Social Services Committee — Department of Justice — 2 June 1993

1993-06-02

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

June 2, 1993

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Nick Careen,

M.H.A. (Placentia) substitutes for Mr. Glenn Tobin, M.H.A. (Burin - Placentia

West); Mr. Beaton Tulk, M.H.A. (Fogo) substitutes for Ms. Kay Young, M.H.A.

(Terra Nova); and Mr. Don Whelan, M.H.A. (Harbour Main) substitutes for Mr.

Oliver Langdon, M.H.A. (Fortune Hermitage).

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

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Ladies and gentlemen, I

think, even though all of us are not here, we had better start. Before I ask the

minister for his opening statements, we will go through the ground rules again

so that everybody is aware of how we operate this Committee. What will happen is

that the minister will speak for fifteen minutes, he will introduce his

officials and speak on his estimates for the fifteen minutes. Then, the person

responding for the Opposition - I understand it is you, Ms. Verge, again

tonight?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will be given an opportunity

to speak for fifteen minutes. Then, I will be taking names, and as I point out

the members of the Committee who may want to speak, I ask them to indicate that

they want to speak and I will keep a list. As I get the names, you will be noted

on this list and will be called in that order. Each member involved in this, you

will have ten minutes when you speak. If you want to make a statement for ten

minutes, it means that the minister will not have time to respond -you will have

just ten minutes to get your opinions across to the minister; but if you wish,

it can be a give-and-take in the ten minutes. You may use your time in a

question-and-answer period if that is what you want to do.

Now, the Committee usually meets for three hours,

and this is the time that was given to us. If we haven't finished by 10:00 p.m.,

then we will have a discussion in Committee, and if we feel that we can do so,

we will carry on and finish up by 10:30 p.m. - I have already talked to the

minister and outlined to him that this is the procedure that has been followed

in this Committee - and if not, we will adjourn until tomorrow, in a

parliamentary sense, to meet to pass the heads.

I will now introduce the Committee members who are

here tonight. Shall we start with you, Ms. Verge?

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, MHA, Humber East.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, MHA, St. John's East.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, MHA, Port au Port.

MR. CAREEN: Nick Careen, MHA, Placentia.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, MHA, Harbour Main.

MR. CHAIRMAN: David Gilbert, MHA, Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

I believe we have a couple of more members coming,

or at least one. I think Mr. Tulk is supposed to be here representing Ms. Young.

Anyway, Mr. Minister, over to you, Sir.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will not use fifteen minutes, in the interest of

moving things along, but let me introduce the officials who are here with me

tonight, some of whom may be known to some members of the Committee and others

who may not.

On my immediate right, John Cummings, who is an

Assistant Deputy Minister. He is responsible for the law operations within the

department, by which we mean the civil law.

On my immediate left is Colin Flynn whose title is

Director of Public Prosecutions, which is an Assistant Deputy Minister level

position. Colin is the official directly in charge of prosecutions and the Crown

prosecutors, the Crown attorneys throughout the Province, and has a great deal

to do in that context with the two police forces in the Province.

Directly behind me is Robert Barter, the Assistant

Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

On his left is David Hickey, Director of Human

Resources. I may perhaps parenthetically add that Justice is one of the largest

employing departments in government. We don't think of it often as an employing

department but if you take in the police, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

the penitentiaries and the correctional institutions, we have in the order of

1200 men and women who work with us.

Behind John, on Bob's right, is Seamus O'Regan

Junior, my Executive Assistant.

Mr. Chairman, the department's programs cover quite

a large gamut and I think they are revealed by the various sub-heads in the

Estimates. Ms. Verge is a former minister and I know is intimately familiar with

the department, particularly as of 1989. There have been some changes since

then, of course, but she is very aware of our operations. Mr. Harris, like Ms.

Verge, a learned member, a member of the Bar, is, I suspect, familiar with some

of our operations, as well.

I don't propose to make a statement, I would far

rather, Mr. Chairman, respond to comments or questions and help members in any

way I can. We are asking, just for the record, for a total vote of $113,087,900

during the fiscal year, which is a substantial sum of money. I would be prepared

to account for that and to answer as best I can for any of the expenditures that

we request. Thank you, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to begin by

asking the minister to outline for the Committee, his program, his aims and

objectives for the next year - his legislative program, his plans for providing

significantly improved or different programs and services.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister

has no program. The government have a program. And I am not just trying to play

games. I have to proceed in what I am about to say with a degree of caution

because these are Cabinet decisions, but there are a number of areas that I hope

will be addressed over the piece, some of the needs.

In no particular order, but as matters occur to me,

there are a significant number of pieces of legislation that are under review,

that need review, that are being reviewed, that will, I hope, in due course come

forward. Most of these are not matters that will have a ready public interest, I

would suggest. It is pretty difficult to get meetings in the community of Mud

Lake, in my district, about the personal property security legislation in this

Province, but those of us who work at the Bar will acknowledge that that is a

matter to be looked at. We have a committee at work on, for example, advance

health care directives. I would hope the government will be dealing with that.

There are a number of other areas where I would

hope, over the next couple of years we can, as a government, make some progress.

The penitentiary and correctional institutes require a great deal of attention.

They are running at between 115 and 120 per cent of rated capacity. I used the

words "rated capacity" because I want to be very clear that all of the

information that I have indicates that we are operating them safely and humanely

and with proper regard for the rights of the men and women who are in our

custody in these institutions. But the fact remains, if you simply take the

number of authorized beds and you take the number of men and women who are

incarcerated on any given day, you will come out with somewhere between 115 or

120 per cent. This is a matter, Ms. Verge, of considerable concern to the

Ministry, because we do not control the number of people committed to the

prisons nor do we control, of course, the length of their sentences. Both of

these are done by the courts.

These are a number of areas. I could go in others,

but rather than go on with a rambling thing I would rather respond to particular

concerns and questions. I will not try to speculate which may be in your mind. I

can take a guess, Lynn, but that's not right. Let me try to answer what you want

to raise.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) legislation, the

minister mentioned deficiencies in the personal property security legislation.

Is anything actually being done to reform that legislation and to provide an

improved service?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is yes. I can expand on

that somewhat. There was a significant project done two or three - I look to

Bob; Bob, correct me - two or three years ago, involving the private Bar. I

believe the Law Reform Commission had a -

MR. BARTER: There were forty submissions

received.

MR. ROBERTS: There were some forty submissions

received from different groups, consumer groups, or legal groups and what have

you. That project did not go ahead. I have not got into it in the detail I want

to go into. The major legislative initiatives of the last year have consumed a

lot of time, the conflict of interest act, which was proclaimed, as members

know, as of yesterday. I think there was a letter on our desk today from the

commissioner. The police act, which caused a fair amount of discussion in the

House, took up a great deal of time. The personal property security legislation

is one of these areas. What we will end up doing is taking the present draft

legislation, seeing whether it needs a further review process, and moving it

forward.

Let me add that the abolition of the Law Reform

Commission, which we did last year - which was not something that I turned

cartwheels over, but it had to be done and it was done - did have a benefit for

my department, for my officials, in that Chris Curran, who was the executive

director of the Commission, came to work with the department as a solicitor. So,

we now, for the first time, have "a policy capability" within the department. We

do not have what I would like to see, and what I hope we can manage, but money

is always a concern. We do not have a policy unit within the Department of

Justice. I would like to see one. We must be just about the only department in

the entire administration that doesn't have an in-house capability to review the

- 156 acts, `Bob'?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and thirty-five, I

believe.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. There are 135 acts. I

thought I had the number of 156 - one hundred and thirty-five separate bits of

legislation, Mr. Chairman, for which the Minister of Justice and his officials

are responsible, but the personal property one will take a fair amount of time

over the next couple of years.

MS. VERGE: Of the Law Reform Commission - that

was going to be one of my next questions - I feel that the government was quite

foolhardy in disbanding the Law Reform Commission since it cost very little

money. Apart from Mr. Curran, there were only one or two other staff, and

actually, for many years, Mr. Curran was the only paid staff of the Commission.

The Commission, itself, comprised judges and lawyers who served with simply

token remuneration.

I find it hard to understand why the government

essentially disbanded a group of highly qualified, talented, dedicated,

volunteers. I ask the minister whether he would consider re-appointing a Law

Reform Commission?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member's question was:

Would we consider re-appointing, and I think it is fair to say it is something

that, in the best of all possible worlds, we would like to do. The problem is

always one of priorities, and although the amount of money involved was

relatively small, we did identify it as an expenditure that was not on the

priority scale at quite the height or the level of some other matters, and these

are always judgement calls, but it is one my colleagues and I reached, I guess,

on the basis of the analysis that the functions of the Law Reform Commission

could be done in other ways, and I think that we are and can do that.

I would also point out that the real problem with,

not the Law Reform Commission - the real problem with the work of law reform is

that the reforms were not becoming law.

I just asked Mr. Cummings if he could, offhand,

think of any major changes made as a result of anything from the Law Reform

Commission. I am not sure where we are on family law. I would have to look that

up. That is not an area in which I worked in at the Bar and I do not claim any

expertise there, but what I do recall is that a whole bunch of reports were

produced by the Law Reform Commission with very good work. Executions, personal

property, limitations, mechanics liens - now these aren't matters that there are

meetings about in our constituencies, but they are all important, and none of

them -

MS. VERGE: And there -

MR. ROBERTS: Just let me finish. None of them

were ever translated into law.

MS. VERGE: And why was that?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I ask the minister. She was

there when most of these were produced.

MS. VERGE: No, I wasn't, actually. I suggest to

the minister that he review the file on the Law Reform Commission and he will

find that most of the reports that he just cited were completed around early

MR. ROBERTS: The minister was there, of course,

until mid-1989. I shall endeavour, Mr. Chairman, to have prepared - Mr. O'Regan

hears as I speak - a list of the reports prepared by the Law Reform Commission

when they were received by the department, but I can only tell you that my

impression - and I do not put it more highly than that; I don't want to claim to

have knowledge that I don't have. My impression is that they came in and nothing

happened, and that some of them came in during the minister's time.

All of them are there, and I can tell you the

amount of law reform that the - perhaps the hon. lady could take the time to

tell us the law reforms that she introduced during her four years as minister. I

have been there a year and I will match mine in the year against what the hon.

lady did in four years.

MS. VERGE: I am not here to compete in a

juvenile debate.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not a juvenile debate.

MS. VERGE: I am quite proud of my legislative

record. But I am here now to ask questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you will have to wait until

the next time, Ms. Verge, because your time has expired.

MR. ROBERTS: There will be another round, Lynn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I just want to start off, Mr. Minister, with a

question I'm curious about. In the minister's office expenses, does that include

- I know all Cabinet ministers, I'm not picking on you in particular, but all

Cabinet ministers receive an allocation for a vehicle. I know the previous

government provided vehicles. I don't know if they provided chauffeurs for

anybody. But there were vehicles. This administration changed that, or the

previous administration I suppose, and instead gave each Cabinet minister an

$8,000 car allowance. Is that in your appropriation here under Transportation

and Communications?

MR. ROBERTS: You will find that, Mr. Harris in

1.1.01.03. Transportation and Communications.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, it may be under salary. I am

paid as a minister, as is each of my colleagues, $8,000 a year as a vehicle

allowance, which is taxable in my hands. I report it as income and pay tax upon

it. It's somewhere in 1.1.01, was the answer.

MR. HARRIS: 01 you think, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure whether it's in

Salaries or Transportation and Communications. But it is there.

MR. HARRIS: I was curious about that. Because I

know that, as I say, vehicles were provided before -

MR. ROBERTS: I do not have a vehicle, nor to my

knowledge does the department have any vehicles other than police vehicles and

that kind of thing.

