April
10, 2017
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Mark Browne, MHA for Placentia West – Bellevue,
substitutes for Betty Parsley, MHA for Harbour Main.
The
Committee met at 6 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.
CLERK (Barnes):
Good evening, everyone.
This is
the first meeting of the Social Services Committee for this session of the House
of Assembly. Before we can proceed, in accordance with our Standing Order 65(2)
we need to elect a Chair for this session. So I call for nominations for the
Chair.
MR. WARR:
I nominate Ms. Lisa
Dempster, Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
CLERK:
Any further nominations?
I
declare Ms. Dempster, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, acclaimed.
CHAIR (Dempster):
Good evening, everyone.
It's
hard to believe that a year has gone by and here we are back at the excitement
of Estimates again.
So I'll
let the –
CLERK:
You have to do Vice-Chair
first.
CHAIR:
Sorry, I told you I was
rusty. It's been a year.
I call
for nominations for Vice-Chair, before we begin.
MR. BROWNE:
I nominate the Member for
St. George's – Humber.
CLERK:
It has to be a Member from
the Opposition.
CHAIR:
Thank you for that, Mr.
Browne, but it has to be a Member from the Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I nominate Ms. Rogers.
CHAIR:
Okay, Ms. Rogers has been
nominated.
You
have been nominated for vice-Chair to the Social Services Committee.
Do you
accept?
MS. ROGERS:
Sure, all right.
CHAIR:
Any further nominations?
Seeing
none, we'll move –
CLERK:
We have two sets of minutes
from the last meeting.
CHAIR:
We have two sets of minutes
that I need to have a motion to approve.
Okay.
We'll now call for a motion to approve – do we need to do them separately,
Sandra?
CLERK:
Yes, please.
CHAIR:
Okay, we'll call for a
motion to approve the minutes of the Department of Health and Community
Services, May 11, 2016.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Mr. Davis.
I call
for a motion to approve the minutes of the Labour Relations, May 11, 2016. I
need a motion to approve the minutes of Labour Relations, May 11, 2016.
MR. REID:
So moved.
CHAIR:
Mr. Reid, thank you.
I'll
turn things over to the minister. He can introduce his Estimates and his team,
if he wishes; 15 minutes for that, Minister Parsons. The responder will have 15
minutes and then we'll go 10 and 10 back and forth.
Just on
a procedural matter, if it's the wishes of the Committee, will we go through by
subheading department? So we'll start with Executive and Support and we'll move
through that and then we'll – a little bit faster maybe or more efficient in –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Yeah, okay.
Minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
All right, thank you.
I'm not
going to waste much time here. We have a lot to cover. I'm just happy to have
the full team with me. As I do every other day, I rely very heavily on them, so
I'm going to probably rely heavily on them tonight as well.
I'm
Andrew Parsons, MHA Burgeo – La Poile, just in case.
I'll
let them introduce themselves and then we'll get right to it.
MS. JACOBS:
Heather Jacobs, Deputy
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MS. ENGLISH:
Virginia English,
Departmental Controller.
MR. CHAFE:
Dan Chafe, High Sherriff,
Sheriff's Office.
MR. SAMMS:
John Samms, EA to the
Minister.
MS. STOODLEY:
Amy Stoodley, Director of
Communications.
MS. HAWLEY-GEORGE:
Kim Hawley-George, Chief
Legislative Counsel, ADM, Legal Services.
MR. FOWLER:
Robin Fowler, ADM, Courts
and Corporate Services.
MS. KNICKLE:
Frances Knickle, Director of
Public Prosecutions.
MS. ORGAN:
Shelley Organ, Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
Theresa Heffernan, Executive Director of Support Services, RNC.
MR. BROPHY:
Owen Brophy, Superintendent of Prisons.
MS. MACINNIS:
Wilma MacInnis, Director of Court Services with the Provincial Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. PRITCHARD:
Rolf Pritchard, Director of the Civil Division.
MR. GREEN:
Andrew Green, Budget Manager.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And on that note, if you
guys are ready, we can get going.
CHAIR:
Okay, I'll ask the Clerk to
call the subheading.
CLERK:
1.1.01 through 1.3.01
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 through 1.3.01
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair,
congratulations.
Thank
you, Minister, and your officials for joining us tonight. I think last year we
went around three and a half hours? I'll try not to make that happen this year,
but there was a lot of information shared. We appreciate that and I'm sure this
year will be much the same way.
Minister, maybe I'll, if I may, start with a very high-level question so I don't
have to repeat it constantly through many of the sections here. One of them has
to do with staffing. I'm looking for an overview on – I know there were a number
of changes in the department this year.
Now, we
can go through them, if you want, section by section, but, for example, under
Executive Support under 1.2.01 there's a $168,000 decrease. We know there have
been changes, especially in the executive and management level, and I was
looking for some indications of, if you can tell me how many terminations there
were or how many new hires – those types of questions.
So do you want to do them – can we do that generally or do
you want to go through them –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, we start generally, and then as we go through, if you have more specifics.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sure.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That works for me.
I think we had 21 positions that were eliminated out of
those eight that were vacant. I can go through all the names of those now if you
want, or you can wait until we go – I have a list here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, it's up to you. Or you could provide them.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Or we can go itemized if you want, whatever, but that's – or I can provide you
with a list after.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That'd be fine, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will say on the record, any information I provide to one will obviously
automatically go to the other. So it will be the same list going out.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
Okay, so 21 positions; eight vacant.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And then you created some new positions through your processes?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, we've added three new sheriff's
officers, three new Crown
attorneys, two lawyers in the Civil Division and the court manager in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay.
Oh,
there's going to be positions added under what's called the
Contraventions Act. What I'd like to
do, if you'll indulge me, I'm going to let Virginia sort of give a high-level
explanation of that because that is relevant to almost every section in here.
You'll see extra money added.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So the best bet is for
Virginia to – because she's a heck of a lot better than me, she can explain what
it is, how the money is coming in. That way as we're going through, we'll say
that is contraventions money; that will be the explanation there instead of
doing it every time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There's a separate section
right on Contraventions Act, I think.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It shouldn't be in there,
but under a number of different headings, under courts and a few others,
sheriffs, once we get in we'll say that's contraventions money.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't know if there's an
actual physical –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
There shouldn't be a
(inaudible). What it is, there are some changes coming down federally that apply
here and there's some revenue coming in, and with that there's also positions
being created. So what I'll do is I'll let Virginia give a good explanation,
certainly better than what I could do.
MS. ENGLISH:
Basically, Justice and
Public Safety is entering into a memorandum agreement with Justice Canada. Under
the Contraventions Act, which allows
for federal tickets to be prosecuted by means of a ticket, that's not possible
right now and they have to go through the court system.
There
is funding available under the
Contraventions Act fund to allow the federal government to support
initiatives in both official languages. As a result of that, there is additional
funding for salaries and operating in fines administration division which
processes the tickets in the provincial court where, of course, tickets can be
contested, and also under the Sherriff's Office.
So at
this particular point in time we're looking for an agreement for one year. We'll
bring in $900,000 in federal revenue, and to offset that we have $900,000 in our
budget and you'll find it in those three places.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Then you could remind us
when we get there of where they are.
Under
the Contraventions Act, I understand,
while we're on the topic, I believe it was in British Columbia has an
administrative court or administrative process for impaired-related offences. I
believe it is impaired driving offences.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Would that be part of this?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I don't think that forms
part of it, although I am aware of what you're talking about. They've changed
impaired. In fact, we've had a discussion about that just over the weekend. So
that's not part of this. I don't know if that's a conversation you want to have
later on but, no, that doesn't fall into this that I'm aware of, no.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But that's something you're
looking at?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It was something that came
to my attention this weekend. Actually, I had a police officer email me and
bring it up. So, as I usually do, I sent it off to all the executive and just
having a discussion. It's literally less than 72 hours old in terms of when I
first became aware of it, but what they've done is they've turned impaired,
basically, into administrative events where you still get the fine, you still
get the prohibition from driving, but I think the aim was to reduce the court
time, reduce the amount of time officers are putting into it.
I
haven't done any research into how it works – is it successful, does it have
deterrents, nothing like that – but I am aware of it just from the weekend
actually.
MR. P. DAVIS:
When I read some notes on
the $900,000 in funding, I wondered if it could be applied to that as well
because in BC they do have this, I think they call it administrative court, is
what it's actually called, where impaired driving and related offences – and
they follow that standard where, you're right, it does decrease the demand on
court process and also decreases the demand on police officers and waiting
times. God knows, they spend hours and hours sometimes sitting in a courtroom
waiting to go to trial.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Apparently it was a much improved process also from the offender's perspective
on being able to implement stronger rules and guidelines coming out of the
process.
It's
good, and I look forward to you having further discussions on it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, it's an interesting
idea. I'm always willing to consider ideas but that one is pretty recent.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
We'll
go back to staffing, if I may.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The other thing I'd be
interested to know is besides the 21 positions eliminated, you've listed nine
new positions, I think. I'd be also interested to know if there have been any
temporary employees retained in the last year or anticipated in this year's
budget.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't know if we have the
numbers here.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Seven of the new contraventions people will be temporary.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, seven of the new
contraventions people will be temporary.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Like, will they be 13-week
temporaries?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I don't think 13 weeks.
Like maybe a year contract type deal.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MS. JACOBS:
As well, the three new prosecutors, I think that money is for two years.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, that's contractual.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
And
13-weekers, do you know if they have any –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can get a list of that. We
have some right now within the system, certainly they continue on, but I can put
together a list if you want.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, certainly; yeah, if you
wouldn't mind.
The
other question related to that, which you can include, is on PCNs.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
When you eliminate those 21
positions, would the PCNs be maintained or would they be eliminated?
MS. JACOBS:
No, those positions will be eliminated with the PCNs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The PCNs are gone now.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Minister, I don't know, it's a hard question but I'm interested to know. I think
I asked it last year if I remember, but do you know the total complement of the
department today? Or better yet, I suppose we could find it in some of the
salary details, but I thought I'd ask you.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The number I always use, and
which doesn't include RCMP, is around 1,600. That does include RNC. RCMP, I
would put around, there are 421 officers. The number I always use when I talk is
Justice has about 2,000 employees.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I see
under 1.2.0.1, under Executive Support, the salary last year budgeted was just
over $1 million and about $168,000 less this year. Is that for a particular –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Which heading is that?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Salaries, 1.2.01, under
Executive Support.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, just one second now.
It's
less because there's one less ADM and one less Administrative Assistant.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Madam Chair, I don't know,
before we turn the page if you wanted to –
CHAIR:
Okay. You still had some
time on the clock, but okay.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm fine with that section.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
All right.
We can
vote section by section. Is that okay? That's normally what we do.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It doesn't matter to me.
CHAIR:
Shall 1.1.01 to 1.3.01
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
MR. A. PARSONS:
Did you go to 1.3? I thought
it was just the first two.
CHAIR:
That's what I called in the
beginning.
MS. ROGERS:
If I could just do with a
little clarification, I'm fine.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, not a problem.
I
thought we only done the first two there, the Minister's and the Executive.
CHAIR:
So did you have something,
Ms. Rogers?
MS. ROGERS:
No, I'm fine with that first
section.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
When we
started, I called 1.1.01 to 1.3.01.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's not passed, so ask the
questions.
MS. ROGERS:
If I might make a
suggestion, maybe we could go through the whole one section as a block and then
–
CHAIR:
That's what we're doing.
That was what I called, all of the ones.
MS. ROGERS:
Right.
CHAIR:
To have discussion on that
and then move to two.
MS. ROGERS:
I know where it is, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
She's tough, man; she's
moving through.
CHAIR:
You just have to pay
attention to the headings I call; that's all.
Okay,
so we're going to continue on one.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you very much.
So
under 1.2.02 –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MS. ROGERS:
– when we look at the
Purchased Services, can we just have an idea of what some of those purchased
services might be?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, just one second now.
Virginia?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, no, I'm calling out to
the people that are –
MS. ENGLISH:
Oh, okay.
Most of
the costs that are included in there include printing – we cover printing for a
lot of the divisions. We cover repairs to furniture and equipment, photocopier
rentals, also contributions toward miscellaneous office rentals, specialized
training and monies included for contracts under the family violence
intervention court.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, and I also want to say
thank you very much, everyone, for coming out. I know some of you have done
incredible work at times under very difficult circumstances. I know that both
the people of the province and all your colleagues really appreciate the work
and the leadership that you have shown in all of the work that you do, and I
know that this evening makes for a long day. So thank you very much.
Back up
to 1.2.02, under Salaries, 01, we see a difference there of $470,000. I know
we're going to be getting a list of some of the positions lost, but what
positions were lost there, if lost?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That, I believe, if I'm
correct – and if I'm not correct, you'll tell me – there was one management
position reduced. I think last year there was funding there for the expansion of
the family violence intervention court, which has been pushed forward one year.
So that was funding we were anticipating but never got there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Can you
tell me the status of the family violence intervention court now in Labrador?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, basically, I have a
mandate letter where I have to expand it to Labrador and to Central. Labrador,
quite frankly, I don't think it's ready to go yet. And by all means, I have a
couple of people back here that could probably speak to it even better than me.
I've
been up there a couple of times. I think there are a number of issues there. We
still have some kinks that could be worked out, the ones we have here on the
Island, even out in Stephenville. It's getting better, but I don't think it
should be expanded if we haven't got it completely figured out. And Labrador
brings its own challenges, especially with the infrastructure up there. It's an
extremely busy court, with a huge caseload. As you see, we've got the court
manager hired up there now.
Having
visited there, we have to figure out what's the best model to use. Is it going
to be the same? I don't know if my colleagues back here have anything. Maybe
Wilma can speak to it, as she knows more about the Provincial Court than me.
MS. MACINNIS:
Certainly, yes, we've been in a bit of flux, we'll say, in Labrador certainly at
the Provincial Court. We've had a number of vacancies there and only since
probably last fall have we sort of, I think, turned the corner in terms of
establishing some stability there. We actually contracted a court manager then
and that's the position, actually, that we sought permanent funding for because
we certainly saw some really great strides being made since the fall and we have
stabilized some staffing there as well.
So
right now, I think we just have one vacancy there in a court officer position.
Our staff person actually took a position with the Supreme Court in Goose Bay,
so we're in the process of recruiting there. So it's doing much better, so I
certainly agree with the minister in terms of it's been a bit of a turbulent
time in terms of establishing, taking on another court process there for sure.
But we're certainly getting there in terms of stability and the help with this
new position will certainly be of great assistance.
