Social Services Committee — Department of Justice Head of Expenditure — 10 May 1999

1999-05-10

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 10, 1999

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the House of

Assembly.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Perhaps we could get started. I will just welcome

the minister and his delegation. I'm sure everyone by now understands the

procedure we follow. We will ask the minister to introduce his officials and to

give us a brief overview or any opening comments he wishes to make. We will then

follow that up with the co-chair. This morning standing in for the co-chair will

be Mr. John Ottenheimer. He will start off the discussion or the debate.

Before we do that, of course, we will ask the

members of the Committee to introduce themselves, starting with John on my far

right.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: John Ottenheimer, MHA for St.

John's East.

MS M. HODDER: Mary Hodder, MHA for

Burin-Placentia West.

MS JONES: Yvonne Jones, MHA for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA for Burgeo &

LaPoile.

CHAIR: I'm Bob Mercer, MHA for Humber East.

I would ask, as you probably all recall, that when

you do respond to a question that you would identify yourselves, primarily for

the purpose of the gentleman in Hansard upstairs.

So the procedure will be that we will ask the

minister to make opening comments, then we will ask the Clerk to read the first

head. Then all of the discussions and debate will occur under the first head.

Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no opening statement to make. I would rather

answer questions. I will just introduce myself and then I will ask the staff to

introduce themselves, starting with Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister on my left.

So then we will go on to John.

MR. McCARTHY: John McCarthy, Assistant Deputy

Minister, Civil Law and related services.

MR. FLYNN: Colin Flynn, Director of Public

Prosecutions.

MR. McNUTT: Marvin McNutt, Director of

Corrections and Community Services.

MR. WHITE: George White, Director of Finance.

MS HEFFERNAN: Theresa Heffernan, Manager of

Financial Operations.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Just before we ask the Clerk to call the first

head, I would ask for a motion to accept the minutes of the May 4 Social

Services Committee.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01, the Department of

Justice Head of Expenditure.

CHAIR: Mr. Ottenheimer.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not going to necessarily go in the order as

they appear in the Estimates, but there are just a few areas that I would be

interested in some general response from the minister or his officials.

I would like to begin with the top of the area

under Police Protection, if I may. It is page 229 of the Estimates.

I know in the past number of months there has been

some discussion and some issues raised with respect to the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary having to place some restrictions and constraints on certain

programs within the force. I know one in particular had to deal with the drug

program and the force's ability on a day-to-day basis to deal in its role in

protecting the public as it relates to that particular area.

My question, therefore, is quite general and I'm

wondering if somebody in the department could give me some overview as to what

limitations or constraints may have existed with respect to the force as it

relates in its day-to-day operations.

MR. DICKS: I am not sure there are any, per se.

Generally what happens is the police have to respond to different matters so

that, I know, in the recent past the force had to reallocate personnel because

of two murders. Of course, they give priority to the highest matter.

What we do is we carry, we believe, a sufficient

number of police officers, but if you get unusual occurrences then of course it

is up to the Chief of Police how best to dedicate his resources. If you get a

major event such as that, then what the police will do is allocate as many men

as they possibly can as soon as possible on the notion that the best

investigation is the stuff done immediately after a murder, let's say for

example. You are more likely to get clues at that time than you are when the

trail is a little cold six or seven months later. Sometimes it is a matter of

police priority and how they respond to a given set of circumstances.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Have any programs in fact been

simply discontinued with respect to -

MR. DICKS: Not that we know of, but I will let

the deputy respond.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am not aware of any

discontinuation of programs. As you said, I'm aware of a situation recently

where the Chief had to reallocate some resources normally dedicated to, I think,

joint forces drug investigations. He had to reassign them but it was an unusual

sort of circumstance. There were two or three fairly serious matters that

required immediate attention and it was a reallocation. I am not aware of any

discontinuation of programs.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder, just for

clarification, would the minister, or again one of the officials in the

department, just review for me the actual breakdown or allocation of funds with

respect to the RCMP presence in this Province? I mean the actual breakdown with

respect to provincial funding and that particular formula.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am going to ask George White if

he could respond to that in detail. I mean, he is perhaps in the best position.

MR. WHITE: I am not sure exactly what you are

looking for. The formula between the Province and the Solicitor General for the

RCMP policing is simply a 70-30. The federal government pays 30 per cent of the

cost and we pay 70 per cent.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is no deviation of that

at all? That is the formula, on a 70-30 basis, and that is it? There is no

exception to that rule?

MR. DICKS: If I could just say this. The

provinces continually argue with the federal government over sharing of RCMP

cost. The theory is that the federal government should pay for federal policing

in the Province and the Province should pick up whatever costs would be

allocated notionally to provincial policing, which includes a criminal code.

Federal policing, of course, would be any work related to customs, any

interrelated work with fisheries, anything like drug enforcement, and all the

federal statues.

When I was minister before, back in the early

1990s, we had an ongoing dispute with Ottawa, and it breaks down on two areas.

One is what goes in the base. So the federal government was seeking to expand

the base to include things such as the lab, a portion of the administration

nationally and so on like this. They had pushed the percentage up over quite a

number of years from about 50 per cent up to now what is now 70 per cent. There

is continual effort by the federal government. You can see it as either

downloading RCMP costs on the Province or else sharing, more fairly in their

mind, what are the real costs of running the RCMP.

The other thing that you have from time to time are

special efforts. For example, if we wanted to - and we have done this with the

Liquor Corporation - do something special on the Burin Peninsula to combat

smuggling, that would be an extra cost. If we have a problem as we did a few

years ago, and Yvonne would know this, in Southern Labrador with the building of

a lodge, we had to pay for extra RCMP to come into the Province to help with

that.

If you get different situations that are fairly

considered an extra burden or additional policing whereby they have to provide

additional members, particularly if they bring them in from another part of the

country, we have to pay for that.

If you had a specific question - because it is

fairly complex. We argue over things like if we have a dog or not, (inaudible)

forced me to get rid of an aircraft several years ago. You are always arguing.

Not arguing, that is unfair to say, but because money is scarce both federally

and provincially you are trying to make the best use of the police resources

that you can. We have been chipping away at what people consider frills and

unnecessary things over the years. I think in Corner Brook, some years ago, we

lost a helicopter, for example, because that was not seen as absolutely

necessary.

I do not know if that helps.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been a change though

in the last twelve months from a jurisdictional point of view? Have we had

detachments closing, or has there been a shift towards community based policing?

