Social Services Committee

2013-04-29

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

April 29,

The Committee met at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Good evening, everyone.

Welcome, Ministers. I have never had a tag team, so I am not sure how this

going to go, but welcome Minister Marshall and Minister King, and welcome to

your staff and your people this evening.

Just some formalities before we get started; I just want to remind all

officials to keep your BlackBerry or any of your devices away from the

microphone. It creates static and it creates problems down in the media room for

our people down there, and our officials, so try to have those as far away from

the mikes as possible.

Please, when you are speaking, state your name so that your mike will come

on, and wait for your red light that you see in front of you. That will make it

easy for Hansard to record your comments, et cetera.

We normally start by introducing our Committee members. My name is Glenn

Littlejohn. I am the MHA for Port de Grave, and I Chair the Social Services

Committee.

MR. A. PARSONS: Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo La Poile.

MR. MILES: Peter Miles, Opposition Office.

MS ROGERS: Gerry Rogers, MHA for St. John's Centre.

MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan, NDP Caucus Office.

MR. LITTLE: Glen Little, MHA, Bonavista South.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, MHA, Port au Port.

MR. CRUMMELL: Dan Crummell, St. John's West.

MR. POLLARD: Kevin Pollard, MHA, Baie Verte Springdale.

CHAIR: I thank you all for coming.

Minister, traditionally we have fifteen minutes for opening remarks. I am

going to ask the Clerk, though, to call the first subhead, please.

CLERK (Ms Barnes): Do you want to do the minutes first?

CHAIR: I will do the minutes after.

CLERK: Okay.

Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Minister, if I can ask you to introduce your staff and then you have fifteen

minutes, whichever minister is going to have opening remarks or you can share

your remarks.

Minister Marshall, please introduce yourself and they can introduce

themselves.

MR. MARSHALL: I am Tom Marshall. I am here tonight joining the Minister

of Justice in my capacity as Attorney General for the Province.

MR. NOBLE: I am Paul Noble. I am the Acting Deputy Minister and Deputy

Attorney General.

MR. KING: Darin King, I am here in my capacity as Minister of Justice and

also Minister of Labour.

MS BREWER: Donna Brewer, CEO, Labour Relations Agency.

MR. MOLLOY: Donovan Molloy, Director of Public Prosecutions.

MS BALLARD: Donna Ballard, ADM, Courts and Related Services.

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

MS LAKE-KAVANAGH: Jackie Lake-Kavanagh, ADM, Public Safety and

Enforcement.

MR. REID: Derick Reid, EA to Minister King.

MR. JOYCE: Luke Joyce, Director of Communications.

MS DUNPHY: Debbie Dunphy, Departmental Controller.

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: Good evening, everyone. We will certainly forego our opening

remarks, but we would ask, with the Committee's consideration, if we could start

with the Labour Relations Agency; Donna is here primarily for that purpose. With

the Committee's blessing, if we could start and do that one first and then we

could dive into the Justice issues.

CHAIR: Is that fine with you, Andrew and Gerry?

MS ROGERS: That is absolutely (inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay.

I will turn it over to you, Andrew, and you are on the clock.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to first begin by thanking everybody for taking the time to be

with us here tonight to answer these questions. I am sure there are other things

you could do on an evening, but I appreciate your time here.

I am going to cut right to Labour Relations, and I am on 6.1.01. In line 01,

Salaries, I notice that last year's budget was overspent by about $165,000. What

was the reason?

MR. KING: Pay out of severance and accumulated leave for an employee who

retired.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am just going to move forward here to 6.1.02. I believe

there is an increase in salary requested this year. How many positions and what

are the titles?

MR. KING: You have gone to 6.1

MR. A. PARSONS: Subhead 6.1.02, Salaries.

MR. KING: Bear with me. Subhead 6.1.02.01, just so we are clear you are

referencing the budget went from $177,000 to $258,000?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. KING: Yes. We have increased the budget by $81,400. There was a

vacant statistician position with Labour Relations that has been traded off to

create a managers position which is a higher classification. The budget

differential is because of the higher classified position.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is not a new position per se or an additional position

created?

MR. KING: No, it is a trade off.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to continue forward to 6.1.03. There is a cut

there in salary from last year to this year's Estimates, about $278,000. How

many positions were eliminated?

MR. KING: There were three positions eliminated there under MO 01, due to

attrition management, there was a Clerk Typist II, and two Industrial Relations

Specialists.

MR. A. PARSONS: Were these positions all located in St. John's?

MR. KING: One in Corner Brook.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to continue forward to 6.2.01, Labour

Relations Board, line 01. Last year's Salaries were about $63,000 more than

budgeted. What was the reason for this?

MR. KING: Last year for the first time, July 2012, we appointed a

full-time Labour Relations Board Chair. Prior to that it was not a full-time

position; it was on a per diem basis.

MR. A. PARSONS: Who is the name of the Chair?

MR. KING: Sheilagh Murphy, in this particular one. It is a five-year

contractual position.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am just going to go back for a second to 6.1.04, the

Fish Price Setting Panel.

CHAIR: Page 17.18, for anyone who is following along.

MR. A. PARSONS: What I did was I reviewed last year's commentary during

Estimates and just listened to what was said about the Fish Price Setting Panel

because it is not something I was familiar with prior to this. I guess it must

have have been Minister Collins, at the time, who gave a description, talked

about how the board works and people sitting there and how it all goes.

This year in Question Period we asked Minister Dalley a question regarding

the Price Setting Panel and his answer was, "The last eight or ten years, it has

become an annual norm in the fishery. I am sure the public and I am quite sure

the stakeholders in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, are tired of it. If we can find a

better solution, I am willing to support it."

I am just wondering, does government have any plans, or is there any

consideration for a new mechanism regarding price setting?

MR. KING: No. It would not have been Minister Collins as well, just for

the record. The Minister responsible for Labour last year would have been Mr.

French.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KING: This came with Justice, when I went into Justice.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, and my apologies there. Again, I am not sure if

that was the minister, just the commentary I took out of it.

Given the troubles and the commentary by the Minister of Fisheries, there are

no plans to look at something new? There is nothing ongoing?

MR. KING: No, there are no plans. I am not suggesting we will not do

that, but the commentary the Minister of Fisheries would bring to this would be

a different perspective than the Minister of Labour would bring.

My role as Minister of Labour is to make sure the panel operates effectively

and provide impartiality. The Minister of Fisheries has a different role because

he is trying to ensure the effective operations of the fisheries on a day-to-day

basis. So the views may sometimes conflict, but there are no plans at this point

in time to do anything with the panel. That is not to suggest that if there are

more effective ways of ensuring the fishery starts on time in any given year

that we are not receptive to that, whether it is through the FFAW suggestions or

others.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is a basic case of if something came up we would

listen to it but we are not actively going through options.

MR. KING: No, we are not actively pursuing any options or considering any

options.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KING: Do you have suggestions?

MR. A. PARSONS: We will save that for another time.

Minimum wage, the minister, back in 2011, when asked if anticipating any

increases in the minimum wage said that under the current legislation it

required to do a review every two years, and there was one done in July. Is

there any plan to increase the minimum wage in the foreseeable future?

MR. KING: There is no plan to increase or not to increase. We have not

made a decision as government. We received the report. I think you can

anticipate receiving that publicly very soon. I am in the process of reviewing

it myself and then I will have to discuss it with Cabinet colleagues.

We either have to: (

a) accept the report as is, (

b) do nothing, or (

c) somewhere between nothing and what the report suggests. Government has not taken

a position on that yet. You can anticipate that it will come within short order.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to try to hammer you down in short order

because depending on which minister I talk to, it can depend. Will it be during

this legislative sitting?

MR. KING: Yes, my understanding is that we are required by law to bring

it before the House.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, perfect.

MR. KING: I stand to be corrected on that, just so we are clear, I do not

want you to nail me down. My understanding is legislatively once we do the

review we have to bring it with some indication of what we are going to do. In

spite of that, in case I am off on the parliamentary piece, it would be our

intention between, I will say now and the end of our year, that we would have a

decision made and communicated to the public and to the House.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I just have one more sort of general question, and it is about worker

replacement legislation. This was asked about last year. The minister had said

the decision on the policy has not been made yet, but it will be coming very,

very soon. I just ask, what is the status on these discussions? Has there been a

decision made?

MR. KING: On replacement worker

MR. A. PARSONS: Worker replacement legislation.

MR. KING: There is no contemplation of that at this point in time by

myself, as Minister of Labour.

MR. A. PARSONS: Pending anything I can come up with, I am fine.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much.

Also, I wanted to say thank you very much for coming this evening. Also,

thank you very much for your service. I know it has been a very large few weeks

for the Department of Justice. It will be very interesting to see how some of

these issues roll out.

You have an incredible staff in so many of your agencies, within the courts

and within policing, enforcement, and rehabilitation. I have had the chance to

meet quite a few people and I am just so impressed with the dedication of the

people who work within the Department of Justice, and sometimes under very, very

difficult situations. They are really dedicated people. I thank you all for your

service and again for coming this evening, I know probably after an already very

long day.

Because this is a relatively small budget for Labour Relations, I will ask a

few questions even on things that might seem a little kind of nitpicky, but

there you go.

In 6.1.01.03, Transportation and Communications, there was a budget of

$30,000 and $5,000 was spent. Yet, we are going up again a little bit higher for

2013-2014.

MR. KING: That is correct.

MS ROGERS: Yes. Is there a reason that amount of money was not spent?

MR. KING: We had a freeze on discretionary travel for a period of time.

MS ROGERS: Okay. The Labour Relations Agency has a board though that

meets? No? Okay, all right, this is a new agency for me.

MR. KING: Yes, it is the Labour Relations Board but it is separate from

this budget line.

MS ROGERS: Okay, great. Thank you.

Their travel would not be covered under that?

MR. KING: (Inaudible).

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

I would imagine then for 6.1.02 it would be the same situation, discretionary

spending?

CHAIR: In 6.1.02?

MS ROGERS: Yes, 6.1.02.03, Transportation and Communications. I would

imagine that would be the same.

MR. KING: That is correct.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

I think Andrew, in fact, has asked all the questions that I had in that area.

Then we go to the Labour Relations Board, 6.2.01.03, Transportation and

Communications.

CHAIR: In 6.2.01.03, Transportation and Communications.

MS ROGERS: Under the Labour Relations Board, yes. We see that $22,000 was

budgeted, $11,000 was spent, but our Estimates are up for $33,900. I am just

wondering, would that have been the discretionary no.

MR. KING: No, the travel here would relate to work-related travel.

MS ROGERS: To board, yes.

MR. KING: That would depend on the number of files we are dealing with at

any particular point in time.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. KING: The reduction there would simply have been a result of a

reduced workload and a reduced requirement to travel.

MS ROGERS: Okay, all right. Thank you.

It was not a matter of the board not meeting as often as it would have?

MR. KING: No.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

There is a reduction there in Professional Services for this new fiscal year

by almost a half.

MR. KING: Which line are we discussing?

MS ROGERS: The same, the Labour Relations Board, 05, Professional

Services.

MR. KING: Yes. So your question is on which piece?

MS ROGERS: For the new fiscal year there has been a reduction in

Professional Services.

MR. KING: Yes, there is a combination of two reasons there. Under this

category, before we had hired a full-time Chair, the Chair would charge at a per

diem rate which would come out of this budget. We have incorporated the use of

teleconferences and video conferences as a way of reducing some travel costs for

meetings.

MS ROGERS: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

I know that the agency put a lot of effort into modernizing the Labour

Relations Act and the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, they worked with

employers and unions via the Employment Relations Committee, so amendments were

brought to the House of Assembly in 2011 and 2012, including recommendations

from the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry and the review of special project

orders legislation for major resource projects. Will the agency be doing further

work to amend these two acts?

