Social Services Committee — Department of Justice — 23 April 1997

1997-04-23

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

April 23, 1997

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The House met at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

This is the first session of the Social Services

Committee to review the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

My name is Robert Mercer, Chairperson of the

Committee and Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Humber East. I

would like the other members of the Committee, starting with you Mary, to

introduce yourselves.

MR. H. HODDER: I am Mary Hodder, MHA for Burin

- Placentia West.

MR. G. REID: I am Gerry Reid, MHA for

Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am John Ottenheimer, MHA for

St. John's East.

MR. WHELAN: I am Don Whelan, MHA for Harbour

Main - Whitbourne.

MR. H. HODDER: I am Harvey Hodder, MHA for

Waterford Valley.

CHAIR: Those are the members of the Committee.

What I think we would do is ask the Clerk to read the first head and then we

will ask the minister to start with an opening statement, introduce his

officials and proceed from there. So, we will give the Clerk a couple of

seconds. I think I surprised her.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Head 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Head 1.1.01.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to

take very long with my opening remarks. With your permission, I would like my

deputy to introduce the officials; I know their names but I do not know all

their titles. With me is Lynn Spracklin. Lynn, of you could introduce the

officials with their titles.

MS SPRACKLIN: This is Ralph Alcock, the

Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, Administration and Support Services, which

includes policing and corrections as well as the (inaudible) Support Services.

George White is our Director of Finance; Theresa Heffernan is our Budget

Manager; Colin Flynn is the Director of Public Prosecutions and John McCarthy is

the Assistant Deputy Minister of Civil Law.

MR. DECKER: Very good! You did not know it?

MS SPRACKLIN: That is right.

MR. DECKER: The Department of Justice provides

legal services to government and is primarily responsible for the protection of

citizens of the Province with respect to their persons and properties. This

objective is met by providing for police protection, the prosecution of alleged

offenders, the operation of the courts and correctional systems for the Province

and provision of services to victims of crime. The drafting of legislation in

the House of Assembly, of course, is also provided by the Office of the

Legislative Council.

Those are about all the general remarks I have to

make, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission we could probably go right into the

questions.

CHAIR: I will call upon the Vice-Chair of the

Committee, Mr. John Ottenheimer, if he would like to start the proceedings.

Being the Vice-Chair, John, perhaps, being a lawyer on this side, you may wish

to come back and visit some of your questions later on if you do not get them

all in the first time around.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I guess I will begin with just a few points here

for clarification, perhaps beginning with heading 1.3.01, Fines Administration.

We see a fairly significant variation under Fines Administration in the section,

Information Technology. I was just curious as to why there is such a difference,

I guess, between last year's figures and the estimates as they are showing. That

is under

section 1.3.01.12, Information Technology?

MR. DECKER: The revised budget, John, reflects

the purchase of upgraded hardware/software?

MS SPRACKLIN: Sorry, 1.3.01.12.

MR. DECKER: Is it Information Technology you

are asking questions about?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Okay. It reflects the NISL costs

associated with making the ticket management system compliant with the year

2000; you know, the computer problem with the 2000?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It cost you that much?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Am I right?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. DECKER: You are familiar with the problem

we are going to have with all our computers in the year 2000?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. That is the cost to

rectify that?

MR. DECKER: Yes. That is mostly what it is,

yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under 02, Revenue -

Provincial, just below that, we see a figure of $700,000. Is this all from this

same source of revenue? Just below this, 02, Revenue - Provincial: Is this all

in the collection of fines? Is that the total amount in the collection of fines?

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is my understanding. We

did underestimate it for last year, (inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: That was the administrative fee

and the fees for processing.

MR. DECKER: Well, look, feel free to jump in

here if you see I'm getting the guts kicked out of me.

WITNESS: Let Hansard show that.

MR. MCCARTHY: The answer to your question is,

yes, it is. It is the five dollar fee increasing to seven dollars.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does that take the increase

into account?

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes it does.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It does.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to go on?

There may be other members of the Committee who have questions under the same

heading. Will we do it that way?

CHAIR: What is the wish of the Committee? Do

you want to do it head by head or do you wish each member to have a period of

time to review any questions that he or she may wish?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Pardon?

MR. H. HODDER: It doesn't bother me which way

you do it. Generally speaking, the House functions better if members are free to

ask a question. If you are on a certain topic, deal with it and then move on to

the next topic.

CHAIR: Yes. So feel free to proceed with some

of the heads. It isn't a problem.

Just one other point: When the officials are

speaking, may we ask you to identify yourselves for the purposes of the

gentleman there in the back who is making notes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let's turn then, perhaps, to

Civil Law and Enforcement. I would ask maybe Mr. Minister - the heading there in

2.1.01 is very brief. It refers to "Appropriations provide for representation of

Government in court and advice to Government in civil legal matters." I'm

wondering if you, or perhaps one of your officials, could perhaps expand upon

that somewhat. John.

MR. MCCARTHY: If I understand your question,

essentially that is the Civil division, which consists of approximately

twenty-six lawyers and of course support staff. We provide all of government's

legal services, or 95 per cent of government's legal services, in terms of

litigation, labour arbitration hearings, and of course opinions, assistance with

regulations. Basically that is the cost of operating the in-house law firm that

we are.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Does this include the

retaining of outside legal services?

MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, it does. In fact, you will

see down below there is Professional Services, $1.645 million.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So this is the providing of

all legal services, all legal representation, to government from within or from

the private Bar.

MR. MCCARTHY: There may be the odd case that is

generated by another department of government, but 99 per cent, at least, of all

legal services provided to government come through the Civil division, either

performed in-house or through the Professional Services budget, whereby we hire

outside lawyers.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Why is it, John, under

2.1.01.09, Allowances and Assistance, in that same section, we see again a

fairly significant difference in last year's figures and the Estimates for

1997-1998?

MR. MCCARTHY: My information there is that the

figure for last year was almost exclusively for the Mount Cashel settlements. To

be honest with you, I'm not sure about that figure for the current year, of $3

million. I think that was put in very late in the day after my involvement in

this process.

MS SPRACKLIN: Basically, there has never been

in the past an appropriation in the budget traditionally for liability for

claims. These are amounts paid to people who commence an action against

government. It has been problematic when it hasn't been budgeted for, and last

year there was an amount moved from the contingency into this heading to pay the

Mount Cashel claims.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So does this amount here, this

$11,289,400, represent Mount Cashel and others, or just Mount Cashel?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm pretty sure that it is just

Mount Cashel. I don't believe there is anything else in there.

MR. MCCARTHY: I don't think there is anything

significant beyond Mount Cashel.

MS SPRACKLIN: It doesn't include legal fees to

anybody. It is the amounts paid to victims.

The $3 million is just literally a plug number. We

have had difficulty establishing sort of historic amounts because in the past,

generally, liabilities have been paid by the departments to which the cause of

action relates.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is there a reason why it's $3

million?

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, there are always a number

of actions going on, and it is really just a rough guess at what may be required

for next year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am wondering, for example,

the Trans City pay-out, if that is not included in the $11 million figure there,

is there another heading where that would be found?

MS SPRACKLIN: No. As I say, there had never

been a budget before and it probably came from the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation budget last year.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MS SPRACKLIN: What we are trying to do, I

guess, is make some provision.

MR. G. REID: So it goes back to the department

which is responsible?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, it has in the past.

MR. G. REID: What about the legal advice? Do

you bill any of that back to the individual departments or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, not at the moment. Some

departments who have extraordinary requirements in any given year may transfer

some money into our budget to hire a lawyer for a special project; but as a

general rule, no.

MR. H. HODDER: Since you have reduced the

salaries there by about $200,000, is there a warning to me that there have been

lay-offs of legal people?

MS SPRACKLIN: There have.

MR. H. HODDER: Two? Three?

MS SPRACKLIN: Four.

MR. H. HODDER: Four?

MS SPRACKLIN: Ultimately, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: In

section 2.1.01.03,

Transportation and Communications, you spent $69,000 last year. You have $79,800

as the revised figure, but you are gone up to $128,000.

MS SPRACKLIN: There is an anticipation of

increased need relating to the Terra Nova negotiations and discussions.

