Social Services Committee — Department of Justice — 23 April 1997

1997-04-23

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

April 23, 1997

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The House met at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

This is the first session of the Social Services

Committee to review the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

My name is Robert Mercer, Chairperson of the

Committee and Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Humber East. I

would like the other members of the Committee, starting with you Mary, to

introduce yourselves.

MR. H. HODDER: I am Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin

- Placentia West.

MR. G. REID: I am Gerry Reid, MHA for

Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am John Ottenheimer, MHA for

St. John's East.

MR. WHELAN: I am Don Whelan, MHA for Harbour

Main - Whitbourne.

MR. H. HODDER: I am Harvey Hodder, MHA for

Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: Those are the members of the Committee.

What I think we would do is ask the Clerk to read the first head and then we

will ask the minister to start with an opening statement, introduce his

officials and proceed from there. So, we will give the Clerk a couple of

seconds. I think I surprised her.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Head 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Head 1.1.01.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to

take very long with my opening remarks. With your permission, I would like my

deputy to introduce the officials; I know their names but I do not know all

their titles. With me is Lynn Spracklin. Lynn, of you could introduce the

officials with their titles.

MS SPRACKLIN: This is Ralph Alcock, the

Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, Administration and Support Services, which

includes policing and corrections as well as the (inaudible) Support Services.

George White is our Director of Finance; Theresa Heffernan is our Budget

Manager; Colin Flynn is the Director of Public Prosecutions and John McCarthy is

the Assistant Deputy Minister of Civil Law.

MR. DECKER: Very good! You did not know it?

MS SPRACKLIN: That is right.

MR. DECKER: The Department of Justice provides

legal services to government and is primarily responsible for the protection of

citizens of the Province with respect to their persons and properties. This

objective is met by providing for police protection, the prosecution of alleged

offenders, the operation of the courts and correctional systems for the Province

and provision of services to victims of crime. The drafting of legislation in

the House of Assembly, of course, is also provided by the Office of the

Legislative Council.

Those are about all the general remarks I have to

make, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission we could probably go right into the

questions.

CHAIR: I will call upon the Vice-Chair of the

Committee, Mr. John Ottenheimer, if he would like to start the proceedings.

Being the Vice-Chair, John, perhaps, being a lawyer on this side, you may wish

to come back and visit some of your questions later on if you do not get them

all in the first time around.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I guess I will begin with just a few points here

for clarification, perhaps beginning with heading 1.3.01, Fines Administration.

We see a fairly significant variation under Fines Administration in the section,

Information Technology. I was just curious as to why there is such a difference,

I guess, between last year's figures and the estimates as they are showing. That

is under

section 1.3.01.12, Information Technology?

MR. DECKER: The revised budget, John, reflects

the purchase of upgraded hardware/software?

MS SPRACKLIN: Sorry, 1.3.01.12.

MR. DECKER: Is it Information Technology you

are asking questions about?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Okay. It reflects the NISL costs

associated with making the ticket management system compliant with the year

2000; you know, the computer problem with the 2000?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It cost you that much?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Am I right?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DECKER: You are familiar with the problem

we are going to have with all our computers in the year 2000?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. That is the cost to

rectify that?

MR. DECKER: Yes. That is mostly what it is,

yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under 02, Revenue -

Provincial, just below that, we see a figure of $700,000. Is this all from this

same source of revenue? Just below this, 02, Revenue - Provincial: Is this all

in the collection of fines? Is that the total amount in the collection of fines?

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is my understanding. We

did underestimate it for last year, (inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: That was the administrative fee

and the fees for processing.

MR. DECKER: Well, look, feel free to jump in

here if you see I'm getting the guts kicked out of me.

WITNESS: Let Hansard show that.

MR. MCCARTHY: The answer to your question is,

yes, it is. It is the five dollar fee increasing to seven dollars.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does that take the increase

into account?

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes it does.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It does.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to go on?

There may be other members of the Committee who have questions under the same

heading. Will we do it that way?

CHAIR: What is the wish of the Committee? Do

you want to do it head by head or do you wish each member to have a period of

time to review any questions that he or she may wish?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Pardon?

MR. H. HODDER: It doesn't bother me which way

you do it. Generally speaking, the House functions better if members are free to

ask a question. If you are on a certain topic, deal with it and then move on to

the next topic.

CHAIR: Yes. So feel free to proceed with some

of the heads. It isn't a problem.

