, has stayed the same except there are the 14 –
OFFICIAL:
Salary increases.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, some of them are step
increases or salary increases. Again, I can't say that I know how exactly all
that works. There were 14 positions, I think four were vacant constables that
were not filled, and 10 were for the cadet recruits, was it?
OFFICIAL:
Yes, it was (inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, they're in last year's
budget, had not been filled and will not be filled. So that's the 14 there. It's
14 positions, but there were no individuals. Actually, it wasn't a reduction in
the actual officers that were working.
I'll
let Jackie –
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
The 10 new cadets that
were identified in the recent budget process, that was a part of an approval a
couple of years ago to add 10 additional cadets last year and this current year
to grow the force by 20 new cadets, 20 new positions essentially. So this past
year they graduated 31 cadets, which was the biggest class ever. They normally
have between 12, 16, 18. The current cadet group going through right now has 17
in it. That was as many as they could recruit this year. So they didn't even
recruit enough to be able to have those additional 10 cadets even in their cadet
roster this year.
The 10
cadets that were taken off the books and deferred, they are not cadets that are
currently in the program. They were originally envisioned to be an additional 10
cadets, 10 new positions that the force would have grown by. So this doesn't
affect any of the current cadets, this deferral of those 10 cadet positions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This year's class, you say
there are 17. So all of them will be hired in September, is what you're saying.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
In '15-'16, you said there
are 31, and then 17 – if I can only get my numbers right. So this year's class
there are 17, who all will be –
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Currently, right now,
that are going through the training that will finish up the end of the summer,
exactly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's the target then for
'16-'17 for the cadet class?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
It depends on what they
will recruit. Their normal recruitment class is somewhere in the mid-teens.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So is there a plan then for
hires for next year? I would assume if you're going to a cadet class, I would
assume the practice has been for every class that everyone gets hired.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Yes, they have a
recruitment process underway right now.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, but you don't know the
number of –?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
I don't know what the
numbers will be, no. Because a few years ago they had 12 cadets go through, last
year they had 31 go through, with the additional 10 positions that were added
in. Their cadet classes typically fill their attrition needs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So if they were able to
recruit, say, for example, 40 this year, are you saying they'd hire them all?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Not if they didn't have
positions for them.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right. So the positions
would depend on retirements. Is that what you're –?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
In large part, yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Do you know how many – I
think I do, but I want to check the number – officers are eligible for
retirement at this time?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
About 120.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's bigger than I had.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
110, 120, around there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, yeah, you're going to
change it now because I said that.
That's
about a quarter of the entire service, right?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Correct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's about 25 per cent.
Wow.
Minister, maybe you can elaborate on how you feel about this. Because I know for
several years, back in the '90s the RNC dropped about 100 members, dropped about
25 per cent overall. There was a lot of work over time to try and rebuild that.
That was the plan a couple of years ago, to increase 10 last year and 10 this
current fiscal year, that we're in now, to grow the force by 20. We know that's
not going to happen. That it's only going to grow by the 10 that were hired in
the classroom last year.
I know
the plan was because of retirements that are going to happen. What's your plan
for that? Potentially, you could have 100 people retire in the next several
months. Potentially you could, depending – by reducing the number in '16-'17, is
that – what are you anticipating as far as retirements? Ten could be a lot, not
hiring those 10 this year and not having a plan to hire them. What's your
feeling on that? What's your projection or your plan on that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, what I can say is that
since I have gotten in I've had a number of conversations and meetings with
Chief Janes. Certainly, he has brought up – we've brought up a number of issues,
but this is not something that I can recall having discussed with him the fact
of the possibility of a significant number retiring all at once. So everybody,
not just in this department, every department – I realize there's been
significant growth over the last number of years, I think the number is actually
a 27 per cent increase in the spending when it comes to the RNC. This is one of
those things where we're all feeling these challenges with the pressures that we
have, but what I'd like to think is that we'll continue working with the chief.
I'm not
going to pretend for two seconds that I know exactly how to run the police
department, either one, whether it's RNC or RCMP. That's why we have good people
running both. But my job is to be prepared to discuss, ask questions and figure
out if there are issues, what are those issues and what can we do. I think that
the people within the forces are better able to explain what we need to do to
ensure contingency, to make sure that the plans are in place so that the forces
are up and running and can maintain and sustain any retirements and things like
that. Plus, I think you can get hired from elsewhere as well.
Ms.
Lake-Kavanagh was just saying, again, the RNC has done a pretty tremendous job.
You only have to look at Twitter to see what they're doing in terms of
recruitment just via social media. So it's not something I've had a conversation
with the chief about. What we've looked at is the fact that like every
department, every division, when I got in the first thing I wanted to do was try
to figure out how each works, what are we spending, looking at the challenges
and the constraints that we have and figuring out what do we have to do to make
sure. Most of the stuff that falls under here is pretty basic services that we
need, whether it's policing, corrections, court and stuff like that.
So far
so good in terms of the conversations, but, again, I'm looking forward – if the
chief ever has that concern, I'm sure we'll sit down and figure out what we have
to do to make sure that we can alleviate that concern and plan for it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You know, we live in a day
and age where – a couple of comments I'd make to you – we hear almost daily,
occurrences of armed robberies, violent crime that occurs in jurisdictions
policed by the RNC. So we know that's not getting better. We know the
technicalities of policing are certainly increasing, not only for the level of
training that's important, but also the numbers.
As you
said, my own background, I'm quite aware of how this became a problem over the
years. I go back and think about the Lamer Inquiry, I think about the past and
the Paul Bernardo circumstances and inquiries where lack of resources, lack of
interjurisdictional co-operative work efforts led to disastrous results.
Back in
the '90s when the RNC lost – reduced by about 25 per cent of its workforce,
there was a lot of work and a lot of effort to get that back to where it was, to
a level of policing that I think everyone felt was acceptable, a level of
training that was acceptable and so on. And my fear, and the fear that I hear
from police officers, including the ones that are eligible to retire, is what's
going to happen, what's the future going to be and how are they going to be able
to continue to do their work effectively.
So when
I hear that we we've got four vacant positions that are not going to be filled
and 10 new hires that are not going to happen, then that sets a feeling, even
within the service itself – the results of that and what would happen are
unknown. But it concerns me if the service itself starts to go in that downward
direction as far as resources.
That's
why I'm asking: What's your plan as the minister. Have you had a discussion with
the chief? What happens next year and the year after? The other comment – just
if I may, Minister, very briefly – is that it's also well known that it takes
several years for a police officer to learn their job, so you've got to get
ahead of it, way ahead of it, way ahead of the curve before that actually
strikes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, I guess the first
thing is that I think we all share the concern. When you think about it, we all
love the fact that we know we have police services, the RNC, the RCMP, the fact
that we can call them.
We've
got a couple of things here. The first I'd say, you talked about armed
robberies. Sometimes I think that maybe it's not the back end, but we need to
look at the front end. We've had a lot of conversations on why this is
increasing, why this is happening, so I get to the mental health and addiction
side where I think we have to do more there.
Again,
I know we've had lots of meetings, lots of conversations over just the last
couple of years, certainly everybody in this House has, and across the province.
But I think we need to do more there because we've heard lots of cases where we
know that we can count on the police to be there, but in some cases it's not the
police that we need in these situations, in certain responses. Again, we have to
look at why is it increasing. I don't want to get off into a long tangent on
that, but that's just sort of where I am on that. I think there's more we can do
there, root causes and stuff like that.
