Social Services Committee

2012-05-01

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 1,

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

Chamber.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Welcome everybody. We welcome

the Department of Justice to the Social Services Committee tonight.

I have just a couple of general comments before we

start. When replying to a question, or if committee members are stating

questions, remember to state your name and please wait for the red light to come

on in front of you so it is recorded for Hansard purposes. We thank you for

that.

I am going to introduce the committee members. My name

is Glenn Littlejohn and I am the MHA for Port de Grave.

Andrew?

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

Poile.

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

Centre.

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

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

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, MHA, District of Port

au Port.

CHAIR: Just before we move into opening it up to

the minister, we need a motion to accept the minutes of last evening's meeting

with the Department of Health and Community Services.

MR. CORNECT: So moved.

CHAIR: Moved by Mr. Cornect.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded.

Carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Bill, could you call the first heading, please?

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead 1.1.01.

Normally, Minister, we would allow you fifteen minutes

for an opening remark if you so choose. If not, we can go right into questions

and I would turn it to Andrew. Andrew also has the opportunity for fifteen

minutes, and then ten minutes for Gerry, and we will go back and forth until the

evening is done.

Mr. Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Would you introduce your staff as well,

Minister, please?

MR. F. COLLINS: Felix Collins, Minister of Justice

and Attorney General.

I will introduce some of my officials before I go on.

MR. BURRAGE: Donald Burrage, Deputy Minister.

MS DUNPHY: Debbie Dunphy, Departmental

Comptroller.

MS LAKE-KAVANAGH: Jackie Lake-Kavanagh, Director

of Policy and Strategic Planning.

MR. NOBLE: Paul Noble, Assistant Deputy Minister.

MS BALLARD: Donna Ballard, Assistant Deputy

Minister.

MS HYNES: Anita Hynes, Executive Assistant.

MS COLMAN-SADD: Vanessa Colman-Sadd, Director of

Communications.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I am going to say it is a pleasure to be

here this evening on behalf of the Department of Justice and my officials to

discuss the Estimates with the Social Services Committee.

I do not have an opening statement as such. You have

already met my officials. The procedure that we will follow, I will field as

many of those questions as I can and I will not hesitate to resort to my

officials to put some meat on the bones, as it were, for any of the questions

that you might want to ask.

With that, Mr. Chair, we are ready to proceed.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Andrew.

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

I would like to thank the minister and staff for being

available tonight to take these questions. I appreciate that.

I am going to start off with some general questions at

first, if I could. We all know in the Budget there were apparently some

positions cut across government.

MR. F. COLLINS: If you would excuse me a moment,

Mr. Parsons, to get my technology working here.

Try it again.

MR. A. PARSONS: Good evening. My name is Andrew

Parsons. I am the MHA for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. F. COLLINS: No, it is not working now. I do

not think I will need it, but just in case. I might have to ask you questions

several times.

Okay, I think I have it now. I have a loose wire here

somewhere.

Go ahead.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Minister Collins.

My first question is, again, we are talking about the

number of positions cut across government in the Budget. I would ask: How many

positions were cut within the Department of Justice?

MR. F. COLLINS: No positions. Of the numbers that

were given to you in the Budget, I think it was forty-five temporary. There were

no positions cut as a result of that particular exercise. The 3 per cent

exercise did not result in the loss of any positions with the department.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are there any positions being

added?

MR. F. COLLINS: The positions added, RNC added an

exploitation officer. As we go through the estimates, you might see a few extra

ones there.

MR. A. PARSONS: Perhaps what I could do, I may be

a bit ahead of myself. As I go through the book, I am sure I will ask these

questions.

MR. F. COLLINS: Back to that, Mr. Parsons, I stand

to be corrected. We did have a Solicitor for the Family Litigation Unit, but

these are trade-off positions. We traded a position for that. We had an Internet

Child Exploitation Officer for the RNC, which was a new position. We did a trade

off for the position at HMP for a Manger of Finance. We also traded off two

vacant positions for a position of Manager of Policy and Planning, and Corporate

Services in Corrections. There were new positions but we traded off vacant

positions for them.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Just to go back very quickly for clarification

purposes. When you say there are no positions eliminated, we are not referring

to positions that were cut, eliminated, or attrition. There are no positions

gone in the Department of Justice?

MR. F. COLLINS: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Thank you.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Department of Justice,

incidentally, has the second largest employee staff in government, is it not?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

This is sort of a more general question, as well.

Obviously, we know about the change or the new law coming down federally, Bill

C-10. Has the impact of the federal changes to the criminal law had any impact

on this budget for the Department of Justice?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, they certainly had no impact

on budget preparations.

With respect to the impact, Mr. Parsons, Bill C-10,

the alleged two areas of possible impact would be, of course, on Corrections and

Prosecutions. With respect to Corrections, we are part of an Atlantic

Correctional Committee, representative of that committee. That was erected by

the premiers of the Atlantic Provinces to do the impact of Bill C-10 on our

Province as far as correction is concerned. They are still collecting their data

and information. So at this point in time we are not able to make a projection.

We do not have our information from the committee yet and subsequently, we would

not be able to make any kind of projection on what impact it might have in terms

of resident beds in our corrections.

With respect to Prosecutions; our Prosecutions team is

monitoring what is happening here. We are looking at other jurisdictions; we are

looking at our own policies. At this point in time it would be premature for us

to make any suggestion as to what might happen as a result of Bill C-10.

MR. A. PARSONS: Did this committee set in place a

time to reconvene to discuss give it so much time since the implementation of

the bill to sit back and look at the data that has been accumulated?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, the Atlantic committee is

still in the process of finishing its work. We expect to hear from them in a

timely fashion, but as of yet they do not have the information for us.

They did some information back, as well, when we had

the two-for-one legislation, you would recall. They were able to make some

projections for us then. I do not recall what those figures were. They were not

significant. We will have to wait to get their information and see what is going

to happen with respect to Bill C-10.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am looking at, in the budget, 1.1.01, Minister's

Office,

section 03, Transportation and Communications. You will notice there was

a budgeted amount last year of $38,000 and only $10,000 was spent.

Is there any reason why the full amount was not used?

MR. F. COLLINS: That is under the Minister's

Office, in 03?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: I am not a travelling man,

basically. The reduced travel comes about as a result of executive members

attending on my behalf and whatnot. I attend the FTP meetings and probably one

other. I am no Bev Oda.

MR. A. PARSONS: I see the budget has been kept at

the same level this year, so are you going to be a travelling man this year, or

should we keep it at $10,000?

MR. F. COLLINS: Could you repeat that question,

please?

MR. A. PARSONS: The budget last year was not

spent, but this year we have kept the same amount.

Do you anticipate expending that part of the budget

this year?

MR. F. COLLINS: For transportation?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, we budgeted $2,600 less than

we budgeted last year. I do not know if I have any major plans to change on

transportation. We have cut it pretty lean in transportation and we intend to

keep it that way. It is one of the biggest staff in government so, yes, as you

go through the Estimates there is a fair amount of transportation involved in

there.

MR. A. PARSONS: Moving just below that, in 1.2.01,

Executive Support, I noticed last year there was $1,174,000 budgeted and

$1,294,000 expended.

How many positions was this and what were they?

