April 27,

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning, everybody. I would like to welcome

everybody.

This morning is the Social Services Committee for the Estimates Committee.

This morning we are here to review the Department of Justice.

First of all, if I could, I would like for the Committee members to introduce

themselves. On my far right, if we could begin.

MR. YOUNG: Wallace Young, St. Barbe.

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

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

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

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

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

My name is Keith Hutchings - I did not introduce myself - I am the MHA for

the District of Ferryland. I am the Chair of the Committee.

What I would like to do now, Minister, if you or maybe your staff could

introduce themselves as well. I just ask you that when each of your staff is

speaking if they could identify themselves before they speak each time, for the

benefit of Hansard. So, if you could.

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let my officials introduce themselves, Mr.

Chairman, if that is all right with you.

CHAIR: Sure, fine.

MR. F. COLLINS: Because I cannot remember half of their titles.

CHAIR: Sure.

MR. F. COLLINS: I will introduce the gentleman on my left, Don Burrage,

the Deputy Minister, and I will let everybody else go from there.

MS DUNPHY: Debbie Dunphy, Director of Finance.

MS HYNES: Anita Hynes, Executive Assistant.

MS JACOBS: Heather Jacobs, ADM, Strategic and Corporate Services.

MR. NOBLE: Good morning.

Paul Noble, Assistant Deputy Minister, responsible for Public Safety and

Enforcement.

MR. MORRISSEY: Good morning.

Ken Morrissey, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

Minister, you are free to make any opening statement or we could go right

into after we call the first head, you can make any statement or we can just

go to the Committee, it is your choice. I will ask the Clerk to call the first

heading.

CLERK: 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: Probably, Mr. Chair, what we could do is to and I must

say I have to get used to this position as we go through. Ordinarily, I am used

to sitting over on the side, where the lads are over there, so I have to get

used to sitting on this side this morning.

To sort of set a backdrop for the questions that you might have as we go

through the Estimates, I just want to give an upfront, perhaps a quick overview

of the new initiatives that we have in the department in this budget. Very

briefly, we have a total of new budget initiatives this year of $6.5 million.

The incremental or net after tradeoffs and whatnot, we were a little over $5.5

million worth of new initiatives.

Some of the significant ones that I just want to bring to your attention.

With regard to Adult Corrections, we provided for two new adult probation

officers: one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and one in Grand Falls-Windsor. We have

provided for a manger for the Victim Services division. We have hired six new

correctional officers for various institutions around the Province. We have

provided funding for the installation of cameras now at all of our correctional

institutions. We have had increased funding for catering costs. As you know, we

have had to re-tender the catering activity after the company last year went

into receivership. There is increased funding for prescription drugs that we

have had to provide for. We have funded to continue the program co-ordinator who

was hired two years ago to implement the recommendations of the Decades of

Darkness report. So, we have kept him on staff for another year to carry on that

important work.

Under the Office of the High Sheriff, we have provided for three new deputy

sheriffs and we will also be funding perimeter screening for Atlantic Place. We

are also funding for a new position of court security manager.

Under Human Rights, we are continuing the two temporary solicitors in Human

Rights to carry on the work of catching up with the backlog and getting that

division on stream, up to speed. We are also continuing with the position of a

Human Rights specialist. These are all temporary positions that we have

extended. We are funding the Human Rights conference this year. As well, some of

that money is offset by revenues.

For the Supreme Court we have added an information management technician and

an administrative officer. For the Provincial Court we have added an information

management person. We have also provided funding for the courthouse opening in

Corner Brook.

For the RCMP, we have funded three new officers: two for the relief unit in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay so as to be able to do extra patrols in Postville.

Postville is the only community on the North Coast that does not have an RCMP

detachment. We have also provided for extra child exploitation officers for the

Major Crime Unit in Gander. There is considerable funding for extra standby

costs for the RCMP that we had to build in this year.

Basically, that is the treetop version of the new initiatives. We have extra

money for legal costs, counsel, public trustee the Public Trustee Act has been

proclaimed and we now have to provide a public trustee. There will be funding

for that. Completion, of course, of the Corner Brook courthouse and we are

continuing the Family Violence Treatment Court. So these are the basic new

initiatives that the department will be involved in this year.

Having said that, we welcome your questions on the Estimates and I will take

the liberty to pass off any questions that you might ask to any one of my

officials and invite them at any time to fill in details, which they will have a

much greater abundance than I will.

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Okay, we will go to our Committee.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, first of all, I just missed your comment about Atlantic Place

initiative funding.

MR. F. COLLINS: You might recall, Mr. Parsons, there was quite a lot of

concern expressed last year with respect to security at Atlantic Place in

Provincial Court. Some discussion and consideration was given to perimeter

screening and that presents some challenges, of course, given the layout of

Atlantic Place. We were successful in the Budget in getting some money to

provide for perimeter screening in Atlantic Place and we hired three extra

deputy sheriffs to accommodate that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: First of all, just a couple of questions on the I

do not have a lot on the line by line stuff, but referring you first to 2.1.01.,

Civil Law.

MR. F. COLLINS:

Section 2.1

MR. KELVIN PARSONS:

Section 2.1.01., Civil Law and Enforcement.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You alluded in particular to item 05., Professional

Services, which you just alluded to when you said there was extra funding for

legal counsel It looks like it is about $1.3 million over last year. I am just

wondering if you could give us some idea of why the expected increase?

MR. F. COLLINS: Actually, that is a little bit misleading, I think, that

figure you are looking at there. The increase for external legal counsel this

year was more like a million dollars. The blue figure oh, you do not have

that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not have the blue figure.

MR. F. COLLINS: In Professional Services, the budget

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It looks like they actually spent two

MR. F. COLLINS: - was $2.3 million, it was revised down and then up to

$3.3 million; that is what you are looking at.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, you actually spent $2,025,000 and now you have

it up to $3,301,000. To me, that is almost a $1,275,000 increase. I am just

wondering what it is you anticipate needing the extra million bucks for?

MR. F. COLLINS: The $2.3 million in the 2009 original budget the

difference between the original budget and this year's budget is a million

dollars, as you can see. Yet, it dropped down to a little over $2 million last

year. There was a reduced requirement for external legal assistance because most

of the Abitibi files would be transferred over to Natural Resources. This year

we are budgeting an extra million dollars for legal assistance.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is what I am saying. If Natural Resources are

going to look after the legal fees on Abitibi, what is it you anticipate needing

an extra million bucks for this year?

MR. F. COLLINS: There are a number of ongoing files that Justice is

involved in, and that is just a ballpark figure that we reserved to cover off

any existing files that the department has. There is any number of them

actually. It is a crapshoot at the amount that it might be and we budgeted a

million dollars for it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I would like to think that we have a little more than

a crapshoot when we are trying to come up with our budget. I realize that you do

not know exactly, but you have increased your anticipated budget for civil

litigation by 50 per cent. I think it is a legitimate question to ask: What is

in the queue that you think is going to require you to spend an extra million

bucks?

MR. F. COLLINS: I pass that to the Deputy Minister to answer.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, some of that relates to anticipated legal costs

for the international trade negotiations that are underway over in Brussels,

wherever they take place. We have external legal counsel engaged on those.

Some of it relates to Abitibi because while last year the fees were JV'd over

to Natural Resources, this year I think we are anticipating that we will take it

in the Department of Justice as opposed to JV'ing it over.

So, some of that does relate to anticipated legal costs on Abitibi. Some of

it relates to anticipated legal costs on the international - I forget what it is

called the international trade stuff that is underway, we have external

counsel engaged in that. So, that is in large measure where the million dollars

comes from.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the phrase you just used, Mr. Burrage, about

you -

MR. BURRAGE: JV'd, it means, basically, last year the legal fees on

Abitibi were transferred over to Natural Resources. We did not have money in our

budget to cover those fees.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, I just was not familiar with the phrase. I was

thinking it meant transferred but -

MR. BURRAGE: Sorry, I picked up some of the lingo from Debbie here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: These finance people -

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, I know. It is an occupational hazard.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Could you undertake, Minister, as well - I have asked

this question I think every time we have done Estimates and you have certainly

complied in the past at all times. Of the $2, 025,000 that was spent last year

by your department, could you undertake to provide us the details as to how that

money was spent and who it was spent with? For example, does that include legal

fees or does that include settlement as well, or are they two separate pots?

MR. BURRAGE: They are two separate pots. The $2,025,000 that was spent

last year is legal fees and we can provide you with a breakdown on that. The

second, the settlement account, is the $2 million you see in 09., Allowances and

Assistance.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right, 09.

Could you also give us a breakdown on how the 09. was spent and how that was

paid out?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, we can certainly do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: If I could just, Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: Yes, sure. Go ahead, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: -just ask and make a point at this moment.

CHAIR: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Any time that either one of us asks for a listing, can we

assume that it will come to both parties?

MR. F. COLLINS: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Then I do not have to repeat. I will not go back to that

question. All my questions are answered.

Thank you.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any idea, Minister - you have obviously put in an

extra million dollars and Mr. Burrage just explained the two reasons he thinks

we are going to need some extra. So, will all of the carriage of the Abitibi

piece be done by Justice in the forthcoming year, or will it be still split

between Justice and the Department of Natural Resources? As I understand it and

just from the cases that I have been tracking, we have what we call the data

file. I call it trying to get into their data room which was one case and then

we had the issues of trying to get the preferred status as a creditor based upon

the Minister of Environment's regulatory notice that she issued, which is being

appealed, as I understand it. Is the appeal going to be conducted, for example,

in that case by counsel hired by Natural Resources or counsel hired through the

Department of Justice?

MR. BURRAGE: It would be through counsel. All legal counsel is retained

by the Department of Justice. It is actually an application for leave to appeal

because we do not have an automatic right of appeal. So, it is a leave to appeal

application in the Quebec Court of Appeal. That will be handled by the same

legal counsel that handled the WeirFoulds, I think, is the name of the firm.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right.

MR. BURRAGE: The same firm that handled the matter to date. I think the

intention is for the legal fees and associated costs of that to be borne by the

Department of Justice. It is certainly in the first instance, so that is the

intention.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Any idea when the application for leave to appeal

will be heard?

MR. BURRAGE: I want to say May 15, but I am not 100 per cent sure of the

date. We can certainly get you the date. There has been a date set.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, if you would please, that would be helpful.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Also, do we have anyone in our department who is on

the file, or did we just farm this out to WeirFoulds in Quebec?

MR. F. COLLINS: We have one of our senior lawyers on the file. Donna

Ballard is the lawyer in our department looking after that file.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you tell me - because in both cases that I am

aware of, the data room file and we will call it priority file, on both those

cases, those bodies awarded cost against the Province. Can you tell me what the

costs were? I realize this is above and beyond the legal costs that you incur

with your counsel. This is the award of cost that the court ordered. Could you

tell me what the costs were in both cases?

MR. BURRAGE: There has not been a calculation of the cost. The reason I

am looking a bit puzzled, I am not 100 per cent clear that there was an award of

costs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: There was.