MR. McCARTHY: In fact, in the Civil Division we

lost money in this year's budget related to travel. I think that is a budget

decision (inaudible). We will be billing, basically, the client departments for

our travel and legal expenses, not for the fees. There is that increase that Ms

Spracklin just mentioned.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am wondering, for example,

and again maybe, Mr. Minister, one of your officials - the case where a Notice

of Appeal was filed a few days ago, I have been thinking, from the results of

the arbitration and the pay equity issue, depending, of course, on the end of

the day, and no one knows what that result might be, but at the end of the day

obviously the award could be quite significant. I guess it goes back to the

point that Ms Spracklin made in terms of projection, or having a figure in mind.

Obviously that whole issue was not addressed nor, perhaps, is it even

appropriate to be addressed in these headings under Civil Law and Allowances and

Assistance. So my question more directly is: Under what department at the end of

the day, if necessary, would a pay-out be made?

MR. DECKER: Your question, as I am sure you are

aware, is hypothetical. We would certainly hope that we would not have to pay

out anything, but my understanding is it would be Treasury Board. Is that

correct?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay.

MR. DECKER: If it were, but it is very

hypothetical.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. Any other questions

before we move to the next heading?

Under the Sheriff's Office, Mr. Minister, you will

recall, just a little while ago there was new legislation dealing with the

operation of the Sheriff's Office. Perhaps, in a general sense, I am wondering

if somebody may wish to make a comment as to how the new provisions of the new

legislation will impact upon the department, and the cost to the department, I

guess, from an efficiency point of view, in terms of the new act that the

Sheriff of this Province will be dealing with I believe in June, if I am not

mistaken.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Deputy, do you want to tackle that

one?

MS SPRACKLIN: I'm not entirely sure I

understand it. We have modernized our judgement enforcement legislation. There

will be improvements, I think, for the Bar and business which were the primary,

I guess, consumers of the service. Ultimately it is our hope that by the fall

people will be able to have direct access to conduct searches and whatnot from

their offices. They will be able to access the registry system directly. It

modernizes, I guess, both for creditors and debtors the enforcement of

judgements, and it should provide for a more efficient, more modern and more

equitable judgement enforcement system. I would need a more specific question I

think.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When we look at the Estimates,

and we look at again last year's figures, the difference is not that great. One

would have thought, I guess, that the improvements and the efficiencies that are

being created by the new legislation would perhaps have meant greater savings to

government, but it doesn't appear to be reflected in the Estimates.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I don't think the motivation

behind the new legislation was savings. I think it was just to bring us in

harmony with the rest of North America and update legislation that was

significantly out of step and out of date. There are some small increased IT

costs at the outset; not great, but some. I wouldn't anticipate huge savings

from that legislation, though. I think there may be savings to the private

sector as a result of being able to deal with Newfoundland in the same way that

they deal with other jurisdictions, but I don't think that was the motivation

behind the legislation.

MR. H. HODDER: At the time when we were

debating this last spring or last fall, we were told there would be a period of

time from January until June when there would be a program of in-service for the

legal community, both those who are practising independently, and particulary

for all of the courts and their officials, including the judges. I don't see any

item here where that kind of in-service is being provided for. If it isn't being

provided for here, then where is it being provided for?

MS SPRACKLIN: It is in fact being provided. For

example, there was a session in Littledale last week for the Bar and for the

commercial community, bankers or whoever wanted to attend, frankly, that was

very well attended. There has been an extensive educational public information

effort, and it would be in this budget. It is in there, although it wouldn't be

showing up as a specific heading.

MR. H. HODDER: It isn't there as a separate

item?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. H. HODDER: It is showing up there in either

Professional Services or Purchased Services or whatever?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. It is largely being provided

by in-house staff, for instance. Do you have anything to add to that?

MR. MCCARTHY: No. I know that last week there

was, I guess, a blitz of conferences or seminars, whatever you want to call

them. I think they started in Corner Brook and they ended up in Littledale, as

Ms Spracklin said - very low cost. For example, transportation to Corner Brook

would be included here but no exorbitant or additional costs that would need to

be reflected separately.

MS SPRACKLIN: Materials, for example, were

published but they were sold, so the private Bar bought its own materials, the

banking community bought its own materials. So I think it was at little cost to

government.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Under Support Enforcement,

2.1.03, we see in Salaries some significant changes. I would be interested in

knowing what types of positions have been created to allow for the increase in

Salaries under Support Enforcement.

MR. DECKER: The additional funding is provided

here to cover the costs associated with the implementation of the new federal

support guidelines and $220,000 is in place for that. A federal-provincial

agreement is in place which will reimburse the money to the Province, so we will

get it back.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What would be the nature of

the employment, I guess, pursuant to that agreement?

MS SPRACKLIN: We are still in the process of

working that through. What is anticipated are court based personnel who will

essentially provide services to clients at both the Supreme and Provincial

Courts, to provide an administrative, I will call it, mediation service, I

guess, to basically indicate to people that this is what the guidelines would

indicate that you will receive or will have to pay, and to encourage consent

orders where required to evaluate whether it is worthwhile applying for

variation because of the new changes, that sort of thing.

We have currently social services' workers who

assist people seeking child support now. They will be cross-trained to deal with

this, and we are going to be hiring four new workers to supplement them from

this money, in addition to putting out - of course, that is just that one there.

Yes, that would cover the cost of the actual people who will be hired to conduct

that service throughout the Province.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Are these people who would

actually be employed in the court, or within the various departments and provide

assistance to the court?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, they will be court based.

They will be essentially housed, perhaps, for example, in a particular judicial

centre. If there is more than one courthouse, they would be available mornings

at one courthouse, afternoons at the other. That would be known and people would

be scheduled in to see them, as available. In a lot of our centres there is only

one courthouse that houses both courts, so they would be in that court facility.

MR. H. HODDER: The progress that we made with

the federal government relative to a better coordination between the provinces

on support enforcement, every year we hope it will get better, and yet we still

find out there can be significant delays in having support enforced from one

province to another. There has been dialogue over the years to make that work

more functional and more -

MR. DECKER: At the two ministers' conferences I

have attended, it is always an issue which comes up, and everybody has the

intention and desire to improve it. But I don't know, Lynn, is there any

improvement or not?

MS SPRACKLIN: I suspect that it varies from

province to province. We have reciprocating agreements with all the other

provinces. It probably varies from province to province. Some have backlogs and

others don't. With respect to the federal government, our problem has been it

takes about six months to get onto the database. I'm really not sure if there

has been much, if any, improvement in that.

MR. H. HODDER: Just to follow up on the

difficulties with the federal database: It amazes me that you can have an

employee, for example, who might be working here in St. John's with the Coast

Guard, and there can be a court order that - I just think of one that I'm very

familiar with that dates back to 1989. Yet, because it wasn't entered properly,

now they find it causes a confusion and it is going to take six months to

implement the appropriate change so that a mother and her three children can get

regular cheques.

I don't understand why it would take six months to

tell a computer that - in this case, the father is being paid by the federal

government, the mother is living here in the St. John's area. I talked to the

people in Corner Brook. It is very frustrating because the people here in Coast

Guard say: You know, we are doing everything we can. But six months to have a

change made! There must be a logic behind it that I do not know or do not

understand, certainly. Do you have any comments on that?

MS SPRACKLIN: Me too.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This is a difficult problem.

From my own experience in practice, it is perhaps one of the most difficult

issues to deal with because you are dealing with individuals who are obviously

in need and are frustrated, and because of the reciprocal arrangements - some

work, some don't - the delays can be horrendous. I think the question is a good

one. I don't know if we have done anything in this jurisdiction to, I guess,

assist in trying to, you know, speed up the process or work with the delays in

some way.

MS SPRACKLIN: Well I do believe that our

Support Enforcement Agency is pretty aggressive and, by and large, pretty quick

off the mark but we have no control over the federal data banks. The federal

government are constantly being reminded of it. The ministers raise it routinely

and it is a constant nag, so to speak. I suspect it is very expensive to

probably replace their system and I suspect it is just an older system and

cumbersome, perhaps.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to say up front, that my

experience has been very positive with support enforcement in Corner Brook. As

an MHA, I do not get a lot of dialogue. I had more dealings with them when I was

doing the study on children than I would have as an MHA.

