May 20,

SOCIAL SERVICES

COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 9:00 a.m. in the Executive Dining Room.

CHAIR (Hutchings): Good morning, everybody. Welcome.

This morning we are reconvening to hear the Estimates of the Justice

Department. We had sat on May 12, and at that time there was a motion to

adjourn, so now we are back to hopefully finish the Estimates for Justice.

Just a couple of reminders again for witnesses, those who are giving

information, I just ask you to identify yourself each time, for Hansard, before

you speak.

I turn it over to the Clerk.

CLERK (MacKenzie): One other point I should say is that Michael, the Page

who is helping us, is not getting sloppy; his suit is not back from the dry

cleaner. It is not a dress-down Tuesday.

MR. COLLINS: I know the feeling, Michael.

CLERK: Just for the record, was it Jason with you before?

OFFICIAL: Jonathan.

CLERK: Jonathan.

So it is only the four now, so just four today, but we have all the names.

OFFICIAL: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay, who left off?

CLERK: I think it was Mr. Parsons.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons (inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Good morning, everybody. I hope everybody had a good weekend.

I will do some line by lines. My understanding is, with line by lines, that

we finished up to the end of

section 3. I will be starting

section 4, Police

Protection. I do not know, Mr. Parsons may have questions before that, but I had

all my line by lines done up to the end of

section 3, so I am looking at 4.1.01.

I understand that some of my questions may have been covered, but in a

general way and not in the specifics with regard to the line by line. Under

4.1.01., Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, 01., Salaries, I do remember the

budget indicating more positions, but maybe we could just have the specifics

under the line by line of the increase from the budget of 2007-2008 because we

are going up from $29,913,300 to $34,616,900.

MR. KENNEDY: If you remember, there was a salary increase and retroactive

pay with the Constabulary - Debbie, if I have that correctly - that there in

fact had been, I do not know if it was binding arbitration but it resulted in a

fairly significant increase.

MS MICHAEL: Right, I forgot about that.

MR. KENNEDY: So what you see there is more the cost of the salaries

increase there, and then there is also overtime related to special

investigations.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I actually forgot about the salary increase in 2007-2008 where that came

from.

In 4.1.01., Employee Benefits, again with the understanding that Employee

Benefits means different things under different heads and also under different

departments, what do the Employee Benefits mean in this section, and why is it

going up? That is subhead 02.

MS DUNPHY: Mostly what gets budgeted under the Employee Benefits for the

RNC are some things related to training, like some registration fees, those

sorts of things. There is an additional funding set out in 2008-2009. Again, as

we discussed last week with the Lamer recommendations, some of the things are

annualized on a full year basis as opposed to a part year basis. That is why

there is an increase, then, in 2008-2009.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I am just curious, under subhead 05., under the same head, Professional

Services went way over budget in 2007-2008 and we are down to $83,600 in this

budget, but in 2007-2008 it was budgeted at $116,600 but the revision was

$688,700. What were the Professional Services that were required so much over

budget?

MR. KENNEDY: What we are dealing with there, Ms Michael, there were

shortfalls related to special investigation, there were forensic auditors for

the House of Assembly investigation, and wiretapping services provided by the

Montreal Police Force. There was an investigation into organized crime.

As you can probably imagine, the costs were quite significant, especially

when you are dealing with wiretapping. It is not only the cost of the equipment

itself but there has to be continuous monitoring of the lines, so that results

in quite a significant increase.

MS MICHAEL: And - said with a joke - obviously those two things are not

related: the House of Assembly and the organized crime wiretapping.

I didn't think you would comment.

MR. KENNEDY: No comment on that one.

MS MICHAEL: I couldn't resist.

Again, the next subhead, 06., Purchased Services, the budget for 2007-2008

was $1,087,700, the revision was $1,480,000, and we staying up around that area

in this budget. What has brought the Purchased Services up from the budget of

2007-2008?

MS DUNPHY: Again, some of that is related to some of the special

investigations related to the organized crime. They have some car rentals, hotel

room rentals and, of course, the price of gas for these rentals contributes to

that as well. There has also been an increase in some vehicle maintenance and

repair costs for the fleet at the RNC.

The additional budget, some of it has to do with the new officers for the

drug enforcement and canine units; as well, again, the annualization of the

Lamer recommendations.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Subhead 07., Property, Furnishings and Equipment, is up by $200,000 over last

year's revision, which was also up from the budget. What will the Property,

Furnishings and Equipment be going towards, please?

MS DUNPHY: Again, the new budget relates to some new communications

equipment that was approved, the replacement of some towers and some radios;

again, the annualization of Lamer.

Some of the reason that the current year's budget, the projection is up for

this year, is that some of the items were actually budgeted incorrectly; they

should have been under the Property, Furnishings and Equipment head, but they

were actually budgeted under Supplies so we did a transfer during the year.

As well, we had some savings in a uniform allowance that we transferred as

well to cover some additional equipment purchases that they had this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you very much.

Obviously, because there is so much budget going towards it, there obviously

has been a really big push on the organized crime side, under RNC, and I find it

interesting. I think it is important. I presume it is all related mainly to

drugs, and I know that lately we have had some announcements of results in terms

of drug busts, I have been noticing in the media.

I don't ever remember, though - and this is not a negative question; I am

just getting a handle on it - I don't ever remember a major announcement - and

maybe there was - from RNC or Justice with regard to having, you know, a real

push with regard to organized crime. Maybe it was in last year's budget; I don't

remember it.

MR. KENNEDY: There was one seizure it was last year or the year before

last, Ms Michael - it was called Operation Roadrunner, and Roadrunner was a

significant bust in that I think, if I remember correctly, there were over

$200,000, approximately a quarter of a million dollars, in cash and assets

seized, and there were significant amounts of cocaine.

The difficulty we have with organized crime, okay, and I can just tell you

this because it is a difficulty that I have, myself, my definition of what I

see, or what I used to see, as organized crime would be we think of gangs,

bikers, Mafia for lack of a better term. The RNC and the RCMP have a much wider

definition of organized crime. Organized crime, to them, the way they deal with

it can be on a much lower level. So, any time you get a group of three or four

or five people acting together, they call it organized crime.

Over the last number of years, for example, the last four or five years, I

know there have been incidents where there have been twenty people arrested and

they say it is organized crime. The traditional definition of organized crime

and what they use as the definition of organized crime are different, I can tell

you that. There has been always a push from the police perspective into this

organized crime, although some of it would be more disorganized than organized

in my opinion.

MS MICHAEL: That is really helpful, Minister, because I think the average

public and maybe yourself, based on what you just said - when I hear organized

crime in terms of our context in Canada I am thinking about bikers out of

Montreal, that kind of thing - I have a feeling that the general public may have

a sense of that, too, when they hear the term.

I know we cannot tell the RNC and the RCMP what to do; I am just wondering,

does there even need to be any kind of education of the public with regard to

what they mean by that? Because I think people do have a fear of organized crime

based on the broad definition, the more common definition that you have referred

to, so when they hear organized crime around drugs in Newfoundland and Labrador

that is what they are thinking of, infiltration from that level.