MR. BURRAGE: Okay, I am going to take you at your word on that. There has

not been an assessment of the costs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. I take it therefore - do you have any idea what

the costs might be?

MR. BURRAGE: I am sorry, I do not.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Could we get an undertaking that as soon as you

are made aware of what the costs are that we would be notified?

MR. BURRAGE: If there is an award of cost that we are obliged to pay out,

then we can tell you that, certainly.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Right. In both matters, the data room file and in the

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, I understand.

That would be a matter, I believe, of public record at the time anyway.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

What is the policy at the present time of the department in a case where you

do have cost awarded against the government in an action? Does that come out of

your Allowances and Assistance pot in 09., or is there somewhere else that would

get paid?

MR. BURRAGE: It does not happen very often. I do not know, Deb, would we

take that out of

MS DUNPHY: I think so.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, Ms Dunphy tells me it would probably come out of

Allowances and Assistance, which is MO 09.

Yes, the general contingency is for claims against the Crown. So, whether it

would be a judgement against the Crown, I guess, as a result of a direct

judgement or whether it would be an award of cost against the Crown, either way

it is a judgement against the Crown.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I noticed, moving on to 2.1.05., Family Justice

Services, we have had an increase of about $300,000. I wonder is that one of the

initiatives you referred to.

MR. F. COLLINS: Salaries? Are you talking Salaries?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, under the Salaries piece, 01.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, that is the four new positions approved for Family

Justice Services. That is under the Poverty Reduction Strategy. Now, there are

tradeoffs for these positions from the Adult Alternative Justice Program. That

is the extra salary money.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I wonder if you might comment on the recruitment

efforts in that regard. It looks like last year we were down about $250,000 that

we did not spend for Salaries. What is the situation now? Are all of the

positions that were intended funded? Have you recruited? What is the status of

the recruitment? What vacancies exist?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: We recently hired a new director for the Family Justice

Services program. So, there were some delays early in the fiscal year and there

were some vacancies, but when the new director came on - I believe it was late

summer or early fall - she has been very active in getting this program

revamped, I guess, would be a good word. I think most of their vacancies are now

filled. We also had some issues up in Labrador with getting some space to house

the program, but that has all been addressed now as well.

Right now, there are four new positions which they will be actively

recruiting. These are mainly management positions for various regions outside of

St. John's. So, the vacancy right now with Family Justice is very low.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Moving on to 2.2.01., Criminal Law section, 06.,

Purchased Services. I am looking at an increase there. I am wondering if you

might give some explanation as to what Purchased Services you expect to need the

extra cash for.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Purchased Services for 2009 you will notice was

$931,000, revised down to $750,000 and that is because witness costs has been

less than anticipated for that particular component. It is up to $1 million for

the coming year. The training budget has been re-profiled from Professional

Services to this particular division.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, I just want to make a comment but my mike is not on.

Mr. Parsons, we have done a little bit of re-profiling here. We had some

money, if you recall, back during I think it was 2007-2008. We got some

additional monies related to the Lamer inquiry and we had budgeted some training

money under the Professional Services head that really should have been budgeted

under Purchased. So, some of it is just a reorganization of the budget, just

operationally.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Maybe off the top of your head - I do not have the

staffing book with me here - how many Crown attorneys do we have right now in

the system?

MR. BURRAGE: There are forty-three permanent lawyers with the Crown and

four contractual at the moment. There is one vacancy, which has been advertised.

On the civil side I realize you did not ask that, but just for completeness

- there are twenty-seven permanent lawyers and seven contractual. There is one

permanent vacancy which has been advertised. That is in Labrador. I believe it

is a CYFS lawyer we are trying to fill in Labrador. That is the current

complement.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Does that include the legal aid lawyers, just so that I am on

MR. BURRAGE: No, I am sorry, that does not include legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, so how many do we have over in legal aid?

MR. BURRAGE: We will have to undertake to get you the numbers for

legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, because they have it broken into, I understand,

civil and criminal as well, don't they?

MR. BURRAGE: I am not sure if they break it - do they break it

(inaudible).

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. BURRAGE: I do not believe they do, but we will get you the total

numbers for legal aid.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Section 4.1.01., the RNC - that is under the Salaries heading, 01. It is

roughly $1 million increase. What is the purpose of that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is down from the original budget because there

were several vacancies between April and September that were not filled. These

were mostly filled by graduates of the recruit program. It is up to $41 million

this year due to salary increases.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So there is no staff increase here, just salary

increases?

MR. F. COLLINS: These are salary increases?

OFFICIAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just for the record, the RNC do have in their

collective bargaining process a binding arbitration set-up I understand?

MR. NOBLE: It is final offer selection, so it is a form of binding

arbitration in the regulations.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Are you aware of anyone else in the system

provincially, public service, who has such a system or is it exclusive to the

RNC?

MR. NOBLE: I am not certain, Mr. Parsons. Certainly within my bailiwick,

it is a fairly unique formula or arrangement. I believe corrections officers may

have a form of binding arbitration if in excess of 50 per cent of the bargaining

unit is deemed essential. Other than that, I think that this arrangement is

fairly unique certainly within the Public Safety and Enforcement division.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This question has come up sometimes in discussion,

but also in the House and so on and certainly in the media: Could you tell me

the difference between that type of final offer selection process for the RNC

versus what judges have with the tribunal situation? That seems to be sort of

final to me as well, or we at least have governments now come to accept that it

is pretty final.

MR. BURRAGE: I have some familiarity with the judges' process, various

sides of it. In the case of the judges there is a tribunal, as you know, which

is established. The judges appoint a member to that tribunal, the government

appoints a member and then there is a Chair. Representation arose from the

Supreme Court of Canada decision which said the government could not negotiate

directly with judges because of juridical independence. We had to keep ourselves

separate.

So, in that circumstance, the judges, through their legal counsel, make

representation to the tribunal on various issues that are of concern to them in

terms of salaries and benefits. Government, in turn, makes a submission. The

tribunal goes off and makes a recommendation to government, which is then

brought before the Legislature. It is ultimately the Legislature that has the

final say whether or not to accept those recommendations, to vary them, or to

reject them. In that case, there is a final say that rests with the Legislature.

We recently had a tribunal which has to render its report, I think at the end

of September, and that will be brought forward in due course to the Legislature

for consideration. There is some case law around the latitude that the

Legislature has to accept or reject, which I think is what you are alluding to,

which does place some restrictions. If you are going to reject a recommendation

- I forget what the test is but there is a legal test for rejecting it. It is

not simply a matter of the Legislature having its hands tied. It does have the

final say, but there are some legal tests around what latitude the Legislature

has to accept or reject or vary recommendations.

That is a kind of sui generis process. It is much the same, I think, right

across the country now. That is my knowledge of that process. I think it is

different than final offer selection. I am not as familiar with final offer

selection.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: From my recall, we spent most of the 1990s squabbling

about whether we were bound to as a Legislature or what the tests were. I

understand, certainly when I was there, that it finally came to the point where

we accepted the tribunal process. To your knowledge, has there been any in this

decade, any rejection or tinkering by any Legislature with any tribunal?

MR. BURRAGE: Oh, God; I believe the last panel, the last tribunal, was

accepted by government without change. I believe that to be the case.

Prior tribunals, my memory does not go back that far. I know that there have

been cases across the country, and I only know this anecdotally, where

recommendations have been modified or rejected because there has been some case

law which has arisen as a result.

I honestly cannot tell you, with any kind of authority, whether or not other

tribunals across the country have been consistently accepted, or even whether

they have been consistently accepted in this Province. I do believe the last one

was accepted without modification. I stand to be corrected on that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Section 4.2.01., 06., Purchased Services. I notice there is a fairly

substantial increase there. Would that be the issue of the catering service that

you alluded to in your intro?

MR. F. COLLINS: Some of it would be. Some of the programming costs as

well were transferred to Purchased Services from Professional Services. Again,

it is a question of moving money around and the other was a significant increase

in catering costs.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Under that section, Grants and Subsidies, $95,000,

what would they be for? Would that be John Howard type stuff?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: That is a grant strictly to the John Howard Society - just one

grant.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will turn it over to Ms Michael at this point.

CHAIR: Okay, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you very much.

Let's stay with 4.2.01. 05., Professional Services, since we are there. Could

you just speak to that as well, Minister, because there is quite a variance

between the budget and the revised budget?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will let Debbie respond to this because this is

a matter of moving money around from one division to another. So, I will let

Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, you may recall last year the department got

significant funding related to the Decades of Darkness report.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MS DUNPHY: A portion of which was allocated for programming costs for

inmates. The majority of that money was budgeted under Professional Services,

but again, we have a piece of work to do with our Professional and Purchased

Services budgets because I think there is just some classification issues, I

guess for want of a better word, as to what is considered Professional and what

is Purchased.

So while the number is down, under Professional, it is not an indication that

we had not been offering the programming or providing programming to the

inmates. Some of it is just again the re-profiling of money. We have actually

begun the process of digging into these two accounts now to get a better handle

on where we are spending our money and how it should be classified.

MS MICHAEL: Yet, in this year's budget it is back up to what would be

almost similar to last year's budget

MS DUNPHY: Yes, right. So again, like I said, this is kind of where we

are looking. We need to get this tidied up - the housekeeping, more than

anything.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

Under 04. - I do not think this would be quite the same - there was a big

increase in the Supplies line from the budget to the revision last year of

$74,300.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, this was the increase for food, catering services

and increase in prescription drug costs.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, when the catering company could no longer provide

that service to the penitentiary we actually had to hire individuals ourselves

and we actually purchased the food. So instead of some of the costs being shown

under Purchased Services, we had to actually put it under Supplies because we

actually bought the food.

MS MICHAEL: Sure, okay. That makes sense. Thank you very much.

Well, I do have some other line items. Luckily, some of them have already

been asked. I will not repeat any of those, so I have to go back to the

beginning. I am only picking up on ones where they seem to be large.

Under 1.2.02. - so we are right back at the beginning now - under

Professional Services, there was a large variance between the budget and the

revision a variance of $158,000 less spent. Why exactly in that line it

might be similar answers, I am not sure, but it is a whole different area.

MR. F. COLLINS: I am going to pass that question on to Heather Jacobs to

explain the delays with the Innu Healing Path initiative and delays in the

Family Violence Treatment Court. Heather, do you want to respond to that?

MS JACOBS: Ms Michael, with the Innu Healing Path, there was a probation

position and a Victims Services position. Neither one of those positions were

filled. In addition, there was an operating budget and only limited money was

spent.

With the Family Violence Treatment Court, there were delays in starting that

program, but I am pleased to report it is up and running. We have the money

again this year to continue with that pilot.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great. Thank you.

I am sorry that the answer seems to be repeating what you gave as the

overview, Minister, but in the overview we did not know where those pieces fit.

So, this is helping us see where the pieces fit in the budget. Thank you.

Again, it is not major, but in the Purchased Services, 06., the next line, we

did have a variance between the budget and the revised budget of $80,900. This

year the budget is $100,000 less than it was last year, so what is changing?

