Social Services Committee — Department of Justice — 23 May 1996

1996-05-23

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 23, 1996

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Perry Canning,

M.H.A., Labrador West, substitutes for Don Whelan, M.H.A., Harbour Main -

Whitbourne.

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

Assembly.

CHAIR (Mr. Mercer): Order, please!

The Minister will have fifteen minutes, if he so

chooses, to introduce his budget and the Vice-Chair will be given equal time to

respond. Following that, we will then allocate questions and answers in

ten-minute intervals more or less, until we have run out of questions or until

we decide to adjourn for the evening.

There are a couple of points; I would like to

perhaps take a ten to fifteen-minute coffee break about midway through, which

would be at about - 8:30? Okay. I would simply ask as well that the officials

with the minister, if they would, when they speak, identify themselves for the

purposes of Hansard. Having said all that, unless I have missed anything, Mr.

Minister.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chair, I am not going to take

fifteen minutes. Time is too valuable with all the questions that people want to

ask about this department. It would not be proper of me to use up all the

valuable time of this Committee, but before I begin on a few remarks though, I

will ask my officials to identify themselves, starting with my Deputy Minister,

Lynn Spracklin.

MS SPRACKLIN: Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister.

MR. CUMMINGS: John Cummings, Assistant Deputy

Minister.

MR. WHITE: George White, Director of Finance.

MS HEFFERNAN: Theresa Heffernan, Budget

Analyst.

MR. McNUTT: Marvin McNutt, Director, Adult

Corrections.

MR. FLYNN: Colin Flynn, Director of Public

Prosecutions.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As members would know, of course, it is the

Department of Justice which provides the legal advice to government and is

primarily responsible for the protection of the citizens in the Province with

respect to their persons and to their properties. The Department of Justice is

responsible for police protection; we have the two police forces, the RCMP and

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Prosecutions come under this department,

prosecutions of alleged offenders, the operations of the courts and the various

correctional systems of the Province. We provide services to victims of crime

and, of course, the other

part is to draft the legislation which comes before

the House of Assembly, drafting for all the different departments.

Within the Department of Justice, too, we have

allocated lawyers to represent each department. For example, there will be a

lawyer who will work closely with Education, with Industry, Trade and Technology

and all the other departments of government. It is a department in which we

encourage different requests being made from other departments as well as from

Opposition Members and our own backbenchers. Often, we get quite a few calls; as

a matter of fact, even today, several members of the House have been calling for

various information which we make available quite readily.

Our budget this year - as you can see, Mr.

Chairman, we had to take a substantial reduction in budget because of the fiscal

state the Province is in; we tried to avoid as best we could, making any cuts

which would interfere with the protection of people and property. One of the big

cuts that we had to make was in the RCMP. We have been criticized for not

cutting the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary as much in the spring budget, but

the reality is, they took a big hit in January; but with the RCMP this year, in

the March Budget, they took a substantial hit in one of the areas which has been

getting a lot of publicity, which is the Highway Patrol, of course, and by sheer

coincidence, on this 24th of May weekend, we happened to have more accidents

than we have had in recent years. There were seven casualties, as you know, on

the highway.

Since 1989, there have only been a total of two

prior to this year and when I heard the result on the media - I was out of town

- I was extremely surprised, and I said: Gee, I hope this is not a result of

removing the patrol off the highway. So I immediately called my department to

discover that none of these reductions have gone in place. It was just by sheer

coincidence that it happened, and as you analyze the various accidents,

especially the one in the case which the newspaper carried, the story about the

one on the West Coast, it would be highly unlikely if we had had 1,000 patrol

cars on the highway that that accident could have been prevented. So, it was an

area in which we had some concern, and I believe my friend, John Ottenheimer,

the next day the House was opened, questioned me about that, because he quite

rightly came to the conclusion, or at least suspected, I would guess, that here

were patrol cars off the road and now we are going to have a carnage on the

highway. But I would like to think it was sheer coincidence.

Having made these few brief opening remarks, Mr.

Chair, after the Opposition critic speaks I will be ready for questions.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly. And perhaps before we

have the Vice-Chair making his introductory remarks we could have the members

identify themselves, starting with the gentleman to my far right.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Wally Anderson, M.H.A. for

Torngat Mountains.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, M.H.A. for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. CANNING: Perry Canning, M.H.A. for Labrador

West. I am filling in for Don Whelan, M.H.A. for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

MR. H. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, M.H.A. for

Waterford Valley.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, M.H.A. for

St. John's East.

CHAIR: And this is an assistant of ours, Keith

Hutchings.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First

I have to apologize that in about approximately twenty minutes or so I have to

leave, I am expected to attend a school reform function tonight, a public

gathering, and I have given a commitment that I will be attending that function

this evening. My colleague, of course, Mr. Hodder and the other committee

members are present. I have asked Mr. Hutchings to remain for the duration of

these proceedings this evening. So any points that I raise now in a couple of

moments which are addressed perhaps in my absence, he can bring to my attention

tomorrow.

In view of the fact it is necessary that I leave

shortly, I have gone through the prepared Estimates for 1996 and I think it may

be safe to say that Justice perhaps is one of the least difficult department's

from an analysis point of view. I mean it is, you know, the areas of reference

are quite well defined. And with the exception perhaps of the reference made

earlier by the hon. minister, the cuts are not overly significant other than in

the area of the RCMP cutbacks. From a general perspective as well, I would think

Justice is perhaps one of the least difficult department's in which to

scrutinize in these types of proceedings.

Nevertheless, I do have a few questions. There are

a few areas of concern that I would like to bring to the minister and his

associates. And, perhaps the easiest - I am assuming that everybody has a copy

of the Estimates - perhaps the best way to do that, if I may, is to begin on

page 251. There are maybe seven or eight specific areas I have underlined for

which I would be interesting in receiving some explanation as to why there is

the type of discrepancy which exists in the Estimates. And perhaps the best way

to do that is, with the permission of the Chair, that I will just go through

various areas of concern as a group. Then, if I have to leave I can get the

answers I am looking for at a later date.

Beginning with Civil Law And Related Services, it

is indicated there, of course, in the abbreviated form 'Appropriations provide

for representation of Government in court and advice to Government in civil

legal matters.' And we see under Professional Services a rather dramatic

increase, approximately double for such services being rendered. My question to

the minister would be: Is that a result of ongoing litigation or is it perceived

or what one expects to, in fact, take place within the next twelve-month period

or so? So I would be interested in some explanation from the department with

respect to Professional Services on page 251, under the Heading simply: Civil

Law.

MR. DECKER: Do you want to do each one as you

go or just leave them?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It may be better, if it is

okay, Mr. Minister, if I just go through the several that I have and then we can

deal with them afterwards.

MR. DECKER: All right.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There are a number of

references to increased expenditure under Information Technology. That shows up

under four or five headings. My guess is the answer will be the same for one as

it would be for all five. I would be interested in knowing, as critic in this

department, what the government's plans are with respect to advances in

Information Technology which shows an increase practically in each division of

the department under that particular heading. For example, if we turn to page

252, under Support Enforcement Services, we see again under the heading

Information Technology in the Estimates an increase of approximately $50,000. So

again there seems to be a trend under the heading of Information Technology to

show in the Estimates an increase this year over both budgetary and revised

spending for last year.

Page 253, Legal Aid: Of course, as a lawyer, I

appreciate the fact there are a number of lawyers sitting opposite. It is always

of concern to anybody in the practise of law that there be accessible and

readily available legal services for those individuals in society who can least

afford it. We see a decrease - granted, a minimal one at that - but I am

somewhat perhaps discouraged by the fact that if there were to be any change, it

is in fact not a change upward. I think it is fair to say, in view of our

economic reality in this Province today, we certainly have an increase in crime,

particularly perhaps petty crime. Family distress is such that there is a lot of

matrimonial break-up, a lot of custody access, child support, spousal support

concerns and, of course, these are primarily the areas that legal aid would give

attention, particularly criminal law and family law. I am curious as to why we

see, as opposed to an increase, in fact, and if anything from the revised figure

of 1995-1996, a slight decrease in total expenditure for Legal Aid.

I would also be curious in knowing if the

department has any plans at all to expand the jurisdiction in the services that

it provides for Legal Aid clients. Very often - and I hear it again as a member

of the legal profession - people attempt to get Legal Aid services only to find

out that the mandate is not there. The Legal Aid Act does not allow a particular

person the services that they require. It may be a civil matter, nevertheless,

it may be a civil matter which has a dollars and cents consequence to the

applicant. It seems to me very often that Legal Aid, because of its limited

mandate, has to, in outright fashion, simply say no to an applicant and the

services are just not available because the Legal Aid Act doesn't allow it. I am

wondering if there is any thought or discussion within the department in dealing

with the actual jurisdiction of the Legal Aid Act and those members of society

in view of the economic reality that we find ourselves in. We are going to see a

lot more, I am sure, of administrative types of appeals, whether that be Canada

Pension, Workers' Compensation or UIC. Again, because of the constraints on the

Legal Aid office and again because of the jurisdiction, it may not be possible

to accommodate those individuals when in fact if there is a successful outcome,

it is only to the economic benefit of the applicant. Again, it is just a

question I pose to the minister and his officials and I would be interested in

his response to that.