MR. KING: Our work in that area is ongoing. I cannot say with any

certainty when we may bring further legislative changes forward, but I can say

that we are looking at all kinds of other ways to modernize the act to make

improvements, and we are continuously consulting with the Federation of Labour

and the Employers' Council and others throughout the Province. It is really an

ongoing piece of work when it comes to the labour standard and the labour laws

in the Province. We are continuously looking at that.

MS ROGERS: The unions asked for binding arbitration and anti-scab

legislation. Where are we with that?

MR. KING: Nowhere. We are not contemplating it, if that is your question.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Employment relations framework, the annual report mentions this. Can you

provide an update of that and where that is at?

MR. KING: What is your question? The employment relations framework

references

MS ROGERS: This is in the annual report.

MR. KING: This is outside of the Estimates, okay. Your question is

MS ROGERS: Can you provide an update? Is this a new approach, the

employment relations framework?

MR. KING: The document you are referencing, unless I am mistaken, would

have a highlight of the changes that we have brought forward, that government

has brought in during our term. They are already changed. The legislation is

already changed. That is a report that talks about the changes we have made over

the last couple of years.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Workers complain that the Labour Standards Act does not protect them in terms

of things like overtime pay, time-and-a-half based on minimum wage, hours of

work, the complaints process, inspections and enforcement. The unions are saying

that this should apply to temporary foreign workers to protect them from things

like long working hours, unfair employment contracts, et cetera. Will the act be

reviewed to look at applying some of these protections to temporary foreign

workers?

MR. KING: It can be. We are not contemplating doing that. I have not been

made aware of any of the concerns that you are raising there. Donna has not been

made aware through any formal mechanism that those concerns exist.

If it does exist by a worker or group of workers, then I would encourage them

to present their concerns to me as the minister or to me through Donna and we

will certainly have a look at it. At this point in time we are not contemplating

it.

MS ROGERS: There is no specific consideration of looking at the needs of

temporary foreign workers?

MR. KING: We are always looking at the needs of all workers, but there

are anomalies and there are situations and specific incidents that occur all

across the Province. I cannot say that for every one of those incidents we are

going to review the Labour Standards Act or the other labour legislation in the

Province. I can only say that if there is a specific incident that you or

someone else would like us to consider, then certainly present it.

We are not in the middle, nor contemplating anything from our perspective

with respect to temporary foreign workers. I will say for the record that I am

the Minister Responsible for Labour, but I am not responsible for temporary

foreign workers. There is other legislation that would fall under another

minister of government.

MS ROGERS: Okay. I have nothing further.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Just for the formality while Donna is here, can we just call the

Labour Relations Agency and have that approved, then we can go from there?

I will ask the Clerk to call the section.

CLERK: Subhead 6.1.01 through 6.2.01 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 6.1.01 to 6.2.01 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those opposed?

Carried.

On motion, subheads 6.1.01 through 6.2.01 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those opposed?

Carried.

On motion, Labour Relations Agency, total heads, carried.

CHAIR: Thank you.

We can now go back, Minister, to the beginning, page 17.3, Minister's Office.

Minister King.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Let me, by the way, just say thanks to Gerry for her comments. I did not get

an opportunity to say it, but I appreciate your kind words of support for

officials in the department. They are very much appreciated. Thank you.

I have a second request of the Committee. Minister Marshall and I, while we

share the whole department, there are four sections in particular that are

probably more specific to him. With the Committee's blessing, if I gave you the

sections I am wondering if you would be prepared to start with those and if we

dispense of those and everything is fine, he is preparing to meet with the

Committee tomorrow on Natural Resources.

The four sections, I can tell you what they are. It would be the Criminal

Law, Legal Aid, Legislative Counsel and Civil. Mr. Chair, with your concurrence

and the Committee's concurrence, perhaps if we started with 2.1.01, Civil Law,

and work ourselves through it, Minister

CHAIR: Is that agreeable to the Committee?

MR. A. PARSONS: Just Criminal Law, Legal Aid

MR. KING: It is 2.1.01, Civil Law.

CHAIR: Starting at 2.1.01 on page 17.6, Andrew, and we will go through to

basically page 17.8. Is that what I am understanding?

MR. KING: Civil, Legal Aid, Criminal, and Legislative Counsel, four

sections.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am certainly fine with that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

Gerry?

MS ROGERS: Yes, I am good with that.

CHAIR: Andrew, I will turn it back to you and it is Civil Law and

Enforcement, 2.1.01, Civil Law, page 17.6 for those who wish to follow.

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will see if I can find the

section here. Looking at line 01, Salaries,

there is a fairly significant cut there. Can you tell me how many positions were

cut, the titles, and locations, if possible?

MR. MARSHALL: There is a total of nine positions cut. There were five

permanent solicitor positions eliminated, two of those positions were vacant.

The vacant positions were used, as I understand it, to hire three contractual

solicitors. There was a vacant legal secretary position. They were the

positions.

MR. A. PARSONS: Were these based here in St. John's in the department?

MR. MARSHALL: They all were except

OFFICIAL: One in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

MR. MARSHALL: Except one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Again with the timelines, are these people, with the notice given and

everything, now out of the system or were the notice provisions different?

MR. MARSHALL: There are still parts of the process that we have to go

through. It is not finalized yet. As a result of the committee meeting, there

could be some changes in this. We are waiting for it to work it through.

Paul, do you have anything to add to that?

CHAIR: Paul.

MR. NOBLE: There was one person who was released actually on Budget day.

There is another person whose position was eliminated, has since left for the

private bar. There is one person still remaining who has been directly impacted,

but their notice period I think expires literally within the next day or two.

There are three vacant positions; one of those was in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

There was one permanent solicitor who was also released on Budget day, and one

person actually retired.

MR. A. PARSONS: You say you are waiting for the process to play out. Do

you have any ideas? Are we talking weeks, months?

MR. NOBLE: I am more hopeful that it is a matter of days, to be honest

with you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, perfect.

Under 05, Professional Services, last year there was $2.3 million budgeted, I

would presume this was for outside legal counsel? I notice just over $2.3

million was budgeted but $2,451,000 was spent. What was the extra money on?

MR. MARSHALL: It was demands for outside legal counsel on various files.

Also, funding was transferred to Purchased Services for a contract relating to a

health care cost recovery file. That was for document retrieval.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there a list I could get of the law firm or private

lawyers who are solicited?

MR. MARSHALL: There is a list. I do not seem to have it here but I have

seen it. Yes, you can have it.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am sure Gerry is going to ask the same, maybe we can

compile a list of any information we do not get here tonight. Whatever is sent

to me, send to Gerry, and I am assuming whatever is sent to Gerry, vice versa.

Is there any firm that gets the lion's share of this?

MR. MARSHALL: I always used to look at that list every year, but if I

recall I think it is the Farrington McClain firm. The firm that is doing the

tobacco litigation, I think they may have been the biggest this year.

CHAIR: Paul.

MR. NOBLE: Yes. I ask Donna Ballard if she would address that, please.

CHAIR: Donna.

MS BALLARD: Yes, probably the most significant would be related to the

tobacco file, because we pay disbursements on that file.

MR. A. PARSONS: How much have we spent on that file in the last year?

MS BALLARD: I have it, $560,740.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am just wondering, one of the cases, it has been in the

media, is the individual who was involved with the College of the North Atlantic

in Qatar, Mr. McBriarty. I am just wondering, how much has been spent on his

case?

MR. MARSHALL: I think that is Education.

MR. KING: It is actually through the college.

MR. MARSHALL: The College of the North Atlantic, they have their own

counsel.

MR. A. PARSONS: Well, their estimates are coming up, so I will make sure

to so they have their own budget for legal

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I think they have their own counsel full time.

MR. A. PARSONS: I know they are using outside firms for that work. It is

actually a firm here in the city. I am just wondering what the cost would be?

MR. MARSHALL: It has gone on a long time.

MR. A. PARSONS: You are saying, basically, to ask that in the Advanced

Education Estimates?

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: Yes, what I would say is that we have no responsibility for

that file. So neither Minister Marshall nor I are in a position to speak to

that.

What I can say, I was two years Minister of Education, my recollection is

that file and whatever was happening was being handled directly with the college

and their own counsel. Whether they were using outside counsel, I do not recall,

but the question is certainly not appropriate for us to speak to here. It is not

with us.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, no problem.

Of the just over $2 million, I notice the tobacco file and you mentioned a

health care recovery. Can you give me any examples of other files that we are

paying outside counsel for?

CHAIR: Donna.

MS BALLARD: For example, there would be work on Lower Churchill. There

would be work on Hibernia. There would be work on, for what we call AG appointed

counsel. We paid for lawyers for Mr. Nelson Hart, for example, some of the

criminal ones, and Mr. Crockwell.

We have the MHA file also, and some work on Lower Churchill. Some work with

regard to Aboriginal issues in Labrador. Then there is some employee indemnity

within government. There is some AG appointed counsel, that is smaller files,

but that is a general sense of what it is.

MR. A. PARSONS: I ask this one because I was not aware. When an

individual you just used Mr. Hart, for example gets counsel that does not go

through Legal Aid per se. It goes through

MS BALLARD: Generally, if a person qualifies for legal aid, then it will

go through Legal Aid. In circumstances such as Mr. Hart, where he is having

difficulty retaining Legal Aid counsel, difficulty establishing a

solicitor-client relationship with a Legal Aid counsel, and because these

particular circumstances were so difficult and he was clearly in need of

counsel, the Attorney General stepped in and provided funding for counsel for

him.

MR. A. PARSONS: It goes to a different pot of money?

MS BALLARD: That is right; it comes from the Professional Services within

the department, exceptional circumstances.

MR. A. PARSONS: How many cases do we have right now of AG appointed

counsel?

MS BALLARD: I do not have that figure in front of me.

MR. A. PARSONS: Could I put that on my homework list?

MS BALLARD: Sure.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under line 09 of Civil Law, it says here Allowances and Assistance. Can I get

an explanation on what that encompasses?

MR. MARSHALL: This is money for claims against the Crown. This would be

settlements that the Crown would pay out. It was budgeted $1.5 million. The

Estimate now is that $500,000 will be spent. It is $1 million less than

anticipated. There was reduced activity in out-of-court settlements.

This of course could change any time as it is not necessarily cyclical, nor

does what has happened in the past mean that there is going to be a trend. The

actual amount spent was $304,400.

MR. A. PARSONS: The actual amount is not $500,000; it is

$340,000-something?

MR. MARSHALL: It is $304,400.

CHAIR: It is $304,400?

MR. A. PARSONS: Are you at liberty to disclose what it was used for

specifically?

MR. MARSHALL: I am going to let Donna Ballard answer that.

CHAIR: Donna.

MS BALLARD: I am not 100 per cent sure if there are any confidentiality

agreements with this. Perhaps not, but

MR. KING: If you are not sure, do not (inaudible).

MS BALLARD: Okay.

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: I advised her that if she is not sure, not to speak to it

publicly until we check it out.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KING: If that is okay with you. Because, if she violates a client

privilege here

MR. A. PARSONS: No, no, I understand completely.

MR. KING: We will note the question and find out for you, but it is

better not to speak than put ourselves in a

MR. A. PARSONS: I would rather ask the question and get told no, or I do

not know, than not ask it.

MR. KING: Yes.

If she is able to, we will get you that information.

MR. A. PARSONS: I know my time is up. I have just one more question, if

Gerry will permit me.

MS ROGERS: Absolutely.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just under the same heading and it is my last one for

Civil Law Purchased Services, we went from $24,000 budgeted, which is the same

amount that is budgeted this year, but we spent $274,000, so I am just wondering

what that was.