Maybe this is a re-profiling that is going on here too in terms of Purchased

Services in this area.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will ask Heather to respond to that.

MS JACOBS: Once again in 2009-2010, it was reduced because there was less

activity in

interpretation services and there were delays in the Family Violence

Court, similar to above.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MS JACOBS: Once again, there is also a re-profiling for this year of the

Family Violence Court money. We had it in the wrong Debbie can help me with

the words budget head, is it, Debbie? So we have re-profiled it.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is great. Thank you.

I have to say that while it might be a headache for those who have to do it,

the re-profiling of money is clearly visible. Where it is being spent, I think,

is important. We were with one department yesterday and there was absolutely no

reason for the money being in the line it was in absolutely none. So, it does

help.

Under the Grants and Subsidies, who gets these Grants and Subsidies?

MR. F. COLLINS: Item 10?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is 10.

MR. F. COLLINS: You are talking about the budget for the coming year?

MS MICHAEL: Subhead 10.

MR. F. COLLINS: Five hundred and seventy thousand dollars?

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Item 10, Grants and Subsidies.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, I guess mainly we have a very small what we would

call a discretionary grant fund. We do provide some core funding for the Search

and Rescue volunteers the association. We do have some money budgeted there

that is 100 per cent reimbursed by the federal government. Again, this is

mainly for some Search and Rescue initiatives.

Then, throughout the year, there are some small grants for PLIAN has a

Youth Justice Rocks Camp; they do some camps in Labrador. We have made a

donation to the Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Association. We also provide

grants to two communities in Labrador for community constables.

MS MICHAEL: I wonder could we have a list of those grants from last

year's

MS DUNPHY: Absolutely.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Okay, the next one is 1.2.03., subhead 06., Purchased Services. There had

been a large budget of $431,100 in the budget, revised down to $200,000, and

this year back up to $385,300. What happened last year that you seem to have an

anticipation of a much higher expenditure that did not occur?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, Ms Michael, this is a reallocation and

re-profiling of money, so I will let Debbie respond to that one.

MS DUNPHY: We have actually started questioning this ourselves. When

Finance provides us with the budget for the learning and development funding,

they tell us to put it under Purchased Services. Of course, as the money is

spent throughout the year, it is spent on things like registration fees and

travel plans and hiring trainers and those sorts of things, so it gets dispersed

among the other budget objects in the division. We are going to speak with the

officials at the Public Service Secretariat to ask is there a particular reason

why we have to put it there, or, based on our past number of years of historical

data, can we try to budget it more appropriately in the areas where it is going

to be actually spent.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. So, you made adjustments last year, but you still want

to talk with them about whether or not

MS DUNPHY: Well, yes, we are still putting it all under Purchased

Services, but really it should be dispersed.

MS MICHAEL: It should be dispersed. Okay, thank you.

Under 1.2.05., the appropriations provide for the facilities planning and the

acquisition of tangible capital assets. Now, I know that some facilities may

have come under this that are it has all been taken care of, and that is why

they are no longer in the budget for this year, but we had major variances under

Professional Services well, all three: Professional Services, Purchased

Services and Property, Furnishings and Equipment; 05., 06., and 07. There were

major variances. For example, the budget for Professional Services was $2

million and only $250,000 was spent, then this year there is no need for that

line, or no expenditures this year in that line. The same way in the Purchased

Services, the variance between the budget and the revision was not as much but

it was $646,900, so could we have explanations actually of all three of those

subheads.

MR. F. COLLINS: With respect to MO 05. and MO 06. - Professional

Services, there was $2 million allocated for the pre-trial detention centre in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay for capital construction planning. That did not happen,

so that is the $2 million revised down to $250,000. There were carry over

expenses related to the pre-planning for that facility and for the pre-planning

for the replacement of Her Majesty's Penitentiary. That accounts for the

reduction of $2 million to $250,000. That is not on the agenda for this year so

that is (inaudible) -

MS MICHAEL: Why isn't it on the agenda for this year, Minister?

MR. F. COLLINS: The construction of the pre-trial detention centre is not

on for this year. We are looking at doing a complete analysis of our

correctional institutions, including Labrador. That is part of the component in

that complete analysis.

We are reluctant to engage in any major capital spending on our correction

institutions until we have a better picture of just where we are going. We know

we are out front in committing to that and we are very much cognizant of that.

Part of that whole analysis to see how we can best deal with the situation in

Labrador because there are a lot of needs beyond that pre-trial detention centre

so, it is going to be a year at least before we have our plans in place with

regard to what we are going to do in corrections.

MS MICHAEL: If I am wrong, correct me, but it is my memory that the

decision to do a pre-trial detention centre in Labrador did come from a number

of incidents that were quite serious. There was a study done of that particular

situation and a number of groups, the Aboriginal groups in particular, the

women's community within the Aboriginal groups, all have identified this as

being extremely serious and needed. Now, the planning has been put off by

another year; planning being put off means beyond another year before we get it.

It is very disturbing to see this since there was so much attention on that one

issue, and it stands alone being very particular to this site. Why wouldn't this

be something that you are dealing with, especially my colleague is reminding

me because I could not remember who did the report; it was the Citizens'

Representative who did the report. So, I am rather disturbed to see it coming

off the budget.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is not off the table for this year. It is not in

the capital plans for this year.

There was a considerable amount of work done in response to that suggestion.

We had Transportation and Works do up a number of models that we looked at with

respect to stand alone the pre-trial detention centre. We looked at a number

of different models, a complete youth detention centre with all the services

that would be available for remands and intermittence and people with mental

health issues - women and youth. We also looked at basic lock-up type situation,

glorified lock-up type situation.

The figures for both were staggering with respect to the $2 million that we

originally projected. We are looking at other options for other facilities down

there that might accommodate that particular need, but at this stage in the

game, government is not prepared to sink that kind of money, at this stage,

while we are still doing the analysis of our whole correctional system.

So, that is where it is. It is in that overall planning that we have started

with respect to what we are going to do with our facilities that we have. How we

can best reorganize, reconfigure, whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, well, I have the information. I will be looking for

more answers, but not in this setting, obviously.

Could I push forward then? You did also mention the HMP here in St. John's.

In doing the analysis that you are talking about, are you looking at HMP and are

you looking at if from the perspective of what happens if the federal government

continues not putting money in? Is that part of the analysis that you are doing

as well?

MR. F. COLLINS: Hopefully, by the end of this year, we will have explored

whatever options are available to us with regard to where we are going with all

of our correctional facilities, including HMP, and the other six facilities that

are across the Province. Our officials are currently engaged in planning

sessions and jurisdictional examinations and whatnot to see what options there

are to us, with the assumption that there is no federal prison. So, we are

looking at any and all options that we can consider. We are looking at our needs

first, what we need, what options will satisfy those needs. Then, we will make a

proposal to government as to here is the direction we think we should go.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Would the line, the subhead on Purchased Services, be all part of this

decision that has been made? As far as I know, it has not been reported publicly

to any of us. This is the first time I am sort of hearing this.

MR. F. COLLINS: MO 07?

MS MICHAEL: MO 06.

MR. F. COLLINS: Furnishings and Equipment?

MS MICHAEL: The Purchased Services, is that part of the same decision?

MR. F. COLLINS: Some of the funding that was approved for the alterations

and improvement for the correctional facility were transferred again to

Property, Furnishings and Equipment. We bought a generator, checkpoint monitor,

security cameras, additional funding for prisoner transport unit, as well as

some additional equipment purchased by the RNC. That is where the money was sent

in MO 07.

MS DUNPHY: If I could add to that.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, under 06., again as part of the Decades of

Darkness, we were provided the $1.8 million to do some, I guess, security

improvements to some of the facilities around the Province - the correctional

facilities. The $1.1 million represents some of those alterations and

improvements. As the minister alluded to, some of it actually involved buying

equipment such as the security cameras and checkpoint monitors, so that is why

the money had to be transferred down to Property, Furnishings and Equipment.

As you have probably noted, under the RNC capital, the headquarters project,

we did have considerable savings and we did go to Treasury Board requesting that

some money be transferred to get some additional equipment for both corrections

and the RNC, which is why the MO 07. is up from the budget that was provided in

2009-2010. For this year now, for 2010-2011, that $614,500 is, I guess, our

ongoing base budget for the replacement of vehicles for the RNC, as well as

corrections and the sheriff's office.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Moving on, over to 2.1.04., Access to Information and Protection of Privacy,

MO 01., Salaries. Under the Salaries there was a significant variance between

the budget and the revision. I am assuming this must mean that they did not have

the full complement of staff.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, we had a number of vacancies in that division and

several recruitments. There were some transfers. There is a lot of movement in

that division. Again, Debbie, do you want to respond to that?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MS JACOBS: Ms Michael, some of the reasons for this, the director was on

maternity leave, so the lawyer for that position was doing double duty. As well,

a manager went on secondment and she is still on secondment at the College of

the North Atlantic. So, one of the analysts is filling in that position.

One of the major problems we have with that office is that we have three

positions there and when we train these analysts, quite often, they end up then

going to another department and become their co-ordinator. We are kind of like

the training ground. We have kind of constant turnover, but we are working on

that and we are currently recruiting.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you. I am glad to know you are working on it. It is

important. I do know that the workload there is fairly heavy. With

understaffing, it also means that the public is not being served as it needs to

be served. There are two things: one is the workload on the people there and the

other is the serving of the public.

At the moment, Ms Jacobs, are you confident that this year the full

complement will be happening?

MS JACOBS: Yes, Ms Michael. Hopefully, probably in the fall, we should

have the full complement.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

I am hopping through here because I do not have to repeat certain questions.

This one is 2.1.05., MO 06., Purchased Services. The budget was $539,000 and it

was under spent in the revision by $339,000. Could we just have an explanation

of that? This could have been a re-profiling also. Although I notice it is still

back up to $540,000 for this year, so maybe it is not.

MS DUNPHY: A couple of well not a couple, probably in 2006-2007,

2007-2008, Finance provided us with a $200,000 contingency fund so that during

the year and it is budgeted under this activity because oftentimes this is

where the money is directed. Sometimes during the year, the federal government

will come to our co-ordinator or our director, and say: We have some additional

money. Do you guys have a project you can do before the end of the year to be

able to spend that? What we were having difficulty with was, because it was

often late in the fiscal year, the department did not have the flexibility to be

able to funnel some money into that and then be reimbursed.

So, Finance agreed to give us a contingency fund of $200,000. You will note

that the revenue under the same activity also varies by the $200,000. We have

availed of some additional federal money, but we have not always needed to use

the contingency fund. That does explain some of the variance. Then, like I said,

you will see the same variance under the revenue.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that explains - thank you very much.

Moving on, under Legal Aid, 2.3.01., under this one we have the M10., Grants

and Subsidies. It seems to have levelled out a bit, but could you repeat for me

this year where this money goes under M10?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, Ms Michael, I will let Debbie respond to this one.