MR. HARRIS: I just was curious as the previous,

previous government, the Tory government, had provided a vehicle for ministers,

and this government provides a vehicle allowance. I'm just curious as to whether

or not as a Minister of Justice - maybe some ministers, maybe the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation goes around and looks at roads or things. But

as Minister of Justice, is there actually a need for a vehicle or a vehicle

allowance to carry out your ministerial duties? I don't think you visit the

courts or those kinds of things on a regular basis. Do you? Or is it really just

sort of a perk?

MR. ROBERTS: I don't visit the courts on a

regular basis - my regular place of business is here in this building. I can't

offer you a judgement on whether any minister would need it. I travel on

government business. I often rent cars. I prefer to fly and drive than to drive.

That's just my own preference.

My understanding is that the $8,000 for each member

of a ministry amounts to a benefit given to each minister. It's accounted for in

that way. The same as members are paid travel allowances to enable them to do

their jobs. The hon. lady shakes her head. My understanding is members are paid

travel allowances.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. Members who reside outside of

St. John's are given an amount to provide for travelling, I think -

MR. ROBERTS: I mean, I don't get the

twenty-five dollar per diem that the hon. gentleman gets for a meal allowance in

St. John's. I don't get that.

MR. HARRIS: No, no. This is a vehicle allowance

and presumably as it relates to transportation.

MR. ROBERTS: It amounts to a benefit, as I

said. No question about that.

MR. HARRIS: I'm just looking at rough

calculations here. I think when people travel by car for the government they get

twenty-six or twenty-seven cents per kilometre for their own vehicle. That would

rack up to about 32,000 kilometres to use that. As I say, the minister may

travel on government business, and I have no doubt that he does, but I would

suspect, as the minister says, that the travel is done by plane to the nearest

place and rented vehicle.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the gentleman rising on a

point of order now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The answer Mr. Harris, as I said,

is that this is a benefit. If the Committee is not prepared to vote it then

we'll have to deal with that. I draw the same benefits precisely as every

minister of the Crown. Let there be no doubt about it, I draw the $8,000 per

annum car allowance and it's included on my income and I pay tax on it. Of

course it's a benefit. So are other benefits. That's the point I'm making.

MR. TULK: Nobody (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Fogo is out of

order.

MR. HARRIS: The point I'm making. I guess we're

dealing with appropriations here and if the appropriation is for vehicle travel

I'm just wondering whether the minister actually uses it for travel.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course I do.

MR. HARRIS: It seems to me to be unnecessary.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course I do. But it's not the

only means I use to travel - but of course I use it for travel. If I have to go

to Government House tomorrow, as I did last week, I have two vehicles, both of

which I own, both of which I owned before I came in here. I have a little red

sports car and I have a Volkswagen Jedda. But I drove down to Government House

in one of those vehicles last week. If I have to go somewhere I do.

MR. HARRIS: I think the point is that in terms

of the amount of travel that the minister does on government business and the

32,000 kilometres it would take to use it up on the travel allowance, there is

no real relation to the two, is there?

MR. ROBERTS: No, it is not an accountable

allowance, there is no question about that. When the hon. member draws his

twenty-five-dollar-a-day meal allowance, he is not required to put in vouchers

for the twenty-five dollars, it is just a benefit that is paid, but it is open

and it is proper.

MR. HARRIS: I am not saying there is anyone

trying to hide it, it is not listed here separately of course, but the question

is, whether it is a necessary expenditure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I did not realize the Member for

Fogo is involved in a debate here, I guess he will have his chance to ask

questions, will he?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an interjection not

debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have run a pretty quiet

meeting here for the last while, so if you would contain yourself until your

turn to speak, I think the meeting would run a little better.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, I think the point has

probably been made here, Mr. Minister, under that head. Under the issue of

Securities Administration expenditure here of $176,200, there is some discussion

and there has been some discussion that perhaps the Atlantic Provinces as a

group, might co-ordinate some of their securities administration. Is there any

recent news on that, is that something that has been tossed around as an idea,

or is it under active consideration, is there any plan in place to put it in

force? It is page 273.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Cummings tracks this day by

day for us and I am just getting an update on it.

The four Atlantic Premiers had an initiative

underway, they called it CAP, the Conference of Atlantic Premiers, and they had

mandated the Attorneys General to look at this and we have had several lengthy

conference calls; we have not had meetings because you know, it costs $600 or

$700 bucks to go to Halifax and all that for a day, we have had several long

conference calls on it and we have had several meetings with officials, John,

you have been to a couple I think?

MR. CUMMINGS: That is right.

MR. ROBERTS: Our officials have been at

meetings. The result has been that we have not come to any agreement on anything

and I can tell the hon. gentleman the problem, but maybe I should say it for the

committee. This is the registration of securities that are either issued in

Newfoundland and Labrador, which are very, very, few, or securities which are

being sold to people living in this Province and it also includes the

supervision of the men and the women who are licensed to sell securities to

residents in this Province, and the issue is whether we should have a joint

Atlantic Provinces Commission, and the problem is, none of us is willing to give

up the revenue, and there is also a problem of harmonization.

Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have

relatively similar acts. The New Brunswick legislation and the Prince Edward

Island legislation is very different so there would have to be, to begin with,

one of the two groups would have to change their statute. We take the position

that ours is quite new, it was done in the mid-80s I assume - could you tell me

when John?

MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, it was 86.

MR. ROBERTS: It was 86 or 87, during the

Peckford administration, a very good effective act was brought in and it is

comparable I am told to the Ontario legislation and the general run of the mill

across the country, so the short answer to your question, Mr. Harris, is that

the committee has met and asked leave to sit again. There has been no resolution

on these issues.

MR. HARRIS: Does the government see that as an

area aside from harmonization issues, which would no doubt have to be resolved,

but would that be seen as an area where government could save money, it is not a

lot of money as I see here, only $176,000 but would one of their reasons for

doing that be a cost saving measure?

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. In fact, if any thing, I

would be happy to request increased expenditures there, if we wanted to do

anything with it but it is not a money saving matter, it is meant to do two

things, to ensure that consumer protection, the protection of the purchaser of

securities, is enhanced as the initiative, and secondly, to make it a little

easier to do business here because somebody wanting to distribute a securities

issue in Canada now, must register with all ten provincial securities bodies,

and ours is a commissioner, some provinces have a full fledged commission, and

really, this is just a make work scheme for lawyers. Maybe you and I should not

say that publicly but it is a make work scheme for lawyers in most cases because

if an issue is registered in Ontario with the OSC, the Ontario Securities

Commission, it is automatically registered across the Province. Nobody vets it

if Ontario has approved it or if Quebec is the primary issuer, so the idea is to

try to enhance it. This is quite a revenue source for the Province. There are

areas in justice that make `money' and this is one of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Verge.

MS. VERGE: You said earlier that the

penitentiary and adult correctional centre's population is up over 100 per cent

of capacity and I would like you to give a profile of the inmate population

indicating what types of offences they are in jail for. I realize that the

minister may not have all that in his head.

MR. ROBERTS: Not only do I not have it but I do

not think we have that information.

MS. VERGE: I will gladly wait until later to

get detailed statistics, but does the minister or any of the staff with the

minister know offhand whether there has been a noticeable change in the pattern

of criminals sentenced to jail? Why are all those inmates doing time and why has

there been a significant increase in the inmate population? I can tell the

minister that when I left the department four years ago inmate population was

down to such a low level that we were seriously considering closing one or two

of the correctional centres in the Province.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, first of all the hon. member

and I will agree that if there is one thing she cannot claim credit for as

minister, or I cannot claim credit for as a minister is the inmate population.

We are responsible for housing them but we do not put them in there nor do we

say for how long they are sentenced. We do have some control over where they

serve their sentences, of course. I will provide the committee, Mr. Chairman,

with the annual report which is made public, of the adult corrections division.

Now, remember youth corrections are the responsibility of my colleague the

Minister of Social Services and there is a fair amount of data in there.

I can give the members, Mr. Chairman, and the hon.

lady in particular, some impressions. The number of sexual offenders is up and

that is no secret. It is not something that one should be proud of, but it is no

secret. The length of sentence for sexual offences has gone up substantially.

Generally, the length of sentence seems to be going up. A few years ago it was

twenty-eight days and it is now, I am told, thirty-five. It is only seven days

but that is a 25 per cent increase. Our incarceration rates are still well

below, I am told, the national average but generally speaking the people in our

penitentiaries are there for the more serious crimes, and as with all of Canada

the pressure is coming on the number of people charged, and the number of people

convicted is increasing. I do not think it is anything significant. Colin is in

charge of the prosecutions end.

The other feature I have marked down, and Mr. Flynn

reminds me of, is the Askoff (?), the Supreme Court of Canada decision a couple

of years ago in a case involving a person named Askoff, a man in fact, that the

processing of criminal matters must be done with reasonable expedition or the

person's charter rights to a speedy trial are breached. Now, we understood that

to be a bump. The prosecutors kept telling me of an Askoff bump but I can only

tell you the Askoff bump has not been a bump, it has been a steady uphill climb.

We have been averaging as many as six jury trials a week here in St. John's in

the last few months. That is not a very full answer but I can only say to the

hon. member that I do not have that sort of information to my hand but I will

get her the report.

MS. VERGE: Can the minister tell the committee

whether the number of sexual assault offence prosecutions has levelled off or

whether it is still increasing?

MR. ROBERTS: I am told it is still on a gradual

increase. We have not had any repetition, fortunately, of the rather spectacular

series of trials that we had two or three years ago but I am told there is still

a steady increase in the number of people charged and the number of people being

convicted.

MS. VERGE: Does that apply to prosecutions of

child sexual offences?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is yes.

MS. VERGE: Still a steady - a slow increase but

nevertheless an increase.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it is not a happy situation.

My own impression on what I am told, my own belief on what I am told, is that we

are seeing much better reporting. Persons working in the field are much more

aware of the obligation placed on people to report any indication of child

abuse, sexual or otherwise, directly to child welfare, I guess, is it? - to the

social welfare authorities and we are still seeing an increase in prosecutions.

MS. VERGE: I was glad to see in the estimates a

significant increase in what is forecast to be spent for victim services. The

Wells government cut out the financial compensation program for victims of

personal injury crime and that did away with up to a $1 million a year in

spending. Last year the government budgeted $234,000 for victim services and set

up, on a so called pilot basis, a victim services program with five victim

workers -

MR. ROBERTS: Four and the Salvation Army, I

think. We had the contract with the Army.

MS. VERGE: Yes, four staff and one contractual

position serving less than half the Province's population and far less than half

the Province's geography. Now, helping to pay for this program is revenue from

the criminal code victim fine surcharge. I would like to ask the minister first

of all, to tell us about revenue from the criminal code victim fine surcharge, a

provision that just came into force a couple of years ago. When I asked about

that in the first year or so, I was told judges were slow in responding to it

and were ordering low fine surcharges and consequently the revenue was low but

by the second year the revenue was increasing. In here in the estimates in

4.2.05 -

MR. ROBERTS: Down at the bottom line, the

revenue line.

MS. VERGE: - owed to revenue provincial, we see

last year $102,200 and this year $150,000. I assume that is from the criminal

code fine surcharge, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: The revenue is entirely from the

surcharge and as the hon. member just said, Mr. Chairman, the news is good. We

had estimated last year we would receive $60,000. In fact, we got a little over

$100,000 on that and we estimate $150,000 this year. I am not sure where the

limit is but I am quite sure that we are not at the limit yet. I doubt if the

thing will ever become self-financing and of course the federal government has

done on this program what they have done on a number of others, they get a

program up and running on 50/50 money, then they pull the rug out. That is why

there is no -

MS. VERGE: That was the financial compensation?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Actually they did better than 50/50.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. We did better for awhile but

there is no federal revenue coming in now -

MS. VERGE: No.