CHAIR: Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: There was a shortfall of $250,000 due to a contract that

was relating to the health care cost recovery file. It was not legal work; it

had to do with document retrieval, which I had mentioned for another one as

well. This is the tobacco case.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

There is obviously no anticipation that it going to happen this year no

expectation, I guess, that it will happen this year.

MR. MARSHALL: No, the budgeted amount is the same as last year.

CHAIR: Andrew, I am going to hold you there.

Gerry, you are on the clock.

MS ROGERS: Yes, thank you.

If we go back up to the Salaries line, I would like if we could have a list

of the positions that have been cut, have been discontinued, and also the

positions that were vacant. How long were they vacant?

MR. MARSHALL: Do you want each individual

MS ROGERS: Even if you wanted to send that to us, I would be fine with

that. You do not need to go through that list right now. I would be happy with

that, but I would also like to know, in terms of the vacancies, how long they

were vacant.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay, we can provide that.

MS ROGERS: I have no further questions in Civil Law. I think Andrew

covered that quite thoroughly.

If we go now down to the Sheriff's Office

MR. MARSHALL: Could we go to Criminal Law, Legal Aid, and then I can

leave because I have to prepare for Natural Resources tomorrow morning?

MS ROGERS: Oh, I see, that is not part of Civil Law.

MR. MARSHALL: If we could do that, then I can go and you can come back to

that one.

MS ROGERS: Sure.

MR. KING: Sorry for the mix up.

MS ROGERS: No, I thought that Sheriff's Office was part of Civil Law and

Enforcement there and that we were doing Civil Law.

CHAIR: We are going to 2.2.01, Criminal Law, Minister?

MR. MARSHALL: Right.

CHAIR: Gerry.

MS ROGERS: If we look at the Salaries we see that the Estimates can we

have a list, perhaps, of positions? How many positions are we losing there and

what are they?

MR. MARSHALL: In terms of lawyers there were three positions sorry,

there were four positions with five people occupying those positions. Four

positions, five bums in seats if I could put it that way.

The positions were I am dealing with solicitor positions now. There was a

policy advisor, there was a Crown attorney position in Gander, and there were

two vacant Crown attorney positions in St. John's. Those two positions have been

put back.

In addition to that there were four positions in the Records Centre, a

half-time legal secretary in Gander, and a half-time legal secretary in Corner

Brook. There was the elimination of funding for an

article clerk position and

for bar fees for four solicitors.

MS ROGERS: Can you tell us which of these have been reinstated?

MR. MARSHALL: As I understand it, the two vacant positions in St. John's

were vacant and the funding was used to hire three contractual lawyers to work

with the Crown's office. The five lawyers who were working are now all back. Is

that correct? I am going to ask Donovan Molloy who is the Director of Public

Prosecutions to make sure I do not tell you anything that is not correct.

CHAIR: Donovan.

MR. MOLLOY: Initially, prior to the revisiting of some of the positions

that had been cut we were looking at losing the policy advisor who was a

solicitor. We were looking at losing a lawyer in Gander, a Crown attorney, and

two vacant permanent positions in St. John's, the money from which was being

used in part to pay for the salaries of three contractual Crown attorneys we had

in St. John's.

As of right now while the policy advisor position is gone, she has been moved

into a permanent position that had become vacant in February of this year. She

still has her employment, just in a different capacity.

One of the contractual employees whose position had been identified for

elimination, he has been placed in a temporary vacancy that was created in

January of this year when one of our Crown attorneys went to work with the RNC

for one year. Because the two permanent positions were reinstated, we have been

able to reinstate the two contractual employees who were scheduled to leave. We

have done that for now, pending running competitions to fill those positions on

a full-time basis.

At the end of the day, the only person who is actually leaving is the Crown

attorney in Gander. We did, however, get one position in addition to that, which

was the new position that was announced for Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So net, we

are down zero; but, in effect, one person lost his job in Gander, a person will

get a job as a Crown attorney in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

MS ROGERS: How will you be covering the work of a policy advisor? Where

will that be covered? Is there still a need for that work to be done?

MR. MOLLOY: That work will be absorbed by either the Assistant Director

or myself. We are working on a plan to allot those duties between us.

MS ROGERS: Where was the money found to reinstate these positions,

because I would imagine the budget that we have before us here does not reflect

that?

CHAIR: Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: The two positions were put back that had been eliminated.

MS ROGERS: So the budget that I have before me now would be different.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes.

MS ROGERS: Can we have the new figures there?

MR. MARSHALL: We will provide those.

CHAIR: The minister said he will provide the figures.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: Just to be clear for the record, the budget that is before you

does not reflect the increases that we announced: the Sheriff's Office, the

Crown prosecutor's and Legal Aid. None of that is reflected in here, but it will

be provided to you once government makes the appropriate transfer. So, it would

be new funding to this department from the Treasury. We have not identified

specifically where it is going to come from, but it is new money to the

department. The budget lines here will increase by the amount that Minister

Marshall and I announced when we did the add-backs, if you will.

MS ROGERS: So when you say it has not quite been decided where that money

will come from, what does that mean?

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: What it means is government will make a decision of whether

that can be added on to the deficit or whether we will just find money to

transfer out of another department, or whether there is a rainy day fund in the

Department of Finance. There are any numbers of options available to us.

MS ROGERS: Right.

MR. KING: The Minister of Finance would probably be the best one to speak

to it. From our perspective, it has not been identified where the money is

coming from, except that we have been given extra money for this budget.

MS ROGERS: Okay. Do you have any idea at this point how much money that

would be, a ballpark figure?

MR. KING: It would be a guess. I could rough it up and give you something

tomorrow because it will depend. For example, when we hire solicitors, you may

hire one that is going to be paid top of the scale, perhaps $120,000 or $130,000

or you may hire a junior one who is going to make $75,000 or $80,000. It is

difficult to say until the staffing action occurs.

The same thing with the call list for the Sheriff's Office, even though we

are not into that, but we have added money back there. We have not nailed down

the exact figure. We are still working with the High Sheriff as to what the

needs will be for that.

I am not evading your question. We can get it but we are still working

through that process.

MS ROGERS: I understand. Okay, thank you.

For the legal secretaries, and the four people in records, those four

positions, will any of those be reinstated? I have been hearing about problems

with perhaps lack of support staff maybe holding up some procedures. Is this a

problem at all in the department?

CHAIR: Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: The Director of Public Prosecutions is here, he can answer

that question better than I.

CHAIR: Donovan.

MR. MOLLOY: There are some issues in our St. John's office but I would

not want to say more than we perceive them to be related to chronic

absenteeism, issues of a couple of people as opposed to that is the main

factor right now that we are trying to cope with because we are usually down two

people every other day, or three or four days a week. It makes it hard on the

staff members who are there everyday, but we are working with Human Resources on

those issues.

MS ROGERS: Would some of the legal secretaries, those positions that have

been cut, have they been cut from the St. John's office?

CHAIR: Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: No, there is a half position in Gander and a half position

in Corner Brook.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay, Gerry, I am going to hold you there and go back to Andrew.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Andrew, we are on 2.1.01 Civil Law. I am sorry, 2.2.01 Criminal

Law.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have one last question on Criminal Law, the Revenue

$28,500. I am just intrigued by that, how it was not there and it showed up from

last year's point. It is: Amount to be Voted Revenue; I guess it is still line

MR. MARSHALL: It is federal funding received from the National Flagging

program.

CHAIR: The National Flagging program.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have to ask a follow up, what is the National Flagging

program?

MR. MARSHALL: Thank God, the assistant deputy minister is here. I am sure

he can answer that.

OFFICIAL: Flogging.

CHAIR: Flagging.

Paul.

MR. MARSHALL: It is flagging. We stopped the flogging a while ago.

MR. NOBLE: I will ask Mr. Molloy to provide the specifics. It is part of

a national initiative that flags prolific our serious offenders across the

country. Now, I will see how accurate that is.

CHAIR: Donovan.

MR. MOLLOY: Yes, that is correct. Public Safety Canada issues money to

partially fund a position. Data is input on our people that we have identified

as prolific, or dangerous, or long-term offenders.

As well, if we get people coming from their jurisdictions or our people go to

theirs, it provides an effective and efficient means to get significant amounts

of information about the background of those offenders which you want to have

really at hand very quickly. Sometimes it impacts bail and other decisions, and

also how you are going to conduct the case. We have been participating in that

now for the last, I want to say three or four years, and been getting that much

money every year.

MR. A. PARSONS: Excellent, thank you.

I am just going to move to 2.3.01, Legal Aid and Related Services. Obviously,

that is a pretty significant cut there in 10, Grants and Subsidies. I am just

wondering, what is gone?

MR. MARSHALL: The $225,400 is the reduction because currently there is no

contract with a service provider. Am I looking at the right one?

CHAIR: It is 2.3.01.10, Grants and Subsidies, Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, that is the right one. The drop of $225,400 is

projected because currently there is no contract with a service provider for

Aboriginal legal services. The drop for next year, is that the main part of your

question?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. MARSHALL: The drop of next year over this year.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, the $13.9 million to $12.7 million.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, the budget is reduced because of the elimination of

funding for the Aboriginal Courtwork Program, and as a result of the elimination

of several positions in Legal Aid, as well as a reduction in some of their

operating expenses. Since that time, three vacant positions have now been

approved to be filled, and two of the positions that were cut have now been

reinstated. So that is money that will differ from this amount that will come

forward.

The other thing I should state, I think it was on Budget day itself that

Legal Aid would have been aware of the reduction. Legal Aid is run by an

independent commission, the Legal Aid Commission, with a separate board. They

receive funding from our government. They also receive funding from other

sources, the Law Foundation in particular, and they are now going through their

process.

As part of the committee, there is going to be a review done of Legal Aid.

The review is to look at the model that is being used here. At one time the

model that was used was that the private bar would agree to take a certificate

and do the work. Then what happened, as I understand it and I am going from

memory here, it has been a while the fees were not considered high enough so a

lot of members of the private bar would not take the work. As a result of that,

the model was changed to a model whereby Legal Aid would hire lawyers.

I can tell you that over the last nine years there have been major

investments in Legal Aid in the Province. Unfortunately, the federal government,

which at one time I think used to provide 90 per cent

MS BALLARD: Fifty per cent.

MR. MARSHALL: It was 50-50 at one time. I think it was higher than that.

CHAIR: Donna.

MS BALLARD: It has basically stayed the same since 1991, but the

provincial amount has increased. The percentages of a budget right now of

approximately $13.5 million to $14 million and the federal government provide

about $2 million.

MR. MARSHALL: That is a long way from what it was when Legal Aid started,

with the Province now contributing by far the lion's share. Efforts were made by

different governments of the Province, two federal Justice Ministers and federal

Finance Ministers.

I know, Andrew, your father wrote to Martin Cauchon, who was then the

Minister of Justice. I met with Irwin Cotler, the Justice Minister at the time.

We hosted the Justice Ministers' meeting just outside of Corner Brook, at Boom

Siding in Corner Brook, and we made the pitch to Vic Toews, who was the Justice

Minister at the time. The Chair of Legal Aid was there, and I was there as the

Justice Minister, and we made an impassioned plea for the federal government to

get back in to funding Legal Aid because of its importance to women, to

Aboriginals, to people who have difficulty accessing the justice system, but we

failed.

When I became Minister of Finance, the first FPT meeting of Finance Ministers

I attended, I made a plea for more money into Legal Aid. We got nowhere with the

Justice Ministers, so we tried the Finance Ministers and I remember Minister

Flaherty asking me why was I bringing it up then. We brought it up because, as

everybody I am sure in this room agrees, it was important; but, unfortunately,

it has not worked.