MR. KENNEDY: The other point, too, that is important to remember, though,

and I do not want to minimize at all the involvement of bigger organized crime,

but one example I will give is that a number of years ago there was a seizure

out of Ontario where over twenty or thirty people were arrested. There was

probably $600,000 or $700,000 went back and forth in the mail. That would not

traditionally be, you know, again, what we think of TV organized crime, but the

police certainly saw it as organized crime where there were different groups

working together to bring drugs into the Province and monies were being sent

out.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: So, that is there.

The difficulty is, some of these matters are still before the courts.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: But that is the definition they use; so, when you see

organized crime, you have a bigger definition.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Coming down to revenue under the same head, the federal revenue, there is an

expectation of a large influx of federal money this year. Is this related to any

particular program or is this a new agreement between the federal and provincial

governments, because the federal is going up to $894,700 from $143,100.

MR. KENNEDY: What happened, Ms Michael, over the last number of years the

Conservative government has promised to put 2,500 police officers on the

streets. When you break that down, it is pro-rated between provinces and I think

we ended up with again, I do not have the numbers in front of me but I think

it was $5.9 million which has to be used over five years. It can be utilized in

whatever way the Province deems fit, for whatever police force. So, essentially

what you are seeing here is that the five years, $5.9 million, I think what you

see there - is that right Debbie - it works out to be -

MS DUNPHY: Pro-rated.

MR. KENNEDY: Pro-rated for five years, so next year we will do the same

thing again, but these are police officers we are actually putting on the

streets.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: The RCMP and RNC.

MS MICHAEL: The RCMP and RNC, okay.

Thank you very much.

Maybe Mr. Parsons has questions on that section.

MR. PARSONS: I am just wondering, how many RNC officers do we currently

have?

MR. KENNEDY: There are approximately 400. That is an approximate.

MR. PARSONS: How many are we training under the new training program?

MR. KENNEDY: There are ten per year, which has been in place now, I

think, for five years no, actually, it could be up to twenty. I have been in

front of a couple of their classes; it could be as many as twenty, Mr. Parsons,

and it is pretty well - if I remember correctly, there has been a push, and I

might have said this last week, I am not sure, but there has been a push on for

gender equity, whereby the RNC have strived to break the classes equal, female

and male. I do not know if it is quite like that, but there is certainly a high

proportion of females. There could be up to twenty per year. We can find that

information fairly easily.

MR. PARSONS: Just a general comment: How do you find the morale now? I

know a few years ago they were not getting the training that they wanted, they

did not have any new recruits, their numbers were down, they were not given

sufficient monies for pay raises and so on - they have had some substantial

increases there. Chief Browne has apparently had a major positive impact.

MR. KENNEDY: What I will say to you, Mr. Parsons, is that the Lamer

Inquiry was a difficult time for the RNC but what they did, they came in before

the inquiry - a result of, I think, good legal advice, both from an individual

and a collective level - they accepted responsibility. They said, we did not

have the training or experience that we thought we had in terms of the

investigation of the cases. They accepted responsibility.

Commissioner Lamer then, as you will see, made recommendations for training.

Since then, with Chief Browne and Deputy Chief Johnson, and both Deputy Chief

Johnson and Deputy Chief Bill Brown, worked their way through the ranks. Deputy

Chief Bob Johnson reinvestigated the Parsons case, and I have to say that the

upper echelons of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary are absolutely superb.

They are having an enormously positive impact on the morale within the force.

Now, with their pay raise, there is a closer equity with the RCMP. Their

training: basically today, Mr. Parsons, what I will say to you is that if the

RNC want to go on a training course they go. It is an enormous budget for

training. I still have to sign off on all of this, and four or five officers per

week are going to training.

One of the things, Ms Michael, that you mentioned last week I do not know,

this might have been in the House; sometimes I get confused - but this whole

issue of police officers on the street is something that I am going to be

speaking to the chief about. It is a really good idea. It is like with the we

just had another horse. The horses are now out around, so the police force has

become very professional in their training and their leadership, but I think,

Mr. Parsons, to answer your question, as you put it, it is the leadership on

down, and the leadership of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is superb. I am

really impressed with the steps they have taken.

MR. PARSONS: Any thoughts of having the Province all RNC? I know it was

always a, I don't know about a hot topic, but it was always a topic of

conversation because the vast majority of the population, at least the Northeast

Avalon, Corner Brook and Labrador City, are currently RNC.

MR. KENNEDY: Quite frankly, I do not think we will ever get to that

stage, Mr. Parsons, for share numbers, for one thing.

There is a gap. One of the difficulties we have with the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary right now is we have lots of good young officers - the last five

years of training - superb young officers and then we have the senior officers.

There is a gap between the ten and twenty-year levels, that we are missing

officers.

However, as we speak - and I do not think you were around, in fact I know you

were not around when the last RCMP contract was signed. I think it was in 1996.

It is a ten or twelve year contract that is up for renewal. I can tell you quite

clearly I am not pleased with this contract.

We have a new acting Assistant Deputy Minister who was actually counsel down

at the RNC, Paul Noble, who was counsel at the Lamer Inquiry for the police

force. One of his main assignments is to deal with this RCMP contact, to figure

out are we getting our monies worth from the federal prospective. The breakdown

is 70-30 paid by the federal government, but the federal government pays 30 per

cent and we pay 70 per cent.

We have the increase in RCMP salaries. When I met - and I do not mind telling

you this - when I met with the Commissioner of the RCMP a few weeks ago and the

Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP, Gerry Lynch, here in St. John's I told him I

was not pleased with the RCMP contract and there would no, on this Province's

behalf, signing of contract because the RCMP wants us to sign it. There are real

issues there with the way this contract is worded. I will just give you one

example - and I am sorry to speak so much, but this is an issue that is of real

importance to me.

We have a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission. You

see that in here. If someone wants to complain about the RNC we have a process

in St. John's and it can go elsewhere, I think. We have a process where you can

make a complaint, you get a hearing and it is investigated. You do it here in

St. John's. If you make a complaint about the RCMP it goes to some amorphous

group in Ottawa that we do not even know who they are or if they exist.

Constitutionally, Mr. Parsons, there is a difficultly, or they say there is a

difficultly with us setting up a provincial RCMP complaints commission. I told

the Commissioner that I do not buy that and that is one of things we are going

to be looking at.

Our public should have the right - if you want to make a complaint about

either member of either police force, it should be here in this Province. With

the RCMP, what some people will be looking at this year, and I would be looking

at setting up, for example, in St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, so that

(inaudible) the RCMP.

Overall, though, I am pleased with the performance of the RCMP. One of the

difficulties they have and I have learned to appreciate this, I did not

appreciate it as a defence lawyer but I appreciate it as a minister one of the

difficulties they have is the distance they cover.

If you look at your district, Mr. Parsons, the RCMP cover such a large

distance. In my district out in Trinity-Conception or Felix's district or

Keith's, the RCMP are covering areas that literally if they get a call in

Harbour Grace to go to Old Perlican, by the time they get to Old Perlican, if

there is a brawl outside the bar, sure the brawl will be finished and everyone

gone home by the time they get there, simply because of distance.

I think we need two police forces. I think we have to have a good look at

this RCMP contract, but overall I think we are lucky to have two police forces

in this Province.

MR. PARSONS: Speaking of the contract, when is it actually up?

