May 6, 2003 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

CHAIR (Ms Kelly): Order, please!

(Inaudible) start right in on this last Estimates Committee for the year. I

would just like to welcome everybody here this morning. We will start by

introducing the members of the Committee. Then we will move right on to the

minister and the introduction of your officials, and then to your opening

remarks.

My name is Sandra Kelly and I am the Chair of this Committee.

Mr. Vice-Chair, if you would like to start your introduction, please.

MR. MANNING: Fabian Manning, MHA for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. HEDDERSON: Tom Hedderson, MHA for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Kevin Aylward, MHA for St. George's-Stephenville East.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA for the District of Port de Grave.

CHAIR: And to you, Mr. Minister.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. Good Morning, Madam Chair.

First of all I would like to introduce the officials with me this morning. My

name is Kelvin Parsons, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. On my

immediate left is John Cummings, the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy

Attorney General. On my immediate right is Ralph Alcock. Ralph is the ADM,

Public Protection and Support Services. On Ralph's right is Chris Curran,

Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Civil. Back here on my far right is Calvin

Lake, the ADM Senior Legislative Counsel. Next here, over my right shoulder, is

Tom Mills, the Director of Public Prosecutions. Next we have Theresa Heffernan.

Theresa is the Manager of Financial Operations. Over my left shoulder is Mr. Don

Burrage, the Director of Civil Litigation. So, that is the crew. I did not

realize we were the last department to be reporting to you but it is, indeed, a

pleasure to be here.

The only opening remarks I would make vis--vis the general commentary that

might apply to a lot of the categories in these Estimates for the Department of

Justice would be with respect to the vast majority of differences you see here

between what was budgeted and what ultimately became the revised figures. Much

of it had to do with the 5 per cent figures regarding salary and operations. I

understand in most departments there was supposed to be a 5 per cent reduction

in salaries and an 8 per cent reduction in operations,

whereas in the Department

of Justice it was five and five. I would point out that most of the differences

you see were simply because the Department of Justice could not reach the 5 per

cent reduction target that had been set, and the reason for that is quite

obvious for anyone who works within the justice system. I believe the other

department that did not have the 8 per cent target on operation was also Works,

Services and Transportation.

In Justice, for example, you have many places where you cannot cut your

salaries because the services are essential. For example, Crown attorneys, you

cannot lessen your Crown attorney salary bill. If you need ten Crown attorneys

throughout the Province, you need ten. It is the same with corrections officers.

For example, if you have a number of youth or adults who are incarcerated you

have to provide the corrections officers. Regardless of how well intentioned

your targets might be, you are dictated by the caseload as opposed to what you

would like to have. Of course safety and security become issues in those cases

and there are certain legal mandatory requirements below which you cannot go.

Policing is another example. You might wish you could save 5 per cent on your

salary for policing, but as much as you might wish, sometimes it is all for

naught because you just cannot get there because safety and security issues are

a concern. As are sheriffs, for example.

Probably the best example would be Provincial Court Judges. You can be

mandated to have a 5 per cent salary reduction in Provincial Court Judges but

the fact is, by law, we have twenty-four of them. Regardless if they have five

cases a day or 500 cases a day, those judges get paid their salaries by law and

you simply cannot waiver their salaries.

So those would be my only opening comments. It keeps cropping up here. Mostly

in the salary headings you will see these discrepancies. So I thought it is

better to give the general overview of why that would have occurred in the first

instance. Any questions you might have, we would be pleased to answer and

provide any information we can.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you.

We will move right to the first subheading.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a few opening questions, Mr. Minister, on policing. Over the past number

of years there has been some concern with the amount of policing. We have heard

concerns raised by the Town of CBS, as an example. Others have raised the

concern - well that is the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Others have raised

the concern of the RCMP, or the lack thereof, on our highways

and highway patrol. I was just wondering if you could give us some

elaboration on exactly where it stands today? Are there any improvements being

contemplated by the department in relation to providing more policing in these

respective areas?