MS. ROGERS:
So for Labrador, what is the
new time frame for the domestic court?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well basically, everything
I've operated on has been sort of within the mandate. I'm always hesitant to put
timelines on things, especially when there may be things that are outside my
control. My timeline is still to get it done within this mandate. But having
been up there now on a number of occasions and having visited the circuits, I'm
not going to be silly enough to promise it by a certain time because I think
there are some more foundational challenges, as Wilma has mentioned. I think
we've got a lot of work to do in Labrador in terms of justice anyway.
My next
thing I'd like to do – we had this justice summit here in St. John's just a
couple of weeks ago. My next plan is to have one of those up in Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, and bring the Labrador partners and players into a room to
talk about what are some of the fixes because there's a lot of challenges, not
just with the family violence intervention court, even regular Provincial Court,
we have infrastructure challenges, we've got logistical challenges.
We're
lucky in terms of staffing. Our Crowns, we have a full complement there. But
that's sort of where I am. I'd still want to see it within the mandate, because
I think the court is necessary, I think it is positive and it's a good thing,
but I don't want to say it's going to be in the next six months, 12 months,
whatever, because I don't want to overpromise.
MS. ROGERS:
So is there anything being
done in the interim in terms of monies available to community to provide support
services for victims?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, we still have family
violence service – was it family –?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, no, the family justice
services. We had family justice services, which is there. In fact, that's just
recently gone under the control of our court again. It was sort of outside;
we're putting a back under there. I think there's a lot we can do to make it
better.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. We're just having a
chat about – so you're talking about Labrador specifically?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We still have a number of
programs that are always already there. We've got some more ideas, but we can't
put it out there right yet. There are things we need to do, but overall I'd like
to think that we got to get up there and find a way to just look at the caseload
too. There's a huge caseload there, so it sort of all ties in together. But, no
doubt, there are challenges.
MS. ROGERS:
And then the Stephenville
court, is that still called a pilot project, or was it called a pilot project or
temporary, was it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think it started as a
pilot project, but it's not something that's going to go anywhere; it's going to
stay there. Maybe Robin –
MS. ROGERS:
So it's established and –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, Robin Fowler can talk
about it. Robin has been out to visit the court. Actually, I was out there as
well, but Robin knows a bit more. So maybe he can talk a bit about it.
MR. FOWLER:
The issue that we've been having with the family violence court, both for
Stephenville and St. John's, is that in order to qualify for the family violence
court the applicant, the accused person who becomes the applicant, has to meet
with a social worker and they go through an assessment process that includes
risk assessment.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. FOWLER:
That's done before any plea
is entered and it's been done under the protection of a solicitor-client
privilege. It's done with counsel. What's been happening is there's been a
difficulty in communication between that beginning process and then when it
moves on so that the person goes and enters a plea in court and it's dealt with
in the family violence court. They then have to deal with our probation
officers. There's been difficulty in allowing the communication from that
beginning stage to the probation office and we need to deal with that.
We're
working on a way of creating some sort of waiver that everybody is going to be
happy with to allow the process to keep going. Right now, we don't have
everybody in agreement on what that waiver is going to look like. So that's the
holdup right now, the difficulty that we're having, whether it's Stephenville or
St. John's, with the family violence.
MS. ROGERS:
Was that a difficulty with
the first incarnation of the family violence intervention court?
MR. FOWLER:
My understanding is the first time around it was set up a little bit
differently.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. FOWLER:
They decided to go with this version for a lot of reasons; one being that it was
easier for the applicant to make an informed decision of what they wanted to do
upfront. But right now the whole question becomes – because what happens now is
that a lot of the evaluation process is repeated again, and then if there's
disagreement it can cause issues. Right now, we're looking into the possibility
of having a waiver but we haven't been able to completely deal with that yet.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
Thank
you very much.
Under
Salaries again, under 1.3.01.
MR. A. PARSONS:
1.3.01, Fines?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
And the
Salaries there – so we'll again get information on those positions that are
lost.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was one management
position that's gone there. One management position at Fines Admin and we're
adding a position back with the contraventions money.
MS. ROGERS:
Right.
Okay,
I'm fine then.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, if I can just run back
to 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support. There's a reduction in Salaries,
as you explained, of $470,000, but there's an increase in Employee Benefits. Can
you explain that one?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I believe, if I'm correct,
that's workers' comp costs. That's not just for this section, that covers off
all the department.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think we saw that same
thing last year, did we not?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. JACOBS:
We were just trying to rightsize that amount of money because we know we're
spending more all the time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
So
they're under each section. That's fine.
As I
understand it then, where I see Employee Benefits and see those changes, then
workers' comp is a factor with many of those. Is that what you're telling me?
MS. JACOBS:
Workers' comp is only for this activity.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MS. JACOBS:
But the other increases you may see in Employee Benefits may be for another
reason. When we get to those you can ask.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Thanks.
Under
1.2.03, under Legal Information Management, there was about $122,000 revised
from last year's budget, and then a reduction from there of $170 from what it
was last year, but $46,000 in Salaries. I'm not sure if you explained that one
or not.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There is one position gone.
We also dealt with a retirement there and the backfill to sick leave. That
explains some of the discrepancies there. Did I get that right? Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
One of the positions that
you –
MR. A. PARSONS:
What was the name of the
position? Director of Legal Information Management, yeah, that's the position
that was eliminated.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
You may
have explained this one earlier. Under 1.2.02, on Revenue – Federal, it goes
from $30,000 to $120,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
The
$30,000 last year was our federal funding for the drug treatment feasibility.
The $120,000 is new federal money we're getting to further on the drug treatment
court work, which I'm hoping to have some further announcements on in the very
near future. That is the federal money for that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Over on
Fines Administration – I've got a sense that there's been some work done on
Fines Administration. We talked about the Salaries, but I also see here a
federal revenue portion that didn't exist before.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Contraventions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's contraventions. Okay.
Any
idea what the outstanding fine level is now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the number I got
today is $36 million and change: $36,692,472.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just by memory?
MR. A. PARSONS:
My God, no.
I
remembered the $36 million but after that it got a little –
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think that's all I have on
that one.
What's
the provincial revenue? Is that fine collection?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Ticket revenue?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Besides the fact that the
RNC now are doing a lot of work on proactive enforcement – I guess that's the
best way to put it. I know they've been doing a lot of work and working towards
that. Is that –
MR. A. PARSONS:
There was also a change in
the fee from $7 to $9, so that accounts for some of the increase there. It would
be a full year of that increase.
MR. P. DAVIS:
A change in fees from what,
sorry?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It went from $7 to $9 on the
processing.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Is that right? Yeah, okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Would that include
processing like City of St. John's parking tickets and that kind of thing?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's almost $100,000.
That's a lot of processing.
Okay, I
think that's all I have on that section, Madam Chair.
CHAIR:
Good. Okay.
I'll
call it again.
Shall
1.1.01 to 1.3.01 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.3.01 carried.
CLERK:
Subheads 2.1.01 through 2.1.05 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.1.01 to 2.1.05
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
On
2.1.01 in Salaries, a $364,000 change there.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We've increased the
complement of civil lawyers up by two.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Under
Professional Services there was $3.3 million down to $2.3 million.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The logic behind it is that
we're hoping – that's the money we pay outside counsel. The logic is that we
want to do more in-house. We think there are ways that we can do it basically
cheaper within. I don't know if you'll see that full change right away but
that's what we're trying to do there.
Some of
it's uncontrollable. Of that $3.5 million, if I get this right – and, Rolf, if
I'm wrong, you're going to correct me – 28 per cent of that is AG-funded
counsel. We have absolutely no control over that. I think the other one is –
I'll go to Rolf, he knows it better than me.
MR. PRITCHARD:
Once again, as the minister said, 28 per cent is AG appointments over which we
have no control. Those are things where the judge appoints counsel in criminal
matters or judicial indemnification.
About
23 per cent are costs that arise in litigation; for example, if the department
retains an expert witness. Then the remaining 49 per cent is for where services
are needed that can't be provided within the Department of Justice; for example,
perhaps we need to retain a lawyer in Quebec to deal with the civil code there
and who speaks French, things like that where we don't have the expertise
in-house.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The two additional salaries,
it's not meant to offset the $1 million reduction?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No. Basically, the logic
behind it is that we're adding more solicitors. Our goal is to decrease the
amount of work that has to go outside and basically find efficiencies there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So it will. One is connected
to the other.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, definitely.
Is it
an actual correlation, like the two lawyers cost this much money, you're going
to save exactly this? No. That's just the logic that I'm using in making that
decision.
Again,
the other thing is when it comes to stuff like AG, we can't get around that nor
do you have any control over that. You're talking about almost 30 per cent of
the budget there. But that's the plan. We think that we can do more within.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is just Civil Division,
not Criminal Division.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's right. Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I've heard from time to time
and still hear from time to time – and I'm sure you won't disagree – of the
significant demands that are on lawyers within the department, including Civil
Law Division which we're talking about here now. If there's a movement of using
less professional services to try and increase the complement of lawyers
in-house so that more of that can be done in-house, does that do anything to
elevate the overburden and the significant workloads that exist on civil law
lawyers?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No doubt there's a burden.
Rolf can speak to this as well; he's been around a long time.
I think
if anything, in my meetings with them lately I've given them a vote of
confidence. What I've told them is I think we can do more within. And I think we
all agree that it can, but I've said look, instead of us sending out work – I
come from a private law background where if a file came in, for me to send it
out, it has to be pretty bad. I don't want to send it off to another firm to do
it. That's money that I'm not going to make and so I want to have the same sort
of mindset here.
I think
we can do it but it's like anything, there are a lot of pressures on them. We
have a lot of very, very good lawyers. I think that if we add more we can still
look at ways to do more. Myself, Rolf and the executive are also looking at the
division to see are there places where we need extra work.
I don't
know if there's been a review done of the Civil Division. We're doing that now.
My review is not about having less, my review is about where are the challenges,
what can we do better. That's why I've added more rather than cut.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, it sounds like we're
probably expressing the same concern. One of the continuing or consistent
concerns that has been heard and known within Civil Law Division as well as
Criminal Law Division – I guess we'll have the same conversation when that comes
up – is the enormous amount of workloads that exist. I know lots of lawyers
within the Civil Law Division who at 4:30 could only dream about going home and
they're here much longer than that and later than that. Look at the smile on
Rolf up there when I'm talking about this.
They
work long hours and have heavy responsibilities. Lawyers do have that, but I
know that in Civil Division it's been an issue.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Like I say, there's no
doubt this line of work, you're going to put long hours in whether you're
private or you're within. We're lucky that we have a really good complement of
lawyers who work hard and know their files.
What I
want to do, it's not a case of looking at them and saying we should do the same
amount or more work with less people, I think we can look at it and say we can
do more within. We're always looking at finding ways to save money, but I would
rather to save the money on outside counsel and get more done with them.
No
doubt there are pressures, but we've got to – again, coming from that background
where I did a little bit of that work, certainly nothing near what they do. Again,
Rolf can speak to it, but I'm trying my best to work with them.
There were some times over the last number of years where
they faced constant fear of who's not going to stick around. So what I've tried
to do this year is say, look, that's not what I'm looking at. I'm looking at
ways of having all of you here, but can we do things differently, are there
different ways we can do business?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sure.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't know if Rolf wants to speak to that.
MR. PRITCHARD:
Thank you, Minister.
Just by
way of an example, one of the things that we're trying to encourage within the
Civil Division is to have some of the younger lawyers develop expertise in areas
where previously we have not had expertise and have gone out of the department
to get that expertise.
When
you consider the hourly rates that are charged by some of these lawyers downtown
and in other provinces, if you can do some of that work in-house, the savings
can be quite dramatic. So we think there's an opportunity there and that's one
example.
As you
say, there will be some things – for example if we need someone who specializes
in civil law in Quebec, well, we won't be able to do that – but some of the
areas of the oil and gas, some of those things, we think that some of our
younger lawyers can develop that expertise and then there would be a
commensurate savings.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, good. I know it takes
a lot of years to develop expertise, skills and experience. We've seen that in
the RNC with no middle – and I'm sure the minister knows what I'm talking about
– no middle in the RNC right now, and the continuing recruitment and so on will
be necessary to keep those skills advancing.
Minister, under the same section, 2.1.01, Allowances and Assistance, there was
$1.5 million budgeted but $5.3 million under that line. What does that include?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, that's the historical
sexual assault settlements, which you try your best, and we usually get pretty
good analysis on what we think is going to settle and not settle, but obviously
it's not an exact science. Sometimes these can progress faster than expected.
Sometimes you think they're close to settling and they don't. These are
historical, and when I say historical, I mean decades old.
So
we've always budgeted the $1.5 million, last year there was the $5.3 million. So
I think we actually had to go to the contingency fund to use, and that would
have been tabled here in the House.
The
other thing, too, is I don't know if it's a realistic fear or not, I think
there's something to it, but if you budget that up and people see there's this
big sum of money that might change attitudes in terms of coming after it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But that's sometimes what
we've used the contingency fund for, which is tabled here. I believe we're
anticipating more this year.
MR. PRITCHARD:
Yes, we're embroiled in various litigations. The fund is used to settle matters
where a recommendation is made by one of the Civil Division lawyers, or if
there's a settlement ordered by the court at the end of a trial, but those
matters continue.
We
think we have a pretty good sense of what we can win and what we can't. So the
settlements usually reflect where a lawyer has advised the department that it
would be in everyone's interest to settle a matter. It's difficult to predict at
the start of the year, as the minister said, how many cases may settle in a
given year. Some years it's more, some years it's less.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So that line, the Allowances
and Assistances, are for all settlements not just the historical – the
historical ones are thrown –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Those have been decreasing
in fairly significant size.
CHAIR:
I remind members again as
well, before you speak, if you could say your name for the benefit of those in
the Broadcast Centre.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I might say there, that
number is not actually $5.33 million; it's actually $3.9 million. This would
have been done in February. So I think – maybe you can explain, Virginia,
because she understands the accounting better than me.
MS. ENGLISH:
When this book was done, when the book was being prepared, that particular
number, the revised number was our expectation of potential costs to the end of
March for the fiscal year. At that time, when that was done, we still didn't
know exactly what would come out of that fund, but that was the estimation of
what could be paid out. We've actually only paid $3.9 million to date. It was
the best estimate at that time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Do you want me to go to Ms.
Rogers and come back? Your 10 minutes is up.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'd just rather monopolize
all the time myself, but she can go ahead. I have some questions on the
Sheriff's Office, but she can certainly go ahead.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
Can you
tell us some of the larger cases, some of the large files that you're dealing
with right now in Civil Law?
MR. A. PARSONS:
To do that justice, maybe
I'll let Rolf talk about some of the bigger files. The offshore one's, Hibernia
has always been a big one, but I think Rolf might do a better job of this than
me.
MR. PRITCHARD:
Yes, Ms. Rogers, you're curious about some of the large files that we're
currently litigating –
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. PRITCHARD:
– not necessarily with respect to settlements, just what we're litigating?