Just one other point: When the officials are

speaking, may we ask you to identify yourselves for the purposes of the

gentleman there in the back who is making notes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let's turn then, perhaps, to

Civil Law and Enforcement. I would ask maybe Mr. Minister - the heading there in

2.1.01 is very brief. It refers to "Appropriations provide for representation of

Government in court and advice to Government in civil legal matters." I'm

wondering if you, or perhaps one of your officials, could perhaps expand upon

that somewhat. John.

MR. MCCARTHY: If I understand your question,

essentially that is the Civil division, which consists of approximately

twenty-six lawyers and of course support staff. We provide all of government's

legal services, or 95 per cent of government's legal services, in terms of

litigation, labour arbitration hearings, and of course opinions, assistance with

regulations. Basically that is the cost of operating the in-house law firm that

we are.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does this include the

retaining of outside legal services?

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, it does. In fact, you will

see down below there is Professional Services, $1.645 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So this is the providing of

all legal services, all legal representation, to government from within or from

the private Bar.

MR. MCCARTHY: There may be the odd case that is

generated by another department of government, but 99 per cent, at least, of all

legal services provided to government come through the Civil division, either

performed in-house or through the Professional Services budget, whereby we hire

outside lawyers.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Why is it, John, under

2.1.01.09, Allowances and Assistance, in that same section, we see again a

fairly significant difference in last year's figures and the Estimates for

1997-1998?

MR. MCCARTHY: My information there is that the

figure for last year was almost exclusively for the Mount Cashel settlements. To

be honest with you, I'm not sure about that figure for the current year, of $3

million. I think that was put in very late in the day after my involvement in

this process.

MS SPRACKLIN: Basically, there has never been

in the past an appropriation in the budget traditionally for liability for

claims. These are amounts paid to people who commence an action against

government. It has been problematic when it hasn't been budgeted for, and last

year there was an amount moved from the contingency into this heading to pay the

Mount Cashel claims.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So does this amount here, this

$11,289,400, represent Mount Cashel and others, or just Mount Cashel?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm pretty sure that it is just

Mount Cashel. I don't believe there is anything else in there.

MR. MCCARTHY: I don't think there is anything

significant beyond Mount Cashel.

MS SPRACKLIN: It doesn't include legal fees to

anybody. It is the amounts paid to victims.

The $3 million is just literally a plug number. We

have had difficulty establishing sort of historic amounts because in the past,

generally, liabilities have been paid by the departments to which the cause of

action relates.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there a reason why it's $3

million?

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, there are always a number

of actions going on, and it is really just a rough guess at what may be required

for next year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am wondering, for example,

the Trans City pay-out, if that is not included in the $11 million figure there,

is there another heading where that would be found?

MS SPRACKLIN: No. As I say, there had never

been a budget before and it probably came from the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation budget last year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MS SPRACKLIN: What we are trying to do, I

guess, is make some provision.

MR. G. REID: So it goes back to the department

which is responsible?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, it has in the past.

MR. G. REID: What about the legal advice? Do

you bill any of that back to the individual departments or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, not at the moment. Some

departments who have extraordinary requirements in any given year may transfer

some money into our budget to hire a lawyer for a special project; but as a

general rule, no.

MR. H. HODDER: Since you have reduced the

salaries there by about $200,000, is there a warning to me that there have been

lay-offs of legal people?

MS SPRACKLIN: There have.

MR. H. HODDER: Two? Three?

MS SPRACKLIN: Four.

MR. H. HODDER: Four?

MS SPRACKLIN: Ultimately, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: In

section 2.1.01.03,

Transportation and Communications, you spent $69,000 last year. You have $79,800

as the revised figure, but you are gone up to $128,000.

MS SPRACKLIN: There is an anticipation of

increased need relating to the Terra Nova negotiations and discussions.

MR. McCARTHY: In fact, in the Civil Division we

lost money in this year's budget related to travel. I think that is a budget

decision (inaudible). We will be billing, basically, the client departments for

our travel and legal expenses, not for the fees. There is that increase that Ms

Spracklin just mentioned.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am wondering, for example,

and again maybe, Mr. Minister, one of your officials - the case where a Notice

of Appeal was filed a few days ago, I have been thinking, from the results of

the arbitration and the pay equity issue, depending, of course, on the end of

the day, and no one knows what that result might be, but at the end of the day

obviously the award could be quite significant. I guess it goes back to the

point that Ms Spracklin made in terms of projection, or having a figure in mind.

Obviously that whole issue was not addressed nor, perhaps, is it even

appropriate to be addressed in these headings under Civil Law and Allowances and

Assistance. So my question more directly is: Under what department at the end of

the day, if necessary, would a pay-out be made?

