April 4, 1995

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

We will get our meeting under way. I welcome

everyone to the Social Services Estimates Committee. We are here tonight to

review the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Let's begin by asking the

members of the Committee to introduce themselves. My name is Doug Oldford, I am

the Chair, and the Member for Trinity North. We will start with Ms. Cowan.

MS. COWAN: Thank you. I am Patricia Cowan, the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. CAREEN: Nick Careen, the Member for

Placentia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We welcome the minister and his

staff. The rules of our Committee are such that we allow the minister ten

minutes for an opening statement and for the introduction of his staff. Then, as

we always do, we will alternate the questions from the government side to the

Opposition side back and forth. We will give ten minutes for questions and

answers. At this time, I call on the minister for the introduction of his staff

and his opening remarks. Mr. Minister.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I won't take the ten

minutes, in the interest of allowing members to raise the issues that concern

them specifically and directly, but may I introduce the officials who are here

tonight.

I can't say they are "my" officials at the moment.

As the Premier explained in Committee of Whole in the House this afternoon, I am

working from the main floor,

whereas the offices of the Department of Justice

are on the fourth floor of this building. I have responsibility, as he told the

House, for almost all of the matters that fall within the purview of the

Minister of Justice and Attorney General but there are some exceptions. That may

mean that for particular questions I shall defer to one or more of the officials

here and let them speak, because there are matters in which I have no

involvement, for reasons which I believe are well known.

Having said that, let me introduce the staff. To my

immediate right is the Deputy Minister, Mrs. Spracklin, Queen's Counsel, who has

been Deputy Minister for a number of years. Starting behind me are Kevin Dicks,

the Director of Finance and General Operations; John Cummings, the Assistant

Deputy Minister for civil law; Colin Flynn, the Director of Public Prosecutions;

and the young man behind me is my executive assistant, Seamus O'Regan Jr. I will

add that I look forward to a discussion with the Committee tonight on the

Estimates. There are no major new programs that we are bringing forward this

year, nor are there any major changes in any of our existing programs. With that

said, I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One other point - we are being

recorded. I ask your officials to identify themselves each time they speak for

the benefit of Hansard.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me note if I may, Mr.

Chairman, that just after you called on me, our colleague, the Member for

Bellevue, Mr. Barrett, arrived and is now with us in the Committee as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you could introduce

yourself for the record.

MR. BARRETT: I thank Mr. Roberts. He already

introduced me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will begin the questioning.

Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are not going to get into a discussion as to the

peculiarities of the Government House Leader's position relative to the

Department of Justice, this kind of thing. That has been well aired in various

places and it would be rather redundant to discuss these matters.

I did want to refer to, if I could - the minister

may not have it there with him, but it is on pages 104-105 of the Auditor

General's report, and it deals with the Office of the High Sheriff. There is an

extra copy on my desk.

MR. ROBERTS: I can't say I'm familiar with it,

but I have a briefing note that has been prepared for me in anticipation of

possibly a question in the House.

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Please carry on. I now have the

note.

MR. HODDER: I just wanted to refer to the fact

that the Auditor General has made some recommendations, has made some commentary

on the manner in which the audits are carried out in the Sheriff's Office,

particularly the manner in which accounting and management systems and controls

are maintained. In particular, the Auditor General mentions that there was no

formal inventory control system in existence to account for assets seized and

subsequently disposed. `There are no controls in place to account for the

disposition of seized assets and related receipts. Accounts receivable records

are not properly maintained, and controls over the billing of various fees

charged are inadequate.' The Auditor General is unable to satisfy herself as to

the completeness of the inventory, the revenue, and the receipts, or the

accuracy of the accounts receivable.

I wanted to place a statement to the minister.

Certainly, this has to be of some concern to the ministry and I want to get his

comments on that, and what actions are being taken to rectify these

deficiencies.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me note, as

well, the presence of the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Harris, who has just

joined the Committee.

I thank my friend, the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, because the point is a very important one. The Sheriff deals with a

lot of money and, of course, it is other people's money. The Sheriff's role in

the civil judicial system is to be the executive arm by which the judgements of

the courts are executed. We leave it to individual litigants to execute

judgements and the Sheriff is the agency through which money judgements are

executed. He has other functions as well, but I think the member's question was

addressed primarily to the money-handling segment.

Let me make two points generally, the first of

which is very brief. The Auditor General's comments are directed to the 1993-'94

year which ended a year and three or four days ago, and we believe there is

considerable validity in them, and have accepted that. Secondly, as long ago as

last July, and I can go through it in detail in the briefing note which Mr.

Dicks just gave to Mr. O'Regan, who gave it to me. It gives me some detail and I

can go into as much detail as the member would wish. It lists the steps we have

taken to come to grips with this.

I will go through it very briefly and then my

friend can come back on any particular area. We became aware, I guess, in July

1994 that the Auditor General had concerns as a result of, either her audit or

that being done by her officials for her, so there was a meeting held with

officials from Justice and officials from her office and in August 1994 she

issued a final version of her 1993-94 management letter and this is were these

points were raised in the first instance. Two or three weeks later, Justice

officials requested a management analyst to go through the letter and identify

the issues and come up with a plan to begin to comes to grips with them with a

view to removing them. That led to a meeting in October, which was done in the

office of the High Sheriff, at which were present not only the Sheriff's office

people but officials from the finance and general operations group within the

department and the information technology people. Part of the problem was simply

keeping track of the masses of different accounts, and they have now put some

work into the accounts receivable system. We bought a package of software from

ACCPAC. Don't ask me what ACCPAC is; I assume it is a company that -

MS. COWAN: It sounds like a computer game.

MR. ROBERTS: It's an accounts receivable

package, Mr. Dicks tells me - somebody who knows more than I do would perhaps

know more than that - and that is being put into use now. So that should give us

a system to keep track of the receivables.

I believe we are also about to acquire a general

ledger, a GL package, also make by ACCPAC. Apparently, they are big in this

field. That will be the main accounting software for the division.

We have seconded an employee from the accounts

division to go down and work with the High Sheriff's Office to beef up their

accounting capability. I am told that the system description is expected to be

completed by the end of May, 1995, and once that is done work will begin on a

revised policy and procedure manual. The hon. gentleman is familiar with these

manuals.

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: This should be completed, I am

told, by the end of August, 1995.

Now, that is a very general description. I won't go

into it in more detail. I will leave it to my friend to raise the points he

wants to, but generally speaking, we acknowledge the validity of the Auditor

General's concerns and are addressing them.

MR. HODDER: One of the areas of concern to the

Auditor General was, of course, the lack of segregation of incompatible duties

which could lead to errors or misuse of funds going undetected. In the computer

program that you have now devised, do the auditing systems and records guarantee

that all funds are going to be appropriately segregated and that misuse of funds

should not now go undetected? Are there built-in safeguards, in other words,

checks and balances?

MR. ROBERTS: I am reluctant ever to use the

word `guarantee' because, as my friend will acknowledge, there has never been a

system built that somebody can't find a way around, whether it is manual or

computer-based, but I am told that these are among the issues we are addressing.

The new computer programs will enable us better to keep track of the accounts as

to what should be where, and also there is a realignment of duties proposed

which will result in a permanent position being created to manage the accounts

receivable. Now, I am not going to say that something won't go wrong.

MR. HODDER: Has the minister, in view of the

problem that has been identified, provided for quarterly reviews and updates to

be forwarded to the ministry as to the efficiency and the manner in which

accounts are kept, and the procedures for implementing the new system?

MR. ROBERTS: We should be able to do them more

frequently than quarterly. With the proper accounting packages of software and

hardware, and with proper accounting procedures, we ought to be able to

reconcile those accounts daily.

MR. HODDER: Yes, but that would be done by the

High Sheriff's Office itself.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HODDER: But in view of getting an

independent audit done on the efficiency of the system, and how well it has been

implemented, we wouldn't want to wait until shall we say next year to have a

review done by the Auditor General's Office or some other office independent. On

a daily basis, all of the accounts should be rectified; however, in view of the

fact that the system which did exist wasn't working right, and it is taking it a

long time to slip into disrepute, you might say, I am asking the minister: Does

he have provision made for the monitoring of the new system so as to ensure that

indeed the system that is there is working as it should be working?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure I can answer that

with a word or two. There are two or three checks on any system, Mr. Chairman.

My friend referred to one of them, the Auditor General, who comes in later on,

after the end of the year, and she does an audit using whatever techniques she

judges appropriate. But that is long after the event, in this case.

MR. HODDER: The horse is out of the barn by

that time.

MR. ROBERTS: Usually well gone by then.

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Then there are two other checks.

There is an internal audit group within the government which is - Treasury Board

or Finance?

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It is part of Treasury Board, and

they audit (inaudible). Now, an audit by definition is a sample, as my friend

knows. You can't possibly check every entry everywhere. Secondly, within each

department, there are management groups in addition to the management

themselves, if you can follow the Irish in that one, and the initial

responsibility rests with the High Sheriff, Mr. Thoms, who has been there for a

number of years, and as far as we know is capable, competent, and is doing his

job well.

In addition to that, as I mentioned, we have

seconded a person from the accounts division in the department and sent - it is

man (inaudible), isn't it?

AN OFFICIAL: From headquarters.

MR. ROBERTS: It is a headquarters person down

(inaudible) to bolster the field operation.

Then, in addition, Mr. Dicks and his associates in

the Finance and General Operations division have lots to do. One of the things

they have to do is to watch to make sure all of our systems are working fairly

well. I'm not sure that meets the letter of what the Auditor General may

recommend in there but there are times when with all the goodwill in the world

we are not able to do what the Auditor General recommends. There are times when

we are not even sure we should try to do it, but we are trying to improve the

systems and I believe we have done it. And there is money. The money we ask for

this year would be enough to enable us to do what we plan to do.

MR. HODDER: I'm sure the minister would be well

aware of the fact that there are some concerns within the community in the last

year or so about trust funds and the manner in which trusts are, shall we say,

administered by certain people in the legal business. We want the public to have

absolute trust in the fact that the government, as the administrators of the

Province, can assure all members of the public that the Office of the High

Sheriff is running in a very efficient and trustworthy manner.

However, on page 106 of the Auditor General's

report, she outlines the authority of the court. She also notes some of the

weaknesses. I will just read a couple of them: "During our audit, the following

weaknesses were noted in" the area of - this is the Inventory Held In Trust on

page 106 - "the seizure is often performed by only one employee; there is no

formal review process of seizure policies; the Office has no storage facilities

for property seized and held in trust and must consequently rely on third

parties for this function; there is no process in place to ensure all items

seized are recorded in the inventory ledger...." It says: "formal reports on the

sale of seized assets are not always prepared; no documentation is maintained on

the witnessing of the Sheriff's sales...." It goes on down through.