MR. ROBERTS: The only -

MS. VERGE: The criminals are paying this money.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes, yes. This is a charge on

criminals.

MS. VERGE: Now, how is our fine surcharge

revenue comparing to what other provinces are getting, because the criminal code

applies nationwide?

MR. ROBERTS: It is comparable but nobody really

knows what - I mean this is a program that came in on the code, I think three

years ago, four years ago and it is only now beginning to get up and running.

There are some difficulties, judges have to become used to it. A judge has the

ability over and above a penalty, whether the penalty be incarceration, a fine

or both, to impose a surcharge as well, to be paid towards compensating the

victims and more and more judges are becoming aware of it. The prosecutors are

raising the issues but also there are collection problems. I mean a lot of

prisoners do not have a lot of money and it is difficult to collect the money

but my understanding is that we are making progress and we are roughly

comparable to the rest of the country but I do not hold that as an answer of

art. I am not aware of any particular study, or any particular document on it.

Colin, have we - we just don't have that information; I am not sure anybody

does.

MS. VERGE: Is federal Justice making any effort

to keep track of this?

MR. ROBERTS: Not to our knowledge, but one

moment, please -

I am told there may be something done federally. We

are not sure, but we will check and let the Committee know, Mr. Chairman.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

With the help of whatever revenue is coming in from

the fine surcharge, the Province is now offering a limited Victims Services

program with a few workers.

MR. ROBERTS: We have tripled the program this

year.

MS. VERGE: But I see a significant increase in

the budgeted spending. Can the minister tell us what service will be offered

with the new money over the next year?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, we have had four of these

Victims Services workers in - plus the Salvation Army, who were under contract

to provide these services in St. John's - and the workers were in Gander, Corner

Brook, Happy Valley, and Ms. Jacqueline Lake here at the headquarters. We are

adding, I believe, seven new bodies - I am not sure if they will be men, women,

or what - but persons, to do this. We have not yet decided where they are to be

stationed.

The service, as the hon. lady says, has been

restricted to - I think we use provincial court districts as the guide marks,

and it has been restricted to a limited number of provincial court districts, so

my hope is to expand it Province-wide. There may well be a need to double or

triple it in St. John's, because I saw some numbers the other day showing that

60 per cent of all the provincial court offences are dealt with here in St.

John's. Now, that is an umbrella figure ranging from a serious sexual assault to

a parking ticket, but just on raw numbers of matters, processes of that order.

So most of the money will go into extra people. It

is one of the few areas in the entire government where we are expanding this

year, and I think it is a good thing. I would like to have more.

MS. VERGE: I think it is a very good thing, and

I congratulate the minister. I would urge him, when looking at the deployment of

new people, to consider the main purpose for which the program was instituted,

namely, to assist victims of serious personal injury crimes, particularly

victims of sexual assaults, domestic violence and serious physical assault.

The minister must know, as a member of the Cabinet

that was asked to look particularly at the alarming rate of child sexual

assaults in the Bay St. George/Port au Port area, of the need in that particular

region. The one worker in Western Newfoundland now, based in Corner Brook, is

limited to the Bay of Islands/Humber Valley area. It is a very small part of the

Western Newfoundland population.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady -

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will have to wait until next

time for the answer to that.

MR. ROBERTS: I was going to tell you, her point

is well taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize Mr. Harris, I

have Mr. Smith's name down. Is there anyone else on that side who wants to

speak, because I don't want it to turn into a Mr. Harris - Ms. Verge show.

MR. ROBERTS: We don't want only lawyers in

this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I learned the rules after last

night, Mr. Minister. I am told that in order to get on the list you have to say

so right after you finish speaking, otherwise you could end up speaking only

once or twice.

MR. ROBERTS: I have every confidence the hon.

gentleman will find a way to get on the list. He has been on my list for some

time.

MR. HARRIS: I just want to follow up on this

issue of crimes compensation, victims' compensation. It is an issue I know

something about, having represented a number of people who have gone through the

crimes compensation system, and being aware of a lot of other cases,

particularly in the area of sexual assaults where the crimes compensation awards

that people have been granted have, in many cases, provided for counselling. As

a result, a number of individuals who have received crimes compensation awards

for pain and suffering and other associated awards, or loss of income, are also

receiving ongoing counselling - some having started some time ago, and some

perhaps not even started.

The question is whether or not, under the new

Victims Services vote or head, these individuals who have received - now there

is an upper limit on them, of course. You could only go if you get an award

providing for counselling. The maximum you can get under all heads is $20,000

but there are some individuals who have ongoing social counselling or therapy or

what have you.

Does the government include, under the vote for

Victims Services, the cost of therapy sessions for people who already have

awards? Is that provided for in that vote?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer to the hon. gentleman's

question, Mr. Chairman, is no, but let him give him the rest of the answer. The

money is found up above in 4.2.04. There is still a residual vote in the Crimes

Compensation of $125,000 and that is to meet the costs to be incurred during

this fiscal year of the awards that - you know, where somebody has been awarded

counselling over a two-or-three-year period. We will be funding this year's

costs out of that subhead.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. So that is the $125,000

there?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: It takes care of that.

MR. ROBERTS: There are no new Crimes

Compensation awards being made.

MR. HARRIS: No, no. But if there are

individuals - and I have had a couple of people ask me whether or not

counselling that they are receiving - is that going to continue? There didn't

seem to be certain answers a little while ago from the officials who had been

working that system, but I thank the minister for that answer.

MR. ROBERTS: I am told that the $125,000 is

adequate, and that is something we should be able to estimate with some

precision.

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

The question comes up from time to time, and I

know, one of the individuals involved in providing this service to the

government, has raised it himself, and that is the issue of forensic services

and the possibility of replacing the system of having judicial inquiries into

sudden, suspicious or unnatural deaths - replacing that with a medical examiner

system that would, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the minister, or

Mr. Flynn, perhaps, however it works out, as to whether or not a judicial

inquiry would be held into a particular death, that all sudden deaths would be

screened, I guess, by a medical examiner to determine a cause or decide whether

or not a particular inquiry would be held. Is that something the government has

looked at seriously? Or are you satisfied that the system, as it is, is working

properly and that we are satisfied to have just inquiries as and when they may

be required, based on discretion, I guess?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the government, by which I

mean, in this instance, the fifteen men and women who, together, make up the

Cabinet, have not become seized of the issue. It is a matter that I am trying to

grapple with, with a view to bringing it forward in due course to Cabinet when I

have worked it through in my own mind how I think we should go.

I have seen quite an extensive paper from Dr.

Hutton, who is the forensic pathologist in the Province, and an extraordinarily

capable and competent person, as well as a dedicated public servant. He, in

addition to doing his job superbly, has developed quite an interest in this, and

I suspect he is the individual to whom my friend refers.

There are pros and cons, as with anything. Two of

the issues I have to look at: first of all, the availability of pathologists, is

a problem. For example, if we have a death - well, two Germans died in Happy

Valley in an unfortunate air crash about a month ago. Their bodies had to be

moved here to St. John's for autopsies. The availability of pathologists is a

concern. Then, there is also a cost element. My job, as any minister, is

constantly balancing benefit against cost.

The present system is not - it is discretionary but

it is not a discretion that we exercise often or lightly. The

Summary

Proceedings Act,

Section 22, from memory, mandates inquiries into all cases of

sudden - I look to Mr. Flynn to correct me where I go wrong - all cases of

sudden death, unless there is a specific order to the contrary. That is normally

done by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have a residual authority which I

will exercise as necessary.

The other problem with the present system is that

Provincial Court judges are given this chore - and they do it very well, but we

have a limited number of Provincial Court judges and if one of them is off on

one of these inquiries, then he or she is not judging in court. So, I guess what

I am saying to my hon. friend is that I have a list of about forty-five topics.

As the Minister of Justice, I hope to get my teeth into it, in view of moving

them forward. The question of a forensic pathology or the coroner system is on

that list.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, thank you. It is not pressing

but it is something that does come up from time to time. Dr. Hutton is the man

to whom I was referring and who is very fond of changing that system. I want to

ask about the penitentiary. First of all, I guess I will ask the minister: Have

you received complaints from inmates of Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St.

John's about conditions at the penitentiary?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I have quite a lively

correspondence with a number of inmates. I believe they are allowed to write to

me without their letters being opened. I think that is entirely proper, and some

of them have a great deal of time on their hands, I should think. I am not

trying to be funny, I mean, there are people there who carry on extended

correspondence with me. Mr. David Fleming, who is no longer in the Province, has

been carrying on a very lively correspondence with me. So, the answer to the

hon. gentleman's question is yes.

MR. HARRIS: Have you had occasion to visit the

penitentiary to look into some of the complaints? I say this because in the

early part of May, in fact, it was the day before the election, I paid a visit

to Her Majesty's Penitentiary, went around and spoke to each and every inmate,

as a matter of fact, to say hello on behalf -

MR. ROBERTS: A number of the hon. gentleman's

constituents, perhaps?

MR. HARRIS: A number of them were, as it turned

out, and the number -

MR. ROBERTS: I once lost the penitentiary but

won the Waterford - now, make what you want of that.

MR. HARRIS: Some of them actually voted for me,

but that is not the point of my question. While I was there I talked to a number

of people who said that they had complaints. They tried to complain about it and

they were concerned that their letters had been tampered with, but that is a

separate issue.

MR. ROBERTS: Are these people speaking of

letters to me?

MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think to you. I was

just wondering whether their complaints were getting through. Obviously, they

are getting through.

MR. ROBERTS: Some are, I don't know if all are.

I mean, I know what I have, I don't know what I don't have.

MR. HARRIS: In one area of the penitentiary, in

particular - and I am not saying that this is true for all of it - I was spoken

to by several inmates who complained about conditions in this particular part of

the penitentiary, a very, very old part and I am not even sure of the local name

for that particular area. But they complained of mice and rats, of poor food, of

being served in their cell areas on paper plates. In fact, they showed me what

they were served with. They felt that the conditions there were actually

unwholesome, unsanitary and improper kinds of conditions for people to be in.

Some of them expressed to me that they were very experienced prisoners, they

have seen a lot of prisons in this country, and they were expressing the opinion

that these particular facilities were very, very poor - the treatment in terms

of food and in terms of sanitary facilities, the availability of showers, the

availability of soap. One individual complained to me that he was a - he had an

intermittent sentence; he was serving four days on weekends for a driving

offence. He said he would come in on a Friday and leave on a Monday and not be

given any soap; he was supposed to bring his own towel, that kind of thing. I am

just wondering if the minister has heard that kind of complaint from the

penitentiary?

MR. ROBERTS: I haven't heard that one. I

confess, I have heard many that I would take more seriously than somebody -

these cursed weekend sentences are an affront, in my view. They are proper under

the Criminal Code and I don't quarrel with judges imposing whatever they are

authorized to impose by the Parliament of Canada, but they are an affront to any

idea of a civilized system of justice. I mean, this idea of - actually, in this

Province, we let people out on the weekend on temporary absences so that we can

have people check in for the weekend on these cursed weekend sentences. If you

have broken the law, you should pay a penalty, not this (inaudible).

The hon. gentleman asked, Mr. Chairman, if I have

been at the penitentiary - the answer is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, could you clue up?