MR. A. PARSONS: Going back to this Legal Aid review, who is conducting

the review?

MR. MARSHALL: That has not been decided as of yet.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there a timeline?

MR. MARSHALL: Not that I am aware of.

MR. A. PARSONS: The reason I ask this is because we know the importance

of what went on March 26 and there was the turnaround and there was a change in

some of the positions, but Legal Aid was one of the ones that were going to have

the review done. So, there are a lot of people out there wondering if this

review is going to be done.

One of the recommendations I have a note here somewhere. The Justice review

that William Marshall was supposed to be put in charge of this was back during

the Lamer Inquiry; I believe that is when it was there was supposed to be a

review done then.

MR. MARSHALL: I believe, and again I am going on memory here, but if I

recall correctly, that was the Crown's office.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, I believe so. I have a note here, just one moment.

MR. MARSHALL: Maybe Donovan can add something to that.

MR. A. PARSONS: In 2006, then Minister of Justice, Tom Marshall,

indicated that government was committed to implementing all of them; this is the

Lamer recommendations. One of them was an independent review of the Office of

the Director of Public Prosecutions. Retired Justice William Marshall was named

to conduct the review. Has that review been done independent review?

CHAIR: Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: That was years ago.

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: I think the short answer is I am not sure on that one. To be

clearer on the review, we are now short-listing potential firms or candidates to

do the reviews of the Sheriff's Office and Legal Aid. As well, I am not sure if

we had it in our release, but I did say publicly that the Crown's office will be

part of that.

While I cannot give you a specific timeline, I can tell you that it is going

to be very quick. We are looking now, as we speak, about who can do this for us

to get it moving and get it done.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I do not have much time, so I might get cut off here. You mentioned when you

started, Minister Marshall, that one of the things was several positions were

cut, and that was word used: several. Can I get how many positions?

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, there are fourteen positions to be determined. In

terms of solicitors, there were five solicitors; two have been put back. In

addition, there were three vacancies and it has been agreed that they will be

filled.

MR. A. PARSONS: In terms of solicitors, and I will just follow up with

your indulgence.

CHAIR: Yes, I am letting you clue up here.

MR. A. PARSONS: Basically there were three lost, was there? There were

five cut, two put back, three vacancies, so basically there are none. If the

three vacancies are going to be filled and the two put

MR. MARSHALL: Not really. There are three vacancies have been filled.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. MARSHALL: Of the five positions that were cut, two have been put back

there.

MR. A. PARSONS: The three that are left, where are those positions?

MR. MARSHALL: I am not sure.

OFFICIAL: The board is working through it.

MR. MARSHALL: I can get that information.

MR. A. PARSONS: I only ask that just because it is very important whether

they are in St. John's, Goose Bay, or Stephenville. I would be just interested

to know. I might come back to this, Mr. Chair, but thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, that is fine.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we could go back to Criminal Law, 2.2.01, on what basis were the initial

cuts made? On what basis were they made? Was there a core mandate review done of

the Crown prosecution office?

MR. MARSHALL: All of the cuts that were made in government were made

because of the fact that the forecasts of revenue coming into the Province would

be diminished because of the slowdown in the world economy, and the resultant

lessening of demand for the commodities like oil and minerals, which would mean

the projections for revenues were going to be a lot lower. Therefore, there had

to be reductions made in order to ensure that our expenditures were in line with

the revenue we thought would be coming in.

MS ROGERS: I understand that, but what I am interested more specifically

in what process was done to ascertain the cuts that could be made but to still

provide the necessary service to the Province. When we see the turnaround, where

there are positions reinstated, I imagine that there was a process in place

again to look at that, to see what were the absolute minimum positions that were

needed to be able to do the work that needed to be done.

I wonder, aside from a directive of you have to cut 15 per cent or you have

to cut 12 per cent, what kind of review was done before the cuts were made to

ascertain whether or not the work that needed to be done could still be done.

Was there a core mandate review?

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: The core mandate review is an altogether totally different

exercise from this. The core mandate review had nothing to do with the Budget.

The core mandate review was focused on the activities performed by each of the

departments of government and whether or not we had strayed outside of our core

mandate. In many cases, we have. We may be doing lots of things that are nice to

do, but in this case they may fall outside of making laws, providing policing,

providing court service, and providing correctional services.

The core mandate review was all about looking at what we do and whether it

was time to adjust the course. The Budget exercise was completely different. It

was a way of looking at even the core activities we are engaged in and whether

we could find alternate ways to deliver the services and still find savings.

I just want to add a caveat to the Legal Aid in particular. While the

minister has given you a list of positions and for Andrew's benefit as well

the positions he has given you are not carved in stone. When we went through the

Budget exercise, we would have had a flow chart with a whole list of positions

and different activities throughout the Province and we would have identified

some potential for savings; but they are now going through their own budget,

with a dollar figure in mind, so the positions that we have identified to you

may not, in actual fact, disappear.

Having said all of that, there would have been extensive consideration of the

caseloads of the various Legal Aid attorneys and Legal Aid offices throughout

the Province. It would also have included a consideration of how many of the

interactions that they have with the public actually go to trial versus they are

just consultative in nature or whether they are the paperwork ones in nature.

All of that would have been assessed. We would have consulted with Legal Aid and

asked for their input on suggestions of how we alter the course. All of that

would have been considered by the senior team of the department who are here

when we made our final decisions.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

I was asking questions about the Crown Attorney's Office, but I guess I would

have asked the same about Legal Aid.

MR. KING: Sorry; it is the same answers. I am sorry about that.

MS ROGERS: I assumed that might be the case.

What changed so quickly, so drastically? What were the compelling arguments

to make these changes? Obviously, there had to be something that

MR. KING: You are speaking generally now, not specific to the Crown, are

you, just more general?

MS ROGERS: Well, I am speaking about the Crown again, to have made such

sweeping cuts, I am sure there was a lot of thought going into that, there was a

lot of planning, that there was an analysis of the work that needed to be done

and how to proceed with the work that needed to be done. Obviously, something

changed in a very short period of time to reverse some of that.

I am asking about how these decisions were made.

MR. KING: All of the decisions with respect to the cuts, whether it be

the Sheriff's the ones that we made changes in the Sheriff's office, Crown's

office, Legal Aid, all of them would have gone through the same process that I

just described to you. There would have been lots of consultation with all of

those who are part of the organization. When final Budget decisions were made,

though, the decisions may not necessarily have been known by everyone who would

have provided input into the process.

As I am sure many would appreciate when you do a Budget, until the day the

Budget is brought down, some of these decisions are never final and certainly

never shared, only with the most senior people.

Decisions would have been taken based on extensive consultation,

consideration of the caseload, consideration of the upcoming work.

Once the Budget was delivered, we had two things to consider. One was public

confidence in the justice system, and secondly was a revisiting with further

input from some who were not part of the initial process. When we brought the

committee together, it was for that purpose.

From our perspective, when we made the decisions in the Budget we felt that

the system could withstand the decisions. To be frank, I am still not convinced

that we could not have sustained some of it, but we also recognize that when you

are talking about justice in the Province people have to perceive that justice

is being served and perceive confidence in the system.

We recognize that. We recognize that with the feedback we received and we

recognized through some of the personal input both myself and Minister Marshall

received from acquaintances who had knowledge of the system, who brought forward

very good concrete suggestions. So from that we brought a group together, as you

would be aware of, and we simply laid it out on the table where we were and

asked for their reconsideration of where we were and where might we go, or ought

we go, to ensure people have confidence in the system and ensure that we can

deliver the services we ought to be providing.

The result of that consultation was the announcement Minister Marshall and I

made on behalf of the Premier to add back resources to the system.

MS ROGERS: What would have been the caseload of Crown attorneys before

the Budget? Then what would have been the anticipated caseload of Crown

attorneys once the cuts were in effect?

MR. KING: They vary. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but they

vary. It would depend, for example, the Crown attorneys are assigned different

types of law to practice and some are assigned big case files and thereby would

have a lot lower caseload than some others but they may have a higher workload,

depending on the file they are carrying. It depends on where they are working

and what they are assigned.

MS ROGERS: Is there a waiting list with Legal Aid, just to get a Legal

Aid lawyer? Are there any situations where procedures are prolonged because of

having to wait?

CHAIR: Donna.

MS BALLARD: I cannot tell you the exact time frame, but certainly between

the time you arrive at your first intake for legal aid and the period of time by

which you were assigned a lawyer, I would suggest it is fairly quickly,

especially in criminal law because it has to be. Then the cases are just

dictated by the lawyers and by the court.

MS ROGERS: When was the last time that the eligibility ceiling was

adjusted?

CHAIR: Donna.

MS BALLARD: It is not an eligibility ceiling as such; it is a number of

criteria that are taken into account in terms of when you are eligible. So it is

not simply if you make X amount of money or under, then you are eligible. It is

actually quite an elaborate mechanism by which you take into account all of your

income, all of your expenses, the assets that you may have and so forth. Then it

is almost done on a case-by-case basis, according to their extensive policy, and

then there is an appeal process.

MS ROGERS: Has the criteria been revisited or changed at all? When would

that have been?

MS BALLARD: I am not sure the last time that it was put in place, but I

do know that there is some discretion as well.

MS ROGERS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR: Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Back to 2.3.01, Legal Aid and I apologize if this question was asked about

Legal Aid. What is the current caseload per lawyer in regions?

MR. MARSHALL: I do not know. I would have to check with the Commission. I

would have to check with Mr. Avis to get that information. Donna, do you know

that?

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: We can get the numbers for you, but I can tell you that there

is a significant variance from one region to the other. If you go from Marystown

to the West Coast, Corner Brook, Clarenville, and back to St. John's, there is a

significant variance.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are you saying it is lower in Western as opposed to, say,

Marystown?

MR. KING: I am not sure I can say that with certainty, but I think that

is a good guess, actually. As you would know, I am certain, factored into the

caseload, would be consideration of those who are going to trial versus those

who are simply providing other types of services, so there are a number of

things that you would consider there.

MR. A. PARSONS: The other thing, too, is that our geography, when it

comes to a Legal Aid lawyer in Stephenville, they are going out to Port aux

Basques for three or four days. They used to go to Burgeo but they sometimes may

have to go to Corner Brook, or depending if they are in Corner Brook, up the

Coast.

If I could get the caseloads for before and after perhaps I do not know if

we could get the caseload for 2011 and 2012, something along those lines. I

guess next year we will really see where we are after this. It is not fair to

prejudge it, I would say, but next year we will really see how it goes.

I asked the question about the positions cut but you also mentioned,

Minister, about Aboriginal did you say court?

CHAIR: Minister Marshall.

MR. MARSHALL: It is Aboriginal legal services. There is no contract for a

service provider to provide that service. Provision was made for an annual grant

to the Legal Aid Commission for the provision of Aboriginal legal services. This

is an Aboriginal Courtwork Program.

OFFICIAL: Minister, Ms Dunphy I think can answer that.

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: Debbie can give you a bit more information on that one. That is

fine.

MS DUNPHY: The Aboriginal Courtwork Program is partly funded by the

federal government when we did have a service provider engaged. That program

helped Aboriginals it was not a legal service, but it helped them and taught

them how to get through the system, what they needed to do, and maybe helped

them fill out forms or whatever. The service is still available. It is just now

not a dedicated resource for the Aboriginal people.

MR. A. PARSONS: How much money was involved?

MS DUNPHY: We had a budget of $225,000, offset by federal funding of

$98,400. The past year we have not had anyone engaged. The year before that I

do not have the exact dollar amount, but they did not spend the full budget

either.

MR. A. PARSONS: When you say service provider, who was the provider?