Then the recommendation is: "Appropriate measures

should be taken to ensure weaknesses identified are addressed. An inventory

control system should be developed and implemented to accurately account for

seizures and subsequent disposition of assets."

I ask the minister, has his review of the Office,

in addition to the accounting procedures, addressed these items as well?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is yes. I don't want to

take away from the "yes," I'm not trying to hedge on it. Some of the Auditor

General's concerns are difficult to address in a practical sense. "A seizure is

often performed by only one employee." Now, in effect, it would mean doubling

the staff of the Sheriff's Office. If we were to say to have two employees, it

is my judgement that is not the way to go. The way to go is to have a proper

system of records in place. I would say to my friend - I want to make sure there

s no misunderstanding - when he spoke of trust accounts, sure, this is trust

money, it is somebody else's money which the Sheriff is holding.

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: But the trust account - generally

when we use trust accounts - and he referred to a level of concern in the public

which I think is legitimate; it is there and it is a legitimate one - we are

talking, I think, of other things altogether. We have, unfortunately, seen a

couple of cases this year where members of the Bar have been charged and

convicted with improper handling of trust accounts. Now, this is not the sort of

thing the Sheriff - these are cases where lawyers were holding money in behalf

of clients and were found by the courts to be dealing with it improperly.

The Sheriff has a very different role. He does, I

guess it is fair to say, two things. He seizes property to satisfy judgements

and sells it at public auction. My friend may have seen notices in the

newspaper. Secondly, if one has a garnishee order in place - if the hon.

member's salary should be garnisheed to pay debts, you know, in a court

judgement - then the Sheriff is responsible for receiving that money and paying

it out. In each case those are trust funds but they are a little different.

But the answer was yes, we are trying to address

these issues. We may not, in each case, agree with the Auditor General's

comments or even her detailed recommendations, but that doesn't take away from

the heft of her concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. We now

go to Ms. Cowan.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much.

First of all I want to commend the minister - and

I'm not doing this just because I happen to be a member of his party and it is

appropriate to start off commending the minister and his or her department - but

I really am pleased with the innovative way in which you are trying to address

the situation in Davis Inlet. I was really pleased with that announcement in the

House the other day, and I think that is the first step in probably providing

some innovative approaches to people who have a different culture and different

expectations and different experiences in how they live and how they govern

themselves. My congratulations to you on that.

The other thing that I was really pleased about,

and I want to ask a couple of questions - I am chairing this children's interest

thing and we went out West to have a look at some of the programs that are

happening for children out there. In British Columbia they actually have

privatized their support enforcement services. You are probably aware of that.

They do a really good job of getting fathers - which in 95 per cent of the cases

it is fathers who are not paying their child support - to pay it. When I had

first become an MHA, I often had a few complaints about our system here. I

haven't had any in the last few years. Also, the people in B.C. spoke quite

highly of the people on the West Coast who are looking after our support

enforcement.

I was just wondering if you can give me any stats

on that, Minister, or if any of your officials could, just to see how indeed we

are doing - how many people may have applied over the year for assistance, how

many we are able to help, what happens when we can't get somebody to pay, and so

on.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my friend, the

Member for Conception Bay South has raised a very broad subject and a very

important one. Let me make a couple of comments. My judgement is that the

officials at the Support Enforcement Agency are doing a tremendous job under

very difficult circumstances. They are heavily overworked. We have not been able

to increase the number of people there this year. We have added four in the last

three years and I take some measure of pride in being associated with that.

There are sixteen there now, and their leader is a man named Cy Simmons who does

a tremendous job.

MS. COWAN: Well, that's good, because I would

think the stress - the more people we can have there the better but we don't

have a magic wand to put just everybody we need - with the stress associated

with people calling in, having people there to address it is really important,

so I am glad to see that you have added people.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Cummings is the official

director responsible for the SEA. He may have some numbers so I will ask him to

speak in a moment. But, to make a general comment or two - the service is

absolutely essential. Now, whether we should privatize it, I could be

open-minded, and there is no magic in government doing it, but one would have to

be convinced that -

MS. COWAN: I am not really saying that tonight.

It is just interesting that it was proposed.

MR. ROBERTS: I think most people have looked at

the knowledge that the service in this Province has been developed into a very

effective one. Now, the problem comes when somebody does not want to pay, and it

is amazing the lengths to which people will go in two senses. We have a number

of cases where individuals have chosen to try to fight the system and have

burned up an immense amount of time and effort in going to court. The response

of government through the Justice officials is we assign civil solicitors and we

represent these people.

Without naming them I can think of at least two

where we have spent at least $50,000 more in lawyer's time to fight a case. In

these two I have in mind it was a man who feels he doesn't have to pay the court

order and will go to immense lengths to try not to do it. The other thing people

do, of course, is try to run away, hide, or get lost, to be loose. There are the

answers to tighten up the system. We have made significant progress across

Canada. We need some moves from the Federal Government. We have seen some.

We were able this year to add TAGS. I suppose I

have spent hours trying to persuade the federal system to move to add TAGS. We

have 29,000 people in this Province who are on TAGS. Some of them are on the

receiving end of support orders, and some of those on the receiving end of

support orders don't want to pay. It is not difficult to get Ottawa to agree,

but it is difficult to get them to do anything. It is like an elephant up there.

So we have now added TAGS. I don't think there are too many holes. It still

never ceases to amaze me that somebody who is in a relationship, has a child,

and then tries to shirk the duty to provide that child with a reasonable amount

of support.

I am not sure I have answered the member's

questions.

MS. COWAN: It worries me a little bit because

there would probably be more family breakdown in the Province. I guess we can

predict it with reasonable certainty because of the stress and strains of

economics and so on, and the hard economic times we are living in. It is the

sort of thing that I hope you and your staff will remain really vigilant on.

Could you tell me how many people you served, for

example? Would you have that kind of statistic here?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is, I don't. There is a

report which I have seen and I will ask Mr. Cummings to send me on one.

MS. COWAN: Perhaps what we can do is when it is

time for some of the public hearings we could maybe call on Mr. Cummings to make

a presentation to us at the Children's Interest Committee, but it certainly is

an interest of mine.

The other thing you know I like to do is read

mysteries.

MR. ROBERTS: I hope you didn't find too many in

these estimates.

MS. COWAN: No, but I was looking at forensic

pathology. Do we have coroners in Canada?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, some provinces have them;

Newfoundland and Labrador doesn't.

MS. COWAN: Would they provide the same or

similar as forensic pathology? This isn't really related to expenditures, but it

is something that -

MR. ROBERTS: It sounds like Agatha Christie.

The coroner, in my understanding, is a very old and

British quasi-judicial office, and I guess there are really as many versions of

what a coroner does as there are jurisdictions. In some places in Canada they

are called a chief medical examiner, or medical examiner assistant, but

basically what happens is if you get an unexpected or unexplained death, the

coroner/chief medical examiner is the means by which the state tries to assure

itself that nothing untoward has happened.

Our system here is under review. I don't want to

get too specific, if I may, but we are having a look at it. We have some

splendid people, Dr. Charlie Hutton and Dr. Simon Avis are the two names that

are best known. I don't think there are any huge gaps in the system, but the

question is whether we can make it work more effectively.

MS. COWAN: So if now, for an example... We

certainly don't spend a lot of money, it seems, in that area, which is maybe a

positive thing, that we don't have that many sudden and unexpected deaths. When

you hear the odd time of something happening in a hospital, there has been an

error or whatever, does a coroner work at arm's length from government, or does

it add any more - well, just the arm's length approach with this forensic

pathologist services.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the coroner is no more and

no less at arm's length than Dr. Hutton. Dr. Hutton is rigorously independent

and gives his views in the appropriate way without fear or favour. The estimate

is - I believe that we spend directly on the service, but there are other

amounts. For example, the police do a fair amount of investigation which can be

tied into this.

Secondly, of course, we have a judicial inquiry

system. My friend may have read of them from time to time. The reports are

usually tabled in the House or made public by other means. I will give you one,

for example; there was a case in Makkovik a year or two ago where a man was shot

by an RCM Police officer. There was a judicial inquiry held into that, and the

report was tabled and made public. There is a case, remember over in Carbonear a

couple of years ago, a person died while undergoing an operation. There was a

judicial inquiry into that. These are quite common where necessary, and the cost

of them does not show up here. That is borne, in fact, through the provincial

court and through the Crown attorneys.

MS. COWAN: Okay, thank you; those are all the

questions I have. I was going to ask Harvey to time me so that I wouldn't go for

more than ten minutes. Did I, Harvey?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair was timing you.

MS. COWAN: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just going on to what the Member for Bonavista

South had to say, we all know people have been victims of boys' heads on men's

shoulders, a polite way to put it.

I don't have much to say about Justice, although

justice is the soft underbelly of our democracy.

MR. ROBERTS: A Churchill phrase, not a bad one.

MR. CAREEN: What?

MR. ROBERTS: It was Churchill's phrase.

MR. CAREEN: I have seen throughout there are

parts where you have, this year from last year, some monies for information

technology. There are increases in some areas, decreases in others. May I ask,

is that where, like last year, they bought some computerized materials and this

year they might have to put it into another division? It is listed throughout

`Information and Technology'. In some areas there are increases from last year;

in other areas they are decreased from last year.

MR. ROBERTS: I think, Mr. Chairman, from the

notes I have here, and through my own knowledge, I can probably address any

specific item, but let me tell you how IT works throughout the government. In

fact, at budget time we consider this separately in that we look across the

whole government service, and let's say it comes to $20 million; then, the

individual amounts are allocated through to the departments, and in the

departments to the various subheads.

The Justice Department uses a great deal of new

information systems simply because justice sometimes has masses of information.

For example, in the court system keeping track of fines and traffic tickets, we

spend a lot of money on that. The money goes on two things, software and

hardware, and I have to be careful because I am on the verge of getting out of

my depth in this technical stuff - I really know that you pull a switch and it

goes on or off - but basically we invest large sums of money in software. Once

that is in, you don't have to spend more. In hardware we seem to be spending

each year as we need more computer units and what have you.

Now, there are also two other things. The lawyers

now, many of them, use computers as word processors for research and for

timekeeping purposes, and there is some money in here, I believe, to cover the

cost of purchasing additional units. The other comment I make in a general way -

and I say to my friend, the Member for Placentia, as there are specific

questions I will try to deal with them - is the Justice Department maintains an

extraordinarily good library/legal information system. It is not the Library of

Congress, it is not the University of Toronto Law School, but it is a very good

research facility and by far and away the best in the Province, and is used very

heavily by members of the Bar and the Bench as well as by lawyers and people

within government. We have spent a lot of money in the last few years on IT

systems in there. There is a huge new library on the fifth floor. It is next to

the wing that is being renovated now for the Opposition offices.