Again, we are talking about the contingency fund that has not been used. Debbie,

do you want to respond to that one?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

The grant here is the funding that we provide to legal aid for their

operations.

MS MICHAEL: That is it, just one total grant?

MS DUNPHY: Yes. Well, we pay them monthly, actually, and they provide us

with a report annually.

MS MICHAEL: Great.

MS DUNPHY: The minister noted we also have a contingency fund here. A

number of years back, legal aid was struggling with when they prepare their

budget, they have a certain level of revenue that they require to assist them.

That revenue, besides revenue from government, was down. So again, Finance

provided us with a contingency to be able to assist them when necessary if their

revenues from other sources dropped below a certain level.

Since the fund was established, we have not had to draw down upon that fund.

So, we do not pay them the money automatically; it would have to be requested.

That is again why there is a bit of a variance there.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask: When was the last review of legal aid from the

perspective of how it is operating in terms of meeting the needs of the public?

What are the wait times for people who need legal aid? What is the workload for

legal aid personnel?

MR. BURRAGE: Ms Michael, I cannot tell you when the last review per se

was done. I can tell you it is something that we are now looking at with respect

to legal aid in terms of rationalizing the service. There have been various bits

and pieces done, but in terms of a more comprehensive review, that is something

that we are looking at now.

MS MICHAEL: I am glad to hear that. Obviously, it is not something that

comes into my constituency office every single day, but we do, over the year,

have a number of times when people have come to us who are not being served

well. I do not mean they are not being served well because of the people who are

doing the work, but because they have to wait so long. Because of that, I think,

people are not always getting the same lawyer and having to start from scratch

after waiting for months in between meetings, then getting a new lawyer and

having to start from scratch. So, I am glad to hear that you are starting to

look at it. I think we really do need a review of how well we are servicing.

MR. BURRAGE: You may recall, I think it was in the last sitting of the

Legislature, there were some changes made to the act to help facilitate some of

that. That was just a part of that, but the process has started.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you.

MR. F. COLLINS: I can also tell you, Ms Michael, that legal aid has

always been a hot topic at the table of the federal and provincial Justice

Ministers. The provincial Justice Ministers have, for some time, been trying to

encourage the federal government to step up their contribution to legal aid

because it is vastly underfunded by the federal government, especially in the

area of civil legal aid. There has been very little response, but it is an

ongoing discussion at the table.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

While we are under this head, because I did have questions: Could we have an

update with regard to the process for the Aboriginal court and how that program

is moving?

MR. BURRAGE: I think you are referring to the Innu Healing Path

initiative?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right.

MR. BURRAGE: Last year in the Budget, there was funding for an assistant

Victim Services co-ordinator and an assistant probation officer to work in the

community of Sheshatshiu. There was also core funding to assist in the

establishment of a residential treatment program. That was what the community

had in mind, so we had money there for rent, heat, light, that sort of core

funding to help them get going.

We worked with the community throughout the year. At the end of the day, they

were unsuccessful at that time in getting it up and running. It takes time. That

is not a criticism of them. It is just that sometimes these things take time.

There is a new council in place now. They recently did hire a Victim Services

co-ordinator for Sheshatshiu, so that piece has started. We did manage to

provide them last year, out of the core funding, with some money for computers,

equipment that they would need to get their program up and running.

They are actively recruiting for the assistant probation officer position. I

am not sure if it is filled, but if it is not, they are on the cusp of filling

it. The objective was to try to provide the community with some capacity and to

have people working in the community reporting through Victim Services, because

we still have to maintain some measure of quality control, of course, working in

the community.

That funding for that program has carried through in this fiscal year. Now,

with the new council, we are working with them to see because at the end of

the day they have to take ownership. When I say they, the Innu community has to

take ownership of this. So, we are working with them to see what is their vision

and is it the same as the vision of their predecessors.

Fundamentally, we are looking at a form really of a treatment program,

somewhere that offenders can go to receive the kind of training or treatment

that they might need so when they come back before a judge on sentencing, they

have been through that process. Then the probation's report, which they are

referred to as Gladue reports, would reflect that. It is ongoing, but it is baby

steps to be quite honest. That is fine; you have to crawl before you can walk.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. The process is moving, so I think that is

important.

MR. BURRAGE: It is, very much so.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask - it is not budget related but with regard to the

program - has the goal of the community been to try to have Aboriginal people in

those positions?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, okay.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, fundamentally, the focus has been Aboriginal positions.

We also have two-and-a-half interpreter positions that were approved previously:

one for Sheshatshiu, a half position for Natuashish, and one for Nain. The

Sheshatshiu one is now filled.

We have had some issues with the amount of funding allocated for those

positions because it is difficult, in Labrador, to get people on reserve to work

for low wages if they are going to be subject to tax on those wages as well, but

it is working.

MS MICHAEL: It is working.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, slowly but surely, we are making progress.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Thank you very much.

Section 3.3.01., Court Facilities, appropriations provide for the planning,

design and construction of court facilities. So MO 05., the Professional

Services, what was that related to?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sorry, Ms Michael, could you repeat that question

again, please?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, 3.3.01, subhead 05., Professional Services. You had

$166,000 designated and spent, and so I am just looking for what that was spent

on.

MR. F. COLLINS: During the year, we did a considerable amount of

assessment and planning options with regard to reconfiguration of the court.

That was the one-time spending of $166,000 spent then on that planning and

assessment.

MS MICHAEL: The court here in St. John's?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, for St. John's.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, I remember that now.

Then under Purchased Services there was a huge budget last year that was

under spent by $885,100, and this year is down to $1 million. So there is a

major change happening in the line of Purchased Services there.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, what happened there, the $7 million revised down to

$6 million because of delays in construction in the Corner Brook courthouse.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: The $1 million in this year's budget is for the

completion of that project.

MS MICHAEL: So it is all around Corner Brook? Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms Michael, do we want to change up or are we going to

keep going?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I think we can say I am finished because all the other

ones that I have raised, except for one line, all the others were raised by Mr.

Parsons. So I just have one line, if you want me to do that

CHAIR: Okay, sure.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Section 4.1.04. is the Newfoundland Constabulary. This has to do with the new

facilities related to them. So under 05., the Professional Services, this year

there is no budget at all, so that means all the planning has been completed, is

it? Is that why?

MR. F. COLLINS: The planning money, that was planning for the RNC refit

headquarters.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Then under 06., where we are going from $8.4 million up to $15.9 million, is

this

MR. F. COLLINS: That represents the different phases of construction of

the RNC headquarters.

MS MICHAEL: So it was the construction?

MR. F. COLLINS: Tenders for this year came in much lower than anticipated

and the $15 million is for the next phase.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. Well that was good to have a tender come in lower than

anticipated. It does not happen very often, does it?

MR. F. COLLINS: A rare occurrence, you might say.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

Under 07., there is nothing in the line for Property, Furnishings and

Equipment for this year,

whereas it was $1.5 million last year.

MR. F. COLLINS: That was a one-time funding, Ms Michael, for the purchase

of accommodations in Lab West. There were eight living quarters set up for the

RNC.

MS MICHAEL: I remember.

Thank you very much. They are all my questions at the moment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, the Auditor General provided an update on the adult custody review

performed by your department back, I think, in 2007. The Auditor General found

that the department had only implemented four of the twenty-one recommendations

as of September 2009. Can you provide us with an update now as to where we stand

with those, particularly what has been done to control the use of sick leave and

overtime?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let someone else respond to that, Mr. Parsons, but

suffice it to say, I think the Auditor General is, at this stage, satisfied with

the response of the department and corrections have virtually closed the file on

that particular issue. Paul?

MR. NOBLE: Yes, to be honest with you, Mr. Parsons, I am not sure off the

top of my head. I know that a recent response went back to the Auditor General

requesting an update. A number of those recommendations certainly are still in

progress. I think a lot of these issues, either they were subsumed by Decades of

Darkness, or were overtaken within the last year or two by the more pressing

issues identified in the Decades of Darkness review.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: When you say overtaken, does that mean they have not

been dealt with?

MR. NOBLE: No, I would not -

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think he alluded at one point, in one of his

reports, to overtime to the extent of 350 per cent or something increase.

MR. NOBLE: Yes, that probably is a reflection of the staffing levels at

many of the institutions perhaps lower than they needed to be. With Decades of

Darkness, one of the predominant themes in that review was around staffing

issues and issues of human resources and morale. There has been, for example,

over the last two budget years, an additional increase in the numbers of

correctional officers. One would anticipate, over time, to see some of those

expenditures in the areas of overtime and sick leave, for example, are

proportionally reduced.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. So where are we exactly now with the Decades of

Darkness?

MR. NOBLE: Decades of Darkness, the bulk of the recommendations have

either been implemented fully or continue to be works in progress. I think of

the seventy-odd recommendations there may be only three or four that have been

deferred to this date.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Which ones would they be? Was there some legislation

required, as I understand it?

MR. NOBLE: Yes. The act is now being reviewed internally within the

department. In fact, Dr. Carlson who was one of the consultants, as you may

recall, on the Decades of Darkness report has now been tasked with the

co-ordination of preparing a new corrections act. So, he is leading a working

group within the department to accomplish that.

There was a recommendation, as I recall, involving moving senior corrections

personnel from HMP to the Department of Justice. We have sort of reconsidered

the prudence or the wisdom of taking senior operational people out of HMP and

relocating them to the Confederation Building. We are not sure that is the

wisest move at this juncture. There were a couple of others. I am sorry; I do

not recall off the top of my head exactly what they were.

MR. F. COLLINS: There was one that I recall, the hiring of university

students to replace casual call in for hospital escorts or whatnot, but it was

not deemed to be prudent at the end of the day.

MR. NOBLE: One of the recommendations related to hiring Memorial students

to relieve classification officers at HMP - and the superintendent of prisons is

of the view, and rightly so, that there are corrections officers within the

system who have the background, the knowledge, skills and training to actually

temporarily take on the duties of classification officers. Hence, there would

not be any reason to actually go outside the corrections community to fill those

positions temporarily.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: On the HMP issue that was referred to - and the

Decades of Darkness, of course, had several comments about correctional officers

and HMPs and where it fits in our system and everything. Minister, have you

personally had any conversations or discussions with anyone at a federal level

with regard to HMP? Where are we going with that?

MR. F. COLLINS: At our last federal-provincial ministers' conference, we

made it a point to buttonhole the Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Van Loan at the

time, to get a response because there had been ongoing communication and

correspondence back and forth between ministers. We were given the impression

from Mr. Van Loan that at this point in time there was no money available for

federal prisons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think he actually made a pronouncement federally

that the feds were not going down that road with any federal pens any time soon.

MR. F. COLLINS: In fact, he suggested that with all the media coverage

that had been made prior to that meeting - you might recall all the investments

that the federal government was going to make in federal prisons. He was very

leery of the fact that they may not even have enough funds to look after their

own needs as far as federal prisons were concerned.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Rather than have an unreasonable expectation level,

should we just assume right now that this is off the radar for the foreseeable

future?