The
second side is that we're very lucky to have good forces, but absolutely
everything in this province, whether it's policing, education, health care – we
have to deal with the financial circumstances that we find. So when we look at
an increase of 27 per cent, we have to question the sustainability. I don't want
to get into long, old goings-on here about the financial side, but we have to
look at what are we spending, what can we afford, what can we sustain. That's
where I think there's no one better than the chief and his staff around him to
sit down with us and have those conversations, factoring all that in to say, you
know what, what's the plan for now, but what is the plan going forward. What is
the strategic plan?
So
that's a conversation I can say that we haven't had, but I think the chief would
do a better job than I will of explaining to me of what we need to do. And the
chief and everybody, I mean there's no one that's not aware of the financial
circumstances. I mean, everything you do you have to factor in where we are. But
that's a conversation I'm willing to have and I'm sure I am going to have,
because you know what, you're right. When you have 120 approaching retirement,
then we have to make sure that we can cover that off, if something were to
happen.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You're right, and that's why
the planning is important now when it comes to this particular area. Also, in
policing – and to be honest with you I have to tell you, Minister, I expected
the chief to be here tonight as part of Estimates. My recollection was that the
chief had participated before but maybe I was wrong.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not in recent years.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Not in recent years.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But you know what, I agree,
actually. After sitting down here tonight I think next year I'm going to have
the chief here and have the RCMP here. I think the head of Corrections should be
here and I think the head of the Sherriff's Office should be.
In
fact, I've increased the number of people here because I know for sure that I
can't answer all the questions. These people have been doing it a lot longer
than me and they're a lot more knowledgeable than me. So you know what, I tend
to agree that we need to have these people here. Bill Janes is going to do a
heck of a job, a better job explaining this, the same way that chief Brophy or
Superintendent Brophy down to HMP is going to do a better job talking about that
because I can't.
You
know what, I agree with you. I think that's something I should do next year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm out of time. I had some
more questions but I don't mind deferring to Ms. Rogers, if she wants to go
ahead, and then I can come back to that.
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll move to Ms.
Rogers and come back to Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, my question would be
around 4.1.03, the RNC Public Complaints Commission. Just a quick question there
for you, Minister.
Is
there any movement towards – I'm sorry, I'm so tired right now; three really,
really, really long – a public oversight, a civilian oversight of the police?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah. I've talked about this
publicly. This is something that we are going to do. We're still in the
beginning phase of talking to jurisdictions to see what they have, what's the
best model. We're considering it; there's nothing that's committed at this
point. Do we need a provincial one or do we partner with an Atlantic one? What
kind of staff complement do we need? What's the jurisdiction or terms of
reference going to be?
We're
lucky that there are a lot of places. Right now we're dealing with Alberta,
we're dealing with Halifax, so we have places to look. You see police oversight
all over the place, not just in this country. So it is going to happen.
Given
the multitude of issues that I've dealt with in a short period of time – and
I've had this conversation where you come in and you have long-range ideas. But
any of us here, you sometimes get sidetracked by the day to day. That's sort of
where we are on this, but that's something that's very important to me.
The
most important part too – and I just have to put this out there. I was flying
through an airport here in the province. I got off and I was waiting for the
luggage. I had someone come up and introduce themselves. They said they were a
police officer. The conversation was happening and they said: I can't wait until
you do it because, you know what, I know I do good work and I'd rather have it.
MS. ROGERS:
Great.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And that's one of the things
we've had in the past couple of months, things going on. We don't want to see
anything that's going to disparage or tarnish the good officers that we have
here. They encourage this. That's what encourages me that we have to continue on
because our officers themselves want this. They're coming to me. I get emails.
It's
going to get there, but the timing and the model, we're still trying to work it
out.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm very impressed with the
modernization of the RNC and the movement forward, incorporating more women in
the police service. I would love for us to be able to call it a police service
rather than a police force.
Also,
their increasing awareness and education around addictions and mental health; I
believe the presentation that the chief gave to us at the all-party committee
was quite thorough. I was impressed with the movement forward and the type of
work they're going to do.
I have
one more question. I believe there's some money that comes from Women's Policy
for a partner violence project with the police, is there? Is there money that
comes in to the RNC from Women's Policy?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Do you want to answer that?
MS. ENGLISH:
There is money that is still budgeted within the Women's Policy Office that is
transferred out, as required, to the RNC and the RCMP for intimate partner
violence. So that money is still sitting with the Women's Policy Office.
MS. ROGERS:
It has not yet been
transferred out?
MS. ENGLISH:
It has not yet been transferred.
MS. ROGERS:
And is there a plan for that
to be transferred out?
MS. ENGLISH:
I don't know.
They do
fund the positions and it's just transferred over.
CHAIR:
Can you just speak your
name?
MS. ENGLISH:
Virginia English.
They do
transfer the monies over. There hasn't been any discussion recently or during
this past budget with respect to actually moving that funding to the RNC and the
RCMP, but they do transfer the monies as required.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you very much.
And in
terms of policing, let's see if I have anything else here. I think I'm okay on
that.
Thank
you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Do you want to go somewhere
else or do you want to come back?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I can go ahead? Thank you.
Minister – and I'm just looking line by line, I don't mean to take you right
through.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Is this on the RNC?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, it is, sorry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
4.1.01.
On
Transportation and Communications it was just shy of $2 million last year and
it's about $1.5 million this year, just under $1.3 million actually expended in
the '15 – '16 revised. Can you explain that change for me?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. I think under
Transportation and Communications there's a savings resulting from the RNC no
longer being billed for the City of St. John's 911 service. And the funds
budgeted here for relocation costs are now properly reflected under Purchased
Services.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, so relocation is taken
out of Transportation and Communications and put into Purchased Services?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So that's why the increase
in Purchased Services.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. And under Purchased
Services, the relocation budget that was mentioned, there were also some higher
costs for building maintenance and there were some vehicle rentals for special
ops.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh yes. Thank you.
I meant
to ask you as well about civilian staff, if there are any changes in the
civilian staff at the RNC.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not that I'm aware of. I
don't believe so.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's easier for me to see
all your staff doing this around you as for you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I just want to make sure to
get it on the record in case anybody is listening.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Do you have a breakdown on
salaries and overtime for the last year?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We can get it for you,
that's not a problem.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Could you do that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, definitely.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm interested in patrol,
special services investigations and so on and how that varies.
Minister, a matter that's becoming more and more a topic of discussion these
days in policing, in both the RCMP and RNC and in other first response services,
is PTSD. The RCMP deals with their members very differently from the RNC being a
federal agency. They have federal programs and services.
The
RCMP doesn't have sick leave, for example. If you're sick or injured or injured
in the workplace, you just continue to receive your salary. Or if you become
injured on duty you just receive your salary. The RNC is treated very
differently, obviously, as a provincial agency.
I know
EAP quite often doesn't deal with the necessities of officers dealing with PTSD.
Also, most officers don't qualify for workers' comp. Has this been anything that
you've looked at or are talking about? Reflective as well that we're becoming
more and more understanding of PTSD, especially in recent months and recent
years, than we did just a matter of two or three years ago. It's much better
understood today.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would say it's not a
conversation I've had since I've been there that it's been brought to my
attention in terms of PTSD.
Occupational health and safety, though; across the department there's been an
increased awareness on that. So I think that might somewhat fall under there, if
you think about it.