MS JACOBS: It was Labrador Legal Services, and that service provider I

think folded or discontinued. There was no one in Happy-Valley Goose Bay to

provide that service for the last couple of years.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MS JACOBS: The money was not utilized.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. You are saying there was no uptake on it? Okay.

I am going to move forward to 2.4.01, Legislative Counsel, is that under your

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

CHAIR: 2.4.01.

MR. A. PARSONS: It went from $591,000 budgeted last year, to $535,000

spent, and to $456,000 budgeted this year. Can you just elaborate on the

positions?

MR. MARSHALL: There are two positions eliminated, the solicitor, and

there was a vacant administrative position which has not been filled. It is

basically one solicitor.

MR. A. PARSONS: If you will bear with me, I just want to make sure I get

all of

MR. MARSHALL: They had four, there are now three.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have some general questions here. I do not know if they

are related to I have some questions on courts and whatnot, but I guess that

would fall under you, Minister.

While I have you here before I go, I think Gerry might have touched on this.

One of the themes that have been expressed to me is I am assuming this process

we went through for savings and resulted in a fair number of positions, that

took a long period of time, I would imagine, to come up with that. Then the

budget was reviewed and we know that outcry; rightly so, I would say. We know

there was a committee struck and then a meeting held. Then the next day there

were changes.

My question, that has been put to me by people, and I have the same question.

What consultation was done in this long process for it to be changed so quickly

and seemingly in response to public outcry?

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: Yes, I think I spoke to that a few moments ago, actually, to

Gerry. There would have been extensive consultation in the pre-Budget

discussions, whether it was through the Crown's office or Legal Aid, or the

Sheriff's Office. We would have consulted with managers in the system, those who

are responsible for organizing and carrying out the day-to-day activities.

We would have assessed or considered caseloads, workloads of different

employees. We would have contemplated their ability to move forward with fewer

positions, or positions operating in a different manner. That did take

considerable time, no question about that, and considerable discussion and

considerable consultation, as I said a few minutes ago.

Post-Budget, we were able to respond very quickly because we had all the

legwork and footwork done. We knew the data. We had the data compiled on the

various regions and various offices throughout the Province. Post-Budget, the

discussions focused on and to be fair, we had discussions even in advance of

bringing the stakeholder committee together. We would have been contemplating

any number of things.

We responded to particular reasons, as I said earlier. We recognize the need

to ensure there is public confidence in the justice system. There was concern

expressed to some in very respectful positions who work with us, not in a public

vein but in a very private and direct avenue, that we ought to rethink some of

what we have done and they offered some very good suggestions on what we might

contemplate.

We brought in some of our managers and some of our leaders in the system and

shared some of that information with them and sought further input from them on

if we were to try and find some resources to head back to the system, what is

your advice? The result of those discussions and deliberations would have been

what Minister Marshall and I announced when we reversed some of the cuts and

announced there would be a further review of the Legal Aid sheriffs and the

Crown.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have just three things out of that. Number one, you

mention that there are some people you had not talked to first that came to you,

maybe not in a public vein, but came to you with some suggestions. So people who

had not been part of the consultation upfront?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KING: To be clear, not necessarily people who ought to have been

consulted either, but people who had some expertise and wanted to lend a view to

us in support of what we were trying to achieve.

MR. A. PARSONS: The second

part is you went through the consultation and

then you met with these people. Were these people that you met with managers, et

cetera? This is pre-Budget. Would they have been telling you not to make the

cuts, and it was a case of, well, we have to go ahead and find this?

MR. KING: Those discussions are confidential, and the people who

participated in those discussions I think would want to keep it that way, but I

think it is fair to say that there were varying views expressed. Managers of the

system recognized the challenges that government faced.

As Minister Marshall said a few moments ago, you have to make tough choices.

Do you run a $1.5 billion or $1.6 billion deficit, or do you try and make

prudent decisions? That is what we tried to do, and we tried to do that across

all of government.

The Department of Justice was no different. Unfortunately for us, the best

part of our budget is human resources. We do not have a lot of programs and

funds that we can just simply eliminate. The only way, for the most part, we can

find savings is through the elimination of people, unfortunately.

Going through any process there would have been obviously concerns because,

no different than people who sit in this House, when you are in Opposition or to

what we are doing, nobody wants to lose a position. Everybody will find reasons

why they cannot lose a position. I lived in that world too before I was elected.

At the same time, managers and people in responsible positions very clearly

indicated that they felt it could still work, that there would, no doubt, be

challenges and would have to find other ways of delivering our service but they

felt it could work.

When we revisited it, obviously they understood the situation we were in. So,

they came back with some very good suggestions, not necessarily to put things

back status quo because they recognized the challenge government was facing with

the Budget. They came out with some very good suggestions on how we might

reinvest back into the system to take away the strain. In addition to the

resources we put back, the commitment to do a review was part of what was felt

by the collective whole would be well received.

Government made the commitment that we will do a review and if we were wrong

and if, in fact, we should not have made any cuts and we are under resourcing

the system, we committed to take the results of the review and try and improve

the system. If the results come back and indicate, yes, there are ways of doing

things differently and maybe we could have made further changes, well people

understand that we will have to live with that too.

MR. A. PARSONS: I know my time is up, but if I could just have your

indulgence because I do not want to lose my train of thought. These decisions

I guess the reversal is what it was would this have been on the Premier's

instructions or the minister's?

MR. KING: We are straying way outside the Estimates here, I think, now

aren't we?

MR. A. PARSONS: Well, I

MR. KING: I have outlined the process we went through.

MR. A. PARSONS: The reason I asked it is because it is going to lead into

I think you said earlier that you feel you are confident with the decisions

you made that the service could have been provided but you changed it for the

perception reasoning. I did not know if it was a case of you wanting to make

this, or was it the Premier's instruction? Did you end up making a second

decision that you did not really want to make?

MR. KING: I think the decisions I made speak for themselves. I do not

think I need to elaborate. We made a decision in the Budget, and I own it as the

minister. We made a subsequent decision, and I own that one as the minister,

sharing it with my colleague.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Gerry.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

I have nothing more on the Legislative Council. Where do we go next for

Minister Marshall? Is there anything else there?

CHAIR: Okay. Just so I am clear and we will save Gerry's clock, if we

could. We have no more questions for Minister Marshall? We have gone through all

sections?

MS ROGERS: Did we cover all the topics? Yes?

MR. KING: Andrew, did you cover the four?

MR. A. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. KING: Okay. If you want to go back now, Mr. Chair, to the very

beginning and go through it that way

CHAIR: That is where I am trying to get to here, Minister.

Minister Marshall, I want to thank you for your time this evening. I know you

have many other things you need to do in preparation for tomorrow. So, I thank

you very much.

MR. MARSHALL: I will see you tomorrow morning.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Marshall.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

CHAIR: This might be a chance if anybody wishes to let's take five, and

we will come back to you, Gerry, at that point. We have been here for about an

hour and a half, so let's take five and give everybody a second to catch their

breath.

Recess

CHAIR: Are we okay, Minister?

MR. KING: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Gerry, you are good?

MS ROGERS: I am, Mr. Chair.

So I guess we are going to start at the very beginning.

CHAIR: We are going to go

back to 1.1.01, page 17.3 for anybody following. We will start and see if we can

get through this.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS: There is a wonderful line in Alice in Wonderland that

says: Let's start at the beginning, go on to the end, and then stop.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS ROGERS: So, let's start at the beginning.

If we go to General Administration, 1.2.01, Executive Support, we see a

reduction there of $162,000. What is that for, in the Salaries? So we have lost

a position or two?

MR. KING: It is the elimination of two positions. The department used to

have an associate deputy minister position with appropriate administrative

support. The position was vacant for the last period of time and both have been

eliminated.

MS ROGERS: How long has that been vacant?

MR. KING: It has been a couple of years. We have been carrying it on the

books, the position and the salary, but it is has been a couple of years.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

Administrative and Policy Support we did not do that one yet, did we?

Subhead 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support, in Salaries, have we lost a

position there or two or?

MR. KING: It is a combination there. There was some money placed there

for the Family Violence Intervention Court and there are four positions being

eliminated.

MS ROGERS: The Family Violence Intervention Court, what positions would

have been there for the Family Violence Intervention Court?

MR. KING: Probation Officer, Victim Services Officer, Social Worker, a

Provincial Court Liaison, and a Legal Aid Intake Officer.

MS ROGERS: Where have these positions gone?

MR. KING: Pardon?

MS ROGERS: Are these positions gone entirely or have they been moved

somewhere else?

MR. KING: No, eliminated in the Budget.

MS ROGERS: They are eliminated entirely.

The work that these people did within the Family Violence Intervention Court,

those cases still exist; so where will they be absorbed in the system? The cases

MR. KING: You mean the cases that are not yet complete?

MS ROGERS: These were four positions, yes?

MR. KING: Four point five.

MS ROGERS: Five positions for the Family Violence Intervention Court?

MR. KING: Four point five; the social worker was a point five, shared.

MS ROGERS: Right. The work that they would have done, the cases will

still exist, and I do not mean the ones that were current in the Family Violence

Intervention Court. The cases will be channelled where in the work that would

result cases that no longer go through the Family Violence Intervention Court,

they will go where?

MR. KING: They would have access to other services that we provide to

support victims, but with the closing of the court the positions no longer exist

and the service will no longer be provided.

MS ROGERS: I understand that.

MR. KING: Those who chose an alternate service will avail of other types

of victim service supports that we would offer in the system. I cannot name all

of those here for you, but

MS ROGERS: Has there been any increase in those areas to accommodate the

extra workload that will come as a result of the closure?

MR. KING: No.

Last year's number in the Family Violence Intervention Court was twenty-one

cases that completed the program, and we are confident, based on advice by

employees in the system, that we can accommodate if those twenty-one would like

to avail of other services and supports.

MS ROGERS: Maybe we can get back to that a little bit later when we look

at some of the court situations, unless we could maybe even look at the Family

Violence Intervention Court now.

On what basis was the decision made to cut the court?

MR. KING: You are jumping to tab 6?

OFFICIAL: No, I am telling her there is some information in the tabs.

MR. KING: Okay.

The Family Violence Intervention Court was a budgetary decision, like a

number of changes that we made in the department. We considered the number of

people who were being served, we considered the budget that would have been

appropriated for it, and we would have considered it as part of the core

activities of our department. That one in particular was a pilot project that we

would have been assessing on a year-to-year basis. In efforts to find savings in

the Budget, that was one of the options that we decided to let go.

MS ROGERS: I understand that there was a plan, in fact, to move the

Family Violence Intervention Court out from the Department of Justice and into

the courts, per se?

MR. KING: I have no knowledge of that.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

What was the yearly budget for the court?

MR. KING: It is a little over $526,000.

MS ROGERS: For the cases that were going through the court, what was the

fallback plan for both the offenders and victims whose cases were before the

court?

MR. KING: Cases that are before the court, or were engaged in the

process, we will continue to provide the supports that we have been providing

through that process. So it will be a phase-out period. The budget here reflects

the budget for next year, but we are still going to provide some of these

services until those who are actively engaged finish the process.

MS ROGERS: So the ongoing, more intensive bail supervision and the

ongoing therapy programs for the offenders are still being provided by the same

service providers?

MR. KING: We will continue to provide the supports and services that we

provided through the Family Violence Intervention Court to those who had started

the process prior to the budgetary decision to eliminate it. So there would be

no new intakes, but anyone who has been a part of the process and intending to

stay a part of the process, we will honour the commitment to see them through.

MS ROGERS: Of the people whose cases were before courts, how and when

were they notified of the closure of the court?

MR. KING: I would imagine, like most people in the Province, on Budget

day when we announced that the Family Violence Intervention Court was going to

be terminated, the project would be terminated, there would have been contact

after that, down through the system, but the public notification would have come

on Budget day.