MR. KENNEDY: 2012, but once it is signed, it is signed for like twelve or

twenty years. This next contract is a crucial, crucial piece of work for us.

Quite frankly, the way the federal government this is not just our mantra

but the way the federal government works, they say, here is your contract, sign

it. It is not going to be like that.

MR. PARSONS: So, what are the options?

MR. KENNEDY: Well that is the other side of it.

MR. PARSONS: Are there any binding arbitrations or anything like that,

that could get us out of such an impasse? If you say no, and they say take it or

leave it

MR. KENNEDY: If you remember, Mr. Parsons, there were discussions back

around 1996. I think Mr. Tobin was here then. There were some real discussions

about the expansion of the RNC at that point, but it fell apart at the end. I do

not know the details. The contract that was signed, sir, I have to tell you was

signed without any negotiation. The wording of the contract leaves a lot to be

desired.

We will have to see whether they are going to be willing to negotiate and

discuss this with us, and if not, we will have to look at and if you look at

the RCMP numbers, and I have not looked at this, but if you go to the next page

or wherever it is, we are seeing $53 million under the RCMP. That is $39 million

for the RNC for around the same numbers. That does not include the 30 per cent

that the federal government is contributing.

The RCMP costs around $60 million or $70 million a year, and then we pay all

the costs. Apparently, the cost of the equipment in that contract was very and

I am not blaming it on whoever was there. I am not saying that whoever was there

in negotiating the contract it was just the way the federal government worked

at the time, whichever federal government, it did not matter if it was Liberal

or Conservative: here is the contract you signed.

MR. COLLINS: My question is: Is that par for the course for the rest of

the provinces, that Ottawa just brings them a contract and says: Here, sign it?

MR. KENNEDY: I think, Felix, what happens, to be quite frank with you,

and I have seen it, and Mr. Parsons would have probably seen it himself because

I am sure this whole issue of civil legal aid was one that went back to probably

his days in terms of discussions with the federal government, there is lots of

discussion; you get the ministers in the room. I only went to one of these

federal-provincial meetings. You get the ministers in the room when everyone is

going to tell the federal government what to do, and then the federal government

walks in and it is yes, sir, no, sir.

Unfortunately, I think the other provinces are so concerned about their

relationship that they will not stand up, so we cannot count basically, when

we get to the negotiation or renegotiation of this contract, even though there

are right now a lot of complaints from the other provinces, when push comes to

shove, I am not sure how much they will stand up.

I do know that there is a lot of dissension out there right now, and I do

know that Paul Noble, for example, will be going to a contract policing meeting;

is it in the Northwest Territories, Don?

MR. BURRAGE: The Northwest Territories.

MR. KENNEDY: Or somewhere within the next couple of weeks, where all the

provinces are going to be talking about the RCMP contract.

MR. PARSONS: If I could just go back for a second here to page 234, the

Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2.3.03., under heading 01., Salaries,

$225,200, is it just Dr. Avis in that office?

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, where are you?

MR. PARSONS: Page 234, item 2.3.03., Chief Medical Examiner.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: Under the Salaries, is it just Dr. Simon Avis there in that

office?

MR. KENNEDY: I am not sure how that is set up these days. I think there

is a Doctor Denic who does some work. I think there is a Dr. Barter who is

that correct, Debbie? I am not sure. Did Dr. Barter do some work there also with

the Medical Examiner's Office.

MS DUNPHY: Under the Salaries portion it is Dr. Avis, and he has some

clerical support as well in his office, and some summer relief for the

secretary, but the other doctors that the minister is speaking of, we usually

cover those out of Professional Services because it is like filling in when Dr.

Avis is on holidays. Under the salary portion, it is just Dr. Avis and the

clerical support.

MR. PARSONS: That would come under 05., Professional Services?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, the other examiners.

MR. PARSONS: How does Dr. Avis, as a pathologist, fit into the system in

the sense of we have all of the pathologist issues going on now with the Cameron

inquiry, and pathologists threatening to leave the Province, and stuff like

that? I realize he is the Chief Medical Examiner, but he is also a pathologist.

How does it all fit together?

MS DUNPHY: Well, Minister, I can just add a comment that over the past

year we have increased what we pay Dr. Avis to include him in the $60,000

stipend that pathologists did get back in February, so he did receive that

increase from us, as well, as a pathologist.

As for how he fits, I cannot answer. I do not know if Don or the minister can

provide anything additional.

MR. KENNEDY: Essentially, what is going on, he is the Chief Medical

Examiner. The act was brought in a number of years ago. There have been

discussions, Mr. Parsons, for many years. As a forensic pathologist, there are

only a number of them in the country. We have the Charles Smith inquiry ongoing,

or it just finished in Ontario now, so he has extended powers now under the act.

He has extended powers in terms of going to the scene. His relationship is not

meant to be simply taking direction from the police but I think, in fact, he can

get called and go and give direction to the police in terms of maintenance of

the integrity of the scene; because in the Gregory Parsons case and in the Randy

Druken case, two of the big issues there were the way that the scene was not

properly secured, and we had people walking around, cigarette butts under

things, so the purpose of the Chief Medical Examiner's act is to give him more

power in terms of the protection of scenes, independence from the police, et

cetera.

MR. PARSONS: It seems to be a linchpin type of position. I guess

fortunately for us he married a Newfoundlander. She refuses to let him leave, if

he wanted to leave.

Like you said, forensic pathologists are pretty rare. I just thought, given

the standard of rate of pay for pathologists generally in the country, for a

forensic pathologist that seems to be fairly low. We seem to be getting a

bargain price there.

MR. KENNEDY: What is his salary now?

MS DUNPHY: That is not his full salary. The university actually pays Dr.

Avis, and he is a Chair as well. We reimburse the university for half of his

salary costs, which are budgeted in here. Then we also top up his salary to

cover such things as his court appearances and weekend things, those sorts of

things. Plus, then, in addition, some of the reason for the increase was that we

gave him the $60,000 stipend as well.

MR. KENNEDY: Isn't he up around $350,000 now or something?

MS DUNPHY: In total, yes, probably; but, like I said, that is fully not

here because we are only paying half of the university's cost.

MR. PARSONS: That was my understanding, at least in Ontario, forensic

pathologists, medical examiners, $350,000 or $400,000 (inaudible).

MS DUNPHY: Yes, he is probably closer to that for sure.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know if it is exact but I know he is closer.

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Just moving on - I don't mean to be all over the place here

- on page 240, Adult Corrections, subhead 4.2.01., I realize my question is more

of a general nature as opposed to line by line. I just refer you to there so

that you can see the figures, because there is quite a substantial federal

revenue. What are the statistics like now in terms of what percentage of our

inmate population today are averaging, like federal inmates?

MR. KENNEDY: What we have, Mr. Parsons, and let me just try to get this

correct now, the institutions that we currently have, we have approximately 150;

our daily count at any given time shows approximately 150 people at Her

Majesty's Penitentiary, which is including double bunking. We have federal

inmates who are at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. In other words, the Province can

choose to keep the federal inmates here. Under the Terms of Union we were given

that right to choose the inmates here.

In Stephenville it is predominantly federal, although there can be provincial

inmates and there can be up to fifty inmates there. In the Labrador correctional

institute, thirty-eight is the capacity but we are up to, at any given time,

around fifty-two or fifty-three up there.

