Social Services Committee — Department of Justice is concerned — 5 November 2016

2016-11-05

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 16, 2011 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Estimates Committee, Social Services Committee. This evening we will be hearing the Estimates of Justice.

Before we get started, Minister, before I go to you, maybe we will have the Committee introduce themselves first. We will do that, to my right.

MR. YOUNG: Wallace Young, St. Barbe.

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

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

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

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

CHAIR: Thank you.

Keith Hutchings, MHA for Ferryland.

Minister, when I go to you shortly you are certainly free to make any opening comments and maybe before that if your staff could introduce themselves, and just remind them that before you speak each time if you could identify yourself for the purpose of Hansard.

With that, I will go to you, Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to present the Estimates this evening and respond to any questions the Committee might have. We are talking a total budget with Justice of a little over $240 million. Instead of giving an opening statement, Mr. Chairman, on the Justice budget we offer the introduction of our officials and get right to the issues. I see Mr. Parsons is all alone over there from the Opposition this afternoon so he has the place all to himself tonight. With that, I will introduce my officials, beginning with my right.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS JACOBS: Heather Jacobs, ADM, Justice.

MR. BURRAGE: Don Burrage, Deputy Minister.

MS BALLARD: Donna Ballard, ADM, Justice.

MR. CHAFE: Dan Chafe, Director of Quality Management and Support Services.

MS LAKE-KAVANAGH: Jackie Lake-Kavanagh, Director of Policy and Strategic Planning.

MS HYNES: Anita Hynes, Executive Assistant.

MS COLMAN-SADD: Vanessa Colman-Sadd, Director of Communications.

MR. STANLEY: Todd Stanley, Director of the Civil Division.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you. We will go to our Committee.

Mr. Parsons, all set.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Usually, Minister, what I do is run through a few of the specifics in the budgetary piece and any variances from last year to this year and so on and get an explanation. Then, after, I have some more substantive general questions type of thing, if that is okay.

First of all on page 238, heading 1.2.02, I notice under 06. Purchased Services, last year it was budgeted $255,000 and actually spent $430,000. It is over a fair bit there, I am just wondering what the explanation might be for that.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is a considerable difference. There was the matter of re-profiling some money; $250,000 was moved to Professional Services. There was some new money for Natuashish that we budgeted this year to do some programming in Natuashish. There is $72,000 of monies for use for the transportation of deceased bodies, dead bodies, for the chief medical examiner's office that we moved to another division.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So that the reason for the increase from $255,000 to $430,000 last year? I notice this year you have quite a bit more there: $732,000 this year. I am just wondering what the plan is to spend those extra monies this year.

MR. F. COLLINS: Did you want to pick up on it?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So how much of that $732,000 for this fiscal year is for Natuashish?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What is that programming that you are doing with that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Basically, we now have federal monies for programming in Sheshatshiu, and we did not have any federal monies for programming in Natuashish. So we are doing the same thing in Natuashish now that we have been doing in Sheshatshiu for last year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Under heading 10 there in the same heading, what kinds of things are included in the grants and subsidies? There is $323,000 budgeted for this year. What kind of grants and subsidies would you be talking about there?

MR. F. COLLINS: The grants and subsidies here are not our regular grants budget. This is grants and subsidies relating to Search and Rescue. With the grants tab –

MR BURRAGE: We do not have the grants tab.

MR. F. COLLINS: You do not have the grants tab. This is not the grants we are talking about here.

We budgeted $562,473 for grants. We can give you this information, but do you want a rundown of what we are spending?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I just want an idea of what kind of groups it would be to. Is it the John Howard Society?

MR. F. COLLINS: Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, Canadian Council of Chief Judges, Atlantic Coordinating Committee on Crime, Canadian Mental Health Association, Federation of Law Societies, Hopedale Inuit Community Government, Nain Inuit Community Government, National Judicial Institute, Search and Rescue Association, RCMP Veterans Associations, Rigolet Inuit Community Government, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Honoured Guard, Town of Makkovik, Uniform Law Conference of Canada, John Howard Society, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and so on.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In 1.2.03.03. Transportation and Communications, last year you had budgeted $11,100 and actually spent $110,000. I wonder why the drastic increase there tenfold.