MR. PARSONS: We have two police forces in the Province, as you know, the

RNC and the RCMP. The RNC do Corner Brook, Labrador West, and the Northeast

Avalon, with the RCMP during the balance. We had, as of last year, about - in

terms of staff at least - 304, 305 RNC officers in the Province and we had about

415 RCMP in the Province.

In addition to the 415 that we have contracted with the RCMP, of course, the

National RCMP have other federal officers of the RCMP that are in the Province

that do not come under our contract with them. Yes, there has been a lot of

strain. In particular, the capital city region when it comes to additional

police officers being requested. The RNCA were quite vocal in their concerns as

well and did several public forums throughout the Province. We realize and we

would like to have more police officers than we have and I think we have made

some major strives this year towards that goal.

For example, there has been additional funding put into this budget to have

fifteen new permanent RNC positions. So that will go a long ways. We used to

have about 360-370 in the Province back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and that

has declined. We are hoping to get back, eventually, to where we need to be

because we also have in the Northeast Avalon, besides the reduction in the

numbers that we have had in the past ten years, we are getting an increase in

population in the Northeast Avalon. So it would make sense to have to put more

bodies back in. That is the goal. This year we have made the first major,

positive step by getting these fifteen new permanent officers back in the

system.

In addition to that, we also have a commitment that we will fill vacancies.

What happened before was not the case of laying off any RNC workers but what

happened, because of budgetary restraint, was you did not fill vacancies. It

came from about 360-370 over the course of ten to twelve years down to the

current 304-305 because vacancies were not filled. We have changed that policy.

As vacancies occur now we will be refilling vacancies, plus we will put back in

the additional fifteen. That will go a long ways towards, hopefully, starting on

a road to recovery with the number of staff that we need.

MR. MANNING: These fifteen new permanent positions, some of these were

already in the system? Would that be right?

MR. PARSONS: Some of the bodies may well stay in that fifteen. What we

had last year was - because of the need again, we made an urgent plea to have

some additional bodies for the summer months. We had a situation where - if you

are understaffed of course, you run into problems when it comes to people who

want annual leave. There were cases of stress and people were taking sick leave.

So we needed the extra bodies, particularly last summer.

When the end of the summer came we made an additional plea to keep these

people on. These were temporary positions and we had gotten additional funding.

In fact, one of the special warrants, for example, came about as a result of

needing additional funding to keep them on. We knew where we wanted to go, but

until the budgetary process played out, we did not know if we were going to get

there or not. So we kept those nine on last summer. We extended them into

January 1. Then we got an extension to take them into March 31, because we knew

where we were headed and wanted to get fifteen new bodies.

The budget, of course, does provide for the fifteen new bodies. Of those

fifteen, we anticipate that the nine who were there previously as temporaries

will indeed apply. If they are successful and pass all the necessary grades,

which we would assume they will since they have already been officers, they will

become nine of those fifteen. Now we are not just advertising for the fifteen.

There may well, in fact, be more than fifteen because there are some vacancies

left. So we expect the nine that were there as temporaries will become

permanents. The other six, up to our fifteen permanents that we are going to

have, will be hired, plus any vacancies that exist there since that policy

started. So we are looking at probably eighteen coming in the system in a very

short order.

MR. MANNING: Another topic which I deal with several times during the

year - legal aid. Sometimes there seems to be some discrepancies in who can

avail of it and who cannot. Can you give us some explanation, or some

clarification may be a better word, on the legal aid process, for the record, in

regard to anybody who requires - I know why a person would attempt to obtain

legal aid, but in relation to the financial side of it.

MR. PARSONS: Right now, the legal aid system is basically used in

Newfoundland. It is a criminal based system. If somebody is charged with a

criminal offence, you go and get legal aid depending upon a financial needs

test. They have a formula that they use, based upon your income and your

expenses. If you meet a certain range, you do or do not qualify under the Legal

Aid Commission.

That is not government who decides the criteria, for example, and administers

the criteria. That is done by the Legal Aid Commission. They have their own

chair and their own body made up of people from around the Province. They have

legal representatives on it, lawyers. The chair, I believe, right now, is

actually Nick Avis, and they have a number of people from around the Province,

so many lawyers and so many lay persons.

If a person is dissatisfied with a decision that is made, there are appeal

mechanisms in place where you can appeal your decision to see if you can indeed

get legal aid. It is principally for criminal type situations, but we do have

some legal aid lawyers for some family type situations in some cases. If there

has been one party, for example, who comes in with a lawyer, there have been

cases where legal aid have agreed to appoint a lawyer for civil purposes - but,

again, based upon need as being the means test. That is how it operates,

principally for criminal.