MR. F. COLLINS: There is a shortfall there of

about $119,000. That relates to payout and severance, basically for leave of an

ADM who left during the year. That is mainly where there came from. That is

offset by a vacant deputy minister position that we have on staff.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is that position being advertised?

Is it going to be kept?

MR. F. COLLINS: The position that was left?

MR. A. PARSONS: You just referenced an ADM

position.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, that position has been filled

on an interim basis. I will have the deputy respond to that.

MR. BURRAGE: That is the ADM position, which is

the Director of Public Prosecutions position. The director was appointed to the

Provincial Court you might recall, Pam Goulding. That position is currently

filled on an acting basis by Donovan Molloy. He is in there in an acting

capacity at the moment. Whether we subsequently advertise that position or

whether Donovan is eventually made permanent remains to be seen. He is in there

now in an acting capacity.

On your question regarding salaries, the executive

salaries are basically, myself, there is a position which is vacant now,

associate deputy minister, and then the assistant deputy minister positions,

Director of Communications, and two secretaries. That is our executive salary.

MR. A. PARSONS: I notice in the same

section line

03, Transportation and Communications, that there was a shortfall of $20,000 in

the transportation budget.

Was this a specific trip or was this just something

that built up with a number of trips?

MR. F. COLLINS: For the last two years, we have

been negotiating the RCMP contract. This covers the transportation of our ADM

and the director to meetings all over Canada in delivering that contract. That

is basically the transportation costs in negotiating the RCMP contract in most

of these figures here.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is the contract that was

signed just recently, correct?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: So we are going to keep the travel

budget at the same. Are we anticipating extra travel?

MR. F. COLLINS: We think the budget in there of

$64,300 for 2012 more accurately reflects the actual expenditures, so we will

expect that for next year.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

In line 04, the budget for Supplies went from $4,400

to $13,000.

What was the addition there?

MR. F. COLLINS: That was basically purchase of

straightforward office supplies: printer cartridges, setups for meetings, and so

on. There is nothing unusual about that one.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are we not expecting that to

happen again this year if we kept the budget at $4,400 again?

MR. F. COLLINS: Debbie (inaudible).

MS DUNPHY: Generally, Mr. Parsons, we set base

budgets for these areas. There is usually not a lot of flexibility. You have

already noted the travel: the minister's is down and executives' is up. We have

tried to reflect that based on re-profiling from other areas.

Supplies is an area that it is a large department

we do not always have a lot of flexibility to move things on a permanent basis.

The base is set at $4,400. Some years we will spend that, some years we will

spend more, and some years we hope to spend less. Obviously everything is going

up in price. Printer cartridges are a prime example, and these colour printer

cartridges. I am an accountant and I know these things, but things just go up in

price.

Yes, it is an area we may have to look at to increase

in the future. It is not an area we focus on to need to increase it on a

permanent basis.

CHAIR: Last question.

MR. A. PARSONS: My last question for this time is

in 06, Purchased Services. If the Chair would permit me this indulgence, it is a

two-part: A, being new to this process, could explain to me what purchased

services are as it relates to the Department of Justice; and B, it was $2,600

budgeted, so what did we spend $10,600 on?

MR. F. COLLINS: Debbie, would you respond to that?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

Purchased services in general can go from anything

from contracting for a service outside of government to things like printing,

training, departmental entertainment entertainment is not a great term.

Obviously, the minister would, at times, have dignitaries or officials from

other provinces or departments and may have discussions at a business lunch, or

whatever.

For Executive Support, that is mostly what is in

purchased services. For example, our catering contract at the penitentiary is a

purchased service. At the front of the Estimates book, there may be a brief

description. I hope I am right.

MR. A. PARSONS: The second part of that is: It was

budgeted for $2,600 but we spent $10,600, so what was that additional amount

for?

MS DUNPHY: Under Executive Support, that was

mainly related to some mandatory training we had for the executive.

MR. A. PARSONS: What was the specific training?

MS DUNPHY: Minister, can I pass it back to you?

MR. F. COLLINS: There is media training. Purchased

services covers such a wide line, and as you go through the other Estimates you

will see purchased services in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It could be

anything. It is a small figure of $8,000, so it is pretty hard to pin it down on

what it was.

MR. A. PARSONS: The problem I have, if I could

say, is that I have to try my best to account for all of it. That is my job.

This $8,000, if it went to media training, which

company would it have been? If the information is not there if someone could

provide an undertaking to provide me with the name of the company and the

specifics behind that, I would appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Andrew.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

I am very happy to be here, it is my first time as

well. Justice is a great passion of mine and I am learning a lot. I know you

have a huge job on your hands and I respect that a very complex one.

I will just ask a few questions as well then before we

go on to some of the lines. I know our prison system is really, at times,

bursting at the seams and is very, very stressed. Again, with Bill C-10 we can

assume there will be even more of a strain on an already strained system.

I was wondering, is there any movement at all within

the Province to look at building a new prison to replace HMP at this point?

Where is that at?

MR. F. COLLINS: It is certainly a very important

question. There is no doubt that some of the priorities of the department is in

Corrections. We are in reasonably good shape otherwise, but we realize we have

to pay the full amount of attention on Corrections.

To that end, ever since the Decades of Darkness report

came out in 2008 we have focused pretty significantly on Corrections in the

amount of investments that we have made. We have invested significantly, over $7

million in terms of training and infrastructure improvements. In addition to the

monies that we are already putting into our facilities, and I refer to the

camera systems and I think it was $800,000 for a ventilation system for HMP, for

example, and $1 million in Clarenville and so on and so forth.

We are also doing an internal assessment of our

Corrections. We have, I think, six correctional institutions in the Province. We

realize that we are going to have to make some decisions in the very near future

with respect to Corrections.

We have done a capacity assessment of all of our

institutions in attempting to see if we can get a better bang for our buck in

terms of numbers. If we can rearrange, modify, adjust something so we can

accommodate better numbers in the institutions we have. At the end of the day,

that will also inform us as to what we need in terms of new facilities. So that

is an exercise we are going through at the moment.

In addition to that, in assessing what capacity we

have within our existing system, with some modifications, we are looking at a

number of other things. Bill C-10 obviously has to factor into the equation. We

have to wait until we see where that is going.

As well, we have responsibility for federal prisoners.

As you know, the federal government has made announcements in recent days about

closing federal institutions. We have a unique arrangement with the Government

of Canada. We are the only Province that does. We can keep federal prisoners. We

have on average about fifty federal prisoners at any one time.

All of these things are thrown into the equation so as

to inform us as to what we are going to have to do in terms of

infrastructure needs going forward in

Corrections. Certainly, right now I think it is fair to say it is the main

priority, top priority for the department.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Would it be possible to get numbers on the number of

federal prisoners we do have through the year, federal prisoners?

MR. F. COLLINS: Numbers of inmates?

MS ROGERS: Inmates yes, that we have in the

different facilities.

MR. F. COLLINS: We can undertake to get you that,

yes.

MS ROGERS: That would be great.

We have heard rumours that government plans to

reassign the Whitbourne Youth detention Centre for use to house adult inmates.

Has the government decided to do this? Are you looking

at that? If so, then what would be the plan for youth detention?

MR. F. COLLINS: When I mentioned we were doing an

assessment of all of our correctional institutions, Whitbourne is included.