We have also, in the last year, brought together -

there were a number of various collections throughout the government that have

been brought together in one. For example, IGA had huge historical documents

bearing on aboriginal issues and some of their policies. These have been folded

into Justice and we now have a central index to them, and that is costly.

I can hop around, but the point is that there are a

lot of individual items within these items. Does that help? If not, try me

again.

Let me make one other comment to what the hon.

member said, a child's head on a man's body, or the other way around.

MR. CAREEN: A boy's head on a man's shoulders.

MR. ROBERTS: I once knew a young woman who said

she had the mind of a twenty-year-old and the body of a sixteen-year-old. My

answer was: Better that than the mind of a sixteen-year-old in the body of a

twenty-two-year-old. Think on that one.

MR. CAREEN:

Section 4.1.03, Police Services,

Northeast Avalon, Labrador West, and the City of Corner Brook, there is over

$200,000 less just for salaries alone. Is the Constabulary being cut back in

those regions?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is no, but let me see

you turn up the exact thing, page 7. I will read the note: A net reduction of

$158,700 in the salary allocations between the administration and police service

activities can primarily be attributed to the following: salary plan measures of

$67,600; compensation reductions of $77,000 and vacant positions reverting to

step 1 on the respective salary scales. But we are not reducing the number of

officers in either location.

MR. CAREEN: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Unfortunately, we aren't

increasing them either, but there are no changes in the complement of the RNC.

MR. CAREEN: Not in here, but ever since back in

Mr. Smallwood's time, and we've never got much support from the feds upalong -

there a few years ago they announced it, the idea of a federal penitentiary. Is

there any talk of that at all, or is our government still from time to time

making requests to the feds to fulfil their promise?

MR. ROBERTS: Our position is very clear and the

answer to the question asked by my friend is yes. The promise was made

repeatedly up till about 1989, and in fact, I believe shortly before a public

consultation which took place in that year, land was purchased over the Harbour

Grace area, if memory serves me correctly. A public consultation took place and

that was the last we heard of the proposal to build the penitentiary.

There is a need for it, we believe there is an

equitable right for it. It is wrong in the correctional sense for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have to leave the Province. It means it is

much more difficult for their families to see them and the whole rehabilitation

new institutions. We believe the next one they build should be here but I can't

tell the Committee that we have any commitment on that. But we have raised it. I

have been at meetings in the last month, in which it has come up. It is a matter

we constantly press with Ottawa.

MR. CAREEN: We see in this country, too,

particularly in the West, an extreme right-wing movement about every time there

is some kind of a crime with an habitual criminal or a person they figure got

out too early. There is more of a sense of keeping people in prison longer than

they are usually - up to the present day. I think our - I'm just curious. I

asked you were you keeping on pressing and you are, but this is happening. We

hear it every day. law enforcement and people's groups across this country

asking why people should stay in prison longer.

I suppose that is alright for some people. We see

some people who have been paroled to Newfoundland when they should have been

probably paroled to a bigger city than to some small outport in which the

amenities are lacking. I believe there are some people who should have a chance

and there are other people who shouldn't have. There are types of people you

have to deal with.

Correctional Facilities, over to 4.2.05. There are

parts of the Penitentiary - I haven't been in there yet.

MR. ROBERTS: The prisons act makes the hon.

gentleman a visitor. The good news is, a visitor, if he goes in, can come out at

will.

MR. CAREEN: Yes. As Ray Guy used to call it,

the `Walled-Off Astoria.' There have been some renovations done over there over

this past while. This year there have been no renovations. You hear stories from

time to time that there are parts of that place in very bad need of repair. Is

that a fact or is it just talk by someone who wasn't really made feel welcome

while a guest there?

MR. ROBERTS: As with many situations, Mr.

Chairman, the answer would have to be a little of each. I have been in the

Penitentiary a number of times since I became minister. I don't claim to be

expert but I have some understanding of it, and I have, of course, spoken with

the officials. We have addressed the worst of the problem. The Centre Block no

longer houses prisoners. It has now been made into an office and ancillary

facility place. I forget the name of it, the ones they use for the prisoners

during the weekend sentences.

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The ones near the Forest Road

side. There is some space, I'm told, in Centre Block for intermittents as well.

The Centre Block is the oldest part of the prison. It was built about 1857.

There is a

section of six or eight cells, that was built, I thought it was after

the Second World War, which are pretty dismal, and that is where people end up

if they are sent in for drunk driving on an intermittent weekend sentence. That

may be the same ones. They have been renovated. They aren't the Holiday Inn or

the Delta or the Hotel Newfoundland, and there is no room service. But they are

up to at least acceptable standards and in many cases better.

There is also a concern with housekeeping that my

friend may hear about from time to time. That is a constant concern. I think the

staff of the Penitentiary, the superintendent, Don Saunders, and the people

there, do the best they can and, in my view, do it very well. Is it perfect? I

have to be honest and say no. Could it be better? Probably, but no matter what

we do there are always going to be problems. I think, by and large, the prison

system in the Province - and I am speaking only of provincial prisoners, two

years and a day and less - can stand comparison with any in the country, either

in accommodations or in staff or in results.

MR. CAREEN: That is all for now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Careen.

Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: Yes. Many of the councils in the

Provinces, the minister suggested today, are having difficulty with accounts

receivable and so on. Because the court system is tied up in other areas with

other jurisdictions I was wondering if it would be feasible, or if any thought

could be given to it, to have a circuit judge who could be assigned, say, to the

councils to take people who are in arrears to the councils to court, paying 10

per cent of the amount that is probably collected to the Justice department so

that it wouldn't cost any extra funding to the government as such, but in the

meantime, helping out those municipalities which are having difficulty in

getting their cases to the court.

We talked to one council today which said they had

last year one opportunity to go to court, to take people to court; and their

accounts receivable are substantial, and if you give it to a collection agency

you pay all your money away that you try to collect. Is that possible?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, it is an intriguing

suggestion and I guess it is an idea probably the time for which has come - the

syntax is a little fractured in that sentence...an idea whose time may have

come. I can only make some very general comments, but a couple of things.

First of all, I think the government have a

responsibility to ensure that any litigant including, in this case, a municipal

council, has an opportunity to get a day in court within a reasonable period of

time. I think one of the things that society undertakes when we set up courts is

to allow matters to be dealt with reasonably promptly and reasonably

effectively. On the criminal side we have, of course, the responsibilities and

the rights conferred by the 1982 charter which, as amplified by the courts, lays

really some quite strict guidelines down. That is one comment.

The second is that the constitution of the courts

lies within the jurisdiction of this House which it has exercised through the

judicature act, under which the Supreme Court Trial Division and the Court of

Appeal function, and the Provincial Court act under which the Provincial Court

functions. Subject to some constitutional restrictions, drawing from the

principle that we cannot derogate from the federally appointed courts, the

section 96 courts, we cannot derogate from their authority, we can adjust and

re-adjust, and we have over the years. For example, the District Court - when I

came to the Bar there was a District Court as well as a Supreme Court. We now

have no District Court. The District Court and the Supreme Court were merged in

1986, if memory serves me.

The third comment is we do have one or two

dedicated courts, dedicated by subject matter. We have a Traffic Court which

sits here in St. John's and we have a Unified Family Court which has

jurisdiction for, what, the eastern part of the Avalon?

MS. SPRACKLIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The eastern - draw a line from,

say, Holyrood to Whitbourne, wherever. Both of those are courts that specialize

in particular subjects. So, in a sense, there is no reason why we couldn't have

a municipal court or a debt collection court, but also, my deputy quite rightly

tells me, the Provincial Court has small claims jurisdiction and functions as a

small claims court.

I would like to look at the idea. I hadn't been

aware until very recently that it was posing a problem. I would like to look at

the idea to see what could be done, but I will acknowledge that the government

have an obligation to ensure that people who wish to have resort to the courts

can have their cases dealt with fairly and promptly. Remember what the courts

are. The courts are simply the means by which we settle our disputes as opposed

to out behind the barn with fists or down in front of the stable with six-guns

and a shootout at the O.K. Corral. I would like to think about the idea, which

is an intriguing one, and if there is a problem we shall have to address it.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. The other thing - from the

department, are there are any capital projects this year in the Province?

MR. ROBERTS: The capital votes, of course, are

carried in -

MR. LANGDON: Works, Services and

Transportation?

MR. ROBERTS: - in Works, Services and

Transportation. So you will have to ask my colleague for details. I can tell you

where our priorities are. How far we can go as to addressing them I can't say.

We have identified the need for a new court

building in Clarenville. There is a Provincial Court judge stationed there, and

the Supreme Court sits there on circuit fairly frequently. I don't know - does

anybody...?

AN OFFICIAL: One week in a month.

MR. ROBERTS: One week a month at present. There

is also a court in Grand Bank. We have a court at Grand Bank, one at Gander, and

one in St. John's, and then Clarenville is the only circuit point in between. So

there is a need, we think, to build or provide by whatever means, a new facility

there.

The other situation we have happens to be in my own

constituency in Happy Valley - Goose Bay where you have a Supreme Court judge,

Mr. Justice O'Regan, sitting permanently, and there is a Provincial Court judge,

Mr. Judge Power, sitting permanently. There is often a second Provincial Court

judge, because Happy Valley is the base for the circuits along the northern

coast of Labrador as well as Western Labrador. We have a fine court facility in

Western Labrador and no judge stationed there. In Happy Valley - Goose Bay we

are working in both cases with rented facilities which are not ideal.

MR. LANGDON: No.

MR. ROBERTS: And the leases on each are either

up or about to come up in the next few months. The issue is whether we should

attempt to acquire a new facility by some means or whether we should go on with

leases. My friend will acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, that courts are really

purpose-made buildings and it is not possible to go out every two or three

years, as you might with an ordinary office space. You have to go out for a

longer-term lease and at some point, it might make sense to acquire a building

either by purchase or by a long-term lease and dedicate it to the courts. So,

whenever we are able to do something, it will be in those two places first, and

those are our priorities.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. I would like to ask one more

question if I could.

A constituent of mine has a physical impairment, a

speech impairment, and needed a legal aid person, because he couldn't afford it

himself, to accompany him to court. The two cases - I believe it was impaired,

and harassment is another charge up against him. But the letter that he got back

from, I think it was the Central Newfoundland judge in Grand Falls, saying that

for summation cases, no legal aid person could be given to this individual -

MR. ROBERTS: For

summary convictions?