MR. F. COLLINS: Could you repeat the question again?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On page 238, under 1.2.03.03., Transportation and Communications, you had budgeted $11,100 and actually spent $110,000. I am wondering why the tenfold increase in what you had budgeted. You are back this year to $11,100. So there was $100,000 more than you expected for something.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Virginia.

CHAIR: Go ahead, Virginia.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What kind of training would we be talking here?

MR. BURRAGE: Most of that training would be mandatory training that is required in order to maintain your qualifications, such as use of force, for example, that kind of training.

As Virginia has indicated, it was budgeted for but under Purchased Services and then transferred from Purchased Services as required because ODI will cover travel costs as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. The $385,000 that we are seeing in item 06, that is the ODI funding you are saying?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Then throughout the year you might have put so much in Transportation and Communications.

MR. BURRAGE: Correct.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On page 241, item 2.1.01.05. Professional Services, you had budgeted $3.3 million and spent $2.1 million, and this year you estimate $2.3 million. Would that be for outside legal services there?

MR. F. COLLINS: That particular item, there is a legal cost related to Abitibi. It was budgeted in $3,301,000 but of course the Abitibi case settled. So, consequently, our projections were down by $1 million. Our budgeted $2,301,000 is really last year's budget reduced by $1 million.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In prior years we always asked for the breakdown of who got the money; who the money was paid out to. Is there any problem with that?

MR. F. COLLINS: No, no problem with that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Under the same, Civil Law

section 09. Allowances and Assistance $2 million, $1.5 million paid out. Could you just confirm what I believe that to be?

MR. F. COLLINS: That is legal claims against the Crown. Every year that is a crapshoot. We put in $2 million for it and we have $2 million in this year's budget. Last year we paid out roughly $1.5 million.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can we get the list on that as well?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, you can so.

MR. BURRAGE: Just coming back to Professional Services, I should indicate the actual last year was $1.5 million, we are showing a projection of $2.1 million but the actual number came in at $1.5 million. As the minister has indicated, it is largely for external legal counsel. We can give you the breakdown on that, but the actual was $1.5 million.

On the amounts paid out of the Contingency Fund, as we call it, what we can do is give you the breakdown by category as we have done in previous years, how much was paid out on sexual assault claims, how much was paid out for accidents, that kind of thing. So, we can certainly do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I realize we are under Civil Law there, but while I think about it, are there any court ordered criminal cases currently in process? I know back some years ago the courts would sometimes allow an accused person to have a solicitor of his or her choice and actually ordered the department to pay the legal fees, and the scale was worked out between the department and the lawyer in question. I am wondering if that is a common thing now.

MR. BURRAGE: We have not had any court ordered, in the sense that we have had in the past, like ones which were contested and the court has ordered the Attorney General to pay.

We do have a couple of cases involving Attorney General funded counsel where the Attorney General has agreed to provide counsel and those are circumstances - there is a case pending before the Court of Appeal, they are criminal matters where the accused was unable to retain legal aid because there was a conflict with legal aid and there was extenuating circumstances. They will be reflected when you see the amounts paid out to counsel, out of Professional Services. I know for a while there we had a series of these cases where we were fighting them, I fought a lot of them myself, we have not had those.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Under the Sheriff's Office, same page, 2.1.02.03.Transportation and Communications is up almost 100 per cent of what was budgeted, over 100 per cent. Is there any particular reason for the -

MR. F. COLLINS: Two reasons for that, Mr. Parsons, one is the increased travel now for Circuit Court. Judges now, in the last year or so, are insisting on Sherriff's Officers accompanying them on Circuit Court. Travel for Circuit Court and then backfilling the vacancies while travel is ongoing.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On page 242, 2.1.04. Access to Information, there was nothing budgeted for Professional Services but ultimately ended up being $92,800.

MR. F. COLLINS: Right. That is the cost of the commissioner to do the five-year review on ATIPPA.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. That is John Cummings?