What changes, if any, have occurred particularly with respect to the RCMP in the

Province?

MR. DICKS: When the Province did program review

we challenged the RCMP to provide the same services more efficiently and they

did make some changes. For example, what they did with highway patrol was they

downsized the number of people actually devoted to highway patrol and had the

detachments have longer reaches.

The second thing they did was that instead of using

the patrols on the highway they did more stationary patrols. That does not sound

like much, but of course they saved a lot more in gasoline and things like this.

The other thing they did was move to a regional policing model, so that they

kept a lot of the same presences but there would be storefront operations.

Rather than having a resident police force, they would have a detachment there

and they would have members coming and going.

The other they have done is consolidated a lot of

their telecommunications to try to bring it up to date. One of the other things

they did was install computers in their vehicles so that they could eliminate

the need for a lot of additional staff back at the detachment, so they could

directly input from their cars any pertinent information. That also helps them

with policing because they can more immediately get in contact. It is not called

CPIC now, I forget the acronym for it, but these policing computer mechanisms

that they have are to detect and just try to find if somebody is wanted and

things like that.

They have made a lot of internal changes to try to

be more efficient. Part of it is generated by us; the other

part is actually

part of a national effort to make the police, as they see it, more effective and

more efficient.

I do not know if anybody would want to add to that.

(Inaudible) George? It is a pretty -

MR. WHITE: (Inaudible) that is part of their

program. They also made an effort to cut out some of their bureaucracy so they

have fewer levels of command from the officer level to the decision making

level. I think they have made an effort to have that level of command, either

the two or the three at a maximum.

They set up a series of what they are calling

storefront offices where, instead of a full detachment, they would have two RCMP

who would occasionally go into a community. With the cooperation of the

community they would have an office located there where they would

schedule -

for example, every Tuesday and Thursday they may have RCMP officers in a

community at that storefront. The administration will be done at the detachment

level.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Have the actual numbers of

RCMP officers in the Province been reduced?

MR. WHITE: They have not been reduced in this

year. In fact, they have been increased. We have had four additional officers, I

believe, in Labrador and two additional officers last year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I would like to, if I may, just go to another area,

another heading, under Other Legal Services, and in particular Legal Aid and

Related Services on page 226 of the Estimates. I know an issue that has come up

from time to time is this issue of choice of counsel and what it has meant, I

guess, for a number of individuals in this Province who have been charged with

relatively serious offences. There has been some restriction placed on these

individuals' ability to have choice of counsel simply because of the

legislation.

My question is, I suppose, one of a general nature

as well. Is there any flexibility? If so, what efforts are made by the Director

of Legal Aid in the Province to perhaps give some consideration to individuals

who perhaps would like to see representation of his or her choice as opposed to

maybe, for whatever reason, the limitations being placed on that individual

because of the wording of the act?

MR. DICKS: Lynn or John.

MS SPRACKLIN: Minister, I am not sure that the

wording of the act would preclude choice of counsel. The wording of the act

previously compelled the Legal Aid Commission to give choice of counsel for

certain offences. What has changed is the removal of that compulsion. I think

the ability still exists.

The task that we are faced with, however, is trying

to allocate the funding that we have available for legal aid from federal and

provincial sources, to allocate it, I guess, to maximize the service we can

deliver to the public. The reality is that we can do much better with staff

lawyers. We are still struggling - as you may have heard on the radio this

morning - to try and expand services available to women, for example. We are

trying, as best we can, to allocate our resources and maximize the benefit.

It is also not unusual to see choice of counsel in

some serious offences for a variety of reasons. There may be conflicts. A lot of

these cases that we have ongoing now arose some years back and people already

had their counsel and they have continued on. In unusual circumstances it is

still possible.

MR. DICKS: May I just add something to that, as

well? Back in the early 1990s the federal government shared legal aid 50-50.

They then capped the program. You can see that we spend $5.579 million. The

federal government now only contributes $1.650 million. They have capped it.

Part of the challenge we have had is that as the demand rose, which inevitably

it does for a government program, the federal government's contribution is

limited. That hampers us in some respect.

Just on the notion of choice of counsel, I do not

think personally that that necessarily means an absolute choice of counsel. Just

because a person qualifies for what is essentially a social program - which

legal aid is for those people who cannot afford to provide their own

representation - they should have reasonable choice of counsel. At the same

time, a person who doesn't qualify for legal aid is hampered by other things. If

you want Eddie Greenspan, you have to pay his fees, get him in here from

Toronto, meet his

schedule and so on like that.

I think it should be subject to appropriate choice

of counsel. That is more the issue. What we are trying to do as much as

possible, on the issue of cost, is provide as much of that in-house as we can.

Because the department's view at least is that is more cost-efficient than

farming it out to the private bar. Although the private bar, from my

conversations with them, have a different point of view.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In the past while, of course,

we have had the establishment of what is known as, I believe, a Conflicts Office

with respect to legal aid. I wonder if you could perhaps help me with that. I

guess its purpose is obvious, but maybe if you could perhaps expand upon it, and

give some indication as to, from your point of view, how the establishment of

this office is or is not of some benefit to the Commission overall and to the

public.

MS SPRACKLIN: The purpose of it, as you say, is

fairly clear. We would end up with situations where, for example, both husband

and wife in a divorce were looking for representation. That is one example.

There are other situations where that sort of thing arises.

Again, in the interests of trying to maximize the

service we can deliver with the money we have, the Commission - and we have

evaluated this and are satisfied that it is accurate - feels that it is best to

use staff counsel. So the Conflicts Office, I guess, allows us to maximize use

of staff counsel. It is physically a separate office. It is funded by

government, but so would a private practitioner be funded by government. I think

the argument that the fact they are both funded by government means they still

have a conflict is one I can't accept. Because if we had a staff lawyer at

Church Hill or wherever they are - now they are down in Steers Cove, I think -

representing one side, and we are still funding the private lawyer from the

other side from the same scheme, I don't see any difference in that. It allows

us to do it with salaried lawyers. It has proven more efficient for us and

allows us to get better bang for our buck.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does this Conflicts Office act

as a provincial Conflicts Office?

MS SPRACKLIN: It can, yes. There are situations

where it may not. I mean we may, in some circumstances, use counsel from another

community, I think.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: How many lawyers are presently

employed in the Conflicts Office?