MR. LANGDON: I was wondering if that was

correct or if there could be an appeal or whatever the case might be. The person

has approached me, but I haven't done anything about it; and I thought it was a

good time to bring it up.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my deputy minister sits as a

member ex-officio on the Legal Aid Commission. The basic rule is,

summary

conviction offences do not qualify one for legal aid unless there is a

significant risk of incarceration, but what I would say to my friend is: the

reason we draw the line is simply that there is a limit on the money, and the

line is drawn to exclude the less serious offences but if it is somebody who

cannot make himself heard or -

MR. LANGDON: This person would have great

difficulty; in fact I don't think that the judge or anyone else could understand

his lingo because of the physical impairment.

MR. ROBERTS: Just give him your name for

Hansard.

MS. SPRACKLIN: The court will provide either

interpretation services or you know, whatever is required for a person to make

himself understood.

MR. LANGDON: Yes. The two or three times that

the person has gone to the court, nothing had been provided for him whatsoever.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, let me then say, that

individual should do one of two things, either raise the matter with the Crown

Attorney who has a responsibility - the Crown Attorney is an officer of the

court and his or her job is not to secure convictions, his or her job is to

ensure that matters are prosecuted fairly. The Crown Attorney should do that; if

not, or in addition, that person should feel free either to write to the deputy

minister, to me, or to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. If I get a

letter, I will pass it to the Chief Judge, who will attend to it.

MR. LANGDON: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: But, as the deputy says, I mean,

interpreters are provided and there is no difference between somebody who cannot

language; or somebody who cannot speak because of a physical or other

impairment.

MR. LANGDON: Because of the physical

impairment, he can't hear very well -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, we would have to

address (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: - and can't speak very well.

MR. ROBERTS: The court has a responsibility to

ensure that a person accused of a crime is able to comprehend and deal with the

charge on its merits.

MR. LANGDON: The person contacted me and I

didn't do anything about it because I saw a letter where it said:

summary -

MR. ROBERTS:

Summary conviction.

MR. LANGDON: - but I thought there might be

some extenuating circumstances here and I should probably ask him to write.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Legal Aid would generally

consist of legal representation and advice. The services provided by the court

would be, for example: Interpreters for the deaf or people to assist

hearing-impaired, all that sort of thing, is the type of thing - or language

barriers; so there are different functions. If you would like to give me a call

tomorrow with the name of the individual, I can try to follow up and see what -

MR. LANGDON: Yes. I would do that, and thank

you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, if I may, first of all - I am just trying

to sort out what the implications are for the estimates for the current

circumstances we are facing with yourself as a Government House Leader and not

the minister. Do we have an overlap in the votes on Page 243, in vote l.l.01 and

the votes on Page 15, 2.2.02? I note there is an amount for salaries in both, in

transportation and communications, etc., on the Government House Leader's side

that weren't there before but now are, and I understand that one might expect to

have estimates for the minister's office, the Minister of Justice, because the

situation you are in may change. To what extent do we have an overlap here? I

note that the Departmental Salary Details -

MS. COWAN: What page?

MR. HARRIS: Page 243 and page 15 are the two,

but in the Departmental Salary Estimates on page l63, there is an executive

assistant to the minister, etc., those kinds of positions. I have the page

wrong, I am sorry. On page 159, the executive assistant to the minister shows up

there, and I am just wondering to what extent we have an overlap there.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me answer that.

MR. HARRIS: I am not trying to embarrass

anybody, except to find out.

MR. ROBERTS: The question is a fair one and I

would be delighted to try to answer it. The Premier mentioned in the Committee

of the Whole in the House today that neither he nor I is paid more than once but

each is paid once. The estimates on pages 15 and 243, in each case provide a

salary for a minister, and they also provide a salary for what we refer to as

the political secretary and, in each case, provide for the executive assistant

to the minister. Now, when I left Justice at the end of November, whatever the

day was, my executive assistant came with me and my political secretary came

with me.

MR. HARRIS: So, you have one of each.

MR. ROBERTS: I have one of each.

MR. HARRIS: So there is one minister, only one

EA and one political secretary?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Mr. O'Regan is my executive

assistant and my political secretary is a lady named Mrs. Pierpoint who has

worked with me for many years. They are now being paid, as am I, out of subhead

2.2.02, and, in addition, my travel and so forth is charged against that. The

$10,000 is, I guess, the number as to what I have spent against that head since,

whenever I moved down in it, the end of November, or whenever. There is one

other secretary, the so-called departmental secretary, Ms. Stewart, who has been

with the department for six or seven years. She worked with Ms. Verge. She is

still up on the fourth floor and my cabinet papers are still up on the fourth

floor, because that is a secure place, and all that stuff.

There is no addition in staff and there are no

extra expenditures being incurred, it is just they are being paid out of two

heads. If, at some point, the Premier appoints somebody to be the Minister of

Justice, then there will be adequate money to pay that person and his or her

staff. If that person is me, then there will be no more expenditures charged to

2.2.02.

MR. HARRIS: So, under 2.2.02 there is no

additional secretary.

MR. ROBERTS: No.

MR. HARRIS: Is there a political secretary?

MR. ROBERTS: I have the same three people

working with me that I had before. Ms. Stewart remains on the Justice payroll.

When she is not doing things at my request she is working under the deputy

minister's direction. Mrs. Pierpoint and Mr. O'Regan are working with me on the

main floor. There is no extra staff. I have no extra travel either.

MR. HARRIS: Speaking of support and executive

support for the department, in the Department of Justice - and I am not an

expert on the running of your department, Minister, but it seems to me there is

quite a lot of, I won't say top-heavy, although in looking at executive support,

in addition to the deputy minister there are three assistant deputy ministers.

Well, actually there are four because there is another one that appears over on

page 163. There are three ADMs on page 159, and another ADM on page 163 in the

Legislative Council, and there is an associate as well. So there is a deputy

minister -

MR. ROBERTS: No, there is no associate. That

position has been abolished, has it not?

MR. HARRIS: Well, it is listed as a permanent

position on page 159, at a salary of $89,000 under the Departmental Salary

Details, if you want to have a look at that.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't have - if Ms. Spracklin

would be kind enough to pass me the Departmental Salary Details.

MR. HARRIS: Seamus has one there behind you.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I have one here.

MR. HARRIS: I am just looking at the staff

complement, page 159. The permanent staff complement shows the DM, Ms.

Spracklin, of course, one associate, three ADMs there, and then another over on

page 163 under the Legislative Counsel.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me outline the

structure of executive and see if we can get to this. There is the deputy

minister, of course, Ms. Spracklin. There are, in fact, four ADMs in Justice.

There is no associate deputy minister, and I have just checked with Mr. Cummings

and Ms. Spracklin; nobody has held that position within ten, have they?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: During my time there, there has

been no person. Let me tell you who the ADMs are: Mr. Cummings is Civil Law, and

has the responsibility for a number of those areas; Mr. Lake is the Legislative

Counsel - we see him sometimes here in the House - and he ranks as an ADM. He

runs the Legislative Counsel's office; Mr. Ralph Alcock is the ADM, Public

Protection and Support Services, and the title really conveys his name; then,

there is an ADM for Consumer Affairs, and that is filled on an acting basis by

Mr. Winston Morris, who has been seconded from Finance.

There are other senior people in the department.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Flynn, functions essentially

independently, the DPP, fourth to the deputy AG and to the AG, but the DPP, in

practice, in reality and in law, is independent. But there is no associate

deputy minister.

Now, my friend is going to ask what the vote is

there, and I cannot answer. I confess, I never noticed it there before.

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if there is a vote

associated with that, and -

MR. ROBERTS: And there is no proposal to

appoint one.

MR. HARRIS: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: There will be a -

MR. HARRIS: So that is an unfilled position,

presumably.

MR. ROBERTS: Nobody quite knows, but there will

be some interesting questions. Treasury Board will want to know about that, too.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, maybe they will want the money

back.

I also note, since we are on the Departmental

Salary Details, and I am sure Ms. Spracklin probably has only one secretary, it

may surprise her to find out that she also has one on page 163 in the Supreme

Court Trial Division. Around half-way down there is a secretary to the deputy

minister right in the middle of all of that.

MR. ROBERTS: I was meeting today with a judge

of the court and that came up. I can only assume that person is ranked as a

secretary to the deputy minister, which is a rank within the public service when

each - what do they call it, a GL or GS, what the devil they call those things?

MS. SPRACKLIN: There is, in fact, a

classification called Secretary to a Deputy Minister or equivalent, and I guess

the Chief Officer of the Court is considered a deputy minister or equivalent.

MR. HARRIS: It doesn't seem to be as important

as Secretary to the Chief Justice, though, I might add.

MR. ROBERTS: We have to agree with that. That

is Barry Sparkes' secretary, the Registrar's secretary.

MR. HARRIS: So that is the Secretary to the

Registrar?

MR. ROBERTS: But the woman - I assume it is a

woman - has the rank or has the status as a deputy minister's secretary. The

deputy minister does not have two secretaries.

MR. HARRIS: No, I didn't think so but I just -

because we were looking at anomalies around here. I thought that stuck out as a

significant one.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course, I happened to be

meeting today with a Judge of the Supreme Court who raised the same question.

MR. HARRIS: In the Administrative Support side,

again I am looking at the amounts voted for - my friend, Mr. Careen, the Member

for Placentia, brought up Information Technology. It seems to be a great place

to store lots of money in the departments, and I see it throughout, not just in

small amounts but in very large and significant amounts. I see, for example, in

the Administrative Support side of the department $193,000 this year and nearly

$600,000 last year. I guess the only thing I have to compare it to, from a

practical point of view, is something like - on page 246 vote 2.1.03, the

Registration of Deeds and Companies has a vote of $184,000 on Information

Technology. It seems to me, that is a particular exercise that is full of a need

for expenditures of that nature to run the information retrieval system, the

recording of deeds and companies and constant and daily access to that system by

myriads of people in the department and throughout the Province. Yet, on the

administrative side of the department there is a larger amount, $193,000 for the

Administrative Support side. Now, this is, I must say, in addition to $54,000 in

the Sheriff's Office, $158,000 in Support Enforcement, $37,000 in Legal

Information Services; those significant numbers throughout there, $35,000 in

Legislative Counsel, and I guess if you went on through you would find

significant amounts here and there; Provincial courts, understandably, $409,000

on Information Technology because they have a great deal of information to look

after; Fines and Administration, another $296,000. It seems to be a really

significant amount of money throughout the department on what comes under the

grounds of Information Technology. I acknowledge that you are not an expert on

this, perhaps someone on the administrative side with your team here could tell

us why we are looking at such a large expenditure on the administrative side for

Information Technology and why such a large - large this year comparatively

speaking but almost three times as much as that actually spent last year?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned

in response to an earlier question, Justice is a huge consumer of information

technology simply because Justice ends up with situations where it has masses of

information and the requirement that the information be assimilated and be

recallable, which is a classic IT situation if I understand the IT business at

all and I don't pretend to be expert at it. Generally speaking this year the

requests for IT votes are down and I am told the reason for that is because,

first of all, this decreased mainframe costs for NISL. Now, NISL is the

successor to NLCS. NLCS was our own in-house agency and now we are out to NISL

and apparently the mainframe costs are down, I suspect that means we will see it

some other way.