MR. F. COLLINS: John Cummings.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Page 243, Family Justice Services; again, Purchased Services were at $540,000 but turned out to be $170,000. What kind of purchased services would be included in that?

MR. F. COLLINS: In 06, the main component of this figure here was the delay in office space for Family Justice Services in Corner Brook. They were supposed to move into new facilities but that has been delayed because the facilities were not ready. They are still staying in the Sir Richard Squires Building, so consequently there were significant savings in rent.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On page 245, 2.3.04. Human Rights, item 06, you budgeted $177,000; $259,600 was the expenditure. What kind of purchased services would be included there?

MR. F. COLLINS: Last year Human Rights launched an extensive advertising campaign and most of that money went into advertising.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On page 250, the RNC, Professional Services $500,000, which was not initially budgeted.

MR. F. COLLINS: That was money that was originally budgeted in Purchased Services but it was required for a consulting fee from the architects for work ongoing on the RCMP development.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The expenditures, it was originally thought you would spend $15.8 million and you spent $5.6 million.

MR. F. COLLINS: The delays, construction did not start until August. You will notice in this year's budget that $16.9 million is budgeted for this year. The total cost of the three phases is $50 million.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How much was that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Fifty million.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Adult Corrections, page 251, 4.2.01. Professional Services, $1.8 million budgeted, $1 million spent, $700,000 this year. What kind of professional services would be included in that?

MR. F. COLLINS: 05 is it?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: 05, yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: The biggest cost there is catering costs - am I right in that? - costing us $2 million.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Why would you distinguish catering as opposed to calling it a purchased cost?

MR. F. COLLINS: Okay. That is where catering is, in Purchased Services.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: No, I asked about 05, Professional Services.

MR. F. COLLINS: Oh, I am sorry. I thought you said – okay, I mixed them up then. Okay.

OFFICIAL: Primarily, Professional Services would be doctors, lawyers; those are those types of expenditures. However, this year to right size our budget, we found that there were charges in Professional Services that should have been purchased. That is why we did a large transfer from Professional to Purchased Services.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. You probably should identify yourself for the guy downstairs too, who is –

OFFICIAL: He did.

OFFICIAL: He did, yes.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible) red light. Sorry about that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Youth Secure Custody, Professional Services, spent $220,000, budgeting $416,700 again. What kind of Professional Services in 05 would be included there?

MR. F. COLLINS: The decreased requirement for medical services that were not covered by MCP was one part of it. Special consulting and intervention for residents, again due to the decreased resident counts, these were down. That accounts for most of that.

Do you want to add to that Heather?

MS JACOBS: That is correct, Minister. It is used for doctors and special consulting services for the residents in Whitbourne.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On page 252, Inland Fish and Wildlife Enforcement; it is a pretty publicly discussed one these days. Last year you budgeted $3.1 million, paid out $3.4 million, and this year you have somewhat of an increase there.

What is the situation, Minister? Maybe you could, for the record, explain what is going on with wildlife officers coming from one department to another, why and so on?

MR. F. COLLINS: It was a natural fit that all the enforcement components would come under Justice. The enforcement components of Wildlife have joined up now with Inland Fish. Thirty-seven employees came over from Natural Resources, along with the salaries and the resources to accompany that. As well, included in these figures will be a significant amount of money for this system in Labrador. We have added seven new Inland Fish officers in Labrador. We made that a year-round operation.

Basically, the decision was to merge Wildlife and Inland Fish under Justice because it is an enforcement activity and it is a best fit under Justice. The transition team is currently in place and moving along very smoothly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I had an incident recently, there seems to be some confusion. I do not know if the message is not out there, but the way it was explained to me, correctly or not, was that if someone strikes a moose on the highway now they have to call Justice rather than call Wildlife.

There was an incident related, where on the West Coast when a moose was struck and killed recently, instead of the usual three hours, for example, that it would take to pick up the remains and so on, it took actually eleven hours, which obviously is all at OT. Are you getting a problem with that? There seems to be some confusion there as to who you call, who has to do what, whose responsibility is what, and the cost associated with it.