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. I am sorry. He asked

questions and I though he wanted the answers.

MR. HARRIS: I get on the list and we go back to

that.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me simply say that I want to

pursue it a little bit. I arranged to have my colleagues from the Treasury Board

go with me to the penitentiary and we all met a number of our constituents. Some

of my colleagues who were teachers met former pupils of theirs and one of the

results, I am very proud to say, is that we are spending $1 million at the

penitentiary this year to do so long needed capital renovations, but the answer

to the question is, yes, and the rest we will have to come back to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I now recognize Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It might be a pleasant change of pace to get

somebody who is not a lawyer and who does not have a legal background. If I

could refer you to Head 2.3.05. Mr. Harris referenced the Forensic Pathology

Services. I am assuming from the salaries that are listed there that this

service is just available in one site in the Province. Is that right?

MR. ROBERTS: The service is available

throughout the Province but again, as is so often the case, half the truth is

not even close to the full answer. Doctor Hutton is based here in St. John's and

he is the Chief Provincial Pathologist. He is effectively full-time at this work

and there is a lot of it to be done. We contract out. If you go down to .05,

Professional Services, we contract out autopsies in other parts of the Province

as necessary and as pathologists are available. Now, sometimes it makes more

sense to move a body to St. John's to do an autopsy, depending entirely on the

circumstances. The service is available anywhere in the Province. If a person

dies in the hon. gentleman's district of Port au Port tomorrow and circumstances

require an autopsy, it will be performed. It may be done in Stephenville, it may

be done in Corner Brook, or the body might be brought here to the Health

Sciences Centre.

MR. SMITH: Okay. You referenced .05,

Professional Services. I had noted as well to differentiate between professional

services and purchase services. What would be the difference?

MR. ROBERTS: This is a standard thing

throughout the Estimates. Purchase services are literally anything we purchase,

rent, etc. It could be anything we buy from stenographic services, I am not

trying to be funny, but to a cup of coffee or anything. This is a standard

division throughout the Estimates. Professional services in this case would

refer to pathologists and undertakers as well, because to move bodies it must be

done properly.

MR. SMITH: Moving on down Page 275 under Head

2.3.06, the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. Looking at that I am

wondering what the situation is? It does indicate there that the commission is

to be convened in 1993. I assume there is no reference to the salaries.

MR. ROBERTS: The commission has been appointed.

The head of the commission, the chair was appointed by the Chief Justice of

Newfoundland, Chief Justice Goodridge, in accordance with the legislation which

had been on the books for about twenty years. Chief Justice Goodridge appointed

Mr. Justice Mahoney to be chair of the commission. The other four members were

appointed by the Speaker before the election so it was the Member for Bonavista

North who is now the Minister of Social Services. They are Mr. Ray Baird, Mr.

John Nolan, Mrs Beatrice Watts, and Mrs Dorothy Inglis. The first meeting of the

commission will be held on Wednesday, Mr. Mahoney tells me. I spoke with him

within the last day or so. Mr. Mahoney will draw no salary because he is a

supernumerary judge so he is paid as a supernumerary. He is paid what amounts to

a judge's salary in accordance with the federal legislation. The other members

will be paid a per diem on what we call Level 2 which is $350 a day less 4.5 per

cent. Is that right? I think the 4.5 per cent has been taken off and I think it

is $350 a day. It is a Level 2 board and they will be paid on a per diem of the

work they do, so they are holding their first meeting here in St. John's on

Wednesday coming Judge Mahoney tells me.

MR. SMITH: Is there a deadline for them to

report?

MR. ROBERTS: The legislation says 31 December

but I have said to the judge that since they were late getting up and running,

the general election sort of put things behind, that if they needed more time I

would bring the matter to my colleagues and we would see what we would decide,

but the legislation does set a deadline of December 31, 1993. It is unlikely

there will be a general election in 1993, 1994, or 1995 so I think they have a

little leeway. Then again the man who sits in the seat the hon. gentleman is

occupying has the constitutional right to call a general election any time he

wants to.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

4.2.02 - page 283, and what we have here is

Community Corrections.

MR. ROBERTS: Community Corrections, yes.

MR. SMITH: That is right. With regards to this,

what does this involve and where would the different sites be located?

MR. ROBERTS: Well this is our adult parole and

probation people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just adult probation.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, adult probation,

parole is federal. There is a distinction there that only lawyers in a bad

moment could appreciate. We have a substantial number of people who are on

probation by order of the courts and we supervise them, it is under the

direction of Mr. McNutt, Robert McNutt, and this is the subhead from which we

pay the salaries and the expenses incurred in that. These are probation officers

by another name, in fact I think that is probably the term we use, certainly day

by day.

They are stationed throughout the Province, they

are heavily overworked, heavily overburdened, they are carrying caseloads far in

excess of what they should, and are doing the best they can in a difficult

situation. It just makes an awful amount of sense to have people out on

probation if they are non-violent offenders you know, and that kind of thing. It

is also, as the member would appreciate, a great deal cheaper, it is costing us

in excess of $40,000 to keep one prisoner in jail for one year.

MR. SMITH: Thank you. 4.2.04, Crimes

Compensation. I just had noted there when I was looking through the estimates

that there is no estimate for salaries and -

MR. ROBERTS: That program is being phased out,

we ended it last year; last year was the last year. Mr. Badcock, who was

Chairman of the Board, is now working with the department as a solicitor, and

the only money we are asking for this year is a residual amount, that is the

amount that my friend from St. John's East is raising, if he was to fund ongoing

awards. We phased it out reluctantly but we did it.

What happened, it is another of these programs that

the feds got us into, or we got into it on a shared cost program four or five

years ago, my friend from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty years ago. - and then the

Mulroney administration - and I do not blame them, I mean you have to cut and

every thing you cut is painful - but, it was ended and the federal contribution

went off to nothing and we just backed off, so that is why there are no salary

votes. There are no people working there any more and there are no new awards

being made.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Minister. That's it

for me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Legal Aid. There is a very small increase and I am

only guessing but there is a lot more poor people, without pointing fingers,

that is the society in which we are living. In the cases of what you have

appropriated, a guestimate is as good as you can, but I suppose the department

is run like anywhere else, it is a household, if it goes over budget you always

try to scrape from another part of the department, is that the way it goes? What

else do you do?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman, some day in

his career will run into the Treasury Board, which is the government's internal

management operation, and the Treasury Board's approach always is countervailing

savings, in other words you find it somewhere else in the department and if that

does not work, you have to go back and try for Supplementary Supply.

MR. CAREEN: Okay, so these monies that have

been approved, obviously you are projecting that there is that much more of an

increase than from last year.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, no, if I may, Mr. Chairman,

if the hon. gentleman will permit, last year's figures require some explanation.

The hon. gentleman will note, we asked for $5 million in round numbers - the

hon. gentleman is familiar with the format of the estimates. The right hand

column on page 274 is the budget figure, which I would have asked of this

committee last year. The next figure, the next column, the middle one which is

$6.25 million, a 25 per cent increase, is what we actually spent. Then we're

asking for $5.41 millions this year, again in round numbers. So we're asking for

roughly a $400,000 increase.

The reason why it's less than last year is we

discovered midway through the year, or I discovered, that there was a

substantial backlog of bills. I can provide the explanation for that if one

wishes. We brought it up to date. The other thing that's happened is we are

going from certificates to staff lawyers wherever we can. One qualifies for

legal aid according to the rules. One gets a certificate and you can take it to

any lawyer who will work for that. The lawyer sends his or her bill into the

Commission, the cheque comes out. That's one way we provide legal aid. The other

way we provide it is with staff solicitors. We have increased the number of

staff solicitors substantially and that has brought down the - what do you call

it? - the per case cost? Whatever. The per incident cost substantially. I'm told

this is a realistic estimate. Time will tell how good it is.

MR. CAREEN: The correctional facilities. You

said there, well, nearly $2 million.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry. Correctional -

MR. CAREEN: I'm talking about the correctional

facilities, renovations to Her Majesty's Penitentiary, 4.2.06. The Member for

St. John's East didn't know the name of it, and I don't know, but there's a

certain area of that old part of what Ray Guy calls the `Walled-off Astoria'.

Very old part of it. He did it in his old columns. Are the renovations here in

that particularly old area, or is it going right on through the building?

MR. ROBERTS: The renovations are being done at

the Penitentiary to what's called the Centre Block. The Centre Block does not

house prisoners. The Centre Block I guess is the original part of the

Penitentiary. Built in the 1850s. It did house prisoners. It's now offices and

interview rooms. Really, it's being rebuilt entirely to provide,

a) offices and

facilities, and

b) program space. Because one of the big gaps we have is program

space. There are some cells adjacent to it we've been using for weekend people.

Pretty unpleasant cells, I have to tell you. There may not be such a thing as a

pleasant cell. That may be an oxymoron.

The rest of the wings have been built at various

times. The newest wing was built in 1981. It's the blue - I don't know if the

hon. gentleman has ever been in the Penitentiary as a visitor, I (inaudible) -

MR. CAREEN: Not yet.

MR. ROBERTS: By the way, members are, unless

the Prisons Act has been changed, automatically entitled, as a right, to visit

the Penitentiary at any time.

MR. TULK: But not serve time.

MR. ROBERTS: If the circumstances are right we

can arrange that too, Mr. Chairman. Anything to oblige the hon. gentleman from

Fogo, if he wants to. The other wings are not that old, although there are still

some cells that are certainly less salubrious than other cells. But the money

will go on the Centre Block which is where the prison officials tell me it is

most needed.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you. This past year, Mr.

McNutt... what's his title?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. McNutt is Director of Adult

Corrections.

MR. CAREEN: He was around and about several

places looking at new accommodations.

MR. ROBERTS: We have a constant need, and also

we get interesting problems. Mr. Flynn won't mind me telling, he came in one

Friday afternoon to my office late to say: Minister, there's something you

should know about. Well, that sounded official. I said: tell me, Colin. He said:

there's a trawler on the way into St. John's with - what was it? - thirty, forty

or fifty people on it who've just been arrested. The message has come on the

radio saying: be aware, put up your fifty people. I said: oh yes? Have we got

room? He said: of course not. We don't have fifty vacant beds in the

penitentiary system. If you want to know the truth we told the trawler to steam

around slowly for a day or two and take their time coming. This was these people

from St. Pierre who'd been arrested. We made arrangements to house them at

Torbay, in one of the gyms. So we do - we are in the market for additional

accommodation but the problem is cost and security.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you kindly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. In the list of grants to

so-called third party organizations that we pried out of the Minister of Finance

just before the election was called, there are a couple of indications of new

grants from the Department of Justice. One for a prison liaison program,

$53,900, and another that I'll come to in a moment. Would the minister tell us

what the prison liaison program is to be, and how the $53,900 is to be spent?

MR. ROBERTS: That is for the Labrador

Correctional Institute, which is in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

MS. VERGE: In Naskaupi district.

MR. ROBERTS: In Naskaupi district, but the good

news is that it was not put there at my request. It was put there for liaison

program at the request of the officials, but with my support. This is liaison

with the Innu and Inuit prisoners.

We have a peculiar problem mostly in Labrador

because most of the Aboriginal people who are in the system are in Labrador, and

I am disturbed and concerned that there is no bilingual person on the staff at

the Labrador Correctional Institute even yet. There are a couple in the system.

A very high proportion of the prisoners there at any given time are Aboriginal.

We have no liaison with them or with their communities, and the $54,000 was a

program - when I say suggested by the officials, I am not trying to - I mean, I

take responsibility for asking for the money - to enable them to try to put into

place a prison liaison program to address the needs of some of these people

because they come out of prison - they are all there for relatively short

sentences - not all of them, most - liquor related offenses and that kind of

thing - they go back in their home communities and they are back in the system

in a matter of weeks or months.