MS. ROGERS:
That's right, yes.
MR. PRITCHARD:
Sure.
Well,
as the minister indicated, this year we had arbitrations involving offshore
royalty regimes and various costs, what were included and what were not, and
that's actually being appealed. We have litigation ongoing with Oceanex this
year to do with the federal subsidies and whether or not they're reasonable or
not, and that's being challenged by judicial review. We've had lawyers on a
number of ATIPP appeals. That's an ongoing issue.
As
well, there are a number of other matters. For example, occasionally we get
applications with respect to some of the sexual abuse claims, procedural issues,
trying to move those matters along. Those are some of the key ones that come to
mind. I can probably think of a few others. If I do, I'll bring them up, but the
Oceanex is one that comes to mind because I'm working on that one, spending a
lot of time on that lately.
We have
a number of judicial reviews, decisions of ministers that are challenged for
various reasons in various departments; some successful, some not.
MS. ROGERS:
And where is the tobacco
file? That would come under this?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, there's a contingency
fee with Roebothan McKay Marshall. I don't know – were there any monies actually
spent on that last year? I don't know if there was a lot of work done on that
one.
MR. PRITCHARD:
No, what's happening with that right now is the stage they're at is they're
gathering up the information. There have been researchers with the Department of
Justice who have been going from department to department collecting documents,
and then those documents have been deposited with the law firms that are acting
for the province. The intention then is to generate the lists of documents that
have to be filed as part of litigation.
So
those matters are a long way from coming from hearing. Once the documents are
filed – and it'll be a while before all the documents are filed – then there'll
be discoveries and then we'll see if it gets to the point where there are
pretrial certificates filed. That's moving slowly.
MS. ROGERS:
So for the tobacco file, is
there any guesstimate end in sight or are we still looking years and years down
the road?
MR. PRITCHARD:
Needless to say, the tobacco companies, through their legal counsel, raise
objections. They file applications and it tends to slow the matter down. So it
has been in the process for a while. We've tried to move those matters along but
where you have another party that's actively involved in slowing the matter
down, it's really difficult to predict.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you very much.
If we
move on to 2.1.02, Sheriff's Office, we see an increase there, and there were
new positions in the Sheriff's Office.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There were three new
positions just created. There would have been some funding there through
contraventions. That's down at the bottom, right?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
One position created out of
that. Then there were positions that we had anticipated not needing last year
with the court closures, which ended up being reinstated and stayed around.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Transportation and
Communications, we see from the budget from '16-'17 and then the estimate, the
revised, can you tell me what that jump is?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, occupational health and
safety made up a portion of that, and I think a large portion of that would have
been the Muskrat Falls situation back in October where the Sheriff's Office was
called in to enforce court orders. So that had a significant cost.
MS. ROGERS:
So it's the transportation
of personnel.
MR. A. PARSONS:
As well, the Labrador
circuit always has a cost too; the sheriffs are on those circuits.
MS. ROGERS:
The budget for '17-'18 is
significantly higher than the budget for '16-'17. What would that be for?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Under which one, sorry?
MS. ROGERS:
Transportation and
Communications. I can see the revised. We see a big bump in the revised, and so
now in the actual budget estimate for '17-'18.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Well, again, the
Labrador circuit is there. We didn't anticipate that being there. So that's a
part of that.
What else do we have?
OFFICIAL:
Just rightsizing of the budget.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Basically, what we're saying
here is that it's a rightsizing of the budget.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, we have the High
Sheriff here. I don't know if anybody wants to ask him any questions.
MS. ROGERS:
I don't know if there's
anything particular you would like to say about – now with the new
positions, does that feel we'll be able to address the issues that were
outstanding for your office?
MR. CHAFE: Yes,
absolutely. With the three additional positions now we can go on all the
circuits that were previously taken care of by the RCMP, which then puts them
back into the community, which is a better use of their time, which is really
good for us.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Good, thank you.
Under
Purchased Services, we see a considerable jump there from $250,000 in '16-'17 to
$397,000?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's the contraventions
costs, I believe. They are mostly associated with the actual system that they're
putting in place.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. All right, great,
thanks.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And if I could just add on
the record here that the High Sherriff just graduated a brand new class of
deputy sheriffs today down at the Supreme Court, so we've got 13 new deputy
sheriffs who just graduated.
MS. ROGERS:
And where is their training?
Is it in-house, the training for them, and how long is their training?
MR. CHAFE:
The training is 10 weeks in class, and then there are three weeks of on-the-job
training.
MS. ROGERS:
So there were how many new
grads?
MR. CHAFE:
Thirteen.
MS. ROGERS:
Thirteen. And how many are
women?
MR. CHAFE:
One women and three of those positions, ironically, we were able to offer the
new positions that were just created. So of the four vacancies in Goose Bay
currently, we're going to fill three as of tomorrow, so that's pretty good.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, so of the 13 new ones,
one is a woman. What does that give us in terms of the numbers of women and
number of men in your …?
MR. CHAFE:
I think we're about 24 per cent. That's something we're going to try to work
through different recruitment drives.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. CHAFE:
And we're trying to also
hire within our own community. So in this particular class, pretty much
everyone's going home when they graduate, which is really good for retention.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh, great.
MR. CHAFE:
Yes, we're really pleased with that.
MS. ROGERS:
What do you see as some of
the blocks and barriers to women entering this profession?
MR. CHAFE:
I think law enforcement in general can be a challenge, so I think we need to do
a little better with getting the word out there that it's for everybody.
MS. ROGERS:
And then you would think
more women would apply.
MR. CHAFE:
I think so.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. And is there a plan to
do that?
MR. CHAFE:
Yes, we've actually had some focus groups within the Sherriff's Office with
females in law enforcement, with some of our partners. And that's gone a long
way to understand what some of the barriers are for them, and we'll include that
in our strategic plan going forward.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, it's still such a
challenge –
MR. CHAFE:
It is.
MS. ROGERS:
– in so many areas, even
when you look in this House.
MR. CHAFE:
Yeah.
MS. ROGERS:
It's a huge challenge.
Okay,
thank you.
MR. CHAFE:
You're welcome.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Under 2.1.03 –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Support Enforcement?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes. Under Purchased
Services – and I think those were mostly banking fees, were they?
MR. A. PARSONS:
All banking.
MS. ROGERS:
So we see a real jump.
What's happening?
MR. A. PARSONS:
So what I am being told is
that's historically something that's always been overspent, so this is a case of
rightsizing.
MS. ROGERS:
Rightsizing, okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But again, it's a challenge
all across government when it comes to fees.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
And
Family Justice Services, under Salaries, so does it look like we've lost a
position there.
MR. A. PARSONS:
One director position.
MS. ROGERS:
One director, okay.
And
Purchased Services, what kinds of purchased services would we have there under
Family Justice Services?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Rent is $256 of that and the
rest is the copier, printing.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
And so
when we were talking about the Domestic Violence Court in Labrador, any of the
support services, the counselling services for victims then in the Labrador area
would come from the Family Justice Services, would it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Wilma.
MS. MACINNIS:
I was previously with Family Justice Services. Family Justice Services is a
program that deals with families who are going through a divorce and separation.
MS. ROGERS:
Right.
MS. MACINNIS:
So they wouldn't necessarily be providing – I think that would be more Victim
Services in terms of providing supports to people who are going through –
because they are one of our partners with the family violence court so I would
think it would be more Victim Services.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
All
right, thank you.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers, the time is up,
so I'll go back to Mr. Davis.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes, fine.
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
While we're on the page – I
want to go back to the Sheriff's Office momentarily – under Support Enforcement,
2.1.03, I don't think Ms. Rogers asked – if she did I apologize, I missed it –
but the salary, there's almost $173,000 salary decrease.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That is an admin error.
There was one management position, which makes up a portion of it, but the other
one there was an actual error in the printing, or the accounting, or they took
the money twice or something.
MS. ENGLISH:
Thank you.
There
was one position removed from that division. It was basically an accounting
error. We missed it and didn't realize that it had been taken out twice.
Basically, we reallocated some of the funds to another area and then realized
after the fact that the funds had come out. So we couldn't correct it for the
budget book, but we will correct it during the year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So what's the right number?
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might add, it wasn't
Virginia who did it; it was some other budgeting crowd. I'd say it's Cathy
Bennett's crowd that made the error.
It is
$81,000.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Back on the sheriffs, you
mentioned that there were three new sheriff's officers being hired, you got 13
just graduated today, so all 13 of them are being employed but there are three
new positions. So what's the total complement now of sheriff's officers?
MR. CHAFE:
I believe there are about 110.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's including the 13?
MR. CHAFE:
Yes, we had vacancies across the province.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So are the vacancies now
filled?
MR. CHAFE:
There's one additional position to be filled in Goose Bay. We'll have to run
another competition for that one.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Also
under Sheriff's Office there's federal revenue there of $252,600.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Contraventions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I thought Purchased Services
was contraventions.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It is. I guess one is there
and then the other one is the offset.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, it's an in and an out.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Supplies are up $61,000
under Sheriff's Office.
I was
going to say I see everybody looking at each other, but –
OFFICIAL:
No, Virginia is going to answer it.
MS. ENGLISH:
The Supplies budget in the Sheriff's Office will cover such things as, not only
office supplies and that but it also covers uniforms, gas, supplies for vehicles
and equipment for handling. While we did add a small amount of money for
supplies under contraventions, I believe most of the money is a reallocation of
funding just to meet operational requirements.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So it was previously
unfunded, is that what you're –
MS. ENGLISH:
Yeah, the Supplies budget would vary or the requirements on that particular
budget would vary depending upon the amount of uniforms that are required in any
given year, and that may change.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So it is historically
underfunded – the deputy is nodding her head yes.
MS. JACOBS:
With a collective agreement you have to buy uniforms different years, so then
you'll have your ups and downs. Probably this year, I'm assuming, Dan, you may
be purchasing some uniforms.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
OFFICIAL:
Yes, it's $116,000 in uniforms this year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I think
I can go over now to 2.1.05.
Is this
the last section for this group, Madam Chair? It is? Okay.
Under
Salaries, $125,000 – we were at $692,000, it went to $350,000 and now it's
$679,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll let Heather provide the
explanation on that.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes, we spent less in the revised because we had three new positions and we had
delayed recruitment for those three new positions. That's why we still have
them. Obviously, ATIPP is a very busy office so we'll be filling those this
year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
They were vacant positions,
were they?
MS. JACOBS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
They were vacant when they
came over from OPE.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes, when we got ATIPP in September, they were vacant, and then it just took us
a while through the HRS process for classification. We just got them classified
in February. I believe one position is filled and we're in the process of
filling the other two right now.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Were there any terminations
under Access to Information?
MS. JACOBS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Any new hires, other than
the ones you must mentioned?
MS. JACOBS:
No, just the three new positions, but they were from last year's budget that
weren't filled. There were none in this year's budget.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, so you had three last
year.
MS. JACOBS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I know the new Privacy
Commissioner has expressed concern about workloads within government. I don't
know if you can offer an opinion if you share those concerns. If so, then what's
the plan to deal with it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, I speak to that.
Obviously, there has been a significant increase in requests. That's something
that we're cognizant of. You've got the changes in legislation that has added to
those workloads, but at the same time we're always operating with the constant
fact that you just can't go and create the new position.
It's
trying to find is there a different way to do this as well. You've got the
respect the legislation, but at the same time, is there a way that we can do
things differently, do things more efficiently? We're looking out to other
provinces as well to see how their system is set up. There are some different
set-ups and formats to ATIPP
MR. P. DAVIS:
We've heard the message from
time to time that there's a real struggle in government to keep up with demand.
While I think everyone expected that after the new legislation there would be an
increase and a peak, we don't seem to have seen the peak yet.
The
Commissioner, in discussions I've had with him, is concerned about – and I think
you may have been there for one of them, at least one of them, and that was
probably the discussion we had when you were there – the increase in demands and
the need for them to keep on time with legislation. I know he's felt it if he
has three positions from last year. Do you have a timeline on how long before
they should be filled?
MS. JACOBS:
We're in the process of doing that now so I'm sure they'll be done within the
next couple of months.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I think
that's the last section for those.
CHAIR:
Before we call that, I'm
just wondering if Ms. Rogers had anything up to 2.1.05.
MS. ROGERS:
I'm fine.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall
2.1.01 to 2.1.05 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.1.05 carried.
CLERK:
2.2.01 through 2.4.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 2.2.01 to 2.4.01
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Criminal Law; I would expect we're going to have a fair bit of discussion about
this as well. In Salaries there's an additional almost $340,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Three new prosecutors.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Three new prosecutors.
Has
there been any terminations or positions terminated in the last year under
Criminal Law?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, we had one admin
position.
MR. P. DAVIS:
PCN is gone with that too,
is it?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I know it's another area
where there's significant pressure in significant areas, especially with Jordan.
I know you have $390,000 to address Jordan. Is this part of that? Is this part
of that money there?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That is the crux of it, I
would think. There's been a lot of talk about it publicly and a lot of talk
about it nationally. In fact there's, I guess you would call, a special FPT
meeting going on not next week, it's the end of the week after, up in Gatineau;
ministers across the country as well as the federal minister just to talk about
Jordan because we're all facing this same pressure since that case came down. In
fact, the Supreme Court of Canada is going to be hearing a case on that again in
the next couple of weeks: Cody.
I'm
going to ask Frances to speak now in a second because she's a heck of a lot more
eloquent then me and certainly knows the system. There are two things here; I
think overall, when faced with other provinces, we're actually doing reasonably
well compared to some other provinces that are just really having a tough time
keeping up with the Jordan applications that are coming in.
The
second part is that it's really hard to go back and deal with pre-Jordan. The
emphasis from here, from us, has been since that case came out, what can we and
what have we done? Again, I'll let Frances speak to it because she can talk
about the measures her office has taken, what she's seen and maybe her thoughts
and views on it. Feel free to ask any questions as well.
MS. KNICKLE:
We found ourselves in a very
interesting situation last fall. Jordan was released at the end of July, but as
you probably heard in the news – and it was something that we identified
ourselves – our caseload has increased substantially over a number of years;
I'll give you a statistic in a moment. But particular in that are our major
cases, specifically homicides.
Something that we had been trying to do that came out of the Lamer Inquiry –
which most provinces across the country do, most public prosecution services –
is ensure that when we have these kinds of major cases we have two prosecutors
assigned. When we started looking at what we were facing, we had 14 homicides.
Well, we have 48 prosecutors. That means we assign two prosecutors, we have half
our service assigned to homicide prosecutions.