MS ROGERS: So people whose cases were before the court, particularly in

some situations, and I would think for the most part just for shorthand sake I

may refer to offenders as male, and victims as female and children, just for

shorthand, but I am aware that is not always the case.

I understand the way the court operated and because of the support services,

that there were women who agreed to go through the court procedures and willing

to go to the police and have their partners charged, knowing because the word

on the street was that there was great supports in place and they would feel

more safe because of the intensive bail supervision that happened and the fact

that the offender was compelled to plead guilty and the offender was compelled

to attend treatment.

I just find it odd that they would find out the system that they so relied on

and trusted and gave them a certain sense of security, they may have just simply

found out through the media, because they took great risks. Many of them took

great risks by deciding to go through this court procedure. Many women will not

go because they know there is not that much safety for them.

The plan then is to provide exactly the same services to the women and

children. Child, Youth and Family Services are still involved for the cases that

were before the court?

MR. KING: The services that we provided before the Budget, with the

Family Violence Intervention Court, will continue for those who had started the

process in the court before the Budget announced that it was closing.

MS ROGERS: All of the exact same services?

MR. KING: The services that we provided before the Budget announced the

court was closing will continue to be provided for those who were enrolled in

the court process before the Budget closed them.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

My understanding is that people did not have to apply for legal aid if they

chose to go through the Family Violence Intervention Court, now they will. Will

this put additional strain on the already strained legal aid department?

MR. KING: We do not believe it will.

CHAIR: Okay. Gerry, I am going to turn it back to Andrew.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Do you just need a follow up? Okay.

I am going to go back, I guess not back. I am going to start on 1.2.02, but

before I do that, just one question in general.

My understanding is that the department moved from the fourth floor down to

Argyle Street. What is the duration of that move expected to be?

MR. KING: The entire department is not moved.

MR. A. PARSONS: No. What moved to Argyle Street?

MR. KING: Pieces of our department, certain sections. The duration will

be for the renovations of Confederation Building, as I understand it, because

part of what used to be our floor is swing space now. We have people coming and

going there, where they are renovating other sections of the building.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. What is the duration? Is it a year, two years or

something?

MR. KING: Probably the Minister of Transportation would be a better one

to ask that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. Would he be a better one to talk to about the cost

of renovations?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

On 1.2.02.05 Professional Services, I noticed that an extra $50,000 was spent

last year right on the button. Then this year it is an extra $30,000 budgeted

right on the button. What would that encompass?

MR. KING: Both are related to expenses around the Criminal Code Review

Board. There was a shortfall there of $50,000. In particular, the Criminal Code

Review Board, we had offset it by savings related to the Commissioner of

Lobbyists office. On the $80,000 increase, we are re-profiling that for the

anticipated cost of that this year; so re-profiling for another part of the

department.

MR. A. PARSONS: Purchased Services went down pretty dramatically. Does

that have to do with the Family Violence court or is that anything else?

MR. KING: Family Violence Intervention is the big one. There are a number

of other odds and ends in there but the Family Violence Intervention is the main

dollar figure, put it that way.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to move forward to 1.2.03, Legal Information

Management. We have a cut in line 01. Was there a position eliminated here?

MR. KING: Yes, one position.

MR. A. PARSONS: One position. What was the title on it?

MR. KING: Policy, Planning & Research Analyst.

MR. A. PARSONS: Under Supplies again, normally, I do not ask too many

questions on supplies but last year what was budgeted was spent exactly, and

then this year it is cut down to $380,500. I am just wondering what is not being

purchased this year. What supplies do we not need?

MR. KING: We are going to change the way we purchase a number of our

materials and change some of the materials that are currently made available in

the Law Library.

MR. A. PARSONS: When you say change something available in the Law

Library, what would that be?

MR. KING: I do not have the specifics here. I will talk to someone

upstairs, but we just may not order certain resources that we have been ordering

regularly.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

In 1.2.04, Administrative Support, I believe this deals with, "Appropriations

provide for facilities planning and the acquisition of tangible capital assets."

I do not know if this is where I would ask about the court in Corner Brook,

which I believe needed some work done with roofing. What was the cost on that?

MR. KING: Can you be more specific, the cost to do the initial job?

MR. A. PARSONS: No, I think there was an issue with the roof recently.

MR. KING: Yes.

CHAIR: Heather.

MS JACOBS: I am not sure of the cost because TW is looking after that. My

understanding is a tender was awarded this week for the roof to start to get

repaired. You would have to ask at TW the exact cost.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. Just so I make sure I will save us some trouble

down the road, because I am going to ask questions about the RNC building as

well. Now, that would fall under this.

CHAIR: Minister King.

MR. KING: Thank you.

The RNC facilities fall with us, but the appropriation of the Budget and the

renovations fall with Transportation and Works. I do not know if that helps you.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: Oh, sorry, Andrew, the RNC is with us. Sorry, my mistake.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, and forgive me if I ask a question on one building

and it falls somewhere else.

MR. KING: Yes, that is fine.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is the Corner Brook courthouse.

I am just wondering now, Property, Furnishings, and Equipment; last year we

had to spend just over an extra $100,000 than what was budgeted, but this year

it is up a significant amount. What is in the works for this year?

MR. KING: You might recall the Budget announcement on the mobile work

stations for the Inland Fish Enforcement officers.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KING: That is in there. That, as well, is being re-profiled from

within the department.

MR. A. PARSONS: I might be in the wrong area now, but since we are

talking about the courthouse and RNC building, which I will come back to, what

section would Her Majesty's fall under here? Do you guys have any responsibility

for that when it comes to the institution?

MR. KING: What

section for what do you mean?

MR. A. PARSONS: The building itself.

MR. KING: What is your specific question on the building?

MR. A. PARSONS: How much did we have to spend on Her Majesty's last year

just for upkeep and renovation?

MR. KING: Renovation or maintenance.

MR. A. PARSONS: Maintenance, whatever.

OFFICIAL: That is Transportation.

MR. KING: That is TW.

MR. A. PARSONS: So the general question I mean, this is something that

has come up every year is there any plans in the works for Her Majesty's? I

guess, in these circumstances, there will not be.

MR. KING: No, I would not say there will not be. I am sure you are aware,

that is a big project. We have been I do not want to say we, government,

successive ministers, Minister Marshall, myself, Minister Kennedy, Minister

Collins, and I am sure previous governments have worked hard to try and get the

federal government onside in a cost-shared partnership.

We are still struggling with that. We have not seen any signs that they are

prepared to come to the table, but we are certainly going to give consideration,

I would expect in the near future, as to whether or not the project is important

enough that we have to try to find a way to move forward, in spite of the

federal government.

I am not saying we will do that, but I think we are at the point where we are

going to have to make the decision and if the decision is yes we are moving

forward, we will make some kind of announcement. If the decision is we are not,

I think we need to tell people that until the feds come we are definitely not

doing this. I think we are kind of in that decision area.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I am going to move on with the time I have left for this juncture just to

Fines Administration, 1.3.01. There is a cut there in Salaries. How many

positions are cut?

MR. KING: Two temporary positions and one permanent.

MR. A. PARSONS: What were those positions?

MR. KING: There were two temporary Financial Collection Officers and a

Clerk.

MR. A. PARSONS: What is the total outstanding amount of fines right now?

MR. KING: It is $39 million and change.

MR. A. PARSONS: What was it last year? Do we have that number?

MR. KING: It was $37 million.

MR. A. PARSONS: This is something that I talked to Minister Collins about

last year. It is a big issue obviously if we have almost $40 million owing. It

is gone up.

I believe there are studies showing that the more people you have working to

collect fines the better chance you have of collecting them. What was the

rationale behind getting rid of people who used to collect that money?

MR. KING: Purely a budgetary decision. In this case we took one permanent

position out and there were two temporary positions. When we went through the

Budget reduction exercise our first priority was to try and protect ours being

government permanent positions. Where we had vacancies or temporary positions,

those would have been the ones that we would have targeted first. In this

particular case, we made the decision that we could continue the collection rate

we are at with the remaining staff.

MR. A. PARSONS: This is an outstanding issue; it has been there for

years. Has there been any internal discussions, studies, work put towards how we

can try something new to fix this problem and collect money? We just had a

gentleman picked up the other night with $26,000 owing. I do not know if that is

going to stop. I am just wondering, is there anything in the works?

MR. KING: Nothing in the works. It is

an act of frustration, I will tell

you that, as people here would tell you. I mean, I have not been there a long

time, but it has been something I have raised on any number of occasions trying

to find a way forward. I am trying to give it some attention; $40 million for

the sake of a discussion point is a lot of money, but there are mitigating

factors that make it difficult.

The person you described, for example, picked up; typically their attachment

to the legal community and to any degree of rationalization for a lot of them is

missing. It is a challenge to try to find a way forward. I can say to you that

it has been identified by me with the deputy and others as a priority to see if

we can find a way forward.

Whether there is some new and creative way that we can find that others did

not, I do not know. With all due respect, if you have a suggestion to help us

out we would love to hear it. It is a frustrating piece of work for successive

governments I think.

MR. A. PARSONS: I know my time is up, but I am probably going to return

to that

section after.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you Andrew.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS: I would like to go back to General Administration, Capital,

1.2.04, Administrative Support. Line 05, Professional Services, $500,000: What

is that for? You may have said and I may have missed it.

MR. KING: No, I did not say. That would be funding provided to us for

facilities throughout the Province. As you would know we have a lot of

facilities: Her Majesty's Penitentiary. We have responsibilities for the

courthouses. We have corrections facilities across the Province. That is money

provided for planning and/or work on those facilities, capital planning.

MS ROGERS: Capital planning, and is there any specific plan for that?

MR. KING: Not at this point in time. Anything that we do with that money

will be announced through a public opportunity.

MS ROGERS: Just about the same amount of money for the Family Violence

Intervention Court. Look at that.

Okay, thank you. I am sorry I could not resist that.

I would like to go back to the Family Violence Intervention Court. The court

was heralded as part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy. In 2011 the Department

of Justice announced this court was going to become a permanent part of the

system and now we have this about-face. Aside from money, I know that there was

an internal evaluation done of the court, what were some of the findings of that

evaluation in terms of was the court providing the role that it was intended to?

MR. KING: The Family Violence Intervention Court was a budgetary

decision. It was not reflective of any conclusion that there were not benefits

to the people who participated in the process.

MS ROGERS: Okay. Do you have any statistics on what the recidivism rates

were for the people who went through this court versus those who did not?

MR. KING: I do not at my disposal, no.

MS ROGERS: I understand that, in fact, the recidivism rates there were

about a quarter of cases that did not go through the court system. I wonder if

there has been any cost-benefit analysis done on discontinuing the court, what

the cost would be to the system by not continuing the court, keeping in mind

that it looked like the recidivism rate was quite low. Was there any analysis at

all done of that?

MR. KING: There would have been consideration of any number of factors

when we went through the Budget process. As I said a couple of times earlier,

the Family Violence Intervention Court was considered as part of a whole host of

activities that were engaged in the Department of Justice. We had challenges

around the Budget; we had to find opportunities where we could change things

that we were doing.

It was very clear, from my perspective at least, that there is some core

activities that we did not want to compromise. Front-line police services in

communities, court services, correctional facilities, Crown attorney and Legal

Aid services are all part of the core mandate of this department. The Family

Violence Intervention Court was introduced as a pilot above and beyond the core

activities of the department.

None of the messaging that I have ever provided, nor the decision, when it

was announced, focused on saying that it was not valuable. It was a budgetary

decision.

MS ROGERS: I guess some of my questions then would be somewhat budgetary

in terms, again, if the recidivism rates were lower that would put less of a

strain on other courts and services. So, where will the domestic violence cases

go now?