MS SPRACKLIN: Mr. Ottenheimer, to be honest

with you I'm not sure. I think it is two.

WITNESS: Two or three, I think, yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Would they do work other than

just conflicts work? Are they general staff solicitors or is their work reserved

to just dealing with areas of conflict within the Commission?

MS SPRACKLIN: My understanding is that they do

strictly conflicts work.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I have a number

of other questions, but should I continue or do you want other members to have a

turn?

CHAIR: No, you may continue.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay, thank you.

I have a question that relates to the Sheriff's

Office, 2.1.02, on page 224 of the Estimates. This is just for clarification I

guess. We see that we have an amount allocated for the obvious running and the

day-to-day expenses of the Sheriff's Office. I am just wondering why wouldn't

revenue be shown there? I'm sure it is somewhere in the Estimates but I'm just

not sure where. For example, the various expenses like Sheriff's certificates

that are obtained on a day-to-day basis or conduct pay or whatever. Where is

that actually shown in the Estimates?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm going to have to ask the

accountants that because that is something that I have never been able to

(inaudible) frankly.

MR. DICKS: It is under current account revenue

in Finance.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Current account revenue.

MR. DICKS: In Finance. Theresa, do you know

which heading it is?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: You mean within the Department

of Finance?

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So it does not show at all in

the Justice Estimates?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I asked that is

because for example, under Fines Administration, 1.3.01, there is reference to

revenue, but I'm assuming that revenue is not what is collected. Is that

correct?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, that is in fact an

administration fee that we charge to third parties, for example the City of St.

John's. We process tickets that result in revenue to the City of St. John's and

we charge an administration fee on that. That is what that revenue relates to.

As I say, I've had an ongoing inability to

understand what is related revenue which shows up in our Estimates and what is

revenue that shows up in Finance. That is because I am not an accountant, I'm

sure. With respect to the fines management, that is what that number is, and the

ticket revenues would should up under Finance's Estimates.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Any revenues or monies that

may directly relate to Justice issues would show up under Finance?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DICKS: As general revenues of the Province.

MS SPRACKLIN: They are general revenues of the

Province, you see. I guess this is. I know that what does show up in ours, for

example, if we have related federal revenue it will show up in ours. For

example, with the Legal Aid budget here you can see the related revenue. Our

fine revenue is part of the general revenues of the Province and it goes in

under Finance.

MR. DICKS: If I could just say this. Some of

the expenses are allocated the same way. For instance, you may build a

courthouse but the money does not show up in Justice. It would be in Works,

Services and Transportation. The same thing with hospitals. There is a notional

allocation in government, and Lynn says it is challenging to understand the

rationale for it, because it could just as easily be in Justice, I would think.

I suppose for simplicity's sake they consolidated it in Finance because that is

where you add up most of the central expenditures of government.

In a case like this where the court administration

you would think is the one that is collecting the fines, you would think it

arguably could show up there. For example as well, a lot of the personnel, we

pay the salaries, they show up in the departmental estimates, but the personnel

costs - the costs of remissions or remittances for the Canada Pension Plan, EI

matching plan and so on - they are all in Government Personnel Costs in 1.3.01

under Finance. Arguably, those should be in the department as well. To the

extent that the departments do not show all the revenues, they do not show all

the salary costs either.

There are funny little things of that sort. I am

not an accountant either. I just know it is done that way and there is probably

a reasonable argument to do it another way.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am assuming as well, just on

that same topic, under Supreme Court, page 228 of the Estimates, that, for

example, the cost of issuance of originating documentation or probate costs,

would not be reflected in Justice Estimates. Is that correct? They, too, would

be shown under the Department of Finance?

MR. DICKS: Yes, with the exception that, I

think, if you look at the 3.1.01, and you look down to Revenue-Provincial, .02,

my advice is that that is the administrative fees for the one-time clearing of

undistributed estates. I suspect that doesn't include all the estates that are

done in the run of a year.

MS SPRACKLIN: I think it probably does,

actually. I think the increase is additional.

MR. DICKS: The increase is the additional part,

okay.

MR. WHITE: For the Supreme Court, the

administration fee, again, is what shows as related revenue. I think for

undistributed estates there is a fee of something like 2 per cent. That would

show up in our Estimates,

whereas the actual undistributed estates, that revenue

would show up in Finance.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I'm sorry, Mr. White, could

you just repeat that again, please?

MR. WHITE: With regards to the revenue for

undistributed estates in the Supreme Court, there is a fee that the Court

charges for processing the undistributed estates. The fee itself shows up as

related revenue under the head for the Supreme Court in Justice Estimates. The

dollar value of the undistributed estates does not show up here, it shows up as

current account revenue.

I believe the distinction as to what is current

account and related is something that is determined by government accounting,

and we are generally told that this money is either current or related. I am

sure there are logical reasons and they make the distinctions as opposed to the

department.

MR. DICKS: Yes, I was trying to clarify it with

the deputy. For example, if you get in an estate probate and you pay the fee for

the probate of the estate, I think that gets allocated in the same way as a fine

does to the general revenues of the Province, but the fee the registrar charges

for the administration of an estate, and ones that he has on an ongoing basis,

that shows up in this account. Go figure. We would be happy to have it in

Justice. On the other hand, I am happy to have it in Finance.

MS SPRACKLIN: But it does not matter where it

shows up -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Either way you have it.

MR. DICKS: That is right, we have it.

(Inaudible).

MS SPRACKLIN: We have it, yes. That is one

point that should be made. Just because this revenue shows up here does not mean

that we get it. It is still part of the general revenues of the Province.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I asked the

question, it is significant public -

MR. DICKS: If I can?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Go ahead.

MR. DICKS: If I can just give you (inaudible).

If you go to page ii of the Estimates, right near the front you will see General

Revenues. Isn't a Roman numeral double i? I call it two. If you follow down to

the second paragraph more or less, General Revenues, you see Registry of Deeds,

Companies and Securities for example, $12.1 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Then you see Fines and Forfeitures,

$6.260 million. This stuff is consolidated here. I'm not sure what "Other" here

would include offhand. I don't have that level of detail here of course, but it

is consolidated in Finance under the current and related revenues.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: We are talking significant

public dollars just to administer or probate an estate or just to issue a

statement of claim. I believe the cost is now $63 or $73, and to issue divorce

documentation is $60 or $70, whatever the exact figure is. Those are significant

public dollars. For example, the minister just mentioned Fines and Forfeitures,

but unless your assumption is correct the "Other' may in fact represent some of

those costs that I just referred to. Is that possible?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think it does.