Secondly, we have discontinued the WordPerfect CAP

program. Now, I do not know what the devil CAP is. Canada Assistance Plan

program. That is what CAP is. I should have know that, shouldn't I? Professional

resources were not required due to the cancellation of the Atlantic innovative

justice system project. Nova Scotia and PEI pulled out of that and New Brunswick

decided to implement their own. That was a process to try to develop common

systems across the four Atlantic Provinces.

Now, I can go through each individual vote, if my

friend wants, and indeed will be glad to do it. We are not spending as much as

we would like to spend but we are spending more than some people say we can

afford to spend. Generally speaking we are in many areas using information

technology to great effect in justice. The fined administration programs are

heavy consumers. The provincial court does extremely well in case management. I

am not sure the Supreme Court has yet caught up to that but we are hoping they

will in due course.

MS. COWAN: (inaudible) as a good example and I

wish the other departments in government were doing it.

MR. ROBERTS: The Support Enforcement Agency

relies heavily on computer technology.

MR. HARRIS: I understand that in some

individual circumstances, Registry of Deeds, Support Enforcement, Provincial

Courts, Fines, they are the hands-on handlers of the information. I am just

curious about the large amount in the administrative side of things. I am again

looking at that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, your time is up. You

can have one more short question in this round, and then we will go back around

again.

MR. HARRIS: I guess I can finish the question.

MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps the deputy minister who

has a great more knowledge than do I can address that, because I think she can

provide more detail.

MR. HARRIS: I haven't finished the question

yet. I was in mid-sentence when the Chair intervened.

As I said, I was not particularly concerned about

the hands-on part, but on the administrative side it seemed high, and again

looking at the administrative side of the department it seems that - and again

there may be some corrections from the salary details, but I see a lot of staff

positions associated with that as well. For example, a director of information

technology, a manager of information technology, two computer analysts, one

computer support specialist, along with other managerial analysts and that sort,

all seem to be related to information and computer technology. Is all of this

necessary or is there some way this can be streamlined at the administrative

level? I also see a huge increase in transportation and communications on the

administrative side, from about $320,000 to $534,000 on the administrative side

of the department.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me deal with that item and

then I will ask the deputy to deal with what the administrative support group

does. The explanation for Subhead l.2.02 (03) which is Transportation and

Communications, there is an increase of $215,000. The government have

re-allocated the cost of operating the 911 emergency line and that is the

Justice share of it which essentially is the police share. The City of St.

John's will bear the fire share and the health department estimates will have an

item in them that reflects the hospital share, so that is what that is.

MR. HARRIS: The new provincial plan or just the

St. John's one?

MR. ROBERTS: That is a proportionate share of

the operating costs to the City of St. John's for the use of the 911 emergency

line. We allocated the amounts. It was being borne previously by Municipal

Affairs and it is now being carried here. The 911 system, the new Province-wide

one that my friend the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs announced

the other day, is a different one, but this will be subsumed into it in my

understanding. I don't think it is a new expenditure; it is simply a

re-allocation to get the votes a little more (inaudible). One would find a

corresponding reduction in the Municipal and Provincial Affairs estimates.

I will ask the Deputy Minister to deal with the

administrative support issue.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Mr. Harris, I think the IT issue

and where it is allocated in the administrative support services, they provide

the support services, the consulting services and whatnot to all areas of the

department. Then in addition to that you may find IT votes in various divisions

where they may have a person allocated permanently on an ongoing basis.

The administrative support services have devised an

information technology plan for the entire department which would take you

through the spectrum of the policing, courts, corrections, the whole area; civil

division, registry of deeds, bills of sale. They've tried to develop a strategic

plan so that we can prioritize where we spend what money we do get and where our

priorities are; devise systems that are integrated and can speak to each other

so that we are not duplicating and triplicating. That is a central function that

serves the whole department.

MR. HARRIS: So your computer systems analyst

who appears here in the minister's support may be out and helping out support

enforcement set up their system and things like that.

MS. SPRACKLIN: That is correct.

MR. HARRIS: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We had planned on breaking for

coffee at 8:20 p.m., 8:30 p.m. What is the wish of the Committee? Do we want to

break for coffee or do we want to carry on?

MS. COWAN: I would love a cup of coffee but the

thing is I'm being told that the roads are getting very bad. I don't know

whether it would be appropriate for us to maybe try to clue up so we can get

home safely. I maybe have the farthest to go and I will drive carefully if

everybody else is dying for coffee, but....

AN OFFICIAL: You don't want to be dying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe we will give Mr. Hodder ten

minutes now and then we will go for coffee.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a

few questions. Just trying to find the right

section here now. Page 254. It is

on the Fines Administration. Last year there was a public statement by the

Ministry as to the total amount of outstanding fines that were payable in the

Province with the courts. I'm wondering if the minister could update us as to

the collection rates and how the government's initiatives have fared over the

past several months.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is that

we are making progress but we are still not there yet. We've added some people

during the year and then the program which I announced, gosh, September,

October? I forget when. There was a statement made, accompanied I believe, if

memory serves me well, by advertisements in the newspaper saying pay up or else.

It has produced some results. I don't have the data here. I can ask the

officials to get them. We probably have them fairly easily available. I may even

have them before the Committee finishes our work tonight.

Fines are sort of a difficult area. Fines are

assessed and we pick up most of them through the motor vehicle registration

system, which is the most efficient and effective method. Because most people,

about 350,000 if memory serves me well, in the Province out of 600,000 have

driver's licences and these must be renewed annually and as we all know when you

go to renew your licence, if you have outstanding fines we pick them up and we

say: No tickee, no laundry - no fine payment, no licence renewal. There are

still significant, most of them quite old - I am trying to remember, I saw a

dating not too long ago of the receivables - I am sorry, a table of receivables

by date, by age, age receivables, and most of the ones in those settings now

fall into three categories.

First of all, because of the annual renewal and the

tri-annual renewal of motor vehicle licences, we are always running a year or

two behind. Many people just don't bother paying parking tickets for argument

sake, until it comes time to renew their licences. I am sure my friend pays his

regularly if he gets any but many people don't.

Secondly, there are the very old ones that we

really have to take out of the system; we have to come to grips with the matter

and write them off as uncollectible or make an extraordinary effort and the

third, are the ones that people have disappeared, died, left, gone bankrupt and

what have you. The other difficulty to remember is, we are very limited in our

remedy with these. If people don't pay their fines the penalty is, one goes to

jail. In fact often fines are imposed - I don't know what, thirty days or so

many dollars? Is that the way it works?

MS. SPRACKLIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: In default, one goes to jail. Now

that's all terrific until you remember the jails are filled to overcrowding; we

have very limited facilities in jails to hold people, in addition to which, it

costs us money to hold people. In the lock-ups around the Province, if we have

to bring in guards and attendants for the weekend customers, it often costs us

more than we get so there is an area of judgement in there to be candid, that

one has to look at, and I am not talking about people who have committed crimes

of violence. These fines are civil fines, these are tickets, these are perhaps

speeding tickets, that kind of thing; so we have made some progress, we have a

long way to go and I suspect the Auditor General for years to come will have

work cut out in that field.

MR. HODDER: (Inaudible) last autumn that

spousal support payments would be enforced through the vehicle licensing system.

Are there initiatives still under discussion in the ministry with that matter?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. It is in fact a matter that

the Cabinet is considering. We have not come to a decision at Cabinet, there are

pros and there are cons but the suggestion is that we say: if one is behind in

spousal support there is no license renewal until the spousal support is brought

up to date. We have taken no decision as a government on it as yet but it is

certainly a matter at which we are looking.

MR. HODDER: Is it correct to say that the

ministry might also consider the collection of municipal taxes through the

vehicle licensing sanctions?

MR. ROBERTS: I have not heard that suggestion

made, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to take a run at it without having thought

about it and taken counsel - what's that? Municipal taxes or municipal fines, my

friend?

MR. HODDER: Municipal taxes.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh. We don't collect any taxes so

my guess is the answer to that would be no. I am sorry, I had confused it with

my friend from Fortune - Hermitage who asked a question about fines imposed for

failure to pay taxes. But we are looking at trying to develop a piece of

legislation. We have talked about this, what we call a Provincial Ticketing

System, which would put a lot of offences on a slightly different basis and

enable us to get at them through the motor vehicle system, which turns out to be

a very effective revenue - it is not a revenue collection measure - a measure of

collecting monies due to the government through fines, but how far one goes, how

quickly one goes, these are areas for judgement, but we have never looked at

municipal taxes and I am not sure we would.

MR. HODDER: What procedures are in place to

write off uncollectibles?

MR. ROBERTS: Any write-off must be approved by

Treasury Board, and there are policy manuals which say when fines or other debts

are deemed to be uncollectible. I don't have the manuals here, but we could make

them public; there is no secret about them.

The departmental group or agency would say: Let's

have a list of our receivables and apply the standards in the procedure manual

to decide which ones our candidates would write off. They would then send these

to Treasury Board with a request for authority to write them off, and the

Financial Administration Act places that jurisdiction with Treasury Board.

Treasury Board would then put its own analyst to work on it and would come to a

decision.

MR. HODDER: On the enforcement of spousal

payments, one of the issues that my colleague mentioned for Conception Bay South

was, of course, some of the procedures in other parts of Canada.

One of the things that I am aware of is that some

initiatives, and I do believe supported by the minister, to have a more

efficient Canada-wide system of spousal support, information sharing, tracking

and follow-up procedures through the use of probably the SIN number. What is the

status of these discussions between our provinces and also with the federal

government?

MR. ROBERTS: We support these, and I just had a

word with Mr. Cummings who follows these things in detail for me. There is a

series of consultations going on among the provinces and Ottawa, but our

position is that we support them and we are prepared to reciprocate. The basis

for these is reciprocation. We would gladly enforce other province's orders if

other provinces would enforce ours. I will leave it there unless you want me to

get into the legal problems of judgements across provincial boundaries.