I did
have a conversation in the past with Warren Sullivan about this because I think
this was an issue they've been dealing with for a few years. So I remember
having a conversation with him – it might have been a few years ago – because
that was something they were wanting and dealing with. But other than that, it's
not something that's been – Jackie might even know because she has some
continuity there.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
I know the RNC has been doing some work on this. Inspector O'Reilly has been
involved in it, actually, in terms of developing a range of supports and
services for officers and really encouraging a bit of a cultural change there
around being able to go forward and ask for assistance, and do that without
being judged.
We had
some meetings there a while back because we're looking at developing some
initiatives for Corrections. We had the RNC and the RCMP in to talk about some
of the work they had been doing around mental health initiatives, healthy and
supportive workplaces. There was a fair bit of work. Certainly the RCMP had done
a lot of work, but they have been able to draw on a lot of national work that
had been going on through such a big force and with a national scope.
The RNC
actually had been doing some work as well, some really good work. I know that
Corrections and the superintendent were really, really keen on some of that work
and had made some linkages there. So we're having some discussions, too, about
how Corrections may be able to borrow from some of those practices and
initiatives that the police forces have started to develop and implement.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Minister, I won't drag it
out here too much, but just to say that I'd be more than happy to have a more
in-depth conversation, if you were interested in doing that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Definitely.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Because PTSD is really a
matter that is very sensitive and very personal.
As you
just related to, Inspector O'Reilly, I know, has been working for many years in
trying to open the discussion and broaden the discussion, especially for those
who suffer with PTSD and have never spoken about it, afraid to speak about it,
won't speak about for whatever combination of reasons they find themselves in.
I'd be
more than happy to have a more in-depth discussion and share some more
information, my own knowledge and so on and what I've heard.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Definitely willing to
listen.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
How's
my time?
I just
had a couple of more questions on the RNC and actually RCMP. Maybe I'll go to
RCMP and I'll see if I can find those questions on the RNC while I do that.
Any
changes in service delivery, complement of members – any of that planned for
this year?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We did civilianize four
positions. Those were back office operations. My understanding, and my
rudimentary knowledge, is that these would have been officers doing back office
computer data, whatever, not actual on the ground. So there's been a
civilianization there. That hasn't actually affected the – I always use the
phrase, boots on the ground.
In
terms of change in model, really pleased – a lot of communities over the last
number of years have expressed their concern about coverage, 24-7 and stuff like
that. So the RCMP have done a great job where they came out and just expanded
the 24-7 in Grand Falls-Windsor; a pilot project.
I know
there are requests from other communities. I think Clarenville. I think Gander.
So I think they're managing to do that with the existing resources there, which
is always great to hear, but they're the ones who are – it's them doing it.
They
have a lot more communications with these communities than I do. I've met with a
number of communities to talk about it but they're there. They get the
complaints or the issues coming up. They'll sit down with them and then they're
making this work.
So I
got to give it Andrew Boland. He's been – everybody I've dealt with, whether
it's Chief Janes or Boland and them, or Peter Clark, I believe is the new
commanding officer coming in, they've been really good to deal with and really
helpful, especially trying to teach somebody new like me.
That's
the change there. I'd like to see more, if it's possible to expand to have more
coverage using the same existing resources. I think that's making the councils
happy out there, which makes the citizens happier.
MR. P. DAVIS:
On the expansion into 24-7.
Were there additional resources deployed to Grand Falls-Windsor?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
They just changed their
schedules so they worked –
MR. A. PARSONS:
The word we're hearing,
actually, is they're spending less.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What do you mean?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, I guess with the
change of schedule requires less overtime. Without telling them we're giving you
less, it's a case of they've been asked to increase their coverage and once they
figure out the logistics of doing that, they're providing coverage and they're
actually able to do. They're telling us there're saving, so that's savings where
there wasn't even a request to find savings, which is the best kind.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Interesting.
All
right, I'm cognizant of the time.
On the
RNC Public Complaints Commission – I suppose I could look at their annual report
to do this – how has the number of investigations been and files that they're
using? Is it steady? Is it less?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
I can speak to this.
Since
that commission was formed, I know the number of complaints annually has
constantly been low. The total number of complaints has always ranged somewhere
in the 40 zone. That's a combination of formal complaints, it might be a phone
call that comes in, but I think their numbers have been consistently hovering
around those numbers since 1994-95, whenever it was established.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Very few (inaudible).
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
(Inaudible) have gone
through the hearings, very few hearings. I don't even know if they had one last
year. It was a very low level of activity, which is encouraging.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There have been lots of
hearings over the years but maybe not in the last couple of years.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
On the
Capital, I don't have any questions on that. I know that's the new campus. I
would think that's now completed.
I want
to have a discussion about Adult Corrections and also Youth Secure. I can go
there, Madam Chair?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm almost out of time but I
can quickly ask a question. My colleague then can carry on, if you want.
You had
a new program developed to deal with the women's population in custody. Can you
give us an update on how that is?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I have an update on numbers
here somewhere.
What
they did basically, the numbers were going up in Clarenville, so they did some
infrastructure work down at Her Majesty's. I think they had to put in a new door
and might have even been a new bathroom. I've been down there and seen it and
walked in. I've been in on the range.
Currently, as of today, there are 22 females in Clarenville, one in Labrador,
eight at HMP and one at our St. John's lock-up for a total of 32.
MR. P. DAVIS:
How many at the lock-up?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Lock-up is one.
MR. P. DAVIS:
One.
One in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay you said?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Eight at HMP and one at
lock-up. Sorry. Thank you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So that was something that
came on our radar. We went out and as soon as we were aware of it we started
talking to, whether it's the super there, we talked to a number of different
groups. We had to make a decision.
I don't
want to waste too much time because I think I've spoken about that. The
interesting thing, actually, is I've gone down there. I went in one day to visit
the inmates. The interesting thing now is they're saying: Don't send me back to
Clarenville. I don't want to go back. Which you don't know what to expect,
right?
So my
main thing when I talk to them I said: I hope you get out and don't come back
anywhere. That's what I'd like to see and I know that's what they want, but,
actually, they're very adamant that they – nobody enjoys being incarcerated,
that I'm aware of, but these individuals liked St. John's HMP better than the
accommodations in Clarenville.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What about programming? Is
there a consistency in programming or –
MR. A. PARSONS:
We've had absolutely zero
complaints on that. They're getting access to all the same programs. Hasn't been
an issue at all that I'm – we've had people coming in.
I
guess, off the side of that in terms of, not programing, but many of these
people are getting more visits from family. I guess some of them may be from the
Avalon or St. John's or whatever. So they're actually getting more visits from
family then they got previously.
Like I
say, it's one of those things where it popped up. Obviously, it was challenging
when you're going about it, then once it's done, the people that it's affecting
are saying that it was a positive move.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm cognizant of the time, I
can come back.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers, did you –
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
I have
been hearing stories about the length of time of lock-up for women in
Clarenville. I'm sure now that has been somewhat alleviated by the movement. We
all know the size of the cells and that there were three women at a time and
stories of when there were staff shortages or if someone had to be taken to the
hospital, then two corrections officers would have to accompany that person. So
people were locked up three to a cell for three days on end.
I would
like a copy, if possible, of the logs for Clarenville indicating rec times that
people had, the number of lockdowns and population numbers, how many people were
in a cell, if that would be possible.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't think it's an issue.
I'll certainly endeavour to get what I can, considering any constraints on their
end, but I've got no problem –
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great. Good.
So I
think it's very interesting, the whole issue of the women, a number of the women
are much happier at HMP, and that is probably because for a lot of them it's
being able to see family and children.