MR. DECKER: Your question, as I am sure you are

aware, is hypothetical. We would certainly hope that we would not have to pay

out anything, but my understanding is it would be Treasury Board. Is that

correct?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MR. DECKER: If it were, but it is very

hypothetical.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. Any other questions

before we move to the next heading?

Under the Sheriff's Office, Mr. Minister, you will

recall, just a little while ago there was new legislation dealing with the

operation of the Sheriff's Office. Perhaps, in a general sense, I am wondering

if somebody may wish to make a comment as to how the new provisions of the new

legislation will impact upon the department, and the cost to the department, I

guess, from an efficiency point of view, in terms of the new act that the

Sheriff of this Province will be dealing with I believe in June, if I am not

mistaken.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Deputy, do you want to tackle that

one?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm not entirely sure I

understand it. We have modernized our judgement enforcement legislation. There

will be improvements, I think, for the Bar and business which were the primary,

I guess, consumers of the service. Ultimately it is our hope that by the fall

people will be able to have direct access to conduct searches and whatnot from

their offices. They will be able to access the registry system directly. It

modernizes, I guess, both for creditors and debtors the enforcement of

judgements, and it should provide for a more efficient, more modern and more

equitable judgement enforcement system. I would need a more specific question I

think.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When we look at the Estimates,

and we look at again last year's figures, the difference is not that great. One

would have thought, I guess, that the improvements and the efficiencies that are

being created by the new legislation would perhaps have meant greater savings to

government, but it doesn't appear to be reflected in the Estimates.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I don't think the motivation

behind the new legislation was savings. I think it was just to bring us in

harmony with the rest of North America and update legislation that was

significantly out of step and out of date. There are some small increased IT

costs at the outset; not great, but some. I wouldn't anticipate huge savings

from that legislation, though. I think there may be savings to the private

sector as a result of being able to deal with Newfoundland in the same way that

they deal with other jurisdictions, but I don't think that was the motivation

behind the legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: At the time when we were

debating this last spring or last fall, we were told there would be a period of

time from January until June when there would be a program of in-service for the

legal community, both those who are practising independently, and particulary

for all of the courts and their officials, including the judges. I don't see any

item here where that kind of in-service is being provided for. If it isn't being

provided for here, then where is it being provided for?

MS SPRACKLIN: It is in fact being provided. For

example, there was a session in Littledale last week for the Bar and for the

commercial community, bankers or whoever wanted to attend, frankly, that was

very well attended. There has been an extensive educational public information

effort, and it would be in this budget. It is in there, although it wouldn't be

showing up as a specific heading.

MR. H. HODDER: It isn't there as a separate

item?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. H. HODDER: It is showing up there in either

Professional Services or Purchased Services or whatever?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. It is largely being provided

by in-house staff, for instance. Do you have anything to add to that?

MR. MCCARTHY: No. I know that last week there

was, I guess, a blitz of conferences or seminars, whatever you want to call

them. I think they started in Corner Brook and they ended up in Littledale, as

Ms Spracklin said - very low cost. For example, transportation to Corner Brook

would be included here but no exorbitant or additional costs that would need to

be reflected separately.

MS SPRACKLIN: Materials, for example, were

published but they were sold, so the private Bar bought its own materials, the

banking community bought its own materials. So I think it was at little cost to

government.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under Support Enforcement,

2.1.03, we see in Salaries some significant changes. I would be interested in

knowing what types of positions have been created to allow for the increase in

Salaries under Support Enforcement.

MR. DECKER: The additional funding is provided

here to cover the costs associated with the implementation of the new federal

support guidelines and $220,000 is in place for that. A federal-provincial

agreement is in place which will reimburse the money to the Province, so we will

get it back.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What would be the nature of

the employment, I guess, pursuant to that agreement?

MS SPRACKLIN: We are still in the process of

working that through. What is anticipated are court based personnel who will

essentially provide services to clients at both the Supreme and Provincial

Courts, to provide an administrative, I will call it, mediation service, I

guess, to basically indicate to people that this is what the guidelines would

indicate that you will receive or will have to pay, and to encourage consent

orders where required to evaluate whether it is worthwhile applying for

variation because of the new changes, that sort of thing.

We have currently social services' workers who

assist people seeking child support now. They will be cross-trained to deal with

this, and we are going to be hiring four new workers to supplement them from

this money, in addition to putting out - of course, that is just that one there.

Yes, that would cover the cost of the actual people who will be hired to conduct

that service throughout the Province.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are these people who would

actually be employed in the court, or within the various departments and provide

assistance to the court?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, they will be court based.