MR. HODDER: The difficulty, Mr. Minister, would

be, in instances that I had to work with quite recently where it takes up to

four to five to six months when someone leaves Newfoundland, say, to go to

Alberta, and Alberta is one of the provinces that are more co-operative, as I

understand it, but certainly when the person - most often it is the father -

leaves Newfoundland and goes to Alberta, he may very well change his job. When

he does, then the whole initiative has to start all over again.

The people in Alberta admit that they are going to

service their own clients first, and I guess that in terms of how the

bureaucracy responds that is understandable. The initiatives that I am talking

about are initiatives which would be on a Calgary wide co-operative basis and

other legal implications, jurisdictional problems with some provinces, and in

some cases probably even threats to provincial rights and all the rest of it. It

seems to me to be a very sensible, logical thing to do. I am wondering, what

would prevent its implementation on a very co-operative basis.

MR. ROBERTS: I will ask Mr. Cummings to speak

to that in detail in a moment. I will make a general observation by way of

lead-in.

The problem grows from the act that within

Confederation each of the eleven jurisdictions is sovereign within the

parameters of the Constitution Act 1991 and 1992. Different jurisdictions - and

perhaps different governments within each jurisdiction - have different views on

how to do these things. For example, my friend mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman,

the use of the motor vehicle registration system to collect spousal support

orders. If there are ten jurisdictions that have motor registration systems

there are about four views as to whether it is proper to use the motor vehicle

system.

Some guys say: I have a right to drive a car, and

if I won't pay for my kids why should you take away my licence to drive a car?

Some governments subscribe to that. I will just ask Mr. Cummings to speak in

detail, but that is the problem. Different people have different views on how

these systems should be run. Of course, it is like the education system, with

which my friend would be even more familiar. Why do we not have common exams in

Canada, common curriculum in Canada? The answer is, provinces are sovereign

within that area, and it may be the Province of Alberta has a different view of

what is appropriate for history than the Province of Nova Scotia. That is why we

don't have common curriculum, as I understand it. I will ask Mr. Cummings to

speak in detail to that (inaudible).

MR. CUMMINGS: Yes. The problem of enforcing

orders between provinces is probably the single biggest problem our agency

faces. This is where we have our biggest problem with arrears. We are making

very good progress everywhere else, I think, but in this one area where we can't

enforce an order ourselves and have to send it to another province I think you

are right. We find that it takes a very long time to get anything done and

overall our recovery rates are lower in those types of cases.

I think it is also correct to say other provinces

feel the same way and want to do something about it. On a very preliminary basis

discussions are going on in two areas. The directors of support enforcement get

together on a national basis usually once a year, and of course they have other

exchanges without actually meeting during the year. They have started to talk

about what they can do to improve things in this particular area. In addition to

that there is a federal-provincial committee on family law, and this is an issue

that they are just starting to address as well; is there anything we can do to

improve efficiency both in terms of finding people, and then when we've found

them to collect the amounts that are owed.

In terms of finding people I think we've made a lot

of improvement. For instance, there is now an arrangement right across Canada

whereby all provinces can access motor vehicle records of all other

jurisdictions, which helps to find people. The federal government has given us

some increased access to some of their data banks which also helps, and we are

still talking to them about getting even more access to these data banks, as

well as access possibly to additional sources of revenue that might come from

the federal government. We get most of them now but there are still some out

there that we don't get access to.

There are things going on but it will probably take

a while before we see resolution to most of these issues. I think we are at the

stage where the issues are still being defined and recognized. The discussions

on how to solve them are just beginning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Coffee is being served in the

government caucus room in the back. We will take ten minutes and come back at

8:44 p.m., 8:45 p.m.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We are back to the questioning. Mr. Harris, you are

next.

MR. HARRIS: Again, Mr. Minister, the Departmental

Salary Details give us a - on page 160 in the civil law section, the manager of

social law - now in about a months time or actually the middle of this month I

will have been admitted to the Bar for fifteen years but I never came across the

notion of social law, perhaps someone can tell me what a manager of social law

is?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has never worked,

Mr. Chairman, in government. He does not understand the ways of bureaucracy. We

have a solicitors pay scale and when he looks down he will see five, four and

threes. We also have a position classified as Manager of Social Law. It is held

by Brian Furey who is a lawyer my friend may know, a very capable, competent

lawyer and it turns out he is the only one in that classification. There is a

Manager of Resource Law, George Horan still? Okay and is there a manager of

something else?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Now the next question is why don't

they show up here?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Well they should. The civil

division is basically divided into units. It was an attempt I guess to try and

bring some consistency and organization to the various services and to various

government departments. It was broken down into a social law unit which provided

services to the Department of Social Services, the Department of Health, the

Department of Education and Training, the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations and the Department of Justice. There was another one which was called

the government services unit which provided services to another group of

departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The resource.

MS. SPRACKLIN: The resource.

MR. HARRIS: So it is similar to our legislative or

estimates committees which are social departments, resource departments and -

MS. SPRACKLIN: Yes, and each group is headed up

with a senior lawyer who is a Solicitor V. So Brian Furey is the head of the

social law unit, George Horan is the government services and John McCarthy does

the resource.

MR. ROBERTS: But in reality, if my friend looks

down, he will see two Solicitors V. We have three senior solicitors and I don't

know why Treasury Board in their infinite wisdom -

MR. HARRIS: Yes, there does not seem to be any

difference in the salaries between the -

MR. ROBERTS: It is to the dollar, $85,801 is

one-half of $171,602 but I -

MS. SPRACKLIN: I can't explain why that one is set

out -

MR. ROBERTS: But they are not new positions and

the manager of social law in fact is Brian Fureys position.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, but I guess there is not a lot of

change in permanent staff complements so they must just reprint these things

from year to year and not necessarily pay a lot of attention.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend has found two errors

in one evening, that's not bad.

MR. HARRIS: I want to ask another question about

the allocation for registration of deeds and companies. Does the operation of

Crown lands come under the department as well?

MR. ROBERTS: No, Natural Resources.

MR. HARRIS: Is that why there is no real

integration between those two data systems, both having to do with land and

forcing private practitioners to traipse back and forth from the Howley building

to the government? Is there any talk of integrating those systems for greater

convenience of all and presumably for efficiency for the government as well? Is

there any work being done on that?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer to my hon. friend's final

question is yes, we, being the government and a number of departments - are

working on the question. The reason there are two is not that there are two

departments, the reason there are two systems, as far as I can understand is

history, and the two departments simply reflect the history.

When the government started disposing of Crown lands

officially, keeping records, for some reason it was in the Natural Resources

Department, presumably because the Minister of Natural Resources, by whatever

name he or she may be known, owned the Crown land - was the officer who signed

the deeds. They set up their own registry, and then over the years we began to

develop what is now the Registry of Deeds, which is a deposit registry system.

There is no real reason for them to be apart, in my understanding.

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There are conversations which not

even led to an interdepartmental committee. There is no reason, in my judgement,

why there cannot be one registry of lands in the Province. I can go further. I

would like to see us move - and this is a longer range project - to a land title

system whereby we could end the need for lawyers to certify titles in this

Province. Now, I will have every lawyer in the Province picketing me tomorrow,

but in reality we do not need lawyers to do land conveyancing when the title is

settled. We need them to do it on the security side, and mortgages and charges

of one sort or another. I must say to my friend, Mr. Chairman, we will probably

be here a long time before we have come to that point.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, well, my own experience in

certifying title, I think I would be very happy to see a system where lawyers

did not have to bother to do it.

MR. ROBERTS: So would the clients, because the

charges would have to go way down.

MR. HARRIS: Not as much as the surveyors, though,

it seems. Under Law Courts, administration, courts, there was some talk of

expanding the unified family court system outside of St. John's. I know a number

of years ago a previous Minister of Justice was talking about setting up a

similar system in Corner Brook. What plans are afoot at the moment to look at

that unified family court system and see whether there is a possibility of

either expanding it or having similar systems in other parts of the Province?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there is no current

proposal. It is an idea that surfaces from time to time, but it appears to be as

much really on one side of the argument as the other because if one sets up a

unified family court the question is - let's take Corner Brook, where we now

have two Supreme Court judges sitting, a Mr. Justice Roberts - no relation, I

will say in defence of Judge Roberts - and Mr. Justice Wooldridge, and they do

family court work out there, I believe, at the federal

section 96 jurisdiction -

if we were to set up a unified family court in Corner Brook, do we take away one

Supreme Court judge? If not, does that Supreme Court judge, or one or more of

them, have spare time?

There are no plans to go any further. The unified

family court appears to be working well here in St. John's, and I suspect that

reflects in part the population concentration in this area. It is interesting,

too, that most provinces have not gone very far towards a unified family court.

It was an idea that in the late seventies came along. Mr. Justice Fagan was the

first judge here, the late Ralph Fagan, and a number of provinces adopted it on

an experimental basis, as we did. Most of them have not gone much further than

we have gone. They took the experiments and made them permanent and then

stopped.

We keep looking at it. There are proposals, as my

friend knows, to amalgamate the provincial court into the

section 96 court, the

United Supreme Court, and again there are arguments to be made on either side of

that.

MR. HARRIS: There are no plans for that.

MR. ROBERTS: Nothing will happen in the coming

year.

MR. HARRIS: Moving on to, as part of the

provincial courts, Minister, vote 3.2.03, Fines Administration, is a vote of

$761,000. With revenues of $400,000 that does not seem to me to be right, unless

it is only part of the revenues.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, we get far more than that from

(inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The revenues under the estimate of

provincial revenues attached to the budget, there appears to be about $8.9

million in fines and forfeitures shown as revenues. What is that $400,000, what

is that the provincial court -

MR. ROBERTS: That $400,000, as shown on the

revenue, is not fines that the courts levy.

MR. HARRIS: That is tickets, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: - or collect, I should say.

MR. HARRIS: Is that tickets?

MR. ROBERTS: This is fines administration and we

have a new proposal - I don't know if we have announced it, if we haven't

announced it here we go - we collect, through the fines administration system,

municipal fines, university fines, hospital fines and other fines.

MR. HARRIS: This is your commission here is it?

MR. ROBERTS: And in effect that is the commission.

It will also increase the revenue to the municipalities but we are going to

charge them - instead of charging them a percentage we are going to charge them

a fee per fine and the fee will be enough to recover our costs. So that $400,000

item, which the member will note, appeared last year, we weren't able to get the

system up and running during the year. That $400,000 is the amount we will

collect back from municipalities, university and hospitals.

MR. HARRIS: So the service was not in place

between then and now?

MR. ROBERTS: That is right, yes. But my hon.

friend will note we only spent $744,000 last year and we are budgeting the same

amount this year. I am sorry, we spent $917,000 this year but $110,000 of that

is a great big IT vote which I suspect I am going to see when I get here is to

get the thing up and running.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. So that is going to be

introduced this year is it? Legislation required to do that and that is what,

university, municipalities or whatever?