The issue I want to return to though is: Why is it

that in this country - and I ask this of the minister - have we not had a

unified, consistent, across-Canada approach to support enforcement? What are the

obstacles? Why is this not happening? Because, if we had a uniform approach

across the country - I know that there are troubles with the whole Social

Insurance Number System. You know, we have examples of where, if fathers are

determined not to pay and all that kind of thing, they change jobs, they do

everything that they can, they get paid in their brothers' names and all the

rest of it. I mean, there are all kinds of scams out there. Until we can get a

national policy on support enforcement that works, we are still going to have

these things. Why have we not made progress there?

MR. DECKER: Those are really good questions,

Harvey, but it is difficult to answer why it was not done in the past and, of

course, it is beyond me to do that.

We can also say that in the past, in the Province,

until we put the support agency in place over in Corner Brook, our own record

was not that good, but now, I would suspect, that a lot of the MHAs who get the

complaints, they are not so much from the parent who owns the children as from

the parent who is really being made to pay up by the support enforcement agency.

I think they do an excellent job within the Province.

MR. H. HODDER: They are.

MR. DECKER: Outside the Province, all I can

tell you is, that it is a concern that the ministers share and maybe we should

do more than talk about it, but every time we meet we do talk about it. Lynn,

what is happening across the country? Are we entering into agreements as such or

not?

MS SPRACKLIN: Well, we have reciprocal

arrangements with every other agency and they have interfaces with Motor

Registration Divisions, for example, so that our enforcement agency can get into

the MRD systems of all the other provinces and locate people that way. So, there

is a lot that has happened that is positive, but I think one of the biggest

problems we have is the fact that, barring having people travel from one

jurisdiction to the next, you end up with a situation where the evidence of the

wife may be taken in this jurisdiction and a provisional order is made and sent

off to the other jurisdiction. That person in the other jurisdiction, then, has

the opportunity to go into court in Ontario, Manitoba or wherever and give his

or side of it. Then the order is either confirmed or not. Then it comes back

here and we enforce it. All this sort of stuff takes time.

MR. H. HODDER: Take, for example, New Brunswick

where, let us say, you have a father living in Newfoundland and there is a

mother and child who are in New Brunswick, but there is a dispute here. You

know, the father here wants to be able to bring an action to court in New

Brunswick saying the mother is not providing the care that she should and all

this kind of thing. What kind of reciprocal agreements do we have there? Because

obviously Human Resources and Employment here is not going to pay for the father

to travel to New Brunswick to appear. How do we handle things like that where

there are actions potentially in a court in New Brunswick but the complainants

are located in Newfoundland?

MS SPRACKLIN: A custody application pertaining

to it would normally be heard in the jurisdiction where the child is located and

where the evidence would be most readily available. I think, if you wish to give

evidence and that sort of thing you would, of necessity, travel there. There is

provision for taking commissioned evidence outside a province in both custody

matters or any other kind of civil matter.

MR. H. HODDER: The last time when dealing with

this, I had the understanding that the New Brunswick court was pretty reluctant

to take commissioned evidence from Newfoundland in this particular case, and

Social Services wouldn't pay for the father to go to New Brunswick. He wanted to

have certain things happen, and it got very frustrating. I got the feeling that

New Brunswick wasn't being very cooperative. I just ask the question: What are

the arrangements between provinces in dealing with that? Are they all the same,

or does each province have its own set of rules that it applies?

MS SPRACKLIN: The superior courts in each

province basically make their own rules. Again, we would have no control over

the rules in New Brunswick as such. By and large, it is within the discretion of

the judge as to what evidence they will or will not accept in any particular

case. They may well have good reason (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I have no doubt about that.

One further question on the delays. When people

have their support enforcement here in Newfoundland and they have had the order

set here, let us say the father, because as we know 98 per cent of the people we

are talking about are fathers, a scattered mother, but it is a rarity. The

family moves, let's say, to Alberta. The feeling I have is that when it comes to

supporting the enforcement in Alberta, they tend to look after their own first,

and then ours kind of go to the bottom of the list and it takes a long time, for

up to six months, before we can bring that forward to make sure it is being

enforced there. What is your experience across the country in terms of the level

of cooperation that you receive?

MS SPRACKLIN: I can't specifically address your

question about Alberta. I've not been made aware that Alberta is any particular

problem. There is this issue of the time it takes to register an order; you

know, take evidence here, perhaps, which is then forwarded to Alberta and there

is a date set in Alberta for another hearing. You have to find the guy and you

have to get him into court. I would think that potential exists with any

province. I'm not aware of any particular problem with Alberta.

MR. H. HODDER: One little local issue again,

and that is: When we have changes, as has happened now with the federal

legislation - you know, there have been some changes as you have alluded to

before. You said social workers have been counselled and made aware of the

changes that might occur because of changing federal rules. Do you have, for

example, in-servicing for social workers? How often is that done?

MS SPRACKLIN: These are actually dedicated

social workers who assist clients on social assistance to deal with the courts

in obtaining our maintenance order. They receive training on, I guess, sort of

an ongoing basis, in a sense. There will be materials and training provided with

respect to the federal child support guidelines which are coming in in May.

MR. H. HODDER: These programs: Are they part of

the social work curriculum at Memorial University?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I wouldn't think so, no.

MR. H. HODDER: Why not? When you are talking

about the whole issue of the legal basis of support enforcement, and we are

talking about a school which is training social workers, I'm just asking the

question: If there isn't a curriculum basis for this kind of information to be

communicated at the University, why hasn't the department made sure that support

enforcement, the provincial legislation and other aspects dealing with support

enforcement, are a mandatory part of the curriculum that social workers would

have to go through so that they don't have to learn it afterwards, that there is

a basis for it right up front in the program of studies? Has it ever been

approached?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but perhaps should be.

MR. H. HODDER: That is an issue that came

forward in the study that I did, or was part of, I should say. To my knowledge,

there are all these people out there who are trying to get an education, only to

find out when they get a Bachelor's in Social Work they are already deficient in

one particular very important aspect, which is the legal basis. These pieces of

information, I think, are things that the minister and others should be talking

about with the University or with the Department of Education, probably, to see

if we can remedy that so we don't have to do as much -

MR. DECKER: It is an interesting concept. Maybe

they are doing it. I would be surprised if they are.

MR. H. HODDER: I'm not saying that they aren't.

MR. DECKER: No, I'm not saying it either. Like

yourself, I would be surprised if they are. It is an interesting suggestion

which we certainly will follow through on.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Just to conclude, I guess, in

this area. From what I can understand, Lynn, from your comments, the federal

funding will be primarily to allow individuals to assist in the new table or the

new regime which is coming into place in terms of support, and presumably they

will act primarily as mediators. Would that be correct?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I will call it mediation. I

use the term a bit -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With a view to an out of court

settlement as opposed to litigation.

MS SPRACKLIN: That is correct. I think the

whole objective of support enforcement guidelines is to remove uncertainty and

to bring some consistency to support awards and to make them more predictable,

to minimize the amount of litigation. A lot of it is -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Is this for one year? Is this

funding available just for the first year?

MS SPRACKLIN: I gather it is going to be around

for about five years. That is what the federal government has told us to date.

It is intended, I think, primarily to get us over the hump of potential

applications for variations of awards in the past, because the tax regime is

changing and, as well, these guidelines are coming into place. There is some

concern that there may be a sort of ground swell of applications by people who

feel their support order should be changed as a result of all that

The federal government has offered funding for five

years. That is what it is presently saying. Now, I'm not sure that it would be

this amount for five years. That will remain to be seen. We anticipate it will

maintain the staff for that implementation period.

MR. H. HODDER: The only thing we have left to

do is do what British Columbia has done. As you know, it has privatized its

support enforcement. It is the only one in the country. Much more efficient. In

fact, the NDP government when it came in wouldn't change it. It is a very

efficient system. However, I have to say that our system works very well. I'm

not suggesting that we privatize it, but they has done that and, of course, they

kept the same people employed. It is an interesting thing they have done there.

MR. DECKER: Which province?