What we have then in Clarenville, of course, because of the females, there

are a lesser number of females. I don't have the exact numbers but it can go as

low as eight up to ten, twelve or fifteen. Bishop's Falls now also have some. I

forget the number for Bishop's Falls, but it is again smaller than Stephenville.

Out of those 250 I think I have given you around 250 at any given time there

can be sixty to eighty federal inmates.

We are then paid a stipend per day by the federal government on the number of

inmates we keep here in this Province; however, we are at capacity and that is

one of the reasons that we are looking for the new prison. If not, we are simply

going to have to say to the federal government: Look, we can't keep these

inmates here. The overcrowding in our prisons, and the failure to be able to

provide the programs, requires you to take them into your institutions in the

mainland.

MR. PARSONS: What is the daily stipend that the feds pay?

MR. KENNEDY: I am not sure of that, but it is -

MS DUNPHY: I don't know again, exactly, but I know it has increased

recently, so that is -

OFFICIAL: We can provide it.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, we can certainly provide it for you.

MR. KENNEDY: This number will probably put things in perspective for you,

Mr. Parsons. I think, and again I am going by memory on all this, but I think

that right now the feds may spend $120 million - $107 million to $110 million to

$120 million - a year in Atlantic Canada, but they have major institutions in

the Atlantic Institute in Renous; Dorchester, Westmorland in New Brunswick;

Springhill in Nova Scotia; the Nova Institute for Women in Truro. They have some

major institutions. It could be up as much as $100 million to $120 million a

year. The federal government, by comparison, spends, and again I am going by

memory, but it could be $7 million a year in Newfoundland and Labrador. Whatever

they contribute back, that is as much as we get. That includes their programs,

et cetera.

MR. PARSONS: Speaking of the prison, I realize, I have been following in

the media your commentary about meetings that you had with the minister and so

on, and you will be putting a proposal to the federal government. Where exactly

are we with the proposal?

MR. KENNEDY: I think, Mr. Parsons, if I remember correctly, you had

raised the issue in the House and I had come back from Ottawa - that was around

April 2, early in April - and shortly after that a letter went to Minister

Stockwell Day reiterating the content of our meeting, that we wished to have the

federal government co-operate, be partners in this project at a 70-30 cost

ratio, and I have heard nothing back since.

MR. PARSONS: So what is your sense of talking to the feds, you are

getting? Were they warm about it, open about it, or any sense at all?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Day is not really warm about anything, as you

know, quite frankly, so I couldn't get much of a sense from him but he did not

turn us down or throw us out of his office. I do think, to be fair to the

federal government, they understand the need and they understand if you do not

spend it here you are going to have to spend it elsewhere. I do expect at some

point that they will come back with a proposal, but we have nothing at this

point.

MR. PARSONS: When you use the word proposal, are you saying that there is

actually a prepared plan, that we want a facility of this size, that houses this

many people, that has this programming, these services, or are you saying

proposal at this point at least is a letter to Mr. Day saying, look

MR. KENNEDY: No, we know how much this is going to cost.

Basically, there are two options, Mr. Parsons, okay? We know that Her

Majesty's Penitentiary has to be replaced. I don't think there is any question

about that. So, there are two options. One, the Province would have to bear the

cost which, quite frankly, would be very significant; and, in this day and age,

the infrastructure needs we have in this area right now, between schools and

hospitals, it is going to be hard to justify, even though it is needed.

We are saying to the federal government: Look, contribute on a

federal-provincial facility that would take all of our inmates, repatriate all

our inmates, bring them back to Newfoundland where they are closer to family and

friends, and that would allow us to set up.

We could be looking at, if that were the case, Mr. Parsons, a 200-250 bed

facility. If that does not work, we are saying to the federal government: Well,

look, build a federal prison. We will have to look after the provincial side.

Build a federal prison.

So, we have put forward a number of options at this date. The option that we

have put forward to them, really, is the federal-provincial institute. We have

not given them the other options at this point.

MR. PARSONS: This is combined federal-provincial right now, a 70-30

split, you feel?

MR. KENNEDY: A 70-30 split, we have asked them, and we did this by

numbers. We did not just haul this out of the air. We basically looked at the

cost of over thirty years, the cost of the inmates, keeping our federal the

offenders in the mainland et cetera. What we have done, really, quite frankly,

for sixty years now, is let the federal government off the hook, because they

should have had to build this federal penitentiary a long time ago. There were

discussions back in the 1980s.

MR. PARSONS: It seems like, and I guess it is natural when these things

happen, you get talk about a penitentiary and there is a possible economic boon

to some areas. There are at least five or six different communities around the

Province

MR. KENNEDY: There is, yes.

MR. PARSONS: - who have all vied for: We want the pen. We want the pen.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: It seems to me, or my understanding is, at least, that,

whether or not the penitentiary will be built in a certain area, one of the big

factors is the programming services that are available to inmates.

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct.

MR. PARSONS: For example, a lot of these inmates require violence type

training or anger management training, psychological, psychiatric especially

if it operates as a remand centre at the same time. You are talking about

numerous court appearances and so on. Realistically, if we were to get a federal

penitentiary, and rather than have some of these communities that are vying for

the place, maybe investing substantial dollars to try and make their case, there

seems to be certain criteria. For example, I cannot imagine, with all due

respect to a place like Buchans, which was in the bidding, one of the names - I

just picked that one off the top of my head that I heard. In terms of the

psychological support needed, the psychiatric support need, the social worker

support needed, how do we deal with that now?

MR. KENNEDY: I have tried to maintain a cautious note to people, Mr.

Parsons, Ms Michael, in that. I am saying, look, there has to be a significant

influx of funds from the federal government in order to make this happen.

Transportation and Works had been and this was before me becoming the

minister, and I have said this publicly. There were three sites put forward in

terms of costing three sites. One of them was Stephenville, one was St. John's

and one was Harbour Grace. That was put forward last year. It could have been

March, April, May or June. Transportation and Works were asked to look at these

three potential sites. Since then, there have been a lot more sites express an

interest. You are right on the point that there has to be, in order for this to

work, the availability of services. However, does it have to simply go in St.

John's? Well, St. John's might think so but that may not necessarily be the way

it has to work.

We are still at the very early stages. Now, if it was a federal prison, Mr.

Parsons, it can go anywhere. We have seen them build prisons in Westmorland,

which is in Dorchester, which is the little community in the middle of nowhere.

They have built that prison there successfully. Springhill is not terribly close

to anything and they have built a prison there. A federal prison, in fact, is

different than a provincial federal prison because the provincial federal prison

does have to be you are right, there has to be the ability to transport

prisoners back and forth to courts.

MR. PARSONS: Before I leave the prison thing, my last question: you had

undertaken an independent review, I understand, of HMP?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, we have.

MR. PARSONS: What is the status on that?

MR. KENNEDY: What we have done is there are two individuals, Simonne

Poirier and Greg Brown, and in fact we have added a third person since then,

Terry Carlson, the former Director of the John Howard Society. We felt that

there was a need for another perspective and Mr. Carlson had been the Executive

Director of John Howard. There were concerns that the prisoners' voices be

heard, that families' voices be heard, so Mr. Carlson has been added to that

group. From what I understand, although I have had no discussions with them, Mr.