MR. F. COLLINS: The responsibility now for road kill is with the new division of Inland Fish and Wildlife. It used to be with Environment. That is in our shop.

To my information, these numbers were advertised to be called in cases of this nature. They have not changed. As I understand it, they were all advertised, the same numbers, so as to make as smooth a transition as possible.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Albeit they are all in the same shop and you are calling it all Inland Fish and Wildlife Enforcement division.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Inland Fish and Wildlife have different responsibilities?

MR. F. COLLINS: There is a fair amount of overlap in terms of enforcement between the conservation people and what we used to call the inland fish people. They will all be doing enforcement at this stage.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: For example, the guy on the river now, the guardian – we used to call them river guardians – they would be under this shop here now?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes. The inland fish people, as they were before, were always under this shop and they still will be.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes. Now you are putting the wildlife officers –

MR. F. COLLINS: The wildlife officer comes in as well.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any issues with seniority, union issues as a result of the integration?

MR. F. COLLINS: Do you want to speak to that?

MR. BURRAGE: As the minister has indicated, under the new division - it is actually just called Fish and Wildlife Enforcement, not inland fish, but we call it Fish and Wildlife. Although I do not know, it might be called Inland Fish in the Estimates. The particular officers have the overall responsibility for both wildlife and fish, as well as nuisance animals, as well as road kills, as you point out. That is the expanded mandate.

Our particular department has not received anything from the unions to my knowledge, anything in the nature of a grievance or anything of that nature. I cannot speak for Natural Resources because of course they are the other side of the coin.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there much feedback on, I believe it was the forestry people who lost their rights to carry the guns?

MR. F. COLLINS: That affects the forestry people but not the people in Fish and Wildlife.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there any linkage between the fact that they no longer have guns because you have rolled everything together? Because forestry officers used to do some wildlife enforcement and they had guns. Now you put wildlife under –

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, all of the enforcement, as we knew it, is all under Justice, so there is no enforcement left of that nature, or will not be, under Forestry. A policy decision was made that forestry people would not carry guns.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I just have some general questions. The Citizens' Representative report concerning psychiatric services at HMP, and we have raised this in the House and you have indicated that you are having a peer review done.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is right.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am just wondering if maybe you can elaborate in terms of timelines. Who is doing it? How many peers are being consulted? When might we expect to get some answers, or will it ever be publicly released?

MR. F. COLLINS: All I am prepared to tell you at this time is that the preparations are well underway in getting the peer review set up. There is a lot of work involved in that in terms of timelines, who does it, terms of reference, professional involvement and so on. At this stage in the game, it is well underway. At this stage, that is about as far as it goes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How do you respond, Minister, to the fact that the Citizens' Rep of the Province has made some recommendations and it is just left in limbo now? There was obviously a problem in order for the Citizens' Rep to get involved in the first place. I would think the man did his job or what he felt was his job anyway, yet now we get told, in the garbage that he did, we are going to go get someone else to have a look at this and we are not going to tell you who is doing, when they are doing it, when they are going to report back. That seems a bit cloak and dagger stuff to the outside observer.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is no cloak and dagger stuff as far as the Department of Justice is concerned. The Department of Justice has undertaken to do a peer review. The nature and scope of that review is still to be established and is still being worked out.

With respect to the Citizens' Rep report, as I pointed out in the House, we have no problem with the Citizens' Rep in doing his job. We agreed that he would do this review. We do so reluctantly because we did not think that he had the jurisdiction to do the review, but Dr. Craig himself agreed to have the review done so we went ahead with the review.

Our problem with the report, the Citizens' Rep report, was that he came to a conclusion that was pretty strong, specific, precise conclusion that the psychiatrist be fired and another psychiatrist be sought out who had more liberal prescriptive practices than the present one.. That might well have been a proper recommendation, but you certainly could not draw that conclusion from the evidence that the Citizens' Rep had in his report. He talked to inmates and he talked to psychiatrists who basically supported the fact that a psychiatrist calls his own shots in what he prescribes and in his practices.

There was nothing in the report itself to warrant the conclusion that he came to.