MR. H. HODDER: British Columbia.

CHAIR: (Inaudible) questions?

MR. WHELAN: I've been through the Estimates

here. I don't really see anything there that is of any great concern. I suppose,

what we could have done with it from the beginning is you could have walked us

through it and we could have asked questions as we went. We are pretty near

through it now I believe, John, are we?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A few more areas.

MR. WHELAN: Okay. Basically, I almost feel

obligated to ask a question before we finish up. I wanted to ask some questions

about new recruits into the RNC. Are we still taking people from Holland College

and, if so, how many?

MR. DECKER: I am sorry?

MR. WHELAN: New recruits into the RNC?

MR. DECKER: The RNC has not trained anybody

over there for two or three years. We do have eleven seats there. People are

being trained; they pay their own way.

MR. WHELAN: Yes, this is what I am getting at.

Now they pay their own way, but we do use the Holland College to access students

for the RNC?

MR. DECKER: Yes.

MR. WHELAN: I think it is just the RNC. How

many students are we taking?

MR. DECKER: Ten or eleven, Ralph?

MR. ALCOCK: Our allocation from the Atlantic

Police Academy is twelve students, so we can identify twelve individuals who

would attend the Atlantic Police Academy in any given year on the basis that

they will have one class in a given year. The next class is September of this

year, and the RNC have identified a number of names, somewhat in excess of

twelve. Of course, the Atlantic Police Academy goes down through these in order.

They are prioritized, and if the individuals are prepared to attend then, of

course, it is up to them to attend.

MR. WHELAN: Attend at their own risk as far as

finances are concerned. There is no commitment from the RNC.

MR. DECKER: That is correct.

MR. WHELAN: Well, they don't need a commitment

from the RNC to be hired before they gain entrance to Holland College, do they?

MR. ALCOCK: No, we have not given a commitment

to hire at the RNC for several years. The last class that went through were not

hired and we do not anticipate, of course, that this class will be hired,

either, by the RNC at this particular point in time; however, the individuals

have other job opportunities. We have not made a commitment for three or four

years that we will, in fact, hire after they graduate.

MR. WHELAN: I understand that a few years ago

they would probably take twenty or twenty-one students from Holland College and

for one reason or another, through attrition or retirement, you would go through

twenty-one. But, as you say, that is down to about twelve now? Or am I wrong in

that number? Because I was up there a few years ago and attended a graduation,

and that is what they were telling me at that time. That was about three or four

years ago.

MR. ALCOCK: My history with this is somewhat

short, in the order of three to four years, but I understand that it would have

been prior to 1991 when that particular number of recruits would have been

hired. In the last four years - certainly the last three classes - there were

twelve, maybe thirteen at one particular point in time, students only. As a

matter of fact, in 1991-'92 and 1992-'93, I don't believe the RNC identified

anyone to attend the Atlantic Police Academy. That is because of a number of

things that were happening with the RNC at that particular point in time. The

force was being reduced in size from approximately 1989 to 1993.

MS SPRACKLIN: Just to add to that a little bit,

what we realized was happening was that other provinces were sending people to

the places that Newfoundlanders used to occupy; not necessarily with any promise

to hire them, but they were sending them and they were getting jobs elsewhere,

so we sort of felt that we had to give Newfoundland students the opportunity to

get the training because they are being hired in other provinces.

MR. H. HODDER: Do you subsidize their

education?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but if we hire them, of

course, we give them the opportunity to (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: So we don't pay anything to keep

those eleven or twelve seats there exclusively for our purposes?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes.

MR. ALCOCK: Two things. Number one: before this

current class, in the two years prior to this, we provided loans to students,

for part of their cost, which were basically handled like student loans -

basically the same criteria as a student loan. The way the agreement works is

that if we have students - in other words, we are allocated twelve seats. If

Newfoundlanders fill up these seats there is no cost to the Province, but if

these seats are not filled up then the Province would have to pay an amount of

money, depending on how many seats are vacant. For example, if these twelve

seats were filled by New Brunswickers, the Province would benefit by that. Even

though we don't finance these people, if they attend and fill up the seats then

equally we do not pay.

CHAIR: Gerry?

MR. G. REID: Yes. On the remand centre or the

youth correction centre in Whitbourne, Salaries are $5 million (inaudible); does

that include the teaching staff or is that paid from the Department of

Education?

MR. ALCOCK: The Department of Education.

MR. A. REID: Under Revenue - Federal: Maybe

there is something I am missing here. Who do you get revenue from?

MR. ALCOCK: There is a cost-shared agreement

with the federal government under which they contribute an amount of money

towards both open and closed custody for youth. This is the closed custody

component of those monies.

MR. G. REID: That will give us the 2.6, is that

what you are saying?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes. The numbers are changing

virtually as we speak. They are for 1997/98. That is the number.

MR. G. REID: Salaries were reduced by about

30,000 last year? Were there any teaching positions eliminated out there this

year, do you know?

MR. ALCOCK: There were no teaching positions

eliminated. The salaries are considerably more. I think you said $30,000 but

they are considerably -

MR. G. REID: Three hundred thousand, sorry.

MR. ALCOCK: No, there are no teachings

positions being eliminated.

MR. G. REID: There were positions eliminated

though, were there not?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes, there were.

MR. G. REID: What was the total number?

MR. ALCOCK: Twenty-two positions.

MR. H. HODDER: What is the staff complement now

at Whitbourne, part-time and full-time?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't have the answer to that

question. Theresa, can you help me out here?

MS HEFFERNAN: Up until these reductions, we had

117 I think, permanent. Temporaries vary, I guess, with casuals and what not.

MR. ALCOCK: There are probably in excess of

200, because I believe that there is approximately the equivalent of full-time

positions in temporaries. I believe you are probably talking in excess of 200

positions.

MR. H. HODDER: A year or so ago, when I made

the inquiry, they were over 200. What is the number of youths out there now?

MR. ALCOCK: There are sixty beds in that

institution which are generally - we are still using the old building for

overflow and, of course, we have then the remand centre here in St. John's as

well. In the new facility there were basically sixty beds.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been an increase? I

am on the same topic of the Whitbourne centre. Has there been an increase in, I

guess, professional staff? I am thinking particularly of child psychologists and

those individuals who can give the special kind of support, obviously, to young

people who require that sort of assistance. Has there been any change, hopefully

for the better, in terms of numbers of those kinds of individuals, on staff,

either you know, from time to time or permanent staff at the Whitbourne centre?

MR. ALCOCK: I do not believe in the last year

or so that there has been an increase in professional staff. Approximately three

years ago there was an increase in the professional staff when they moved into

the new facility. I believe that is maybe three or four years ago. So there has

been an increase in professional staff.

Since youth corrections was transferred to the

Department of Justice, our initiative is to increase the delivery of

professional services to the youth and to integrate the youth care workers more

into the delivery of services to youth. Many of these youth care workers are

professionals in their own right. I guess what we are attempting to do is to

integrate them into a different model for the provision of services to the

youth. I can only think of probably one position in the last maybe twelve months

of a professional nature that has been added.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That isn't to say, of course -

I mean, we realize those services are available for people on probation, for

example. Those same individuals are not included in the people whom you mention,

is that correct? I'm thinking of a young person who, on one of the terms of a

probation order, would be for counselling or professional help through the

Janeway, for example. These are not the same individuals whom we are referring

to when you talk about those individuals at the Whitbourne centre.

MR. ALCOCK: No, they are not.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The reason I say that is

because counselling is obviously available to a young person prior to

incarceration, in addition to while that young person is incarcerated.

MR. ALCOCK: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: The last time I was looking at

data I was a bit concerned about the very high number of young people at

Whitbourne who were there for property offences. I expressed a concern then

about how effective we were really, and it causes me concern that young

teenagers would be at Whitbourne. We recognize the ages that are there.

Have we tried to address that issue of the high

ratio of people who are in Whitbourne for property related offences as opposed

to offences against people? Have we been able to do anything with that in terms

of targeting it for counselling, or to do an examination as to whether or not

Whitbourne indeed is the best place for that kind of person? Is there any

dialogue occurring on that?