We
actually approached government last fall in relation to this, in light of
Jordan, seeing that we have quite what I'm seeing as a bit of bottleneck and
then with the increased pressure of Jordan. The addition of these three
prosecutors allows us to meet our obligation or our desire to have two
prosecutors assigned to our homicides and then have more junior prosecutors pick
up some of the bulk of the caseloads.
Just so
you know, for example, in 2007 we had 78 cases opened and closed over the course
of the year – 7,829 cases and we had 41 prosecutors. But in 2016 we had 44 Crown
attorneys and we had over 12,000 cases. We suffered a significant cut in 2013.
We lost prosecutors and a number of support staff, yet our caseload has been
increasing steadily. It's increased 60 per cent since 2007 and the number of
Crown attorneys increased less than 10 per cent. So we needed to get some
prosecutors in the office, and that's what this is about. I have to say we're
very excited. We've got people on board already. We've got a new one starting.
So
that's just kind of like the numbers. In terms of Jordan across the country, we
have pockets, but Newfoundland is actually not doing badly relative to some of
the other jurisdictions. We haven't had any homicides, for example, stay of
proceedings entered.
We've
had middling results. We've got 12 pending applications. We've had four judicial
stays entered as a result of findings that there was unreasonable delay. We've
actually appealed three of those. We've had two that were dismissed, we've got
two applications pending and we've had about four cases that we ended ourselves,
looking at the facts and the circumstances.
What
you have to remember, all of these cases are cases that were already in the
system before Jordan even came down. So the prosecutors, counsel and the courts
were operating under a different legal framework. And what has to happen
essentially, and one of the reasons Cody is up at the Supreme Court of Canada,
is that we just simply have to litigate Jordan because there's a lot of
reasoning within the decision that has to flush itself out, and that's what a
lot of this is about.
I don't
know if that answers your question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, it does and the next
one, and the next one, and the next one.
I was
trying to copy and trying to make note of some of your statistical information
and data, which I think paints a pretty clear picture. So you've said there have
been four judicial stays.
MS. KNICKLE:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Three were appealed.
MS. KNICKLE:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Two successfully, is that
what I understood?
MS. KNICKLE:
Yes, and we're still waiting on –
MR. P. DAVIS:
And there's still two
pending you said then, I thought.
MS. KNICKLE:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm trying to make the math
work but –
MS. KNICKLE:
Well, then we've had a couple that we resolved for other ways.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MS. KNICKLE:
We either worked out a plea,
or we withdrew it, or –
MR. P. DAVIS:
But there's 12 pending?
MS. KNICKLE:
No, 12 total applications. Sorry.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, total of 12.
So how
many are pending, or outstanding, or haven't been heard?
MS. KNICKLE:
We've just got two pending right now. I was advised that we may have another one
being filed. I mean, this is a really fluid statistic because I'm sort of
updating. We may have a new one entered, so we're trying to keep track of them.
They
cover the gamut in terms of the kinds of offences. We haven't had any filed in
relation to any of our homicides yet. Fortunately, those are rolling along. You
may recall we had a homicide trial before Christmas. There was an acquittal for
Mr. Stacey and then the next day there was another homicide and an arrest. So we
just sort of get ahead of the game and then something else happens.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
I
thought you said 14 homicides, two prosecutors per each; so the hire of three
new prosecutors, two homicides and you're back worse off than you were
yesterday, really.
MS. KNICKLE:
Yeah. Well, there is actually one homicide file that we actually haven't
assigned a second prosecutor to it yet just because while it's something that
you want to do, some cases are more complex than others. And some of these
prosecutions, for example there are three joint accused – well, four accused
together, three of them are jointly accused – so you definitely need to have two
prosecutors there; other files, not necessarily so.
We are
trying to use our article clerks as well to assist on some of our other more
complex prosecutions. We have a drive-by shooting trial that will be starting,
hopefully, in January depending on what happens with the pre-trial application,
so we'll be assigning a junior prosecutor to assist with that one as well.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's kind of hard to believe
really we're talking about Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't it?
MS. KNICKLE:
I hate to say it, but it sure has changed from when you and I were down in court
doing impaired driving.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely, yes.
MS. KNICKLE:
It's a different kettle of
fish.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely, it sure is.
Minister, lots of concern about Jordan and I've talked to people, certainly not
every day, but regularly, about cases upcoming and looking for an assurance that
Jordan won't be a problem into the future. I understand the cases you have now,
and as Ms. Knickle just explained, if I understood her correctly, cases since
Jordan haven't been an issue – of course, it's only been last year anyway.
Do have
any sense or can you give us any kind assurance that you believe you're going to
be able to deal with Jordan appropriately in the future, and that no other cases
may be in jeopardy?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess that's more of a
general question. I'm very confident that (a) we've shown that we're willing to
put the resources in that are necessary; (b) we've looked to the rest of the
country to see what best practices are; and (c) since Frances has been in this
position, she's immediately gone out and put in best practices in place in terms
of talking to police about working on increased – not increased, expedited
disclosure, talking about different ways to eliminate things like preliminary
inquiries, things that are not necessary.
So I'm
extremely confident in our department, whether it's our courts, our police, our
Crown prosecutors, you name it. I'm just as confident as any Attorney General in
this country that we are going to be able to make sure we do what's necessary.
That being said, if new challenges arise, we'll deal with them accordingly. The
second part is that, as Frances said, there may be changes coming, that's why
they're all getting applied and getting dealt with in court now, because there
are so many different wrinkles that may happen. It's going back to Supreme Court
now.
So
we'll adapt as quickly as possible. It's one of those things that since it came
down in July, it's been a top issue in the department. Because that's all you
hear about. We're lucky we haven't had a murder, as Frances said, but you see
any of these cases not going to court for a decision based on the facts, that's
troubling for anybody. Whether you're me or just a person watching TV, nobody
likes to see that. You'd rather see a matter decided on its facts, acquittal or
conviction. That's how I feel about it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Before I relinquish some of
my time to Ms. Rogers – I did give her a couple of minutes earlier, maybe she'll
give it back to me now – because it's on the same topic area. I know from
time to time there is utilization of outside out-of-province resources for some
investigations, SIRT, those kinds of things, also in prosecution. Is that
included under this in this area?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Where would that one fall? Would that fall under Civil?
OFFICIAL: SIRT
(inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, but you're talking about the outside prosecutor, right?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Is that Purchased Services for this one? We had a prosecutor from Nova Scotia. I
think that comes under our Civil that we were just on.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, does it? Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Because that would have been under Professional Services there, would it not?
OFFICIAL:
Prosecutions that are being handled by outside (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS: I
can't hear you.
MS. KNICKLE: We
have two prosecutions being handled by outside counsel because of conflicts.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And the budget line for those is under Civil, is that what I'm –
MS. KNICKLE:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS: –
hearing the minister saying?
MS. KNICKLE:
We've had to go, because we normally wouldn't do that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, I was looking for the budget line for them.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would be back under Civil division, 2.1.01, am I right?
OFFICIAL: Yes,
under Professional Services.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Under Professional Services of Civil.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. And I would imagine then the outside investigations, such as SIRT and
those, probably comes under enforcement under policing, does it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR: Good?
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
Yes, I'd like to go back to the issue of the lost
prosecutors in 2013. I know that we'd lost a significant amount. So I can't
remember if we had any new positions before
this year since the deep cuts in 2013. If so, I wonder, when we look at the
increasing number of cases and the demand on the system, whether three new
positions – although I'm sure the news was heralded and people were very happy
about that – can that really address the growing caseload.
MS. KNICKLE:
It's something we're really
sensitive – I would like to have as many prosecutors as possible.
MS. ROGERS:
Of course.
MS. KNICKLE:
Alberta just hired 50.
That's our entire service, but we have to be – when looking at what's going on,
for us to have, for example, 14 outstanding homicides, it's highly unusual. I
went back and looked at the statistics and talked to our friends at the police
forces and two or three prosecutions ongoing in any given year, maybe four,
maybe five.
So it's
hard to know right now whether that's a bottleneck and something that requires a
permanent increase in prosecutors or is it something that we can deal with.
Like, let's just hire a few for a couple of years and see how things work out
and maybe we'll be able to go back, but we're very sensitive to – is this just a
bottleneck or is it an actual trend that's going to require a permanent increase
in the complement.
MS. ROGERS:
Frances, can you provide us
– we also tried very hard to write down all your stats you gave us. Is it
possible to give us those stats?
MS. KNICKLE:
Yes, absolutely.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh, great.
I'm not
sure if this is the best place to ask this, but I will anyways. The program
which will be offering support to complainants of sexual violence, would that
come under here?
MS. KNICKLE:
No, it doesn't.
MS. ROGERS:
Where would that –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Adult Corrections.
MS. ROGERS:
Adult Corrections. Okay, so
we can talk about that there then.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Let's
move on to Legal Aid. Just in reference to the royal report, it's been three
years now. I wonder if we can have a bit of an update on some of the
recommendations, the status of some of the recommendations.
MS. HAWLEY-GEORGE:
I have recently taken
over responsibility within the department for the Legal Aid Commission. I'm
working with Nick Summers at the Commission and understand that yes, certainly
those recommendations have been put in place.
With
respect to any changes or so forth, I know Minister Bennett has recently
announced a review of ABCs. With respect to management organization, the royal
report recommendations will be taken into consideration when those are done.
MS. ROGERS:
So we will get a formal
update then? Is that what you're saying, Kim?
MS. HAWLEY-GEORGE:
Certainly, I can request that from Nick – absolutely.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
I have
another question in terms of the tariff, particularly in homicide trials when we
see the tariffs that were established – and, again, it's been three years. Is
there any appetite or plan to increase those tariffs, or that's it until we have
another review?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, there's no plan right
now. This is a topic I've actually planned – we've discussed it internally –
that I want to have a look at. We're spending a significant amount of money on
this.
In
cases – and I think we just talked about this, this morning actually, where we
have cases where legal aid looks at it and decides there's no merit to doing the
appeal. People will then apply for outside counsel to do the appeal that legal
aid looked at and said it wasn't worth it.
MS. ROGERS:
So how do you deal with
that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Court orders, we have no
control. So it's frustrating and it's difficult. It's hard work for these
people.
Yes,
there's no plan to look at that right now in terms of increasing it, but there
are plans to look at legal aid as a whole, the legal aid tariff, AG funding,
counsel, things like that. It's one of those things that you look at what you
have control over and what you don't have control of, and it becomes
frustrating.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
How is
legal aid in terms of vacancies and complements in Labrador, particularly?
MS. HAWLEY-GEORGE:
Legal aid has recently retained three solicitors on a contractual basis. With
respect to Labrador, I believe that is filled but I can certainly come back to
you with that information.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, because that's been
another difficult area as well.
MS. HAWLEY-GEORGE:
Exactly, yeah.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you very much.
So,
2.3.02, Commissions of Inquiry, I would imagine the revised amount is because of
the Dunphy inquiry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Basically, when we had
budgeted last year, I think it was $1 million for Humber Valley. Then,
obviously, when we got the report and decided to move in that different
direction there was some re-budgeting there. So that would explain a lot of the
differences there.
MS. ROGERS:
I can't remember how much –
so it was allocated a million dollars for the Dunphy inquiry?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, we originally said a
million for Humber Valley.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think when it's all said
and done Dunphy is going to cost about $2.6 million.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
They'll
start the search and rescue inquiry this year?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's our plan. We'd like
to see that happen.
MS. ROGERS:
How much is budgeted for
that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We're not – in terms of
reference cost model, because it may be a different model of inquiry. We use
different options. So we're not that far yet, but given that we've gone through
this once – doing the first one, never having done it before, it was brand new.
Having been through this now, I think that we'll be able to move in terms of
setting it up quicker.
MS. ROGERS:
Do you have a timeline in
mind for it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm saying by the end of
2017. Again, knowing there may be some aspects that are out of our control in
terms of the fed's side of it.
MS. ROGERS:
So that would be to start by
the end of 2017.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'd like to see that.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
So
2.3.03, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; we see a difference in Salaries of
$51,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There was a part-time person
there, Dr. Nash Denic who's no longer there – not a reduction on our end. Dr.
Denic decided to do another job at Eastern Health. So, yes, that's the reduction
there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Professional Services, we see a drop there of $100,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, there was some there
allotted for the study that we did with Dr. Matthew Bowes in Nova Scotia. So
that was the $100,000 there.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
I think
I'm good there.
Human
Rights, 2.3.04, Professional Services have dropped $10,000. What would have been
under the Professional Services?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Going through the zero-based
budgeting process, that was a rightsizing. That money traditionally is not
spent.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Purchased Services for the Human Rights –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Most of that is the lease.
There's an anticipation this year – after talking to Remzi – he talked about the
fact that a different lease arrangement could possibly be arranged. They had too
much space there basically, so we've talked and we're anticipating that there
will be a move there or sharing of space.
One of
the things – and I think it's probably across government and this was led by
Remzi. He came in and saw me and said: I think we can have different bodies and
maybe do shared services. Like a copier, because that's a big expense across
government, is just copying.
I think
it's a good idea. We're willing to work with them and other groups that have
similar needs, services and clientele and trying to work together to fix the
leases like that.
MS. ROGERS:
There was a concern, because
of previous cutbacks to the Human Rights Commission, of the inability to really
fulfill its mandate in terms of doing proactive work and a significant amount of
educational work which is so very important. Do you know where they sit with
that now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, I can say that it's
been a tremendous fight to keep it where it is. There have been no cuts. I'd
love to see more money put there but, to be quite honest, I'd like to see more
money in every part of the department, whether it's Criminal Division, Civil
Division, everywhere else. That's just the tough part.
Everybody is the same; I'm sure every department will come in and say the same
thing, so I'm happy that they stayed where they are. There has been a slight
increase in the number of files that they do. But I agree, after talking to
Remzi, if anything, I wish we could do, like you said, more education. I really
think we could do more, but maybe there's a different way to do it that's not as
cost heavy as the travel. Some of it is just the travel going out there.
There
are a number of changes coming there in terms of the board. Some people have
fulfilled their mandate so we have a new board. We're in the process of
filling that again. I'm looking forward to sitting down with them and saying:
What are your ideas and what can we do differently or better?
MS. ROGERS: Do
we have any idea how many cases they have and what the wait-list is like?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I thought I saw 81 or 91? Ninety-one new official complaints accepted as of
mid-March for 2016-'17.
MS. ROGERS:
Ninety-one new cases?
MR. A. PARSONS:
And the year previous it was 80.
MS. ROGERS: Of
those 91 cases, were any of them completed in the year?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Fifty-six closed.
MS. ROGERS:
Yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Twenty-seven were settled through settlement, basically. Six were executive
director dismissals, two were withdrawals, 20 were dismissed by the Commission,
one was resolved after a board inquiry and there are three that they're awaiting
decision on.