Now if he had said there is enough information here, the Department of Justice should undertake a further review of this; that might be a logical conclusion. To make a definite conclusion that this man should be fired and we should seek proposals for another psychiatrist who had more liberal prescription practices, we did not think that was in the expertise of the Citizens' Rep to make.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Why the reluctance on your department's part, though, in telling anybody what this peer review – I can understand your logic fully as to where you are going where you are. Why the reluctance? It seems you just do not want to talk about what kind of peer review, when it is going to be done. People are just saying: Well, it is like the reorganization of the correctional facilities in the Province. You told us two years ago you were going to do it and we have not heard anything from it since.

Why this reluctance to be upfront and tell people: Yes, we are going to do a peer review, this is the reason that we are doing it, this is when we expect to have it done, some timelines. We do not want to be sitting here in 2015 and Dr. Craig, if he should or should not be gone, is long retired anyway. There just seems to be a reluctance not to tell people answers to fairly simple questions.

MR. F. COLLINS: The person to do the review is being identified. The terms of reference will be identified. The time limitations on how long he has to do it will be identified. None of that is yet complete but the process is ongoing. It is as simple as that. There is nothing further than that I can tell you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: When do you think you will be prepared to announce when it will be done? Is it going to be October or next January? We are just trying to get an idea here of when the public might expect some answer back on this peer review, that is all. Nobody is going to hold you to it and say you are going to do it next Wednesday and if it is not done it is a big racket. Right now it is just left in absolute limbo; we are just looking for some guidelines as to when we might see something being done.

MR. F. COLLINS: There would be no purpose whatsoever in making any announcements when we do not really know what we are announcing. When we have the information at hand, we will make announcements, and hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Under the Correctional Services Act, we went through the House of Assembly last month with that act; it was debated and so on.

Section 11 of that act states that staff members would be subject to a Code of Conduct. I would think that Code of Conduct has to be fleshed out through the regulations and so on. Again, any timeline on when you might expect that to be done now that we have the act passed?

MR. F. COLLINS: We always said that when we did the new corrections act it would take the rest of the year to do regulations. We have a full-time co-ordinator engaged in fleshing out the regulations for the corrections act. You are looking at least a year, I would think.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about

section 19 which talks about a procedure for fairly dealing with prisoner complaints, because the mechanism is there now in the new act to do it, but again, we have to flesh out the details of –

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, all of these things, we would think it would take a year to do the regulations.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That procedure for dealing with prisoner complaints would be part of the regulations as well as the Code of Conduct?

MR. F. COLLINS: I would think so, yes.

The sum of it is enshrined in the legislation but only the bare bones, as you know. The regulations have to be fleshed out.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any reaction to the right to monitor conversations?

MR. F. COLLINS: Not to my knowledge, except, I think, it might have been raised in the House in the debate on the act, but beyond that we have not heard anything.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I did not know if whomever citizens' rights group, the John Howard Society, might have had any issue with perceiving it as an invasion of privacy or whatever.

MR. F. COLLINS: No, I think most people recognize that you have to strike a balance between privacy rights and public safety. I think we can strike a proper balance there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On personal information at the Support Enforcement Division, the Auditor General pointed out that the accounts of three HRLE employees were illegitimately accessed hundreds of times, literally, by HRLE staff. Of course, we cannot identify what employees were doing the snooping because apparently a lot of employees had access to the computer system; obviously, a serious invasion of privacy, as was pointed out by the AG, and breach of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I am just wondering what has been done since that to –

MR. F. COLLINS: There have been a number of things, actually, between HRLE and OCIO and the Support Enforcement people. One of the issues arising here was - two things - there are HRLE employees who, in the course of their duties, have to access the support services. There are other situations where employees are themselves personally involved through the support agency. These three employees were identified as people who, themselves, were personally involved. Since that time, the access to personal files is strictly prohibited, and a number of other enforcement things have been put in place by Support Enforcement.

Heather, do you want to comment on that?

MS JACOBS: Sure.