MR. F. COLLINS: I referred earlier to our discussions and planning for

our correctional institutions that we are currently engaged in and will be

engaged in for some time, considering all the options that are available to us.

I think we are proceeding on the basis of the fact that we do not have a federal

prison.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Last year in Estimates, the minister said - again on

the Labrador correctional facility - that he would be approaching the federal

government to look at a cost-shared project there as well. What is the status on

that now, on LCC?

MR. F. COLLINS: We do know that we have a major problem with overcrowding

at LCC. With respect to the status of that federal cost-sharing, we are involved

currently, as you know, with the per diem cost-sharing with the federal

government to look after federal prisoners in our system. With regard to that

particular issue you raised, Paul, do you want to respond to that?

MR. NOBLE: Yes, general overtures were made in that direction, Mr.

Parsons. Again, there appears not to be any particular appetite or reception on

the part of the federal government to move in that direction.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Has the fetal alcohol specialist for LCC been hired?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. The Aboriginal navigators for the Clarenville

facility -

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - all of those positions are filled?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I noticed my colleague raised questions

about the women and the youth detention centre for Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I

never saw any press releases on this or anything.

It was pretty significant. We had the Citizens' Representative in this

Province dealing with this, went and did a special report, filed the report, the

department made the report public, and the department committed and government

committed that they were going to build a facility. It was quite a significant

item in the media and raised in Question Period numerous times. Yet, it quietly,

I would suggest to you - not suggest, it has quietly been swept under the rug.

We would not know anything about this if the Leader of the NDP did not ask

this question this morning. How would we ever know that you had no intentions of

proceeding with this?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think, Mr. Parsons, we would eventually be making a

statement with respect to our overall planning with respect to our correctional

institutions. To consider any major expenditure at this stage of the game might

be premature with respect to our overall planning focus. That is not to say that

we are going to go in any one particular direction in any of our correctional

facilities. At this stage in the game, I think it would be premature for us to

make something one way or the other with regard to any one particular facility

because it is all in the mix now as to where we are going with regard to our

planning.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is understandable, Minister.

My concern right now is you obviously do not know where you are going at this

point, but an equally important concern is that this very important issue about

how we treat women, particularly Aboriginal women who are incarcerated, has been

quietly shelved. Did you discuss this with the Minister of Labrador Affairs or

the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs? Do you any idea, an explanation as to why

the public has not been informed of this? You are the open and accountable

government. This was a public safety issue. This was a respect issue. Is there

any reason why we have not heard from this other than picking it up through an

Estimates Committee?

MR. F. COLLINS: What I would say is that at this stage of the game we are

in the preliminary stages of planning. We are not in a position at this stage to

make any definite statement with regard to any one particular facility. To say

that we are not going to build a pre-trial detention centre in Labrador ever

would not be a prudent statement to make. We have to look at our Labrador

facilities. There are some other public buildings down there

that might be an option that we can use, but it is all in the planning and

organization and that is why no particular direction has been given at this

particular point in time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I do believe, from recalling from last

year's budget, you had allotted $300,000 for this issue. Last year, you got

$250,000. We have over a half a million dollars gone. What do we have to show

for any of this money other than the fact that you do not know where you are

going?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think the $250,000 was a figure that was spent on

planning, Mr. Parsons. I do not know where you get the half million. See,

$250,000 spent on planning and

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: There was $300,000 last year for planning; you got

$250,000 more. At what point do you decide that we are going to stop investing

in the planning if we do not know yet what we have planned?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, see, what the planning turned up was a number of

models to deal with that particular issue, the cost of which were just out of

sight. Based on the cost that came in on them, we had to go back and regroup and

look at some other ways of handling this issue.

In the meantime, a considerable expense was put into the RCMP lock-up to

improve that facility and that has improved the situation considerably up there.

It does not address the issue that was put forward two years ago.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I do not think there is any connection,

Minister, with all due respect, between what you put in the RCMP and the fact

that we had Aboriginal women in a facility that was totally inappropriate.

MR. F. COLLINS: At the same time, we did not see the prudence of spending

a significant amount of money to put a glorified lock-up in Labrador .

That was not what was required; that was not the intention. To put a stand-alone

pre-detention centre with all the bells and whistles was a figure that just was

not in the budget this year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, Minister, how much would your glorified lock-up

facility cost based on the estimates you have, as you describe it? Some people

would think it was a pretty essential facility. The Citizens' Rep certainly

thought it was, regardless of how many bells and whistles it had.

What were the estimates that you had?

MR. F. COLLINS: Let me revisit that. We looked at a number of models. The

stand-alone pre-trial detention centre would cost a significant amount of money.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: What was the figure?

MR. F. COLLINS: We were talking in excess of $15 million. To build a

lesser facility than that, we were really only talking about a glorified

lock-up, and that was not what was wanted. I am not referring to a pre-trial

detention centre in Labrador as being a glorified lock-up; that was not my

intention. The two models that were proposed - in order to get the costs down to

a reasonable cost of expenditure, then all we were talking about was a glorified

lock-up, and that was not what we were looking for.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, who is doing this analysis of our

correctional facilities? I believe you said you expect to have it concluded by

the end of this year.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, right now we are doing it internally and we will be

deciding in the next short while whether or not we need to involve more

resources to do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Based on my question so far, HMP is a pipe dream

right now. LCC - nobody is on board from the feds to say where we are going to

go. The penitentiary for women in Labrador will be just out of the realm of

possibility at the $50 million cost you referred to. A women and youth

pre-detention centre is not in the works. It sounds like we are in pretty rough

shape, isn't it, when it comes to facilities. You are still, as a department,

analyzing where we are going to go.

MR. F. COLLINS: I would suggest to you, Mr. Parsons, that it is all the

more reason why we have to sit down and plan where we are going to go.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In the meantime, what is being done to address the

issues - the concerns that were raised by the Citizens' Rep? Let's flashback

now, let's get out of the physical facility piece and what they cost. What has

the department done to address the concerns of the Aboriginal women as they were

found, dealt with, documented by the Citizens' Rep?

MR. F. COLLINS: With respect to corporate facilities, the only thing we

have done is improve the RCMP lock-up.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, moving on now, the department announced a review of probation

services after, I believe it was, murder charges were laid against a certain

individual who was supposed to be on probation in this Province. I believe the

murder actually took place outside the Province. Can you give us an update on

the review at this time, where we sit with that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, retired Provincial Court Judge William Baker has

been retained as the commissioner to do the full-scale review of probations. He

is currently engaged in that and his mandate is to do a full-scale review of all

components of the probation system and make recommendations in a timely fashion.

We would hope to have them certainly by early fall.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Pardon?

MR. F. COLLINS: We certainly hope to have them by early fall.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So, has he been given a timeline or has he just been

given an open-ended -

MR. F. COLLINS: He does not have a timeline, as I understand, but it

should not take that long. It is not a big scale operation. We anticipate he can

do that review in two or three months.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The reason I was somewhat concerned about the

deadline - of course I have asked questions here in Estimates in the House of

Assembly about the Marshall report that is supposed to come out of the Premier's

office for years. It seems like when you give one of these retired judges or

justices an open-ended mandate we do not see very much.

We have gone through the Freedom of Information for two and three years

running and I am just concerned that this important issue - if we are getting an

analysis done on facilities for penitentiaries, we are pushing out the probation

review and giving a judge an opportunity for as long as it is going to take him

to do it, surely there must be something that we can mandate here, or ask him

can you do this in six months, can you do this in four months. Otherwise, we

just seem to be pushing stuff out.

MR. F. COLLINS: With respect to the probation's review, we have had a

number of discussions with Mr. Baker and we see no reason why that review cannot

be finished in a timely fashion.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The Auditor General commented as well, I believe the

probation services did one report back in 2006, I do believe, four years ago.

The Auditor General commented on the fact that at the time your department was

asked to comply with the policies and procedures related to case management,

including risk assessment, supervision of offenders, training staff to use a

computerized database, ensuring timely input of the data and so on. At the time,

the Auditor General, of course, said that the cases were not being completed

within the required timeframe or not being done at all. Risk assessments were

being left incomplete. Offenders were not being effectively supervised. Plans

did not target relevant criminal factors. No progress reviews were being

completed. No training had been provided to staff on data management and there

was no training or user manual.

It has been four years since that happened in probation services, since you

were told that you had to do this. From what we understand, according to the

Auditor General's update in the fall, last fall, it still has not been done. Is

there an explanation for this? That is four years out.

MR. F. COLLINS: I cannot respond to that particular report, but I will

ask my official to do so in a minute.

I will say that we recognize the need for more people in probations, and this

Budget provides two extra adult probation officers: one in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay and one in Central Newfoundland, where the bulk of the problems exist. The

other official may want to respond to the question.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, I need to see the actual report that you are

referring to - the updated report. I know that there has been a lot of work done

in probations directed toward fulfillment of the Auditor General's request. I am

aware that not all of it has been done, but in terms of the details and the way

you characterize it, I would need to see the report. I guess Judge Baker, when

he gives us his report, will provide us with an update in terms of the status of

things.

We did recognize that in probations we had some resourcing issues in Central

Newfoundland and some resourcing issues in Labrador, which we sought to fill

this year without waiting for Justice Baker to finish his report.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, an Adult Alternative Justice Program was developed, after quite

extensive research, dating back to 1995 on the benefits of restorative justice.

This program was cut by your department. In fact, even the way that it was cut

seemed to be a bit, again, non-disclosing.

As I understand, it was always part of your strategic plan. All of a sudden,

we get a new strategic plan for your department last year and we just happened

to notice. Again, there was no announcement, no press release, no justification

or rationale given to the public as to why you had ceased this program, but all

of a sudden it was just cut. Why would you drop this from part of your strategic

plan after all of the research went in, after the program was being developed,

implemented, and so on?

In fact, what I found very ironic was that we were hosting in this Province a

conference on restorative justice in November and here you were - you gutted it

at the same time. Is there any explanation for this stuff?

MR. F. COLLINS: The department took an in-depth look at its programs last

fall to see where money was being spent, what programs were being successful,

and what, if any, monies could be reallocated to more effective programs. It was

the consensus of the department that the Adult Alternative Justice Program was a

program that had been on the go for a couple of years. As a matter of fact, it

was one of the first initiatives under the Poverty Reduction Strategy.

The program had not gotten off the ground. The people had not been hired;

there was one manager and one director who had been hired. The consultations had

not been done and there were no clients engaged at that point in time.

It was the collective decision of the department that the program did not

seem to be going anywhere. Our focus was on the implementation of the Decades of

Darkness recommendations. We felt that that money could be better used in

another area so we moved it to Family Justice Services because we felt there was

a better bang for our buck in doing that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, is there anything you can provide us with

other than just the verbal explanation that you were not getting the bang for

your buck? Was there any kind of analysis, or review, or study done on that that

you can show us? From what I have found is we spent $600,000 and we trained

fifty employees in this government in this Province to be able to work with this

kind of program. Again, we seem to be deciding after the fact that is not

working. Can you point us to something in particular, what justified the

department's decision to shut this down?