Whitbourne presents a different presentation completely than the other

institutions. The other institutions are designed for adult corrections.

Whitbourne was never designed for that purpose. It has a specific purpose, and

purposely built for youth rehabilitation and training of youth.

It is vastly underutilized, as you might well know. We

are looking to see what we can do with Whitbourne. It may have nothing to do

with adult corrections. We have to look at Whitbourne to see what options are

open to us there for better use of that facility. It is a tremendous facility.

It has a lot of good things going for it, but the numbers have been down

considerably over the years.

MS ROGERS: That is a good thing.

MR. F. COLLINS: Where they will go with Bill C-10

is another issue. The Youth Justice Act and Bill C-10 might have some

ramifications for that. When we say we are looking at all our institutions, we

are looking at Whitbourne as well.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Are you looking at any other options for youth

detention then?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, that is all part of it. If

we, obviously, were to come up with another use for Whitbourne, we would have to

find an optional use or a facility of equal substantive use. That is part of the

ongoing assessment. It is going to take some time. You just do not come up with

another Whitbourne overnight. What options Whitbourne gives us at this stage we

have to look at very seriously.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Just one more question before we go to some lines.

Again, with the closing of Kingston, which would probably impact us as well, and

C-10, what kind of movement or what is happening with the Province's efforts to

push the federal government, urge the federal government, or beg the federal

government to participate in the building of a prison?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, we have not moved off that

position. We think the federal government has an obligation to Newfoundland and

Labrador. We have federal prisoners here. We get a per diem from them, but we

think they have an obligation because we do have federal prisoners. So far they

have not come to the table, but we are not ruling it out.

They have told us they are not building any newer

prisons, and they are not. They are putting modifications and additions onto

existing prisons. We are hoping the door remains open for discussions with them

on that.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Again, before we go to the lines. I would like, if it

is possible, to have numbers of capacity for each facility that we have, and

what was the capacity rate in every facility in the past year, if that is

possible.

MR. F. COLLINS: Sure.

MS ROGERS: Great.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Go ahead, Don.

MR. BURRAGE: Just a point of clarification. Were

you looking for the original rate of capacity and the capacity as it was last

year? There may be differences. The original capacity of some of the facilities,

we have made changes to increase the capacity of some of them. Did you want the

original capacity and the current capacity?

MS ROGERS: Why not? It sounds good to me.

MR. BURRAGE: Okay.

Did you want youth as well?

MS ROGERS: Yes, I would. Thank you very much, Don.

I am at General Administration (Cont'd) 1.2.02.

Administrative and Policy Support.

CHAIR: Gerry, just for clarification, 1.2.02, page

17.4?

MS ROGERS: That is right.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS ROGERS: Line 01 Salaries okay, that is fine.

We could go to Professional Services, 05.

CHAIR: 1.2.02.05, Professional Services?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

CHAIR: Okay.

MS ROGERS: We see there has been quite an increase

there. What kind of professional services would that have covered?

MR. F. COLLINS: We budgeted $70,000. The revised

projection is that we are going to be spending $470,000. Is that the line you

are looking at?

MS ROGERS: No, I am at 1.2.02, and then line 05,

Professional Services.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Professional Services.

MS ROGERS: Yes, sorry.

MR. F. COLLINS: We have a shortfall there, if that

is what you are looking at, from what we budgeted from $70,000.

MS ROGERS: It went from $70,000 to $144,000,

doubling of the Professional Services.

MR. F. COLLINS: It is the Professional Services

line you are looking at?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: We have a shortfall there of over

$70,000. That shortfall is attributed mainly to the criminal code review board

and the budget of that has been in the base for years of $15,200. This year the

expenditures were over $106,000 and that is basically for medial assessments and

whatnot for people who this review board is headed by retired Judge Reid and

when the board was set up Judge Reid was still a judge so we did not pay his

salary, but he is no longer a judge. So the base budget has not changed, but

every year the assessment costs have gone over that. We are holding the line on

the budget for next year.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

Then 10, Grants and Subsidies, there is a significant

increase there.

MR. F. COLLINS: This was transfers by Treasury

Board during the year, and there were two grants. Nain and Hopedale both got a

community constable. That is under the community tripartite agreement. That is a

savings from the RCMP. The RCMP contract is a 70-30 arrangement. The Province

pays seventy and the federal government pays thirty for the policing

arrangement, but with Northern policing the arrangement is 52-48. So we save

considerable money, but it has to go back into policing and we put the money

back into community constables for the Northern coast.

That is some of it. There was also a significant

amount of money put in there, and only just recently, for the thermal imaging

equipment for search and rescue.

MS ROGERS: Could we have a list of the grants and

subsidies from that category?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerry.

Andrew.

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

I am going to continue on with that same section. So,

I understand under Professional Services, the part you just talked about, that

is to do with the criminal code review board headed by the judge. Last year it

went over. You are not anticipating it is going to go over this year?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, that is the budget we have

been using. As Debbie pointed out earlier, we move money around to take care of

some of these things, so $70,000 in our base budget, we are actually staying

with that. If we need money, as we did this year, we will try to find it in

other places.

MR. A. PARSONS: Further to Ms Rogers' requests on

grants and subsidies, is it standard practice that I can get the same

information provided to me as well?

MR. F. COLLINS: The grants and subsidies that Ms

Rogers is requesting, I am wondering if you could be specific about what you are

looking for there. All grants and subsidies that are given during the year?

MS ROGERS: If that would be possible.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, fine, no problem. We can do

that.

MR. BURRAGE: When we provide something that is

requested, it goes to the entire Committee.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you for that.

I have just a quick question on the revenue in the

same section. It has been budgeted at $63,000, but you actually received much

more than that. What was the difference there in receiving $175,000?

MR. F. COLLINS: When it comes to related revenue,

I am going to let you talk to Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: Mostly in that account, we take in

monies for commissioners for oaths, notaries public, and ATIPP requests. There

is a variety and it fluctuates from year to year. As is apparent this year, we

did get some extra money.

Republic of Doyle we actually recover some costs

from the set. Sometimes police officers are doing some overtime and they recover

that money back. There is some extra money in there related to that. The

Sheriff's Office had some money Don, I do not know what the word is. They

could not find whom it was owed to, so then it gets remitted to the Crown. They

are one-offs. It is undistributed accounts sometimes or maybe an increase.

Autopsy fees are another. It is just up and down. This year is a little higher.

That Republic of Doyle money should not be there. It should be under RNC,

but that is my fault.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have to say, I was not expecting

that answer to that, but that is good news certainly.

MS DUNPHY: Good.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am just going to move down to

the next section, Strategic Human Resource Management, and in line 02, Employee

Benefits, there was more spent out than budgeted. What was this attributed to?

MR. F. COLLINS: A lot of this funding is budgeted

in Purchased Services, but it is paid out through Employee Benefits, travel, and

Supplies and the budget transfers are made from time to time. What is budgeted

in one area is showing up as being spent in Employee Benefits.

MR. A. PARSONS: So what you are saying is that if

you compare line 02 to 06, the amount that was budgeted under Purchased Services

was $385,000 but only $170,000 spent.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Am I right in saying that there is

still a little gap there? I guess money was not spent about $100,000 not

spent?