Carrying along, on page 255, again it is only a

reference to - under the heading Legislative Counsel. I realize, of course, that

this is the office which is responsible for assisting us, as members of this

House, but again we see a somewhat dramatic increase in Information Technology.

I'm sure the answer to that first reference will be the same for this one, but

it is just a point that I want to bring to the attention of the minister.

If I could go to page 258, under the heading

Provincial Courts, 3.2.01: "Appropriations provide for the administration of the

Provincial Courts including Youth Reviews." Simply, a question again under

Salaries. I'm curious as to exactly what would allow for such an increase of

approximately $100,000 in Salaries simply for administration of our provincial

courts. Is that increased judicial - you know, appointment of judges or

administrative staff, clerical staff, or whatever the case might be?

On page 260 under Police Protection, Mr. Minister

indicated initially that the significant cuts - and I concur with him - were in

the police services provided by the RCMP. However, we do see a reduction in the

estimates at least in both the administration of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary in terms of the total administration costs, and in Police Services

being provided or performed in the northeast Avalon, Labrador West and the City

of Corner Brook. My question is: What in fact has caused this discrepancy?

Again, from our point of view, why is it in fact a decrease from the revised

spending to the estimates of this year? As I said, this is both in

Administration and in Police Services being provided by our provincial force,

the R.N.C.

With respect to Police Services (RCMP), other than

just a general concern, as the minister pointed out, this was discussed during

Question Period. We have had some opportunity, through press releases and

through responses being provided by the minister, to analyze this issue with

respect to the reduction of spending concerning the R.C.M.P in this Province.

Obviously, it doesn't satisfy our concerns, but I would have to admit that the

responses that we have at least explain the concerns, to some extent; other than

to say that, as critic in this area again, it is distressing to find that there

has to be a cut in police services in this Province by the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police.

I mean, we have come to rely on their expertise and

their services in this Province throughout all communities. I realize over

recent years that the R.N.C. has expanded throughout the Province, nevertheless

the R.C.M.P has always had a very respectable presence. It is somewhat

disconcerting to find that the presence is in fact being diminished. Although we

can make no correlation with respect to what happened last weekend in terms of

the carnage on our highways, the concern is that we had that sort of situation

at a time when in fact the changes had not commenced. My concern is, and this

was really the thrust of the question that was raised in Question Period, once

it is known by the general population of this Province that there is in fact a

significantly reduced police presence on our highways, how will the populace,

from a general point of view, react to that? Will it just be an opportunity to

try to get away with breaking the law and, of course, putting their own lives

and the lives of others at risk.

It is, again, a general concern that I have. In

fact, it is one that we, on this side of the House, share as a caucus.

With respect to Adult Corrections and Community

Services, I refer you now to page 263. I think it is fair to say that, second to

the actual reduction in the police protection, from a cost point of view, would

be this particular area, Correctional Facility Operations. I see that Mr. McNutt

is present and he may be able to deal with this issue at a later date. We see

total facility operations being reduced by approximately $2 million or a figure

approaching $2 million. I am interested in getting some grasp as to what in fact

would account for a reduction in facility operations and what is it, in terms of

services or amenities that are provided for those people who find themselves

within such correctional facilities? What is it they had, that they now do not

have? There may be a simple answer to that, I don't know but I simply ask the

question and we are interested in the response to that.

On that page as well, under Victims Services, it is

described as, "Appropriations provide for assistance to victims of crime in the

form of support, information and counselling services." Clearly, I see this as

an area that needs constant attention. Very often, compensation, I suppose,

education and professional development - these are the types of issues which not

only offer assistance to victims but act as an element of education and offering

of general knowledge to those members of the public. Again, we see a decrease in

the projection for this year and I am curious as to why that would be. Again, I

would be interested in seeking a response from the minister and his colleagues

as to specifically why they saw fit to have a reduction in that particular area.

Finally, I will now go to page 264, under Youth

Correction Facilities. Of course, again it is described: "Appropriations

provided for the construction of a new remand facility." I need some

clarification on this and I would ask the minister and his officials to simply

indicate in perhaps a global sense what the reference is here to Youth

Correction Facilities? What facility are we talking about specifically? Why is

there again a decrease of approximately - what's the figure there? No, I am

sorry there's not. There is no change in that particular figure but I am just

curious as to the reference, `Youth Correction Facilities', what the details of

that reference is on page 264 of the Estimates?

In conclusion, what I have attempted to do is

simply point out the areas of concern that we feel have to be addressed. I don't

think it is a particularly onerous task. As I said, the nature of this

department is such that it is not as highly detailed as we would find in others.

In looking at Education and Social Services, for example, it appears to be much

more detailed and perhaps much more difficult in many respects to analyze.

Nevertheless, the Justice Department is a very important department within our

civil service, performing many outstanding and significant functions in society.

These are the few references that I made and I will be interested in knowing

your responses to those questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Before you reply to those, perhaps we

could have the Clerk officially call the first head and confirm that we will

proceed in discussions in block rather than line-by-line.

MADAM CLERK: 1.1.01

CHAIR: 1.1.01.

MR. H. HODDER: The total procedure, as a

general rule, at the end of the discussion period we tend to call them in some

order rather than go through them line-by-line. I think doing it the way you are

proposing, Mr. Chair, might prolong the evening and the discussion.

CHAIR: Oh, I don't propose. I am just simply

asking what is the consensus of the members?

MR. H. HODDER: I would prefer to have all of

the heads called at one time, at the conclusion of the evening.

CHAIR: Questions asked, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: If I could, under the rules that

were provided to me by the House Clerk. To start the debate, the Clerk will

first call the first subhead, i.e., 1.1.01. So that will be just a normal - he

is not saying, though, that we should -

CHAIR: No, no, not call the vote, Harvey, just

as a normal part of the record, that's all, just to get started.

MR. H. HODDER: In other words, she should have

already done that.

CHAIR: Exactly.

MR. H. HODDER: I assumed she had.

CHAIR: Mr. Minister.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member quite rightly points out that there

are some decreases and there are some increases in the department, of course.

Last year our budget was supposed to be $111 million, we actually spent $107

million. This year we are requesting $101,603,200. Now, it is a little difficult

to compare last year with this year because there have been some changes in the

Department of Justice. For example, the Youth Services was not part of the

Department of Justice last year. The Registry of Deeds, a lot of the commercial

section which is now gone to Ernie McLean's department was not with the

Department of Justice. So it is difficult for us to get a starting figure on any

figure. But the reality is that we had to take some cuts in Justice, just as

every other department of government did, except for the Department of Health. I

am sure if we had our rathers, we would have had an increase. I think every

department would say the same thing. But we had to find some savings and we went

through our expenses and came up with some.

Mr. Ottenheimer talks about on page 251, The Civil

Law And Related Services, and you flag an increase there, I think, under .05 -

Professional Services, which is doubled. There is some additional funding

provided under that heading for the Aboriginal issues. We have allocated an

additional $100,000. There is the Terra Nova Oil Project, which we expect will

come on stream or on which we will be in a position to sign a deal sometime in

the not-too-distant future, and in order to do that we will have to have some

legal services. We have budgeted an additional $500,000 for that. I think, maybe

last year the money where we were anticipating a deal might have been budgeted

in a different department. I believe it was Industry, Trade and Technology, if I

am not mistaken. But this year it has been budgeted in the Department of

Justice. So that explains the increase there.

Under subsection 01, under Salaries, there is also

a decrease, and that reflects the elimination of three solicitor positions. Last

winter when we had the 5 per cent exercise, the minister of the day allowed two

positions to go, two solicitor positions, and in the latest round we let an

additional one go. So that explains the reduction in Salaries there.

On page 252, I flagged Information Technology,

under Subhead 12; there is an increase there. Now, this is an increase which we

plan to - no, that is the (inaudible). Page 252, 2.1.03.12, are attributed to

improper estimates received from NISL for the mainframe costs?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is the one. The estimates

that we received from the old NLCS, from the NISL, its estimates were below what

they should have been, so we had to pick up the extra money for them there. Was

there another one on page 252, John, or not?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Actually, it is 2.1.02, the

same heading, Information Technology, under the Sheriff's Office.

MR. DECKER: Information Technology under the

Sheriff's Office. We plan to provide and implement a judgement enforcement

system in the Sheriff's Office, and we allocated some extra money for that one.