MR. F. COLLINS: Your information of fifty employees, I am at a loss to

know what you are talking about there.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Apparently, Minister, that is in your annual report.

We are getting that information from your 2008 annual report.

MR. BURRAGE: If you could tell me what that information is again?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The point is here we are asking about the Adult

Alternative Justice Program which we put years of research into, lots of money

into. We are to the point where we are even hosting conferences here on

restorative justice of which this was a facet. All of a sudden, you quietly,

without telling anybody, take it out of your strategic plan, issue a new

strategic plan, and do not give anybody any warning about it. Employees are, I

would think, disbursed or displaced or shifted somewhere else and the program is

quietly shut down.

Now, you brag about all the things that are good, and I am just wondering why

are you not upfront in telling the public about this stuff when you shut

something down. If you have reasons why it was shut down, it is helpful if we

are told that upfront, otherwise you are left to wonder why did this happen.

MR. BURRAGE: My question is related to the fifty employees and the

$600,000. I am trying to understand where that number came from.

MR. F. COLLINS: There were two employees hired for the program.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We will recheck the figures on that.

MR. BURRAGE: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It is in the annual report. We will check it and give

you our written explanation of where we are coming from here.

The bottom line is, I would still like your answer as to what information did

you have to justify the cessation of the program? That is the question here.

MR. F. COLLINS: I guess, Mr. Parsons, it is a matter of making the

decisions of how best to spend your dollars in the department. This was a

program that never really got on the road and we felt the money could be better

used elsewhere in Family Justice Services.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Moving along here, the issue of restraint devices,

not an earth shattering piece but we had a little media incident where some

prisoners, of course, were taken to a local hospital back some time ago and

apparently they made off with the restraint devices, or somebody did. We have

also had issues in the past year of guns being left in vehicles, incidents of

theft in our police forces, misconduct within our facilities such as drugs, the

smuggling of drugs - actually smuggling by corrections officers is the

allegation and so on.

What has the department done or doing in terms of safeguards or inventory

controls in the wake of these incidents?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will refer that question to the ADM for Public Safety.

Mr. Noble.

MR. NOBLE: In situations where there are specific incidences of

misconduct, of course, that has been addressed internally by various leaders

either within the correctional service or within the RNC. The RNC have,

certainly over the last couple of years, enhanced their internal audit

capabilities. I think the incident that you are referring to specifically, with

respect to the firearm, was not so much a situation where a gun could not be

accounted for within internal procedures, this was obviously a case of specific

misconduct which is now being dealt with through the courts.

The issue with respect to internal theft at the RNC, I do know that the Chief

of Police has recently tasked a senior commission officer within the RNC with

direct responsibility and supervision for the Property Control Centre within

Fort Townsend.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Has there been any action taken with regard to complaints that correctional

officers deliberately there was some incident I recall of an inmate who made a

comment to the media about the stolen restraints and so on. He subsequently

alleged that he had been abused by the correctional officers for doing so

tattling, I guess, or ratting on somebody. Has that incident been brought to

your attention in the institutions?

MR. NOBLE: As I recall, the incident was the subject of an internal

investigation within Corrections. I do not recall that those allegations were

substantiated as a result of that investigation. Certainly there was an issue

with respect to the restraints that went missing from the hospital room. There

is no question about that. Those restraints were not recovered.

I do not recall that the allegation of mistreatment was subsequently

substantiated.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just again, asking questions because you hear a lot

of these things in the public domain and you wonder if they are factual or a

figment of somebody's imagination.

The issue of your famous segregation unit, commonly called the hole, I guess.

There is such a beast. There is such a facility, I take it. Is it as bad as

portrayed on the Open Line shows, that it is actually a dirty, filthy place that

people get subjected to in Her Majesty's Penitentiary?

MR. NOBLE: Certainly there have been improvements to that unit as a

consequence of the attention that it gained through the consultant's review of

corrections the so-called Decades of Darkness. There have been some

infrastructure changes so that now natural light is allowed into the segregation

unit.

It is a harsh reality, of course, of corrections across the country that

there have to be secure holding areas known as segregation units for a certain

segment of the prison population. I do believe that there has been less reliance

on the segregation units in the last year or two, and perhaps more reliance on

what is called the special handling unit in its place.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I understand the Citizens' Rep is carrying out an

investigation of psychiatric services being provided at HMP. I am just wondering

if, first of all, you could confirm that. If that is indeed the case, when do

you expect him to conclude his report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I can point out, Mr. Parsons, psychiatric services are

now available to all our institutions. All six correctional institutions now

have psychiatric services. I am not sure what the number of hours is per week at

HMP but they are now available to all our institutions. That is a new initiative

following the Decades of Darkness report. In addition to the psychological

services that were already provided.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: My understanding is that the Citizens' Rep is

currently, as we speak, doing a further review, aside from the Decades of

Darkness and what was done following it; he is doing a review as we speak of

psychiatry services at HMP in particular. I am wondering if you could confirm

that is correct and when you expect to hear back from him.

MR. BURRAGE: It is Don Burrage, Mr. Parsons.

There is a review being done by the Citizens' Rep which includes, I think,

the psychiatric services. I am not sure if it is directed specifically at the

quality of medical treatment, if you will, as much as it is the facility itself

and what is available for people who have mental illnesses. I am not sure of the

full scope of it. I do not know when it will be available.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Was he asked to do this by the department or was this

an initiative of the Citizens' Rep based upon what he was hearing about HMP or

specific complaints?

MR. BURRAGE: He was not asked to do it; it is an initiative of the

Citizens' Rep. What prompted it, I do not know.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

There was an issue, a local lawyer - I cannot even pronounce his last name,

Ray Kuszelewski. That is not a very close approximation even. He spoke out in

The Telegram recently when we had issues of convicted MHAs being released

prior to what he felt was an appropriate period of time. He made a comment to

the effect that you just do not know what the rules are and you cannot predict

what the rules are in our system.

I just wonder if there has been anything looked at in your department about

that, because there was some concern in the public that maybe certain

individuals were not getting equal treatment or being treated the same as

everybody else.

MR. F. COLLINS: My recollection at the time was that when we looked into

that issue with regard to one particular MHA being released, according to the

public outcry, early, basically what the rules are - and again I will let Mr.

Noble respond to it - upon admission to the institution, every inmate is

apprised of his options with regard to his release, when he can apply for

temporary absences, when he can apply for parole, and what options are available

to him with respect to release. That particular MHA took advantage of a

particular option that was open to him and that was open to everybody else. The

only thing is, of course, that there are criteria for getting temporary releases

and certain individuals do not necessarily meet that criteria while others

would.

To expound on it further, if Mr. Noble can add to that?

MR. NOBLE: There are criteria set out in policy, and I believe the issue

was in respect of temporary absences from correctional facilities. There are

criteria set out in the policy and there are also statutory criteria which are

used to determine if and when an inmate is suitable for a temporary absence.

I should point out that those decisions are made by corrections officials and

ordinarily would be made either by the Superintendent of Prisons or by the Chief

Adult Probation Officer. The department is never consulted as a matter of

practice and there is no reason for the department to be consulted as to when

and if any given inmate is eligible for a temporary absence.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, the issue of the caribou hunt by the Quebec Innu, we have seen that

they once again participated in an illegal hunt of endangered caribou apparently

as a protest over lack of recognition, they say, from our government. Where are

we on this?

We do not seem to be getting too far when it comes to these people who can go

slaughter the caribou and we never, ever see any charges come to fruition. Why

not? Why are we not treating the Quebec Innu like we treat anyone else, or is it

a case that we think that they may actually have a right to hunt and so on?

Explain to me, if you would, why we are treating these citizens differently.

MR. F. COLLINS: The actual issue of conservation and rights to hunt lead

to other departments. I can only comment on the laying of charges.

The option taken by the government, of course, was to sit back, do

surveillance, and try to garner enough evidence to lay charges down the road, as

opposed to going in, forcing arrests, or taking on any kind of a situation that

might endanger public safety. The methods of surveillance, both from the air and

from the ground, were conducted. We anticipate or hope to have enough

significant surveillance information to be able to lay charges.

The last hunt, last spring, only one charge resulted out of that. We hope

that our surveillance methods have improved - the technology has improved. We

are anticipating that we will have more information through our surveillance

evidence to lay further charges in this latest hunt.

With regard to the issue of whether or not they have rights to hunt, the

whole conservation issue, I would refer that to my colleagues in the other

departments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I understand, Minister, I believe you made a media

comment that you would be asking for a meeting with those Innu groups.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, it is obvious that there is a need for

collaboration on this whole issue. This has to be addressed through discussions

with the Labrador Innu and the Quebec Innu. Certainly we have to come to the

table to try to bring some sensible solution to it. There is no doubt about

that. Again, the departments responsible for that would not be the Department of

Justice, although we would probably be involved to some extent. Hopefully, some

sensible conclusion can be drawn about, and I suggest the only way it can be

done is by bringing all parties to the table.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am getting mixed messages. I understand you, as the

Minister of Justice, asked for a meeting with the groups, and then I hear that

the groups are saying no, they cannot get a meeting with you the minister. Which

is it?

MR. F. COLLINS: To clarify that, at the time of the Quebec Innu hunt, I

was the lead minister in the government on talking to the media about that

particular hunt. The Minister of Natural Resources ordinarily would be the

person who is responsible. She was out of the Province, as was the Premier. Down

the road, any possible negotiations, meetings, conferences or discussions

between the various groups would be in the purview of the other departments.

I do know if the deputy minister would like to respond to that as well.

MR. BURRAGE: A request to meet has been sent to the Quebec Innu groups, I

believe, by Minister Johnson, who is responsible ultimately for conservation. To

my knowledge, a date has not been set for a meeting but I know that offers have

been made to the Quebec Innu to sit down and discuss conservation issues related

to the caribou, to share information with them as to why there are areas in

Labrador which are closed zones, to share data with them on the numbers of

animals that remain, and to try to reach an understanding that hunting in a

closed zone will ultimately lead to the eradication of that species.

So I know that because I have seen the correspondence and obviously this

stuff gets vetted through Justice requests have gone to the Quebec Innu to

meet from Minister Johnson's department, but to my knowledge there has not been

a meeting at this point.

CHAIR: Excuse me, do we want to go to other Committee members or do you

want to continue on?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions and I do have an appointment at 11:15 p.m., so

if I can ask those questions and then slip out?

CHAIR: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I just have a question with regard to the Correctional Centre for Women in

Clarenville. I know $100,000 is going into that, but I am just curious,

Minister, does the programming at the corrections centre still include a support

group for Aboriginal women; and if so, how is that funded?

MR. F. COLLINS: Could you repeat the question, Ms Michael?

MS MICHAEL: Sure. I am talking about the Correctional Centre for Women in

Clarenville. I know that money is going into that for the physical space

renovation, but I have a question with regard to programming. Is there still a

support group for Aboriginal women at the corrections centre; and if so, who

funds that support group, who funds that program?