Parsons, since they have started, my understanding is that they are diligently

working on the whole review.

MR. PARSONS: Any indication of time lines?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, the timeline I gave when we started this was that I

would like to have it within a couple of months, but I am not sure. I am hoping

that that timeline will be kept. I have no indication at this point that it will

not.

MR. PARSONS: Go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

If we could come back to 4.1.01 for a moment. I forgot I did want to ask one

more question there.

Under Revenue, subhead 02, the provincial revenue: what is the source of the

provincial revenue under this head?

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, where are you?

MS MICHAEL: 4.1.01, the Revenue section, the provincial revenue.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, I got you.

MS DUNPHY: Minister, I can answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: It is Debbie Dunphy.

That is mainly people going looking for certificates of conduct, accident

letters, fingerprinting services and towing services. We will charge people if

they have had to tow the vehicle and they will have to repay.

MS MICHAEL: Pay for service kind of fee?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, pretty much, as well as the tuition the third semester

for the RNC recruits is kind of an on the job training, and there is a charge.

It just covers such things as the ammunition they use, the basic supplies they

need in order to do the on the job training portion for the new recruit class.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Then if we could come down to the next head, 4.1.02, again the Revenue. I

think I probably know the answer to this, but just to be sure. What is the

source of the provincial revenue here?

MS DUNPHY: That is under the RCMP?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is right.

MS DUNPHY: Actually, as I look at that, that is an error, because the

main portion of that is the police on the streets money from the federal

government. That is the biggest portion of that. There is a smaller portion that

relates to the RCMP provide an officer to Conne River, and Conne River in turn

reimburses the Province for that cost, but the majority of that is actually the

federal revenue related to the police on the streets.

MS MICHAEL: So, you are saying it is in the wrong place?

MS DUNPHY: It is.

MS MICHAEL: It should be up above, should it, under RNC?

MS DUNPHY: No, it should still be under RCMP, but it should be a federal

revenue.

MS MICHAEL: A federal?

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Off the top of your head, how much of that would be federal then, for the

police on the streets?

MS DUNPHY: $750,000.

MS MICHAEL: You are good. Police on the streets so that is an error?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, as the minister indicated earlier.

MS MICHAEL: That would make the rest of it comparable to what the Budget

was last year.

MS DUNPHY: It is the same. The $1.5 million we received this year is

split in half, 50-50 between RNC and RCMP.

MS MICHAEL: Obviously the Professional Services is what we pay the

federal government for the RCMP.

MS DUNPHY: That is correct.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under 4.1.04, this is the appropriations for planning and construction of new

facilities and/or extension of existing facilities. I know this is spelled out

in the Budget, but just for my notes in this section, could we name the actual

facilities that this head is covering, 4.1.04?

MR. KENNEDY: The $1.4 million is in relation to the renovation of Fort

Townsend.

MS MICHAEL: Is it?

MR. KENNEDY: As apposed to building a new headquarters for the RNC, which

would mean moving then off site, actually we are now in the planning and design

stage whereby the renovation of the RNC - but also the old fisheries building,

the old Memorial University, the annex, is also planned to be renovated and

utilized by the RNC.

MS MICHAEL: That is right. That is what this is for, the $1.4 million.

MR. KENNEDY: The planning and design. We have gone through pre-planning,

we are now into planning and design.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS DUNPHY: Minister, just to add: Property, Furnishings and Equipment,

that $850,000 is to construct a duplex in Churchill Falls.

I do not know if you can recall, but last year in the Budget there was

funding provided over a three-year period to build a house each year in

Churchill Falls for a member of the RNC. However, the cost of building in

Churchill Falls has grown astronomically so the proposal was put forward this

year that instead of doing it two years, to try to cut back on shipping costs

and basic foundation work. They have opted this year, instead of doing two more

houses, to doing one duplex this year.

MS MICHAEL: I am sorry?

MS DUNPHY: Instead of doing a house this year and a house next year, they

are going to build one duplex this year. They did complete one house in

2007-2008.

MS MICHAEL: That is helpful. I forgot about the renovation of Fort

Townshend.

Head 4.3.01, Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods: looking at the Budget for

2007-2008, it looks like this has gotten off to a slow start because there were

no expenditures under Salaries last year. Rather than go line by line, maybe we

could have an overall sort of explanation because there were no salaries but

there was money spent not a lot in Transportation and Communications,

$3,500. Obviously an office must have been set up because $25,000 went into

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, but it looks like things are moving very

slowly. Could we just have an update on what is happening?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. In the SCAN office, we are currently in the process of

hiring a manager. An offer has been made, it is my understanding, and I am not

quite certain whether it has been accepted. Then there has to be a number of

investigators hired. We are, again, not at the stage of hiring the investigators

at this point, so it is moving slowly but it should be operational in the not

too distant future.

MS MICHAEL: May I ask: since this was put in the 2007-2008 Budget and

even though things are not set up yet, have there been inquiries from the public

with regard to the program?

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. McNutt, who is retiring at the end of the month, would

have been dealing with this. When you say inquiries, are you talking about

MS MICHAEL: Well public thinking. This was in the budget and it is

already set up and making reports thinking that there is a program in place.

MR. KENNEDY: I am not aware of that.

MS DUNPHY: Over the last year, which contributes to some of the

transportation costs, we did do a public information session across the Province

and in Labrador, so there were some general discussions and looking for some

input from various interests groups or whatever. As to has there been anyone

calling to say, can I make a complaint, again I do not think there has been

anyone to field those calls.

To make a comment on the equipment, yes, we have purchased some of the

surveillance type equipment and a vehicle as well, so that we do have a person

within the division who is working on some of the initial set up. As the

minister indicated, it is just not on the ground yet.

MS MICHAEL: Right. When you have the full complement, how many

investigators do you expect to have and where will they be located?

MS DUNPHY: My recollection is two investigators and a manager, but I

would have to confirm that for you.

MS MICHAEL: They will be located in a central office, or will one be in

one place and one in another?

MR. KENNEDY: Again I am not aware. My guess is that there will be a

central office, but there are a number of difficulties with the beginning of

this program. When we get calls from the Coast of Labrador or we get calls from

Port aux Basques or we get calls from St. Anthony, I mean investigators are

going to have to travel. There are still logistics, Ms Michael, be quite frank

that have to be looked at. I mean we are not going to revisit all of the issues

that were raised. I think you raised in the House about the consultative

process. I met with various women groups throughout this and their concerns have

certainly been heard by me loud and clear.

MS MICHAEL: I guess, one of the things I am looking at, Minister, is that

if there are two investigators and calls are coming from around the Province

that the Transportation and Communications line, it seems to me there will have

to be a lot of - I do not know if a lot of. That is why I was sort of asking

what the interest seems to be out there at this moment. Maybe there will not be

that much travel, you know, but it could be that the travel line will have to go

up. That is what I am thinking about. I guess, what we will have to do is just

see how it goes, sort of get a sense for the program once it is up and running.

Let me see if I had any more.

I think I will turn it over to Mr. Parsons or to the Chair to decide who is

next.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Just to move along to Page 242, Inland Fisheries

Enforcement. I just wonder if you could clarify for me; a few years ago, I

think, our enforcement efforts used to be under Environment and Conservation or

Fisheries - it was all over the place. Am I correct now in understanding that

all inland fisheries enforcement costs by the Province are under this heading,

or is there still another piece over in Environment that I am not aware of or I

should be aware of?