I'm
just wondering – there's a situation as well, a jail outside Winnipeg called
Headingley, and there used to be a bus that would bring family members from
downtown Winnipeg to Headingley and so people were able to see their families.
The majority of inmates there are Aboriginal people. A lot of people that we
know who are incarcerated have really strong socioeconomic challenges and their
families don't have cars or their families don't have methods of transportation.
I'm
wondering if there is any commitment to assist women who are in Clarenville to
assist their families in seeing them, because we know many of them are mothers
and they are worried about their children. Is there any appetite to look at
that, or to do it through video teleconferencing for those who want to see their
children?
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would say is that I
certainly don't want to – it's not something I was aware of until you brought it
up, like the bus service, so I don't want to go out right now –
MS. ROGERS:
That has since been cut as
well, which poses a huge problem because the majority of people incarcerated
don't get to see family or friends and connections.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And I guess what I'm saying,
I don't want to make any commitment right now because that would be foolhardy
for me to do something like that, but I recognize at the same time when it comes
to somebody's mental well-being, I can see how that would be a challenge. But I
also don't think it's just females in Clarenville. I think it's individuals that
might be in Stephenville or Bishop's.
MS. ROGERS:
Sure, absolutely.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm always willing to listen
to everything and it has to be factored in – obviously, cost guides everything
because that's just how it is. But at the same time, there might be an
innovative way, a different way. And, like you say, videoconferencing, if we got
pre-existing resources and we can accommodate something, then I got no problem
with looking at it and figuring out can we do this.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Because I think that's going
to help us in the long run, like I say, if we can improve that situation. I
would also say that going on the same vein one of the things – and I know you'd
be interested in this as well – is that I've been really looking at bail
supervision.
MS. ROGERS:
That was my next question.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And I've already had a
number of meetings and contacts with both groups and academics and discussing
what we can do here. Because we do have a situation when you have more inmates
than beds, that's an issue and I don't know if it's sustainable. Again, I don't
know if this question is going to come, but there won't be a new HMP this year.
We all know the situation there. It's been there for a number of years.
Bail
supervision to me, though, I strongly think that it can work. But again it's
like anything, I want to look into it and see what's done elsewhere. We have a
lot of people – we're lucky to have people in this province that have a lot of
experience in it. So I'm looking to get their wisdom and look at the same
factors. Again, can you do it? Is it feasible? What are the cost benefits? I
know you've mentioned it.
MS. ROGERS:
I've also done a
jurisdictional scan, so I'd be happy to share anything that we looked at.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So I can say to you that's
something that I've had conversations on very recently and it's something I'm
going to continue to look at.
MS. ROGERS:
Basically, we're dealing
with the criminalization of addictions and mental health for the most part.
We're just not doing really well in that area at all. I think when we look at
the services that are being provided by SHOP and by Stella Burry, it's great,
but it certainly isn't enough. When we look at the psychologist who's going to
Clarenville, it's twice a week for four hours when we had over 30 inmates,
that's probably a heavy load.
So I'm
really glad about that. Now the women who have been moved to HMP, that was
announced as a temporary measure. What's it looking like now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well again, this is where I
think it would have been great – in hindsight, I wish I had Superintendent
Brophy here because he could certainly talk about it. It's almost like you
assess it on a day-by-day and week-to-week basis. The good news is that when
this happened – I had a lot of reservations and a lot of fears because it hadn't
been done in 30 years. I guess the positive here is that the people affected,
I've talked to them, like I said.
We're
still considering, what are our options. There are some when you talk about
infrastructure, but again we talk about bail supervision, we talk about getting
back to, as I mentioned earlier here, why do we have people here. We have to
look at that. What constitutes why people are incarcerated?
There
are a lot of different moving parts to it, but in terms of the actual what is
the plan, right now we're continuing status quo. The thing that makes that
feasible to me is the fact that the people involved; it's been a good
relationship down there. The guards that I speak to and supervisors report
everything is good so far and the females I've talked to have said the same,
which gives me hope. It wasn't a move we anticipated, but it turned out to work.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
The
women who've been incarcerated in Clarenville, at the time when it was so
crowded, also talked about how wonderful the corrections' officers were, in
spite of the really challenging, difficult situation that they were all under.
What
about staffing at HMP right now? We know that it was really challenged, that
there was a lot of overtime, that staff are really having a hard time with being
called back in and doing extra shifts. So has there been extra staff assigned
because of the movement of the women?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think they're actually on
a corrections recruitment right now. Obviously, this has been something on my
radar because when you're looking at the line by line here and when you're
looking at the amount that's overtime, sick leave and stuff like that, that's a
big issue.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I've had a lot of
conversations with Mr. Brophy and his staff on what we can we do because
obviously there's a huge cost component to this that factors into everything.
But it also comes down to a safety issue too for our inmates and our guards. So
there is a recruitment drive on there but I'm also working with them (inaudible)
– nobody likes to hear of extreme use of sick leave because that means people
are sick, so what can we do to address that.
I've
also had a couple of conversations with Mr. Earle at NAPE to discuss this too
because that's a big part of his group, and obviously he's very concerned about
the well-being as well. So the good news is we've had some good conversations
there. I think this has been an issue for some time. I don't anticipate that
it's something I'm going to walk in and fix, but at least if you have some good
lines of communication between the three bodies, then I'd like to think that
hopefully we can take some positive steps, if we can at least lay out what each
of our concerns are and what some possible solutions are.
MS. ROGERS:
Can we also have a list of
overtime and sick time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's not an issue on my end.
I think we can get that.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Vacancies? We can get that
too, can't we?
I don't
want to say yes without knowing for sure. It is the story of my life.
MS. ROGERS:
My last question there would
be in regard to Dr. Philip Klassen's independent review. How is that now in
terms of the recommendations that he has made and where are we with the
implementation of the recommendations?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
We're in good shape on that, actually. There has been some work done to engage
additional psychiatrists in the Corrections system. The recovery model is well
underway. We've collaborated with Eastern Health on that. Our staff have been
involved in training, and that's now the framework they use.
I know
the planning for psychiatric services now includes transitions to community
service providers as well, so that when inmates are released their community
physician will get a report on where things are. They've done a lot of work with
staff and with inmates as well around raising awareness around mental health
issues, mental health conditions, services. You de-stigmatize that by
normalizing the information, the discussions about that, just creating it as
another topic for discussion.
The
other issue, I think one of the recommendations was that we should engage an
academic provider. So what we are doing now, and there seems to be some interest
from the university on this, is we're looking at possibly developing a residency
program for forensic psychiatry at HMP so that you'd have young physicians who
are specializing in psychiatry actually have exposure to a correctional setting
versus, primarily, say the Waterford or a mental health area in a hospital.
So
that's a whole area of expertise. It's a whole area of practice that a lot of
psychiatry residents never have access to. There's some interest and some
discussion currently underway on that. So I'm really hopeful we can really move
that so that we open up this whole area of practice.
MS. ROGERS:
Great.
Thank
you very much.
CHAIR:
Given the time of the
evening, and we normally sit three hours, I have to ask the Committee, is it the
wish to continue?
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I have no problem answering more questions, but my staff; I don't want to keep
them too long, they've put in a long day as well, but maybe –
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm very, very – I tell you,
not at all. But, no, listen, maybe we –
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) they're doing
this behind you again, so.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Maybe what we could do, I
think that – I want to make sure we tried our best to answer them. If there's
anything we don't get, then I'm always willing to have a conversation after as
well. I want to make sure you get the information, but maybe we can just sort of
have another go at it and if there's anything you want to clue up with, follow
up with.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I won't be much longer, I
don't anticipate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, and I appreciate the
patience of everybody.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I don't know about Ms.