They will be essentially housed, perhaps, for example, in a particular judicial

centre. If there is more than one courthouse, they would be available mornings

at one courthouse, afternoons at the other. That would be known and people would

be scheduled in to see them, as available. In a lot of our centres there is only

one courthouse that houses both courts, so they would be in that court facility.

MR. H. HODDER: The progress that we made with

the federal government relative to a better coordination between the provinces

on support enforcement, every year we hope it will get better, and yet we still

find out there can be significant delays in having support enforced from one

province to another. There has been dialogue over the years to make that work

more functional and more -

MR. DECKER: At the two ministers' conferences I

have attended, it is always an issue which comes up, and everybody has the

intention and desire to improve it. But I don't know, Lynn, is there any

improvement or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: I suspect that it varies from

province to province. We have reciprocating agreements with all the other

provinces. It probably varies from province to province. Some have backlogs and

others don't. With respect to the federal government, our problem has been it

takes about six months to get onto the database. I'm really not sure if there

has been much, if any, improvement in that.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to follow up on the

difficulties with the federal database: It amazes me that you can have an

employee, for example, who might be working here in St. John's with the Coast

Guard, and there can be a court order that - I just think of one that I'm very

familiar with that dates back to 1989. Yet, because it wasn't entered properly,

now they find it causes a confusion and it is going to take six months to

implement the appropriate change so that a mother and her three children can get

regular cheques.

I don't understand why it would take six months to

tell a computer that - in this case, the father is being paid by the federal

government, the mother is living here in the St. John's area. I talked to the

people in Corner Brook. It is very frustrating because the people here in Coast

Guard say: You know, we are doing everything we can. But six months to have a

change made! There must be a logic behind it that I do not know or do not

understand, certainly. Do you have any comments on that?

MS SPRACKLIN: Me too.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is a difficult problem.

From my own experience in practice, it is perhaps one of the most difficult

issues to deal with because you are dealing with individuals who are obviously

in need and are frustrated, and because of the reciprocal arrangements - some

work, some don't - the delays can be horrendous. I think the question is a good

one. I don't know if we have done anything in this jurisdiction to, I guess,

assist in trying to, you know, speed up the process or work with the delays in

some way.

MS SPRACKLIN: Well I do believe that our

Support Enforcement Agency is pretty aggressive and, by and large, pretty quick

off the mark but we have no control over the federal data banks. The federal

government are constantly being reminded of it. The ministers raise it routinely

and it is a constant nag, so to speak. I suspect it is very expensive to

probably replace their system and I suspect it is just an older system and

cumbersome, perhaps.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to say up front, that my

experience has been very positive with support enforcement in Corner Brook. As

an MHA, I do not get a lot of dialogue. I had more dealings with them when I was

doing the study on children than I would have as an MHA.

The issue I want to return to though is: Why is it

that in this country - and I ask this of the minister - have we not had a

unified, consistent, across-Canada approach to support enforcement? What are the

obstacles? Why is this not happening? Because, if we had a uniform approach

across the country - I know that there are troubles with the whole Social

Insurance Number System. You know, we have examples of where, if fathers are

determined not to pay and all that kind of thing, they change jobs, they do

everything that they can, they get paid in their brothers' names and all the

rest of it. I mean, there are all kinds of scams out there. Until we can get a

national policy on support enforcement that works, we are still going to have

these things. Why have we not made progress there?

MR. DECKER: Those are really good questions,

Harvey, but it is difficult to answer why it was not done in the past and, of

course, it is beyond me to do that.

We can also say that in the past, in the Province,

until we put the support agency in place over in Corner Brook, our own record

was not that good, but now, I would suspect, that a lot of the MHAs who get the

complaints, they are not so much from the parent who owns the children as from

the parent who is really being made to pay up by the support enforcement agency.

I think they do an excellent job within the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: They are.

MR. DECKER: Outside the Province, all I can

tell you is, that it is a concern that the ministers share and maybe we should

do more than talk about it, but every time we meet we do talk about it. Lynn,

what is happening across the country? Are we entering into agreements as such or

not?

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, we have reciprocal

arrangements with every other agency and they have interfaces with Motor

Registration Divisions, for example, so that our enforcement agency can get into

the MRD systems of all the other provinces and locate people that way. So, there

is a lot that has happened that is positive, but I think one of the biggest

problems we have is the fact that, barring having people travel from one

jurisdiction to the next, you end up with a situation where the evidence of the

wife may be taken in this jurisdiction and a provisional order is made and sent

off to the other jurisdiction. That person in the other jurisdiction, then, has

the opportunity to go into court in Ontario, Manitoba or wherever and give his

or side of it. Then the order is either confirmed or not. Then it comes back

here and we enforce it. All this sort of stuff takes time.