Each month, the Director of Support Enforcement receives a report and if there is abnormal number of hits on a particular case, it is further investigated. The three individuals in question whose files were hit, those files have been audited, and the staff at HRLE, all of them, have been informed that they only use the Web-base for work duties, not for any personal measures.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On the security issues, we have had a few incidents, shall we say. Last year, we had the guy crawling up in the ceiling down at Provincial Court in Atlantic Place and, apparently, the High Sheriff was going to do a review, in particular, about Atlantic Place and there were going to be some protocols put in place. Has that all been attended to?

MR. F. COLLINS: With that particular issue, the significant changes were made to the interview rooms. In that case, the perpetrator was being interviewed by a lawyer in the interview room and when he came out to let the sheriff's officer know he was finished the interview, in that split-second the guy went through the ceiling tile. I do not know why he went up there, he was not going anywhere when he got up there. In a sense, it was a bit of a comedy of errors with people tracking him around the ceiling.

Since that time, renovations have been made to the office, Plexiglas has been put in the room, and the ceilings have been repaired and reinforced so that it will not happen again. The prisoners now are not unshackled, as they were before when they go in for the interviews. So a number of things have been on that particular issue, and that will not happen again.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: How about out in Stephenville, there was an incident there as well?

MR. F. COLLINS: In Stephenville, two prisoners went through a window in the bathroom. We found out, after the fact, that all the windows in the Stephenville institution were covered with screens. For some reason or other, three or four windows in the shower area were not covered. That has been done; all the windows have now been secured. As soon as the weather allows, the perimeter fence will also be secured. Plus the fact we are now investing in and almost finished repairs that will allow a control centre in the middle of that wing so that there will be a control and observation on both wings. So the issues have been addressed.

I should point out that as is the case in many of our facilities, both Atlantic Place, as a court, and Stephenville as a correctional institution, these facilities were never designed for the purpose of which they are being used. In spite of investments of millions of dollars, incidents arise where that is evident and you have to react and make the necessary modifications. We have done that, and I am fairly satisfied that we have done it that would limit this sort of thing from happening again. Because of the limitations of the facilities that they are in, you cannot rule out the fact that inmates are very creative people and they can find ways to get around the system.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: They are gone past the old days of the file in the cake.

Minister, the Case Assignment and Retrieval system, the CAAR system, that was supposed to come into effect last year; has that been implemented? Is it in use now and what has been the reaction to it so far?

MR. BURRAGE: Do you want me to speak to that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Go ahead.

MR. BURRAGE: I know that the co-ordinator which was contemplated by the CAAR system has been hired and is up and operating in Provincial Court. We have asked for a report on the status of Provincial Court efficiencies, which I do not have yet, but I have asked for that. I do not know whether they call it the CAAR system any more; that was an acronym which came out in that efficiencies report. I think it was something that was created by those who wrote the report, but I know that the co-ordinator has been hired and that system or a version of that system, as I understand it, is operating in Provincial Court.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: One item we picked up through the media, Chief Justice Green came out and talked about communication or lack of, I guess, when it comes to the court system, the courts and government on some occasions. It was pretty obvious that he felt that it was lacking in some regard. Obviously, he was not talking about having government interfere in the court system as to what he does for decision making of course, but more in the area of infrastructure and so on he was talking about it. Is there anything being done to fix that situation? He seemed to be quite firm about it.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well yes, Chief Justice Green obviously is advocating for a new court precinct for the city. He is right; we need new court facilities, not only in the City of St. John's but in many places around the Province. There have been some preliminary studies done on potential sites for court development in the city and some cost estimates have been put on some of those sites.

The question for the longest while was whether or not you could stay with the downtown core because of its heritage, history, and the Supreme Court building, you want to keep that a part of the system. That lends itself to tremendous expense in order to put any kind of a system there. The opposite argument is to move it away from downtown altogether, some place like the Grace Hospital site for example.

These discussions are still ongoing. The preliminary reports were done, but at this stage apart from still trying to get our heads around where we are going infrastructure-wise and with government, that is where that is at the moment. Judge Green was somewhat disappointed that we are not proceeding with a new court facility.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Video conferencing from HMP to Provincial Court; how is that working out? On average, how many incidents has that been used in?