Rogers, but –
CHAIR:
Are we finished in the 4s,
because if so I want to call that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I want to talk about youth
custody. What's the capacity at Whitbourne? What was the original capacity or
what's the capacity now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Sixty when they had the
three cottages, and now it's 20.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Are the cottages still there?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think two of them are
still there but they're not in operation. I don't know what year that happened.
OFFICIAL:
Yes, and major renovations.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, they required
significant renovations. So you have the one cottage, I guess, operating.
How
many people are there, eight?
OFFICIAL:
Seven today.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Seven today.
MR. P. DAVIS:
With a capacity of 20?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I want to ask you this
question, and I don't know all the details of it, but a thought came to mind and
has actually been suggested to me by a couple of people, that Whitbourne may
have been an option for a women's prison. Was any consideration given to that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think we considered
absolutely everything when we'd been going through all these challenges. I think
the concern there was with the numbers, you'd have to open up – because you have
to have a separation, obviously. You can't have adults and youth in the same
spot, and I think it would require the opening of another cottage.
I think
a report that was done some time ago talked about the cost, depending on if you
put adult males, adult females, youth. I think the cost was into the millions,
according to the report I have. I got no problem getting a number and getting
the accurate number. One cottage required a certain amount of work to be done.
Another one required – and depending on the population you're going to put in
there. The renovations, I think, were pretty substantial.
Then
there's the security. Depending on who you have there, the enhanced security
requirements for the different population, but it has been considered in the
past. I asked the same question when all of this was going on: well, what about
here? What about there?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Again, I don't know if
Clarenville would be a good resource then for youth because there's more than
that in Clarenville, more women in Clarenville. How many women in Clarenville
today?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Twenty-three, 24.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So if you have seven youth
in Whitbourne, which is probably around the number that normally, I would think
– my recollection was that's about the number that's been there for the last
number of years.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It comes down to the same
cost concerns. Just say you switched them. If you put females down in Whitbourne
you got to open up one of the cottages, and it comes with this millions and
millions-dollar price tag, which is according to the consultant's report, which
was in the department when I got there. So it's the same thing, you have these
cost pressures there.
Is
Clarenville the best spot for the youth? I don't know. I'm hearing they don't
have the same facilities. Actually, I haven't been to Clarenville myself yet.
That's one of the –
OFFICIAL:
Oh, you haven't?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not yet. I've been to most
others. I haven't been to that one, but that's one of the places on my road
trip. I have to get there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
On the
youth centre, 4.2.02, Youth Secure Custody, services in Whitbourne; could you
get us the same staffing and salary information as you are for HMP?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Overtime, vacancies, any
change from last year at that time.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not a problem.
Obviously, we've dealt with some challenges out there in the very, very recent
past; obviously, with the passing of some employees out there. So that's been –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, I understand.
I know
I had a couple of more questions, and I can't find them either.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If you want –
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's the hour of the day,
right.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We can switch over to Gerry
and come back, if you want to find them.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, we could do that if you
want.
MS. ROGERS:
I also would like to state
our condolences of the tragic loss of the two staff from Whitbourne. I know that
Randy Ralph was so committed and often was very courageous in even pointing out
some of his grave concerns for some of the Aboriginal children, youth, who were
in custody. I've had dealings with him when he had grave concerns. He was
willing to go way the extra mile and it's a great loss.
I do
not have anything else around corrections and the facilities. I can see there's
no money here to even consider thinking about an HMP. So there's no point in
asking that question.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not this year.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
I would
ask simply something on Fish and Wildlife, that's number five.
CHAIR:
Yes, we'll get through this
section first and call it out.
Do you
have any more in four?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Only a comment to add; we're
talking about staffing again. This is another area where staff, both at HMP and
in Whitbourne, sometimes works in very difficult and challenging environments
and circumstances. Obviously, I know staff who work in both environments and at
different levels, from management down through to some of the newer staff. It's
tough times and it's difficult work; quite often seen as dangerous and
challenging and difficult on individual employees.
To be
honest with you, I would never be able to do it. I thought about it many times
over the years in my role in my previous career, that if I had to work in those
types of environments I wouldn't be able to do it. So hats off to them.
Every
time I think about Whitbourne, I think about this particular youth that I know
personally. I know some staff there, and I know one of the staff who has
actually discussed this with before, but I know this one particular youth there
who is no longer a youth, an adult now, but did so well at Whitbourne because of
the care and consideration of the people who worked there and the family there.
I know
lots of cases who've done well, but this one particular case who his experience
at Whitbourne really made a significant difference in his life and where he is
today and where he's going. I do know other cases of youth who've done very well
and speak well of staff and so on out there.
Anyway,
I just make that comment for the sake of the staff who works there. Obviously,
they've got their own tragedies as yourself and Ms. Rogers referred to just this
past week. It's always very difficult. When someone is so respected, people are
so respected as they are, it makes it even much harder. And family in so many
ways; couldn't be any closer than their own family in so many ways.
If you
want to call those and then we'll go to Fish and Wildlife for about an
hour-and-a-half discussion on that one.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
Subhead 4.1.01 to subhead
4.2.03 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.2.03
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 4.1.01 through 4.2.03 carried.
CLERK:
Subhead 3.1.01 to 3.2.01.
CHAIR:
3.1.01.
We're
just flipping back and then we'll go back to section 5. We've got a little
tangle here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Minister, on the courts, you
were going to educate us on EPOs.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't know if I actually
said I would educate you on EPOs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh yes. We'll test you now.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think, actually, I have
two or three people back here that would do a much better job of educating you
on that because they're certainly more experienced.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Maybe I can just shorten the
conversation. I'm interested to know the implications on the practice that
happens in courts that are closing versus what will happen in the future.
MS. MACINNIS:
I guess right now we're
still very much in the preliminary phase of this whole transition process, in
terms of processes in terms of moving the court responsibilities. The EPOs and
some other issues have certainly been something that we have flagged.
In
terms of process, as we often see now, EPOs are granted after hours, judges can
be contacted after hours. So we certainly believe that we can build on some of
those pieces as well, that judges don't necessarily have to be at the court
site. We know that policing authorities often help with people who are seeking
EPOs as well, even during the day and after hours as well.
Yes, we
are very much in the preliminary phases, but we certainly have identified that
it's one of the pieces that we need to iron out as well.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
So you
haven't figured it out.
MS. MACINNIS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But you're working on it.
Obviously, you're cognizant and, Wilma, I know that it's important to you,
yourself, as well.
Minister, under Salaries for both areas of the Supreme Court and Provincial
Court, are there any staff changes in those?
MR. A. PARSONS:
There would be a staff
change according to what we listed. I will get you the list. I think the court
in Wabush, we have two; Harbour Grace is four; Grand Falls-Windsor is three;
Grand Bank is four; and there was a change at the Supreme Court in St. John's of
two.
What
were those positions again?
OFFICIAL:
They were vacant.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Vacant positions in the
Supreme Court in St. John's.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
Minister, if I could just clarify.
The
positions in the Grand Falls-Windsor Supreme Court, actually, we're only losing
two positions. One position is actually being transferred to Gander. In Grand
Bank Provincial Court, out of the three positions in the Supreme Court in Grand
Bank, one of those positions is being transferred to St. John's. So it's
actually only two positions in both of those courts that are actually being
eliminated.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So in cases like that when a
position is moved, an employee moves. I know I asked this question earlier, but
then is that a move that government would provide for the employee? If the
employee says, yes, I'm going to go to Gander; I'm going to relocate my family,
would government pick up those expenses?