I believe they hope to hire some local people to

work with these prisoners before they get out in counselling and see if we can

improve things. It is not a very happy situation.

MS. VERGE: What is in place for the

penitentiary in St. John's and each of the other centres across the Province for

community interface with inmates?

MR. ROBERTS: Not enough.

MS. VERGE: Stephenville seems to have the best

that I have seen, at both the male and female institution, in terms of

interaction with the community college and others in the community.

I agree with the minister's comment that there is

not nearly enough, and the biggest lack, in my view, is here in St. John's where

we have the biggest concentration of inmates at the penitentiary.

MR. ROBERTS: We fund the John Howard Society.

They have other sources, and I think they do absolutely splendid work. The

problem - and the hon. member having been a minister will understand, I fear,

only too well, Mr. Chairman - is that the easy things to cut are the most

valuable things.

When you have a prison, you have to pay the staff.

You have to pay the meals. You have to pay the light, the heat, the whatever.

Then when things get tight, the things that get cut are the really valuable

things - the programming.

We have a program, and I did not bring my little

book with me, but there is quite an extensive program. When you check into the

prison you are given a little book which, among other things, lists the

programs, but it is not nearly extensive enough. One of the areas in which it

breaks down is introducing back into the community, and also community

involvement.

When people go to prison, they are not there for

life. In fact our prisoners are all two years less a day, by definition.

MS. VERGE: Except for a few federal people

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There are very few federal

prisoners. Are there any left now, other than remands?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We have none now other than

remands. That is one of the ways in which the pressure has... In the hon. lady's

time I suspect they had the luxury of housing federal prisoners and "making

money on them".

MS. VERGE: We did.

MR. ROBERTS: But there are none left except for

remands. When Brother Ralph came back for other charges, he would have been held

here - that kind of people in the system being processed.

There is not nearly enough time. I could go on in

some length because I would like to see some money spent in it.

MS. VERGE: There are two issues. What I was

getting at when I first asked the question was involvement of members of the

outside community in various capacities. As I say, the best example of that kind

of activity that I have seen is in Stephenville.

A second issue would be what the minister just

alluded to, and that is programming provided by the government, by the

penitentiary staff, education and training. So I would like the minister to

comment on them one by one.

MR. ROBERTS: My comments applied to both.

MS. VERGE: For example, in the case of

involvement of outsiders, of members of the wider community, would the minister

entertain having a citizens advisory committee for each institution to try to

foster and promote more interaction between the wider community and inmates?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me put it another way. I think

we would welcome, or I would welcome, and I suspect the officials would welcome,

but if not, let me know and I'll take care of that - any group or any individual

for that matter coming forward who want to become involved. We are, in the way

in which the hon. member suggests, we're talking now - Mr. McNutt I think has

been making statements in the press, with my blessing, he doesn't need my

permission to talk to the press, about a prisoners' liaison - what's the name of

it - a prisoners' committee? I've met recently with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Prisoners' inmate committee. Which

involves as well people outside, some of whom are in fact former prisoners

themselves. I'm not familiar with the Stephenville one so I won't attempt to

speak of it. Generally speaking, the problem we have is there's not a lot of

interest in prisons by people who are not in prison. The John Howard Society is

really the only organization I can think of readily that addresses itself to the

situation of prisoners, and the John Howard Society operates outside prison. It

deals with people who are on probation or in one stage or another.

That's a long answer. The short answer to the hon.

lady's question is yes. I would welcome anything that we could do to - people

are being punished, but it's not a life sentence. They have to come back into

society. It's in our interest and their's -

MS. VERGE: And rehabilitation is one of the

goals presumably.

MR. ROBERTS: - to have them come back into the

system. You pay your penalty, you get on with life.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The next item on this list of

third party organizations is Consumer Association. Nothing last year, approved

for 1993-1994, $35,000. What is that?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member will recall that

we ended the - what was it? - the consumer advocate, Mr. Brace's position. Mr.

Brace had a contract. We honoured the contract. Mr. Brace is now out in the

private sector. I know he's practicing, I don't know what he's doing.

MS. VERGE: Filling in for Bill Rowe during the

election.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MS. VERGE: Filling in for Bill Rowe during the

election.

MR. ROBERTS: That's not a legal practice. It

may be good practice or something else.

MS. VERGE: I know, I realize that.

MR. ROBERTS: Anyway, be that as it may. We

terminated the position. We are in discussions with a consumer group - and I'd

ask the hon. lady not to ask me which it is, but she can guess which one it is

if she wants - but a consumer group with a view to funding it to enable it to

intervene on behalf of consumers whenever hearings come forward. There were none

last year. Mr. Brace finished the CRTC hearing which he had begun, and the

$35,000 is our best guess as to what will be needed this year to fund them.

I don't want to say too much, but we believe that

consumers operations, which are not government, will get intervenor funding from

the board in ordering costs. So this should not be the total amount spent. The

hon. lady knows what I'm talking about and I guess she doesn't want me to go

very much further because it's in nobody's interest to talk about the fund.

Consumer groups appearing before the appeal board, the CRTC, are entitled, in

the general practice, to receive. It's in the discretion of the board to receive

funding. Government agencies aren't.

MS. VERGE: Next question. The Registry of

Deeds.

MR. ROBERTS: Another revenue source.

MS. VERGE: For years and years work has been

going on trying to modernize the Registry, putting all documents on microfilm

and computerizing the index. Progress has been very slow. I've been told that

the future is somewhat uncertain. What's the department's commitment to

completing that work?

MR. ROBERTS: The minister has an interest in

having a long look at the whole land titles system. Specifically, whether we

should continue with the present system or go to some other one. Now this is a

massive project. I have to tell you, you're talking to a lawyer who avoided

assiduously the Registry of Deeds. I was in practice full-time for, what,

fourteen or fifteen years, and if I was in there twice it was because I got lost

once in the bowels of the building here.

But I have seen some information and some friends

of mine do practice law that involves some time in there. The volume of

materials is increasing geometrically, you know the two, four, eight, sixteen,

increasing rapidly. We now have on microfilm back to 1980, I am told - and we do

not plan to go back any further? There is a study underway with a view of coming

up with some alternatives but I do not think we will be going back a lot further

than 1980. We are up to date, all new deeds are being put on. I can offer the

hon. lady a thought, and this is certainly not government policy, this is a

thought that what we should do in this Province is perhaps, and this will cause

the lawyers in the country heartbreak, is go to a system whereby the government

hires a bunch of searchers, a bunch of lawyers and certifies title, go to a

proper land title system. The fee for registering your land title would include

an insurance premium which would go into a fund to compensate people for the

inevitable mistakes. This would mean he would not need lawyers to transfer

title. As I say, I can hear the law society now tromping in, one more concern,

and that has to be addressed but the present system is outdated, anti-dated,

inefficient and about to collapse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, your

time is up.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. On the issue again of

the institutional operations and security vote 4.2.03 the penitentiary's - the

concern that I raised is a very real one. I understand that the minister has an

appropriation for a correctional capital vote of $700,000 from another

department but I am concerned about the current situation and what certainly

appeared to me, and I am no expert in evaluating prison facilities, but the

circumstances that I saw on that Sunday morning where these particular inmates

were being served what went for lunch, in a corridor outside their cells which

would be about three feet wide, on a bench of sorts, which is maybe twelve -

MR. ROBERTS: I have been in that part of the

penitentiary.

MR. HARRIS: - twelve inches wide, having to

stand up to -

MR. ROBERTS: Is that the one they call the east

wing? That is the east wing.

MR. HARRIS: I am not sure exactly -

MR. ROBERTS: I have been in there, yes. It is

one of the older wings.

MR. HARRIS: - and the situation was not - it is

partially underground, if that is the same one you are thinking about, look out

the window and have the rat holes pointed out to you and be shown the places

where the mice come in and roam around. The conditions in terms of the location

are not very pleasant but also I think it is fair to say, just from what I saw

and from the complaints that I heard, that the ongoing expenditures to look

after just people's physical needs, hygiene, nutrition, meals, cleanliness,

personal cleanliness and also the facilities were very, very seriously under

what would be normally expected. I see in the appropriation for supplies,

paragraph 04, line 04, a decrease of about $50,000 from last year. Can you tell

us how, in an overcrowded system that we have, as you said bursting at the

seams, as we all know and anybody who sees it knows and I am sure the

correctional officers who work there, I am not blaming them and do not get me

wrong, I am not blaming them for the conditions, they have to spend what money

they have but how does one save $50,000? Is it saved on supplies? How do you

reduce the amount of supplies? Are you reducing the amount of food or -

MR. ROBERTS: I cannot answer that. The amount

of food will not be reduced. The quantity and I would hope the quality will not

be reduced. I just do not know the answer. The officials here with me are not

familiar with it so rather than wing it I will - I am not sure what procedure

you use, Mr. Chairman, I will file a letter with the committee or I will ask the

official concerned to speak with the hon. gentleman if he prefers. The answer is

- I do not know the answer and I would just as soon leave it at that. I am sure

there is an answer and I can tell the hon. gentleman that we are not reducing

the meals or anything of that order. We may be doing things a little smarter

down there or there may have been some one-shot expenditures last year.

MR. HARRIS: Again, I am trying to find, I

suppose, where in this appropriation - obviously salaries are not related to it.

I suppose it is either supplies or purchased services. Is there a catering

service? I do not think there is. I think they have their own -

MR. ROBERTS: No, the -

MR. HARRIS: They do their own cooking -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) in-house as it were.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Some is done by trustees, I think,

is it not - by prisoners themselves?

MR. HARRIS: I would imagine the cooking is

being -

MR. ROBERTS: Some of it is being done by

prisoners.

MR. HARRIS: I think the cooking is being done

by prisoners themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) catering.

MR. ROBERTS: There is catering?

AN HON. MEMBER: They used to do it in-house.

MR. ROBERTS: My officials tell me there is

catering, but I will have to get Mr. McNutt in next year.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. Well I suppose whatever way -

MR. ROBERTS: I can only tell the hon.

gentleman, the last time I was there prisoners were working in the - there is a

kitchen -

MR. HARRIS: They were working in the kitchen -

MR. ROBERTS: In that east wing going down...

There were prisoners working in the kitchen -

MR. HARRIS: They were working in the kitchen

when I was there.

MR. ROBERTS: - because I had quite an animated

chat with one of them whom I knew in another life - his, not mine.

MR. HARRIS: In addition to checking on the

decrease in supplies and as to what that might be related to, would the minister

undertake to check into the complaints that these prisoners have? I'll be more

specific to the minister when I find out exactly what that particular wing might

be called. i think it may well be what you said.

MR. ROBERTS: My answer is an unqualified yes.

If I am given any details of complaints I will have them looked into and I will

ensure the hon. gentleman gets an answer. Where we go from there depends on what

the answer is. There's nothing to hide. The prisons are not everything one might

want them to be, but my enquiries, and I've made I hope sufficient enquiries,

show me that the prisons are safe and there's a regard for human decency and for

the fact that these people have rights. Getting locked in jail doesn't mean

you're thrown into the dungeon and the key is thrown away. If the hon. gentleman

has complaints, if he will ensure that I'm made aware of them, I will ensure

they are looked into it and he knows what comes of it.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Again, let me assure the

minister, we're dealing with a variety of individuals who are there. Some of

them are experienced prisoners, let's say, who've been in prisons across the

country. Others are serving weekends for usually a driving offence. In fact, I

met two individuals, one was seventeen, the other was sixteen. I asked one what

they were doing there. They had been in closed custody situation and had escaped

and were down there. So they're not all of one sort, and they are all in the

same population.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should realize

as well that we have other institutions which are lesser level of security and

which are newer. The Salmonier prison camp is a very different situation. The

Clarenville, Bishop's Falls, and West Coast institutions are all - we offer

everything except maximum security custody.