MR. H. HODDER: Take, for example, New Brunswick

where, let us say, you have a father living in Newfoundland and there is a

mother and child who are in New Brunswick, but there is a dispute here. You

know, the father here wants to be able to bring an action to court in New

Brunswick saying the mother is not providing the care that she should and all

this kind of thing. What kind of reciprocal agreements do we have there? Because

obviously Human Resources and Employment here is not going to pay for the father

to travel to New Brunswick to appear. How do we handle things like that where

there are actions potentially in a court in New Brunswick but the complainants

are located in Newfoundland?

MS SPRACKLIN: A custody application pertaining

to it would normally be heard in the jurisdiction where the child is located and

where the evidence would be most readily available. I think, if you wish to give

evidence and that sort of thing you would, of necessity, travel there. There is

provision for taking commissioned evidence outside a province in both custody

matters or any other kind of civil matter.

MR. H. HODDER: The last time when dealing with

this, I had the understanding that the New Brunswick court was pretty reluctant

to take commissioned evidence from Newfoundland in this particular case, and

Social Services wouldn't pay for the father to go to New Brunswick. He wanted to

have certain things happen, and it got very frustrating. I got the feeling that

New Brunswick wasn't being very cooperative. I just ask the question: What are

the arrangements between provinces in dealing with that? Are they all the same,

or does each province have its own set of rules that it applies?

MS SPRACKLIN: The superior courts in each

province basically make their own rules. Again, we would have no control over

the rules in New Brunswick as such. By and large, it is within the discretion of

the judge as to what evidence they will or will not accept in any particular

case. They may well have good reason (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I have no doubt about that.

One further question on the delays. When people

have their support enforcement here in Newfoundland and they have had the order

set here, let us say the father, because as we know 98 per cent of the people we

are talking about are fathers, a scattered mother, but it is a rarity. The

family moves, let's say, to Alberta. The feeling I have is that when it comes to

supporting the enforcement in Alberta, they tend to look after their own first,

and then ours kind of go to the bottom of the list and it takes a long time, for

up to six months, before we can bring that forward to make sure it is being

enforced there. What is your experience across the country in terms of the level

of cooperation that you receive?

MS SPRACKLIN: I can't specifically address your

question about Alberta. I've not been made aware that Alberta is any particular

problem. There is this issue of the time it takes to register an order; you

know, take evidence here, perhaps, which is then forwarded to Alberta and there

is a date set in Alberta for another hearing. You have to find the guy and you

have to get him into court. I would think that potential exists with any

province. I'm not aware of any particular problem with Alberta.

MR. H. HODDER: One little local issue again,

and that is: When we have changes, as has happened now with the federal

legislation - you know, there have been some changes as you have alluded to

before. You said social workers have been counselled and made aware of the

changes that might occur because of changing federal rules. Do you have, for

example, in-servicing for social workers? How often is that done?

MS SPRACKLIN: These are actually dedicated

social workers who assist clients on social assistance to deal with the courts

in obtaining our maintenance order. They receive training on, I guess, sort of

an ongoing basis, in a sense. There will be materials and training provided with

respect to the federal child support guidelines which are coming in in May.

MR. H. HODDER: These programs: Are they part of

the social work curriculum at Memorial University?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I wouldn't think so, no.

MR. H. HODDER: Why not? When you are talking

about the whole issue of the legal basis of support enforcement, and we are

talking about a school which is training social workers, I'm just asking the

question: If there isn't a curriculum basis for this kind of information to be

communicated at the University, why hasn't the department made sure that support

enforcement, the provincial legislation and other aspects dealing with support

enforcement, are a mandatory part of the curriculum that social workers would

have to go through so that they don't have to learn it afterwards, that there is

a basis for it right up front in the program of studies? Has it ever been

approached?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but perhaps should be.

MR. H. HODDER: That is an issue that came

forward in the study that I did, or was part of, I should say. To my knowledge,

there are all these people out there who are trying to get an education, only to

find out when they get a Bachelor's in Social Work they are already deficient in

one particular very important aspect, which is the legal basis. These pieces of

information, I think, are things that the minister and others should be talking

about with the University or with the Department of Education, probably, to see

if we can remedy that so we don't have to do as much -

MR. DECKER: It is an interesting concept. Maybe

they are doing it. I would be surprised if they are.

MR. H. HODDER: I'm not saying that they aren't.