MR. DICKS: Yes. You can look at it a number of

ways. For example, Hydro dividends show up in Finance as well rather than in the

Department of Mines and Energy, where someone might argue: That department is

really an energy department, that should come back to us.

You would find, I think, in the department -

certainly Justice would love to have it as related revenue because then you

could say: Look, it costs this to administer the department and we are

collecting all this additional revenue, so we want more money for this, that and

the other thing. I guess all the programs of government are driven by revenues.

If you do that, is it fair in the Department of Health where there are no user

fees? If you have a choice between having another clerk to help out a probate or

you want a nurse in a hospital, three guesses who wins normally, even though

there is no related revenue to having a nurse in a hospital.

I suppose if you put it in the department there may

be a feeling, and I am not saying there is, but notionally people - the decision

may have been made to allocate it centrally. Because out of whatever revenues

come, regardless of what source, are funded the general activities of the

Province. Perhaps it might allow the departments too strong an argument to come

in and say: This is our money, we want to do this, that and the other thing with

it.

Whereas the general needs of the Province are really what drives government

decision-making, or at least the needs of the government (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have a question -

MR. DICKS: The deputy says perhaps that is why

the Supreme Court of Canada said they were taxes instead of fees.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right. That wasn't that long

ago, was it?

MR. DICKS: That is right, but I think that had

more to do with the magnitude. They were right to the point they made.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I believe it was at last

year's Estimates Committee meeting that this issue came up but I would like to

ask about it again, because it is always of interest to me when we look at the

housing of our provincial courts here in St. John's in Atlantic Place. I am

advised - I don't know whether it is correct or not - that it is only within the

past fiscal year that a new lease has been entered into with respect to the

premises in Atlantic Place. I would like to know some detail on those costs. It

seems to me public funds, my guess is significant amounts, are being used on the

year-to-year basis for the housing of our provincial courts in Atlantic Place.

I have two questions. Specifically, what are those

costs to the public? Secondly, can you confirm that a new lease has been entered

into, and if so, what is the term of that lease? I guess the third question is

this. Has the department ever given consideration to do what is done in many

communities in our Province, which is essentially the establishment of a

provincial court building which presumably, at some point, can be owned by the

Province rather than the continuation of ongoing year-to-year expenses, which I

assume are quite significant?

MR. DICKS: We will provide you with the

information. I know that we looked at it in the early 1990s because we were

leasing space at the Atlantic Place. At that time we were moving the prosecutors

down because the prosecutors were up on the hill, the old Premier's home there,

whatever it is called, the Mount Scio House. We were looking at the cost for

renting space but at that time, at least, the cost of constructing a building

compared with the cost of rental space favoured rental space because, of course,

there was surplus then and the lease was relatively favourable, I think. Whether

or not that is still the situation I do not know.

I should say, as well, that all the leases are

consolidated in Works, Services and Transportation. These things come up as a

matter of course and if the department still needs the space after, say, a

five-year term runs out, they survey the market, go to the department and ask:

Do you need the space? We say yes or no. Then they go out and do a comparison.

If there is a right to renew and they believe that going out for tender would

result in a higher cost, they often renew if they have a renewal option. Other

than that, they go out for tender. I was not aware that it was renewed but we

can check out and see what the amount per square foot was and that kind of

thing.

MS SPRACKLIN: Generally speaking, the

department's capital budget is prioritized. If the government has $50 million

they will decide whether they need schools or hospitals or courts. I guess the

reality is that the priority for the last few years has been -

MR. DICKS: Chief Justice Hickman always says:

There are no votes in justice. That is why it is so hard to get money. Usually,

you get ugly problems there, but building a courthouse does not get you votes

the way building a hospital does. That is his view of the world, and perhaps one

that is shared implicitly by most people who hold elective office.

MS SPRACKLIN: The reality is, too, that you can

rent space that is adequate for provincial court and you cannot rent a hospital.

MR. DICKS: That is right. The other thing, too,

is that buy and large the rental market over the last decade or so has been, if

you can find appropriate space, cheaper than actually constructing. Because the

thing you have to face is all the long-term operational and maintenance costs as

well. Whether or not that is still the situation or not I do not know, because I

was not aware the lease had been renewed.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In this year's budget there

was mention, once again, of the Remand Centre.

MR. DICKS: I should say just one thing, John.

Back in the early 1990s when I was minister before, someone came to see me and

had this great proposal to expand on Supreme Court and house the Provincial

Court. It would only cost us $30 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is all the courts, or

just provincial?

MR. DICKS: That is tying in the Provincial

Court to the old Supreme Court, while the building across the street there a new

building that would house some additional Supreme Court rooms and the Provincial

Court. The price I think at that time was $30 million. It may have been a little

grandiose but it will give you some sense of the magnitude of the cost. That was

the only capital proposal I had seen. It was a little elaborate perhaps but I

suspect it would have been tens of millions of dollars to build that many

courtrooms, judges' offices and so on.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A question, perhaps maybe for

Mr. McNutt, in terms of the budget announcement of the Remand Centre. Perhaps I

could just get some indication as to where we are with that, and maybe some idea

as to a completion date, and when we can expect to know, from an updating point

of view, where we are with the Remand Centre which, as you recall, was

specifically referred to in this year's Budget.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) the monies allocated, we

are just trying to find a place to build it, as you know.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I understand the Topsail Road

site has been now restricted from the list, hasn't it? That is out?

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are there other sites that

perhaps you can share with us that are being considered at the time?

MR. DICKS: The only one I remember is that

there was one down in Pepperrell somewhere, but it would cost about $600,000 or

$700,000 to demolish the building on there and so on like that. We have asked

Works, Services and Transportation to give some advice on what, if any - if they

have an inventory. Marvin may be closer to it than I've been. Is there any word

back from Works, Services, and Transportation, Marvin?

MR. McNUTT: We have a short list actually of

seven sites now based on very objective site selection criteria. There are two

sites actually in Pleasantville that are still under consideration. The original

one, which is owned by the federal government but which, perhaps, may be

designated for other uses by the federal government, is one. We have been

advised that it might take, even if we were fortunate enough to acquire the

property, at least two years to do that. The other site would have been the site

of the former children's rehab centre. That site however is fairly limited, and

as the minister has already pointed out, there would be substantial site

development costs.