MS SPRACKLIN: I think, though, even on a

national basis there is a resolve to review incarceration of young offenders,

and adults for that matter, in terms of property type offences. I guess you have

to be very careful, if you are going to try and deal with it in the community,

that you have the resources there. I think we are all undertaking a substantive

review right now of youth corrections nationally and provincially in an effort

to see -

MR. H. HODDER: That issue is being brought

forward on the agenda.

MS SPRACKLIN: It is certainly a large one. The

federal government, just to give us a little extra incentive, is essentially, I

guess, trying to encourage, through the funding mechanisms, alternatives to

incarceration for youth.

CHAIR: John.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have a question with respect

to Legal Aid and Related Services. I have never seen the figure, and I guess it

would be in the annual report, in terms of the number of clients that would be

seen by our legal aid offices in the Province. I'm wondering if anybody, Mr.

Minister, any of your officials, would know approximately what that number would

be in the Province. Do we have an approximate number?

MR. ALCOCK: I'm sure the information is

available but I wouldn't have it here now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I'm not familiar with what it

would be, which is why I just asked the question. The reason I'm asking that is

because I'm surprised to see an overall decrease in the Legal Aid and Related

Services at a time when one would think that the demand would be greater. When

we think of, perhaps, the fiscal reality and our lack of employment and the many

problems that we face in our Province, criminal law and family law are two areas

which are usually, in terms of legal service, often required. I'm just wondering

why is it, at a time when one would think that the need for legal aid is perhaps

greater, that we have a decrease in the overall expenditure in that particular

area?

MS SPRACKLIN: The reductions have all been

accomplished through administrative efficiencies and there will be no reduction

in legal services or the number of lawyers engaged.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When you say administrative,

what -

MS SPRACKLIN: I will give you an example, and I

have to be a little careful here because it all has not been implemented, but if

you introduce a fairly inexpensive accounting program on existing computer

hardware, it may make a difference of up to, say, four administrative positions,

for a $1,000 software program.

There have been other changes as well that will

reduce administrative burdens. The cost-sharing agreement, the formula will not

require nearly as much detail, I guess, and input on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway, it has all been accomplished, by and large,

through administrative efficiencies.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: So there has not been a

reduction in legal aid staff solicitors, is what you are saying?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, nor will there be.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: It has been simply

administrative.

WITNESS: And there are no offices opposing this

(inaudible)?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Has there been any growth in

that area? Have there been offices opening or an increase in staff solicitors

within the past year of which you are aware?

MS SPRACKLIN: Not in the past year. There has,

over the last few years, been a move from using the private Bar to staff

solicitors because it is much less expensive and much more efficient, but I

don't believe there have been any increases in the last year. I know that

process is finished now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I see the federal contribution

to legal aid is quite significant. If somebody could just indicate: What are the

areas in particular that are funded, either partially or totally, by the federal

government in terms of legal aid services? For example, I know immigration law

was an area that was either partially or totally funded, I believe, by the

federal government. It was done through legal aid but it was funded by the

federal government.

MS SPRACKLIN: All of these legal aid agreements

are being renegotiated as we speak. I don't think they have been signed yet, but

we are close. In the past there has been a young offenders criminal legal aid

cost-sharing agreement, there has been an adult criminal legal aid cost-sharing

agreement, and the civil stuff was covered under the Canada Assistance Plan; you

made your claim under that. That has now been absorbed, obviously, in the block

funding arrangements, the new CHST - is that what it is called, CHST? - Canada

Health and Social Transfer payments, and the criminal legal aid agreement are

being renegotiated. Canada is moving toward a per capita over a five-year

period. It will not affect us dramatically early on, but our payments will

decrease over the next five years. We are not sure what it looks like yet

because it has not been finished yet. The formula is still under discussion.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I don't know if there are any

other questions on that.

WITNESS: Keep going.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Okay. I would, perhaps, like

to go back to Ralph for a second. I know a lot of this was discussed, Mr.

Minister, in the House in terms of the policing issue and the obvious reduction

in policing, in particular in terms of the RCMP. We see a decrease of, I

believe, over $2 million. I am just wondering, specifically in terms of the

policing services available in the Province, what specific examples do we have

where - I know highway patrol, for example, is one that comes to my mind right

away, but what are the specifics in terms of that $2 million plus reduction?

MR. ALCOCK: Approximately $1 million of that

amount is an annualization of initiatives that were begun in the prior fiscal

year. It takes the RCMP a little longer to react to reductions than it would

take us, for example, within the Province. As a result, $1 million of that

amount is related to these initiatives that took place almost a year previous to

this, precluding highway patrol and some other areas as well.

In addition to that, the RCMP is implementing what

we call a `district policing model' and by this district policing model, it

requires less of both officers and administrative staff doing work within a

detachment and results in putting more police officers out on the street where,

of course, we all believe they should be. The implementation of this model has

resulted in the RCMP being able to save some additional monies.

In addition to that, the RCMP are implementing a

regional approach to administrative services, the administrative services being

information technology, financing, general operations and human resource

management. So the RCMP will have a regional structure throughout the country,

the Atlantic Provinces making up a region. The concept is, that each one of the

provinces would have one piece of this smaller pie. In other words, Newfoundland

may have human resources, and instead of the four Atlantic Provinces having

twenty-five resources, there will be twenty resources but they will all be in

Newfoundland. Nova Scotia then would have information technology or New

Brunswick would have finance and general operations, whatever the case may be.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: From what you are saying then,

there has perhaps been a reduction in all provinces in terms of the RCMP. Would

that be a fair comment, you know, if this model has been adopted throughout the

country?

MR. ALCOCK: Keep in mind that what I am

referring to is administration, and they are in the process of doing this at

this point in time. It will be done over an approximate three-year period, I

believe, so you are not seeing a whole lot of savings at this particular point

in time, but the savings get greater as we move on through this. The RCMP have

recently announced, for example, that they are setting up the regional office in

Halifax which is a very small office, I might add, but an individual has been

identified for that particular office. There are a number of committees in place

that are currently working on rolling this out throughout the provinces. There

are, as I say, four of these regions throughout Canada.

One other comment I would make is that, none of

these initiatives that we have looked at this year will result in the

elimination of officers on the street.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But the district policing

model results in the closing of detachments in certain communities, does it not?

MR. ALCOCK: It may result in the closing of

detachments in communities, full-fledged detachments, and the RCMP then deliver

by a different model and they will be delivering through a store-front requiring

a resident RCMP in the community, for example. So, in terms of full-fledged

detachments, yes, you are correct, it may very well be that they will be

eliminated in communities. Often-times, what will happen, however, is that the

individuals are transferred and actually work out of some other detachments as

their headquarters.

MR. WHELAN: Could you just elaborate a little

further on this store-front detachment, I think you called it?

MR. ALCOCK: Store-front? The RCMP and, as a

matter of fact, the RNC in a couple of cases, are attempting to do the same

thing. They will operate out of a community office. Quite often the RCMP, as our

partners, have been trying to work with communities to identify a part of, let

us say, a community building, where the RCMP officer can work out of that

particular building when they are in that particular community. That part of the

model is that they will actually rent space in a community and operate out of

that particular space. Ordinarily, it is not manned by clerical staff or an RCMP

officer being in the building at all times.

MR. H. HODDER: Is that similar to what they are

doing in Conception Bay South and Mount Pearl with the RNC now?

MR. ALCOCK: In Mount Pearl, Mr. Hodder, I would

classify that more as a detachment office. In Conception Bay South, on the other

hand, it would operate more like a store-front kind of operation.

MR. H. HODDER: There is a little variation?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: While we are on this, I see you

have allocations for a public complaints commission. I have no idea what the

situation is, but I see that particularly applies to the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary and difficulties that individuals might have with officers. In the

case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, just a few weeks ago in the public

press there was a person who expressed great concern about the way they were

treated by a member of the RCMP. What procedures are in place to give that

person the same kind of access to have their complaint heard by independent

people as you would have with the RNC? What set-up do we have for individuals

who have complaints against members of the RNC, as a consequence of some

involvement they may have had or some incident they may have had in their

enforcement of the law, in the case of the RCMP, or to the person's response?

MR. ALCOCK: The RCMP basically has the exact

same thing. There is a complaints commission that is headquartered in Ottawa.