MR. F. COLLINS: Debbie, go ahead.

MS DUNPHY: What is mostly budgeted there under

Purchased Services is the learning and development fund we receive from the

Public Service Secretariat every year. It covers things like mandatory training

for our correctional officers or fish and wildlife officials, any employees

within the department. It can cover things like the cost of a conference fee, it

could be the cost of the trainer we hire, or it could be some travel costs.

There is a variety of things.

When we say there is only $170,300 spent out of

Purchased Services, the rest of it had to go to the other main objects to cover

those costs. Under 02, as well as some of this learning and development cost,

this is where the departmental Workers' Compensation costs are budgeted and paid

out. That is an area, again, that has been traditionally under funded and we

have just managed within.

For 2011-2012, we have had about $329,000 in Workers'

Comp costs. In 2010-2011 it was down a bit to $260,000. In 2009-2010 it was

$373,000. Again, as the minister mentioned earlier, we are one of the largest

departments and we are twenty-four seven, so we do have a lot of these issues

and our costs are variable from year to year. Attempts to get extra funding have

not always been successful.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just a quick question on the same section, Supplies,

there was a $13,000 overage. What was that for specifically?

MR. F. COLLINS: The same principle applies here.

This is budgeted in Purchased Services and paid out through Employee Benefits in

transfers during the year from one fund to the year. I do not know if there was

anything specific on that, Debbie, you wanted to refer to.

MR. A. PARSONS: The reason I ask specifically is I

asked this in Education and in one case they said it was a printer. It was very

specific. Sometimes I ask and you get an answer that it was a specific piece of

equipment or something along those lines.

MS DUNPHY: Not that I am aware of, that it is

something specific. Again, with training for police officers they may need

ammunition, for correctional officers they may have to buy extra gym mats if

they are doing use of force, or they may have to use pepper spray, those sorts

of things that are covered under the learning and development fund. So it is

basic supplies, it is not a specific item.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Moving to the next page 17.5, 1.2.05 Administrative

Support; the big difference there, obviously, is it went from $614,000 to $1.7

million. I am just wondering what happened there to cause that difference.

MR. F. COLLINS: Which one is that again? I am lost

here.

MR. A. PARSONS: Sorry, 1.2.05 Administrative

Support, under line 07, Property and Furnishings.

MR. F. COLLINS: Okay. Yes, I got it.

The shortfall there of over $1 million?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: That relates to the purchases of

vehicles for Fish and Wildlife, the RNC, and Adult Corrections. These were

funded through operational savings within the RNC and Fish and Wildlife.

MR. A. PARSONS: So, $1 million sounds like a lot

of vehicles.

MR. F. COLLINS: It was anticipated that Fish and

Wildlife, for example, would be fully staffed and fully operational. So we

bought equipment and vehicles and whatnot in anticipation of that, and it will

be by the end of this year, or by early this year. Some of this will be one-time

purchases upfront.

There are some vehicles in there as well for RNC and

Adult Corrections. Operational savings within the RNC are spent for other things

within the RNC, so extra vehicles would be purchased here.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just so I am clear now because,

again, this is my first time. If money is spent for the RNC equipment, that

could come under here. It is sort of all under one, I guess, is it?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

The Fish and Wildlife, that came from Natural

Resources?

MR. F. COLLINS: Inland Fish was part of Justice.

Last year the Inland Fish and Wildlife were merged into one specific division

under the Department of Justice. So in going along with that, there was

organizational work to be done, offices to be established, staffing to be done,

because the whole jurisdiction of Fish and Wildlife is moved over to Justice.

There is a considerable expense in staffing and

getting that up and running, including accommodations, equipment, staff and so

on. That is a new division that is functioning now within before it was in

Natural Resources. Wildlife and Conservation and Forestry were together under

Natural Resources. All the enforcement

section is now under Justice.

MR. A. PARSONS: Was there an increase in funds to

cover this increase in size?

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes. That would be in last year's

Budget, actually, some of that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Moving to page 17.6, Fines

Administration; I am going to start with something general. This is something

that came up, it was in the public. We know there are tons of people out there

who have thousands of dollars of fines racked up. I am not sure what the number

is. How many millions is it, roughly?

MR. F. COLLINS: At the moment, Accounts Receivable

I have these figures for you here for 2011 was $34 million.

MR. A. PARSONS: I know this is not something that

just built up all of a sudden. This is an ongoing problem over a number of

years.

Has there been any discussion within the department on

different ways to track and find these people?

MR. F. COLLINS: There have been a number of

developments. This is an issue, Mr. Parsons, we have sat down in our offices and

discussed time after time after time. Any time somebody gets picked up on the

weekend and shows an outstanding $30,000 to $40,000 of fines, it evokes the

discussion all over again. We keep asking: Is there anything else we can do

here? There are all kinds of ideas being suggested, from chain gangs to

everything else.

What we have done is we have increased, since 2003,

the number of collection officers from one to eight. We have made an agreement

with Canada Revenue Agency to garnish fines against income taxes and GST. That

netted us, for example, this year over $1 million.

There are a number of challenges that face us here,

obviously. There is always going to be a number of people who will always have

complete disregard for the law and whatnot. We think we are doing everything we

can to get these fines in.

In terms of figures, in 2010, for example, we

collected $11,700,563. In the next year we collected $11,448,000 and last year

$11,765,000. Our collections are going up every year.

Some of the problems we have with regard to

collecting, people change their names as a result of marriage or divorce,

unpublished cellphone numbers, people with no fixed address, a person

incarcerated, no or low employment. It is a matter of trying to get blood out of

a turnip. These people go back out on the road. When they get a chance, they are

out on the road again without any licence, without any insurance, with a clunker

they bought for $500 or stole.

What we have done, we have amended the Provincial

Offences Act to allow us the mechanism of incarceration. Before, you could only

give them a ticket and fine them. At least now you can incarcerate them. The

cost of incarceration is more than what they owe.

It is a very difficult situation and one that we have

wrestled with to see how we can deal with it. From adding an increased number of

collection officers to making the arrangements with the CRA and adding to the

mechanisms we have with regard to incarceration and whatnot, we are making

inroads. The numbers are high and they are going to stay high.

One of the reasons why the numbers are high as well is

because the costs of fines have gone up. Driving without insurance used to be

$1,000, now it is $2,000. If you are caught twice of driving without insurance,

that is $4,000 against you right off the bat. Victim surcharge fines have gone

up. The number of tickets given by the RCMP have increased and the cost of each

ticket has increased somewhat.

Sometimes you think you are going against the tide

here, but we think we are doing everything we can to collect on these.

MR. A. PARSONS: As with the suggestion that the

outstanding amount did not come over right away, some of these people's amounts

did not just happen right away either. These people had to have been fined a

number of times.

Has there been any discussion, perhaps with the

judiciary or with prosecutors, as to looking at people's prior records and

saying: Okay, at this point, look, you have X number of dollars racked up and we

are not going to put another fine on you? Maybe there is a policy across the

board of, like you said, the incarceration or some other means.

MR. F. COLLINS: My understanding is we have

incarcerated people.