The problem again with legal aid is the money. We have had a case over the

last number of years - I have mentioned this in all of the Estimates Committees

I have attended in Justice - we have a downsizing or a down contribution by the

federal government as to what they put into legal aid. Their contributions have

declined drastically. I think they have gone from somewhere like $3 million a

year contribution down to about $1.6 million a year.

WITNESS: From 90 per cent to 39 per cent.

MR. PARSONS: From 90 per cent contribution by the feds to 39 per cent

contribution. What happens, of course, is we, as a Province, have to make up the

difference. That is why it straps us, because the feds, like many things, have

downloaded - they make the laws. The federal government makes the criminal law.

We, as a Province, administer it, and you would think that they would do their

share when it comes to putting their money in the pot, but they have backed out

to the tune of, from 90 per cent to 39 per cent. We are left picking up the

slack here.

MR. MANNING: So, in regard to civil action, legal aid not necessarily can

be obtained for that?

MR. PARSONS: No, if you have a civil problem with your neighbour, for

example, over something, that is a matter between your and your neighbour. That

is a civil matter and you would not qualify for legal aid on it.

MR. MANNING: Okay, most of the legal aid funding - well, not most of it -

pretty well all of it, is spent on criminal -

MR. PARSONS: Criminal, unless there is some family law initiatives where

a child might be involved or there may be a custody access issue or a violence

issue, in which case legal aid would step in and help out.

MR. MANNING: The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner falls under your

department also. Have there been any, I guess, questions raised to you in regard

to - again, it is like everything else, it is at different times of the year -

not being enough staff there, things being delayed because of not having enough

staff to deal with that?

MR. PARSONS: No, not that we are aware of. Doctor Simon Avis is the

Province's Chief Medical Examiner. We have certainly had no indication that

there has been insufficient staff of any kind or of anything. In fact, the only

compliments we have had have been to the contrary, that it is a very efficiently

run system.

MR. MANNING: Last year, on salaries, as an example, the budgeted amount

was $168,900 and it went to $198,600, a $30,000 increase. I was just wondering,

why was that? Was it overtime or was it...?

MR. PARSONS: No. What happened there, in that department there was a

reclassification of a administrative officer, and also the pay equity

adjustment, so that is where that money -

MR. MANNING: Again, under the same subhead, 2.3.03.05. Professional

Services, there is a $10,000 increase. It went from $130,000 to $140,000 but we

are back to a budgeted amount of $130,000 this year. I am just wondering, can

you -

MR. PARSONS: Again, it depends upon the nature of the cases that the

medical examiner is involved in. For example, if he needs an additional

pathologist for any reason, if he wants to get a second opinion, that is his

prerogative to do, as the Chief Medical Examiner for the Province. Or if he, for

example, cannot get out to Labrador or over to Corner Brook or whatever for some

reason, he can in those cases hire a local doctor out there rather than incur

the expense of himself to go out and back; or, if he is busy here with an

autopsy he can hire a medical examiner in Corner Brook, a pathologist there, to

do an autopsy. That is pretty commonplace. Of course, those doctors would charge

for the services that they would render. That would be considered a purchased

service.

MR. MANNING: Just below that now, you mentioned purchased service, you

went from $132,000 down to $90,000 which is a $42,000 saving. Again, your

professional services increased and purchased services decreased by $40,000.

MR. PARSONS: I think I said in my last response that if you had a medical

examiner, it would be a purchased service. Actually, it is a professional

service. In case of purchased services, again, it may be, for example, you may

in any given year have to transport ten bodies from outside of St. John's

because the Chief Medical Examiner operates here. He does not normally go to the

site; they would be brought here and done at the Health Sciences. If you, in

this year, have ten bodies that are transported in, there is one cost;

whereas

next year, if you have two bodies that end up being transported in, your

purchased services could indeed be down. It depends upon the nature of where the

event takes place and how many bodies in any given year, and investigations that

he would be involved in.

MR. MANNING: Is there a time limit from the time a person arrives at the

hospital here until the examination takes place?

MR. PARSONS: I will leave that to the DPP, who probably is more familiar

with it.