MR. HARRIS: Does anyone know what this

appropriation, line ten there, is, the $53,000 for Grants and Subsides? It seems

to be a new appropriation.

MR. ROBERTS: That's the Labrador - the prisoner

liaison program that the hon. lady asked me about.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: I found a more extensive note but

it only says what I'd said. It just says it a little more elegantly.

MR. HARRIS: In the prison population down at

HMP do we have at any one time, has there been an experience of having

Aboriginal prisoners there? People whose only language may be Inuktitut or...?

MR. ROBERTS: I can only assume yes, simply

because Aboriginal peoples come into the system in certain numbers. Obviously,

before the centre was built in Happy Valley they would have to be housed at the

penitentiary or elsewhere in the system. But no doubt - everybody I think starts

at the penitentiary.

MR. HARRIS: I guess the question is: is the

Happy Valley facility adequate for all those on the Labrador Coast who might be

MR. ROBERTS: Almost all of the Aboriginal

peoples who come into the system are housed in Happy Valley, excepting those who

serve longer sentences. I don't think we have people in Happy Valley serving two

year sentences. It's an institution with limited facilities. It's sort of a

short stay place. Again, I'm not going to say there aren't exceptions to all

these rules. People are moved from time to time.

I hear frequently from members who've heard from

constituents who, usually for good reason, say: can we arrange to have a

prisoner moved from Bishop's to Clarenville? You know what I mean, nearer the

home or what have you. So prisoners are moved throughout the system from time to

time. But almost all the Aboriginal people I should think - men - Aboriginal

women are another problem, of course. But Aboriginal men are housed in Happy

Valley for anything except a longer sentence. Then of course the federal

prisoners go into the federal system.

MR. HARRIS: Is this the facility in Happy

Valley - Goose Bay where you were concerned about not having someone on staff

who could speak the language?

MR. ROBERTS: Either Innu or Inuktituk.

MR. HARRIS: Either one. Do you have people

available, either on staff or on call, for translation services?

MR. ROBERTS: There are interpreters. There are

people in the training programs at Holland College coming on staff... soon?

Anybody know? I think this Spring there are people coming through (inaudible).

We also have union agreements and that is part of

the problem because I mean, there is one unit in a bargaining sense and the

people have seniority, so we have to work within the confines of the collective

agreement in bringing staff in, but there are people in - I think it was an

Innu-speaking person at Holland College and that was maybe an Inuktitut-speaking

person.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I am not suggesting that you

could not post a job for someone who spoke Innuit and not be able to hire a

person because someone who did not have that skill had more seniority. Having

practised labour law for fourteen years, I have never encountered that kind of

difficulty.

MR. ROBERTS: The answer I am given, I have not

practised Labour Law, the answer I am given is, that is a problem with which we

must contend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has now expired Mr.

Harris and it is now close to 8:30, so I think we will break for fifteen

minutes. There is coffee in the hon. members common room and if you care to have

some, you are welcome to come in and have it.

MR. ROBERTS: Any tea, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not know about tea, you can

make your own.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

First on my list at this time is Mr. Tulk. He will be

the first one I will recognize, then I have Ms. Verge's name so if anyone else

would like to get on the list - Mr. Harris, we are adding to it; anyone else -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am going to recognize you

now, sir. I am just taking down names. The minister asks if he could have a

couple of minutes to correct a couple of statements that he made earlier so I

will ask the minister now to start off.

MR. ROBERTS: One correction and one explanation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The correction is, I am told the catering services at

the penitentiary are catered, that although prisoners are employed at a modest

wage in the food operations, the services are catered, the cooking and the food

preparation and all that business.

The other word of explanation, Mr. Chairman, is the

4.2.03. There was a question why the subhead for supplies was down by $50,000. I

am told every third year we provide an issue of uniforms to the warders and last

year was the third year and the cost was $50,000, there is no cost this year.

One will note, Mr. Chairman, that the food which is under Purchased Services

covers the catering. Last year we estimated $ 1.5 million, we spent $1.65

million and we are estimating $1.642 million this year, so there is no

significant change in the food vote. We have been running as I said at 115 per

cent to 120 per cent of capacity; I am not sure it is the food that brings

people in there but, if it is, we are doing well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tulk.

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the question, I think, it is a more general

question, should be asked under the minister's salary. Are you pretty lenient or

MR. CHAIRMAN: In this committee we usually pass

the -

MR. TULK: Okay, I am a stranger to your committee,

but the minister would probably not have any problem answering anyway, it is a

very general question. Youth Corrections: there is a debate ongoing in the

Province and indeed in the country I guess, as to whether youth corrections

should be left under the Department of Social Services or placed under the

Department of Justice.

As a result of some work experience that I had a

couple of years ago, I have somewhat of a concern about - I guess as a former

educator in the Province - I have some concern in the way youth corrections are

placed, whether it is under the Department of Justice or under the Department of

Social Services and the minister will recognize in the department, the two

components of it. The two different components of what we are talking about when

we are dealing with young people, justice versus shall we say, social services

or the education side of things.

Where is that debate now? Colin Flynn will probably

grin all over his face, but are we going to make a decision or is it still the

debate that is ongoing between the two departments of government?

MR. ROBERTS: The debate is ongoing, Mr. Chairman,

within the government. My understanding, and I would ask Mr. Flynn, whom I think

is probably the official most knowledgeable in this matter to correct me if I am

wrong, my understand is that eight provinces operate their youth correctional

facilities as part of the Justice Department, whatever it may be called. It may

be called a Solicitor General's Department in some provinces, but provinces have

recently been merging Solicitor Generals' Departments into Justice Departments,

and two provinces, of which this is one, operate through the Social Services

Department, whatever name it (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Where is the other one?

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TULK: Where is the other one?

MR. ROBERTS: I can only tell my friend, we do not

know, but until I find out -

MR. TULK: I think it is Prince Edward Island. I am

not sure.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. O'Regan might slip out and ask

Mr. McNutt. (Inaudible). I will get you that answer.

The matter is obviously a contentious one, and the

issue raises strong viewpoints. We have not resolved it definitively. Perhaps

we, as a Cabinet, never will.

The new Whitbourne institution and all of the youth

facilities are in the votes of the Social Services Department as they were, I

suspect, during my hon. friend's tenure as an ADM in that department.

There are no immediate plans by the Cabinet to move

them. The matter is very much under review. We have a number of concerns. Youth

- the short-term holding facilities, both here in St. John's and elsewhere

throughout the Province, are a continuing concern. The pressure - it is not for

me to get into social services estimates, but my understanding is that at

Whitbourne the new building is filled and the old buildings are filled. We have

an incarceration rate in this Province of young people, I am told, that far

exceeds the national averages, and I have no idea why that is or why it should

be, or whether it should be.

MR. TULK: There is a simple solution.

MR. ROBERTS: I would welcome it. As to what it is,

I do not know. What is it? Well I do not know what the simple solution is, but -

MR. TULK: Put them in jail.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TULK: Put them in jail.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Whitbourne is a jail.

Whitbourne is a secure custody facility which, although I have not been there,

is a jail. It is a very - I will not say a very good jail; that is an oxymoron,

Mr. Chairman - but it is a very expensive facility to operate. The non-program

costs, and I emphasize the non-program costs at Whitbourne, I am told, are

roughly twice per prisoner, per inmate, what it costs us to operate the adult

institutions.

Now that may be inevitable. I am not making a

judgement, but my general response to the gentleman's general question, Mr.

Chairman, is that the debate is ongoing. It tends to elicit extraordinarily

strong views. Everybody seems to have a fixed position on this which is like

cement - hard and immobile. Whether it will ever be resolved satisfactorily I do

not know. One can argue the case, I think, either way, but at present these

institutions remain - the Young Offenders Act, prisoners or inmates - within

social services. There are no immediate plans to move them.

I do not know if that answers the question fully, but

it is a matter we will hear more of, and I do not know of an easy solution. I am

not even sure I know the right one, to be candid. We will find out where that

other province is. Mr. O'Regan is gone to make a phone call.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it, Mr. Tulk?

MR. TULK: Oh yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: I will come back to land titles. The

minister was musing about the possibility of converting to a land title system

and having government guaranteed land titles. That is an attractive model which

some of his predecessors have thought about. Is the minister seriously going to

embark upon a process to explore this, get Cabinet approval to do a cost-benefit

analysis?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me make a general comment and

then I will deal with the hon. lady's question specifically. I have always made

it a practice never to say what I shall recommend to Cabinet, for obvious

reasons given the convention of Cabinet solidarity, and I certainly would not

say to the committee what I intend to recommend to the Cabinet. I am not trying

to avoid the answer. I will come head-on into the question.

MS. VERGE: Well I will ask the question

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My comment was serious. I think it is

a major problem. It is one that is getting worse.

MS. VERGE: Does the minister have any idea

whatsoever of what it would cost?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I do not.

What I want to say is that it is a serious problem and

my comment is serious. I think it is one that we have to address. Where it would

fall on the list of priorities is another thing. I came into this ministry a

year-and-a-half ago roughly, and spent the first six months almost entirely on

the constitutional dossier. For better or for worse, that is where my time went.

Then the Fall came on and we have had the budgetary thing. I am not trying to

seek sympathy in order to make excuses but my list of priorities is not much

advanced from where I was when I came in.

MS. VERGE: In the meantime, we have the system

that has been in place -

MR. ROBERTS: And it is functioning.

MS. VERGE: - for many years. It is not functioning

as well as it could because of the slowness of the process of doing a completely

computerized index and putting the documents on microfilm.

MR. ROBERTS: We are now looking at that to see

whether we should cut it off at 1980 or whether we should continue going back -

MS. VERGE: That was what I was trying to get at

earlier.

MR. ROBERTS: We are looking at that, yes.

MS. VERGE: So, you are not necessarily committed

to going back and doing all the records?

MR. ROBERTS: My understanding is we are having a

look at it to see whether it is worth the effort because 1980 was thirteen years

ago. I know you need a forty year rule of title on all of those things but the

fact remains, in real life, the volume of conveyances - there cannot be a whole

lot of bits of property that have not been dealt with in some way in the last

fifteen years in this Province, a mortgage, a charge of some sort, a conveyance

of some sort.

MS. VERGE: When do you expect to have the results

of this review?

MR. ROBERTS: I am also told that this is the joy

of having officials who know in detail the study, looking at the best way to

achieve it.

MS. VERGE: The best way?

MR. ROBERTS: The best way to achieve -

MS. VERGE: When do you expect to have the results

of that study and be in a position to make a decision?

MR. ROBERTS: My answer is quite some time.

MS. VERGE: Thanks, okay.

Court facilities; do you have any plans to build any

new court facilities or to significantly alter the current court facilities?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, we have all sorts of plans. The

new court in Gander will open shortly.

MS. VERGE: The Winston Baker Memorial Court House?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the Winston Baker Memorial Court

House. People have had far less worthwhile monuments than that courthouse. I

intend to be the first Minister of Justice in history not to leave court

facilities behind me.