MR. ROBERTS: Liquor commission, hospitals - is

that it?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Yes, basically. I think there is

something like seventy-odd ticketing jurisdictions we call them in the Province

and that can be anything from CBC to federal ticketing agencies to the -

MR. HARRIS: Is there any plan to assist the owners

of private parking lots? Does that include municipal parking lots that may be

transferred?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me knock that on the head, we

have never authorized any private person - private person in the legal sense -to

impose fines. Now there is a

section in the Highway Traffic Act - my hon. friend

I am sure knows - 245 from memory, that allows a person to lay a charge against

a person parking on private property and the person laying the charge can keep

the net revenue. I don't know if that has ever been used but it is there. We

have never authorized a private body to impose fines. The bodies - seventy to

which my deputy refers - are all public bodies.

MR. HARRIS: So that presumably would go for the

city parking garage if it is turned over to a private enterprise?

MR. ROBERTS: As far as I know it is.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Excuse me, I am afraid there is

some misunderstanding here. We are not authorizing any new bodies to impose

fines. Right now if the City of St. John's issues a traffic ticket we collect

the fine but we remit the revenue, with the exception of a small amount, to the

city. All we are saying is that we will be readjusting the amount that we keep

of what we collect. It will not have any adverse affect on hospitals, the

university or anybody else.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. Again on fines, one of the

sources of revenue allegedly for the victims services is the victim fine

surcharge. Can someone advise what amount is imposed by way of victim fine

surcharge provincewide on an annual basis or the last fiscal year and what

amount is actually collected and goes into that fund?

MR. ROBERTS: We are all hesitating because my hon.

friend's question is one that has been asked officially -

MR. HARRIS: Probably asked yourself many times.

MR. ROBERTS: - twenty or thirty times. I suppose

the truthful answer is nobody seems to be able to give me a firm figure. When we

come to the Victims Services vote here, my friend - I am just trying to turn up

the vote -

MR. HARRIS: Page 259.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. HARRIS: Page 259, 4.2.04.

MR. ROBERTS: He will note a revenue item there, I

think it is $200,000. Oh, page 259, sorry. These things have no rhyme or reason

to them at all I'm afraid, they are just history.

You will note the revenue item of $200,000 and that's

our estimate of the federal fines surcharge yield for the year.

MR. HARRIS: That was your estimate last year too.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and we only got $150,000; and it

depends on judges willingness to impose them and then upon - I am not even sure

the ability to collect them - I mean the revenue is a revenue item whether it is

collected or not, I mean, if it is not collected because of bad debt in due

course. But one has to take a run on how many cases there will be in which

judges impose fines and how much the fines will be. It is not a very effective

means of financing; we are putting a million one a year in the Victims Services

and we get $200K from the revenue. Now I don't begrudge the $900K, in fact I

would like to see more in there, that is one of these areas we have expanded in

the last few years. This is one of the most useful and productive votes we have

in the entire department.

MR. HARRIS: On Police Services, Minister, page

256, vote 4.1.04, the R.C.M.P contract, I notice it is the same amount as last

year or slightly under; what's the effect of extraordinary expenses such as the

100 mounties camped out at Voisey's Bay or other such enterprises? Is that

covered by the contract, is that an extra -

MR. ROBERTS: There were not 100, Mr. Chairman. My

recollection is about fifty-two at peak but that is still a lot of police. Yes,

it has to come out of that amount and if we spend more we get charged more. We

pay 70 per cent of the cost of the R.C.M.P. and it is a quite complicated

agreement but basically, whatever Voisey's Bay cost and we don't have a firm

figure yet but whatever that operation cost it has to be borne as part of the

$39,728,000 that we will provide to the R.C.M.P. this year.

MR. HARRIS: Do I understand you to say then that

this vote won't increase because of that expenditure but the cost of that will

have to come out of the total allocation for -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the vote is only

an estimate. Last year the Committee will note we asked for $40,490,000, this is

only the main vote but if we take the total of what we asked for, $40,562,000

and the actual expenditure was $39,375,000 and that includes part of the cost of

Voisey's Bay because of course that service was done during the '94/'95 fiscal

year. This year we are asking for $39,728,000 that is the best estimate that the

officials can come up with; the actual may differ one way or the other. In other

words, if we have a run of Voisey's Bays, let's say we are unlucky enough to

have a dozen situations where we needed a major police operation of that scale,

no doubt the bill for the R.C.M.P. would be more than $39,728,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Harris -

MR. HARRIS: I will pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to go to Mr. Careen now.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, thank you Mr. Harris.

Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

Minister, page 262 would be Commercial Relations.

There is a difference between last year's estimates and actuals. In Professional

Services, what increase do they - there is obviously, more lawyers?

MR. ROBERTS: No. For once we are not hiring more

lawyers. The $125,000 is the amount that we estimate we will have to pay to the

OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. We have asked

them to come in and work with us to do a review of the locally incorporated

insurance companies, and the feds do nothing for free so that is the cost. We

will recover it because we will charge that back to the insurance companies at

the end of the day. We have to show an expenditure and we have to ask authority

to spend that money.

MR. CAREEN: Page 260, 5.1.01, Trade Practices.

Last year there was $43,400 revised which was not spent, and this year there is

$1,000. What would the grants and subsidies be if it did have to be?

MR. ROBERTS: Page 265?

MR. CAREEN: Page 260, 5.1.01.

MR. ROBERTS: Grants and Subsidies, Trade

Practices. My friend will recall we abolished a couple of years ago a position

called consumer advocate. There was a fair amount of fuss about it at the time.

We said at that time that we were prepared to fund representations should it be

necessary and there have not been any applications either to the Public

Utilities Board or the CRTC, either of the utilities in this Province since

then. We have not spent any money, but this year we are asking for $1000 which

as my friend will acknowledge is a token vote. Should an application be

forthcoming we are prepared to look at funding a consumer group to make sure

that point of view is represented.

MR. CAREEN: Very good.

MR. ROBERTS: By wiping out the office we have now

saved a salary and there have been no applications for a couple of years.

MR. CAREEN: There was something happened last year

that bothered a lot of people, anybody with a conscience. I know that in this

department, like any other department, the minister has a twenty-four hour watch

and takes blame for whatever happens, and that goes with the territory.

Sometimes extenuating circumstances caused by someone else causes it - every

action has a reaction.

There was an incident up in Bonavista Bay where the

council had put into motion back payments of taxes, something like a debtor's

prison out of a Dicken's story, the RCMP on a particular night after one o'clock

caught this lady and charged her.

MR. ROBERTS: I do not think they charged her.

MR. CAREEN: Well, they brought her in and locked

her up for unpaid municipal monies that were owed. Has your department stepped

in to make sure that anything like that cannot happen. They should have their

own recourse of getting their money without doing this.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, there has been a

fair amount of discussion this evening about collecting fines. My friend for

Waterford - Kenmount was asking some very good question about it, and this is

part of the way the system works. What happened in that case was the woman had

not paid a fine so a warrant of committal had been issued. As I mentioned

earlier that is the only remedy we have. We do not beat people or hit them on

the head. They get taken off to jail. Now, what went wrong, and my recollection

is the RCMP quickly acknowledged it and apologized, was that an officer has no

business going to anybody's home at one o'clock in the morning to arrest

somebody on that kind of charge. Now, if it were a murder or something it would

be different, but my recollection is this did not even come to the Department of

Justice. Now, I at this stage was on the main floor but I hear about things and

watch the news - the RCMP the next day simply said: we apologize and we are

sorry. We cannot say it will never happen again but it should not happen again.

Now, I acknowledged that what happens on watch the

commanding officer is responsible for, but remember, I say to my friend, the RCM

Police and the RNC run their own show operationally, and my understanding, and I

ask Mr. Flynn to correct me if I am wrong, is all that happened was that, for

some reason, an over-zealous officer did something he ought not to have done and

I understand he got his knuckles rapped. That was very unpleasant. But you can

be put in jail in this Province, not for debt, but for refusing to pay a fine.

That is the only weapon we have to do it, to collect the fines.

MR. CAREEN: It just occurred to me to ask because

we have heard it for weeks and it was out in the news again this evening about

municipalities being in trouble.

MR. HARRIS: Is there not a fine for non-payment of

debt in that circumstance? The fine is for non-payment of debt, isn't it?

MR. ROBERTS: There would have been a warrant of

committal for non-payment of a debt, yes, but you are putting on the warrant of

committal, I say to my friend, not for the debt itself. We don't have a debtor's

prison but if a fine is imposed one has to -

MR. HARRIS: But the fine is imposed for

non-payment of debt.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Well, it is much the same thing.

MR. ROBERTS: No, my learned friend would agree,

the fine is for the offence and the offence happens to be not paying the debt.

It could be for driving too fast or for hitting somebody on the head. It could

also be a warrant of committal, my deputy minister reminds me, for refusal to

respond to a judgement debtor's summons, which is an order of the court, and you

can't ignore orders of the court without taking the consequences.

MR. CAREEN: I just wanted to quickly touch base on

that because I realize Ms. Cowan has to go.

Thank you.

MR. HODDER: I just have a couple of comments and a

couple of questions to ask the minister. There has been a great deal of talk

about alternative justice and sentencing systems, a great deal of discussion

within the aboriginal native community relative to circles of healing,

community-based responsibility for, shall we say, handling the procedures of

penalties. I am wondering if the minister could comment on, well, two things

really? One is that community-based responsibility is a well-established

Canadian principle, particularly as it applies to some offences, and

particularly after people have come out of prison. There are various programs

that the Social Services Department and others are trying to administer for

sexual offenders and that kind of thing.

The native community in Western Canada talk about

their circle of healing very similar to what is talked about in Labrador, and I

wonder if the minister could apprise us as to the status of the ultimate justice

systems that have been discussed with the native community in Labrador?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my friend opens up a

very, very large subject there and I could go on for hours, but I am sure he

doesn't want me to, so I will try to be brief. Let me talk specifically about

Labrador and the Innu people in particular, because I think that is what my hon.

friend's question is aimed at.

We have now signed an interim policing agreement with

the Innu community and that is consistent with the principles we laid down last

Fall. We were very pleased to do it and we think it is a step forward - we, the

government - and as part of that, there is a series of meetings looking at

measures that could be taken within the justice system. In fact, the deputy is

meeting tomorrow with a group of Innu and, in due course, we will bring Ottawa

into the piece as well.