If you see someone caught for owing $30,000 in fines,

more than likely that is the same person who we saw two weeks prior to that. The

numbers of people now are small compared to what appears in the media with

respect to the amount of fines. A lot of these are repeat offenders, the same

people. Your option, basically, is to put them in jail.

MR. A. PARSONS: My final question, I have to ask

since you brought it up: How do you feel about the possibility of chain gangs?

MR. F. COLLINS: A number of different remedies

have been suggested in the media people out doing community work and whatnot.

We do not have the structures in place to do that sort of thing and the cost of

putting those structures in place again outweigh the (inaudible) so it is

something that we are going to be living with for a while, I am afraid.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Gerry.

MS ROGERS: I will just carry on with that. Has

there been any exploration at looking at reassessing amounts of fines for some

people? For instance, when people go bankrupt they can only pay so much back.

Has there been any exploration at looking at something that truly is payable by

some offenders?

MR. F. COLLINS: We have put a debtor assessment

system in place and once the fine goes over a certain amount, then it is turned

over to the enforcement agency, to the Sheriff's Office, and then they can bring

in all of their forces to bear, like they do in any collection situation. We

have a system in place where they are brought in and assessed and see if they

can make payments. That is turning us in a certain amount of revenue, but,

again, a lot of these people that you hear about do not have the wherewithal to

respond.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

MR. F. COLLINS: The thing is most people pay their

fines.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Anybody who has the ability to pay

it out pays. So anybody that you bring in, to assess them and see what kind of a

payment

schedule they can make, usually these are not the people that you have

to worry about.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

Civil Law and Enforcement, 2.1.01.01, Salaries, we see

an increase there overspent by $392,000.

MR. F. COLLINS: The extra money is projected for

salaries in this budget. We had to take additional lawyers on staff due to

increased demand in certain areas. We are always going flat out in the civil

section and sometimes we have to bring in additional people to help us out.

Where we had a solicitor retire in that division, we had to pay some severance

and leave payout for that person as well.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

In 05, Professional Services, here we see an over

expenditure of $399,000.

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, in Professional Services,

the shortfall there that had to do with the retention of outside legal

assistance. Usually we are looking for someone with a particular expertise that

we do not have in the department. That is where this is covered off.

MS ROGERS: What other kinds of professional

services would be in that category? I am just curious.

MR. BURRAGE: It is not necessarily limited to

legal. It could also involve consulting services. We need to reach outside and

draw on some expertise the department does not have.

That varies from year to year. It is really a hard

number to predict. For example, you might plan on a contingency and it not

happen. A case could settle or something conversely could go in a completely

different direction. We could face a situation where there is a series of

serious crimes that require some additional resources we would otherwise not

call upon. From year to year, it is a difficult thing to predict.

It is basically outside assistance and generally, as

the minister said, because the expertise is not available in the department. It

is something specialized.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

Then 06, Purchased Services

MR. F. COLLINS: That, again, is a shortfall due to

an expense in a civil case, a litigation case.

MS ROGERS: Could you just tell me a little bit

what the difference is between professional services and purchased services?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will refer to Debbie

Dunphy on that one.

MS DUNPHY: That is a great question. How we always

distinguish the two: a professional service is that you are getting an opinion

or a ruling of some sort. A lawyer gives an opinion, an auditor gives an

opinion, or a consultant gives a recommendation on a project. That is what we

always use as our line for professional services. The purchased services are

more of you are buying a service: catering, the John Howard Society provides

services to our inmates, document retrieval, and training people. It is

different, a more tangible thing,

whereas professional we always consider to be

some sort of opinion or recommendation.

MS ROGERS: Some of the services John Howard is

providing for you, then, would come under civil law?

MR. F. COLLINS: No.

MS DUNPHY: No, that is just in general.

MS ROGERS: No, it would not. It would come under

another category. Absolutely, I understand. Thank you.

Property, Furnishings and Equipment I imagine simply

something was bought there.

Allowances and Assistance?

MR. F. COLLINS: We had a savings there this year

of $550,000. The Department of Justice are involved in settlement cases with the

various actions against the government. This year our amounts were down by

$550,000. That is a difficult one to predict. It is pretty hard to say what the

trend is going to be from year to year. As a part of our savings this year, we

are anticipating that we will maintain that position and taking in account that

budget savings in our projected budget.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

Now to the next heading 2.1.0.2, Sheriff's Office, 01,

Salaries-

MR. F. COLLINS: For the most part, the variances

you see the Sheriff's Office have to do with provision of court security for

circuit courts.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: The judges now are ordering deputy

sheriffs to accompany them on circuit courts, so that calls for extra resources,

and then you have to backfill the positions when they do go. A lot of the things

you will see under this heading have to do with that.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Since we are speaking about circuit courts, some of

the circuit courts that I have visited and then also heard from people using the

circuit courts, many of them are totally physically inaccessible. Is there

anything being done to address that situation? Because it affects not only the

accused or their families and supports, but also the possibility of counsel who

may be physically disabled, judges who may be physically disabled. It is really

a serious issue of access to justice. I am just wondering how, particularly in

some of the courts I mean, the one in St. Anthony you are faced with two

flights of stairs.

MR. F. COLLINS: Certainly it is a concern for us.

We hold circuit courts in some strange locations in this Province

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: As I am sure Mr. Parsons will

attest. Security was not built in to the design when it was put there. We are

from over the bar in Nain to the Lions clubs and town halls, but we cannot

possibly do to the cost of physical alterations, they are not our buildings to

start with, a lot of them. What we could do in terms of infrastructure

improvements there were limited. What we did instead, in terms of security

enhancements that is our main purpose, public safety we are supplying the

deputy sheriff's to assist the local police and whatnot in security.

Supreme Court budgeted, I think it is $300,000 and $400,000 for a wheelchair

ramp for the Supreme Court, which has been a long time coming. We made some

You are right; we have a lot of court facilities

around the Province that need a lot of improvements. There is no doubt about

that.

MS ROGERS: For instance, a courthouse like in St.

Anthony, how often would that be used? How many days a week, or is it a day a

month?

MR. F. COLLINS: The Supreme Court, the Court of

Appeal?

MS ROGERS: In St. Anthony, yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Which courthouse are you referring

to on?

MS ROGERS: The court that has two flights of

stairs.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Supreme Court building?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: The big historic building you are

talking about?

MS ROGERS: No.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Court of Appeal?

MS ROGERS: The Court of Appeal, that is right,

yes.

OFFICIAL: No, it is not; the court in St. Anthony.

MS ROGERS: In Anthony, yes.

OFFICIAL: The Supreme Court and Provincial Court

both go (inaudible) circuit.

MS ROGERS: Yes, that's what I thought as well.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes. We will have to get the

numbers for you. That is a circuit court, we would not know.

MS ROGERS: Ballpark, is it a few days a month? It

is not every day is it?

MR. F. COLLINS: I do know from discussions last

year that the Unified Family Court now in Corner Brook on circuit goes

throughout five times a month, I believe.

MS ROGERS: I see, out to St. Anthony?

MR. F. COLLINS: That might be the whole court

system, five days for the Supreme Court. We will have to get the figures for you

because I am talking off the top of my head.

MS ROGERS: Okay. Yes, I would like those figures.

That would be great.

Thank you.

I think I can pass on from the Sheriff's Office.

Transportation and Communications, however, in the Sheriff's Office, would that

as well relate to circuit courts?