MS. ROGERS:
They've been busy.
MR. A. PARSONS:
They're really moving towards this mediation, really trying to work to settle
them that way rather than have the full hearing.
MS. ROGERS:
Great, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So I think they've really put an emphasis on that.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We're lucky to have Remzi in the board there, and very lucky to have Carey and
her staff there.
MS. ROGERS:
Great, thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis, did you have anything else in that section up to 2.4.01?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, if I could go back to
Legal Aid just for a moment. Minister, you were talking about appeals and Legal
Aid making a recommendation now not to appeal and people getting counselling.
You made a comment, you said: Court orders we have no control. What did you mean
by that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, sometimes courts can
order the AG to fund counsel for somebody and we have no say. There was a recent
case where the person who was later convicted was appointed amicus. This is a
person who went through X number of lawyers which frustrated everybody, so they
ended up appointing amicus, a friend of the court. So they had to bring in a
private lawyer to basically sit and watch the trial in case somebody got
dismissed again.
It's a
significant cost; we have no control over that. The courts can go ahead and do
that stuff and we all have to pay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, absolutely.
Under
the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2.3.03, you said Dr. Denic has moved
on to other responsibilities. Has he been replaced?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Hmm?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Dr. Denic. You said he's
gone on, he's left –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, he's moved on so we've
only got Dr. Avis there now.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
He's got people that are
helping him. Although I'm very interested to see what Dr. Bowes' report is going
to say because I anticipate that there will likely be – I'm hoping to have that
very soon – changes necessary.
I can't
say what they are, can't prejudge them, but one of the things I am looking at –
I mean this is not a big secret, Dr. Avis is getting towards the end of his
career, he's even said that himself. So we have to start setting succession
plans in place and there are not a lot of pathologists out there. This is
something that, actually, Dr. Bowes is going to work with us on because, again,
if Dr. Avis said tomorrow that he was going, we'd have to find someone.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, certainly not a lot of
pathologists with his experience.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not at all.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
We'll
move past Human Rights to Office of the Public Trustee; $167,000 in salary
change.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There was one position. I
think the Deputy Public Trustee position was eliminated. What happened there is
the Public Trustee retired last year. The person who was in that role stepped up
and is the acting Public Trustee. We've gotten rid of the Deputy Public Trustee
position; there was nobody actually in there.
There
is also an admin error there too; the same thing as described previously where
there was like a double accounting, taking away the money twice. I don't know
who to blame for that.
OFFICIAL:
Me.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So where's the error? What
is the error?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think what it is, they –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, I know, but what
numbers are –
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would have been under
Salaries, right?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's incorrect? The
$614,000 is incorrect?
OFFICIAL:
Yes. It should only have been (inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
What should the number be?
Do we know?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Instead of being $614,600,
what should it be?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible) only reduced by $80,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So basically you add $80,000
on top of that, right?
OFFICIAL:
Yeah. It should have only been a reduction of $80,000.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's $694,600?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Under Revenue – Provincial,
can you explain those numbers to me?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, and we've got to give
credit to the current Acting Public Trustee, John Goodland. Basically, what he's
done is he's gone out – and Robin might do a better job of explaining this than
me, but he looked at all these old files that were just there, sitting there,
hadn't had the work done on them because they're busy.
Basically, that's the extra revenue that they found and managed to haul in. We
only anticipate it to be one time; I don't think they're going to go out and
find this much extra money every time. But this comes down to them looking out
to those files, getting them done. So we're pretty lucky that they did that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What would the revenue be
created by?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Hmm?
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's the revenue created
by?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, it's through the
estates, right? You might have an estate file that's sitting there and hasn't
been touched in some time. When you go and dig into it you find the assets that
are out there, because every estate that's done, there's a fee paid into the
Public Trustee.
There
might have been cases that had been sitting there, hadn't been touched and
hadn't been disposed of. It's just a matter of going back and getting these old
files and just getting them done, just following up on them.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm not sure I understand
what creates the revenue.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, so basically if I pass
away and I have nobody to handle my estate, I don't have an executor.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Public Trustee can
handle that estate and they have to pay a fee to the Public Trustee –
MR. P. DAVIS:
The estate pays a fee to the
trustee?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
That's
a lot of fees, $3 million in additional –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah. And in some of the
cases, estates would have been sitting there undistributed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, yeah. Okay.
OFFICIAL:
The legislation requires (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
I never got a call.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, and I've heard –
and that falls under Robin, who's been down to meet with John – there are still
more out there. Some files have been around for a hundred years just sitting
there. Some of this money, you'll never get. It's too late.
MR. P. DAVIS:
2.4.01, Legislative Counsel.
That's pretty much all the same from last year.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No changes there that I'm
aware of, except Kim works twice as hard.
MR. P. DAVIS:
All right.
Just if
I may go back to – I apologize for jumping back there again.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's no problem.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Back on Legal Aid again, my
colleague, Ms. Rogers, raised an issue and I've heard talk of in the past and
heard public discussion on it as well on tariffs for Legal Aid, particularly in
homicides. Do you see that as an issue? Is that a major issue in the province
today? You have 14 homicides. I know many of them, just by nature, quite often
are represented by Legal Aid.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Maybe what I could do is
just talk about the money that we're spending outside.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Pritchard, while we're
waiting for your microphone to come on, maybe you can make commentary if an
accused has expressed – I've heard accused express difficulty in retaining the
legal representation that they would like to have or hope to have. Maybe you
could comment on if that's an issue as well.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible). There's an
unfair perception out there that Legal Aid is not good –
MR. P. DAVIS:
No doubt, yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Completely unfair,
completely ridiculous. In fact, Legal Aid has some of the best lawyers, but
that's just the perception that's out there. I think it's completely unfair. I
think it's ridiculous. They work their butts off. I can tell you when I
practised myself, you see them coming in with these boxes and boxes of files and
they do good work, but that's the problem.
The
other thing is that we do have private counsel out there that is going out of
their way to try to – I have to be careful how I say this. Like I say, people
are asking for these lawyers. I think that Legal Aid can do it. I think they are
able to do it.
Some of
the lawyers there, you take someone like Derek Hogan who's been at it a long
time, he's appeared at every level, major, major cases. He can handle any file
that comes in front of him as far as I'm concerned, as with the rest of them,
but that perception is there. People want to get private counsel. It goes in
front of the court, they make the assessment and like I say – am I right when I
say no control?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
If the courts order it, it
what it is.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It is frustrating, though,
because these lawyers are good lawyers.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There's no argument from me.
I know some Legal Aid lawyers who've spent their entire career – I spoke to one
recently, retired the last couple of years and his entire career was with Legal
Aid – a person who I've always had great respect for. I'm sure Mr. Fowler and
Ms. Knickle can speak to some of them as well because they've dealt with them
themselves in the court room.
As
you've mentioned, some of them are really good, but I've heard the discussion
and I understand sometimes the complications with it. From an accused person,
I'm sure there are some who it seems like, sounds like, that they're not getting
the representation they want.
Maybe
you can answer this question for me. Ms. Knickle mentioned that for complicated
homicide files, quite often there would be two prosecutors. Would the same kind
of policy happen for defence counsel?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. We pay for certain
files. We pay for multiple counsels within firms and stuff.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
You can have multiple
lawyers.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I think
that's all, Madam Chair, I have under those sections.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might jump in here,
Madam Chair, can we take five minutes for a quick recess?
CHAIR:
Yes, I was waiting to call
this section. We'll do it now and then we'll take a five-minute break.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Perfect.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
All right.
Shall
clauses 2.2.01 to 2.4.01 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, subheads 2.2.01 through 2.4.01 carried.
CHAIR:
Okay.
We'll
take a five-minute break, come back and start at 3.1.01.
Recess
CHAIR:
Okay, everybody back and ready for the final half hour of this exciting segment.
I'll
ask the Clerk to call the next subhead.
CLERK:
3.1.01 through 3.3.01 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 3.1.01 to 3.3.01
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Under
3.1.01, Supreme Court – which includes the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Trial
Division and Family Division – $135,000 reduction in Salaries, Minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
There
are actually no cuts there. That's just annualization to my understanding.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, sorry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There are no cuts there.
There would have been more spent last year. There was a retirement, I think.
OFFICIAL:
Four.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Four retirements, so that's
where the money was spent. There are no positions – not this year, no.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
If
you've had four retirements and replaced them, then you have lower salary
scales. Would that be accounted for that?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
Under Purchased Services, a
$404,000 difference.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That has to do with the
Family Division renovations. There's $450,000 for that and $195,000 has to do
with some work on renos, basically a facelift of the Supreme Court on Duckworth.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's happening at the
Family Division?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Family Division, there's
– you might talk about it a little better.
MS. ORGAN:
We're creating an extra courtroom. We now have five judges. We have four
full-time judges, well seven – five full-time judges and two supernumerary
judges. We have four courtrooms and a small boardroom.
We are
busting at the seams down there so we are renovating to create an extra
courtroom and a larger boardroom, an extra judge's office, or judge's chambers.
The registry will be enlarged as well and the funding was over three years.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is the first year, is
it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Last year was the planning. This year and next year are the build phases.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
The
Budget Speech referred to $450,000 to address increase in demands for the
Supreme Court Family Division and $195,000 for the Supreme Court Trial Division,
so that's those funds. That's this year's funds of those amounts, right?
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Under
Provincial Court a fairly significant salary change there, Minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was the change – I
think, the money was allocated last year for the tribunal and basically it's
just taken out of there. That hasn't been decided yet, but I think it's parked
elsewhere is what it is. That's the big difference there. There was no change, I
understand, to Salaries besides that.
OFFICIAL:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. There is one change in
the sense that we added the court manger up in Happy Valley – Goose Bay and the
contraventions, five positions?
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's the status on –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Five positions for
contraventions.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's the status on the
tribunal?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think we're waiting on a
decision, are we not?
MR. PRITCHARD:
Yes that's correct. We're
waiting on a decision. The matter was heard last December before Justice Faour
but we still don't have a decision.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
In
Employee Benefits there was a decrease, an unanticipated decrease.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would have been
tribunal retro amounts for judicial education, I think, or allowances.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Tribunal retro amounts is a
smaller amount, so it will still be outstanding after this year? Is that what
you're …?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, there's still a
liability for it. That money was budgeted last year but it's not – the same as
the salary increase, it wasn't used.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah. Does that mean it will
come up somewhere down the road like maybe in future years?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And on Transportation and
Communications there's a $62,000 reduction there.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There's a rightsizing there.
You'll see there was a big change in the money spent because basically there
were a lot of people travelling back and forth to Goose Bay from the province to
run the court. That's why we actually created the position up there. So we're
anticipating a significant savings in that cost in T and C.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What's included in the
Purchased Services? There's a $160,000 difference.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's the rent down at
Atlantic Place. That's one part. The bulk of it is rent, video-conferencing and
copying too.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And the revenue from federal
revenue, $572,000?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's the contraventions
money.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Other than the provisions on
Jordan, the boundaries or time boundaries, limitations put on by Jordan, what's
the current status on cases, generally speaking, before the courts versus 12
months or 24 months ago? I've heard Ms. Knickle talk about increased caseloads
and so on for prosecutors. Does the same type of issue exist in the courts as
far as not being able to get court time and those types of things?
MS. KNICKLE:
Do you mean in terms of
delay?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MS. KNICKLE:
It really depends. Shelley
might be able to speak to this, but my understanding is it really depends on
what court you're talking about whether or not you're running into delays that
bring you up against the Jordan time limits.
In some
courts it's fine; you could get a trial tomorrow if you actually needed to.
Other courts, there is a problem, it's a little bit longer; our own superior
court. It's very variable within Newfoundland in terms of the delay. The bulk of
criminal matters happen within Provincial Court. I mean, your homicides
obviously happen in the superior court, but the bulk of criminal matters are
happening in Provincial Court. Most of the Provincial Courts are operating
within the time limits reasonably, especially when you start comparing us to the
kinds of delays that are occurring across the country.
I don't
want to point fingers at other jurisdictions, but both Askov and Jordan – Askov
was the original unreasonable delay case – these are situations that come out of
Ontario and BC and they have massive systemic problems. I mean they're working
very hard to fix them, but we run a pretty good ship down here for the most
part. There are always going to be the smelly cases, but, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Back there, Minister.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Wilma?
MS. MACINNIS:
As Frances alluded to earlier at their office they certainly were eyeing this
issue even before the decision. I can say at Provincial Court we were engaging
in, we call it the case flow management, even before the Jordan decision came
out some years back just in terms of monitoring case flow through the various
courts. We continue to do that. And as we look at court dates, and as Frances
just alluded to as well, we're constantly checking in with our courts to see
what are the available dates like.
Actually, just prior to the summit, when we spent the day together, we canvassed
all of our courts, our 10 sites across the province. With the exception of two –
so that would have been the end of March – sites you could have gotten a one-day
trial date within March, even at the end of March, April, May. There were two
outliers: one was I think the fall and one was later this year, but it was still
well within certainly an 18-month time frame that Jordan calls for at Provincial
Court.
We're
constantly doing that work with our courts, looking at scheduling, working with
some of the sites, as Frances mentioned, that may be more problematic such as
Goose Bay. This week, actually, our provincial manager and another manager are
in Goose Bay doing some work there with the staff in terms of scheduling. So
we're certainly trying to keep our finger on the pulse of that, realizing that
it's certainly a priority.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The two exceptions would be
Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Harbour Grace, I take it?
MS. MACINNIS:
We would certainly say Goose Bay is definitely very challenging.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You said two, what was the
other one?
MS. MACINNIS:
Oh, sorry. The outliers at the time were actually Grand Falls, I think one was
Central and the other was Harbour – yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Thank
you, Madam Chair. That's all I have under those sections.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Just to
go back to the discussion about seeing the increase in the loads, in the number
of cases, when we were talking about the prosecutors, where is most of the
increase? What kinds of cases? Is there sort of a thumbnail kind of sketch or
picture of …?
MS. KNICKLE:
Sadly, they tend to be major
cases is what we've seen most an increase, not all. Your basic breathalyzer
takes twice as long now as it did 25 years ago. I'm a huge supporter of the
Charter but it has complicated litigation. Trial management has just become more
complicated.
A
breathalyzer that I would have done in an hour, 20 years ago, now generally can
take half a day to a day, so it's that. But a large part of the increase that
I've seen, what we define within our service as major cases, that's not
necessarily what everybody else defines but we call major cases.
MS. ROGERS:
So what would be …?
MS. KNICKLE:
Generally it's anything
where a federal sentence could be imposed, so generally indictable offences. It
doesn't necessarily have to be something in superior court. Your aggravated
assaults could be your range of sexual offences, anything that involves a public
figure.