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
It's my understanding that NAPE and Treasury Board signed an agreement, an MOU,
approximately two hours after the budget on budget day. It covers the movement
of employees that are being transferred to other areas so that all of their
moving expenses are covered.
It also
provides that a transferring employee has the option to not take the transfer
but can, in effect, take a layoff notice thereby triggering the bumping action.
MR. P. DAVIS:
How is that budgeted, moving
expenses?
MS.
RYDER-LAHEY: I'm sorry; would you want to clarify that?
MR. P. DAVIS:
So if you have a number of
staff that you have to move, I know it can be fairly costly to look after moving
expenses. How is that covered? Does that come under the department or does it
come through the Human Resource Secretariat?
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
There is a relocation policy with the Human Resource Secretariat, and that would
speak to the costs that would be covered for employees that are being relocated.
Incidentally, both of our employees have chosen not to take the relocation and
will trigger bumping rights instead, in Grand Bank and Grand Falls-Windsor.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. Where would the costs
be budgeted? Would it from the department or would it be from Human Resource
Secretariat?
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
The moving expenses would come out of the court's budget, as far as I
understand. We've not had any employees take transfers or relocate in quite a
long time; it has been probably over a decade or more. But it was previously
coming from the court's Transportation and Communications budget.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Purchased Services; there's a bit of a change under Provincial Court. I see it
was $1,280,000 budgeted in '15-'16 and $1.5 million this year. What is Purchased
Services for the court?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that Purchased
Services under Provincial Court, is funding provided for the rental costs for
the Harbour Grace court to August 1. And also, we tabled in the House a little
while back – it was the latest judge's tribunal that was done by the Wicks
tribunal. So there's funding that's allocated that would go there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So there's almost $240,000
in the difference in last year and this year. What would the bulk of that be
then?
MR. A. PARSONS:
One hundred and fifty
thousand dollars for the tribunal.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
And
there was one more, Purchased Services under the Supreme Court; $146,900 last
year, revised to $212,000 and Estimates is $406,000 for this year.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, that's the Family
Court renovations. I think it's fixing up the basement there. Am I right, Todd?
Or Pam would know better.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
Two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars has been provided to look at
renovating the Family Court basement. There's a basement in Family Court that's
really underutilized, and we're bursting at the seams, so we do need to increase
space that can be utilized. And $75,000 of that amount is provided in Purchased
Services, as you can see. Our Professional Services increased; $75,000 is for a
consultant to look at how we can better utilize the space and the parking lot at
the Family Court, and the remainder would be for work to be done over this year.
And I understand there is funding as well for additional work in year two. So I
think over the course of two years, there's $1 million to be provided for the
renovations of that building.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That wouldn't be a Capital
cost? It's under Current; I thought it would have been a Capital cost.
MS. ENGLISH:
That money was just allocated in Current account. It did go through the
infrastructure committee for consideration, but funding was budgeted there under
renovations. It's not the new build; it's just renovations to an existing space.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I'm
good I think, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Did Ms. Rogers have any
questions on 3.1 and 3.2?
MS. ROGERS:
No, I'm fine.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. LANE:
Madam Chair, I have one
question, if that's okay? I know the time, but I'm going to ask the question
anyway.
CHAIR:
Can you just state your
name, please?
MR. LANE:
Paul Lane, MHA for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
I
apologize; I was going to ask it before the last vote and you voted before I got
a chance to speak up. I'm just wondering about the Whitbourne Youth Centre,
Minister. Has there been any analysis done on the Whitbourne Youth Centre that
you're aware of or your staff would be aware of over the last number of years? I
just ask that as a general –
MR. A. PARSONS:
What kind of analysis?
MR. LANE:
I ask it as a general
question from the perspective that at one point in time back in the '80s, maybe
it was the '90s, the Youth Centre used to be located in Pleasantville. There was
one in Torbay, I think, as well. At some point in time, a decision was made to
move it to Whitbourne.
I guess
anecdotally – and this is what I hear from people – you have situations where
it's located in Whitbourne, besides the fact that most of the staff are
commuting back and forth to Whitbourne and there are issues around that, safety,
moose and all that stuff; but beyond that, issues around cost, an additional
cost because a lot of the residents, I understand, would probably be coming from
the metro area, not necessarily all of them but many of them would.
So you
get a scenario whereby, for argument's sake, the RNC picks up a couple of young
fellows at 4 or 5 in the morning doing a break and entry, now they have to drive
them to Whitbourne. By the time they get to Whitbourne, they're off the road.
They have to drive out there and by the time they check them in, they're going
back to St. John's and they're passing the sheriff's van somewhere in Holyrood
that are on their way to pick up the same young fellows that they just dropped
off to bring them to court, then there are doctors' appointments and court times
and all this kind of stuff. This is just information you hear from people.
I'm
just wondering: Has any of that ever been looked at from the prospective of is
Whitbourne a cost-effective option compared to having it here in the metro area,
close to the courts and the hospitals?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll start off my saying,
no, we're not building a new building right now – no, I am just kidding.
I'm
probably not the best one to answer it because I don't know when it went to
Whitbourne. I don't know the logic or rationale. Given the pressures we've got
on HMP and everything else, they have looked at what we do have. What else can
we do there? There have been reports and we talk about the pressures of having
adults with youth. Should we have the youth here? I don't think it would be cost
feasible, but again I don't know if there was actually a look at putting it back
out here.
Two
points I want to make. If there were young fellows or young ladies picked at 4
in the morning, they wouldn't go out right then. They would be held at a remand
centre. There are medical professionals on staff out there. I think there's a
nurse on staff and stuff like that out there on site.
MR. LANE:
I was of the understanding
that was a nine-to-five thing, but again I stand to be corrected.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There's been no real
analysis done by me on what would it be to have it in there. I think, unless you
had somewhere to go, I'd say the capital costs would be pretty high.
MR. LANE:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There are a lot of needs in
the justice system. We've seen that across the province. We all know HMP. We've
talked about that. We've all talked about the courthouse in St. John's. I mean,
that's not new. I know the courthouse in Stephenville would love to see a new
one. There hasn't been a serious look at it by me.
MR. LANE:
No, I wasn't suggesting
there was, Minister. It was more towards your staff and wondering, if it's been
there for the last 30 years, has anyone ever looked at those things.
MR. A. PARSONS:
They're all so young that
they would never have dealt with –
MR. LANE:
Pardon?
MR. A. PARSONS:
They're all so young that
this is before their time.
MR. LANE:
Fair enough.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
I can actually say that I've been with the justice system for 36 years come next
month, so I'm not that young. I do remember when the Whitbourne correctional
facility was put in Whitbourne. There was a fair amount of controversy about it
at the time, about the location, because it primarily served the metropolitan
area. I don't think I'll mention the government of the day, but it was certainly
put out in Whitbourne for whatever reasons were determined at a level far above
my pay grade.
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Pleasantville was actually a
remand centre. When the original Whitbourne centre was condemned, it was only
torn down, I think, last year, when it was condemned. The temporary facility was
set up behind Torbay airport, the old airport, and there was an old building
down there that doesn't exist anymore right next to the main runway that used
then for a youth centre.