MR. F. COLLINS: Video conferencing with the HMP cuts down, if I remember the figure, 2,000 visits a year from HMP to the court system. That is in the interest of public safety and security. That is a tremendous difference.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What are the criteria as to when it gets used or not used?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is used, once the issue goes to trial or something like that, for preliminary issues, remands. I do not know if it is used in bail hearings. I am not sure if it is used in bail hearings, is it?

MR. BURRAGE: I was just asking Dan if we had any statistics on that in terms of how many times it has been used and the operation –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: That is sort of an operational question. I cannot tell you operationally what the criteria is for using it; I understand it is very successful. If you want the criteria, we can get back to you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I was thinking –

MR. F. COLLINS: First appearances -

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, security would be one too. If you had someone who you thought was an obvious security risk by moving them from HMP to the court, you would eliminate it by using video conferencing.

MR. F. COLLINS: A big saving, too, is you bring a prisoner up from HMP and put him in the holding cells, he might be there three or four hours waiting to appear in court. This video conference eliminates that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The incident at the lockup here in the city on New Year's Eve, where the person had – well, it was a broken leg and they were denied care for a day and a half. There was supposed to be an investigation into that. We have not heard anything about it publicly. I am just wondering if the investigation was completed or not, and where it is right now.

MR. BURRAGE: Certainly, there was an internal investigation. I cannot tell you the status of it at the moment. Paul Noble, who is our ADM for corrections, is in Ottawa at the moment on negotiations. I know there was a review done; I cannot tell you the outcome.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: When you say internally, you mean by the Sheriff's Office, the RNC, or by Justice?

MR. BURRAGE: No. We would do it by Justice, yes, by corrections themselves from an HR perspective to find out what happened.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The Labrador pre-trial detention centre, which came up in earlier Estimates and got scrapped last year or the year before, at that time, Minister, you explained it was going to fit in as part of an overall review of facilities in the Province, correctional facilities and so on. Yet, now we still have in that case Labrador individuals and women being taken to Clarenville. Obviously, it causes stress in terms of seeing their families, even cultural issues if they are Aboriginal women.

When do you see something being done to address that issue? I realize you want to look at the overall system, but that seems to be a very specific type of incident as well that might require a specific remedy as opposed to a general solution.

MR. F. COLLINS: You are right. While we include that in the overall review of corrections, we did look at it specifically as it pertained to the women in conflict in Labrador. You are aware of course of the initial incidence that occurred in the lockup in Labrador that led to this discussion in the first place and the decision to build a pre-trial detention centre for women and youth.

Briefly, with respect to the women's institution or correctional centre in Clarenville, the most women we have had from Labrador at any one time in that institution was two. They range at any one time from zero to two. So in terms of numbers, we are not dealing with very high numbers. What we did do in looking at the numbers, it gave us some reason for pause and reason for thought, as we said we would last year, we went to Labrador. We met with all the stakeholders in Labrador, particular women's groups.

The Mokami Status of Women Council, the Innu Band Councils, and the Labrador correctional services, the judicial system, the components down there, and they were unanimous with us. They did not want another prison or an incarceration facility of any kind for women in Labrador. That was not what they wanted.

Their big concern was that there was a need for programming and services of a rehabilitative and healing nature and housing to deal with women, not only women in conflict with the law but women who could potentially be in conflict with the law. They wanted us to look at programming and servicing. They did not want a pre-trial detention centre. You could not do that, obviously, a pre-trial detention centre. We came back and we will continue to have negotiations.

As a matter of fact, just in recent days we have had negotiations and consultations with - and we will be again this week - stakeholders from Labrador to see how we can wrap ourselves around that and see what kind of programming and services we can provide for women in Labrador.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The Premier's security detail, do the details of that come under Justice or the Premier's Office, cost of it?

MR. F. COLLINS: Security for the Premier.

MR. BURRAGE: I am sorry, what was the question again?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Where does the cost issue fit for that, under Justice or under the Premier's Office?