MR. KENNEDY: This is a tangly issue, Mr. Parsons, because we have, I

think, three different groups of enforcement officers. We still have forestry

and wildlife officers. We then have the environmental are they under

Environment or Natural Resources, Debbie, do you remember?

MS DUNPHY: The conservation officers for Forestry and Wildlife are still

under the Department of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Then we have inland fisheries which is meant to deal with

our rivers and the enforcement program there. A lot of these officers, I think,

come from a conservation or a fisheries background, and there is meant to be a

sharing of equipment. I do not even know, but are there officers who go from one

to the other, Debbie?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, that is

correct, Minister. Some of them work the forestry job for six months, then come

and do the fisheries job for six months. It is, as the Minister indicated,

tangly to say the least.

MR. KENNEDY: But these are the numbers right there.

MS DUNPHY: For inland fish.

MR. KENNEDY: Right there, yes. For that inland fisheries program, the

numbers are right here.

MR. PARSONS: Even though a person might be employed with Forestry and

Wildlife - which would fit them in what department, for those six months?

MS DUNPHY: Natural Resources.

MR. PARSONS: Natural Resources. I guess it is the terminology too. We say

Forestry, which I could see fitting under Natural Resources and Wildlife, but

then you said Environmental and Conservation as well, which I always thought was

under Environment and Conservation. The bottom line is, whether they are doing

forestry, wildlife, environmental, conservation or fisheries, they are all paid

for out of this fund?

MR. KENNEDY: No, when the Inland Fisheries program starts it is

probably starting up now - it goes from May till September or October, and then

a number of them are kept on to prepare for (inaudible). No, this budget deals

for that, if I understand it, four or five months that they are on the Inland

Fisheries program.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, but they are actually provincial government employees.

MR. KENNEDY: They are provincial government employees, yes.

MR. PARSONS: I am familiar with a company called Seawatch that used to

do, I do not know - at least a lot of federal enforcement work would be

contracted out. So these people, I am trying to establish here that they are not

employees. You do not contract it out to Seawatch or anybody like that?

MS DUNPHY: No.

MR. PARSONS: The feds are apparently doing that a lot. They have

contracted out to somebody for their security.

MR. KENNEDY: These are provincial government employees.

MS DUNPHY: These are provincial employees. There are about, I am going to

say, thirty-seven conservation officers being paid.

MR. PARSONS: How many in total?

MS DUNPHY: I am thinking it is thirty-seven.

MR. PARSONS: Well, obviously we all understand that inland waters are

supposed to be or at least the feds in the past had been paying and were

supposed to pay for enforcement things but the Province stepped up to the plate

when the feds fell down on the job.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Where are we in terms of discussions to say, pull your socks

up, feds, and get back in the ballgame here, like you should?

MR. KENNEDY: I am not aware of any discussions, Mr. Parsons. Now, I

inherited this particular program and my understanding is that the reason this

program was created was because the feds simply did not see within their mandate

to do the inland waters. There was concern about the rivers, the poaching on the

rivers, and that is how the Inland Fisheries program was developed.

MR. PARSONS: It is a federal responsibility. The inland waters were

always enforced by the federal government. What happened was there was a lot of

poaching and the outcry came from environmentalists, fishing groups and whatever

who said, look, put more people in the field. The feds would not and the

Province reacted, I believe, appropriately by putting more people in. My

understanding was, that was a short-term thing. We are not taking responsibility

for this on a long-term basis, you should put your money where your mouth is and

your responsibilities are. I just wondered if anybody continued to carry that

forward or are we just saying, okay, we are going to

MR. KENNEDY: I am not aware of that, Mr. Parsons. The two individuals who

would have been dealing with this would have been Chris Curran, who has since

moved on, and Mr. Marvin McNutt, who is retiring now, I guess next week. I am

not quite certain of the status. We can certainly check on that. Obviously, if

there is any room for any argument that there is a federal responsibility we

will make it, but basically my understanding is that this program is with

Justice now and that we have had to step up to the plate, as you said.

MR. PARSONS: Just to switch gears here: security breaches. We have had at

least, I believe in the last twelve months or so, four breaches of government or

government agency type private information issues. Where are we with that now in

terms of making sure it does not happen again?

MR. KENNEDY: This is something I had on the tip of my tongue there a

while ago, but basically what happened is each breach was identified. I will

deal with the one from the public health lab first. There was a LimeWire sharing

program from a government computer that was being utilized at home. The file

sharing program resulted in the breach. As a result of that breach, Mr. Parsons,

there were firewalls developed and there were particular programs. It is my

understanding now, if a government employee on a government computer tries to go

into LimeWire that there is a blocking process that you cannot get in there. You

cannot utilize that file sharing program. OCIO is continuously developing these

programs. I know in January when we had the Workers' Compensation breach that

caused different issues to arise because we had an outside group contracting

with a government agency, board or commission. That was addressed, Don, through

the use of contracts and again through the use of similar programs. I know there

is the use of firewalls, there is the blocking of programs, there are the

education programs and there were a number of different issues like that.

MS DUNPHY: And guidelines sent out to employees.

MR. KENNEDY: And guidelines set out to employees. I would refer to that,

Debbie, under education.

MR. PARSONS: How does a person find out what the actual protocols are? I

wrote a letter to OCIO, and it may have been copied to your department, back

when these things were happening and said, what are the protocols that

government currently has or expects third party contractors, for example, to

abide by, and nobody ever responded to the letter.

MR. KENNEDY: The third party contract would have been the Worker's

Compensation breach.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and we were getting different issues over time, like

you say.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not remember seeing that letter, Mr. Parsons, because

that is something that we certainly would have - and I am not saying you did not

send it, but that is something that we would certainly respond to because it is

an important issue for all of us, any member of government or the Opposition.

MR. PARSONS: It was (inaudible) to the office of the information person.

MR. KENNEDY: We will check on that for you today. My understanding is

that there are guidelines now online, but we will certainly check on that for

you. That is certainly a fair request.

MR. PARSONS: Just a minor issue, I guess. We had some problems back some

time ago with the jury selection process. I am just wondering: has that all been

ironed out now and working effectively?

MR. KENNEDY: It is my understanding that it has, that the Acting Sheriff,

John MacDonald - to be quite frank, Mr. Parsons, what happened there was

unacceptable, that simply the Sherriff's Office was not updating the list, they

were not going into Motor Vehicle Registration. We were picking juries from a

restricted pool. As you are aware and Ms Michael, obviously if you are seeking a

jury of your peers then you want the largest possible pool and you do not want

an age group restriction because; well, we cannot have young people because they

are not on the jurors' list.

The last I had heard, Mr. MacDonald in the Sheriff's Office had done some

very good work, that the issue had arisen in a trial that by the time they

picked the jury the next time the lawyers who had been involved in raising the

difficulty seemed to be satisfied. To my understanding it has been rectified and

I think, in fact, jury pools have been extended quite significantly in terms of

age groups, the use of the data bases, the use of the MCP and Motor Vehicle

Registration especially. It was a matter of updating it on a weekly basis is all

it was.