What we are trying to determine now, and the list

is on its way to the minister now, the other factor here, of course, is the

anticipated level of public resistance. That is not so objective or predictable

as the other factors we have utilized in terms of ranking. We have looked at

actually twenty-two sites within the city boundaries and a few outside the city

boundaries as well.

With respect to where we are in terms of planning,

we have a general concept that has been developed by the architect. Of course,

the detailed floor plan and detailed architectural drawings cannot commence

until we actually have selected a site. If we do select a site, say within the

next two or three months, then we could start construction in the fall. It would

probably take a year and a half before the facility was completed.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

One other question before I ask my colleagues to

continue, I guess, and it is with respect to support enforcement in the office

in Corner Brook.

WITNESS: That is your baby.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I wonder if there are some

numbers you could provide in terms of how many people now actually use the

services that are provided by the Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook. It

has now been in existence for quite a number of years. How many people, in fact,

use the provisions of this office here in our Province?

MR. McCARTHY: I don't have that information

with me but I think I can dig that up for you fairly quickly, Mr. Ottenheimer.

MS SPRACKLIN: There is, in fact, an annual

report, I think that we could provide you with that has a fair bit of - am I

correct in that?

MR. McCARTHY: There is an annual report, yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: It has a fair bit of detail.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Maybe if I could have a copy

of that. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DICKS: I should just say for the record

that that agency was relatively successful. It changed the default rate from 85

per cent to around 15 per cent. I do not know what its current level of the

servicing of these orders is but it was very successful in its intent. That is

credit to the current Ms Verge, the former minister.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. I would now just

welcome to the Committee Mr. Tom Osborne, the co-chair.

Could I remind the officials that before they

answer a question they please specify their name? The young gentleman upstairs

looks at me every now and then and I'm sure that is what he is wanting me to say

to you. Please mention your names.

Kelvin Parsons first, and then we will go to Mr.

Osborne.

MR. PARSONS: On page 224, 2.1.01, Civil Law, I

am just wondering what would get classified under Professional Services versus

Purchased Services?

MR. DICKS: Quite a bit, I would say, judging by

the relative figures.

[At this point a portion of the meeting was not

recorded]

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible) because I noticed

looking on page 225, under Criminal Law, 2.2.01 -

MR. DICKS: Purchased Services are usually

contractual things for equipment and so on. That would cover photocopier leasing

and printing. It is a fairly small expense for Purchased Services. There would

be witness costs as well, transcription costs. So they are relatively small

amounts that are fairly defined and often are subject to fixed term contracts.

You will see it a little more or so under the

office, administrative support. Purchased Services there are often things like

leases, photocopiers, anything on which you have a fixed long-term thing.

Professional Services are basically lawyers' fees. In some other departments it

would be engineering fees or architects' fees and so on. Those tend, for some

reason, to be more substantial than the (inaudible) on the photocopiers.

MR. PARSONS: I noticed last year under Civil

Law, 2.1.01 that Professional Services were budgeted at $1.490 million. So we

spent almost as much in outside lawyers as we did on salaried staff?

MR. DICKS: Those were monies that were spent on

the Terra Nova project, the Nova Scotia boundary dispute, Hibernia, Voisey's Bay

and things like that. It is always a balance as to how much you contract out and

how much you do in-house. So you have to make a judgement. Government makes a

judgement from time to time, not always the department. Government may decide to

engage outside counsel, sometimes as a result of conflict. Sometimes you do not

have the same level of expertise, particularly on these - no affront to the

department, but you get into some fairly detailed areas of oil and gas law. You

are negotiating contracts or royalty regimes and so on with some of these - and

there are only two where we had a royalty regime negotiated, Terra Nova and

Hibernia. It gets fairly complex and a portion of that money is used to retain

firms in Calgary as well.

MR. PARSONS: Under the same heading, .09,

Allowances and Assistance, does that represent the settlements that government

has paid out in the last year?

MR. DICKS: Yes, it does, judgements or

settlements. An unfortunate aspect of governing is sometimes you and your

officials do not always do it the way they should, according to the court's view

of the world, and sometimes according to your own view of the world, so

liability accrues and we have to pay out on a number of claims. That is

consolidated in Justice even though it is a liability of other departments or

other departmental (inaudible). It is the reverse of the fee issue. We don't get

the credit for the monies but we get to pay for the expenses. It is an unhappy

circumstance, from our point of view.

MR. PARSONS: I have no further questions.

MS SPRACKLIN: I have some numbers here now that

Mr. Ottenheimer was looking for earlier on regarding Atlantic Place. The lease

is $543,600 for a year, which would include Provincial Court holding cells. The

lease is from 1997 to 2002. In addition to that, we pay $11,000 in property

taxes.

MR. DICKS: Per annum.

MS SPRACKLIN: Per annum. So the total is

$554,600.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne first, and then we will go

to Ms Hodder.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I have a question regarding the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, page 229, 4.1.01. I guess I will lump a couple of questions

together here for expediency. Under Revenue-Federal, last year we were expecting

some $8,000 federal revenue which under the revised numbers was not there, but

it is again this year. We expected $210,000 in provincial revenue, we received

$140,000, and that is back to $210,000 again this year. Could you provide some

brief explanation as to where this revenue comes from and why the discrepancy in

numbers from what we were expecting last year and what we received?

MR. DICKS: If I can just say - no, I am going

to stall a little bit and give Lynn time to figure it out.

I will go with the long answer, Lynn, you just work

on it for a few minutes. Each department had to target savings and/or revenue

options in program review back in 1996 when we had a large deficit looming. Each

of the departments set targets to either raise revenues or to cut expenditures.

What happened was that we were targeted with - well, one of the things the

department undertook to do in order to balance it out was to raise revenues

$210,000 in each year. Are we close, Lynn?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Last year we only got $140,000. What

that particular option was I don't know but Lynn is going to give us the

details.

MS SPRACKLIN: It related to certificates of

conduct. I guess we had overlooked the fact that we ought not to be charging

these to people like foster parents, charities and what not. The bottom line is

we were unable to achieve the revenue because we decided to back off on that

issue.

MR. DICKS: On the charitable (inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, on the charitable groups,

foster parents and what not.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Where does the federal

allocation come from?

MS SPRACKLIN: George, would you like to answer

that?