It was
used there until the new one was built. The new one was built in Whitbourne and
one of the big pressures was that it was an economic driver for the region. A
lot of the staff that worked at Whitbourne lived in Whitbourne, and for those
and a number of other decisions, it was rebuilt there. But then a new remand
centre was built next to the RNC, which I meant to ask you how much utilization
that gets as well.
But
there is a history on both youth centres and remand centres over the last number
of years. I don't know if you can take it probably where I summed it up. There
is a youth remand centre in St. John's, in what used to be one of the parking
lots for the RNC, right next to the RNC behind the fire hall. How much usage
does that get?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
I understand that is used like on a weekly basis. It's not full all of the time.
I think it's five cells that are there, but they use that. There are youth there
on a weekly basis. Also, when they bring the youth in from Whitbourne they will
hold them there and wait for word from the Sheriff's Office before they come
pick them up to bring them into court, so that they're not down in the
facilities down at Atlantic Place. So they're held there before they actually
get the call to come into court and be ready for them.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There are no overnights
there, is it?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Pardon?
MR. P. DAVIS:
There's no overnights held
at that centre, is it?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Yes, if somebody is picked up now they'd be held –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, if someone is taken
overnight.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
– but, it's not a long-term facility. It would literally be an overnight and
then they'd be brought to Whitbourne in the morning.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Minister, our colleague for
Mount Pearl – Southlands brought back my memory to a question I meant to ask,
and I'm glad he did.
On the
closure of the courts, particularly Wabush and Harbour Grace, have you done an
analysis on the impacts of policing in those two regions? I'll just explain what
I mean. A police officer in Harbour Grace today has to go to court. They have a
relatively short drive from either one of the detachments, the one in Bay
Roberts or the one that just reopened in Bay Roberts or the one in Harbour
Grace, relatively a short drive within their jurisdictional patrol or assigned
areas, what would be the plans – so if a person is arrested tonight in that
area, they'd probably be held in their own cells, which is the practice now, but
then an officer would have to take them to court the next day. What is your
analysis on officers who have to attend court?
When I
was a police officer there were times I was in court maybe a dozen times in a
week. If that's the case, I know it's a very busy area from a policing
perspective, then what's does your analysis indicate on the impacts of policing
and having policing coverage in these areas where police officers now have to
leave to go to court?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, what I can say is
that, again, when it comes to Wabush, given the fact that up to 2007 it would be
a similar system, given we've had a 48 per cent decline in cases there, I don't
have an RNC analysis for there. It's very much based on the caseload that we saw
before. I'm willing to bet that we won't see a significant impact there. It's
something that was done for decades there and handled and the caseload hasn't
increased exponentially. The statistics show that it's decreased significantly.
Not to
be factious, say if it happens tonight, the good news is it won't happen
tonight. We know it's going to take some time. I recognize the fact that I have
to work with the RCMP, the local policing, the judiciary because it does have
challenges. I recognize that fully. Again, we've seen that in the past with
other courts. I have seen it in my own jurisdiction.
There
is some work that has to be done there. We're confident that the cost analysis
will show there is a significant cost savings. But it's like anything in the
justice system, you have to have cooperation and work amongst the people
involved to make it successful.
In many
cases, just because you haven't done a certain thing doesn't mean that it can't
be done. I've been a part of that myself, being a lawyer. Lawyers are generally
– no offence to any of the other ones sitting around me – prone –we don't like
change. I think that's something the justice system sometimes falls prey to.
What I
would say is I'm going to be working with the RCMP, the policing and everybody
involved, to ensure there is a minimal impact, a minimal cost. There's no doubt
it was a difficult decision that's for sure.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Harbour Grace, the third
busiest court, I think it's third busiest court in the province.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that's accurate,
yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I can see circumstances
where it happened so often over the years where police officers are subpoenaed
to attend court. You might have two or three or four officers show up in court
for a trail at 10 a.m. and the accused and his lawyer walks in and tells the
prosecutor: I'm going to plead him guilty now. You could have those
circumstances or you might have a lawyer who walks in and says: Look, I'm
working through this and we have a guilty plea. Can we reconvene at 2 o'clock?
The courts and Crown would quite often try to accommodate that.
Now,
what we have in Harbour Grace case, assuming the cases are all going to come to
St. John's, we could easily have two officers working, both of them were
involved in a case together. They now have to leave Harbour Grace and go to St.
John's. They could end up there all day long and leave little or no resources
left in Harbour Grace. That's the analysis I'm talking about.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
When you made the decision
to move the court did you look at the cost because they're going to have to
bring someone in to cover off for them, there are travel costs and so on.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would say there is
two things. No doubt, I've seen it myself in many courts where we don't have the
best allocation of resources. You show up. You're maybe going for a trial.
You're supposed to be there all day and you end up pleading out or you get it
set over. Something comes up. There's a bail hearing pops up and you've got to
take care of it. I think that's something we can work on there, whether it's the
judiciary, whether it's the lawyers involved, whether it's the police. Sometimes
it's just a communication issue.
The
second part of that is I haven't had any concerns expressed to me by the
policing forces on this. Given how co-operative and able to adapt that they've
been – I mentioned a story earlier about how they managed to come up with 24-7
in Grand Falls-Windsor with the same resources, actually doing it cheaper. I'm
pretty confident we can make this work.
The
benefit we have here is that we do have some time. I've said this publicly. Some
cases we've had courts where the caseload is just not there. Wabush is
definitely an example of that. Harbour Grace, the caseload is there but the
problem is it's the significant cost. When you look at the historical building,
the courthouse that it was in there, you're talking about a fix – I've had
figures given to me anywhere from $5 million to $10 million, just to make it
safe to go in again. We've got the cost here of $300,000, roughly, for annual
rent to lease just the building.
I'm not
saying, and I don't think I've said it at any point, that there aren't
challenges we're going to work through. I'm lucky that we've got, whether it's
the court administration, whether it's the police forces, whether it's the
judiciary, we have to work together to make the best of it. That doesn't mean
there's not an impact. I know there's an impact. I know there's going to be an
impact on people, but what I can say is I've been there. I've dealt with that
myself, personally. I know you have to deal with it. I'm not saying it makes it
better, but there it is.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
Minister, if I might add to that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
As I've said previously, I've been in the court system for just about 36 years
and I don't know if this is notoriety or not, but I've overseen the closure of
nine court centres in my career. Only by working with the police forces, with
law firms, the local bar and everybody in particular centres, were we able to
make it work.
I think
back to Placentia being one that we closed. I believe it was in 2009. We worked
very closely with the RCMP in that jurisdiction to figure out a way that when
those cases were coming to St. John's, we were not going to take all of the
police resources out of the community there.
So,
again, it was by working very closely with those detachments in the affected
area. And we've done that many times, right across the province and Labrador.
I guess
I was also around when Wabush closed previously and was subsequently reopened.
This is the ninth courthouse for myself. If you count Brigus, Wabush and Harbour
Grace – just recently these two, Wabush and Harbour Grace – that brings to a
total of 12 centres since 1991 of courts that have closed in the province. It's
been for a variety of reasons.
We know
some of this is fiscal with the financial situation in the province. We also
know that in some of the centres it was due to declining caseloads. We also know
that technology plays a role.
We now
have video conferencing equipment in every one of our courthouses, Provincial
and Supreme Court; video conferencing actually more than one unit in each court.
Of course, those closing courts, those units will be moved to other centres,
thereby increasing the video conferencing capability in the remaining
courthouses.
So I
think through a combination of good communication, working with our
stakeholders, our partners in the justice system and using technology, that we
will overcome the challenges. They will be challenges but we will be able to
overcome those.