MR. PARSONS: Some concerns now that were raised by the Auditor General's

Report. He says: our review indicated there are no long term goals and

objectives relating specifically to adult custody services. There are no

operational plans relating to the provision of adult custody services and

centres are not reporting, example, overtime, sick leave, training and food

services quarterly to the superintendent as required by policy.

Where is the department now with that?

MR. KENNEDY: I can tell you, Mr. Parsons, that prior to the incidents

that we had at the penitentiary with the death of Mr. Alyward and the suicide of

the other gentleman, based on the Auditor General's Report alone, I was

considering an independent review. I was that concerned by the Auditor General's

report, especially with the overtime. I have to tell you that concerned me.

One of the main reasons for ordering this independent review, initially, was

the Auditor General's report and still is. It is just that now it has widened

with what has occurred in the penitentiary and the issues that have arisen. In

terms of the Terms of Reference, I think, Mr. Burrage, it is one of the issues

of the independent review. We want them to look at the Auditor General's report

and find out what is going on.

One of the reasons I say that is because the Auditor General's report was

critical of, not only the reporting relationships within Adult Corrections but

with our department. If I read the Auditor General's report correctly, there did

not seem to be a whole lot of interaction or the proper reporting between Adult

Corrections and the Department of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Who is the superintendent now?

MR. KENNEDY: The superintendent's name is John Scoville.

MR. PARSONS: When the Auditor General gave his report, what was the date

he actually made these findings?

MR. KENNEDY: I thought it was in late December. Am I wrong on that? I

thought it was in late December or early January. I could be wrong on that, Mr.

Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Another issue that he pointed out was this talked about

callback, overtime and sick leave are not being adequately monitored and

controlled and it has increased in three years. For example, callback and

overtime increased by 158 per cent in three years. Sick leave increased by 33

per cent in the last three years. Are those issues included in the independent

review as well?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, they are.

I will put this in prospective for you again, without casting any judgement

on anyone. We have approximately, and again I think this is only Her Majesty's

Penitentiary in St. John's - excuse me with all these numbers because I am just

going by memory. Let's say there are 120 correctional officers at Her Majesty's

Penitentiary, then we have forty casuals. One of the difficulties with the

casuals' list is it is based on seniority. The supervisor, when someone calls in

sick or they need an extra person, they have to start with the list and go down

through the casuals' list. Then, if they do not reach person one or two, how

long do they keep going?

That is one of the issues that causes me concern, because the use of casuals

is one of the ways of getting new correctional officers, and we have an high

attrition rate. I think 60 per cent or 70 per cent of all the correctional

officers in this Province can retire in the next five years, so if we do not get

the casuals into the system - and that is one of the reasons why I have asked

the independent review to look at the use of the casuals' list, to look at the

callback, and to look at this seniority clause that was in the union contract.

MR. PARSONS: The Auditor General also talked about purchasing and

(inaudible) and indicated that the department did not comply with the Public

Tender Act in regard to six purchases totaling $94,000; and the Financial

Administration Act, eighteen instances totaling $87,000. Will the independent

review also consider the issue of the public tendering?

MR. KENNEDY: We have asked them to look at everything, although the

Public Tender Act is one that we are certainly aware of , Mr. Parsons. They have

been asked to look at everything in the Auditor General's Report. If they come

back and say: well, look, the Public Tender Act is something that is outside our

realm of expertise - I do not think it will be though because I am sure every

province has a similar provision. Ms Poirier was a warden in both Dorchester and

the Atlantic Institute in Renews, so she would have dealt with public tendering.

Mr. Brown was a deputy warden in two or three different institutes, so I am

hoping that they will be able to deal with that. They have been asked to deal

with it, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: That is what I am wondering. I just want to clarify, that in

their Terms of Reference all of the items raised by the AG, they are going to

have to look at.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: So, we will not have a case where they come back and say,

oh, we were not told that.

MR. KENNEDY: No, no. They have been asked and the Terms of Reference are

public. I mean, my understanding is that the Terms of Reference are wide.

Anything raised in the Auditor General's Report in relation to adult corrections

should be looked at.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just a couple of more line items. Mr. Parsons is covering a lot of the points

I wanted to raise, so that is good. I will not repeat any of those.

Head 4.2.01, Adult Corrections, subhead 01, Salaries: I note that in

2007-2008 the revised budget was over $600,000 more and in this budget it is

back down. What was it that happened in 2007-2008 to put the budget up by over

$600,000?

MR. KENNEDY: These are the overtime. Again, I do not have the Auditor

General's Report, but I think there was close to was it $600,000, Debbie? Do

you know the number in terms of overtime? It is close to $600,000.

MS DUNPHY: Some of that was for sick leave.

MR. KENNEDY: That was increased sick leave at several institutions,

long-term sick leave, overtime due to difficulty in obtaining female casuals,

increased inmate count, et cetera, but it was mostly overtime, Ms Michael.

MS MICHAEL: Do you think that is going to be more under control this

year?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, I would hope so. That is a significant issue.

MS MICHAEL: You have not budgeted for it.

MR. KENNEDY: It is a significant issue. We just had a binding arbitration

come down in relation to the correctional officers. They are ready now to start

negotiating a new contract.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: So they come out of a binding arbitration. We are hoping

that all of this will come together and this is one of the issues that we will

be able to address. That overtime, we are going to be left without any

correctional officers because we cannot get the casuals into the system, and

look at the overtime costs.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. KENNEDY: So the independent review is being asked to look at that.

MR. PARSONS: If I could just interject for a second?

MS MICHAEL: Sure.

MR. PARSONS: Just before we move on, I am a bit lost there. You say they

just came down from binding arbitration (inaudible)?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, apparently they were without a contract, Mr. Parsons,

for four years. There was just a binding arbitration decision, I think, on March

MR. PARSONS: Then you made a comment that they are getting ready to

negotiate -

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, apparently they are ready to negotiate a new contract.

MR. PARSONS: I am a bit confused. I would have thought, with binding

arbitration, that the issues were

MR. KENNEDY: That was going back three years or four years ago. That is

their past contract.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, so that is over with.

MR. KENNEDY: They have been without a contract for three or four years,

so this binding arbitration relates to that contract.

MR. PARSONS: Were they pleased with that contract?

MR. KENNEDY: Well, I don't know if pleased would be the word. There were

a couple of significant issues there. They were given the same financial raise

that everyone else would have in the public service.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: There were some other issues that were addressed also.

The overtime and the use of casuals is a crucial issue.

MS MICHAEL: I know it is a major issue.

With the attrition that you quoted for the next five years, this is a big

problem if you do not get that resolved.

MR. KENNEDY: This has to be resolved in terms of casuals and there being

some attempted gender equity within the prison system.

MS MICHAEL: Right. That should be good.

MR. KENNEDY: Historically, it has been a male dominated profession.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. KENNEDY: So, again, it is an issue that we are working on throughout

government.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Under the same head 4.2.01., Professional Services, what are the Professional

Services that would be covered under that subhead 05., because you keep a

constant there?

MS DUNPHY: I can answer that.

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, mostly under Professional Services it is a lot of

the programming areas, like the medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological,

optometrists, all of these types of services; as well, the fee-for-services

provided by the assistant probation officers and the victim services assistants,

as well as the counselling and therapy services, legal counsel for victims, and

the instructors in the various correctional facilities.