MR. DECKER: No, I'm not saying it either. Like

yourself, I would be surprised if they are. It is an interesting suggestion

which we certainly will follow through on.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just to conclude, I guess, in

this area. From what I can understand, Lynn, from your comments, the federal

funding will be primarily to allow individuals to assist in the new table or the

new regime which is coming into place in terms of support, and presumably they

will act primarily as mediators. Would that be correct?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I will call it mediation. I

use the term a bit -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With a view to an out of court

settlement as opposed to litigation.

MS SPRACKLIN: That is correct. I think the

whole objective of support enforcement guidelines is to remove uncertainty and

to bring some consistency to support awards and to make them more predictable,

to minimize the amount of litigation. A lot of it is -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is this for one year? Is this

funding available just for the first year?

MS SPRACKLIN: I gather it is going to be around

for about five years. That is what the federal government has told us to date.

It is intended, I think, primarily to get us over the hump of potential

applications for variations of awards in the past, because the tax regime is

changing and, as well, these guidelines are coming into place. There is some

concern that there may be a sort of ground swell of applications by people who

feel their support order should be changed as a result of all that

The federal government has offered funding for five

years. That is what it is presently saying. Now, I'm not sure that it would be

this amount for five years. That will remain to be seen. We anticipate it will

maintain the staff for that implementation period.

MR. H. HODDER: The only thing we have left to

do is do what British Columbia has done. As you know, it has privatized its

support enforcement. It is the only one in the country. Much more efficient. In

fact, the NDP government when it came in wouldn't change it. It is a very

efficient system. However, I have to say that our system works very well. I'm

not suggesting that we privatize it, but they has done that and, of course, they

kept the same people employed. It is an interesting thing they have done there.

MR. DECKER: Which province?

MR. H. HODDER: British Columbia.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) questions?

MR. WHELAN: I've been through the Estimates

here. I don't really see anything there that is of any great concern. I suppose,

what we could have done with it from the beginning is you could have walked us

through it and we could have asked questions as we went. We are pretty near

through it now I believe, John, are we?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A few more areas.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. Basically, I almost feel

obligated to ask a question before we finish up. I wanted to ask some questions

about new recruits into the RNC. Are we still taking people from Holland College

and, if so, how many?

MR. DECKER: I am sorry?

MR. WHELAN: New recruits into the RNC?

MR. DECKER: The RNC has not trained anybody

over there for two or three years. We do have eleven seats there. People are

being trained; they pay their own way.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, this is what I am getting at.

Now they pay their own way, but we do use the Holland College to access students

for the RNC?

MR. DECKER: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: I think it is just the RNC. How

many students are we taking?

MR. DECKER: Ten or eleven, Ralph?

MR. ALCOCK: Our allocation from the Atlantic

Police Academy is twelve students, so we can identify twelve individuals who

would attend the Atlantic Police Academy in any given year on the basis that

they will have one class in a given year. The next class is September of this

year, and the RNC have identified a number of names, somewhat in excess of

twelve. Of course, the Atlantic Police Academy goes down through these in order.

They are prioritized, and if the individuals are prepared to attend then, of

course, it is up to them to attend.

MR. WHELAN: Attend at their own risk as far as

finances are concerned. There is no commitment from the RNC.

MR. DECKER: That is correct.

MR. WHELAN: Well, they don't need a commitment

from the RNC to be hired before they gain entrance to Holland College, do they?

MR. ALCOCK: No, we have not given a commitment

to hire at the RNC for several years. The last class that went through were not

hired and we do not anticipate, of course, that this class will be hired,

either, by the RNC at this particular point in time; however, the individuals

have other job opportunities. We have not made a commitment for three or four

years that we will, in fact, hire after they graduate.

MR. WHELAN: I understand that a few years ago

they would probably take twenty or twenty-one students from Holland College and

for one reason or another, through attrition or retirement, you would go through

twenty-one. But, as you say, that is down to about twelve now? Or am I wrong in

that number? Because I was up there a few years ago and attended a graduation,

and that is what they were telling me at that time. That was about three or four

years ago.

MR. ALCOCK: My history with this is somewhat

short, in the order of three to four years, but I understand that it would have

been prior to 1991 when that particular number of recruits would have been

hired. In the last four years - certainly the last three classes - there were

twelve, maybe thirteen at one particular point in time, students only. As a

matter of fact, in 1991-'92 and 1992-'93, I don't believe the RNC identified

anyone to attend the Atlantic Police Academy. That is because of a number of

things that were happening with the RNC at that particular point in time. The

force was being reduced in size from approximately 1989 to 1993.