MR. MILLS: I really would not know. I only know in relation to criminal

matters, and we have very few autopsies in relation to criminal matters because

that would relate to homicides and I could not speak to it otherwise.

MR. MANNING: I have been told that at times maybe a body would arrive on

Friday or Saturday and not be looked at until Monday.

MR. PARSONS: Again, there are obviously medical reasons why it must be

done, I guess, within a certain period of time. There are laws set down which

govern; you cannot leave it there forever. There is obviously - doing it in a

timely manner, but we certainly have never had any indication in this Province

that there have been any untoward delays or any delays whatsoever. Occasion by

our medical examiner or a replacement not being available, some replacement

pathologist, we have certainly had no indications of that here.

MR. MANNING: I am going to pass it over to my colleague for now, and

reserve the right to come back.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you.

Just to go through some of the headings, Fines Administration, heading

1.3.01.-

MR. PARSONS: What page?

MR. HEDDERSON: Page 203.

Just under that, Minister, obviously you have increased the salaries of - I

do not know if that is through equity or whatever. I do not know if you have

added or what. Just me a general sense, with the Fines Administration, how

successful are we in collecting, in the general sense, what is outstanding, just

where we stand on it?

MR. PARSONS: Right now in the Province there is about $27.7 million

outstanding in fines. That is broken down to $20.9 million, which would be owed

to the Province, and about $4.3 million, which would be owed to the federal

government - if it is a fisheries act conviction, for example, a fine would go

to the federal government - and other third parties. For example, the City of

St. John's, Memorial University and hospitals around the Province collect

fines but they go through our court system. We have a system whereby we do the

collections through our system. That is about $2.4 million, so that gives you a

total of $27.7 million.

In the last couple of years we have had a number of initiatives to try to

improve the collection rate. There is a whole host of reasons why people do not

pay. Some people just do not pay. Other times, there have been appeals launched

and the matter is held up in the system for years. Other times, people just die.

Other times, people just leave the Province. Out-migration, I guess, impacts in

more ways than one. If some of those migrants have a fine outstanding, they tend

not to pay them sometimes when they leave the Province.

We have done a number of things to try to correct that, like non-renewal of

your driver's licence or your vehicle permit is one way to try to do it; late

payment penalties is another portion of that. We put a system in place last year

or the year before where we actually do make the outstanding fines become a lien

against your property. If you have a fine that is outstanding, you may not pay

it now but we have taken it from our fine system and through our Supreme Court

process, we made it an attachment to your home. So, eventually, if your home is

sold we will get our money, unlike before.

We have taken a number of these initiatives, but the main or most positive

way it seems to collect fines, I guess, is to have someone calling you, being

insistent that you pay, and staying after the debtor. So that is why you see the

major increase there under the heading 1.3.01.01. Salaries. That is a new

initiative this year, to hire two more collections officers and a clerk for the

fines collection project, because every time we have boosted up the attention,

shall we say, to the delinquent files, we get a good positive response.

Last year, for example, we collected $7.3 million in fines, which is about

$800,000 better than we did in the previous year. So, we are seeing results for

the work that we are putting into this, and it makes good sense, I think, to put

a few additional resources in to extract a return on the thing. That is

basically our Fines Administration in a nutshell.

MR. HEDDERSON: With regard to the revenue that is generated, like the fed

money, do we get anything in return from that?

MR. PARSONS: No, I think we get a portion on the actual collection costs.

WITNESS: Seven dollar fee.

MR. PARSONS: Seven dollar administrative fee. Other than that, it goes

directly back to the feds.

MR. HEDDERSON: The same way with provincial revenue, does that come back

into your coffers or does it just go into the general coffers?

MR. PARSONS: Provincial comes back into general coffers.

MR. HEDDERSON: There is an incentive obviously, but there is nothing that

comes back directly to the police force or -

MR. PARSONS: Justice would love to get a collection fee for justice.

MR. HEDDERSON: No, I am just fishing here. I certainly would be

supportive of that, Minister.

On page 204, Civil Law, 2.1.01. Again, Minister, I am just highlighting some

of the areas just to get a general sense. Obviously, you represent the

government in court on any number of issues. Right now, how many are carried

over from last year, and what can we anticipate this year?