MS MICHAEL: Right. Thank you.

Subhead 10., Grants and Subsidies, that is a constant; there is obviously

something. What would that be, $95,000 under Grants and Subsidies?

MS DUNPHY: That is an annual grant to the John Howard Society.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, great.

Under revenue, the provincial revenue, what is the source of that provincial

revenue, the $624,000?

MS DUNPHY: In the last few years there has been a victim fine surcharge

put on various fines that are issued in the courts, so the provincial revenue

under Adult Corrections goes towards the Victim Services Program and victim

services for children, so that is the charge imposed on the fines.

MS MICHAEL: That is interesting. I didn't know that existed. It doesn't

matter what crime the fine was related to?

MR. KENNEDY: The victim fine surcharge was brought in. I think it was a

minimum of $35 and could be $100, so it can be waived. In most crimes, though,

that I am aware of, Ms Michael, from shoplifting on, there is a victim fine

surcharge that is imposed.

MS MICHAEL: Interesting.

MR. KENNEDY: It can be a percentage but it generally ranges around my

recollection, now, from the last few years - $35 to $100, to $125.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I will just have one more question, I think, with regard to line items.

Head 4.2.02., the next head, and then the subhead Salaries, I notice in

2007-2008 you did not seem to have a complement of staff there because

$6,059,700 was budgeted but only $5,790,000 was spent. What was that about?

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead, Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: This is the budget, I guess, for the Newfoundland and Labrador

Youth Centre. There is a significant budget again provided here for call-ins,

for overtime, casuals, those sorts of things; so, of course, the resident count

has been down at Whitbourne so therefore the need is not there for as many staff

on call and those sorts of things.

We maintained the budget because obviously we need to keep the budget

available for capacity, but in the past year it has not reached that.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

I know, Minister, that you do have concerns about they use secure custody

in making sure that things are running well. Are you satisfied yourself with how

things are?

MR. KENNEDY: It is still being studied, Ms Michael. We are still looking

at issues out there. For example, we are still looking at the use of the

detention centre here in St. John's, but quite frankly there are issues that

have to be examined.

We have bargaining units within unions who are - I am not going to say

fighting with each other, but there are union issues that have to be looked at.

There are issues of who should transport someone from St. John's to Whitbourne,

who should transport someone from the Youth Centre to the court, and we are

trying to work all of these out. We are still looking at the issues of the strip

search of the residents, so we are not where I want to be. There have been some

improvements, but we are still not where I want to be on this.

MS MICHAEL: With regard to strip searches, may I ask, have they been

discontinued totally?

MR. KENNEDY: No, they have not been discontinued totally, because one of

the difficulties I have, Ms Michael, as the minister, of course, when you are

dealing with safety and security of an institution, these people are hired to

determine safety and security.

There are a couple of things we have done, and my understanding is that they

are in place ever since this issue arose. There was a strip search policy, for

example, that if a person other than a lawyer met with a resident, then when

they left the room the resident was strip searched. Now there are glasses that

have been installed or are installed where people can look at what is going on

in that room and thereby decrease the number of strip searches.

To me, some of this is a matter of being practical and common sense, but in

this day and age the use of video conferencing should be a no-brainer in my

mind, as opposed to taking fifteen- and sixteen-year-old kids over the road

every day into St. John's. Now we have video conferencing set up. Every time

they left, when they came back they had to be strip searched. Now they are not

leaving the institution, so that decreases the number of strip searches.

We are still looking at it all, but that is a couple of tangible efforts that

have been made to decrease the number of strip searches, but we will never see

the total discontinuance of the strip search because of the concern for

contraband, and we all know that it enters these institutions.

MS MICHAEL: That is understandable, but the two things that you have put

in place at the moment certainly look like a good direction in which to be

moving.

MR. KENNEDY: Sure.

MS MICHAEL: Mentioning the video conferencing, I know that it has been a

concern of yours, not just with regard to the youth but also with regard to

Labrador as well. Have other efforts been put in place generally around the

Province with regard to video conferencing?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, actually, I was in Nain - myself and Mr. Morrissey were

in Nain - a couple of weeks ago, was it, Ken? When we met with the staff

sergeant at the RCMP station in Nain they were using video conferencing at that

point. So, as opposed to travelling - I am not going to call them inmates,

because they are individuals who were charged with offences - they were doing

bail hearings by video conferencing. So, the use of video conferencing in

Labrador was certainly in Nain.

Do you remember, Ken, where else it was being used on the coast? I thought

there were other places on the coast that were starting to utilize it, too.

MR. MORRISSEY: I can't recall.

MR. KENNEDY: I do specifically remember a staff sergeant talking in Nain.

MS MICHAEL: It would be interesting, actually, to have a report on what

is going on. Could your department get an idea of how much video conference is

going on, on the coast, and give that to us?

MR. KENNEDY: Also, too, Ms Michael, in the task force efficiencies report

there was certainly a recommendation for the increased use of video

conferencing.

MS MICHAEL: That is right, there was.

MR. KENNEDY: That is a very significant factor, so at the end of the day

the money that is put in up front will be saved in terms of the transportation

costs.

When we look at what happened with some of these incidents - and the reality

is, until we build that new facility in Labrador, we are still going to have

some difficulty. It is much better to have, you know, if there is a female, for

example, who is in Springhill, well, do they have video conferencing

capabilities so that she can make her appearance from that institute as opposed

to travelling back to where we know there are potential problems?

MR. BURRAGE: It is used in Natuashish.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Burrage is saying it is used in Natuashish also.

Could someone make a note of that, so we can check on that?

MS MICHAEL: That would be great.

I think that is it, Mr. Chair.

MR. PARSONS: I don't have anything further.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, I just wanted to clarify, do you want video

conferencing information for the entire Province or just specifically Labrador?

MS MICHAEL: I would be interested in the entire Province, actually.

MS DUNPHY: Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Anything further?

MR. PARSONS: No, just that we look forward to getting the information on

the various undertakings that we have asked.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01. carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, nay'.

Carried.

On motion subhead 1.1.01. carried.

CLERK: Subheads 1.2.01. to 5.1.01. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.2.01. to 5.1.01. inclusive carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, nay'.

On motion, subheads 1.2.01. through 5.1.01. carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall I report the Estimates of the Department of Justice carried

without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those contra-minded, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, Estimates of the Department of Justice carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Now, at this time, we have before us the Department of Health and

Community Services, the minutes for that sitting of the Social Services

Committee.

Could I have a motion to adopt those?

MR. PARSONS: So moved.

CHAIR: So moved.

A seconder?

MS MICHAEL: Seconded.

CHAIR: Okay.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Chair, if I could just say a special thank you to the

minister and his staff -

CHAIR: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: - for the very helpful responses from everybody, and for your

willingness to come back for the second session.

Thank you so much.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you.

CHAIR: As Chair, as well, to the minister and his staff, for spending the

time and answering all the questions, I certainly thank you for that.

On a final note, the Social Services Committee will meet tonight for the

Department of Education, at 5:30 p.m.

OFFICIAL: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn, it being 10:30 a.m., and we

adjourn until 5:30 this evening.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On motion, Committee adjourned.