MS SPRACKLIN: Just to add to that a little bit,

what we realized was happening was that other provinces were sending people to

the places that Newfoundlanders used to occupy; not necessarily with any promise

to hire them, but they were sending them and they were getting jobs elsewhere,

so we sort of felt that we had to give Newfoundland students the opportunity to

get the training because they are being hired in other provinces.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you subsidize their

education?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but if we hire them, of

course, we give them the opportunity to (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: So we don't pay anything to keep

those eleven or twelve seats there exclusively for our purposes?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. ALCOCK: Two things. Number one: before this

current class, in the two years prior to this, we provided loans to students,

for part of their cost, which were basically handled like student loans -

basically the same criteria as a student loan. The way the agreement works is

that if we have students - in other words, we are allocated twelve seats. If

Newfoundlanders fill up these seats there is no cost to the Province, but if

these seats are not filled up then the Province would have to pay an amount of

money, depending on how many seats are vacant. For example, if these twelve

seats were filled by New Brunswickers, the Province would benefit by that. Even

though we don't finance these people, if they attend and fill up the seats then

equally we do not pay.

CHAIR: Gerry?

MR. G. REID: Yes. On the remand centre or the

youth correction centre in Whitbourne, Salaries are $5 million (inaudible); does

that include the teaching staff or is that paid from the Department of

Education?

MR. ALCOCK: The Department of Education.

MR. A. REID: Under Revenue - Federal: Maybe

there is something I am missing here. Who do you get revenue from?

MR. ALCOCK: There is a cost-shared agreement

with the federal government under which they contribute an amount of money

towards both open and closed custody for youth. This is the closed custody

component of those monies.

MR. G. REID: That will give us the 2.6, is that

what you are saying?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes. The numbers are changing

virtually as we speak. They are for 1997/98. That is the number.

MR. G. REID: Salaries were reduced by about

30,000 last year? Were there any teaching positions eliminated out there this

year, do you know?

MR. ALCOCK: There were no teaching positions

eliminated. The salaries are considerably more. I think you said $30,000 but

they are considerably -

MR. G. REID: Three hundred thousand, sorry.

MR. ALCOCK: No, there are no teachings

positions being eliminated.

MR. G. REID: There were positions eliminated

though, were there not?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes, there were.

MR. G. REID: What was the total number?

MR. ALCOCK: Twenty-two positions.

MR. H. HODDER: What is the staff complement now

at Whitbourne, part-time and full-time?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't have the answer to that

question. Theresa, can you help me out here?

MS HEFFERNAN: Up until these reductions, we had

117 I think, permanent. Temporaries vary, I guess, with casuals and what not.

MR. ALCOCK: There are probably in excess of

200, because I believe that there is approximately the equivalent of full-time

positions in temporaries. I believe you are probably talking in excess of 200

positions.

MR. H. HODDER: A year or so ago, when I made

the inquiry, they were over 200. What is the number of youths out there now?

MR. ALCOCK: There are sixty beds in that

institution which are generally - we are still using the old building for

overflow and, of course, we have then the remand centre here in St. John's as

well. In the new facility there were basically sixty beds.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been an increase? I

am on the same topic of the Whitbourne centre. Has there been an increase in, I

guess, professional staff? I am thinking particularly of child psychologists and

those individuals who can give the special kind of support, obviously, to young

people who require that sort of assistance. Has there been any change, hopefully

for the better, in terms of numbers of those kinds of individuals, on staff,

either you know, from time to time or permanent staff at the Whitbourne centre?

MR. ALCOCK: I do not believe in the last year

or so that there has been an increase in professional staff. Approximately three

years ago there was an increase in the professional staff when they moved into

the new facility. I believe that is maybe three or four years ago. So there has

been an increase in professional staff.

Since youth corrections was transferred to the

Department of Justice, our initiative is to increase the delivery of

professional services to the youth and to integrate the youth care workers more

into the delivery of services to youth. Many of these youth care workers are

professionals in their own right. I guess what we are attempting to do is to

integrate them into a different model for the provision of services to the

youth. I can only think of probably one position in the last maybe twelve months

of a professional nature that has been added.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That isn't to say, of course -

I mean, we realize those services are available for people on probation, for

example. Those same individuals are not included in the people whom you mention,

is that correct? I'm thinking of a young person who, on one of the terms of a

probation order, would be for counselling or professional help through the

Janeway, for example. These are not the same individuals whom we are referring

to when you talk about those individuals at the Whitbourne centre.