The only difference in an RNC having a complaint investigated by our public

complaints commission, if a complaint got to that particular stage in the RCMP

set-up there is a complaints commission that is headquartered out of Ottawa and

the investigation -

MR. H. HODDER: Let's say someone, for example,

in Marystown feels they were not treated properly because they were stopped by a

vehicle and there was some question. We have to understand that RCMP officers

are individualistic and are trained to be black-and-white. I mean, that is their

training. I have family members who are involved, and I know the kind of

training they have. In fact, I've been to Regina and know their curriculum

fairly well.

Anyway, you are just an ordinary citizen in

Marystown, something happens and you are very unhappy and want someone to look

into this: What are the procedures? How do you get this actioned? Who do you go

to? You start off, I guess, at the local office, but what happens after that?

MR. ALCOCK: Ordinarily the complaint is

investigated locally by the RCMP.

MR. H. HODDER: By the chief.

MR. ALCOCK: Well, by someone delegated by the

chief, yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: We would have an internal

investigation.

MR. ALCOCK: It may very well be that, depending

on the nature of the complaint, the particular detachment may look at it. They

may have someone from St. John's look at the issue. It depends on what the issue

is. But at the end of the day, if the individual is not satisfied with the

response, they are given the address and so forth of the complaints commission

in Ottawa and the complaint can be referred to the complaints commission in

Ottawa.

MR. H. HODDER: They would call into your

offices as well, I suppose.

WITNESS: Some have, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: Because you have been entrusted

with the administration of justice. Then you people would assist and have a

resolution that recognized their rights and I guess the rights of all involved.

So the access is not a cumbersome -

MR. DECKER: Oh, no. You see, even though the

complaints commission is in St. John's, the complaints are usually taken to the

chief of police or some superior officer. Many of them are dealt with internally

without ever going to a complaints commission. It is only when there isn't a

satisfactory resolution there that we go to the complaints commission. The same

would be with the RCMP.

MR. H. HODDER: Have you any idea how many

complaints would go to the complaints commission in a year, say from the RNC in

St. John's?

MR. DECKER: I wouldn't want to make a stab at

that. We get a report every month from both police forces, and there is a

substantial number which are dealt with internally. The first thing the

department would get is a notification that a complaint has been made against

Lieutenant or Sergeant John Doe. Then shortly thereafter you get a report of

what the police themselves are saying about it. Some of them would then be

referred off to the commission and in due course we would get a report from it.

I couldn't give you a number. I could probably get it for you. Ralph?

MR. ALCOCK: The most recent report of the

public complaints commission is about to be tabled in the House.

MR. DECKER: It was tabled today, actually. It

was tabled today, yes.

MR. H. HODDER: There was one tabled today.

MR. DECKER: Yes, that is the RNC. That is the

public complaints commission for the Province, yes.

MR. ALCOCK: If you are interested, I have a

document in my office that deals with the federal complaints from the RCMP.

MS SPRACKLIN: The last time I looked the

numbers were about equal, interestingly, of complaints.

MR. DECKER: Yes, and I've noticed that. There

is really no difference. I get complaints, and the complaints are remarkably

similar, too, you know; someone cursed on me, or somebody was not a gentleman,

they put me in the back seat. It is usually the same thing.

MR. H. HODDER: The usual.

MR. DECKER: Yes, and most of them are resolved

internally and don't go any further, but the ones that are not go off to the

commission. I suppose the ordinary citizen has recourse to the courts if he or

she wishes.

MS SPRACKLIN: Oh, yes. They do a fairly

thorough investigation.

MR. DECKER: They certainly do.

CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, we have lots of questions.

I have only gone through one set of notes yet.

I want to go back to Fines Administration. What is

the total amount now of outstanding fines within the Province?

MR. DECKER: Still $19 million, I think? Ralph,

do you want it? Go ahead, give us those figures.

MR. ALCOCK: Approximately $19 million.

MR. DECKER: $19 million.

MR. H. HODDER: As a consequence of our going

and agreeing in legislation to take a number of sanctions against people who

don't pay their fines, from their driver's licence to not being able to get a

moose licence or whatever, we have taken a whole series of measures to encourage

those responsible to recognize their obligations under law. What has been the

success rate of the sanctions that have been imposed in order to encourage

people to live up to their responsibilities?

MR. DECKER: Ralph, do you want to pick it up?

MR. ALCOCK: Well, I believe that our collection

rate is in the order of 85 per cent or thereabouts in terms of the collection of

fines. The difficulty with the numbers, of course, is that the best way that we

can collect is through MRD; and you will find we collect these amounts of money

but it may take a considerable period of time. So if you go into three years -

let's say four years - we are collecting very substantial amounts of the total

amounts outstanding, in the order of 85 per cent or so.

MR. H. HODDER: At what point do we start to

write these off? Is there a point where you say that with the money we are

spending now, we are chasing the dog's tail, you might say, and we are never

going to get anywhere? Do we have a policy whereby we write off these

uncollectible, unenforceable fines, or do we just keep them there and settle

them at the grave site?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't know that we have a cut-off

of two years, five years, seven years, or whatever the case may be. That kind of

cut-off is not there. Every now and then, there are submissions made to Treasury

Board for the cancellation, for various reasons, of amounts outstanding, and I

guess our collections officers certainly have a reasonably good profile of what

may or may not be collectable and, of course, they concentrate on the areas

which they deem to be collectable. Now, six months ago there was quite an issue

in the press on this. I believe a young chap was interviewed who owed $14,000 or

$17,000 in fines, and he said he is never going to pay, he is on social

assistance, and all the rest of it. Well, we obviously don't spend a lot of time

trying to collect from an individual like that.

WITNESS: But I believe a new judgement

enforcement system will help us immensely in this when it comes into effect, and

when that does we will be implementing some additional means of collection.

MR. DECKER: The computer system is not in place

yet to handle that, is it? There is no way the people issuing moose licences can

know whether John Doe owes a fine, is there?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, that is not all implemented

yet.

MR. DECKER: It is not implemented yet, no.

MR. ALCOCK: That

part isn't implemented, no.

MR. H. HODDER: My next question would be to

deal with the fact that we have on the books somewhere the authorization for

some sanctions. Which sanctions have been implemented and which ones are waiting

to be implemented?

MR. ALCOCK: Well, the major one that we are

waiting to implement will be to go after garnishment of wages. Because of a

number of administrative issues, including who is best positioned to be able to

do that garnishment, we have not done that to date. We will be doing it very,

very, soon with the new judgement in force.

MR. H. HODDER: Will that apply to the federal

employees in the Province as well as provincial employees? You know, the federal

government sometimes is not very co-operative on the garnishment of wages. Do

you have an agreement with the federal government on that?

MR. ALCOCK: I am not familiar with any

agreement with the federal agreement on that. Is there?

MS SPRACKLIN: No. I would think that it will be

the same. You know, it would normally just be the same as enforcing any other

garnishee against a federal employee.

MR. H. HODDER: So you do not expect any

difficulties?

MS SPRACKLIN: No.

MR. H. HODDER: Okay, that is the one thing you

have not done. There must be some that you have done.

MR. ALCOCK: Well we have transferred, for

example, the court fines to MRD, which was not in place before the new

provincial enforcement act came into place. So we have implemented, several

months ago - I cannot be precise here on the date - can you think of any others

that have been done, George?

MR. WHITE: Well, there are the sanctions

themselves, and a debit, credit card system for ease of payment.

MS SPRACKLIN: We are accepting credit cards

now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: When you say court fines - I

am just curious - are you talking about court fines you say have been

transferred to Motor Registration?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: But is that only court fines

with respect to motor vehicle violations, or all court fines?

MS SPRACKLIN: All court fines. It used to be

just parking tickets basically.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right, but I mean, if a person

is convicted and you know it is $100 fine for shoplifting, it has nothing to do

with Motor Vehicle Registration. That fine can now be collected through Motor

Vehicle Registration?

MR. ALCOCK: That is right.