MR. PARSONS: Cases?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: It varies. We could have anywhere from 300 to 400 cases

active at any given time in the run of a year. So many of those would be settled

and so many of them would be decided by the courts. For those that you settle or

get finished and concluded, of course, come off your list. You always have so

many more cases that get started. So it is an ongoing process. It varies from

year to year, depending upon what (inaudible) situations arise in any given

year, but it is in the 300 to 400 range that could be active.

MR. HEDDERSON: The budgeted amounts indicate that there is no

anticipation of a spike or a decrease?

MR. PARSONS: No, you try to anticipate, but I guess the best made plans

(inaudible) of everyone it does not work out sometimes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Page 205, heading 2.1.03., Support Enforcement. Minister,

we get a number of calls on these sorts of things. I think you are working

through - is it through Corner Brook?

MR. PARSONS: Corner Brook.

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, right. I am again looking at it, and I know there is

a little spike there, a little increase. Again, just give me a general sense, if

you could, as to how we are doing with this? I get the calls, of course, of

non-support payments or payments not coming.

MR. PARSONS: You are talking in salaries issued here?

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, basically, just as a general sense. Again, there is

an increase. For example, just to go down to the totals: $767,000, basically

$369,000 and ended up $821,000 and we have some federal money coming in. I

notice that there is a spike in the federal revenue coming in, one-point

something. Could you explain those to me?

MR. PARSONS: Are we on the same - last year, okay.

MR. HEDDERSON: The bottom line seems to be okay right across, but I am

just looking at the federal revenue. Is there any reason why there is a spike

there?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, underneath our salaries one, for example, where you go

from $901,000 to $1 million - right there in that one - that is, again, federal

funding that we get to go into our family justice services - formerly known as

the child support guidelines thing. What seems to be happening is there are any

number of new programs that might come on from year to year. What happens quite

often is if we see an opportunity to access some federal funds, then we take

advantage of it. That is another issue that was raised in the special warrants,

for example. Questions got asked as to: Why would Justice, for example, in the

middle of the year be asking for more money for support enforcement? Well, the

way the system works is we may find out in September that the feds have a

program, but we cannot get our money unless we spend the money.

What happens is, even though it is not in our budget, we have to go spend it

(inaudible) sometimes you need a special warrant for, but we are getting it back

on a 100 per cent basis. So, that is why you can see jumps like this, and that

varies every year, depending upon the programming that the feds might be engaged

in at any given time and it varies sometimes depending upon how good they want

to be to us and how successful we are in lobbying them. Likewise, you will see

sometimes there are drastic drops. The reason is that programs have ended. We

had the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, for example, that has been on the go for

the last couple of years. We were getting federal funding coming in for getting

geared up for that, but now that it is supposed to be here and done, and we are

supposed to have everybody trained, you will see in the budgets that those

figures drop off drastically because it is supposed to have been done.

MR. HEDDERSON: The next section, Freedom of Information. Of course, just

following up on some discussion we had last year - because one of the big things

about the Freedom of Information was setting up and allowing, I guess, some

order to the requests that would be coming in for records that were probably

twenty, thirty years old.

I see the little spike there in Salaries, up to $105,000, but overall the

bottom line seems to be pretty even right across. What I am asking, minister, is

there a handle on the records so that - do you know what I mean - everything is

flowing smoothly? What kind of speed bumps have you gotten over? Is there

anything in the future that we could see which would interfere with the smooth -

MR. PARSONS: First of all, to distinguish between our role in the Freedom

of Information versus the role of the Commissioner. He, of course, has his

funding from the House of Assembly.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. So this is not reflective here at all?

MR. PARSONS: Not at all. This year only reflects because all departments

of government had Freedom of Information coordinated through the Department of

Justice. This is one Department of Justice that is taking the seventeen,

eighteen departments in government and coordinating everything so that we can

have a reasonable flow of information because if someone makes a request of

Municipal Affairs, for example, we want to know. Somebody has to coordinate it

so that you try to make sure the timelines that are in the Freedom of

Information Act get complied with all the time, because you never know, where

the system is so big and includes so many, it could very well get lost. It does

not reflect well on government if somebody says: Oh, I forgot to do it. The hope

is to have it properly coordinated so that you can meet these timelines.