MR. F. COLLINS: Absolutely. Yes.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: Not only circuit courts, but

sometimes deputy sheriffs have to travel to other courts for other reasons but

it mostly has to do with if there are some vacancies in a court outside St.

John's then a deputy sheriff from St. John's will have to go to that court. So

that is part of the expenses as well.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Civil Law and Enforcement (Cont'd), 2.1.03, we see

there Purchased Services in 06.

MR. F. COLLINS: Purchased Services there, an

increase of $33,000. That is a result, basically, an increase in bank fees on a

Support Enforcement account.

MS ROGERS: To be a bank. Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Debbie, please.

MS DUNPHY: Just to add to that, Minister, we have

actually been in discussions with the Comptroller's Officer. Government, as a

whole, has a banking arrangement that we tender and go through a process every

so many years.

Support Enforcement, that is a separate issue, it is

not government money. It is monies collected from individuals and passed on. For

years, when the interest rates where higher and bank fees were lower, there were

times government actually made money off that from interest. Again, it was

distributed to the CRF.

The past two years, bank fee have flipped and it is

costing us a lot of money. We have been in discussions with the Comptroller's

Office to see if we can find some better arrangement to try to reduce these fees

because it is obviously gone up considerably.

MS ROGERS: Then if we go on to 2.1.04, Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy. I would like to ask a broad question

first about that.

Minister, you received the Cummings report on the

first statutory review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act and you said there would be a careful review of the recommendations made. My

understanding is there are amendments to the legislation in the works.

Can you give me an update of where you are with those

recommendations? What they are going to look like, what is happening?

MR. F. COLLINS: As you can well imagine, it is

quite a sensitive piece, an important piece of legislation. When we received the

report from Mr. Cummings, when we reviewed the report, then we had to submit it

to all the departments for their review and their input.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: As a matter of fact, it has made

two rounds of the departments. We are now in a position of collating all the

information that the different departments have provided so that we can properly

draft the amendments.

In addition to what Mr. Cummings has suggested, there

is a lot of input from the various departments into that report. So when the

bill comes to the House, the amendments will reflect all of the input that went

into that review.

MS ROGERS: Will we get any of that information

before the bill comes to the House, in terms of the recommendations and

amendments?

MR. F. COLLINS: I would suggest to you, that

information you will be briefed, certainly, on the amendments before they come

to the House.

MS ROGERS: Do you have a time frame for that?

MR. F. COLLINS: The amendments are still being

discussed and they are still being reviewed. This is a bill that is going to

take a long time because it is going to be in effect for another five years. It

is one that gets a lot of attention, so we have to make sure we do that one

right. Before the bill comes to the House, it will get an extensive review on

what the reviews are going to be.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerry.

Andrew.

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

I am going to go back, if I may, to 2.1.01 Civil Law.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Under Professional Services, there

is a budget of $2.3 million and we spent $2.7 million. I am presuming these

professional services are for monies, in some cases, paid for law firms for

outside services.

Do you have a list of the law firms that were paid in

2011?

CHAIR: Don.

MR. BURRAGE: It is a question we anticipate every

year. So we can provide that for you, absolutely. I cannot provide it to you at

the moment, but we can provide that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Just going down for a second to the Sheriff's Office,

I noticed the amount spent in line 07 Property, Furnishings and Equipment went

up a lot.

I do not know if Ms Rogers asked that or not. Did you?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: What was that again?

MR. F. COLLINS: Is that Property, Furnishings and

Equipment? Is that the one you are talking about?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: There is a shortfall there of over

$40,000. That relates basically to the purchase of the X-ray scanning equipment.

MR. A. PARSONS: Perfect. Thank you. Sorry for the

repetitiveness.

While we are talking on this topic, one of the things

that were brought up last year in a report by Judge Baker was the probation

offices. My hometown has the distinct pleasure of having one of the worst in the

Province.

I am just wondering: What changes have been done to

the Port aux Basques office for probation services since that report?

MR. F. COLLINS: Judge Baker made eighteen

particular recommendations in his report and they were basically divided into

two categories. There was administration and policy, and procedural type of

recommendations, as well as infrastructure

recommendations, public safety and security enhancements. We

did not wait on that report. Once we had some discussion with Judge Baker, for

example, we did the home visit assessment because that was one of his

recommendations in there.

Basically, what we have done since that report has

come in, we have hired an additional regional manager. That has gone through the

classification process and is ready now to go to advertising. We moved the

office of the Chief Adult Probation Officer from downtown St. John's into the

Department of Justice, and now she will have a regional manager.

With another regional manager, we will be able to

address a lot of the recommendations and suggestions that Judge Baker makes in

his report. Going forward, she will be able to address policy changes and

procedures in policy manuals, that sort of training, and so on. She will be able

to address all of that.

With regard to the infrastructure, we have made a

number of changes in some of the offices. You are absolutely right. Some of the

working conditions in some of these offices, Judge Baker pointed out that the

probation system was working really well, in spite of some of the infrastructure

challenges that existed. We made a number of changes in some of these offices.

In this year's Budget, we budgeted $150,000 a year for the next four years to

address some of these changes and needs.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just a follow-up to that, you say

that there is a new manager you guys are advertising now?

MR. F. COLLINS: It is not advertised yet I do not

think, is it?

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, you are in the process. That

position has not been hired.

MR. F. COLLINS: No.

MR. A. PARSONS: I think you said, and maybe I

heard it wrong, that she will do something. I did not know if

MR. F. COLLINS: Right now we have one chief adult

probation officer, Fran Cumby.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: Pardon?

OFFICIAL: That is the she.

MR. F. COLLINS: She I am sorry about that.

Giving her another regional manager we are looking for four regional managers

going forward, and we have hired one, and that will assist her in implementing

some of the recommendations that Judge Baker had made in his report with regard

to policy changes and training, developing procedures and manuals and that sort

of thing. That would be a big help in addressing some of those recommendations.

In the meantime, we are spending money on improvements

to the workplace situations that some of these people are working in as well.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there any anticipated timeline

on when this position will be advertised, the interview process and then hiring

take place?

MR. BURRAGE: Can you say it again, Mr. Parsons?

MR. A. PARSONS: We are talking about a probation

position that has just been reclassified and is about to be advertised. I am

just wondering: Is there any anticipated timeline on when this position will go

through the process of being advertised, interviewed, and then actually hired?

MR. BURRAGE: I would hope sooner rather than

later. I do not think it has been advertised yet. It is taking a while to get

classified because it is a new creation, but I know that we are quite anxious to

get it out there, get it advertised through the PSC and to get it filled. I

hesitate to give you a firm timeline but certainly I would say, Paul

MR. NOBLE: In the spring.

MR. BURRAGE: Yes, it is a spring issue, not a

fall-winter issue.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I guess while we are talking Sheriff's Office and

court costs and again, I do not know if you have the answer there because it

is a bit of a convoluted question. It was only a couple of years ago that the

circuit court in Port aux Basques, they used to have a staff person who was

there. Whenever the circuit court came in, that person came in worked those

three days or four days of that month, and this was replaced. This person was

taken out. What happens then is when the judge used to travel in from, say,

Stephenville staff would be brought in with that person.