MR. H. HODDER: Have we noticed any increase in

the numbers of people who have not renewed licences or people who are driving

without licences or insurances? If there is a reaction, is the reaction that

people who get their motor-vehicle licences renewals and it is going cost them

$514 instead of, you know, $120, that they choose to say: Well, I will drive

without it? Do we have a mechanism, for example, to say - there is a high level

of probability that John Doe, who lives at 14 Barclay Avenue in Mount Pearl or

wherever, who has not renewed his licence - is there somewhere then that we can

have a monitoring of that or, how would you go then and deal with that? Will you

say: Thank you very much, we are not going to follow up. If you get caught, you

get caught.

MR. DECKER: It is very early yet for us to do

any tracking to see just what is happening there. This is somewhat anecdotal,

but in my own district I get calls every month or so from someone calling me, as

their MHA, that they cannot get their licence because they did not pay a fine or

whatever. We have not done any amount of tracking and I doubt very much we will

until we have it fully implemented, you know.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. I had one today with 800

and some odd dollars in traffic fines.

MR. DECKER: I guess all the members are getting

them. That is my guess.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, you get them all the time.

Drive better! But, do you have a program in place that is going to sequentially

get the clerical data and make sure that this will be followed through so that

we know what the success rate is and all the rest of it?

MR. DECKER: We don't have a specific program,

do we?

MR. ALCOCK: We aren't monitoring or trying to

track down individuals who do not renew their licences for any particular

reason, and try and follow up or direct them towards the police, to try and find

out whether or not they are in fact driving or they have left the Province or

whatever. We have no particular plan to try and identify people from MRD who

don't renew their licence.

MR. DECKER: I suppose it could be done if you

really wanted to do it.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. What I'm saying is, if we

have sensed that we have people who aren't renewing their licences, then we are

going to have a further risk on the highway. We are going to have people without

licences and probably without insurance as well. There is the problem of

enforcement at that point, of course. But we haven't identified it and done any

follow through?

MS SPRACKLIN: No, but what we do track though

is the payment of fines. We age date them. So we know, for example, that, as

Ralph said, 85 per cent of fines are paid when you get into year four, I think

it is. Is it?

WITNESS: Four, I believe it is.

MS SPRACKLIN: And back down the line. We can

tell you how much of the $18 million is outstanding, one to six months, six to

twelve months. I guess if you watched those figures, if that remains constant

that people are continuing to pay, one would have to assume they are getting

their licences renewed, I guess.

MR. H. HODDER: When I asked this question

first, which was about in 1993, we had $16 million in outstanding fines. Now we

have $19 million.

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, but that may not represent

any more fines. The fines have increased. Quite often it may in fact represent

fewer fines but larger fines.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Vice-chair, the next hour

and a half is yours.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I really don't have any more

questions. I think we have covered the areas which we were certainly interested

in pursuing. I thank you for your answers and comments. Thank you.

CHAIR: Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to just get one more

question in on Forensic Pathology. Before we go for the night, I have to do

this. (Inaudible) absolutely off without getting into a little bit of the area

there.

WITNESS: It should bring us all to life.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. It will bring the minister

back to life.

The new system we have put in there now in terms of

- you know, we are having far fewer enquiries, that kind of thing. The cost here

is going down as well, and there may be reasons for that. Maybe you aren't

paying the forensic pathologist as much as you did before. Someone lost $32,000

there anyway in Salaries. There may be other reasons for that.

What has been the experience thus far with the new

arrangement for the pathologist? As you know, we do have a new arrangement. How

is that working? Are you seeing any difference now? The whole purpose of it was

to make it more effective, more immediate, and to avoid having the enquiries

that were unnecessary because a competent forensic pathologist was able to

establish the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt, and the circumstances

surrounding it. You have had not quite a year's experience in that. What has

been the experience?

MR. DECKER: It seems like it is working very

efficiently, Harvey. I remember before the office was set up, whenever there was

an unexplained death or whatever, there would be screams and cries for a

judicial enquiry and all this sort of thing. Now the process is all in place.

The chief medical examiner goes in, does his work, and if he feels there is a

need for an enquiry he makes a recommendation and all that sort of thing.

It seems to be working, because everybody knows

what is expected and everybody knows what to do,. I don't know a whole lot about

what it was like before, but I do remember, as an ordinary citizen, hearing the

complaints that were made. It seems to be working much more efficiently.

Deputy, do you want to add something?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes. I think two things have

happened. One is that a lot of unnecessary autopsies are avoided. Secondly, the

medical examiner has a process that he goes through. Families have access to all

of that information through this new system, and consequently there is less

demand for traditional enquiries which were of limited utility, I have to say,

to anybody, frankly, in a lot of cases.

MR. H. HODDER: They were more comforting than

anything else.

MS SPRACKLIN: In instances where there is a

public interest to be served by conducting an enquiry, they are still available.

So, it seems to be working well. Colin?

MR. FLYNN: Just to add to that, it certainly

has helped the police forces as well, because under the old regime both police

forces would have to do an investigation which would involve an awful lot of

report writing and so forth, and they would be submitted in the end to my office

for a decision, and you would get 600 or 700 of those a year. Now the process is

streamlined through the on-site medical examiner, or deputy medical examiner,

dealing with the cause of death and the circumstances of death fairly quickly

and competently, which they are trained to do. It has helped both police forces

with regard to their work in that area.

MR. H. HODDER: So we can avoid, for example,

the situation at the Grace Hospital there a few years ago when there was some

question as to the procedures that were followed by the medical personnel, and

under the direction of the people who were there who - there was evidence, or

there was some suggestion certainly, that certain crucial evidence may have been

compromised. So the chief medical examiner can arrive on site very quickly, make

a judgement as to what has happened, and be able to deal with that?

MR. FLYNN: Yes. Under the act the chief medical

examiner has control of the scene of death and can indeed take samples, and take

equipment and whatever, that would be necessary for his determination of the

circumstances and cause of the death.

I just would add, though, with the Grace Hospital,

my recollection of the evidence was that the destruction of the (inaudible) in

that case was inadvertent rather than some attempt to...

MR. H. HODDER: No, I didn't want to suggest

that -

MR. FLYNN: No, I just wanted to make that

clear.

MR. H. HODDER: - there was any deliberate

thing, except that perhaps the procedures were not as clear cut then as they are

now, and I think that was the evidence that came out in the enquiry, that the

procedures were not as precise and not as directed as they would be now and, as

a consequence of that, there may have been some compromise of evidence but

nothing that was a deliberate neglect on the part of anybody involved.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Let me just ask a question

which comes to my mind. It combines both enquiry and legal aid issue.

You will recall, Mr. Minister, awhile ago - I am

referring specifically to the incident in Point May - where a family, I think,

had made a request for legal aid, and in the final analysis there was no

representation in terms of legal aid representation for that family. Do you see,

perhaps, the department reviewing its policy? Clearly there was a request made

by the family. It was quite emotional, as I understand it, and it seemed to me

that would have been an appropriate case for the family to have felt that there

was somebody there for them asking the appropriate questions, and that just did

not happen. Could you comment on that?

MR. DECKER: Colin, maybe you could address that

issue. You gave me a very clear briefing note on it.

MR. FLYNN: I am glad I did.

WITNESS: I remember, the answer was quite good.

MR. DECKER: It was a good answer, but I don't

think I would do it justice.

MR. FLYNN: As you know, under the present legal

aid structure and legal aid rule they cannot take on this particular type of

case. There was a request made to legal aid to deal with this, and I don't know

the detail of their structure. Anyway, as it is set up, they cannot take on that

type of case. It is not covered under their agreement, I assume, and their

funding process.

There was a request, then, for the department

basically to pay for counsel for the particular individual. I think the minister

and the department had great concern about that because: Where does that end; I

guess, was the question. When do you say: Yes, we will supply counsel and pay

the cost? When do you say: No, we won't do that in an inquiry situation?