MR. ALCOCK: No, they are not.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I say that is

because counselling is obviously available to a young person prior to

incarceration, in addition to while that young person is incarcerated.

MR. ALCOCK: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: The last time I was looking at

data I was a bit concerned about the very high number of young people at

Whitbourne who were there for property offences. I expressed a concern then

about how effective we were really, and it causes me concern that young

teenagers would be at Whitbourne. We recognize the ages that are there.

Have we tried to address that issue of the high

ratio of people who are in Whitbourne for property related offences as opposed

to offences against people? Have we been able to do anything with that in terms

of targeting it for counselling, or to do an examination as to whether or not

Whitbourne indeed is the best place for that kind of person? Is there any

dialogue occurring on that?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think, though, even on a

national basis there is a resolve to review incarceration of young offenders,

and adults for that matter, in terms of property type offences. I guess you have

to be very careful, if you are going to try and deal with it in the community,

that you have the resources there. I think we are all undertaking a substantive

review right now of youth corrections nationally and provincially in an effort

to see -

MR. H. HODDER: That issue is being brought

forward on the agenda.

MS SPRACKLIN: It is certainly a large one. The

federal government, just to give us a little extra incentive, is essentially, I

guess, trying to encourage, through the funding mechanisms, alternatives to

incarceration for youth.

CHAIR: John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have a question with respect

to Legal Aid and Related Services. I have never seen the figure, and I guess it

would be in the annual report, in terms of the number of clients that would be

seen by our legal aid offices in the Province. I'm wondering if anybody, Mr.

Minister, any of your officials, would know approximately what that number would

be in the Province. Do we have an approximate number?

MR. ALCOCK: I'm sure the information is

available but I wouldn't have it here now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I'm not familiar with what it

would be, which is why I just asked the question. The reason I'm asking that is

because I'm surprised to see an overall decrease in the Legal Aid and Related

Services at a time when one would think that the demand would be greater. When

we think of, perhaps, the fiscal reality and our lack of employment and the many

problems that we face in our Province, criminal law and family law are two areas

which are usually, in terms of legal service, often required. I'm just wondering

why is it, at a time when one would think that the need for legal aid is perhaps

greater, that we have a decrease in the overall expenditure in that particular

area?

MS SPRACKLIN: The reductions have all been

accomplished through administrative efficiencies and there will be no reduction

in legal services or the number of lawyers engaged.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When you say administrative,

what -

MS SPRACKLIN: I will give you an example, and I

have to be a little careful here because it all has not been implemented, but if

you introduce a fairly inexpensive accounting program on existing computer

hardware, it may make a difference of up to, say, four administrative positions,

for a $1,000 software program.

There have been other changes as well that will

reduce administrative burdens. The cost-sharing agreement, the formula will not

require nearly as much detail, I guess, and input on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway, it has all been accomplished, by and large,

through administrative efficiencies.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So there has not been a

reduction in legal aid staff solicitors, is what you are saying?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, nor will there be.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It has been simply

administrative.

WITNESS: And there are no offices opposing this

(inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been any growth in

that area? Have there been offices opening or an increase in staff solicitors

within the past year of which you are aware?

MS SPRACKLIN: Not in the past year. There has,

over the last few years, been a move from using the private Bar to staff

solicitors because it is much less expensive and much more efficient, but I

don't believe there have been any increases in the last year. I know that

process is finished now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I see the federal contribution

to legal aid is quite significant. If somebody could just indicate: What are the

areas in particular that are funded, either partially or totally, by the federal

government in terms of legal aid services? For example, I know immigration law

was an area that was either partially or totally funded, I believe, by the

federal government. It was done through legal aid but it was funded by the

federal government.

MS SPRACKLIN: All of these legal aid agreements

are being renegotiated as we speak. I don't think they have been signed yet, but

we are close. In the past there has been a young offenders criminal legal aid

cost-sharing agreement, there has been an adult criminal legal aid cost-sharing

agreement, and the civil stuff was covered under the Canada Assistance Plan; you

made your claim under that. That has now been absorbed, obviously, in the block

funding arrangements, the new CHST - is that what it is called, CHST? - Canada

Health and Social Transfer payments, and the criminal legal aid agreement are

being renegotiated. Canada is moving toward a per capita over a five-year

period. It will not affect us dramatically early on, but our payments will

decrease over the next five years. We are not sure what it looks like yet

because it has not been finished yet. The formula is still under discussion.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I don't know if there are any

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1997-04-23
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees standingcommittees socialservices ga43session2 1997-04-23 ssc-jus
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0a4e90df89919c5e31b979f5f6b9d0764a4df702

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).