MR. BURRAGE: It would be with the RNC.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The RNC are –

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, it would be with the RNC, I would think. The RNC are providing security so the cost of it would be borne by the RNC.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right. Which comes under your shop?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. What is the cost of providing security? I am not saying we agree or disagree.

MR. F. COLLINS: We do not have a figure on the exact cost. I would assume it is just the natural cost of salaries of RNC officers plus any additional expenses of overtime or travel or whatever might be associated with it, but it would come under the RCMP salaries budget.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The RNC?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, RNC.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That would be in here somewhere hidden in the RNC salary budgets?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Cummings' review that we referenced here earlier in terms of cost, in January you released Mr. Cummings' review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, you indicated that you were having it reviewed at the time and before you responded. Where are we right now with that review and when might we expect a response? We are some five months out now.

MR. F. COLLINS: The costs of the review is somewhere in the vicinity of $93,000, and there were thirty-three recommendations made. Five of these recommendations, if I recall, were policy recommendations, twenty-seven were legislative recommendations. Since these recommendations apply over all departments, we are currently in the process of farming all that information out to the various departments, and they will have a lot of input into that, and it will take some time to put that together.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The Quebec Innu and, in particular, hunting of the George River caribou herd did not have incidents last year, as I understand it. Do you have a standing policy that we will not charge these people? We have not proceeded with it, as I understand it. Any particular reason why?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, we have not charged for two reasons. One, it has been very difficult to gather evidence, putting people and dead animals together to determine who actually shot the animals on the ground and whatnot. Our surveillance was from the air; not necessarily a good way to get surveillance. So, one of the reasons was that we were never able to get proper evidence to charge. There is no standing policy that I know of that we will not charge them.

Don, do you want to add to that?

MR. BURRAGE: It depends on the circumstance. If there is an endangered species involved then, clearly, assuming one can gather the evidence, presumably, charges will be laid. There were no incidents last year, this past season, that I am aware of, involving Red Wine caribou or any of the sedentary herds that are considered to be endangered. So that is a good thing. We did not have to cross that bridge this year.

MR. F. COLLINS: If I may add to that, there has been a lot of consultation with the Quebec Innu, both from this government, from our department, Labrador Affairs, and Environment. There have been intensive consultations with the Quebec Innu. We are at the point with them where we are comfortable that they realize the situation as well. So we are on the same page in terms of the extinction of the herd, and they have been compliant. We finally got to that stage after a long time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The RNC investigation into the RCMP shooting that took place back in January 2010 on the Canadian Tire parking lot, what ever became of that? It caused a public stir at the time, they thought we were back in the OK Corral days downtown for a while, but never heard anything after. I am just curious as to what ever became of the investigation.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, that is in Paul Noble's shop, the ADM for Public Safety. I do not know if you have any information on it.

MR. BURRAGE: I am not sure of the status of the investigation. We do not normally get reports from the RNC on the status of their investigations. Something in the back of my mind says that there were no charges laid arising from that, but it is something that I would have picked up in the media. I think I heard something that the investigation is still ongoing in the sense that the person involved or the alleged person who they were trying to catch, I guess it had something to do with a drug deal, so the media said. That is still out there but in terms of reports, as you know from investigations, we do not get those.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I have no further questions.

CHAIR: Anything else from the Committee?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Minister and staff.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you.

CHAIR: I will ask the Clerk to call the first head.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.1.01.

CLERK: 1.2.01 to 5.1.01.

CHAIR: 1.2.01 to 5.1.01.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the total carried?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Justice carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Justice carried without amendment.

CHAIR: We will just refer Committee members to minutes of the Social Service Committee for May 11, Department of Education. I ask for a motion to adopt those minutes.

MR. RIDGLEY: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Ridgley.

A seconder?

Mr. Parsons, thank you.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Minister, thank you to you and your staff for Estimates this evening. Also, thank you to the Committee.

I will remind Committee members that this Committee will meet again tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. here in the House to hear Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

With that, I will ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. RIDGLEY: So moved.

CHAIR: Mr. Ridgley, thank you.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2016-11-05
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga46_11-05-16-ssc-jus.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	171fd63c0f6d40535e490be9facdc4b63200e1cb

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