Page 253, you are talking about the decrease in

Legal Aid, and you asked: Are there any plans to expand Legal Aid? As much as we

would like to do that, considering the situation in today's economy, as you

pointed out, it would probably be a desirable thing to do. However,

unfortunately, no. We might have all the desire and a wish to do it but we don't

plan to expand on Legal Aid. As you are quite aware, I'm sure, a couple of years

ago the department stopped going to the private Bar to hire lawyers for Legal

Aid. We now have lawyers on staff who do that.

In this year, we will be asking the House to change

the Act. Right now, for some crimes, a defendant is entitled to go to the

private Bar and get a lawyer, and Legal Aid would pay it. We are going to

discontinue that practice, so that no matter what crime the person is accused

of, he or she will have to take a Legal Aid lawyer. We plan to ask the House for

permission to do that.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Excuse me. May I just question

on that? You mean in terms of duty counsel, is that what you are referring to,

or are you referring to just a Legal Aid staff lawyer being available? I'm

sorry, I didn't understand the last part of that.

MR. DECKER: Alright. Right now under certain

crimes - for example, if you are accused of a crime for which the penalty could

be life in prison, under the present Legal Aid Act you are allowed to literally

choose your own lawyer and Legal Aid would pay for it. We are going to change

that. If you are accused of a serious crime for which the penalty could be life

imprisonment, then you will no longer be able to get outside counsel.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You would have to rely on a

staff solicitor.

MR. DECKER: That is correct, yes. Assuming the

House will give us permission to do that.

On page 255, savings on page 255. Was that the

Information Technology one again, on page 255? Yes, okay. You are talking about

.12 again, your favourite one, the Information Technology. This provides funding

for electronic access to Newfoundland statistics and hardware maintenance on the

laser printers.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, and Mr.

Minister. I have to excuse myself, there are people waiting, and I have to go to

this other meeting.

MR. DECKER: We wish you luck.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: After today it should be

interesting.

MR. DECKER: I would suggest you are going to

have a much more interesting evening than this one here.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It could very well be. Mr.

Hodder and Mr. Hutchings, of course, will help with any responses and bring any

good news to my attention tomorrow. Thanks for your help.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr, Chairman.

MR. DECKER: The next page that was flagged was,

I believe, page 258, where you asked about the increase under subsection 3.2.01

there, Salaries from $350,700 to $450,700. I think it is the savings of last

year we - what is the explanation on that one, Deputy, I don't understand that

note. The first section: The savings were realized due to the vacancies in the

court reporter overload program in the headquarters staff.

MS SPRACKLIN: We had savings last year that

were related to vacancies, basically.

MR. DECKER: That is the only one on page 258.

The other one was on page 260 -

MS SPRACKLIN: The only thing I would like to

add with respect to salaries is that a lot of temporary positions have been made

permanent, so you are going to see an increase in some salary headings as a

result of that. It doesn't mean that there are more people, it is just that they

are showing up in the salary figures as a result of being made permanent, I

think.

MR. DECKER: Then on page 260, Mr. Ottenheimer

talked about some increases there; I am not sure which ones they are. There is a

decrease in Professional Services there now; last year there were some increased

expenditures there, due to the cost associated with the Escott trial, so last

year was the aberration and we are back to the $30,000 this year.

Administration, and Police Services, he said there

was a decrease there. I am not sure what he is talking about; there is a $2.5

million decrease or a $2.3 million decrease but that is part of the overall

request by government for the department to find the decrease. We are making

these decreases and there is no point to try to cover them up, what we are doing

there.

On page 261, the total facility operations - which

one is he talking about here? Was it a general concern there? I think he was

probably talking about a general deduction to the Police Services. Now, what we

did with both police forces was, we recognized that the department, like other

departments, had to take a decrease in our budget for this year. The reality is

that significant parts of our budget go to the police forces. The RCMP for

example, is $36 million, I believe it is in that range.

Now, with a budget of $100 million, you just could

not leave the RCMP totally out of the picture, I mean, $36 million is about a

third of your budget, a little more than a third.

WITNESS: Thirty-nine million last year.

MR. DECKER: Thirty-nine, so it is a little more

yes, last year. So it is more than a third of your budget. But we, in the

Department of Justice, are certainly not qualified to say: Look, RCMP, do this

or do that. We went to them and said: `We want 9 per cent savings' - or

indicated whatever the amount was. `You tell us where it would have less

impact.' Of course, they, like us, would prefer to take no cuts, nevertheless,

facing the reality of the Province today, they came back and said: `Here is what

we would do rather than the other.' First and foremost, they see their mandate

as protection of persons and property.

They came forward and suggested that with highway

patrol, they would rather take off highway patrol than they would close up the

equivalent of a number of detachments, for example. So, they put it forward and

we went back and forth to them; there still would be thirteen out of - there

were forty-three before the cut, there still will be thirteen left on the

highway.

In addition to that, the normal detachments which

have two, three, four and five and ten or a dozen police officers working out of

the detachment, in Clarenville, for example, there will be times when the

workload is such that they can deploy some of their police officers on the

highway to do highway patrol in their area. So it is not right to think that in

all of Newfoundland and Labrador, there will only be thirteen police officers

patrolling the highway. There will be thirteen plus the other officers who are

available from time to time. This will be the case in the investigation of

accidents within the jurisdiction of various towns or even outside the

jurisdictions of towns. It would be quite probable and quite likely that members

of the RCMP attached to various detachments will end up investigating the

accidents.

The other area that the RCMP came forward to, which

in many ways I believe, will probably be positive even though it will save money

-they are talking about the storefront operations. In some places, for example,

down in St. Lawrence, parts of Labrador, different parts throughout the

Province, they will be centralizing the administration into one community. But

they will be leaving the policemen, not in all cases, but in some cases, the

police officer will actually live in the community. In the case of St. Lawrence,

in the case of Botwood, the police officers will live in the community. There

still will be a storefront operation in the community that they will work out

of. But much like government is doing, much like the companies are doing, the

administration will be centralized at one strategic location. This will give

more police presence out in the community. I have been advised that also this

will tie into the new concept - what they call a new concept - of the

community-based policing, where the police officer is living right in the

community. For the first time in my life, last year I met a couple of RCMP

officers walking through the town of Roddickton, and it frightened the life

clean out of me. I thought they had a flat and I offered assistance and they

told me, no, this is community-based policing - we are out walking downtown

instead of driving down. And it was good. It was great, you know. It is about as

new as the year 1876 or 1871 whenever the RNC started in Newfoundland, because

that is how you policed in the old days, you went out and walked. Hopefully, we

might be able to tie community-based policing in with the necessity to save

money. So I can see it as a progressive thing.

The other area that Mr. Ottenheimer talked about

was page 263. He talked about the Facility Operations. It has been reduced by $2

million, and I believe that would come under Mr. McNutt's department, would it

not? Maybe, Marvin, if you could give us a few words on that area.

MR. McNUTT: Yes. Mr. Chair, Marvin McNutt,

Director of Adult Corrections. Basically, the reductions in the Correctional

Facility Operations is contributed to the fact that we have, as of December 30,

1995, closed the Clarenville Correctional Centre as a male correctional centre.

We subsequently transferred the women who were in the Stephenville Women's

facility to that facility on April 1. That really explains the major portion of

the reduction there; it amounts to around $800,000. But there were other

reductions as well, such as the use of casuals to cover off for call-back and

overtime. Historically, we have used a substantial amount of salary dollars to

call back our permanent correctional officers staff, to cover off for other

absences in our institutions. We had been trying to negotiate with the union for

some time to get them to agree to a policy of using our highly qualified trained

and experienced casual correctional officers to cover off those shifts at a much

reduced cost. They would not get a premium salary, they would provide the same

work at a much reduced cost. And we are projecting a $250,000 net savings as a

result.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Marvin.

Mr. Ottenheimer also mentioned the Victims

Services. Madam Deputy, could you maybe add a few words to that for me.

MS SPRACKLIN: What page is that?

MR. DECKER: It is on page 263.

MS SPRACKLIN: All right. Yes, Victims Services

have been reduced. I think, Mr. Ottenheimer's question related to why we had

reduced the Community Corrections, the Community Grants portion. I guess, the

answer to that is that we had to absorb a reduction and we wanted to do it with

least effect on direct services to victims.

The Community Grants portion has gone unexpended in

past years, to some extent, and we chose instead to redirect some funding to the

provincial strategy on violence, which will see para-professionals retained in

small communities to provide assistance to victims. I guess it just simply

seemed to be the area where we could do the least harm in reducing the funding.

If I can give you an example, in 1994-1995 we had

budgeted $230,200 for community contribution fund. We, in fact, expended

$131,000. In 1995-1996 we had budgeted $230,200 for community contributions, we

spent $130,000. This year there is $16,000 there. In that area we have put

$50,000 toward Professional Services in small communities, and we have also

managed to retain the counselling services. We will be able to provide the same

level of counselling to individual victims, and we have retained our district

offices open throughout the Province, which also provide direct services to

victims.