MR WHITE: The RNC had an officer, I believe,

contributing to some training that was at the federal police academy. This was

really just revenue for the salary of the RNC officer who was offering that

training. I expect that the revenue did not come in. I guess we are still

chasing the federal government for the $8,000 which is why we had budgeted

$8,000, but the revised shows nil.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will redirect the previous

question, I guess part of it, to Ms Spracklin again. You mention that you had

reversed the decision on the certificate of conduct and therefore were not

expecting the $210,000 which is the reason for the revised figure of $140,000.

That is showing, again, $210,000 for this year. Why the increase again this year

if some of the certificates are not being charged for?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think we probably have to

categorize that as a mistake. Would you agree?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: An overly optimistic projection.

MS SPRACKLIN: In frankness, I think that

probably should have revised. We looked at that the other day when we were

preparing for this and the best answer I could get is that we probably should

have changed that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. Under Salaries for the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, 4.1.01.01, the revised amount for 1998-1999 was

$17,091,700 and this year it is $16,616,800. Why is there a reduction in the

amounts budgeted considering the fact there was a 7 per cent increase in many of

the salaries and considerably higher in some others?

MR. WHITE: The 7 per cent wouldn't have all

been in one year. It is spread over a period of time. (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, I will correct, a 2 per

cent increase, I guess.

MR. WHITE: Yes. As well, the salary for

1998-1999 included a twenty-seventh pay period which 1999-2000 does not have.

There are twenty-six pay periods. Generally, the salaries would show a decrease

simply because of the pay period. The extra pay period that existed last year

doesn't this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One pay period would equate to

approximately 2 per cent, so that the budget should be almost the same?

MR. DICKS: I'm trying to remember, but the

figure for a government pay period is about $26 million or $27 million, I think.

If you delay a period - our total salaries is about $1.7 billion, so one of the

things we did this year was we were going to - just an accounting thing - pay it

April 1 rather than the end of March. That would have saved us, on our books,

about $27 million. Instead we paid it which is why it was there last year so it

picks up our books a little bit. Yes, it is pretty considerable. I haven't done

the mathematics on this but it is the same magnitude. One was $26 million, and

$1.7 billion, something about that sort. Pretty substantial.

MS SPRACKLIN: There are no layoffs planned or

anything of that nature. This figure would simply reflect the removal of the

twenty-seventh pay period and it should reflect the 2 per cent increase. There

was no reduction in manpower contemplated or anything.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are pretty keen. I think

that was the direction. The $500,000 discrepancy because of the -

MR. DICKS: The extra pay period. That seems

about right when you think about it. There are twenty-six pay periods in a year

so, say, $500,000 per pay period, plus a few odds and ends and incidentals and

so on, probably gets you up in that range of $16 million or $17 million. In any

event, as the deputy says there are no guise here, we are not downsizing or

anything like that. It is a straightforward accounting entry. Most of the stuff

is just generated by taking in the number of employees you have on staff, adding

the 2 per cent, figuring on the pay periods, and you get the figure and that is

it. Sometimes there is a vacancy factor which comes into play if you have

turnover but we have not used that to any marked extent.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Let me get back on that. I know

$500,000 is a fairly significant sum of money, or at least I would consider it

to be. The extra pay period, I think, would account for the difference in the 2

per cent increase this year but there is still a discrepancy of $500,000. If

there are no layoffs planned, would there be any other explanation for that

$500,000 discrepancy there?

MR. DICKS: It is not a discrepancy. Last year

there were twenty-seven pay periods, this year there are twenty-six. I don't

have a calculator but if you take $17 million and divide by twenty-seven, and

take the figure and multiply it by twenty-six - does anybody have a calculator?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, but he is saying if you take

that off but then add back another 2 per cent (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, the 2 per cent increase in

pay. One pay period would amount to approximately 2 per cent, and then there is

a 2 per cent increase in pay for this year, so it should work out to

approximately the same.

MR. DICKS: No. The 2 per cent, as I recall, was

April 1 last year. There is another 2 per cent that comes into play this year. I

do not know if it is April 1 this year or if it is June 1. September is the next

2 per cent, is it? Those are staggered, they are not always coming into effect

at the same time.

Basically, what we did is we negotiated an

agreement with NAPE on a certain implementation. It was 2 per cent April 1 last

year and then one of the years it was in September, then in the last there is

another 1 per cent, I believe in February. I just do not recall when exactly the

pay increases were calculated for.

I have the list. If you look at the Departmental

Salary Details book, which I now have here, if you go down through them - do you

have this book? I can give you the salaries. Chief of Police $78,554, Deputy

Chief of Police $133,007. There are two of those, and so on. It gives you a

total activity of $14,853,869. Add on the Public Complaints Commission of

$45,409 and the actual sub-total of the RNC is $14,899,278. That is a total of

approved positions of 390. How that rounds up to $16.6 million I do not know.

You can compare the Salary Details with last year's Salary Details. I should say

this gives you the base figures for what the salaries are and, of course, that

changes depending on the number of pay periods in any given year. Does that make

sense, Tom? Do you want to see this?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, that is quite alright.

Page 231,

section 4.2.03.19, Youth Corrections

Facilities, there is $1,800,000 under the development of new facilities. Is that

going to be directed specifically towards new facilities or is there any

provision there for upgrading to current facilities?

MR. DICKS: No. That is the development of new

facilities. That is the Youth Remand facility. You see it is Voted in Other

Departments. That is voted in Works, Services and Transportation. Most of the

maintenance figures do not occur here. They would be in Works, Services and

Transportation as well. They have a general vote that they have for all

government buildings and they allocate that to various departments depending on

need. That is the only new facility we have.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What would the next expected

expenditures be this year? I guess, more specifically, towards the Whitbourne

facility on improvements or upgrades.

MR. DICKS: Don't ask. A lot of money. That

building was built in 1991. I went out and saw it, I guess, in January with the

Deputy, Marvin. We are spending - is it $500,000 or $900,000? There is a lot of

money being spent to upgrade things. Some stupid things were done there, just

quality of construction, but Marvin is a little more knowledgeable about that.

We are spending a considerable sum of money aren't we, Marvin? Is it $900,000 or

more?

MR. McNUTT: We have already spent considerable

monies, as the minister has indicated, as the result of a security and life

safety review that was conducted just after the Department of Justice took over

the facility. As a result of the recent escapes from the facility, we are

investing considerable money as well in terms of upgrading what we call the

perimeter static security system. That is, the doors and the locking system for

the facility. We do not have an estimate of the cost for replacing those doors.