It probably would be most helpful if I just simply

sketch a couple of the principles. Sentencing circles are allowed now within the

Criminal Code. In fact, both the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court have

used sentencing circles. A sentencing circle is essentially a pre-sentence

procedure and the judge has a great deal of latitude within the provisions of

the code as to the information he or she receives and to the disposition he or

she makes of an accused person up on conviction. I believe the judges in this

Province are sensitive and they have demonstrated this on many occasions.

I would be happy to send my friend some of the

decisions that have been filed. There are good indications where there have been

refusals to hold sentencing circles. I can think of one where a Supreme Court

Judge refused to hold a sentencing circle in a sexual assault thing because the

victim said she didn't think it was appropriate at all. That is a factor the

judge considered and in this case said, `fine, I will not have a sentencing

circle.' Diversions, pre-charge, post-charge are used widely in the Province.

Youth diversions we use throughout the Province. Adult diversions will depend on

changes to the Criminal Code that are now working their way through the system.

The other point I would make, I guess, is the

principle upon which we stand very firmly and this has caused the difficulty

with the Innu people. Whatever is done must be within the bounds of the Criminal

Code and the law. You can't ignore the law, you can work within the law. The

Criminal Code gives the Attorney General of this Province certain authority and

certain responsibility. The Constitution of Canada gives the Attorney General of

the Province the responsibility to administer criminal law. Parliament makes the

criminal law but the provinces administer it. We are prepared, within the

Criminal Code, to look at any of the various avenues, remedies and methods open

to us. We will not go outside the Criminal Code. I think I can say, and events

have demonstrated, that within the Criminal Code there is a fair amount of

flexibility permissible and I suspect over the next few years across Canada we

will see it developed to the point where Parliament makes some changes. But we

are within the Code. Now, we are following a number of initiatives and Davis is

one of them. Again, that is a very sketchy answer but I would be happy to go

into it - I probably spend more time on that file than any other that comes to

me.

MR. HODDER: Has the minister prepared briefing

papers that might be shared with members of the House?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer to both questions would be

no. There is no specific briefing paper, and therefore, there is nothing I could

table. There is an immense amount of information. I would be happy to ask the

officials to provide the member with at least a beginning of an introduction,

and I put it that way. It is vastly complicated and I don't think there is any

one book - I will undertake, given my friend's interest, to see what we can

provide him, either by way of material or by way of leads to materials.

MR. HODDER: My interest springs from the Select

Committee on Children's Interest and we, as a Committee, would need to have some

information as to the principles that are involved. We have had discussions, in

some cases, with representatives in Western Canada where similar programs are

discussed and any background information the ministry could share would be very

helpful.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I

share my friend's interest. We have, I think, two people who may be able to help

and I will ask to speak to each of them. There is a man named Chris Curran, a

solicitor in the Civil Division, who works on these issues and Pamela

Rideout-Lahey, a rep in Court Services and the Provincial Court, has collected

quite a substantial amount of information from across the country.

MS. SPRACKLIN: We have a lot of information.

MR. ROBERTS: The problem is, it is not necessarily

collated and we will have to see what we can put together. I say to my friend,

he is starting on an exploration that is a long, but very interesting one.

AN OFFICIAL: Oh he had somebody hired to do that

for him.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, then the Committee is better off

than the Justice Department.

MR. HODDER: Moving to a new topic, if I could,

because I am aware of the clock and the need to get back to my friend here. Of

the RNC, there seems to have been a pattern established over many years whereby,

when the senior management personnel of the RNC seem to be in need of change,

there doesn't seem to be a process in place which makes that transition smooth,

and while I have all confidence in Superintendent Leo -

MR. ROBERTS: Len Power.

MR. HODDER: Len Power - it seems to me that each

time when the term of the RNC chief seems to be coming to an end, we go through

a very frustrating time, and I am wondering if the ministry has given any

consideration to term limits for the Chief of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary or, if there has been any discussion about ensuring that we don't

have a situation whereby the chief is on sick leave for extended periods of time

and we go through this period of uncertainty?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, that is a very good

question. The Chief of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is an appointment by

the Cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and it is without term, I

believe the act says on good behaviour - I could look it up - and as a matter of

fact, it may be at pleasure, but one could look it up in the 1993 act, I guess

it is, the most recent, the current act. It has been unchanged in that sense for

many years. The immediate problem I think he is referring to is the fact that

the former Chief, Ed Coady, was on sick leave and eventually it came to the

point where he took a retirement and Len Power was made Chief.

Now, two or three comments with which I think my

friend will agree. First of all, it is always difficult to know when a sick

leave becomes a retirement and you can't penalize -

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: You can't penalize a person - no, my

friend is not in this case and unless he knows something more than I do, that's

not fair, I would suggest. It's at what point you say to somebody that you have

been sick long enough, you are now gone.

Secondly, there is, within the RNC, a very

well-developed hierarchical command structure, and when Chief Coady came to see

me and said: My doctor says I must go on sick leave, the answer was: Sobeit. I

mean, you must take care of your health. And Len Power, at that time, was the

Senior Deputy Chief, there are two deputy chiefs, and Len Power became the

Acting Chief and functioned very well as acting chief, there was no difficulty

that I knew of and I was there throughout most of the period. And then there

came a point when Chief Coady's medical condition was such that obviously,

retirement was the correct option, so there we were, and by this time, the

Premier becoming the acting minister, it fell to him to make the recommendation

that Chief Power be made Chief, as he was, Cabinet did that.

I didn't see any turmoil or anything else. Now,

whether we should appoint for a term is another issue, but I am not certain that

any police force in Canada does, with one exception, I saw it in Toronto

recently. They had a devil of a job in Toronto when the guy's term ran out and

he refused to go, which struck me as kind of absurd, but the Commissioner of the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not appointed for a term, he is appointed at

pleasure, as far as I know.

MS. SPRACKLIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My deputy says, as far as she knows,

that is correct.

I don't think we see any turmoil in the ranks of the

RNC; in fact, to the contrary. I think it is a very professionally run force

that performs very well, sometimes under difficult conditions.

MR. HODDER: My point would be that at the times

when there has been change of the office, or change of the persons holding the

office of Chief -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: - there has been some uncertainty, and

in each case there have been frustrations and public perceptions of lack of

confidence. Again, I am aware of the fact that these proceedings are being

placed on public record, and I am wondering if the ministry would give some

consideration to that. I think if you looked back over the last twenty-five

years, you would find that has happened before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A short answer, Mr. Minister.

MR. ROBERTS: My answer would be yes, I will, and I

would like to be able to talk to my friend at a little greater length, perhaps

in a different forum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's

East, I think, has four minutes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chair.

On the Commercial Relations vote here on page 262 of

the Estimates, and 170 of the Departmental Salary Details, there is this

Professional Services item that is referred to necessitated by the Hiland

action. Can we hear some more about Caribou, Mr. Minister? We have not heard

very much about it since the initial announcements were made, and haven't heard

very much since then. Do we have any other potentials lying around, and were

there savings and loans companies, or people out there who are subject to

regulation, or are they all gone? Are there any more companies of that nature?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there were, in my

understanding, two trust and loan companies licensed in the Province - local.

Now, the Royal Trust has a licence and Montreal Trust; just put them aside for

the moment. One was Caribou, which is now in the hands of a receiver under the

Winding Up Act of Canada, and the other is the Fortis Trust Corporation which,

in my understanding, is now regulated by the feds because it has the Canada

deposit insurance program in place. Is that correct? Does anybody - that is my

understanding.

MR. HARRIS: Fortis is under the CDIC.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my understanding is that Fortis

- I was a director of that company a number of years ago, and Fortis has, I

think, CDIC insurance.

MR. HARRIS: They do now, but they took over the

smaller company which, I think -

MR. ROBERTS: They took over a company called

Newfoundland Building and Savings Investment Limited. But let me come back to

Caribou. I can say nothing more on Caribou because at this stage there is

nothing more that I am able to report, but there are two things pending. The

first is that the company was placed under the Winding Up Act on the petition, I

believe, of its directors and its officers, and the Winding Up Act, which is a

federal statute and ousts any provincial statute because of the paramountcy of

federal legislation, provides that a receiver is appointed and the receiver will

report back to the court within, I believe, sixty days, and from memory, the

sixty days is up.

MR. HARRIS: So that essentially looks after the

assets and liabilities, etcetera. My concern is the fact that this company was,

for a year -

MR. ROBERTS: There is the other issue of the way

in which the regulation was done.

MR. HARRIS: And they were taking in deposits off

the street for -

MR. ROBERTS: My friend is wise, or whatever you

want to say, to raise it there, that is the second one I was going to refer to.

This happened at a time when I happened to be away from the Province so the

Premier as the acting Minister of Justice, in the absence of the guy who would

normally have to deal with it, namely, me, and properly so, he ordered a review

to be made by the officials. That review has not yet been completed. I have seen

some preliminary reports but I haven't seen anything like a final one. When we

get that we will be in a position to know, as best we can, what happened.

Obviously, something went astray, and I don't want to be any more judgemental

than that. I don't know the magnitude of it, I don't know what happened, but

this company goes back thirty years - the act goes back twenty years?

MS. SPRACKLIN: The act goes back to 1984.

MR. ROBERTS: The act goes back to 1984.

MS. SPRACKLIN: No, 1974.

MR. ROBERTS: No, 1974 - twenty years, I am

correct, and the exemption goes back to 1984. We are presently reviewing the

files to find out exactly what did and did not happen, and then there will have

to be some judgements taken. At that point, I have no doubt there will be a

public statement, and I am not sure where we will go from there, but I don't

want to prejudge the result.

MR. HARRIS: I see the time, but I have one last

question. Under the vote 5.l.06 it refers to `supervision of insurance, trust

and various other financial institutions and market intermediaries operating in

the Province.' Could you tell us who the various other financial institutions

and market intermediaries are?

MR. ROBERTS: We license mortgage brokers.

MR. HARRIS: Mortgage brokers?

MR. ROBERTS: Real estate agents.

MS. SPRACKLIN: I think, under this particular

division, you are basically looking just at insurance companies and personal

companies.

MR. HARRIS: The mortgage brokers are under 5.1.02

on page 260. So there is nobody else, just the insurance companies and the trust

companies?

MR. ROBERTS: I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman,

that the Justice officials don't write these head notes. I suspect they were

written a number of years ago. But I don't know of any others. My hon. friend is

right, when you look back to 5.1.02 the Mortgage Brokers Act and the Real Estate

Act, are dealt with under that head. It is all in the same division, Consumer

and Corporate Affairs.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If there are no further questions,

first of all we have some housekeeping to do. If there are no errors or

omissions I would like someone to move the Minutes of last night's meeting.

On motion, Minutes adopted as circulated.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.06, carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads,

$108,776,100 carried.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, officials, for being here

in whatever capacity.

On motion, Committee adjourned.