MR. DECKER: Thank you. The last point that John

raised was about the Youth Correction Facilities, 4.3.02, on page 264. The $4.3

million, that refers to the Whitbourne centre and the Remand Centre down in

Torbay, I think. Those are the expenses. He also expressed some concern about:

"Appropriations provided for the construction of a new remand facility."

Government, Mr. Chairman, we considered over the

past few years building a new remand centre. We talked about one in Labrador and

one in Corner Brook. We actually allocated funding to the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation to do some preliminary engineering work on that. Of

course, this year we have decided that we aren't in a position to go ahead to

build these facilities. As a matter of fact, we are reviewing whether or not we

will be requiring them in the future. I think those were all the questions that

he raised.

CHAIR: Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first item I want to refer to is Fines

Administration, which is item 3.2.03 on page 259.

In the 1994-1995 estimates, in the budget, there

was provision of provincial revenue of $400,000. Later in the revised budget,

that was changed to be taken out, and then the total amount to be voted went up

to $917,100. A similar thing occurs in all the budgets. Is that an

administrative thing? For example, last year we had the same thing, $400,000

identified, and then in the revised budget it is taken out altogether,

indicating that the total Fines Administration for last year was $807,300. Then

the matter occurs again. Why is that occurring consistently, that the Fines

Administration - you indicate that you are going to collect $400,000, but then,

there is no indication that in fact that did happen.

MR. DECKER: Which one are you talking about? Is

that the Revenue - Provincial there?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, the Revenue - Provincial.

MR. DECKER: The $400,000.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Yes. We anticipated collecting

$400,000 because of the legislative changes that were required with the

municipalities, the ticketing. Do you remember that legislation?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: That legislation did not go through

and was not proclaimed time enough. So we ended up not collecting $400,000 that

we had anticipated collecting.

MR. H. HODDER: But, on the other hand, that

appears consistently for the last - any number of budgets and it got put into

the budget in '94-'95, '95-'96, '96-'97. So therefore, each time when a budget

is revised it is reduced down to be zero. One of the things I wanted to find out

is how much is owed in fines in the Province? If there is some data, which I am

sure you have -

MR. DECKER: I am not sure you would want to

know. It is about $11 million or $12 million.

MR. H. HODDER: You know, if we are spending

$376,500 on Information Technology, it should be very easy to find out what the

total accumulated fines are, what is outstanding and into what categories they

would fall.

MR. DECKER: John, do you have that information?

MR. CUMMINGS: No.

MR. DECKER: It seems that nobody has that

information, Mr. Chairman. We will have to get it for the hon. member.

MS SPRACKLIN: Sir, it is significantly

recognized there are some significant outstanding fines but on this issue here,

the delay, this $400,000 is actually an administrative fee for collecting on

behalf of municipalities and whatnot, their fines. The delay, I guess, resulted

from, number one, delayed implementation to allow municipalities to adjust their

fines. Secondly, there were delays on our part because we ran into considerable

technical problems in terms of the ticket forms and coding and all that sort of

thing. It was just a lot more complicated when you got down to the detailed work

than we had anticipated initially, but we have it all ironed out now and the

legislation is in place and proclaimed.

MR. H. HODDER: The new legislation was passed

in the spring session, which granted some very wide sweeping kind of enabling

legislation that should address some of that problem. I think all hon. members

would like to see, when a fine is imposed by the court, that there is a

concerted effort to have it collected. If not, then there is something that

falls apart with the administration -

MR. DECKER: You asked about the outstanding

fines, now the number is immense. Is it $14 million?

MR. H. HODDER: If I remember correctly, the

number last year was -

MR. DECKER: It is between $12 million and $14

million in outstanding fines and there was just no way under the sun to collect

it. For example - I believe the newspapers carried a story on it some time in

the winter - one young man doesn't have a driver's license and he has been fined

about seven or eight times for driving without a license. You can't take his

license because he doesn't have one to take. He is driving without insurance and

he keeps on - there was nothing you could do with him. Now, under the new

legislation, hopefully, we will find that some day, some time, there is going to

be something that person is going to need from government, a moose license or

whatever, and we will have at least the enabling legislation, if we so wish, to

make it possible that you would be refused certain services, a certain moose

license or what have you, but failing to renew the license is not going to have

much impact on that fellow because he doesn't have one anyway. That is one of

the problems that we have but there is a tremendous amount of fines which are

outstanding, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: If a person would drive without

a license and without insurance, what guarantee will we have that he would

bother to get a license to shoot a moose? None.

MR. DECKER: That's right.

MR. H. HODDER: You are probably right and -

MR. DECKER: Well, the reality is, you know, in

a democracy, in our kind of democracy - and we no longer have a debtor's prison

so there is not a lot you can do when you get a person who has nothing and is

just not going to play by the rules. The old methods have been discontinued and

I would not want to see them re-enacted, so there is not a lot you can do about

every single human being, but I think the legislation which we have on the books

now will enable us to collect a lot more fines than we could in the past.

MR. H. HODDER: Is the minister doing an

analysis of the outstanding fines, monitoring the success of the new legislation

as implementation to see if, indeed, the measures we have now taken as a

province are going to have some success, as opposed to the previous system

which, in many cases, was ignored by the people who were supposed to be paying

the fines as ordered by the courts?

MR. DECKER: We haven't put a process in place

right now, but within the next year or so, once we get the regulations in place,

there is no doubt we will monitor to see was it worth our while to change the

legislation. I think that is the logical conclusion, isn't it, Deputy?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: I mean, with all that technology

there, there shouldn't be any difficulty at all to just enter the thing into a

computer program and find out exactly how you are doing from time to time;

particularly if you had a situation where municipalities and other people who

have the authority to track, see how often there is an interaction that occurs.

Therefore, if you had a networking of analysis occurring, you could find out

exactly, according to maybe the social insurance number of the individual or

whatever, how many cases there were, instances where the person had made an

effort to pay, or where, in fact, the system of denial of benefits and

privileges had worked, shall we say, its purpose.

Going to another issue, I want to talk about the

policing services, again, the RNC and the RCMP. We spent approximately $14

million for the RNC, there at the bottom of page 260, and $36 million. You

indicated that the RCMP's priority is the protection of people and property. We

would argue here that the protection of people and property includes a

determination to do that on the highways as well as anywhere else.

In terms of the numbers of people who live in the

Northeast Avalon, Labrador West and Corner Brook, as a proportion of the

population that is protected directly by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

and then the proportion protected by the RCMP, has the department done any real

analysis of the cost of those two police forces, and in terms of what society

expects? My real question is: Is there any intent on the ministry's part to

extend the policing of the RNC to more centres than those which we have

identified now?

MR. DECKER: We have not given any consideration

to any major expansion of the RNC. The RNC is responsible for about a third of

our people, as you can appreciate. Maybe in the Corner Brook area, where the RNC

is responsible for the city of Corner Brook, but not for the towns of Pasadena

or Steady Brook, or for the north shore of the Bay of Islands. Now, more for

convenience, we might consider expanding the RNC in that area. It is one area

that we have considered.

From time to time, someone suggests maybe we should

have only one police force in Newfoundland, let the R.N.C. do it all, or let the

RCMP do it all. It would not be practical to expand the RNC. It would cost a

fortune. For example, wherever there is a detachment of the RCMP now, most

likely there would be a detachment of the RNC, if you expand it. But we would

have to buy all that property. It would be a significant amount of property that

we would have to buy (inaudible) - they own it, you know, per se.

The other reason is, there are a lot of positives

in having two police forces. In the last little while, for example, we had a

problem down at Her Majesty's Penitentiary at St. John's, where the prison

guards walked off. Now, say, for example, not saying it did happen, but if, for

example, the RNC refused to go down and cover for us, you know, we would have a

second chance, we would have the RCMP. If there were only one police force and

that police force refused to go and cover, you would have no second choice. And

it doesn't hurt to have two police forces. Some other provinces have - I think

Nova Scotia has thirty-six or thirty-seven police forces. We would not want to

go to that extreme. But there are a lot of positives. In the event of a labour

dispute, I know the RNC is not allowed to go on strike, but they have had the

occasional wildcat. There has been the occasional time when they refused to

provide service or something. So it is always a good policy, I believe, to have

at least two police forces available.

The RCMP - we also get funding from the Federal

Government for them. We pay 70 per cent of the cost. It is 70/30 funding. So on

a per member basis they are an expensive police force. But the province ends up

getting 30 per cent of it paid by the feds, so we are no worse off as far as

that goes.

The other argument that has been put forward to

keep the RCMP: There are some parts of our Province, as in other provinces as

well, where officers do not want to go for any length of time. It is a problem

you have getting doctors to go North, getting teachers to go in certain areas.