At one
time we would have said something that attracts a lot of media attention, but it
just seems like everything that's in court attracts media attention now; a pet,
cruelty to animals, summary prosecution attracts media attention. That's really
stressful for a prosecutor so it can be a complex case. I would say we never
used to see gun violence and now we do.
MS. ROGERS:
Would a lot of that would
you think be drug related?
MS. KNICKLE:
I'm not the best person to
ask that but, yeah, often. There are probably better, other stakeholders that
question is probably better asked.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Anecdotally, and Mr. Brophy
could probably talk about this one, I visited our institutions and just talked
to guards and management. They say that the number of people inside who
obviously have gone through the court process has dramatically increased in
terms of drug addiction. I would say that, yes, if that's what they're seeing
inside, then that's what going through the courts obviously, definitely.
MS. ROGERS:
This might be a good time,
then, to ask specifically about the drug court. Where is that at?
MR. A. PARSONS:
As you see, we have more
money there which we're really happy about.
MS. ROGERS:
Yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm expecting the
feasibility study before the end of this month.
MS. ROGERS:
Before the end of this
month?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
I've
been a firm believer that this is not a case of if, this is a case of how.
There's been a lot of work done in the last year.
Myself,
I actually visited the Drug Treatment Court in Saskatchewan to see how they do
it out there; the people that are working on it – Patricia and Penny?
OFFICIAL:
Penny.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Penny Winter and Patricia
visited the ones in Kentville, all over the country, Yukon. So there's been a
lot of work done. We've had some good people come on board, John Duggan and
others who have put a lot of work into this. I'm really looking forward to
seeing the report. It's exciting because we need to do something different.
MS. ROGERS:
What was the mandate of the
study? Was it should we, could we …?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the mandate was to
do a feasibility study and then further to that if it's feasible, what may be
the best way. Are we talking about a bricks-and-mortar approach? Again, I can
only speak to what I've seen elsewhere.
It's a
case of taking pre-existing courts and then finding the way that you do it. Do
you need a dedicated resource, do you need a dedicated judge, et cetera. So
we've got a lot of people working on that. That's what the study is going to
tell us. Then we get that, then take the new money and then work on trying to
get it up and running.
MS. ROGERS:
There was new money that's
beyond the feasibility study, was there?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The feasibility was $30,000
and then we've got an extra $120,000.
MS. ROGERS:
One hundred and twenty
thousand dollars; what's that for?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess that's to help us
implement the next step. There's a formula that the feds use. There are other
provinces that are getting this money.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Every province is different.
I mean it's probably based on population or court numbers, just a number of
factors. That's the amount that we were eligible for.
MS. ROGERS:
There was $30,000 for the
study and then $120,000 to the next step.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thanks.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There's money for a position
and operating within that $120,000.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay. Thank you.
Court
Facilities, 3.3.01, $500,000.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's for the study which
I'm really excited about. Basically, just to speak about it generally, we've got
a Supreme Court that is over a century old. We've got a Family Division that, as
was said, is busting at the seams. We've got Provincial Court down at Atlantic
Place which is a significant cost too. Then you throw in all the ancillary
offices, whether it's Family Justice Services, whether it's Victim Services,
probation, sheriffs. Our Court of Appeal has infrastructure challenges in terms
of they've had a lot of repairs that had to be done.
MS. ROGERS:
And accessibility.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The argument we're making is
that we should do a study to talk about the possibility of creating almost like
a campus and what can we take to put it together. That's where we got the money
for a study which I was happy that they agreed to. We went after it for a long
time.
I think
that when it's all said and done you'll find efficiencies. I think you'll find
savings just in – if you look at the rent we're paying across the board, the
total for the next five years is about $10 million just in rent.
MS. ROGERS:
Over the next five years?
MR. A. PARSONS:
In infrastructure, yes, over
the next five years.
So I
think there's a way we can do it better, and I think it's a – again, this is why
the study is there, to see if it can be done. We know some of our buildings are
at the end of their lifespan. Although, it's interesting – this is where I get a
little bit geeky, more than usual. I talked to Chief Justice Green who talked
about the fact that – he showed me the Benchers' minutes from 1893 and talking
about how they had infrastructure issues then, but thank God the Great Fire
wiped out the old courthouse. So –
MS. ROGERS:
Let's not wish that on this
one.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So the Benchers and people
in this province, for well over a century, have complained about the
infrastructure. There it is, right.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But it is an old building.
MS. ROGERS:
So when will this work
begin?
MR. A. PARSONS:
As soon as possible. Again,
there's a TW component to this. It's not just us pushing it. So I don't have as
much control, we'll say, but sooner rather than later.
Is
there anything I'm missing on that?
OFFICIAL:
No.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We have to go out and get
external Professional Services to figure out the functional requirement, space
requirement, cost estimates.
MS. ROGERS:
Is there an intention to
specifically look at the old Grace Hospital site? Is that –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think we can look at that
and the possibility of a build, or is there the possibility of taking something
that is pre-existing and renovating.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm open to anything if it
means replacing what is out there. So hopefully it will come back with some cool
ideas.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
I have
nothing further on that section.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis, are you finished with that section?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm just trying to clarify –
there's $120,000 referenced for a feasibility study.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh, that's the courts?
MR. P. DAVIS:
The drug treatment court.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Where's that to?
OFFICIAL:
Admin and Policy.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Admin and Policy, yes. That
was back in 1.2.02.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, really?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You said there was $30,000
for the feasibility study?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What was the balance then –
the ninety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There was $30,000 for the feasibility, now we've got an extra $120,000.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
The $30,000 is used for the complete feasibility study, which we should have by
the end of the month. Now we've received an extra, or we're receiving an extra
$120,000.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So the feasibility study was
done, and what's the additional $120,000 for?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would be going towards,
I guess, implementing what comes out of the study. I haven't seen it yet. We
still don't have it done, but that's money that we're eligible for. We're
anticipating a position and then whatever operating costs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't think I have any
issue with it. I'd like to meet with the committee first. I don't see any reason
why it wouldn't be put out there because it's not – the usual caveats. If
there's something there we're not supposed to put out according to the
committee, but why not put it out to tell everybody exactly what is feasible.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall
clauses 3.1.01 to 3.3.01 inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 3.1.01 through 3.3.01 carried.
CLERK:
4.1.01 through 4.2.03
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall 4.1.01 to 4.2.03
inclusive carry?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess
we'll start with salaries again, Minister. I know there were some changes last
year in the RNC. Maybe you could just review the salaries for us.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There are two management
positions that were eliminated.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What positions were those?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Two inspectors –no. Sorry,
an inspector in Corner Brook, a superintendent in St. John's.
MR. P. DAVIS:
How would that decision have
been made, or who would have been responsible for that decision, Minister?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess ultimately I would
have been responsible, but this would have been done in consultation with the
RNC. Part of the process we went through looking at management across the board,
all departments, all agencies. So this would have been – we did do …
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, I never caught that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I'm just saying we
reached out to the RNC and would have had this discussion.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, thank you.
On
Transportation and Communications, almost $250,000 decrease.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That would have been a
reallocation that was achieved using zero-based budgeting. Because you look at
what was budgeted last year and then what was the revised. So we looked at that,
and there would have been reallocations that would have been budgeted there, but
they're now under Purchased Services. Am I right?
OFFICIALS:
Yes, (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Reallocations that were
under –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess they would have been
put there, but they actually ended up being a part of Purchased Services
instead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's why there was a
revised decrease?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that explains some
of the difference there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
So the
relocations now come under Purchased Services instead of – okay.
Are you
able to tell me the current complement of the RNC?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Hmm?
MR. P. DAVIS:
The current complement of
the RNC, can you tell me that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Four hundred and nine
officers.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's what, March 31?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I would imagine.
Sorry,
you were finished were you?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, I didn't know. I thought
there was another comment coming.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, no, sorry – 409.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Because you continued to
talk (inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
I was just looking at the
note there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So, Minister, maybe you
could talk to me about anticipated retirements. Maybe you can tell me how many
retirements you had in the last year and what the anticipated retirements are
versus new hires?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay. There are, in terms of
new hires, we have 16 recruits this year. I think we got – there were 17 last
year. Right now, I'm going to guess and say 92 or 94.
OFFICIAL:
Ninety-two.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Ninety-two people right now
are eligible to retire. Which I think is pretty consistent for the last six
years. Usually they're averaging 20 retirements per year. This year there were
14. So to speak about it generally, it is a succession plan concern. That's one
I'm concerned with, but obviously it's not a new fear. It's a fear that's been
there for some time.
As we
go through the process for the – now that Chief Janes has announced his plans
and has moved to that process, I'm sure that's one of the issues the new chief
coming in will put on their radar to look at. Like I say, we got a lot of people
that are eligible to go. We got new people coming in trying to fill out that –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
– but like any organization,
succession planning is necessary.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, and the 92 are not
getting any younger. Of course, as we talked about earlier with the RNC having
no middle, we're soon going to reach that period where the recruitments from the
'80s and early '90s ended –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– and then there's nothing
coming behind them. But we know that those 92, I would think – and you can
comment on it, but I would have thought the 92, as time goes on, there's a
higher likelihood they're going to retire.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But you can only go on the
statistics. Right now, they're averaging the 20. This year, it was 14, so it's
actually lower. This comes back down to succession planning. This is not
something that popped up in the last 15 months. This issue has been present for
– really, if you think about it, the last two chiefs, this issue has been known
or on the radar, it could have been forecast.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It is an issue, so what I'm
suggesting is that obviously it's something I'm aware of. I mean, ultimately I'm
responsible, but as the new chief comes in this might be part of their – Chief
Janes finished his strategic plan, and the same way before him, Chief Johnston
finished their three-year. Chief Johnston left and said as you're coming in,
Chief Janes, you do your three-year strategic.
Basically, that's what Chief Janes said to me, look, there's someone new going
to come in; I'll let them come up with their new strategic plan. This may be one
of the issues that needs to go into it because you don't want a scenario like
you described where you could, theoretically, have a large number of people go
and what's there to fill it in.
That's
a challenge that any organization faces. That being said, when you're dealing
with public safety, it's probably a little more pronounced than any normal
company we'll say.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
I
remember there was a plan to hire or to increase the complement by 20. I think
10 of those were completed and then 10 were scratched from last year's budget.
Plus there were four vacant positions. So that's actually 16 of the 20 weren't
come to fruition. So there was, of the 20, actually 4 new positions, if I have
my math right.
So I'm
glad you're on top of that because I know it's a concern for many at RNC and
also it could become a significant problem for the general public if, all of a
sudden, you have 90 people retire and the 20 that were planned to hire hasn't
happened. So –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Right now, there are no
vacancies. From what I'm gathering, what I'm being told, there's possibly the
consideration down the road that we won't need to put as many through. We don't
want to oversaturate it. We don't want to have too many. I think I might have
that correct, Theresa. Maybe Theresa could speak to it.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
With regard to our current –
I guess the complement that's eligible to retire right now, if we continued with
our average of 20 retirements per year, in five years' time, we'd be balancing I
guess. So the requirement should be lessened in our police studies program. But
that's not necessarily going to continue in the long term.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right; especially, as I
said, 92 of them are getting older.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
Correct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
They've got 25-plus years
now. Many of them have 30-plus years.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
And there are 41 in the
bubble that you mentioned earlier.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What do you mean 41?
MS. HEFFERNAN:
Forty-one members.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
So 276 have 12 years or less
and then we've got 41 between 13 and 24 years.
MR. P. DAVIS:
How many was that, sorry;
226, 12 years and less –
MS. HEFFERNAN:
There are 276 for 12 years
or under.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, 276.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
Forty-one between the years
of 13 and 24.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Wow.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
And then the 92 is over and
above the 25 years, which is the retirement eligibility.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
So far,
we know now of five managers leaving.
MS. HEFFERNAN:
Four confirmed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So that's two gone, two
terminated, and three more put in their notice, or at least that I know of.
The
RCMP, Minister, there's a reduction there of $2.5 million. I know their services
are purchased and that's generally their professional services, but the $2.5
million, where are they achieving those reductions?
MR. A. PARSONS:
There is the decrease in the
funding there. So we work with the RCMP on that. There will actually be, as the
term goes, no boots on the street, no detachments closing. Basically, there is
going to be some civilization. When you look at their computer systems, there is
basically a greening movement that will be slowed down where we won't be able to
do as quickly as we want. There will also be not as many transfers completed and
there will be some reduction in police vehicles. So that's how that decrease
will be handled.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So civilization of some
officers to civilian positions?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, but that won't affect
street officers, administrative, et cetera.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, they're administrative.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Any other changes – I know
you said there's no changes in detachments and no changes in –
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is there any areas that have
significant pressures right now or resource issues in the province with the
RCMP?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I hear from communities. I
haven't visited one community yet that hasn't said that they don't want more
officers. Every community wants more. I mean, that's just natural.
So last
year for instance, myself and the new commissioner, Peter Clark, went out to
Grand Falls-Windsor and they had the same concern. There was the presence of
some street gangs or bikers. What they actually did was get into changing the
models so they actually saved money but increased the coverage because they
wanted this 24/7 coverage. So you're seeing a lot of that.
I think
they're working on the same thing for Gander and working on the same thing for
Clarenville. They say the same thing I think that the RNC are saying that we're
lucky that they've got a close relationship and we have the joint task force
there. Drugs, that's scary and you seeing the increased presence – the RCMP have
really been sounding the bell on Fentanyl because, again, they're dealing with
it nationally. That's extremely scary when you're hearing that conversation.
Other
than that, that's it. I've been in pretty close contact with them and I've had
an opportunity to do a number of visits with the new commissioner since he's
been here, getting to speak to officers, but that's the usual stuff you're
seeing. A lot of the stuff is like the iceberg, there's what we see and then
there's what they see out there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
You would have been privy to
that. There's what you know and then there's what everybody else knows.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Ms.
Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you.
Just to
go back to the RCMP, I know that there were some significant challenges in the
Carbonear-Harbour Grace detachment with sick leave, stress leave and feeling
that there wasn't enough, that they were short on resources.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's not a concern that's
been brought to my level by the assistant commissioner. So if they're facing it,
they're dealing with it internally. It's not something that they've brought to
me. They're finding a way to manage.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
And
back to the RNC, there was some discussion about civilian oversight with the
RNC.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Can you tell us a little bit
about where that's at?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Basically, when it comes to
the SIRT teams, as it's called, there will be legislation brought to this House
this year. It will be the fall session, so we'll have that legislation here for
debate. It has since been brought to my attention about having a civilian
oversight board. My attentions hadn't really been there before. We've been
really encompassed with putting our attentions on the SIRT legislation, the
team, the model, and dealing the other provinces. But the more I think about it
and look elsewhere, we're starting to put some attention on that. But that one
is sort of a little bit behind.