The approach that the department took was, in

essence, that we are not equipped to deal with that issue because it is really a

private concern. However, what we do, and what we did do in the Point May case,

was that we had enquiry counsel appointed. As everyone knows, whenever there is

an enquiry there is an enquiry counsel appointed. For a

summary proceeding such

as this, a Crown attorney is generally appointed as the enquiry counsel, but

that individual acts, frankly, independently of government. They are enquiry

counsel to the enquiry, and it is the judge who gives them direction as to how

they should act, what they should do, what types of witnesses should be

subpoenaed, and generally the focus of the enquiry. So in that particular case,

indeed, the counsel involved was from our special prosecutions unit, took his

instructions from the enquiry judge with regard to it, but in addition met on a

number of occasions with the family of the deceased, and as well with one member

of that family who was a spokesperson; dealt with that person, explained the

system, and in addition, in that particular case, was provided with general

concerns, general questions, which he discussed with the judge and was pursued.

It is not what the family wanted, and it is not

what would have made them most comfortable, but it was a process which allowed

them to have a type of legal representation in the court room.

MS SPRACKLIN: The purpose of these enquiries is

basically a fact-finding mission. It is not to establish fault or blame. That is

an issue for a civil case, and once you get involved there with respect to one

party - we have, at any point in time, maybe five, six, seven or eight enquiries

going and they almost all involve public institutions of one sort or another, a

hospital, a jail, but they all involve public institutions. As soon as you start

providing representation for the family, then you have nurses and technicians

and doctors and employees, and they all feel, all of a sudden, if there is

somebody in there who is paid to perhaps be targeting them, that they have to be

represented -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Maybe an amendment to the

legal aid act would resolve it.

MS SPRACKLIN: - and the function of the thing

gets lost.

MR. H. HODDER: I have a couple of more

questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your kind indulgence. I am not apologizing

for keeping you here or anything like that.

On the issue of child sensitivity for court

officials, there has been some concern that we treat children in court the same

way we treat adults. We know that children are not adults, but we don't

recognize that in court as much. There was some talk that there would be some

programs put in place for judges, for lawyers, that would set some more

acceptable parameters. (Inaudible) that, and I forget the gentleman's name now

but he wrote the legislation for children in the Yukon. He used to be in Nova

Scotia - he worked over there - and now he is in Scotland. I forget his name.

Some of you lawyers will probably remember his name. You probably did courses

from him. The last time I talked with him, he was in Scotland; and he was saying

then that - Bisset -

WITNESS: Bisset-Johnson?

MR. H. HODDER: Johnson. He was telling me then

that we have to make sure that courts, court officials and departments,

recognize that a child is a child. There are certain suggestions he was making.

Have we moved anywhere to make the courts safer for children's interests or are

we still operating on the procedures we have always had, and leaving it up to

the individual judges? So you find a judge who you feel, like the judge in Grand

Falls, is very, sensitive to these things.

When you hear a social worker say: If my child were

in trouble, I would never want to bring my child to a court in this community;

it causes me great concern, because that social worker is bringing children to

court in that very community. That has happened. Have any programs been put in

place to address the issue of children and the court system?

MS SPRACKLIN: How can I answer that? Vis--vis

the judiciary?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: Nothing specific in place in this

Province for our judiciary. Having said that, I think there are national

judicial training initiatives that are aimed at sensitizing the judiciary to all

sorts of issues, including gender issues, children's issues, aboriginal issues,

and it is a far more acceptable way to present it to the judiciary. They assert

their independence, and quite correctly so. For me, for example, to go and say:

I want to train you on this or that.

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MS SPRACKLIN: But there are training

initiatives, I think. Yes, it is being dealt with again, I think, on more of a

national and less confrontational way, and perhaps not aggressively enough, but

there are training initiatives (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Having talked to Professor

Bisset - Mr. Johnson and others, they indicate that this is one of the areas

where Canadian practice is lagging far behind in terms of our sensitivity to

children. To draw an example: The Jamie Batten case where we have people in the

court system representing the family, the father and that kind of thing; well

represented. We have the Department of Social Services who is out there at some

point and, yes, they are representing this child, but in reality, they are also

protecting the decisions of the bureaucracy. Many people feel that nobody

represents Jamie Batten in a designated way.

There are two issues here. One is the sensitivity

of the court system which is a different issue altogether. Then you have the

issue that I am referring to with Jamie Batten in which you say - in cases like

that, there are people who believe in custody cases that get so aggressive, the

interest of the child is not protected. Is there any provision whereby somebody

can appoint somebody - because this child at this point is a ward of the state.

He has been taken into custody by the social services department. Many people

feel that, when it gets like this, the social services department cannot do both

roles which are: protect the interests of the department and its decisions, and

also be the advocate for the child, which might not be exactly the same interest

at all.

In this battle here - and I just mention this child

but there are many others in the system - is there any provision whereby we can

have greater assurances that when these children get into these kinds of

relationships that destroy their whole childhood and innocence, that we can have

some recognition, that we better have somebody appointed, other than the

Department of Social Services, to look after these children and their interests?

MS SPRACKLIN: I mean, that is generally the

function of the director, to intervene to protect the interest of the child.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: I hear what you are saying, that

there are cases where at least there may be an apprehension, if not a reality,

that the interests may be diverging. It is not unusual in those cases for an

independent counsel to be appointed to represent the child. Now there is no

process, there is no requirement, but it is not unheard of.

MR. H. HODDER: But who makes that judgement

call?

MS SPRACKLIN: The director on occasion, or

counsel for the director. The court may suggest it or ask for it to be

considered. It is not unheard of.

MR. H. HODDER: So if the court were to ask for

it, I assume that it would be automatically granted.

MS SPRACKLIN: I would think that, in that

context, it would probably be very difficult not to. I mean, it is hard to

answer that hypothetically.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, I know. What I am really

saying is that, there are children who go through the court system - and all of

the studies indicate that in most custody cases children are not protected the

way they should be because very often they are property that parents fight over.

You know, the idea of my children, the word `my' is in the possessive case.

Therefore what I am saying is, in cases like that, where children are the centre

of the custody, should we not be doing more to protect the legal rights of that

child as a Canadian citizen? Everybody is protecting everybody else. I mean,

there are all kinds of lawyers for the adults but when are we going to get some

lawyers for the children?

MS SPRACKLIN: There are, you know,

circumstances again where it probably would be helpful. That depends upon the

age of the children and their ability to instruct counsel. I am not sure if it

is necessarily a legal question as to what is in the best interest of the child.

It is quite frankly a question of fact and a question of judgement that may not

necessarily be any better exercised by a lawyer.

For example, in Unified Family Court, they use

social workers to conduct home studies and assessments. That may be far more

both cost-effective and effective than hiring a lawyer to get in there, and put

a third lawyer in the court room. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I am not suggesting that the

lawyers would operate outside the total realm of the child. You know, you cannot

have a situation where you can neglect the social worker and that kind of thing,

but in cases where, say, the director of child welfare or the court itself or

even the social workers believe that it might be best to have independent

counsel representing the child to promote that child's best interest. I guess

what I am asking the minister is: If that is requested, then it will be granted?

MR. DECKER: Didn't we have one or two

occasions, actually, when a lawyer was available to a child?

MS SPRACKLIN: Yes, I have (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: There have been occasions when that

has happened. It is a judgement call I suppose. I believe, since I have been

minister, there have been a few cases where we recognized the child's problem

and we appointed a lawyer for that child. So the process can, but it does not

happen all the time.

MR. H. HODDER: No, nor should it happen all the

time, but we should not wait either until the child is marginalized to such an

extent - we have to be proactive and preventative it in these cases; an

interventionist to keep in mind that the centre of this battle is often the

child and the child may be the only person in court who is not really

represented by counsel.

I will leave it that.

MR. DECKER: It is just a suggestion, and it has

been done on a few occasions I know - but whether or not it should be done more

often.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chair, you may call the

heads now, if it is agreeable with all other hon. members.

CHAIR: Are there any other questions from any

of the other members? John?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. I have no questions.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): 1.1.01 to 4.2.02.

MR. H. HODDER: Just call them from the

beginning to the end.

CHAIR: Yes, they are inclusive. So, we will

call for a motion now to accept the heads inclusive, for the Department of

Justice.

MR. G. REID: So moved.

MS M. HODDER: Seconded

On motion, heads 1.1.01 through to 4.2.04, carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and your

officials for your attendance.

Committee now stands adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1997-04-23
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga43session2_1997-04-23_ssc-jus_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c362af9dff8756ad67951ed9503d7fcac9cb54d7

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