Police forces have the same problem, for whatever

reason. I will pick Roddickton because I belong there. Roddickton is not

considered to be a desirable place. I don't know why, I think it is the best

place in the world. But it would be difficult to say to a police officer, you go

there forever. With the RCMP, where they are so big and they operate on a

national scale, they can send some of the young recruits into a place like

Roddickton for two or three years and they can promise them that they will move

them to another part of the country, which they would see as a promotion. It is

more difficult to do that if you were just confined to one province. That is one

of the areas.

I am sure there are arguments on both sides. But

the answer to your question is: we have not given any serious consideration to

going either with the RCMP doing all of Newfoundland or the RNC doing both. As a

matter of fact, we believe the positives of having two police forces far

outweigh any gains that we could make with one police force.

If we were doing it all over again - at the time of

Confederation, as you know, we had the Ranger Force and we had the Newfoundland

Constabulary. The Newfoundland Constabulary policed most of the Island. Maybe if

we were starting from scratch and you had to buy the detachments, we might

consider one or the other. But since the situation is as it is, in the fiscal

realities that we have, it certainly would not be the time for us to consider

expanding the RNC to police all of Newfoundland or vice versa. Because if we

expanded the RCMP, we still end up having to buy some or in the case of the

province owning it may not be as expensive.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Minister, why then, did I

hear the other day that there is going to be also a decline in the number of

RCMP officers assigned to enforcement on the Burin Peninsula, particularly in

the area of monitoring of the illegal trade that occurs between St.

Pierre-Miquelon and the Canadian part of the peninsula?

MR. DECKER: Yes, the excise in customs, the

federal presence will still be there. Two or three years ago we put in place

some extra RCMP officers that the province paid the shot for to put them there.

There was an increase in smuggling, we perceived, and we put the extra police

people there; it involved the customs. The federal presence will still be there

at the airports, on the Burin Peninsula and what have you. We are going to

discontinue the provincial one at this time in an effort to save money. It is

difficult to determine whether or not we will actually lose revenue by doing

that, some could guess, but there are no hard facts to prove that that might or

might not be the case. Of course, it is one of the things that we will have to

monitor. But it would not be wise for a smuggler to think that there is no

police on the Burin Peninsula, so I will go down and get my winter's liquor. The

reality is that the federal presence will still be there.

MR. H. HODDER: They have been doing it for many

years before you were born and I guess they will do it for many years after

that. It is one of the thriving industries that is left on the Burin Peninsula,

some people would say. But, at the same time, we have to be careful.

MR. DECKER: If the people in St. Pierre are

consuming the liquor that they buy, there are not very many people left sober at

any given time on St. Pierre and Miquelon.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, I think there are stats on

that and you and I know exactly what happens in spite of our best efforts. For

every effort that is made by the Department of Justice to control and monitor,

there are counter-acting moves taken by those people engaged in that particular

activity, and my concern is that the public perception of a decrease in the

number of police officers assigned to that particular function might, shall we

say, give encouragement to those who might be principals to engaging in the

smuggling business, and there have been some concerns expressed by some people

who live on the Burin Peninsula -

MR. DECKER: Yes. It is a case, though, of

perception but not reality, because, if you are caught smuggling, you are not

going to ask the guy whether he is a federal police officer or a provincial

police officer. The fact of the matter is, he is a police officer, and I don't

think the smuggler is too concerned who he is. And there will still be a federal

presence.

MR. H. HODDER: The other thing I want to talk

about is Support Enforcement Services, on page 252. Last year, in the estimates,

we were discussing the Reciprocal Enforcement Support Orders system across the

country, and I had asked at that time, if records were being kept about the

length of time that it takes to have the orders enforced from one province to

the other, and if there were data files being maintained on that, because the

complaint one receives is that, when you have children, and most often it will

be the female spouse involved, and when you have lengthy delays in enforcement

then, you know, entire families can be at risk. There was some comment made by

the former Minister of Justice that they were monitoring the situation, and I am

wondering if some member or yourself could comment on that as to the progress

and, you know, the co-operation that is going on across the country.

MR. DECKER: You will notice that we have

included three additional enforcement officer positions in this year's budget.

Despite the tough time we have had with finance, we have three new positions. I

am going to ask someone else to speak on that, but one of the major problems, of

course, is getting co-operation from the other provinces and with the Federal

Government as well; but the climate has been improving over the last two years,

so I am sure my predecessor would have been able to say, too, we are getting

more co-operation with the other provinces so that we can enforce these orders.

Is there someone who would speak to that? John?

MR. CUMMINGS: I don't know if we can be as

precise as to give you an average number or how long it takes to enforce one of

these orders, but there are a number of things going on.

First of all, we have dedicated one enforcement

officer and one of our support staff to deal exclusively with what we call: RESO

out-files - those are the files that are leaving this Province and have to go to

another Province to be enforced. So that is a new measure that we are taking

this year, and taking advantage of some federal money that is available to us

through an existing federal program.

In addition to that, all the provinces meet

regularly to discuss these problems, and the focus has been to deal with

problems that exist in some of the larger provinces, because these are where the

blockages seem to be, particularly in B.C. and Ontario. BC has now done, we

think, a pretty good job of simplifying their court procedures so that it is a

lot easier now to send an order to British Columbia, have it registered with

their courts and get it enforced much more quickly than we could in the past. It

looks like Ontario is going to do essentially the same thing that B.C. has done,

hopefully in the next - well, less than twelve months, so that we will also see

an improvement there. I can't give you any numbers but things do look better in

those two provinces. And they are the big problems in the country, because that

is where a lot of people are going, of course, to look for work and so on, so

that all the other provinces finally have a lot of orders that need to be

enforced in these two provinces.

In addition, we don't have the details yet, but the

Federal Government have announced that they are going to be prepared to spend

another $12 million or $13 million over the next few years, whatever that means,

to try to improve support enforcement services across the country. So again, the

focus is going to be on this interprovincial enforcement. That is still in its

infancy and we don't know exactly how it is going to work out, but hopefully,

that will be another initiative that will make a difference. Nevertheless, the

files that we have to send to other provinces to enforce remain our single

biggest problem with the support enforcement agencies, there is no doubt about

that.

MR. H. HODDER: I should make the point that in

my time in the Legislature, as a member for an urban area - and Mr. Cummings

heard me say this before - that I rarely have a complaint against the support

enforcement people. I have had several, but in terms of the overall numbers of

complaints that one receives, and where credit is due I think we have a

responsibility to say so, that that particular agency operating out of Corner

Brook - and as Mr. Cummings knows, I have been to Corner Brook and have visited

the agency there because it is one of the things that I have some concern about.

In terms of the negotiations with the Federal

Government in having a network, a nationwide network that can readily intercept

funds so that we don't have to have these long weeks and months of waiting when

deadbeat dads are moving from province to province or job to job. We were having

some resistance, I believe, from the Province of Quebec and maybe one other

province, to having that kind of network established where any earned income can

be very quickly intercepted so that we don't have the lengthy delays that we now

have. How is that process coming, and what have been the results of it to date?

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, the key for us is the

Federal Government because in this Province we have a lot of transfers of

federal money to individuals. A significant portion of the money we collect does

come from federal sources, so our focus is always on trying to get two things

from the Federal Government. One is greater access to their information on where

people are, where they are working, and things of that nature. Secondly, it is

getting greater access to federal sources of money, because UIC, the TAGS

program and pensions and so on, it is very important for us to get that money. I

think we are doing a pretty good job of getting access to those funds but there

seems to be problems in the federal system, where sometimes it means that there

are long delays in getting the money. So that is our focus, trying to get more

access to the federal system and trying to get the Federal Government to deal

with our request for information and money more quickly and more efficiently,

and I think that is slowly coming down. When I got into this game, at one point

you could wait as much as eight months trying to get an attachment of a federal

revenue in place. That seems to have come down substantially. It is still too

long, I think - probably more like about four months now, at this point. But it

is getting better and there is reason to think, I believe, that the feds are

going to do more in that area to reduce these time periods.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chair, I have had a fair

length of time. I still have some more questions but I would yield to my

colleagues at any time if they have questions that they would like to put.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) but that's fine. Perhaps it

is about time for a coffee break.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Ten to fifteen minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

Mr. Andersen, do you have any questions?

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, a couple.

Mr. Minister, I talked to my colleague here - and we

are fairly new at this. There are some questions we would like to be ask, but we

feel they should be asked by our coming to you on an individual basis.

One part here that I have a great concern over is the

police protection. I won't speak specifically to any amounts, but in the

Cartwright area, I know it is a severe blow to the community. I'm not here to

speak for the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, but certainly I've heard

it through phone calls to me from there, the Cartwright community area, from

individuals, that they are very upset and very concerned.

As you know, there are many communities now,

particularly in Coastal Labrador, which are in the process of trying to get

native community policing on the go. They feel the cutting back of the RCMP in

the Cartwright area and other parts is a very severe blow to them. The question

in particular I want to raise is on page 253 under 2.3.03, Labrador Legal

Services. The budget for 1995-1996 was $230,000, and the budget for 1996-1997 is

$208,100. It concerns me because it deals with a lot of the people in my riding.