MS. ROGERS:
Because those are separate
issues, right?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. So really when you talk
about policy, one of the things I've dealt with in here is that we have a lot of
things we're working on, just the stuff we've talked about tonight, drug
treatment courts, family violence courts, the sexual assault pilot and this
stuff, but having the resources to do all the policy work that we want to is
challenging. I mean, I really do put a lot on the people we have here, and we're
lucky to have the good people we have, but as it relates to the oversight board,
there has not been as much attention on that because it's only something that
was recently sort of brought to my attention. The SIRT team, there's been a lot
of work done and we'll have that in place.
We're
actually having a conference here at the end of May where all the groups from
across the country are coming here. So I'm looking forward to meeting with all
them.
MS. ROGERS:
So for the civilian
oversight, the overall civilian oversight of the RNC, do you have any kind of
timeline as to when you might look at that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I don't want to put a
timeline on. I've put my attention to the SIRT team because of what we've dealt
with in terms of public confidence, and the forces themselves would prefer to
have that. So that's where my attention is.
As I
can get a little more work done on the civilian oversight board, that concept,
I'll be a little more comfortable talking about what we should do and how long
it should take, what it's going to take, but I'm not in a place where I'm
comfortable putting a timeline on it because I can't.
MS. ROGERS:
I would think that would
also be an element in terms of public confidence as well in our police service.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It is, but if we just want
to talk about people that contact me, I can tell you that if 10 people contact
me about police, 9.5 of those would be about a SIRT team and 0.5 would be about
a civilian oversight board. In terms of public attention, that's a fair ratio.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
Police
Protection, Public Complaints Commission, I don't have anything specific to ask
there.
I can't
remember now, are we voting on those or are we going to go on through to Adult
Corrections?
CHAIR:
I've called up to 4.2.03.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, all right. Thank you.
Adult
Corrections; we see significant change in Salaries here, $472,000. Were there
positions cut?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We had six positions that
were eliminated.
MS. ROGERS:
And what would they be?
MR. A. PARSONS:
They would be four
lieutenants, a standards and compliance officer, and one captain.
MS. ROGERS:
They are from a number of
correctional institutes?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. I think there was one
in Stephenville; one from each institution.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Two were from actually here
in the department.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Superintendent Brophy, I simply want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for
probably one of the more difficult positions in the province right now. The work
you have to do is very well appreciated by many. I thank you for working under
such very difficult circumstances, and it is such important, crucial work.
I also
know that having visited a number of the correctional facilities with the
All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, and also previous to that,
we know that probably the majority of folks who are incarcerated are
incarcerated because they have something to do with crimes that are related to
drugs. We know there is one addictions counsellor at HMP for 150-170-odd
inmates.
OFFICIAL:
One hundred and seventy-five.
MS. ROGERS:
A hundred and seventy-five.
It's
clear that is insufficient; it's absolutely clear. I would use the words it is
neglectful in terms of our responsibility as a society to deal with people who
are in conflict with the law and who are incarcerated. Is there any money
allocated to increase that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, I think with the report that came out, I think actually Health will be
taking over the provision of those services. So that's going to be a question
for John Haggie in the future.
I guess
what I'd say overall is I agree with you, that we have a – and I can't give you
a percentage that we have too many people inside who are there for drug
addiction, substance abuse, mental health issues. That's where my focus has been
on what can we do differently, rather than continue to fill a prison.
I think
there should be less people there. There are people inside that it's not the
best place – and it's not a public safety thing. I'm not talking about taking
people outside that shouldn't be there. There's a risk assessment done on
everybody, but it's proven, it's shown that if we have – and that's why I'm
talking about doing bail supervision work. We can do things differently.
Yes,
when you have the increase that we've seen in our numbers, and you have that –
there's always more I'd like to be able to do when it comes to programming and
everything else health wise down in our institutions. John will have that
challenge now. I guess it will face him, and I'm sure he'll be up to it.
You
think about it, if have one person treating this many people and that number of
people goes up, that's a burden on this person. We have done more when it comes
to – I know Dr. Gill is down there and Dr. Craig. Dr. Gill has been doing a lot
more work as well.
MS. ROGERS:
I believe it's a positive
step in terms of having the health and the addictions and the psychiatric
services handled by the Department of Health but I also believe there is some
responsibility as well from Justice to ensure that those services, whether
they're delivered by Health or whether they're not delivered by Health, that
there is a commitment to adequate services in terms of our responsibility to
those who are incarcerated, if in fact rehabilitation is on the table at all.
So I
would hope it's not just a – we need to have a commitment, whether it be from
Health or a push from Justice, to ensure the neglect we have seen over the years
in terms of rehabilitative services within our correctional facilities have to
be addressed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, it might be easier
for some of those services to be provided on the outside rather than just
increasing the services on the inside.
MS. ROGERS:
Sure, but we have people on
the inside.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
We have people on the inside
for up to two years.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
We have people on the inside
waiting for services, begging for services.
The
other services that seem to be problematic right now is the situation of
schooling inside HMP. I'm wondering, I believe the position of the teacher
hasn't been filled in a while and I'm wondering is that a budgetary situation?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll let – Mr. Brophy can
take that one.
MR. BROPHY:
That position became vacant
in December when the person who occupied it left. We are in the process of a
recruitment. It's a challenge to recruit one individual for this position
because they have to be qualified in all the high school credits under the ABE
program. So right now we have five resumes that we submit to AES who will
sanction or tell us who's qualified for that position, and we are waiting on
word from them.
MS. ROGERS:
Owen, is it just one teacher
for the whole population?
MR. BROPHY:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Do you know how many people
– how does that relate to in terms of actual school time, education time for
inmates?
MR. BROPHY:
School runs five days a
week. The teacher at any given time will probably have seven or eight inmates in
the class, but during the week the teacher will look after different populations
within the prison. We probably have six different populations within the prison.
MS. ROGERS:
Is there a wait-list for
school time?
MR. BROPHY:
Typically not.
MS. ROGERS:
One teacher for – so the
seven people, are they there every day, five days a week or …?
MR. BROPHY:
Not necessarily the same seven. He might see seven one day, probably give them
homework to go back to the unit and do and then the next day there might be a
different group up.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
So, in
fact, there's not an extensive amount of time that folks have with the teacher
during the week. They may see the teacher once a week?
MR. BROPHY:
Depending on the inmate, but typically we don't receive any complaints about the
time the students spend in school. It seems as if the one teacher is sufficient.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I could just jump in
there.
I can
say actually I visited the pen, a couple of weeks ago I think. I actually sat
down with the inmate committee; the first time it's been done. So basically it
was a chance for them to sit down with me and give it to me straight up what are
some of the issues that they're facing.
School
was not an issue that was brought up by any of the inmates there. They gave me
lots of other stuff that they had issues with, but that was not one of them.
MS. ROGERS:
What were some of the issues
that they raised?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Some of them were just
talking about different procedures and policies. Talking about in terms of being
able to use their canteen and talking about – I have a list made there
somewhere.
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, they wanted to talk
about the water cooler in the gym wasn't there anymore. Sometimes there are very
good reasons for these things, so a lot of it was explaining what was the
reason, why this was caused here, is there a safety reason. But it was a chance
to work with them, too, and say is there a resolution that we can put in place.
Dan
McGettigan from Turnings came down with me. He's got a great rapport with the
population. I'm working a lot with him. They seem to really trust him, to be
able to talk to him.
I don't
know what it is; I don't know what the male intake was recently. I'm responding
to all the letters I'm getting from down there and so the number of letters I'm
getting has increased exponentially.
Actually, I had someone write me today and said that they demand I write back in
pencil instead of typing it, so I don't know.
MS. ROGERS:
Why is that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
They want to make sure that
I wrote it.
MS. ROGERS:
Oh.
CHAIR:
I'm just looking at the
clock, Ms. Rogers. It's been out for some time.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh, that's my fault. Sorry.
CHAIR:
I just want to go back and
make sure that we're fair here.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh, sorry about that.
CHAIR:
We'll turn it back to Mr.
Davis. Is that okay?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I had
my head down and every now and then I heard you say Andrew, I was wondering why
you were saying it but you were trying to get your microphone on. I was saying:
Who is he talking to?
Minister, could you just give me the explanation again on salaries under Adult
Corrections, $472,000?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Six positions, four
lieutenants, captain, standards and compliance officer –
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh sorry, and there was one,
the director of community corrections.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
I know
the numbers change every day but, typically, what's the number of adult male
inmates at HMP?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Male inmates, there are 175.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Female inmates at HMP?
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Ten.
What
about at other institutions for adults for male and female?
MR. BROPHY:
In total?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. BROPHY:
Today we are at 420 in
custody; that includes 22 in RCMP lockups.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I know I'm going to jump
over from adult to youth – how many youth in Whitbourne typically now?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Three in remand and three in
secure.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, Superintendent
Brophy, what is the complement of women in Clarenville?
MR. BROPHY:
Twenty-four today and three
at the St. John's City lockup.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Minister, I was wondering if
you had given any consideration to reopening some of the closed units in
Whitbourne and utilizing it as a female facility, moving youth to Clarenville
and then you'd free up space at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. You could have all
the female inmates at Whitbourne.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Owen might correct me if I'm
wrong here; we actually did consider that last year and there was a significant
cost component and there was sort of the fear of having youth incarcerated with
adults. But there was a significant cost consideration on the infrastructure
side to reopen the units. So that's why we did what we did.
That
being said, going forward, given the fact that we have six people out in
Whitbourne, that's something – I'm willing to consider anything. The other thing
too is that we are in the process of doing more study on Her Majesty's. There is
the possibility of looking at what do we do there. We do have women at Her
Majesty's now, is there something that will be considered in the plan going
forward?
But
that's the reason it didn't happen last year. There was a huge cost just for the
infrastructure side to reopen one of the units. It was actually much more
expensive than doing what we did.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And where would you have
youth mixed with adults?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Pardon?
MR. P. DAVIS:
You said one of the concerns
was youth –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well you said if you
reopened Whitbourne and brought women –
MR. P. DAVIS:
To Whitbourne.
MR. A. PARSONS:
To Whitbourne.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But you moved the youth to
Clarenville, because I know Clarenville has had some renovations in recent
years.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll put it to you this way;
I'm willing to consider absolutely everything. I don't have the numbers here
right in front of me, but I'm willing to consider anything. It's unfortunate
actually, I was supposed to be out in Whitbourne last Tuesday but the weather
prevented me from taking the drive out, but I'm hoping to get out there soon.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, well maybe I'll check
back with you again on that consideration –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, by all means.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Because I think it would
free up space in Her Majesty's Penitentiary where the 10 female inmates are. It
would move youth to Clarenville. I've been in Whitbourne facility many, many
times over the years and I know it has much more potential for much more
capacity than 37, but you have to reopen some of the units. I'm aware of that
too.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We have had those
discussions on whether there could be a switch done, but I don't have the
numbers to show if it's feasible or not feasible. But that's actually a
discussion that – it's funny, as you're going through these Estimates and you're
talking, you're looking at the costs, we actually had this conversation as we
prepared last night. I was like is there something we could do that's completely
different, when you look at the numbers we have out in Whitbourne and you look
at the numbers we have in Clarenville, and then the numbers that we're
transporting in here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Especially with the numbers
previously discussed with the courts, the prosecutions office and the demands on
them. They're not going down any time soon, the numbers.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think it's safe to
conclude that's going to have that upward impact on inmate numbers as well, I
would think.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
The
other thing, Minister Gambin-Walsh's department is responsible for the open
custody. I think they're actually having some conversations there on that side
of it, so we deal with the closed, but that's the conversation that our
department –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right. They're very small
numbers, youth numbers now compared – one time Whitbourne was full with 80, 90,
or 100 youth but now when you have six.
MR. A. PARSONS:
When you look at we're
averaging 7½ – 7.5 is the number averaged over the year. That's not a very big
number.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No.
My
recollection of it is it would be a facility that could provide great
opportunities for female inmates, for women, who are incarcerated.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
With the classrooms and
facilities and all those kinds of things that are there, it would seem that
(inaudible) –
MR. A. PARSONS:
We may be on the same wave
length there because, like I say, we've had this discussion. As we go through
and prepare for this, we've sat down and said is there something we can do
different here, and that was one of the things that came up, but not enough work
actually done yet to show whether it could work or not. But it is worth looking
at.
MR. P. DAVIS:
All right.
And
very quickly, because I want to go back to the RNC for a minute, under Youth
Secure Custody is a $172,000 change in Salaries, 4.2.02.
MR. A. PARSONS:
One management position was
eliminated, but that's the only position that I'm aware of. And there's some
kind of attrition management. There's money from a couple of budgets ago.
MR. P. DAVIS:
They were hanging onto it;
is that what they were doing?
MS. ENGLISH:
Built into our budget from a couple of years ago were attrition targets for
departments to achieve. As part of that, Youth Secure Custody had a budget
adjustment into this year to remove $59,000 out of their budget in anticipation
of retirements and salary savings through attrition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Minister, what I'd like to do, if I may, I got an area that I wanted to talk to
very quickly about. It's 8:43 so we got about 17 minutes left on the schedule
time. And if we can clue this discussion up, maybe in three or four minutes, and
if I may, Madam Chair, maybe we could just take a five-minute break just for me
to review my notes and so on to see if there's anything else I want to clear up.
MR. A. PARSONS:
While you are reviewing I
could go –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, you could.
So on
the RNC – we know that there are pending changes in federal legislation around
marijuana, usage and so on. It comes to mind that a couple of things – I don't
know about the legislation. I know the province will hold responsibility on
sales, administration, rules and so on. So a couple of areas that I'd like to
hear what you think about; one, on the RNC enforcement for impaired driving by
drug and if there's a plan to clarify what the rules will be, the laws will be,
and make sure people are aware of it.
Secondly, are there any advancements in testing for the presence of marijuana by
individuals that would be driving a motor vehicle?
And I'd
be interested in any other comments on preparation for you, as a province, in
preparing for those responsibilities.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I can speak to some of
this and I don't know if Robin might be able to speak a bit more.
So the
first thing is that this is obviously a huge endeavour, one that – there's a
justice component, there's a finance component and there's a health component.
We all know that there are various groups – and obviously it's federally driven,
too. We're hearing the rollout date of July 1, 2018. Although I heard a story
there the other day that they might want to change that because that could be an
interesting Canada Day; that's just what I hear in the news.
Then we
know that apparently the legislation is going to be tabled this week some time.
So we're waiting in many cases to see where the feds want to go with this. Part
of the report that was done by – was it Anne McLellan did it? She was the head
of the – one of the things is that with the money that comes in, we have to put
a lot of money back into education and into things, like you say, advancing
studies on testing.