Last year, again, being the implementation year, we had an extra contractual

position to help. We contracted an extra body to give us some help to get that

done.

MR. HEDDERSON: So everything is settled then? I guess you have answered

my question, saying that everything is smooth here.

On page 206, heading 2.3.02., which is the Commissions of Inquiry. Just to

explain, the budget last year was $1.4 million and changed to - looking at

$650,000 and now it is up to $2,201,000. What is in the works this year,

minister?

MR. PARSONS: First of all, the $1.4 million last year dealt with the Reid

inquiries, the Power inquiry, and the North Atlantic Refinery Limited inquiry.

We had three judicial inquiries on the go. The Reid and Power inquiries have

concluded to the point where submissions have been made. Judge Luther is now

doing his written submissions. We expect to have that some time this fall, and

certainly before the end of the year. There will not be any further expenditures

on those inquiries from a counsel cost. The counsel are all finished. Everybody

who had counsel have made their submissions and the case has concluded. The

North Atlantic Refinery one is still ongoing. So there will be some continuing

costs there as well.

The biggest cost, the spike really, for the $2.2 million for the coming year

is going to be the Lamer inquiry. We appointed former Chief Justice Lamer of the

Supreme Court of Canada to be the commissioner for our inquiry regarding the

Parsons, the Dalton and the Druken matters. We anticipate it is going to take

around - we have allotted $2 million to look after those costs. That inquiry is

supposed to have its report filed by the end of December, 2004, but this amount

here will only take us, of course, to March 31 next year.

MR. HEDDERSON: On page 207, heading 2.3.04., Human Rights, I see a drop

in salaries. Again, I am not questioning that part of it; it is just the need,

Minister, with regard to this particular division.

MR. PARSONS: We have left the executive director's position vacant.

That is why you are seeing the drop here. We felt, again, you only have so many

resources, of course, to use in various places. The person who occupied that

position had retired and we felt, given the workloads at the Human Rights

Commission right now, and the staff that we already had, that we could get by

for a while without filling that position. So that is a vacant position. The

position is still there but we are deliberately not filling it in the short

term.

MR. HEDDERSON: On page 209, heading 3.2.01., Provincial Court, just to go

back, I will use this heading. I do not know if it is under this or not,

Minister. I think last year the system of recording in the courts changed and we

went digital.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: I just want a report to see how that panned out.

MR. PARSONS: Fantastic. The thing about it was, we used to have the tape

system, reel to reel, of course, and with technologies and whatever, over the

years, we had more advanced systems come along with digital, so we put in a new

recording system. Again, I believe that was referenced in a special warrant

throughout the year.

The reason, of course, again, questions got asked about why you would not

budget for such a thing. What happened was, despite the state of the technology

and your hopes to get this stuff, we had cases where the records were getting

lost. That is the official record upon which our system is based.

We had several cases where the Chief Justice came to us, Chief Justice Green

and Chief Justice Reid, and said: Look, we cannot risk having cases thrown out

or lost because we cannot produce the record. It was a very urgent matter and

that is why we had to get a special warrant to put in the digital recording. It

has been done and is working fantastic.

MR. HEDDERSON: The final

section on page 212, under 4.2.02., Youth Secure

Custody, of course, again you understand that I have a little bit of a vested

interest in this facility and this heading. I am just looking down, and under

Transportation and Communications - where I am going, Minister, too, is that

there seems to be a lot of traffic going back and forth between the facility in

Whitbourne and St. John's, especially under the remand. Could you just give me

a sense of - like, I noticed last year that the transportation was $84,000, and

$67,000 was spent and it is back up to $84,000 - I just want to get a sense as

to where we are with the remand and how it will affect that facility.

MR. PARSONS: As you are aware, the Pleasantville facility that we had has

been closed out, decommissioned, which was the plan announced a couple of years

ago with the extension being built on the RNC. That facility on the RNC has been

completed and is in use, so what happens is, the reason for the transportation

back and forth is that you may have someone who is in custody in Whitbourne and

they have to come in for court. They have to come in for medical treatment. They

have to come in if they have to get some kind of counselling. What happens is,

they would be brought in, whether it is one person, two persons or whatever, and

they would go to the facility down at the RNC and then they would be taken out

from there as needed to go to court or - if they need to see doctors or

whatever, I guess it is the hospital facilities, but there are also rooms there

where they can see their lawyers and so on to prepare for their cases and so on.