More importantly, the reason why it concerns me is

that the first thing I had to do when I won the nomination was to go to Mr.

Roberts, the previous Minister of Justice, because the funds had run out.

Labrador Legal Services provides translators and interpreters for Native peoples

in the courtrooms. It came down to a point where the funds were all gone. It

came down, I guess, to the part where the people would not be entitled to a fair

trial. To see it cut down, knowing that the budget wasn't big enough last year

and they ran into severe problems, it concerns me greatly to see that the budget

will be cut even further again this year, knowing we ran into a shortage the

previous year.

These are my concerns that I address to you and your

department. I think that is the only question I do have. Like I said, the rest

of the things, I will come to you as an individual or to your group.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my

colleague that it was by no means an easy decision. It isn't something you want

to do, to close a detachment or to make cuts to legal services in Labrador.

In the case of Mary's Harbour and Cartwright, when we

asked the RCMP to find the savings, they recommended just the store front in

Cartwright. Actually, they were debating whether to cut back on Mary's Harbour

or Cartwright. They considered all the factors. One of the factors - not the

only one - was that in the case of Cartwright, the detachment building there,

they told us, and I am speaking from information from the RCMP, is in a very bad

state of repair and it would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $700,000 or

$800,000 to bring it up to the standard that they would require. In the case of

Mary's Harbour, that one, too, is below standard and they would have to spend

somewhere, I think, around $100,000. That was by no means the only factor.

The other factor that they used was the crime rate and

from Mary's Harbour - now, I am quite aware, it is not like driving out to

Topsail. But in their opinion, they felt that by Labrador standards, it was

reasonably easy to get into Cartwright. They will still be making regular visits

to Cartwright. I believe it is on every two-week period, that sort of thing. You

are quite right, it is not something you would like to do, but it is based on

consideration of the problems we are up against.

For the Legal Service - I will ask my deputy if she

might want to speak to that issue as well, because every Canadian is entitled to

certain legal protection, a right to a lawyer in certain cases and all of that,

and we have to live by the law of the land. I think what we are doing is pretty

well making the minimum services that we are required to do available in most

cases. You can be assured, though, that any person's entitlement under the law,

under legal defence, whether that person is in Labrador or anywhere else in the

Province, we are obligated to make sure that it is provided. But I think some of

the services that we are providing are not required by the Act, and we will not

be doing them as much as we would like to, as good as they were.

Deputy, do you want to add to that?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, actually, with respect to court

translation services, this would have nothing to do with court translation

services, per se. This would affect the liaison officer position at the Labrador

Correctional Centre. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SPRACKLIN: I am sorry, that is what I thought

he was referring to, the Labrador Legal Services budget. Could you refer me to a

page; I am sorry, I have the wrong item.

MR. DECKER: Page 253. 2.3.03.

MR. ANDERSEN: It is down some $22,000.

MS SPRACKLIN: Okay. Yes, again, it shouldn't

affect court

interpretation services, I am sorry. A constitutional right that

people have, quite simply, is to

interpretation services before the courts. I

think, in addition to that, translation services may also be provided to assist

people interact with their legal aid lawyers and in circumstances apart from the

court setting. It would be my hope that we would still be able to provide

services where necessary, but we simply had to find some money from this program

as well as others.

MR. ANDERSEN: Again, my only concern was that if

they didn't have enough money last year to provide the adequate translation and

interpretive services for the Native people going to the courts, what happens

this year when the budget is cut again?

MS SPRACKLIN: Again, by making cuts in places,

operational efficiencies, and in administrative functions, my hope would be that

they could preserve their front-line direct services to people. I guess that

remains to be seen. I will be talking to Linda Andersen and trying to see how we

can continue, the best way possible, the direct services to people. But it may

involve some administrative and operational cuts. I will have to deal with her

on that, I guess, and try to determine. Certainly, it is our wish to continue

the direct services to people.

MR. DECKER: That has been our policy as you know,

Wally, right through this budgetary exercise. We have tried not to cut the front

line. The person in Postville who needs the services of a Legal Aid lawyer, we

want to make sure that Legal Aid lawyer is there, subject to what we are

required to provide. But if there are some savings that we could make in the

administration of that program, whether it is the Legal Aid or whether it is the

correctional facilities or whatever, we want to deal with the administration

first.

I believe the Minister of Finance has said, and I

believe, that something like 30 per cent of the cuts in this round of budget, or

somewhere in that vicinity, was in administration. We tried to protect the front

line. I'm hoping, Wally, that we will be protecting the front line so that the

individual who needs a lawyer to go with him or her to the court will be there.

There might be some displacements at the administrative level and that is what

will happen.

MR. ANDERSEN: Okay.

MR. DECKER: Thank you.

MR. ANDERSEN: I'm sure that I will be -

MR. DECKER: I'm sure, yes, indeed.

MR. ANDERSEN: We will hopefully work together, you

know, like -

MR. DECKER: Right.

CHAIR: Ms Hodder.

MS M. HODDER: I have a few concerns and

suggestions which I believe could be brought up at another time and in another

place.

CHAIR: Mr. Canning.

MR. CANNING: I would just like to make a comment.

I guess the mandate of the department is for the protection of people and

property and it must be painful for those who are charged with the

responsibility to try to do more with less. I just took the time to look at what

we pay in interest every year. Let me just say, it is $546,587,000. We pay for

the protection of people and property $101,603,200. We pay five times more for

interest than we pay for the protection of people and property. That is an

extraordinary result of what we have done in years past.

I want to say, too, that I looked at the percentage of

reduction and it is, what, 5.6 per cent or thereabouts? which is somewhat less

than the reductions of other departments. It is laudable that the government has

been able to find some way to do as much as they can with less. We talked

somewhat tonight on technology. I would like to pose a question with respect to

technology. One of the ways we can perhaps save some money without affecting a

lot of things, like Wally's need for adequate services on the north coast, is

through this electronic monitoring of individuals, where you have these types of

electronic bracelets on wrists or ankles, I suppose. I would just like to see

and hear what the department is doing in that particular area. How is it that we

can monitor individuals with these electronic gadgets to save money?

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chair, I am going to say something

because Marvin might be too modest to say it, but I am going to ask Marvin to

explain the Electronic Monitoring Program that we have in the Province and, of

course, the department is responsible for it but Marvin McNutt is doing some

outstanding work there.

There has just been an evaluation done and a

substantial number of groups across North America have been evaluated, and it

turns out that Newfoundland - where are we, where do we come?

WITNESS: In the top 10 per cent.

MR. DECKER: We are in the top 10 per cent of what

we are doing in electronic monitoring and we are extremely excited about it. It

has caught the attention of other jurisdictions in Canada; the Federal

Government are keenly interested in what we are doing. And there is no doubt

there are a lot of people in our correctional facilities who should not be

there, low-risk offenders. At this moment, it is confined to the Avalon and to

the eastern region. Is that right, Marvin? And we plan to expand it to all of

Newfoundland and Labrador. But Marvin, would you explain for the benefit of our

colleagues just what the program is and what you have been doing with it? Don't

be afraid, don't be modest. I mean, it is a good program and let's take full

credit for it.

MR. McNUTT: Yes, Mr. Minister.

Marvin McNutt, Mr. Chair. We are quite proud, I think,

of what we have done here. The evaluation report that the minister mentions was

only released on Friday. It was commissioned by the Federal Government. It is an

independent evaluation of the quality of the program, and of the 230 programs

that have been evaluated in North America so far, Newfoundland is in the top 10

per cent, in terms of the quality of this particular programming initiative. It

is a lot cheaper as well; we spend $115 a day keeping an inmate inside who is

really no threat to the public; it costs us $45 a day to have somebody

electronically monitored and we provide the programming that they need to reduce

the risk of re-offending as well, and that is the key.

The electronic technology itself is only a tool. It is

really a transmitter that you wear on your ankle and is for men and women. About

10 per cent of the EM offenders who have gone through the programs so far have

been women. There is a receiving device that is connected to your telephone in

the home, and that receiving device is picking up signals from the transmitter

consistently. You can only go outside a certain range. If you go outside that

range, the host computer at our office immediately alerts our staff and it could

be by a pager. Our staff person could be home asleep in bed and he is paged with

an audible alarm that this person has violated the conditions of his release.

The other important thing, I think, here is that we

made an early commitment to the public in Newfoundland that violent offenders

would not be released under this program. We made a clear delineation between

those who are violent and those who are not, and we continue to maintain that

commitment today. Sex offenders and male batterers are not released under that

program. So we save money, we are contracting with the John Howard Society for

excellent programming here that receives excellent evaluations and we are able

now, through expanding the program, to realize federal revenue rather than

closing the Stephenville men's facility and losing another twenty-four jobs or

twenty-five jobs, we are able to maintain those jobs, safely accommodate our

provincial offenders in the community on the West Coast under electronic

monitoring, bring back the lower-risk federal inmates to this Province where

they can maintain contact with their families, and it is much easier for them to

plan for their own release back into the community and the Federal Government

will reimburse the Province for accommodating those federal inmates.