After
talking – I never had a long enough conversation with him; I'm hoping to meet
with him again. The end of this month Bill Blair was down. He is an MP now but,
as you know, the former chief of Toronto Police and he's been obviously very
involved in this. So he's volunteered to come back down and speak to us. Given
his background, he's a legislator now but he's got that significant police
career. I'd like for him to be able to come down and do a lot of the talking
because he can talk about both sides of it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
When it comes to the
distribution side, retail, regulation, I can't definitively speak to anything
because it would be a Cabinet decision. I mean, obviously Cathy Bennett or Perry
Trimper and John Haggie are all going to have a say in this as well. The big
thing on our end obviously – and there's a lot of discussions, too. We've had
them, but is there any decision. I just read another article today on age. It
shouldn't be less than 18? Should it be 21? Depending on who you talk to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Or 25.
MR. A. PARSONS:
There it is; it could be 22.
I read a great editorial today talking about maybe it should be 22, which is the
same age as the driving regulations that we recently brought in. So there's
going to be a lot of viewpoints on that, but that's where we have to look at
evidence, look at other jurisdictions, look at studies, look at what the experts
are saying and make what we think is the best decision.
So
there's still a lot of work to do. I'm confident that we're going to be able to
do it. I don't know if Robin can add anything to it.
MR. FOWLER:
The only thing I'd have to
add to your question that you asked to the minister was on if there is any
improvement in testing when it comes to impaired driving. There isn't anything
right now that the feds or anybody is ready to roll out. I know that there is
ongoing work on developing something to improve on the testing but, at present,
to what we know of under the Criminal
Code, we are relying on 253(a) which is the impaired driving.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The impaired.
MR. FOWLER:
There is the ongoing hope,
though, that they are working. Right now, the provinces aren't aware of
anything, any update on the testing.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Great project for some
entrepreneur somewhere.
Minister, not under your purview, but of course another significant one would be
occupational, health and safety requirements and how do you enforce that. That
is going to be significant.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) deal with all
across, but obviously in this department with these divisions it's huge. We've
seen it when it comes to sheriff's officers up in Labrador there have been a lot
of changes there. They really are out of your control. You have to deal with it
as it comes to you.
Actually, it's one of the issues we've dealt with since my first week on the job
is just talking about how that's evolving, it's getting more stringent and how
if we don't take necessary steps – you even look at – I don't have it now – but
fish and wildlife we dealt with that tragedy a few years ago where I was
responsible for making sure we did the changes when it came to equipment,
practice, doing the work out there. So it's something that's constantly top of
mind, but how do you put a cost on it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
There
was – okay, I'll tell you what, I'll stop and I'll just review a couple of
things that I know I missed.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And I don't know if you want
to carry on with Ms. Rogers, or if you're going to take a break for a few
minutes.
CHAIR:
Ms. Rogers.
MS. ROGERS:
4.2.03, $100,000 – is this
for a study for HMP?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's for the extension of a
study. There was a lot of work done previously on a plan for HMP, which I've
actually seen. This is basically I think to validate the – what's the word they
used here?
OFFICIAL:
Scope of the work.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Validate the scope of the
work that was developed three years ago, and also to do the functional
requirements, space requirements, cost estimate and also to do a value-for-money
analysis. So there's a lot of work done, but it is three years, so we need to
look at it and say is it still what we need.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, thank you.
And I
have two questions. What's happening with government's support program for
complainants of sexual violence?
MR. A. PARSONS:
We've got some money; it's
under Adult Corrections, is it? So we've managed to get $250,000 that we will be
putting forward into it. This is something that's near and dear to me, and I'm
making an announcement very soon. That's the best way for me to put it.
Obviously there's a federal component to this as well, so I've been working with
my colleague, the federal Minister of Justice on this. But at the risk of
sounding – I plan on an announcement on this in the very, very, very near
future.
MS. ROGERS:
How will it be delivered?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's part of the
announcement, what we're doing there. But that's something, we've actually went
out and got – a lot of times you can come up with the policy, but do you
have the money to do it? We have the money now to start the pilot. My plan is on
announcing what we want to do with this, how we're going to do it. And we've
partnered with Nicole Kieley and the
sexual assault – I always getting the acronym wrong.
MS. ROGERS:
I know it's a long one.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Nicole Kieley and Kevin
O'Shea with PLIAN. They've been working with us. We've got a group within that's
been working together on this.
MS. ROGERS:
The community will be
involved?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh yes. This is another one
where it's a great idea in theory. I firmly believe in that, but it's also one
that if we're not careful, could really go sideways and not benefit anybody. So
as much as I have a habit of wanting everything done right now, I'm not going to
rush it, but I am making an announcement on it very soon. I really don't want to
screw it up because I think if we do it right, it's going to help a lot of
people.
MS. ROGERS:
Also is there any money
allocated or reserved for looking at the bail supervision program study?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah – well, the study that
we announced last week, done by the two grad students, is actually at no cost to
us. So they are going to do basically a feasibility study. Once that comes back,
then we'll look into what are the funding requirements. So that's the beauty of
this one; we've partnered with Academia to get the work done and there's no cost
to getting that actual work done.
Now,
there will be a cost – once they come back and say this is what your needs are,
this is what the program could look like, this is who you should partner with
and they'll come with a cost, then we have to figure out what is the cost, how
are we going to fund it. But I think it's a no-brainer. I think it's really
necessary and it could have a lot of positive benefits. I think it could save
money and I think it's better for certain people.
MS. ROGERS:
So who's giving the
oversight then to the study if government is not paying for it and this is their
required work for their academic pursuits –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, actually, it's not
associated with – this is where I look to, because my EA has been very involved
in this as well. It's not associated with MUN, is it?
OFFICIAL:
No.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's not actually associated
with MUN; this is just part of what they're doing. We have oversight but it's
one of those fine lines between we want it to be independent in the sense that I
don't want to tell them what I want to hear –
MS. ROGERS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
– but at the same time
they're working with us. What we're giving them is access to information, access
to facilities, access to people. Anything that they need from us, we'll provide
in terms of that. So they're actually going to go down and speak to the prison
population, so they'll be working pretty close with Owen and his team and
anybody else.
MS. ROGERS:
So has your department then
given them a specific mandate or instruction in terms of really what you want
looked at, what you want studied –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm going to toss this out
to my EA who has been really heavily involved in this and has a good background.
There's no reason –
MR. SAMMS:
So these two people, Pegah Memarpour and Hayley Crichton, came forward by email,
I believe, originally to the minister a year ago. They were involved with the
system in Ontario. Basically, that was the starting point. This is what is
happening in Ontario. It has better outcomes for inmates in the institution but,
at the same time, could potentially reduce costs.
So, as
far as oversight goes, it's the same thing as the drug treatment court, a
feasibility study. They're going to do the work and then we'll look at it
internally as a department. Does that fairly answer your question?
MS. ROGERS:
Yes. Thank you.
I'm
done in terms of my questions.
CHAIR:
Okay.
I'll
turn it back to Mr. Davis to wrap things up.
MR. P. DAVIS:
We might be out of here by 9
o'clock.
Just a
couple of things, Minister, from the Budget Speech, and I probably missed them
already but I'd just like to get your comments on them. One was in the Budget
Speech, $285,000 to establish Family Information Liaison Units.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
As far as the national
inquiry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's under Adult
Corrections, I believe. Which section, T and C?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Also under Purchased
Services it's two parts. So there's $74,000 under T and C, and $64,000 under
Purchased Services.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And there are two positions
with that. In terms of what's actually being done there, what (inaudible)?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, the work for that is
just starting. We know the money is there but the actual work is just getting
going.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's about half of it.
There was $285,000 altogether.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The two positions would be
under Salaries. Is that right, under victim services, because under Adult
Corrections, that also encompasses victim services and probation as well?
Actually, here we go: $144,600 would be under Salaries; $74,000 under T and C;
$2,400 under Supplies; $64,000 under Purchased Services. That's a complete
federal offset, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
There's
$195,000 for renovations to the Supreme Court. That's a pretty specific number.
It's not $190,000 or $200,000; it's $195,000. That's under Capital, I would
assume.
OFFICIAL:
No.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's not under Capital?
OFFICIAL:
No, it's in the Supreme Court (inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's in the Supreme Court,
under purchased is it?
OFFICIAL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. So it the Supreme Court
under Purchased Services, $195,000, and there's money in the out years. Is that
what it is? Okay.
I think
some of it is so basic that, there was some work that had to be done on the
steps down there. Am I right? I remember the chief judge letting me know about
it.
MS. ORGAN:
(Inaudible) hired who did a
study of the courthouse, and there was four phases they looked at. So the first
phase would be the main floor, the public entrance area, which is the $195,000
and the staircase and some electrical upgrades. Then phase two would be the
following year, phase three each year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Minister, you had $100,000 for planning for HMP –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– and $500,000 for planning for courts. How did you arrive at those very
different numbers?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It would have been done in
conjunction with Transportation and Works. The fact is, as you know, there's a
significant amount of work already done on HMP. There was study done, I can't
remember the name of the group, but by –
MR. P. DAVIS:
It was a consultant was it?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, like there's a lot of
work already done there. So basically the reason the amount is lower for that
than say the court is that there has been no work done for the court. There's
been a significant amount done for HMP. This is just a matter of taking it and
validating what they used to make their assumptions on and then doing the new
analysis on it. So that was the breakdown there.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There was $780,000 for
Transition House. Does that come under your department?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No. I know it mistakenly
said that in one of the documents but that's under Women's Policy, I believe. I
know under one of the budget documents it said under Justice, but that's not
with us.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is that the only amount then
that was –
MR. A. PARSONS:
As far as I know, isn't it?
MR. P. DAVIS:
There are a few errors this
year.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Like I say, there's somebody
else out there. I'll take all the blame for that. Actually, I'm going to take
all the credit for all that money even though it's not our department.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So $280,000, sexual assault
response pilot program. Does that come under this as well?
MR. A. PARSONS:
$250,000, yes, that's us.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Where is that?
OFFICIAL:
It's under Adult
Corrections.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Adult Corrections.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Adult Corrections, you just
referenced that one.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And the liaison. Okay, I
think I covered what I – some of the reminding ones.
Oh, the
Contraventions Act, yes. There's
$900,000. Is it $900,000, or $900,000 plus $900,000?
MS. JACOBS:
No, $900,000 for this year.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's federal money.
MS. JACOBS:
Federal and we spread it under the Sheriff's and Fines and Provincial Court.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, I thought some were
there as revenue, or were there under provincial, but they're all federal are
they? I thought some were there –
MS. ENGLISH:
It's federal revenue (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Say that again, sorry?
MS. ENGLISH:
I'm sorry. The federal revenue, the budget is there in three separate
activities, Fines Admin, Sheriff's Office and Provincial Court, and then the
associated revenue will show as federal in each of those.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. So the associated
revenue there would be that offset.
MS. ENGLISH:
And it all adds to it, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Just
two more things, Minister; one is a question and one is a comment. Last year you
very kindly provided us with a copy of your binder and your notes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. That's not an issue. I
think John has them.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, good.
Thanks,
I appreciate that, because we did reference it from time to time. Throughout the
year actually, we reference it from time to time, because when you're making
decisions or moves we hear announcements and so on. We're always looking around
to see if that's part of the plan, or where was it and checking our notes, what
did he say about that back on April 10.
The
other thing is I just want to take a moment to thank you and all your staff.
Justice is an area – it came up during tonight, actually, a couple of times.
Justice is an area where it's not uncommon to get – you feel and believe, I know
as the minister, that there's really good work being done. You got talented
people in all branches of your department, all branches of government, but we're
here talking about your department, and we know they're very talented,
hardworking, dedicated people.
I've
often said as a minister, and even my time as premier, there are many days I
came in here before daylight and left when it was dark. I don't know if I can
ever remember a time coming in here that there wasn't somebody here before me,
and most often public servants. I can't overstate the value, the talent, the
dedication, expertise that exists in your department, through all branches of
your department, and I express my gratitude and thanks to them.
As well
as people that are around here tonight, some participated more than others, but
to sit here and listen to us for three hours is a task in itself. The
preparation and the assistance they've obviously provided to you is acknowledged
and appreciated, and I extend our thanks to all of them.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
MS. ROGERS:
As well, I would like to
thank you so very much. I'm always amazed every year when Estimates roll around
how many people it really takes to grease the wheels of our tiny province, and
the dedication, the passion and the compassion that so many of you bring to your
work. Again, some of your work is much more difficult than others, and I thank
you so very much for that. The understanding of how important justice is in our
communities is so very important. I believe we're in good hands, and thank you
so very much for your work.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I might just say a few
remarks. I held off at the beginning because I wanted to get down to it. Now
that we're done, thank you to my colleagues for asking the questions, because
that's what you need to make the system better, and to my colleagues that have
sat very patiently and listened.
There's
a young fellow over there who doesn't get appreciated very often, that's Brad.
He does a lot of work when it comes to this budgeting process. So he deserves a
big thank you.
To all
the people that are sitting beside me and behind me, there's no truer sense of
the word team. I am just one part of a team, and I think we've got the greatest
team. In fact, I think we have the best department, and the reason we have the
best department is because of all these people and the people that work with
them and for them and under them and above them.
It's
tough, it's tough work. I mean this not a department that – it's a department
filled with conflict when you look at – I always say nobody wants to be in
court, nobody wants to be in prison, nobody wants to be dealing with police. We
do the tough work; these people do the tough work. I'm only as good as these
people and I'm very lucky I get to work with them every day. So thank you for
all you've put in.
That's
why I like having a big crowd of them here, because they all know their parts so
much better than I do, and it's better for you guys to hear from them because
they know what they're doing, they're good workers, and I'm getting smarter –
I'm getting smart by osmosis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) getting smarter
already.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you to all them.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Okay.
We will
call – shall 4.1.01 to 4.2.03 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, 4.1.01 through 4.2.03 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall the totals carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Department of Justice and Public Safety, total heads, carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the Estimates
of the Department of Justice and Public Safety carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Estimates of the Department of Justice and Public Safety carried without
amendment.
CHAIR:
Now the date and time of the
next Social Services Committee is 9 a.m. on Monday, May 1. That's Education and
Early Childhood Development. So you can note that in your calendar, because
there have been some changes with the Estimates schedule. If there is somebody
that cannot make that meeting on Monday, May 1, please advise the Government
House Leader who will then advise the Clerk.
With
that, I am happy to call for a motion to adjourn.
MR. WARR:
So moved.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Seconded.
CHAIR:
We don't need a seconder.
Okay,
Mr. Warr.
Have a
good evening everyone.
On
motion, the Committee adjourned.