MS. VERGE: I do not think that you will be the

first actually.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the hon. lady had plans to

expand them in Corner Brook I understand. It is amazing -

MS. VERGE: I had hoped.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, she may not have been able to

carry her colleagues with her on the point. The Grand Bank -

MS. VERGE: No actually, just to interject, to be

fair, I embarked upon a plan of improving court facilities in order of priority

and I said publicly then that Gander was at the top of the list in terms of -

MR. ROBERTS: - and we have honoured that priority

and Clarenville is the one that needs to be done next. The facility in

Clarenville is very inadequate. The big unresolved issues are Corner Brook and

St. John's and there are ongoing studies, there are ongoing discussions. We are

not close to a resolution in my judgement, in part because of the pressure of

other things. I mean, in life, in administration, the immediate so often

displaces the important but also because the costs are very significant.

MS. VERGE: Yes, okay thank you.

Back to Victim Services, this is page 284 of the

estimates, 4.2.05. Earlier the minister talked about increasing the number of

personnel from four plus the one contractual position, five, by seven, I believe

he said. I notice the estimates are itemized in such a way as to suggest that

there are some notions of how these people are to be engaged, there is $297,600

for Salaries, there is $115,700 for Professional Services, $71,600 for Purchased

Services and then $97,600 for Grants and Subsidies. I would like somebody to

explain the plans for each of those four line items; Salaries, Professional

Services, Purchased Services, Grants and Subsidies.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, let me take a run at this. The

Salaries, we are phasing in. In other words we will not have seven FTE's this

year but I understand that the -

MS. VERGE: What are FTE's?

MR. ROBERTS: Full-time equivalents, it is the new

jargon, sometimes called PY's, person years. It used to be called MY's in the

benighted past. We have not actually hired any of these people yet but we may be

training some, so they will be coming on stream, I am told, over the period up

until next November. The $297 is not an annualized amount. It is what we shall

spend this year.

MS. VERGE: Are these positions going to be

recruited and filled through the Public Service Commission?

MR. ROBERTS: My understanding would be, yes. In

fact some of them may have already been recruited and be in training programs of

one sort or another. The $115.700 Professional Services is mainly for

counselling.

MS. VERGE: If I might interject again? The ones

that are either hired or in training, if there are any, where are they to work?

MR. ROBERTS: We have not established yet where

they are to go. I thought I said that earlier.

MS. VERGE: You mean you have hired people without

telling them where they are going to work?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, people move all the time. The

lady who was in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Ms Meehan, moved to St. John's. People

move around. They are hired knowing this is that kind of work. The $115,700 is

for counselling services. We see an need for purchased counselling services in

connection with this. We have not actually hired anyone beyond the original

four, plus the Salvation Army.

MS. VERGE: But when you do hire you will use the

Public Service Commission?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: If not there will be all-devil to

pay, so, yes, of course. The $115,700 I was trying to say, we see the need for

counselling services of one sort or another and that is that subhead there.

MS. VERGE: What is Purchased Services?

MR. ROBERTS: Whatever we purchased. I am not

trying to be vague. These would be operational. The primary expense involved

with Purchased Services involves rental space for seven new offices in addition

to the existing five offices, and additional costs will also involve printing as

well as repairs and maintenance.

MS. VERGE: Finally, Grants and Subsidies.

MR. ROBERTS: These funds will provide an

opportunity - I am just reading briefing notes now. They are so brief I have not

seen them - these funds will provide an opportunity for the community to share

in the responsibility of providing services to victims. It is anticipated that

victim services regional advisory committees will be put in place and these are

to help to fund these.

MS. VERGE: How many regions are you contemplating?

MR. ROBERTS: We are not dividing the Province as

such into regions. We see the provision of services in the areas of the Province

that do not have them now.

MS. VERGE: Are there any advisory committees for

victim services now?

MR. ROBERTS: No, there are none at this stage.

This service only began a year or so ago as a pilot project and we are only

getting it up and running now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Ms

Verge.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In vote 2.1.02, Sheriff's Office, I see an increase of

$100,000 in salaries over last year's budgeted amount. Does that cover new

positions or how many new positions are there?

MR. ROBERTS: Seven, I am sorry. The eight new

Deputy Sheriffs we have hired as part of our new court security program

experiment here in St. John's.

MR. HARRIS: Does that have any relation to the six

or eight that were laid off a couple of weeks ago?

MR. ROBERTS: We did not lay anyone off a couple of

weeks ago. Yesterday or the day before we gave notice to court criers of a

Summer layoff. Now, the hon. gentleman will acknowledge that there is a

difference between court criers and security services. The court criers here in

St. John's and the one in Gander, all except two were given notice they would be

laid off in July and August, and those notices were given May 31 in accordance

with the terms of the collective agreement. Those are the layoffs I think to

which the hon. gentleman is referring.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I only based it on an obviously

improperly heard news story. I heard the minister make some comment about it but

it wasn't involving criers. But that's the positions that are being laid off for

July and August.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't recall making a comment of

something other than criers, but I mean, the only people we have laid off

recently are these criers on a short-term Summer layoff because the courts, as

the hon. gentleman knows, are closed in the Summer for routine business. They

function on an emergency basis or a limited basis.

MR. HARRIS: Would these eight new deputy sheriffs,

would they be needed all Summer?

MR. ROBERTS: Well.

MR. HARRIS: These are full-time year-round

positions, aren't they?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: In addition to the court security

these people serve process and warrants of committal. As the hon. gentleman

knows, we have a rather substantial backlog in the traffic end of it. But these

people are only going through a training program now. They're not up and running

yet.

MR. HARRIS: But they're intended to be year-round

positions, are they?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Do they have other duties? Are they

involved in serving jury summonses as well?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, they would be. The primary duty

is to see if we can get police officers out of the courts. The hon. gentleman

has practised and he will recall that we have a practise in this Province - it's

not a law, it's not a rule of the Supreme Court, it's simply a procedure that's

grown up - of having two police officers in full dress uniform accompany every

prisoner appearing in court, or at least in the Supreme Court. The Provincial

Court, it's just only in cases of need.

This costs us a great deal of money. If you take a

police officer's cost to the order of, what? Fifty thousand a year, direct and

indirect. You get the anomalous situation of a person on trial, who's out on a

judicial release order, a bail order. Ten o'clock in the morning the court sits.

You've an RCMP officer in full dress or an RNC officer in full dress on each

side. Lunchtime comes. The police officers go off to their lunch, the prisoner

gets up and goes off to his lunch, home. The same in the evening. We're using

highly paid, highly trained people for this work. If it's necessary to have them

it's certainly not necessary to have that level of expertise and associated

expense.

Accordingly we have put in this program to put the

deputy sheriffs in on an experimental basis, and I may say with the full

cooperation of the Chief Justice of the Trial Division and his brethren and

sisters on the Bench down there. That's the primary job of the deputy sheriffs.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister tell us how much is

the expected saving by using this new system?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm having trouble getting a number.

It could be several hundred thousand dollars a year if we can get it up and

running throughout the entire Province. Also, a lot of it is straight

efficiency. Some of this is overtime, some is just - the police officers find

it's very distasteful duty. Because it's really, babysitting, that's not what I

mean, but it's a waste of everybody's time. If you have a dangerous prisoner you

might need three or four police officers in the court. There have been occasions

when there have been armed police officers in court. Whatever is needed will be

provided. In most cases the people charged with crimes are not much of a

security risk to anybody except themselves, you know. But it is several hundred

thousand dollars a year. It's a lot of money.

MR. HARRIS: Under 2.2.01. for Prosecutorial

Services. There's an increase of about 10 per cent in salary vote. What's the

current status in terms of numbers for Crown attorneys on the prosecutorial

staff?

MR. ROBERTS: One of my predecessors, Mr. Hickman,

ran the largest law firm in the Province. Well, it's far larger now. We have

thirty-two Crown prosecutor positions. Twenty-eight of them are now filled.

Three more we have recruited and will be filled tomorrow. The appointments will

be made tomorrow. The thirty-third position is Mr. Flynn, who spends some time

in court, not as much as he would like, more than his ministry would like to be

deprived of him, so we are effectively fully staffed but as Colin would say, we

could use more prosecutors if we have to, but almost all our prosecutions are

now done by staff Crowns, we still have some agents in the Province, we still

use some agents.

MR. HARRIS: Of the thirty-two, twenty-eight are

filled and the other - is it four to be filled tomorrow?

MR. ROBERTS: Three.

MR. HARRIS: Three.

MR. ROBERTS: And they know who they are.

MR. HARRIS: But there is one vacancy?

MR. ROBERTS: The recruitment process is just about

done. This is done by Mr. Flynn in the Public Service Commission.

MR. HARRIS: The increase of $205,000, does this

represent new positions, how many new positions are we - Are they step

increases?

MR. ROBERTS: It is five new positions which my

colleagues in the Treasury Board authorized last year. It is more cost-effective

to use Crowns than it is to use Agents, assuming we have a given volume of work

and unfortunately, the given volume of work is there, this is a growth industry.

MR. HARRIS: Once again we have Professional

Services and Purchases Services with large amounts. I would assume that

Professional Services was agency work; Purchase Services, does that involve

rentals primarily?

MR. ROBERTS: Mainly the witness travel accounts.

You know we do have -

MR. HARRIS: Travel accounts?

MR. ROBERTS: We have a lot of travel. I am forever

signing warrants up there to bring witnesses around, yes.

MR. HARRIS: And that is a different subhead than

Transportation and Communication, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: The Transportation and Communications

is our staff (inaudible) travel.

MR. HARRIS: It is staff travel.

MR. ROBERTS: It will be noted, Mr. Chairman, the

Professional Services have gone down from $900 to $600, that is a saving of $300

for a cost of $200. I am speaking in generalization.

MR. HARRIS: Oh I appreciate that.

MR. ROBERTS: Private lawyers, as my hon. friend

will agree are very expensive animals to hire.

MR. HARRIS: I have never done any agency work but

I am told by those who do it, that it is not nearly as expensive as some of the

lawyers would like it to be.

MR. ROBERTS: I concur.

MR. HARRIS: Speaking of which, the minister made a

great deal last session about the tendering of legal services, and I wonder if

the minister is in a position to report on the success of his tendering process.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. The announcements will be made I

think, in the next three or four days. The process was interrupted by the fact

that for two months the government was involved in consultation with our

electors, but the decisions have been taken and my officials are now working out

the details of the communicating with the successful tenders. Is that the right

phrase, bidders? the lucky guys if you wish, the lucky people or the unlucky

people maybe, but anyhow -

MR. HARRIS: Well I guess the question is, does the

minister anticipate that this new system will result in cost-savings, cheaper

and less money expended under -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, we actually had a case, where,

somebody who had been doing work at $100 an hour, came in at ninety dollars an

hour for the same work. I find that very interesting and it was a very

significant account, was it not, very significant account, six figures? An

account that billed over $100,000 a year to an agency or the government, I do

not want to be any more specific.

The firm that had the work for years came in 10 per

cent cheaper, so we do see some savings, yes. We also think there is a fairness

issue on it, and this is the first time the government of this Province has ever

opened up for everybody to get at the legal business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Harris,

your time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: You could put me on the list again I

guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to go on the list again.

Very good.

I now recommend Mr. Whelan.

MR. ROBERTS: Just before then, may I answer the

question raised by my friend from Fogo?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

MR. ROBERTS: There are in fact, two other

provinces where social services handle youth offenders; they are Saskatchewan

and Quebec and I am told that in Nova Scotia and in Ontario, sixteen-year old

and seventeen-year old are handled by the Justice department by whatever name;

people younger than that would be handled by the Social Services department by

whatever name.

MR. TULK: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have a question with regard to Income

Support Legislation. I understand legislation was introduced in 1983 and again I

think it may have been amended in 1989 -

MR. ROBERTS: Income Support or Enforcement?