I never did understand the logic of the move in the

first place. I would assume it was a cost-saving measure at that time. I am just

wondering is there any breakdown did that actually achieve cost savings?

Like I said, I do not expect you might have that

information here. I wrote a letter to the previous Minister Marshall on this

expressing my displeasure. This is just when I was a practising lawyer there

because this is a job in our area and someone is familiar with the area. Again,

cost savings was the reason, I believe. So I am just wondering: Has there been a

cost savings to that?

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not know if we can answer

that question at this point in time or not.

MR. BURRAGE: I am not sure I know we cannot

answer it today.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is fine. An undertaking on

that would be fine.

MR. BURRAGE: If they have tracked that as a cost

item so it can be teased out, if you will, then we can certainly provide it.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. BURRAGE: I just do not want to give an

unequivocal undertaking to provide it because I am not sure if the court has it

in that level of detail. If it is there, you can have it.

MR. A. PARSONS: I would assume that if the

previous minister said we are going to save money here there had been something

to calculate this is going to save money, so we need to show that the money was

saved.

MR. BURRAGE: I just do not know how they tracked

it since that decision was made.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

I am just going to move very quickly off to the side.

Two years ago the department spent $134,000 on I think it is called a Black

Maria prisoner transport. I guess that is a big, fancy transport vehicle a

bigger one for more people. I understand the vehicle is not used very often. I

am wondering: Is there a record on how often this vehicle has been used since

2010?

MR. NOBLE: I think it is used frequently. That is

my understanding, Mr. Parsons. I am sort of at a loss to respond to your

question. My understanding is it is used on a fairly frequent basis to go back

and forth across the Island. It is a prisoner transport unit. In fact, the

second one is being delivered any day now, so there is certainly a demand for

it.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

When we are talking about this vehicle used for

transport of prisoners, on October 29, as we all know, there was a young man who

escaped from custody on Parade Street. At that time, the word was that Justice

officials had custody of him, but I do not know if there was ever any

explanation on who had custody of the young man.

I am just wondering if the minister is able to provide

me some answers on that topic. How did he escape? Who had custody of him?

MR. F. COLLINS: The information that was given at

that time, was streamed through the media, and supplemented by the police and by

Justice, that was a specific case that we could not comment on. For privacy

reasons, we could not release any of that type of information on that particular

individual. Even the disposition of that case, we are not prepared to disclose

at this particular point in time.

I know that is not the answer you are looking for, but

that is a position Justice finds itself in on so many occasions when information

is requested about a particular individual that is in conflict with the system.

Our hands are tied with respect to giving any kind of information about who had

custody at the time, what the disposition of the person is. It was before the

courts and there are privacy issues and whatnot that binds our hands. That was

the case in this case and remains the case today.

The matter did go to the courts and proceeded through

the courts and was disposed of through the courts.

MR. A. PARSONS: After that time, will we have an

opportunity to ask about the procedure, was procedure followed and whatnot.

MR. F. COLLINS: Our examination of the situation,

review of the situation, felt that all of our protocols were followed and it was

just an unfortunate breach that occurred. Breaches of this nature happen all the

time in the administration of justice when you are transporting prisoners or

inmates or with corrections institutions. Prison breaks and escapes from

custody, unlawful escape from custody and whatnot, are something that you

experience. Albeit you want to cut it down and reduce it so that it does not

happen, but given the nature of the game it is going to happen. It happened in

this case and the review showed the protocols were followed and were in place.

It happened in spite of it.

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, I am sure you are privy to

more information than me, but I do not think the public would like to hear that

this sort of stuff happens all the time.

MR. F. COLLINS: I should not say it happens all

the time. I take that back.

MR. A. PARSONS: I will give you an opportunity to

clarify.

MR. F. COLLINS: I take that back. It is not

unusual in the whole business of corrections when you are dealing with inmates.

I think I once said I thought escapes from jail happens all the time. That was

an unfortunate use of words. Certainly, we want to reduce it from happening at

all, but it happens in all correctional institutions across Canada.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to move forward to page

17.8, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy, there was a difference in

Salaries between what was budgeted last year and what was spent; $595,600 was

budgeted but only $351,900 was spent.

What was the difference there? Was there a position

not filled?

MR. F. COLLINS: There are a couple of things in

there. There is a solicitor position attached to ATIPPA, and that position was

vacant. It was seconded to another division of the department. The director

there, then, was really performing both roles. Delays with recruiting and hiring

of another official in there accounted for some of it as well.

That system will revert itself this year so that the

Budget will be somewhat reduced, but it is expected the full staff complement

will be in place and back again in 2012.

CHAIR: Thank you, Andrew.

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

MR. BURRAGE: I just would add for clarity that the

director is also a lawyer by training. That is why the individual was able to

assume both roles.

CHAIR: Gerry.

MS ROGERS: When can we expect that the position of

solicitor would be filled for ATIPPA? You said the position of solicitor is

vacant. When can we expect that to be filled?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let the Deputy Minister

reply to that.

MR. BURRAGE: The individual is actually seconded

to another department in government. He is expected to come back shortly, in the

next month or so.

MS ROGERS: Yes. So he is coming back?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MS ROGERS: Okay. Thank you.

Family Justice Services, I do not have any

line-by-line issues there but I do have a few questions I would like to ask.

Can you give us an update on the new Family Violence

Court?

MR. F. COLLINS: Family Violence Court is continued

under this budget for another year. We are still considering it in a bit of a

pilot stage. It was a three-year pilot, but we are between the third and the

fourth year because it did not get started until halfway through the first year.

We are now in the process this year of being able to get some better data and

judge the results of that court. It is continued to be budgeted under this

year's budget.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: The initial results in St. Anthony

are very positive. The problem with it is that you need some time to evolve in

order to get data. It is no good getting data on someone who went through the

courts a couple of months ago because you are going to have to wait a year

before you see what the actual results are.

The only valid data that we have in the third year

really are people who went through in the first year. That gives you a bit of

longitudinal study as to how they are doing.

MS ROGERS: Well, I have to tell you, thirty-odd

years ago I was involved in doing the first process and impact evaluation of the

Unified Family Court after it opened. So yes, it takes a while.

Also, what is being done right now I know this is

not specifically family violence, but what is being done right now to address

the wait-list in the mediation program in family court? I know there is a long

waiting list. Can you tell me what those wait times are, the average, and what

is being done about that?

MS BALLARD: We are working on two fronts with

regard to the wait times in family court. The mediation program is run through

our Family Justice Services. We have offices throughout the Province.

Our main area where we were having some problems in

terms of wait lists was in St. John's, especially over the last year. We had a

number of human resources problems in terms of people on sick leave and so

forth. We are up to a full component right now, and we are working very hard and

very closely with the Unified Family Court judges.

Recently, what we did is we took a lot of the files

and transferred them back to the court. They had a special sitting of the court

for three weeks so they could deal with that backlog, and that was very, very

successful.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MS BALLARD: Right now, we have a manageable list.

What we are doing is looking at ways of screening those files as they come in to

ensure that files, for example, will not there are some files that mediation

is just not going to work for, so they have to go immediately back to court, or

where, for example, the respondent does not respond at all. So it is going to be

an uncontested application, those sorts of things, where there is violence

involved. What we are trying to do is ensure that there is a double level of

screening so those files are immediately dealt with and put back to court.