We have already replaced some of them with heavier gauge steel doors but it

still does not meet the kind of standard that we want to achieve with respect to

the perimeter security.

We are also expanding other features and improving

other features such as the ventilation systems throughout the facility,

particularly in the living units themselves. It has been rather uncomfortable

during the summer months at least. If you have visited the facility you will see

that work being conducted right now. I don't have exact figures in terms of the

total cost but it would certainly be close to $1 million, as the minister has

pointed out.

MR. DICKS: I should say that in answer to your

general question, on page 78 of the Estimates, under Works, Services and

Transportation, 3.3.01, the total amount that is spent on alterations,

renovations and so on is $5.8 million.

MS SPRACKLIN: Again, that is block funded and

each department has to basically make the case for the priority of their

projects, in the big scheme of things.

MR. DICKS: That is right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Those are all the questions I

have. I think the critic for the area had asked a number of the questions I had

anticipated asking.

Thank you.

CHAIR: First Ms Hodder, and then we will go to

Ms Jones.

MS M. HODDER: I just have one question here and

that is on 4.2.01.10, Grants and Subsidies, $107,900. What is included in Grants

and Subsidies?

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mary, which one?

MS M. HODDER: It is on page 230, under Adult

Corrections, and it is 4.2.1.10, Grants and Subsidies. I am just wondering what

is included in the Grants and Subsidies. Adult Corrections.

MR. McNUTT: Basically that includes an annual

grant to the John Howard Society of $72,000, a grant to Labrador Legal Services

of $38,000, and then there is another smaller grant of approximately $5,000. I

think that is the total sum.

MS M. HODDER: Okay, thanks.

Just one more point, and this is not concerning the

Estimates, but I was just wondering what the department's policy is pertaining

to the appointment of JPs now?

MS SPRACKLIN: Generally speaking I have to say

that we are still resisting the appointment of Justices of the Peace. We are

trying, so far as possible, to use Provincial Court staff under the supervision

of Provincial Court judges. We are trying to revise that whole system. It is

hazardous to say the least, post-Charter, to have search warrants and the like

being granted without appropriate training programs and what not.

To make a long story short, we are having

difficulty getting a new program up and running. I am hoping sincerely to have

it ready by next fall but (inaudible) we are still struggling with that, to find

a way of training people appropriately.

MS M. HODDER: My concern in that is that we

could experience a shortage. (Inaudible) several JPs in my area at one

particular time and a lot of these have passed away during the last couple of

years. I know a couple of people who have been interested and the RCMP have

expressed the need to have an extra person at least.

MR. DICKS: The issue is, as the deputy points

out, one of concern, because years ago the JPs were given out in the same way

you give out Commissioner of Oaths. Most people that have a JP designation

basically just were signing documents. Under the Charter in particular, and

really under the Criminal Code, there is an obligation of a JP that is really

judicial or quasi-judicial. They really have to conduct a hearing as to whether

adequate grounds exist to issue process, for example, laying information against

somebody and so on like that.

Unfortunately, if they are not properly trained and

you give it out to someone without properly training the person, they just write

and sign it the same way as they would witness a deed. It is a different thing

entirely. You really have to do a mini-inquiry of sorts into whether or not

there are adequate grounds to issue the information. If it is not done properly,

you can have the information quashed as an abuse of process at a very

preliminary stage.

We have resisted. This is not a new issue. It has

been around since I was here before, in 1990. At that time we were not giving

out any JPs. Most people who would write would be content to have a Commissioner

of Roles because that is really what they were looking for, the ability to

witness documents in their area. Often, I think, there are JPs associated with

the court who have a higher level of skill and training. It is an issue that we

have to address, and being in the ninth year of intent we might even do

something about it this year or next. Is that fair to say, deputy?

MS SPRACKLIN: I hope so sir.

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

MS M. HODDER: No further questions.

CHAIR: Ms Jones.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My questions are directly related to the Estimates.

However, I wanted to ask about the Tripartite Agreement that the RCMP is

initiating to implement in Labrador, including the Aboriginal rural communities.

I'm wondering if your department has been involved in that process, and if there

is any framework agreement they have put in place.

MS SPRACKLIN: No. How to start? The federal

government is trying to persuade the provinces to contribute equally to

Aboriginal specific programming. It is the position of the Province of

Newfoundland that this is a federal fiduciary responsibility. If they are going

to have an Aboriginal specific program, they would have to fund it.

The short answer is that the Province is prepared

to provide provincial policing services to Labrador communities as they are to

every other community. If, however, there is to be a separate Aboriginal police

presence the federal government needs to bring the money to the table.

What we have tried to do, however, is to cooperate

with any program where an Aboriginal community - for example, Davis Inlet,

procured funding from the federal government for some band constables. We

facilitated and worked with them by designating as RCMP supernumerary

constables, and entered into an MOU so that they could carry out those policing

duties. There is a bit of a problem with respect to this whole tripartite notion

for all of Labrador.

It would involve the Province in effectively

providing a double - if I can put it that way - we would be funding provincial

policing in addition to funding any second parallel system.

MS JONES: Is the federal government not willing

to make additional investment to put this program in place? Because they have

done it in other parts of Canada. I'm just wondering did those areas have to buy

in or was there further investment?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, some of the other provinces

have bought into the notion of tripartite policing agreements.

MR. DICKS: The difference to remember too is

that the federal government has never accepted the full extent of its Aboriginal

responsibilities in Newfoundland. We have never had the same level of services

provided by the federal government to our Aboriginal peoples that they have in

other provinces. You remember recently there was an application, I think, or the

Sheshatshiu or Davis Inlet band were going to apply for federal Indian Act

status.

MS JONES: Yes.

MR. DICKS: They came to us. We would support

that because basically it provides a lot of benefits. The federal government has

never, ever seen fit to do it, never accepted that responsibility. When they

come to us and say: We want you to pay one-third of this, we say: Excuse me, but

what about all the other services that we have been providing that you have done

nothing about for the last fifty-odd years?

To an extent, there is a legitimate concern of the

Province that, in asking us to accept additional liability for these, above and

beyond the duplication issue that the Deputy has stated, the federal government

has not lived up to its constitutional responsibilities to provide the same

level of service to our Aboriginal peoples as they do all elsewhere in the

country.