MR. KING: We will provide other victim support services, just as we did

pre two or three years ago when the Family Violence court was introduced as a

pilot.

MS ROGERS: Where will the actual court cases go?

MR. KING: Through regular court process.

MS ROGERS: Through the regular court process, yes. Thank you.

There was significant training and specialization with the judges and

prosecutors and legal aid and professionals in the system who dealt with these

cases. Will there be any of that in the mainstream court process to deal with

some of the special issues that are faced by family violence, domestic violence

cases?

MR. KING: It is probably a question better put to the chief judge and

justices of the court system because they are the ones who set their

professional development goals and determine what the needs are of those in the

system. We have a training fund ongoing for people who are directly employed by

the department and we will respond if the Director of Public Prosecutions

indicates to us that there is training required. We respond regularly.

Legal Aid lawyers, I think it is better to be speaking to them because they

operate independent of us. While we provide a piece of their budget, there is a

board that governs the Legal Aid Commission and they make decisions for their

own membership.

MS ROGERS: I know the wait time from the time of offence to the time of

disposition was considerably shorter than going through the regular court

process. What is the estimation of what that will be now?

MR. KING: I cannot answer that. I think it is a better question for the

chief judge or justices of the court system.

MS ROGERS: Offenders, in order to go through the Family Violence

Intervention Court, had to plead guilty and then they had direct access to

treatment. I understand, as well, that if an offender pleaded guilty which was

necessary to access the court it took about eight months. In regular court

they will have to wait until sentencing if they are going to be mandated to

receive treatment. Do we have any idea how long this might take in court?

MR. KING: I do not at this point in time.

MS ROGERS: Before the Family Violence Intervention Court, we know that

domestic violence cases often took up to two years from the time of offence to

disposition, and all the research shows that the most effective intervention is

as close as possible to the time of offence. Are we looking at two years again?

MR. KING: The Family Violence Intervention Court was a budgetary

decision. I am quite prepared to spend all evening if you like listening to your

reasons why you support it, and I have the greatest respect for that as long as

everybody understands there is a limited amount of time for Estimates. If this

is where the priority is I am fine with that, but the fact of the matter is, as

far as Estimates go, we have never challenged the validity of the Family

Violence Intervention Court. We have never challenged the success of the people

who have gone through it.

I have been very clear from the day we made the announcement that it was a

budgetary decision. It was considered in the context of: Will we lay police

officers, take police officers out of communities? Do we take further Crown

prosecutors out? Do we take further lawyers away from the Legal Aid system? Do

we take correctional officers out of facilities? Do we make further changes to

the Whitbourne Youth Centre? All of those criteria and all those mitigating

factors surrounding the justice system were considered.

Never once have we challenged the validity or the success of the Family

Violence Court. It was purely a budgetary decision. It was a pilot project

outside of the regular core activities that have been funded by our department.

In this exercise we have decided that we will no longer fund that pilot.

MS ROGERS: I hear that.

Can we talk a little bit about bail supervision? Bail supervision was an

important aspect of the Family Violence Intervention process. With cutbacks to

probation officers, because I believe we have cutbacks to probation officers,

and the removal of the electronic bracelet program, how will the department be

able to respond to the need for adequate bail supervision?

MR. KING: We believe, given the number of clients we are dealing with in

the Family Violence Intervention Court, they can be absorbed in the current

caseload.

MS ROGERS: All the men currently in treatment and this will continue for

those currently in treatment, what about afterwards, those who will not be going

through the Family Violence Intervention Court? Where will treatment be placed?

MR. KING: They will have an opportunity to follow the same process that

they would have followed pre-introduction of this several years ago. So the

regular court system. We have legal aid, we have probations offices, we have

victims' services offices, and we have services provided through Child, Youth

and Family Services. All of those will continue to be made available to them.

MS ROGERS: Has there been any cuts at all to treatment programs for

offenders through the Department of Justice?

MR. KING: No.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, Gerry.

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to go quickly back to 1.3.01, Fines Administration. I say this,

realizing this is not a new problem. It is one that has been around for a long

time. Have there been discussions with the judiciary about this situation?

Obviously, if people are breaking the law there has to be some kind of

punishment. Obviously, in many cases the financial means is not there for them

to be able to pay. Do we just go and toss people into incarceration, which does

not serve the purpose? I know this is a bit outside, but I am just wondering, is

this a conversation that has been had?

MR. KING: I can only speak, of course, to my tenure here. I cannot speak

for previous ministers, but I have had a couple of discussions. I think you hit

the challenge really. If incarceration is the only option, then you have the

cost of incarceration and everything that goes with that. I think, as you said,

it is not really the option we are looking for.

In the discussions I have had there have been no other alternatives or no

magic bullet proposed at this point in time. What I have tried to do, as

minister, is open the door with those at the courts in particular, the chief

judges, to see if there are other things that our department ought to be

considering in our processes to try and improve the collection rate.

MR. A. PARSONS: You mentioned tossing ideas out. I have one which may not

be well reasoned or well thought out but I will put it out there. I think in a

lot of cases we looked at other jurisdictions and other areas. I know in the

states they have work programs. The person does not have the means to pay.

Incarcerating him is not the option. I know it has been discussed publicly here.

I have heard the conversations on Open Line.

Is that something that has been considered, or it has been looked at and

there are drawbacks to it from a policy perspective? That is just one idea.

MR. KING: Yes. I will ask Paul to respond.

CHAIR: Paul.

MR. NOBLE: Some consideration has been given to programs of that sort.

The research has, in fact, indicated that in the long term it actually costs

more to administer these programs than the savings that are realized by catching

the scofflaws, if you will.

MR. A. PARSONS: Back to the drawing board.

MR. NOBLE: It is a perennial problem across the country, of course, as

you can appreciate. The fundamental question is: How do you get people to stop

breaking the law? I guess if we knew the answer to that, then we might not even

be here.

MR. A. PARSONS: I appreciate that answer because it is one that gets

asked and it is nice to know that it has been looked at.

MR. NOBLE: Thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS: I appreciate the frustration that comes with it. It is

not a new problem; it has been around for years.

I am going to move forward. I guess we are up to 2.1.02, Mr. Chair? We skip

past Civil Law and go to Sheriff's Office.

CHAIR: Yes, Sir, if that is good with you.

MR. A. PARSONS: In this one, a significant drop in salaries from what was

spent last year to this year, how many positions?

MR. KING: Just so I am clear, you are talking about the budget for

2012-2013 compared to 2013-2014?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. KING: There would have been twenty temporary positions within the

Sheriff's Office that would have been eliminated. We have since not reflected

here, of course provided two full-time positions back, plus the filling of I

think it was three vacancies, and we also have provided for a casual call-in

list and will provide the appropriate funding for that.

By the way, if I could digress, I am not sure if you asked this or Gerry, but

a rough estimate on the cost for the add back will be around a million dollars.

One of you asked me that earlier. It is around a million dollars, ballpark

figure, for the extra attorneys and the Sheriff's Office.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Under Sheriff's Office, Transportation and Communications, there was a pretty

big jump in what was budgeted and what was spent last year. What was the extra

for?

MR. KING: It was predominately travel, for sheriff's officers having to

travel to other locations to provide services. Part of what we did in this

budget is we made some changes around the Province, moved some positions around

a little bit well, the Sheriff's Office did, not us to try to eliminate the

need. We had $112,000 there. Predominately, the bulk of it was for officers who

had to travel, either to provide services or deliver documents and those kinds

of things circuit courts and those sorts of things.

MR. A. PARSONS: I want to make sure I have the right information. What

was the complement at and what is currently sitting at now when it comes to

sheriff's officers, just so I know for sure?

MR. KING: I will get it for you. I do not have the complete list here, if

that is fine?

CHAIR: Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: Just to clarify, you want the complement before the cuts and

after as well.

MR. A. PARSONS: I would like to know what it is as of, say, today?

MS DUNPHY: Okay.

MR. A. PARSONS: The people affected

CHAIR: Minister.

MR. KING: Yes, I can give you some numbers.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KING: I did not realize we had them here.

The best thing to do is probably give you the total employees in the

Sheriff's Office. These are not all court security. I have court security too,

but we are talking about other positions. The total in the office today would be

for the coming budget sixty-six permanent, seventeen temporary, for a total

of eighty-three positions.

Previous it would have been sixty-nine permanent, thirty-eight temporary, for

a total of 107 positions.

MR. A. PARSONS: Out of those numbers, which ones were sheriff's officers?

MR. KING: Okay.

Let me just give you the sheriff's officers in the same manner, okay?

MR. A. PARSONS: Perfect.

MR. KING: Currently, there would be fifty-two permanent sheriff's

officers, thirteen temporary, for a total of sixty-five. Am I going too fast?

MR. A. PARSONS: No, good.

MR. KING: Last year, it would have been fifty-two permanent as well, so

it is status quo, and there would have been thirty-two temporary positions, for

a total of eighty-four.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is fair to say that

MR. KING: Again, that does not reflect the add backs.

MR. A. PARSONS: That does not reflect the add backs?

MR. KING: No.

Let me get you the exact number on the add backs, because we filled some

vacancies. I could give you that tomorrow, if that is fine?

MR. A. PARSONS: That is fine by me.

Obviously, that is a big number in terms of this process. I have heard from

people throughout this about in some places the RCMP have been called in to do

the work of sheriff's officers, where they could not be located. Is that

something you have a concern about as the minister or have you been assured that

this is not going to be an issue?

MR. KING: I am not concerned. If the RCMP had to be used, they are

certainly well qualified to do it, but I have reassured by the High Sheriff that

things are fine.

One of the challenges that we faced in that budget is they were running over

budget for the last number of years with those temporary positions. We did not

have the money to provide for what was there in the process in the place; forget

the fact that we started a process where we were trying to find some savings.

The other opportunity, I think, that the call-in list provides is the High

Sheriff can call them in when they are needed and does not necessarily have to

pay to call them in for a full day's work if they need someone for an hour or

two, three, or four. There are efficiencies to be had by doing that.

We are advised, as of as late as this afternoon, that things are functioning.

Scheduling has levelled out. We had some challenges and we recognize some of the

challenges were sending us messages and all that sort of stuff were all part of

the process. I can only speak as we are advised as of today, and we are advised

as of today things are going smoothly and scheduling is working.

As I said to you before, we are going to do a review of this office. We are

going to engage somebody or some company who has some expertise around security

management and scheduling. If we have erred somehow here, we will fix it. We are

prepared to put resources back in. If there is an alternate way of doing

scheduling, then we are prepared to look at that.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have two quick follow-ups, if I may. Number one, of all

the people affected under this, have they been notified by their employer, the

Sheriff's Office?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Number two, the review that is being done; has there been

an amount budgeted to cover off that review?

MR. KING: No, not at this point.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Gerry.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair, I just have a few more questions on the Family

Violence Intervention Court. What now happens to the issues of access to

children? Those cases went through the Family Violence Intervention Court. Where

will they be directed now?

MR. KING: It will all proceed through the regular court system, as it did

pre the introduction of the Family Violence Intervention Court. As I might add,

as it happens for many now, because it is a small number who choose to use

Family Violence Intervention Court, there are lots of other cases of that nature

that still progress through the regular courts.

MS ROGERS: Not all those cases involve domestic violence, though, in

terms of not all access cases involve domestic violence. I am not so of sure the

numbers you state. When you say twenty-eight, was that twenty-eight cases that

were in process for this year? My understanding is that there were 157 cases

during the first three years and seventy-two cases last year. Are those numbers

correct?

MR. KING: Seventy-two appeared the first time last year; forty-eight

would have been eligible for programming, and twenty-one chose to receive the

programming.