That just leads to the transportation costs and it depends again upon how

many residents do you have in Whitbourne, how many cases do they have, how many

hearings do they have, how many doctors appointments they have, how many times

they have to go see their lawyers. That can jump from one year to the next but

you make your best guess for your budget.

MR. HEDDERSON: Also in that heading, a little bit of concern because

Professional Services, as it applies to youth custody, I am assuming that is

maybe counselling - I am not sure - but the amount was $338,000. That went to

$288,000 that was spent, and it is even further reduced this year to $216,000. I

am just again wondering, Minister, Professional Services, if you could just

articulate what they are and is it going to affect the services? Is that

directly to our youth?

MR. PARSONS: It is the new Youth Criminal Justice Act that I alluded to

earlier. That has a lot of implications. First of all, to go back for a second

to the transportation costs that went down to $67,000 in the earlier line, the

new Youth Criminal Justice Act led to less remands, less custody under the new

system, the theory and how it works. That is why you had less transportation as

well, because there are less people being put in remand and put in the centre.

Again, under this one right here, it is directly related to the end of the

federal monies and the injection of cash that they gave us to get geared up and

ready for the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, so that is over for now.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. That is reflected in that federal bottom line there,

too, is it?

MR. PARSONS: That is right. The $216,000 you are looking at would be

normal, we will say,

whereas the spike came because the feds have put the extra

money into putting the new act in place.

MR. HEDDERSON: Absolutely.

Minister, certainly I will stop there.

Before I sign off, congratulations to you and your department. I have dealt

with your department, and I see Ralph there. Ralph accompanied me out into my

district one night and certainly gave a good account of what is going on in the

department on that particular issue. Just a personal thank you, Ralph, for doing

that.

Any inquiries that I make with your department, Minister, they are answered

promptly; not always the answer I want to hear, I might add. I consider Justice

- and this is why I am not picking at the dollars here this morning - essential,

it is necessary, and I, for one, will go on record as saying that I would

perhaps like to see more funds put towards Justice, especially with regard to

our police force, our community services and so on.

Again, thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to working with

you for yet another year.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

Are you finished, Mr. Hedderson?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, Madam Chair.

MR. MANNING: No, Madam Chair, I am fine.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Butler?

MR. BUTLER: No, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Aylward?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Madam Chair, I have one comment.

I want to thank the minister and his officials for their effort on pursuing

the action on Port Harmon in Stephenville. I want to thank the officials for

their work on preparing the case. I hope that we are successful. I think that it

is unfortunate that we have to go this route but I feel very confident knowing

that our Department of Justice is there in a case like this when we do get such

unilateral federal decision making that is so insane, that we do have a legal

process that we can use to try to deal with it. I do want to thank the minister

and the officials for putting forward the case which I believe is very logical,

and we will hope for the outcome.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: I just have one comment, mostly because lately I have not

been checking at all out in my district, where we have been here so much. The

new family justice system that was put in place - I forget the name of it now,

but Chris was very involved in - I know was extended into this year. I

understand it is still working well, both in Corner Brook and in Gander. Is it

our hope that this would continue into the future and be extended into other

areas?

MR. PARSONS: That is the hope, not only to keep it in family justice

western and central but also to have it eventually around the Province. It is a

continuing battle, the feds case again, of justification. The evaluations have

been done on the Corner Brook and central one and they have been excellent, as I

understand it. I spoke personally to the Minister of Justice, Cauchon, when he

visited here last fall. I think he was actually very impressed with the fact

that we had done this. We clued him in as to how it works and the intentions of

it. It was just a matter of squeezing some more dollars out of it.

MADAM CHAIR: I know that the reaction out in my community has been

exceptionally positive from many people who have been exceptionally negative in

the past, so I think that is a sign of how well it is working.

If there are no further questions, I will ask the Clerk to call the subheads.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.02 carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Before we adjourn, we need a motion to accept the minutes of

the Social Services Committee of May 5, 2003, from the Department of Education.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MADAM CHAIR: On that note, thank you all very much. This has gone quite

well this morning and I would ask for a motion to adjourn.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.