MS SPRACKLIN: Just to illustrate the change

they have taken, Conne River, for example, is a reserve, and they have been

funded by the federal government for a good many years now to retain their own

police force. The Province has designated - again, in the spirit of cooperation

and to facilitate that - the RCMP work closely with the constables. They are

designated supernumeraries. They have authority on the reserve but they are paid

by the federal government.

The federal government has now changed their

position on that and they say: We are not going to do that any more. The

Province must contribute to the cost of the additional band constables. They

have changed their position and I guess the bottom line is that we are resisting

it, frankly.

MS JONES: It is unfortunate because from my

knowledge of the program and how it is working in other places it seems that it

has been able to offset a lot of the cuts in RCMP services in smaller, remote

areas.

I think what they have done in the Northwest

Territories, which is what I have been most familiar with, is help to fill the

gaps where a lot of policing services have been taken out. This is my concern

right now in Labrador, because a couple of years ago our services got cut in

various areas and we are mostly being policed by storefront operations, with the

exception of Davis Inlet and Nain, where you have full service detachments.

My next question -

MR. DICKS: If I can just say, the experience is

mixed though. Having the band council take responsibility for local policing

isn't always a resounding success, for a variety of reasons. So you have to be

careful about what you are setting up and who is - obviously the Aboriginal

people would run it. It is like any other program where the government runs it,

the Aboriginal people run it, we do it ourselves. They are not always wonderful,

resounding successes. There is a certain element of political rhetoric involved

in all this as well. We have had some experiences with them and they have not

always been beneficial.

MS JONES: Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

I would just like to make note that our last

remaining committee member has shown up. Tom, do you have any questions you

would like to ask?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, that is (inaudible).

CHAIR: Are there any other questions from any

member of the Committee?

Mr. Osborne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have one remaining question

and it is more to do with RNC policy and, I guess, for lack of better words,

their ability to pay. Last year there was a trial run or a test run of a program

in a particular downtown area of my district where there were a couple of

officers assigned to foot and bicycle patrol because there was a very high level

of vandalism and so on in that particular area, and from the feedback I have

received it worked quite well. The vandalism, the complaints and so on had been

reduced a great deal. I had inquired as to whether or not that procedure would

continue, but unfortunately they are unable to continue with it, although they

had great success, because of a lack of ability to pay or subsidize that type of

activity or performance by the police.

I was just wondering if your department, Minister,

was willing to consider, or take into consideration, a subsidization of this

type of performance by the police in certain areas, most especially the

urbanized areas that they patrol, to reduce the amount of vandalism, more

particularly, I guess, in the downtown areas of St. John's.

MR. DICKS: Let me just respond. It should not

be a subsidization issue. If they were able to do it last year - we have the

same amount of money in the Budget, so it should not be a matter that we are

giving them less money. If it was a policing measure that was efficient and

worked, and if they see the necessity for it to continue, it really should not

be hampered by the amount of money we voted to the RNC.

Years ago in St. John's, as you know - not that

many years ago, I think in the 1960s - they used to patrol on foot for the most

part. You know, (inaudible) put them back on the street on foot and so on, and

there is a theory that that is more effect policing.

We really do not run the RNC in a sense. We have

discussions with them at a fairly high level, as to what their policies are and

this kind of thing, but we leave the actual method of policing - whether or not

you need people on foot, whether or not you patrol this area or that area -

largely to the police, because they have to respond on a need basis.

I am not familiar with the circumstances, but I

will ask the officials to respond. To my knowledge it should not be a money

issue. Why it would cost more to have people in the area on foot as opposed to

having a vehicle; theoretically, it should cost less because there is not as

much gas and there is not as much need for vehicles and so on.

At some point, if you put everybody on the streets

and eliminated vehicles, you might have to increase your complement to allow for

the fact that they are not going to be able to have as much coverage or they

cannot be everywhere as quickly. You could still have a number of police in

vehicles to respond to situations in different parts of the city. In your case,

I do not know if that is driven by economics. I will ask the deputy to respond.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I may intervene for just a

second. I know last year they made very clear, upfront, that they were doing

this just to respond to a particular need in that area, but they had mentioned

that they could not afford to put their officers on foot patrol, that it was

just a test that they were going to conduct in that particular area to see how

well the residents responded to foot patrol and how well the reduction in

vandalism and that type of thing correlated with officers on foot patrol. It may

be purely political, but the response was that they could not afford the

manpower. They felt that their manpower was lacking as it was, so they could not

afford to put people on foot patrol, that they could get greater mileage out of

people in patrol vehicles, although the system had worked quite well.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am afraid I cannot be of much

help here, but Mr. Ralph Alcock who is, I guess, in the most day-to-day contact

with policing issues is in negotiations today actually with the RCMP who are

here from across all the provinces. He is negotiating with the RCMP as we speak,

so he is not here and I am not familiar with the project that you mentioned. You

are not referring to the Bannerman Park situation?

MR. T. OSBORNE: No, it was down in the Cabot

Street-Livingstone Street area.

MS SPRACKLIN: I am not familiar with that, so I

am afraid I cannot answer the question, except to generally observe that if you

are going to have your police on foot, you obviously need a lot more police to

patrol an area that stretches from Conception Bay East & Bell Island to Torbay

than you would if you have them in vehicles. So, I guess, to that extent you

would be looking at a very different model of policing if you had all foot

patrols. I think they have, in response to specific problems in specific areas -

for example, Churchill Square recently had some problems and they mounted a

particular effort to deal with it.

Interestingly, you can get one neighbourhood that

is being crucified, put some people on the ground there for a week or two, you

catch the people that are doing it and the problem generally goes away; at least

until they get out again.

I don't know if that would explain the Livingston

Street thing, if they felt they had the problem solved. I can find out for you,

I just don't know the answer to that particular -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Any further questions from any member of

the Committee?

Not having any further questions I would ask the

Clerk to call the heads inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.03, carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. I thank the

minister and his officials for being with us this morning and remind the members

of the Committee that the next meeting of the Social Services Committee is on

Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. in the House, and we will be looking into the Estimates

of the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

A motion to adjourn.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, before you put the

motion may I just thank the Committee and yourself for your kindness in seeing

us this morning and for the fairness of the questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

On motion, Committee adjourned until Wednesday, May

12 at 7:00 p.m.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1999-05-10
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga44_1999-05-10_ssc-jus_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	344fa558e1191911894786220cb74956456a25cc

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