MS. MACINNIS:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Can you state your name,
please.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Wilma MacInnis.
MS. MACINNIS:
(Inaudible) just in terms of the Provincial Court, it was mentioned in terms of
caseloads and it being the third busiest. Actually, in terms of caseloads, it's
St. John's, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and then Corner Brook would fall in terms of
the caseloads.
In
terms of Harbour Grace, out of the 10 centres that we had, it was around seven
of the 10, actually. It would fall around the seventh. I just wanted to clarify
that in terms of the caseloads.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, can you –
MS. MACINNIS:
It falls around the seventh.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's around the seventh.
MS. MACINNIS:
Yes, out of the 10 courts. So just in terms of combined caseloads, in terms of
that.
I'd
certainly add to what Pam has said as well in terms of the technology. We're
utilizing that, us and all of our core partners, on a frequent basis. We use it,
not only on a daily basis in terms of the courts, but also on the weekends as
well with our weekend courts. We tap in to people all over the province with
that technology.
Yes,
I'd certainly agree with that. The connection with our partners and utilizing
the technology that we have will certainly be an asset.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
You're good?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm good on that one, yes.
CHAIR:
All right, so I'll ask the
Clerk to call.
CLERK:
Subheads 3.1.01 –
CHAIR:
Did you have something else
on section 3, Ms. Rogers?
MS. ROGERS:
Just one question. I'll just
ask a question but maybe we can talk about it another time, outside of
Estimates. There was work being done to ensure that the Supreme Court is
properly resourced and to revise and modernize its rules in court. That was
being done in '15-'16.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
It hasn't been done since
1986. I'd like some update on that, but I'm happy to get that update outside of
this.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
The rules of the project are coming along very nicely.
MS. ROGERS:
Great.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
We actually anticipate that modern, revised rules – the first time in 30 years –
should be ready for gazetting, we hope, by the end of December of this calendar
year.
MS. ROGERS:
Great news. Thank you very
much.
MS. RYDER-LAHEY:
You're welcome.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
Subheads 3.1.01 and 3.2.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 and 3.2.01
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 3.1.01 and 3.2.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Now we will move to the
final section.
CLERK:
Subhead 5.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
The
same questions on staffing levels under Fish and Wildlife. No changes as part of
any budget reductions. Are there any vacancies there that have not been filled
or not planning to be filled?
MR. A. PARSONS:
There are 10 to 12 vacancies
in Fish and Wildlife. How many of them are up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
There's one permanent position that they're currently recruiting for right now.
MR. P. DAVIS:
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay. And there's another position that we have somebody
temporarily in. Then there are a couple of people that are off.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm sorry?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
There is a couple of staff that are off.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. So how many vacancies
are there altogether? You said 10 to 12 altogether but how many in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Altogether 10 to12.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
MR. A. PARSONS:
In the whole division. No,
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I guess, two you said?
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Well, there are actual real vacancies. There's one actual vacant position right
now. There's somebody else in a temporary, filling in on a temporary position
and then there are two staff that are off, but they hold those positions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
Purchased Services, there's a change there. A reduction in budgeted from last
year to this year, a fair amount.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think there was some
realignment there – is the term I'm getting – and some reduction.
MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH:
Some of the associated costs with those Purchased Services would also be
associated with the number of vacancies that we had as well. There would be
dollars there that would be attached to supporting some of those positions. So
if the positions were vacant, the other support dollars attached to those
wouldn't be spent.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm good.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Is there an intent to fill
the 10 to 12 vacancies?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
Just a
note; I just want to highlight the incredible work that our Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Officers do.
I'm
also wondering, there was such a drastic cut, did we see any increase in the
number of violations in poaching and when there was –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think we did, actually. I
tell you what; I can find it for you because I put out a press release just
after Christmas where they gave us the latest update for last year. There were
actually historical levels of increase of violations, convictions, which is good
and bad.
MS. ROGERS:
Great.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Obviously, you don't want to
see that. But I can say I've had an opportunity now to sit down with them on a
number of occasions. Actually, I'm sitting down with one of them again tomorrow
morning. They're doing good work and pretty challenging circumstances when you
hear them talk about what they do. So that's pretty impressive.
MS. ROGERS:
I just want to say thank
you, folks, for a great session and your expertise and your commitment. Just
thank you so very, very much.
CHAIR:
Okay.
CLERK:
Subhead 5.1.01.
CHAIR:
Shall 5.1.01 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subhead 5.1.01 carried.
CHAIR:
I'll ask the Clerk to call
the –
CLERK:
Subheads 1.1.01 to 5.1.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall the total carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Justice and Public Safety, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of Justice and Public Safety back to the House carried without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Justice and Public Safety carried without
amendment.
CHAIR:
Now just a couple more
housekeeping things. The minutes were circulated earlier from the last Estimates
meeting.
I will
need a mover to adopt the minutes.
MS. PARSLEY:
So moved.
CHAIR:
The MHA for Harbour Main.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
CHAIR:
The next scheduled Estimates
here in the Chamber is 9 a.m. on May 2, Monday, Health and Community Services.
I
believe, before I ask for somebody to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Davis has a
comment and the minister has. Go ahead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just
want to take a moment to thank the minister and officials from the department
for your patience, but also for your co-operation in this process tonight. I
also want to thank my colleagues as well for the discussion and questions,
especially the member for Mount Pearl South. I'm sure the minister will talk to
you later.
I
referenced it earlier; justice is tough business. So many times in justice it's
not about winners and losers, because if you're involved in the justice system,
then there's a price to be paid quite often by people. The people who work there
do it, it's very difficult, and sometimes under very difficult circumstances.
When you know at the end of it all, there's nobody who wins out of circumstances
that are being dealt with.
I just
want to again pass along my thanks and appreciation to the people around you,
and also the people who work for them, for your department and under them, not
only in your office where you have a team who support the operations that,
essentially, quite often happen on the front lines, but also all those people
who work on the front lines as well.
Our
province, in many ways, is where it is because of some of the great work that's
done by people in your department. So I extend my thanks. Congratulations to
yourself, your staff that are here and those that are not here with you as well.
Thank
you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might just add in closing. Number one, I want to thank our Page and the
Table staff. This is a long process. I want to thank my colleagues across, the
Committee, Mr. Davis, Ms. Rogers and your staff.
This is
a necessary process. Sometimes I've seen these go both ways. I thought this was
a good Estimates session. It was done the way it's meant to be done. Good
questions. We try our best to provide the answers. We have more coming to you,
and it's an important process.
I know
a lot of work goes into getting ready for you guys to do this. Obviously, very
big thanks. I want to thank the people that are sitting beside me and behind me,
because there's been a heck of a lot of work that's gone into this for the last
number of months. These people were, even tonight, going above time to make sure
that we do what we need to do, which is get the information out. They've put a
lot of time into this. I'm really lucky I get to work in the department.
There
are some people that aren't here, people out on the ground right now that are
doing great work, but these people here, the team that is around us, I'm just
lucky to be a part of it. They've done tremendous work, long hours, coming up
with the information. I'm just lucky to fit in here and be a part of it. So I'm
very, very happy and appreciative of everything they've done and continue to do,
and mainly for putting up with me. Thank you so much.
Thank
you, Chair, this was a –
CHAIR:
I might attest, that can be
a tough (inaudible).
I'll
now ask for somebody to move that the meeting adjourn, the Estimates.
MR. LANE:
Moved.
CHAIR:
Have a good evening
everyone.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.