MR. WHELAN: Income Support Legislation.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the enforcement agency.

MR. WHELAN: Well, in dealing specifically with

women who have had problems garnishing men's wages -

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, okay.

MR. WHELAN: - husbands who have left their wives,

yes and probably gone out of the Province. I was wondering what the success rate

has been with regard to women who have attempted to garnish the wages of their

ex or departed husbands?

MR. ROBERTS: We do not have the numbers here in

detail. I can talk in a general way, there is a sub-head here called support

enforcement agency which is located in Corner Brook. Again, one thing that I am

very pleased about this year, the government has managed to find some money to

increase the number of people working there because the agency is heavily taxed.

The staff are working very hard and under very real pressure. We had two new

positions established last year and two this year. So we have increased the

number of people there significantly. Particularly, in a year when the

government has a whole are not growing. I just do not have it here, I will ask

my officials to get for the hon. gentleman the details on out of Province or in

Province - we are making progress but it is not easy.

One of the problems is that an inordinate amount of

time is consumed by a very small number of cases because if some individual, it

is almost always a man, decides that he does not want to honour his obligations

as stated by the court, could cause an immense amount of trouble. The hon.

gentleman would be, I hope surprised and certainly I am sure shocked, at the

length to which some people will go to try to avoid looking after their former

spouse and above all their children. I have seen someone coming to me for one

reason or another and inordinate amounts of staff time are taken up with a very

small percentage of offenders. I think, by and large the system is working

fairly well.

These are some numbers that Mr. Cummings has given me

which may help the hon. gentleman, these are approximate figures but Mr.

Cummings - this is one of the areas which he runs for me and does it very well

(inaudible). There are about 4,000 active files in the support enforcement

agency at the present. Since 1989 when the operation began, about $22 million

has been collected and there is about $8 million in outstanding arrears. I can

not playing the game with us yet on NCARP. There is a problem there that I would

MR. WHELAN: With regard to the number of success

cases, how does the figures translate there? Is there a success rate of 50 per

cent, 60 or 75?

MR. ROBERTS: I am not sure what you mean by

success but -

MR. WHELAN: Well, what I am saying is, if a woman

goes after her husband to garnish his wages, I would say that she would be

successful if she garnished his wages. So -

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, we will get him. The constraint

we have is that the staff can only handle so many cases at a time but eventually

we will get the guy and if he has any we will get him. Now some go to awful

lengths, some of the stories I have run across, as I said, are hard to believe

but if the hon. gentleman is on the wrong end of an enforcement order or the

right end if you wish, we will get you. It just may take awhile depending on the

volume of work and that is why we have been increasing the number of staff at

the agency but it is getting better. We now have access to all of the federal

things except NCARP. Eventually, I hope Ottawa will - Ottawa needs to amend an

order in council, add NCARP to the list of payments but if anybody out there is

on the wrong end of the support order and is not paying it, we will get him. Now

bankruptcy and death, these are things that are hard to avoid.

MR. WHELAN: So, does UIC come under the category?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. It is a big source I am told,

but NCARP - it is not anybody deliberate. It is just one of these accidents that

comes up. For some reason the feds listed on their order, or regulation, the

sources that they could intercept. Of course, there was no NCARP, so NCARP was

not on the list. We have been six or eight months trying to persuade the feds to

make one - I am sorry?

MS. VERGE: It is more like nine or ten months.

MR. ROBERTS: Well my hon. and learned friend was

at it a little before we were. It has been nine or ten months, and we have not

been able to get the massive machine in Ottawa to do something that could be

done with - the hon. lady agrees - the snap of a finger, and it is as

frustrating as the bedevil.

We have gone to Mr. Crosbie and he is, I think, making

his best efforts. He tells us he is. I accept that, but it is just incredibly

frustrating - but UI is a huge source of revenue, because it is a huge source of

income.

MR. WHELAN: With regard to other provinces, how

much co-operation have you been having with them - for example, British

Columbia, Alberta?

MR. ROBERTS: Substantial, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There is a Canada-wide network. All

the provinces co-operate with each other. You cannot beat the system by getting

out - by going to another province. Change your name and we may take longer. I

am being dramatic. People do all of these things, but the system - the hon. lady

gets credit for bringing it into this Province, and a large measure of credit is

due to her - the system has been going through teething problems, and it is

getting up and running. It is getting much better as we go, but it is becoming a

very heavy administrative load.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some of our correctional institutions, like the

women's in Stephenville, and there are others, people are in for a certain

amount of time anyway - longer than the usual weekend or the thirty-day people.

How many of these - or do any of them - have training facilities? I know that is

an extra cost, and it is an extra program or an extra department mixed in with

them, but how many of them have training components for these citizens?

MR. ROBERTS: We have training programs in all of

these institutions, but there are different levels of programs. Some

institutions have more than others, and the Stephenville one is one of the ones

that has fewer than others. It is a very small institution. It has twenty-four

beds and generally runs at one of the lowest capacities. The women of this

Province do not make up a very large proportion of our inmate population.

The other factor is that we have an awful lot of

prisoners, or a very substantial number of our prisoners, who are there for very

short times. What I am told by the officials is, if you are there for two weeks,

or twenty-eight days, there is not much of a training program that - now there

are - my friend from Port au Port is an educator. He can probably speak more

knowledgeably on this, but you cannot do much with anybody in twenty-eight days

by way of a training program. We do offer facilities of one sort or another in

every facility, and this year we are adding full-time instructors at Bishop's

Falls and Clarenville - the two correctional centres there. These will be

in-house - not inmate - but in-house instructors for the prisoners there.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

From time to time, and I have not heard it lately, but

over the years you hear about backlogs of cases within our courts. What way is

it? Is there a good flow going through now? Can you look at, say, the Supreme

Court and say that it is at a crisis, or near crisis, or is it going very good?

MR. ROBERTS: Well now, this is one of these, is

the glass of water half full or half empty? The provincial courts are

up-to-date. If the hon. gentleman is on the wrong end of a process or proceeding

in a provincial court, he will have a chance for his day in court really as

quickly as one would want, and in many cases I understand the lawyers are

complaining that we are moving too quickly.

A lot of these delays, I have to tell you, are the

result of lawyers playing around - not necessarily trying to delay things, but

taking on too much work.

In the trial division - the Court of Appeal is super

up-to-date. That is two of our three levels of our courts. The third court, the

trial division of the Supreme Court, I am told, is up-to-date everywhere except

St. John's. I am a year-and-a-half away from practice, but I understand the

civil docket is what, six or eight months? Does anybody here know? None of us

does civil litigation work, but my friend for St. John's East may know. He is

still doing some, but I am told we are six to eight months away from a trial on

the civil list.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is more like a year.

MR. ROBERTS: More like a year? But one should not

just look at raw numbers, because an awful lot of the matters set down for trial

get settled before they are ever called for trial.

The criminal trials continue to be a problem. We have

had about six courts going. My director of public prosecutions and his

associates meet regularly with the Chief Justice of the Trial Division and they

are trying to find ways to move these through the courts. Seriously, we have not

lost any Askoff cases?

AN HON. MEMBER: We have lost very few, but we have

lost some.

MR. ROBERTS: We have lost very few cases because

of Askoff. Ontario lost thousands when the thing came in, but that is a constant

concern. Part of the problem is facilities and part of it is there seem to be

more serious matters. I do not hear many complaints from either practitioners or

clients that they are not having their matters dealt with in reasonably

satisfactorily periods of time.

MR. CAREEN: From time to time you hear that it

blows and then all of a sudden it dies down, but where it comes from I do not

know.

MR. ROBERTS: There is often a story behind the

story if one looks into it.

MR. CAREEN: 5.1.01. I was missing for a while

earlier because I have a dirty habit of going out. I do not know if somebody

asked this, but if they did not, the abolition of the office of the consumer

advocate is to be provided for by a consumers' association. How does it work,

how many are there, and has it started it's process?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. Member for Humber East asked

a question which touched upon this. The consumer advocate, Mr. Brace, held the

position.

MR. CAREEN: That is the young fellow who was on

Open Line there a short while ago?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. His practice, if that is the

right word, was confined to appearing before the regulatory bodies, the Public

Utilities Board for Light and Power and CRTC for TelCo and the cable company.

That was his role and there have not been any hearings since his office was

abolished except the continuing one at CRTC which he carried on with and

finished. In fact we announced in the Budget that we were six months later

implementing it because this hearing was in process, so we are making

arrangements with a consumers' association. There are no rate increase

applications anticipated this year. As far as we know there are none anticipated

this year, so we will be ready when they come. The job of the consumers

association will be to go in and test the applicant to make sure that the

consumer's interest, which is part of the public interest, is addressed and

protected. Does that answer the hon. gentleman's question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Careen.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Lotteries licensing is the

responsibility of the Department of Justice, although the revenue derived from

the Atlantic Lottery Corporation goes into general revenue. I know it is the

Department of Finance that -

MR. ROBERTS: They have to do with Atlantic Lotto.

MS. VERGE: - is represented on the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation, but since Justice licenses lotteries, both the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation lotteries and the church and charity lotteries, I would like

to ask the minister about the revenue forecast. Lotteries revenue has more than

doubled in the past two years. It went from about $20 million a couple of years

ago up to $44 million last year. I am told most of the increase results from the

video slot machines in bars. I noticed the estimate for revenue this year is the

same as what was realized last year, $44 million. I am wondering if the minister

can explain the basis of the estimate? Since there has been such sharp growth

over the last two years why is government estimating no further growth?

MR. ROBERTS: I cannot answer that. It is not a

matter that falls within my direct responsibility as minister. My colleague the

Minister of Finance would have to deal with it. I can get the answer, or the

hon. lady could ask the question in the House, but I just do not know the

answer. These lotteries here are the criminal code licensing and Atlantic Lotto

of which the government is a shareholder, which is a very lucrative investment,

is run by a corporation of which -

MS. VERGE: Yes, I know that, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: By and large, these are concerned

with the bingos and athletic associations.

MS. VERGE: Another topic now. The Village Shopping

Centre men's washroom cases that people have heard so much about through the

news media and through the rumour mill. I'm not going to get into the details of

any of the cases -

MR. ROBERTS: These cases are still before the

courts so I can say nothing.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: I may be able to answer a general

question on policy, but....

MS. VERGE: Okay. What I was about to ask, and if

there are some cases still before the courts -

MR. ROBERTS: There are.

MS. VERGE: - this perhaps can wait until after.

I'll ask the question in any case. Has the minister, to use one phrase, learned

any lessons from that whole episode? As a result of that experience does the

minister feel that any policy changes or changes in practice on the part of the

provincial authorities are warranted, or any reform of the federal Criminal Code

is in order?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure I understand the

Criminal Code concern. There are offenses created by Parliament, and the

offenses with which people are charged, and some of these cases are still before

the courts. Were, what, obscene acts or indecent acts in a public place, Colin?

I understand that there is evidence to support charges being laid. I'll leave it

at that. The courts can dispose of that.

I became aware of the investigation when charges were

to be laid. That is not unusual. I do not want to be involved in investigations

and I suspect and assume that the hon. member did not become involved in

investigations, or wasn't made aware of them, when she was the minister. It

would be folly for a Minister of Justice to become involved in these. Mr. Flynn

may or may not have known. That's not for me to know. I was told about them

because there was obviously the possibility of publicity and I had to be able to

respond to comments.

I think the one thing we have learned is that it would

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1993-06-02
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga42session1_1993-06-02_ssc-jus_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1805e64bada56abe4b345ae2c982336e642475ab

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