MR. F. COLLINS: We have a contract with the Stella Burry group who is

doing a lot of work in the women's institution in Clarenville. I assume that is

the group that

MS MICHAEL: Would not the Friendship Centre be involved in the program

for Aboriginal women?

MR. F. COLLINS: Which centre?

MS MICHAEL: The Friendship Centre?

MR. BURRAGE: Ms Michael, there was funding provided for and there is a

person hired as an Aboriginal liaison that goes out to Clarenville. This is an

Aboriginal person and that is funded through the department. It was part of the

Decades of Darkness recommendation, so that support is in place.

Mr. Noble might be able to, but I cannot tell you how often she goes. I know

that that position has now been filled.

MS MICHAEL: Two questions again, one would be, of course, how often?

Two is: To whom then is she accountable? Is she just there as an individual

going out on her own or does she have a body back here that she is part of and

is accountable to?

MR. BURRAGE: I believe she reports through the Stella Burry, and we, of

course, work closely with Stella Burry in dealing with issues in Clarenville. I

am trying to recall now if the contract is with us or with Stella Burry, but I

am not sure.

MS MICHAEL: Could we get more detail on that after the fact? We do not

need to have it now, but if we could get more detail on it, I would really

appreciate it.

MR. BURRAGE: Sure. That is no problem.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

My other question has to do, Minister, with the Human Rights Code and the

work that has been done. I know that the consultations were completed, et

cetera. I am just wondering when we are going to see the results of the

consultations that took place with regard to the Human Rights Code.

MR. F. COLLINS: You are right. Extensive consultations were held, along

with a lot of other planning and gathering of information as well from

jurisdictional scanning and whatnot.

The Human Rights Code, we are currently in the drafting stage. I cannot make

a commitment to when we might see it. It is almost ready to go. It is our

intention, hopefully, to have it in this session of the House, but at this stage

of the game there is still some work to be done on it. It would not be prudent

for me to say that it will come in this session of the House, but hopefully we

could work towards that end.

MS MICHAEL: When you say this session, because you know how we have the

complication of a session and a sitting, do you mean the spring sitting?

MR. F. COLLINS: Spring session.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I cannot guarantee that.

MS MICHAEL: I understand that.

MR. F. COLLINS: There are some discussions and consideration being done

before it is available.

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I understand that. I just wanted to be clear what

exactly you meant.

My third question which is different item - I think all my other questions

that I had here have been covered in different ways. With regard to the issue

that came up this week concerning the expropriation of AbitibiBowater, was that

legal work done within the Department of Justice with regard to the

expropriation, resulting in what has been admitted by the Premier to be an

inadvertent expropriation, a mistake having been made?

MR. F. COLLINS: What is your question? What department is responsible for

the mistake? Is that what you are saying?

MS MICHAEL: My question is what department did that work? Was it done

within the Department of Justice?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let the deputy minister respond to that because

that was a collaborative affair between a number of departments.

MR. BURRAGE: There were a number of departments involved, Ms Michael, in

the preparation of the legislation for the expropriation of Abitibi. Obviously,

legislation is drafted in the Department of Justice. The schedules and so forth

attached to the legislation have to come from various departments. There were a

number of departments involved, so I do not think it would be fair to single out

any particular department as so-called responsible.

MS MICHAEL: I understand that.

Is there an attempt being made, I do not know, I am presuming the Department

of Justice would be the lead department, maybe it is not, maybe it would be

Natural Resources, but are there any estimates being pulled together with regard

to what the cost to the Province of this mistake might be down the road?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, Mr. Burrage will respond to that.

MR. BURRAGE: The responsibility - if by the cost, you are referring to

the environmental remediation costs -

MS MICHAEL: There could be legal costs as well; I am not sure.

MR. BURRAGE: Under our Environmental Protection Act, responsibility for

the environmental cleanup rests with the company or the individual who caused

the pollution. It is the polluter pays principle. So, the fact of expropriation

of the mill in and of itself does not remove Abitibi from any responsibilities

for environmental cleanup. So there is no cost, if you will, associated with

that. Whatever the costs are associated with the general environmental cleanup

of Abitibi sites across the island that would be with another department.

MS MICHAEL: Do you anticipate that there could be more legal action with

regard to this expropriation if Abitibi is saying that they will not do the

cleanup? So, it is not just the cleanup I am thinking about, it is also legal

costs.

MR. BURRAGE: There is legal action, of course, currently underway. Mr.

Parsons referred to it in the context of the CCAA proceedings where we continued

to seek a ruling to hold Abitibi responsible for the environmental costs

associated - not the cost but the environmental cleanup associated with its

former sites in Newfoundland.

That is the case with respect to all of the sites. As I mentioned before,

there is an application for leave to appeal before the Quebec Superior Court. So

that is the legal action that is currently underway.

MS MICHAEL: There was a large figure quoted with regard to legal costs

with regard to the whole AbitibiBowater issue in the takeover, et cetera, I

think of $8 million. Is there a breakdown of that $8 million, where that money

went?

MR. F. COLLINS: We do not have a breakdown present. These were JV'd - to

use the term mentioned earlier - to Natural Resources. With respect to the

actual breakdown and what it was spent on, we do not have that figure. We do not

have that at the moment.

MS MICHAEL: If it is under Natural Resources, I can seek for that

information there if you cannot get it. When we request other breakdowns of

legal costs that do not seem to be a problem, it seems to be public record

information.

MR. BURRAGE: This is Don Burrage again.

The amount of money expended in legal fees associated with it, I think it is

something we can provide -

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. BURRAGE: - obviously because we pay it out and we charge Natural

Resources back, but the overall figure that has been out there, I do not know

that we have that because it would include more than legal fees I suspect.

MS MICHAEL: Right. In terms of the legal fees, if we can have the

breakdown of where it went?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, we can provide you with the legal fees.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

That is all, Mr. Chair, for me.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Maybe just to follow up on that, Minister, a few

questions. What we are hearing now about the mistake that was made when we

accidentally ended up with a paper mill, who did the piece of work originally,

legally, to advise government of what went into Bill 75, particularly what we

were expropriating?

MR. F. COLLINS: It was a matter of a number of departments. The actual

specifics of it, again, I will get Mr. Burrage to speak to it. As he just

mentioned to Ms Michael, this was, as you all know, an activity that came about

in a hurry and was done in a compressed period of time, but a number of

departments, Natural Resources and Justice - Mr. Burrage can add more specifics

to it.

MR. BURRAGE: I can. As Mr. Parsons knows, and Ms Michael, I was part of

the briefing originally before that legislation came into the House, so I cannot

really disavow myself of it entirely. The preparation of the legislation, as I

mentioned to Ms Michael, was done through the Department of Justice in

collaboration with lands, natural resources, forestry, and I am trying to

remember who provided the information on hydro. The information that made up the

schedules attached to the legislation, the things which were being expropriated,

obviously came from various departments and the legislation itself was drafted

by the Justice Department.

As I said to Ms Michael I do not think it is fair, and I am not going to

point the finger at any particular department, including Justice, as

responsible, if you will, for the error in the expropriation. It was a

collaborative effort by a number of different departments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you explain the nature of the error just so I

understand what it is exactly we made an error on?

MR. BURRAGE: What happened was there was a piece of land expropriated

which was a former Reid lot, and contained in that Reid lot is much of the Town

of Grand Falls, including the paper mill. In the case of the Reid lots, you may

recall, the legislation expropriated those lands currently held or still owned

by Abitibi. Obviously, in the Town of Grand Falls a lot of properties have been

since sold off to third parties and the expropriation did not reach in to get

those properties, but the extent to which properties were still owned by Abitibi

as part of the Reid lots, then they were expropriated. As it turns out, this

paper mill was part of that - I forget what Reid lot number it was, but part of

a particular Reid lot.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: In terms of your comments about cost of the cleanup,

just educate me here because my understanding of the bankruptcy court action,

which you are now seeking leave to appeal, was that our Minister of Environment

issued certain statutory orders to Abitibi and said: We want you to give us your

plan of how you are going to remediate the damages that you have caused.

The comments of the judge in the case - because I have read them - were: Why

did it take you so long to do that, number one? Number two: You have not given

me very good evidence to suggest the nature of the cleanup anyway. I think there

were a few media reports or something filed initially with the court case. The

judge made this comment about this is preposterous - he used the word

preposterous. You are suggesting that you go in, you take somebody's property

from them and then you issue an order to them saying: Tell me what you are going

to do now to clean up the property that you no longer own that I just took away

from you.

It is just rational thought it would seem to me, that he is not half wrong in

the common sense piece of it. What do you see as grounds of appeal to that?

Where did he error in this situation?

MR. BURRAGE: Obviously, I do not want to argue the appeal here. I do not

think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the judge's remarks, but the

application for leave to appeal is a public document and there would be no

difficulty in providing a copy of that if you do not have it already. That lays

out the grounds for appeal. Suffice to say there are allegations of error of

law, errors of fact and so forth. Rather than going through it, if you wanted a

copy of the application for leave to appeal that is a public document.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That would be great if we could have a copy of that.

Is it a correct statement that if you are denied leave to appeal, which means

we are left with the judge's decision as rendered, are we then in a situation

where we are not going to be able, as a Province, in any way, shape or form

force Abitibi to clean up? I will just leave it at that.

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think we can prejudge the outcome of the appeal.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, I am not suggesting we prejudge the appeal.

What I am saying is are we in a situation whereby if we are not allowed to get

to that stage and we are stuck with the judge's decisions as rendered and

comments, are we in a position as a Province that we are not going to be able to

recover and force Abitibi to do the environmental cleanups that we had hoped to?

MR. BURRAGE: It is Don Burrage again, Mr. Parsons.

I do not think, from my perspective at least, I would want to speculate on

whether or not there are other avenues that might be available in advance of the

application for leave to appeal. I do not think it would be prudent to do that.

To say that there are no other avenues, I would not want to go down that road at

this stage legally.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Can you explain to me the comment that the judge made

in his decision when he talked about well, he made his decision that we are

not going to give the Province priority status vis--vis other creditors. In

fact, I believe he used the word at one point that what the Province had done

was disingenuous, the way they went about it.

There was also a comment there about we were out of time in the other normal

procedure that you would take under the bankruptcy law. What did he mean by

that? Did we miss timelines here?

MR. BURRAGE: There was a deadline set for filing claims in the CCAA and

these would be monetary claims against Abitibi. The Province did not file a

claim in the CCAA process prior to that. That was not an accident.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, so what type of claim

MR. BURRAGE: That is the deadline I think that he is referring to. I

think he also says in his decision he opens up the possibility if the Province

wished to, in light of his judgment, seek an extension of that time, that the

Province could do so. Of course, what we are doing is we are seeking leave to

appeal his ruling.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You use the word monetary claims, the ordinary

monetary claims that you would file against Abitibi; would they be inclusive of

environmental cleanup costs?