So, the opportunities were there and because we have

developed the partnerships with the communities, and with agencies like the John

Howard Society, I think it has been an immeasurable success.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CANNING: I thank you for the answer. You say

we are in the top ten. It seems obvious that the reason why we are in the top

ten is that you have obviously thought it through to do a job with as few

resources as you have at your disposal. When I hear of the Department of Justice

working closely with the John Howard Society, I think that is a good thing. It

is a laudable thing. I appreciate the answer.

MR. DECKER: The key, as Marvin quite rightly

pointed out, is to have the program in place. That is, I believe, why we are

among the top 10 per cent in the country. You are quite right, the John Howard

Society - do we have any other community groups involved besides the John Howard

Society, Marvin?

MR. McNUTT: Well, when we expand the program, Mr.

Minister, yes, we will be contracting with other community groups as well.

CHAIR: Mr. Hodder.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much.

If I could refer to item 2.3.02 which is dealing with

legal aid. What proportion of the Legal Aid budget is designated or is any part

particularly designated in providing legal aid to children who are in need of

legal assistance? That is not to be confused with legal aid to parents, but

legal aid directly to children who may be involved in custody battles between

their parents or legal aid to children who are directly involved in the court

system, particularly those who are in, shall we say, the juvenile age group?

MR. DECKER: Go ahead, Deputy.

MS SPRACKLIN: Mr. Hodder, I can't answer a

question on the proportion. I can tell you that young offenders are routinely

represented in Youth Court. Where they are not eligible, a judge cannot

(inaudible) that they be represented, and that happens routinely. So I would

suggest that there are very few youth in Youth Court who are not represented if

they wish to be.

With respect to Legal Aid to children involved in

civil custody matters, that is not something that is provided, that I am aware

of. You know, there are mechanisms available to try to ensure that the interests

of the child are attended to, particularly at Unified Family Court, for example,

where home studies and assessments are done and whatnot. They are done by a

neutral party. It is also felt frequently that between the mother and father,

generally all the information comes out and, of course, the judge is there and

their principle is to attend to the best interests of the child. But we have not

added a third lawyer to that mix, in other words, you have the mother and father

most often represented.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the criticisms that I have

run into consistently is the criticism that in custody battles, legal assistance

is provided for the mother and the father, who most often will get the

respective lawyers and would pay for them personally. But the child, who is

often the real victim in these circumstances, is either not represented or is

under-represented. I am wondering if that particular issue has been discussed by

the department and if there is any effort to address it? It often happens that

the child is represented by a social worker, as an example, or has dialogued

with somebody, because sometimes these children are, in fact, under the care of

the Director of Child Welfare.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Therefore, the child who is at the

center of this battle is not represented by adequately trained legal counsel. It

is a concern that has been identified in some of the work I've done on behalf of

children. Is there any discussion on that at all in the Department of Justice?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, Sir, to be frank, there is not.

I used to do the legal work for the Director of Child Welfare. There were

occasions when a parent would be represented, and the Director is represented,

but the obligation and duty of the lawyer for the Director of Child Welfare is

to advocate for the best interest of the child. Albeit, you rely on the social

workers to be your liaison with the child and to advise you, I guess, on what

they feel is in the best interest of the child, and you lead the evidence. But

no, we have not given any consideration to providing separate representation of

the children, unless there is an obvious - I have been involved in a few cases

where we have, but there were obvious conflicts there for one reason or another.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the criticisms that has come

across my desk and in my dialogue with teenagers who are, shall we say, foster

children, this kind of thing, is that very often when they have ended up in

court, their dialogue with the lawyer has been, shall we say, ten minutes before

the court session began. Often they tell us that they felt victimized by the

system. There is some anxiety that the rights of the child - what I'm saying is

that the Ministry is represented, the Department of Justice, shall we say, the

parents are represented, and that the child has felt that he or she has been

under-represented, and when he or she has had representation, it has often not

been after lengthy consultation or court preparation time with them directly.

MS SPRACKLIN: I've never had those concerns

brought to my attention. I would be more than happy, if you wish to provide us

with the information that you have, to take it up with the counsel who do the

child welfare work and see if we can't improve upon it.

It isn't that frequent that we find ourselves in court

with respect to teenage children in child welfare situations, because it is

almost impossible to impose a child welfare order with respect to teenagers. The

reality is that if they want to remain in their homes you almost have to leave

them there, because if you remove them against their will, they run. They will

not stay in foster homes. So it is very unusual, from my experience, that we

find ourselves involved in court proceedings under the child welfare act unless

the child wants to stay out of their home.

MR. H. HODDER: One of the common age groups would

be the children who are between ages sixteen and eighteen. As you know, they are

still designated under legal terms as infants, or they fall under the child

category, by the law. However, they fall outside of the child welfare act. When

these children are involved in various actions within the court, particularly as

it relates to family, they have said to us they felt that they didn't have even

the benefit of a social worker. They were kind of on their own, you might say.

They felt they were not adequately represented. The sixteen-to eighteen-year old

group falls outside of the child welfare act but still are not yet adults. It is

one of the age groups that we would have some concern about.

MS SPRACKLIN: Would that be in the context of

divorce proceedings then or -

MR. H. HODDER: Well, in some cases, yes, because

they had been, in some cases, foster children and, of course, they have gone

beyond the three months. And you know they could continue being in foster care

beyond age sixteen but only if they have been in foster care before that. There

was some concern expressed to us that some of these, we will call them children,

felt that neither parent was really representing them in court and neither were

the parents' lawyers. They felt totally - they could not hire a lawyer and they

felt that their rights, as sixteen and seventeen year olds, were not represented

by anybody.

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, under the divorce act, you

know, you cannot make a custody order with respect to a child over sixteen. So,

in fact, the custody of these children would not be an issue before the court.

So the bottom line is that they live with whomever they choose. Now, there be a

parent who doesn't want them and they want to live with, but a court could not

really enforce, again force - I guess I am having difficulty with the context in

which - because there would not be court proceedings with respect to a

seventeen-year-old under the Child Welfare Act. If the Director of Child Welfare

wishes to keep them in care, he or she can, or to provide them with assistance,

the director may, but only with their consent. So I guess I am having a little

difficulty understanding the context in which -

MR. H. HODDER: When the issue was brought up in a

couple of instances - I remember one in Corner Brook, and it had to do with, in

this particular case, children who were under sixteen years of age. There was a

point being made there by an advocacy group that they felt that everybody else

had lawyers in the judicial system but that children did not. In some cases,

they felt that children should have a guarantee of legal representation,

particularly if that child was in care. There was an argument put forward that

in some instances children who are in the age group of sixteen to seventeen,

that their rights in deciding family assets even, should have some

representation guaranteed to them and, of course, one issue is custody and the

other issue is the children's rights to benefits resulting from a divorce

proceeding.

MS SPRACKLIN: The custody issue, there are some

jurisdictions that provide some representation for children in custody disputes.

Ontario got involved and frankly found that they had to withdraw in divorce

cases. It just became too onerous and, in a lot of cases, unnecessary.

With respect to maintenance, I can understand that

there may be situations where parents may separate and inadequate provision is

made for the support of children, and they may find themselves without support;

they have not been heard and sufficient attention has not been paid. That I can

see as a possibility but, as I said, I think it is important that these issues

be brought forward so that we are aware of where the concerns are and then we

can try to address them as best we can.

MR. H. HODDER: Another issue that I had, along the

same line, is on the issue of court training and sensitivity for children; that

is, in terms of the courts being sensitive to the needs of the child and

training for lawyers, for judges, in making sure that if there are children who

are victims of abuse - or where there has been violent circumstances in the

family, whether there has been sexual assault. And while some of the courts

throughout the Province, particularly the court in Grand Falls, have been very,

very good in terms of the rights of the child to be separated from the accused

and that kind of thing, there appears to be tremendous inconsistency in the way

in which children are treated within the court system. Is there any provision to

have a consistent policy and a directive to have the courts really operate in

the best interest of the child rather than on who is going to win the case?

MS SPRACKLIN: Again, in the context of criminal

proceedings, I think efforts are ongoing to try to attend to the needs of all

victims, including children. There are initiatives that involve children giving

evidence on video, there are initiatives involving children giving evidence

behind screens. With respect to waiting areas and whatnot, there is a lot of

inconsistency, because we have some new facilities that have been built with

those sensitivities in mind. The old facilities, I have to say, were very

neglectful of the needs of the clients of the court.

If you go down to the main courthouse here in St.