MS ROGERS: Not twenty-eight?

MR. KING: No. This year, twenty-eight are eligible.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. KING: We do not have the numbers on how many of those are choosing to

complete the program.

MS ROGERS: Okay. Those are twenty-eight families with all kinds of

support services. Thank you.

The Family Violence Intervention Court took place a half day, was it, once a

week?

MR. KING: I am not sure. I can find that out, if it is important for you.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

I also have a question regarding violent offenders. So who will supervise the

undertakings when they plead not guilty then in family violence situations,

domestic violence situations?

MR. KING: Well, they will follow the normal court process now. So,

whatever the normal process is, in the absence of the Family Violence

Intervention Court, all the supports that the justice system would normally

provide will still be there.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

What kind of consultation process took place before the decision to cut the

Family Violence Intervention Court? You say it is a budgetary decision, but I

imagine then that there are other budgetary considerations in terms of what the

costs would be without the court.

MR. KING: We would have had considerable discussion with those involved

in the system, those with experiences in the system, to provide us with

information for consideration as part of the thought process.

MS ROGERS: So were any of the main providers of the services consulted at

all?

MR. KING: There would have been any number of people consulted.

MS ROGERS: Any of the main providers of the services through this

particular court, with the expertise of this court?

MR. KING: There would have been any number of people with expertise on

family violence consulted, but as I said, the decision was not about the value

of the Family Violence Intervention Court. The Department of Justice has some

core areas we are responsible for. Providing front-line policing in communities

to ensure citizens follow the laws of the land are very important. When those

laws are broken, then we have an obligation to incarcerate people and provide

them with a trial, and that requires Crown attorneys and it requires Legal Aid.

In instances where they are found guilty, there are oftentimes where they

have to be incarcerated for longer periods of time. We provide correctional

facilities. All of those make up the core things that the Department of Justice

does for this Province and for the country. Other things, we have engaged in on

the periphery to support those activities and they are all good things, and

there are lots of other good things that we would like to do.

The budgetary decision is not a reflection of our view that this was not a

valuable service. It is a reflection that based on all the other priorities that

we have before us and based upon the resources that we have to invest in this

department, this pilot is not being renewed.

MS ROGERS: I understand one of the goals and objectives would be (

a) reduce recidivism, and also as much as possible to keep offenders out of

incarceration through the admission of guilt and through treatment, again, with

the possibility of reducing recidivism, which I would think would be a budgetary

consideration.

Okay, if we go to 2.1.04, Family Justice Services.

CHAIR: Heading 2.1.04, Family Justice Services.

MS ROGERS: We see in the Salaries a reduction of $271,800. Are there

positions cut there?

MR. KING: Yes, they are.

MS ROGERS: Can you tell us what positions they would be?

MR. KING: There are four positions in total: a Family Justice Services

Co-ordinator, a Lead Family Services Co-ordinator in Corner Brook

MS ROGERS: I am sorry; could you repeat that, Minister?

MR. KING: A Lead Family Court Councillor in Corner Brook, a Family Court

Councillor in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and a Regional Manager position in St.

John's.

MS ROGERS: The Regional Manager in St. John's, what was the role? What

was the job of the Regional Manager?

MR. KING: Pardon?

MS ROGERS: What was the role of the Regional Manager? What was his

position managing?

MR. KING: It was a Regional Manager for Family Justice Services, so it

would have been a management position with responsibilities for supervising

other employees within this particular

MS ROGERS: Okay.

This would be the service that people who could no longer go through the

Family Violence Intervention Court would then go to the Family Justice Services.

MR. KING: No.

MS ROGERS: No, they wouldn't?

Would this be part of dispute resolution, counselling mediation, so perhaps

people who can no longer go to the Family Violence Intervention Court, if there

is domestic violence involved, they would avail of some of the Family Justice

Services?

MR. KING: I am going to ask Donna to speak to that.

MS ROGERS: Absolutely. Yes, Donna, thank you.

MS BALLARD: Family Justice Services is a mandatory service from our

Unified Family Court and from our provincial court dealing with family matters.

So if you are a couple or an individual making an application for support, for

child support, or custody and access, then this is a mediation service that is

provided for you.

MS ROGERS: Right.

MS BALLARD: It does not have anything to do with family violence.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MS BALLARD: In fact, it is very unlikely that people who are in violent

situations would benefit from this particular service.

MS ROGERS: Would some of the decisions about access come through this, or

would that be handled separately?

MS BALLARD: No, the idea is that individuals who avail of this service

want to come to their own agreement. It is a mediation service.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for that clarification.

Line 06, Purchased Services: We see that there was $50,000 not spent in

2012-2013.

CHAIR: Subhead 2.1.04.06, Purchased Services?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. KING: Sorry, Gerry, could you ask me again?

MS ROGERS: There was about $50,000 not spent in Purchased Services. Was

there anything in particular that was budgeted for that was not spent?

MR. KING: Some savings in travel money predominantly.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

We see a bump there in the federal revenue. What was that? What would that

federal revenue be for?

MR. KING: We have a number of federal-provincial agreements relating to

Family Justice Services which brings revenue to the Province to fund a number of

the positions and services in here.

MS ROGERS: Great.

MR. KING: That is reflected there.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

We did Criminal Law and Other Legal Services. I would like to skip down to

Human Rights.

CHAIR: Subhead 2.3.04.

MS ROGERS: Subhead 2.3.04: We see a loss of $147,900. What would that

cover?

MR. KING: There are three positions.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. KING: That would be a Solicitor position, and two Legal Secretaries.

MS ROGERS: Also, I see in Professional Services that originally the

budget last year was $50,000, but $30,000 was spent. What was budgeted for and

not used?

MR. KING: Predominantly money allocated for board meetings.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. KING: The Human Rights Commission had given additional power to the

Executive Director, who was able sometimes to find resolutions to issues without

bringing the full board forward, so they found a savings as a result of that.

MS ROGERS: They had fewer board meetings?

MR. KING: Fewer board members travelling, yes.

MS ROGERS: Okay. That is because they were not outside St. John's. Is

there a reason why there would have been fewer travelling?

MR. KING: There were fewer travelling because the board had decided to

give further authorities and powers to the executive director.

MS ROGERS: Okay. I did not hear that when you said that. Yes, okay.

MR. KING: The executive director, in many cases, was able to resolve

issues without bringing the full board forward for meetings and consultation, so

travel was saved.

MS ROGERS: Okay. It is a very small budget.

Purchased Services is down $10,000. What would that be? Why the cut there?

MR. KING: The budget for this year is down $10,000. That is just part of

the budget exercise. We are going to try and find some efficiencies within that

particular area.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

My time is up. I will have some questions about that, but I can go back to

that.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Did we cover 2.1.03, Support Enforcement?

CHAIR: 2.1.03.

MS ROGERS: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Line 01, Salaries, how many positions?

MR. KING: Three positions, two Support Enforcement Officers and a Clerk.

MR. A. PARSONS: Were all three located in Corner Brook?

MR. KING: Yes. The two support Enforcement Officers were actually vacant

positions.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. I am just wondering it is a pretty important

topic, pretty important area. Is there any fear that the two vacant positions

are not being filled and with this other person doing it that there is going to

be any hold up in this delicate area?

MR. KING: We do not believe so. Based on the advice that we are provided

by our leaders in the system, we do not believe so. We think the system will

still be able to function effectively.

Like many other areas, you have probably heard me say a number of times, we

will monitor it and if we run into situations where there are backlogs then we

will respond accordingly, but we are confident we can absorb that reduction and

still deliver the service.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I am going to move forward to 2.3.03, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. I

just have two quick questions on that topic. It is my understanding that there

are some new tasks under this heading now, the legislation was passed child

deaths are now part of that mandate, but there was no increase in funding to

cover that off, the extra duties that may possibly come. Is there any concern

that is

MR. KING: The best we can tell you, it is our understanding health will

be the one that actually administers that, even though the Medical Examiner is

involved.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. So I should

MR. KING: Are you doing health?

MR. A. PARSONS: Actually, I am doing the follow up Thursday night. So I

will put that on my

MR. KING: Okay. In the meantime, we can find the answer for you for

tomorrow, though.

MR. A. PARSONS: You can give the minister a heads-up that the question

might come.

MR. KING: Yes. We are involved but there is no budgetary implication for

us. It is our understanding health will be carrying that, but we will find out

for you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Also, just very quickly; there was an extra $60,000 in Purchased Services

last year for that heading. What was that for?

MR. KING: Higher than expected lab costs.

MR. A. PARSONS: Here in the Province or outside?

MR. KING: No, here.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I am moving forward to 2.3.05, Public Trustee. How many positions eliminated?

MR. KING: Under Salaries there are two administrative positions

eliminated, an Estates Officer and a Legal Secretary.

MR. A. PARSONS: Under the

section that says Revenue Provincial, would I

be right in assuming that is from estate fees, et cetera, where it says revenue

MR. KING: Yes, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. I will put it on the record that is one I hope they

are going to follow up in a year. I know there have been delays in that section.

I have dealt with them myself. So hopefully we can come back and see that

performance review in a year.

Moving forward to 3.1.01, Supreme Court, the Salaries line is down. How many

positions, and where are they located?

MR. KING: We have three positions being removed. There is a secretarial

position, Trial Co-ordinator, and an Administrative Officer position that was

vacant.

MR. A. PARSONS: Were these here in St. John's?

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. What would Purchased Services for this heading be?

MR. KING: Are you asking in general, what would the money be spent on?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. It went from $452,000 spent last year to $152,000

this year. There must have been something purchased last year that is fairly

high that is not needed this year.

MR. KING: There is one-time funding there. We put a new wheelchair ramp

MR. A. PARSONS: Perfect.

In 3.2.01, Provincial Court, positions were cut, total, and where?

MR. KING: Six positions; there are three Court Officer positions in St.

John's, a Court Officer position in Corner Brook, an unfunded Court Officer

position, and a Manager of Corporate Services.

MR. A. PARSONS: Minister, we discussed before Christmas the enclosure of

circuit courts around the Province. I know that it is up to the chief judge, but

the chief judge gets his funding from the department. What are the savings

realized in that move?

MR. KING: It is roughly $50,000.

MR. A. PARSONS: All told?

MR. KING: Yes. It is $50,000 under the Provincial Court side, but if

there was security or anything like that provided, that is not in that $50,000.

The $50,000 will be just purely savings to the Provincial Court.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to get very specific now. What were the

savings from the court in Burgeo?

MR. KING: Slightly less than $1,000.

MR. A. PARSONS: We have shut down a circuit court in Burgeo to save

$1,000?

MR. KING: The Provincial Court did, that is right.

MR. A. PARSONS: How much did we save in Springdale?

MR. KING: Just about $17,000.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are there any plans to shut further circuit courts this

year?

MR. KING: Not that I am aware of, but the proposal to do that would come

from the chief judge. There may be, but I have not seen anything; nothing I have

been apprised of.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have to be honest, I have to put it on the record, I am

staggered; $1,000 savings and we shut down a circuit court. I know it is not

your decision, Minister, but I am staggered right now because it is going to

lead elsewhere.

Speaking of Provincial Court, going up to the Supreme Court there was

$300,000 spent for the wheelchair lift. Are there any plans under Provincial

Courts to make provincial buildings wheelchair accessible? For instance, the

courthouse in Port aux Basques is not, and St. Anthony. Are there any plans in

the works to make sure those buildings

MR. KING: I cannot answer that. I am not sure if that would not be a TW

question, but I can inquire for you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, I only ask because it was under the Supreme Court

here.

MR. KING

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2013-04-29
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga47_2013-04-29_ssc-justice_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	56ade19fc96ea12ed938775c59e44ee0fed8d1b0

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