MR. BURRAGE: They could be. There is a distinction in the CCAA process,

as you know because you have read the decision, between regulatory orders and

claims of creditors. The essence of that particular case, the judge concluded

that he felt that it was in essence a creditor claim as opposed to a regulatory

one that the Province was making. That was his decision. That is, as you know,

under leave to appeal.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will just take this a step further now. If he has

ruled that it is a regulatory claim, therefore it did not fit to give us a

priority, we are now seeking leave to appeal that.

MR. BURRAGE: No, he ruled that it was not a regulatory action. He felt

that in essence the Province's action was non-regulatory, and we take issue with

that, which is why we sought leave to appeal.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: So if we do not get leave to appeal, and we are out

of time, unless we get an extension on doing it through monetary claim route

that you would normally file, what off the cuff other possibilities and options

do we have?

MR. BURRAGE: I do not want to get into the legalities, especially off the

cuff, of what other options might be available at this time. It would not be

prudent to do that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am pleased to hear your comments that this was done

in a very rushed circumstance and a hurried circumstance. I am not sure if was

yourself or the minister who alluded to how these briefings took place, because

the Premier seems to suggest in media pronouncements that maybe the Opposition

in some way, shape or form should have found this mistake that was made. We

would not have had a paper mill if we had been on the ball. I guess there are a

lot of people in a lot of departments who missed the boat here. So I am very

pleased to hear your comments that it just was not an inobservant Opposition who

did not pick up on that.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, I did not say that. I am just a simple

bureaucrat. What I said was that there were a number of departments involved in

drafting and preparing the legislation.

MR. F. COLLINS: It was my comment, Mr. Parsons, that this activity was

done in a compressed timeframe.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right. I was not sure which one of you it

was, but putting two of it together, your comments and the deputy minister's

comments as to how many parties were in this, and all I am suggesting is that

sometimes even the Premier makes statements that are of a political nature,

shall we say, as opposed to factual.

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think the Premier's statement in any way

contradicted that.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Anyway, what are the options, Minister, that we have

now that we have made the mistake? Now that we have made the mistake and we

ended up with a paper mill, which we obviously did not want to own in the first

place, what options do we have? Are we going to look to sell it? Are we going to

look to operate it? Are we going to clean it up? What is the latest?

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think it would be the purview of the Department

of Justice to answer that question, Mr. Parsons. The Department of Justice was

involved in the legal transactions to begin with. In regard to the future and

the ownership of that mill, I do not think that it is the purview of this

department to respond to that question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, can you tell me when the error first came to

the attention of the Department of Justice, the time? When was it you first knew

that an error had been made?

MR. BURRAGE: It is Don Burrage again, Mr. Parsons.

I am trying to recall exactly when it was. It was sometime I think during the

summer. We had retained a searcher to look at the Reid lot and to ascertain the

various properties and so forth. That is when it was brought to our attention,

but I cannot recall exactly when that was.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Correct me if I am wrong here. Bill 75 went through

this House in December 2008, as you say, in expedited circumstances. The

Opposition even gave leave to do three sections in one day based upon the

information we had been given. So you are saying this error came to light in the

following summer of 2009?

MR. BURRAGE: I would have to go back and check my records. I can

certainly do that. I do not recall exactly when. I recall how. It was when we

were actually looking at an engaged search service to go in and to define more

discreetly the properties that were contained in the various Reid lots.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: If you would verify for us, because I think that is

very important in the public realm as to when this information first came to the

attention of government that there had been a mistake made.

My recall of when the public first became aware of a mistake was February

2010. There was a press release that came out of government that said we own a

paper mill, or we have taken over a paper mill. So I just need to verify that we

have had somewhere, six or seven months, that this is government knowledge, that

the public does not have any knowledge of the fact that we have made this error.

MR. BURRAGE: I would need to go back and check. I cannot say at this

stage.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I take it then that there would have been a little

bit of to and fro from the Abitibi officials and government officials before we

ended up with a government release in February 2010 saying we now own a paper

mill.

MR. BURRAGE: I cannot comment, just from lack of knowledge. I was not

privy to any discussions with Abitibi, myself, during that period. So I do not

know.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A couple of other issues now, Minister. There was a

report done, and I am wondering if you could confirm this. We receive a report a

copy of a report that was done internally by your department on the Provincial

Court. It talked about they wanted increased administrative independence and so

on. I am just wondering if you could verify that there was such an internal

report done.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, at this stage the person there are always ongoing

discussions with the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court with regard to

structure and organization and whatnot. These discussions are ongoing. I do not

think it would be prudent for me to comment publicly on where they are at this

point in time. There are discussions ongoing with the Provincial Court and

Supreme Court all the time with respect to judges come forth with proposals

and plans and these are being discussed with officials of the Supreme Court all

the time.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not referring, Minister, to ongoing discussions,

whether they are operational or otherwise. I am referring here to the existence

of a report that was specifically done by a consultant for the Department of

Justice that dealt, in particular, with some infrastructure and security

deficits that existed within the Provincial Court structure. As a result of that

report, there was a request - either it was a recommendation by the consultant

or a request by the Provincial Court that they would have increased

administrative independence, and that report was rejected by your department.

MR. F. COLLINS: I think you are referring to

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This is more than a to-fro discussion between your

department and the Provincial Court, this is a live document.

MR. F. COLLINS: Are you referring to the Norris Report? Is that the

report you are referring to?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not personally aware of the name (inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: That is the only report that comes to mind. The Norris

Report was a report that was commissioned by the Supreme Court. It was

commissioned by the Supreme Court and for the Supreme Court by a private

consultant who suggested a number of organizational changes and proposals with

regard to the court structure and court organization.

That was a report that was commissioned by the courts, not by the department.

The department basically did not accept a lot of the recommendations in the

report. The report rests with the court and not with the department. I think

that is the report you are referring to.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there any way we can access a copy of that report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I understood you already had it because your leader made

some comments in the media with respect to that report. She made comments

directly related to some of the provisions of the report, so I assume that she

had read it or had it.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I can assure you, Minister, we probably have the

brown paper version of it. I am just wondering are you prepared, now that we all

know about the existence of the Norris Report, can we have a copy of the Norris

Report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I would suggest you would have to approach the court for

that report because they commissioned it. It is not ours to release. That would

be in the privy of the Supreme Court who requested it and commissioned it in the

first place.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister Marshall last year there was money in the

budget about a pre-design for a new court facility in St. John's. I am just

wondering if you can give me an update on the status of that at this time.

MR. F. COLLINS: There has been a considerable amount of planning and

looking at various options for the reconfiguration of the whole court precinct

in St. John's. There is one study, in particular, that is ongoing with respect

to what options are available with respect to the reconfiguration of our court

system.

As you are aware, the Provincial Court in Atlantic Place is less than

desirable given the physical facilities down there. The Trial Division, the old

courthouse has some challenges as does the Court of Appeal. So there is ongoing

planning and deliberation with respect to possible configurations for a

potential new court precinct for the city.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Did we spend any money to date, Minister? What has

been spent to date?

MS JACOBS: Mr. Parsons, this is Heather Jacobs.

We spent $250,000 on an option study.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Have we determined based on that a preferred option

or what our options are for a new court facility?

MS JACOBS: Not at this time, Mr. Parsons.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is there money in the budget this year for further

design or study?

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not think so, no. That was a one-time spending this

year.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Is that options report subject to release?

MR. F. COLLINS: I would not think as of yet because it is still being

analyzed between the courts and the department.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We did have a commitment from your government, of

course, that all reports that were done would be released within sixty days, I

think, of whatever. So how long ago did you get the report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am not sure of that. The revised edition was recently.

MS JACOBS: Mr. Parsons, we received it, I would say, the last week of

March.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Your answer regarding the release, will we, within the committed timelines of

government, receive a copy of the report?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think that is a stated policy of the government, Mr.

Parsons, so it is safe to assume that you will.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just some issues that have been kicking around for

some time now. Last year during a Private Members' Day in the House of Assembly,

the Opposition moved a motion with regard to changing the laws on pain and

suffering compensation and the Survival of Actions Act, which the motion was

unanimously agreed to and supported by government. The Minister of Justice at

the time agreed to take this back to the Department of Justice and see that the

appropriate amendments were brought forth.

I am wondering if you could tell us the status of this and if we are likely

to see this during this legislative session.

MR. F. COLLINS: That work is well underway and had been under review, in

fact, prior to the private member's motion. Again, the draft bill is in the

stage that we hope that we can present at this sitting of the House, and we

fully anticipate that it will be. Again, there are some final considerations, as

always with these bills, to get final approval before they come to the House.

I gave notice in the House of a couple of bills and I am almost sure that one

of them was the Fatal Accidents Act amendments.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Usually we do not get them just based on

notice; we do not get them until you do first reading of them. So they have not

been circulated yet, I would think.

That would be the one you are referring to because it was the Survival of

Actions Act

MR. F. COLLINS: I gave notice of motion yesterday and I am almost sure

that it was the Fatal Accidents Act, or it might have been the Small Claims

Act.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The one I heard yesterday was the Small Claims Act,

but I understand that we require amendments to the Survival of Actions Act and

the Fatal Accidents.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Fatal Accidents Act is being revised and hopefully

will be presented to this House in this session.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, as I said, there is final consideration, as

always, to have these things approved. While we would hope to have it here, that

would depend upon on some considerations

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The other issue on legislative changes - a Mr. Brent

Rockwood has been quite vocal in the request, at least, to allow people to

represent themselves. You cannot, in this Province, apparently, represent

yourself at certain levels of court. He has come forward, he has made

representation and we have made representation on his behalf.

We have had letters back from the former minister saying that the bottom line

is if you are incorporated, you might be running a business, but you might be

incorporated, you are the sole shareholder, or you are the sole director, and

yet when your company gets into some issue, you cannot go to court to speak out

for your company. You have to go get a lawyer and possibly, no doubt, cost you

thousands of dollars. Where are we on that request to do that?

MR. F. COLLINS: The position of the department on the issue of having

sole proprietor corporations being represented by the shareholder or director,

the department's decision has been that we will be staying with the status quo.

We will not be changing the regulations to allow individual shareholders or

directors to represent a corporation.

As you are aware, the Law Society Act states that only a lawyer can a

person can represent himself, but not anybody else. The Corporations Act or the

rules of the court act says the corporation has to be represented by a lawyer.

Now it might be in reverse, I am not sure. When we looked at all the

considerations, we checked with the Law Society and we did some jurisdictional

scanning, and had a lot of discussion on that. It was a big issue. Everybody in

government, on both sides of the House, is aware of Mr. Rockwood, because has

had e-mails on the go for a long, long time. Our position at the end of the day

was that we will not be changing the legislation to accommodate.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Minister, you do not consider it ironic that we are

going to be the only province in Canada that does not allow that?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, be that as it may, our position is to stay as it

is.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Would it be fair to ask if that decision was reached

after did the Law Society speak out against it?

MR. F. COLLINS: We had the Law Society recommendations, and the Law

Society recommendation would be against it, yes. They were