John's, there isn't a single waiting area, and there isn't even a chair for

people to sit on while they wait to go into court, let alone separate waiting

areas for accused and victims and whatnot. We are doing our best, is all I can

say to you, to try to address those issues as and when we can. The Victims

Services workers are doing what they can, both to educate, sensitize, and

provide direct assistance to victims and their families. It is an issue that we

are very conscious of and we will take every opportunity to try and address.

MR. DECKER: It is my understanding that the

Committee on Children's Interests addressed that and I think we are about to - I

don't know if we can make it public yet or not, but we are hoping to soon get a

report from that committee. Of course, you were a member of that, weren't you?

Yes, that is correct.

MR. H. HODDER: Vice-chair of it.

MR. DECKER: You still are?

MS M. HODDER: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

Of course, some of my comments are a consequence of

having listened to 200 presentations over the last little while.

My last question has to do with the Whitbourne

facility. I had the opportunity in the last couple of weeks, as did the minister

himself, he spent I think a day out at Whitbourne, I was informed, a couple of

weeks ago. So did I. I spent a full day at the Whitbourne facility and was

treated out there very kindly by the professional staff, and had a limited time

to have some discussion with some of the young people there.

I wanted to, however, have a look at the cost of the

facility. I'm not talking about the work ethic or anything like that. In terms

of the fact that we have - the day I was there I think there were sixty-six,

something like that, young people there. We are looking at a budget of $4

million. The average cost per person in Newfoundland appears to be out of order

with the average cost of similar facilities across the country. I wanted to

wonder as to if there are any reasons we can put forward for that.

MR. DECKER: I'm glad you went out to visit that

facility because it is probably one of the most underrated facilities in the

Province. It is a very progressive facility. When you say it is out of line with

the rest of the country in cost, I would suggest that there aren't a whole lot

of facilities across the country in the same class as that facility. The

emphasis is clearly on rehabilitation. We might be able to probably do it a

little bit cheaper if we sharpened our pencil a little finer and made some cuts.

But when you compare - if we can intercept these

children at that age and make them contributing members of society, which is the

intent, then the $100,000 per child, I believe, would be a good investment.

Because if we don't rehabilitate them at that stage they are going to end up

costing more hundreds of thousands of dollars as they end up in other

correctional centres and become a problem for the rest of society.

I am not overly concerned about the $100,000 per

person as long as the program is as good as that program is because, I had the

surprise of my life when I went out to visit it, after hearing all the bad media

and press they have been getting. And when I went out and saw a group of

conscientious individuals who are doing the best they can with very difficult

children; I mean, the fact of the matter is, as you said, there is an average of

sixty-odd there at a time, and we have in this Province as you know, 110

children of school age and only sixty-six of them were in that facility. So you

are dealing with children who have come through very difficult times and you

just can't rehabilitate them without having any cost, and I don't consider it in

any sense of the word to be a waste of money. Perhaps if we could do it a little

more cheaply I would be glad but I don't want to risk that program if there is

any way to do it.

There might be a few more of them who could be in the

community as opposed to being in that facility. Maybe, sixty-six might be a

little too heavy and we should be doing more community work. Of course, some in

society will tell you there are people in the community who should be in there

as well, so the mix might not be proper, but the $100,000 per child is an

investment, I believe, in our future, and I hate to see them not being

rehabilitated because we refuse to spend money on them.

MR. H. HODDER: I think the emphasis, however, in

some cases, Mr. Minister, has come a bit too late. In other words, while I would

not disagree at all with spending money on rehabilitation obviously that is the

goal of the program; it would be probably from a total governmental perspective,

in terms of you know, prevention, if we could have them identified a lot

earlier, that is, those who are at risk, then we might be able to do some better

prevention at an earlier age. And for every one that we could prevent from

ending up in Whitbourne, or the other secure custody facility, then you know, it

would be money well-spent.

I think the emphasis has to be on prevention at the

community level, and giving encouragement to community initiatives, as is

happening in Port au Port, where the community is taking responsibility in a

real way for some of those issues and are combining their efforts. And I don't

see, you know, here - and probably this is not the place where it would occur

anyway.

I think the real success will be when communities say:

These children are our children and when we have courts that, in their

frustration, of knowing what to do with these children - because sometimes they

won't go to school and they are out of school and are hanging around the

shopping centres, that kind of thing. Then often the indication is that the

numbers who are in Whitbourne for violent crimes as opposed to the number who

are there for crimes against property and I mean - you see, people who you know

are breaking into businesses or whatever, then I think we have to kind of

separate some of those and be a little more sensitive to the reasons why these

children end up in Whitbourne. We need to be more pro-active at the early age

levels and also then, not look on Whitbourne as a punishment but look on it as

an opportunity to rehabilitate those who really need rehabilitation.

In some cases, the monitoring that was referred to by

my colleague, the Member for Labrador West might be even an option, although I

understand that has not been even explored. I'm not aware of any study ever done

into it. But there must be other ways in which we can monitor some of those

young people without having them go to Whitbourne for, shall we say - because we

don't have any other real alternative.

MR. DECKER: But we do have an alternative.

Whitbourne is not the only facility or the only way we deal with problem

children. There are a lot of community groups doing it, you know.

You talk about prevention. Don't forget, we have a

tremendous amount of prevention in this Province. It is called day school, it is

called Boy Scouts, it is called Boys and Girls Clubs, and the list goes on. The

reality is that out of 110,000 children, sixty-six at a given time you have to

put into custody for their own safety as well as for, in some cases, the safety

of society. In a utopia there would be nobody, but the reality is that human

nature is such that there are children with whom we have to resort to that.

It is not seen as punishment. The concept of

punishment has gone out, thank God, since the Middle Ages, and there is no boot

camp, there is no whipping. It is an attempt to rehabilitate, and there is no

concept of punishment. If it were, we would bring out the cat-o'-nine-tails. But

that concept, thank God, is gone and eradicated from this Province, and there is

no attempt at punishment. What we are hoping is that there will be - after a

child is released from Whitbourne, we probably have detected where we need the

ability - and we don't have it - the ability to follow up.

For example, some of the people - I'm sure when you

visited you noticed a person who would be unable to cope in a normal school was

finding himself working with his hands in the carpenter shop or the metal

working shop or what have you. He is sent there for three, four or five months.

But when he leaves, there is no longer a follow-up and the thing drops. Of

course, we don't have the legal right to follow the person after he serves his

or her time, sort of thing. It is one area I wish we could do something about

for the sake of the child, to do that sort of thing. But it is a good facility.

I bet you got your eyes opened when you went out there, as I did.

MR. H. HODDER: I've had some familiarity with it

before, of course, but I have to say that I was pleased to see the on the ground

commitment to rehabilitation. As I said, I spent (inaudible) -

MR. DECKER: Do you still want boot camp?

MR. H. HODDER: Pardon?

MR. DECKER: Do you still want boot camp? You

don't.

MR. H. HODDER: I never did want a boot camp.

MR. DECKER: I heard you on the radio saying you

wanted boot camp.

MR. H. HODDER: My commitment is to rehabilitation.

However, there are some alternatives to the Whitbourne-type facility -

MR. DECKER: Absolutely. John Howard has some, the

Salvation Army has some.

MR. H. HODDER: - that we should be exploring. I,

shall we say, would reject a comment made by a psychiatrist in Corner Brook to

the extent that he believed spanking was okay, and that if he had his way, there

would be a lot more Whitbournes built. I found that to be astonishing,

incredible, that a leading child paediatrician psychiatrist would make that

statement in a public forum. That bothers me that there are those out there who

have that kind of philosophy and that these are leaders in our communities.

That is what bothers me about Whitbourne. But I am

pleased to see that it is committed to rehabilitation. As I said, I spent the

day there, and I had an opportunity to talk to the staff, to talk to the people

who were there and to spend some time talking to some of the young people there,

particularly those over in the carpenter shop and the sawmill area, that kind of

thing, and I was invited to go back for their summer festival, which I intend to

do.

Mr. Chair, that is all I have, Sir. I suggest you call

the Heads.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly.

Are there further questions from any members of the

Committee? Not hearing any further questions, Mr. Minister, I thank you and your

officials for being here this evening, for your prompt attention to all of the

questions and the very detailed answers that you have provided. Thank you very

much.

Now, I will call for a motion. I will ask for a motion

to approve the Heads of the Department of Justice.

MR. H. HODDER: I move that the Social Services

Estimates Committee accept, without amendment, specifically estimates Heads

1.1.01, page 249 to 4.3.02 page 264 inclusively.

MADAM CLERK: 1.1.01 through 4.3.02 inclusively.

MR. H. HODDER: I think that includes your salary,

Minister.

(Inaudible) set it back to zero.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible) after all.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.3.02, carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total Heads,

carried.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1996-05-23
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga43session1_1996-05-23_ssc-jus_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	212d593f0468a831ae16ac032e9345c8e7a2dc63

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