The other thing we are trying to do, even for clients

who come in who are not going to benefit necessarily from mediation services.

What we are doing now is we are putting on additional parent information

sessions for everybody who comes in through that system, because the judges find

that it is very beneficial. Even if they know the lingo, they understand what

the best interest of the child is, they understand child support, and they

understand the guidelines and those sorts of things. We are putting extra

sessions on so they can streamline that and move it back into the court as well.

We have done very well over the last few months. If

you have heard anything any more positive, I think you will in the next few

weeks, and we are continuing to do that.

Also, on the Unified Family Court process there are

also committees looking at the administrative process within the court system

itself. There is no question, there are delays down at the Unified Family Court

and it is recognized right now. The Chief Justice has recognized that and is

working with the Department of Justice and set up committees that will try to

streamline as much as possible.

Plus, there is going to be a new Unified Family judge

appointed very soon, we understand. That will help as well in dealing with some

of the replacements, some of the retirements. The retirements we do have are

going to be supernumerary judges. So we are expecting to have four full-time

judges down there within the next few months.

MS ROGERS: Great.

Do you know how we are with our wait times compared to

other jurisdictions in the country?

MS BALLARD: I cannot say for sure. You are going

to have some wait times anyway because there are difficulties in just getting

hold of people as you make those initial calls. We are trying to keep it as

short as possible. We are trying to do a four-to-six-week turnover. Sometimes it

can go to three months. Comparatively, a four-to-six-week turnover is reasonable

and what you would expect.

Obviously, in some other places in the country there

are more resources put into it and more of an emphasis, and there are different

ways of streamlining. We are connected with other Family Justice services across

the country. In terms of improving our service, we continue to try and improve

the service.

MS ROGERS: In terms of EPOs and first appearance,

how are we doing with wait times or first appearance times from the

establishment of an EPO and then first appearance?

MS BALLARD: Emergency Protection Order in

Provincial Court, you mean?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MS BALLARD: Under the legislation, I would have to

check, but you can get those ex parte when just one party applies for it. Then

within, I believe, fourteen days you have to be back in court again in order to

give the respondent an opportunity to respond. Then the order itself is just a

ninety-day order.

MS ROGERS: Right.

MS BALLARD: There is no difficulty with those. We

do no have a backlog with those.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

One more thing about the mediators: How are we doing

with ongoing training with mediators and staff training?

MS BALLARD: There is ongoing training with the

mediators. We have some funding. We also have some federal government funding as

well for FJS. We do train the trainers as well, so that keeps down on the cost.

We have training for the trainers and then they train the other mediators. So

there is ongoing training.

MS ROGERS: Do you have enough money to do the type

of training you feel is necessary?

MS BALLARD: Sorry, is the Minister going to take

that one?

MR. F. COLLINS: The question again? I am sorry.

MS ROGERS: Do you feel you have enough money to do

the training that is felt is necessary for the mediators to be able to work to

their full, most brilliant capacity?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, I will refer to Donna on

that one.

MS BALLARD: You can always use more funding, but

we actually are in good shape with our funding. We are in good shape with FJS in

our funding. We do not have a huge staff across the Province and except for the

backlog that is happening in St. John's, how much I just described, our other

areas are actually doing very well, and are smaller areas.

Yes, more funding is always a good thing. I really do

not feel that we are deficient. We have a very competent group of mediators and

counsellors in FJS, who are also working very closely with the Unified Family

Court. Right now, they are actually sitting in on some sessions and working with

Madam Justice Butler. I think that we do have adequate training. I do not feel

like they are deficient in the services they are providing.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

Line by line, I would go to page 17.10, Other Legal

Services, Legal Aid and Related Services, 2.3.01. Before we get to that line by

line, I am just looking at the tariffs for legal aid, the current tariffs. I

understand that they have not changed since 1991. I am wondering if there is any

intention to do something about that.

MR. F. COLLINS: Are you talking about the

contributions of the federal government towards legal aid?

MS ROGERS: No, the tariffs for

MR. F. COLLINS: To pay lawyers?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: (Inaudible) outside lawyers.

MR. F. COLLINS: Do you want to take that?

MR. BURRAGE: That is what I get for speaking up. I

get the question.

You are right, the tariffs have not changed. I am

assuming you are meaning the rates which are paid to outside counsel.

MS ROGERS: The counsel of choice

MR. BURRAGE: That has not changed and Mr. Parsons

and any of us who practise law know those rates are low. There is no immediate

plan to change them. I will say that most of the legal aid that we do here is

done in-house through staff solicitors.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: What we did do in a budget a number

of years ago was to increase the fund available for counsel of choice in serious

matters.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: I believe they were murder and some

of the more serious cases, to give the accused the right of counsel of choice.

In those cases, I believe the amount which is paid to those lawyers is actually

more than the going tariff. It is difficult to get somebody to do something at

the tariff. It often is supplemented by the department, but most cases are being

dealt with by in-house counsel. That fund that was established for the serious

cases, that is there to provide counsel of choice to people in serious matters.

MS ROGERS: It is still quite ineffective because

the tariff is so low. My question would be: Why would there not be any intention

to do something about making that tariff even the least bit reasonable?

MR. BURRAGE: I will say that the tariff is

something that is on the radar. I cannot give you a time or a date, but the

tariff is on the radar with legal aid. We have had discussions with them around

that.

MS ROGERS: It seems that this is a serious access

to justice issue once again, with such low tariffs.

MR. BURRAGE: Well, only in circumstances where

there is no staff lawyer available or you have a conflict and you cannot have a

staff lawyer. Most cases, the vast majority of cases, are dealt with through

staff solicitors. If we have a circumstance where somebody needs a lawyer, they

are impecunious, they are unable to hire a lawyer, and we have a conflict within

legal aid such that they cannot do the work, for example, we just cannot have a

staff solicitor do it, we find a way to get a downtown lawyer to do that by

offering higher than the tariff rate. That is the reality.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. BURRAGE: I do not know of any circumstances

where somebody has actually had to go to court to defend themselves because they

have been unable to obtain a lawyer as a result of the tariff. I am not aware of

any situation like that.

MS ROGERS: Yet if somebody is in a real serious

situation where there is a potential of life imprisonment, the option to have a

very experienced

MR. BURRAGE: That option is there because we have

increased the funding and the ability in legislation for people to have their

counsel of choice in that circumstance. There is a larger fund available in

those cases.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

The eligibility thresholds for legal aid at this

point, I wonder if we could have those.

MR. BURRAGE: You can have it; it is complicated. I

asked for it recently and Ms Ballard gave me a whole pile of stuff. I went

through it, I thought I understood it at the time, but if you want it you can

most certainly have it, yes.

MS ROGERS: I guess there is another concern there

as well in terms of a basic access to justice issue that people in order to be

able to defend themselves, particularly if it is a situation of false accusation

as well, that they can become bankrupt or the lose a family home. We know that

the costs of defence have skyrocketed and the threshold again is certainly not

and then we know that it affects what is happening in our courts.

MR. BURRAGE: The access to justice issue is a

national issue. It is not just to do with rates. There are times when people,

for one reason or another, choose not to have a lawyer represent them. That is,

as you might imagine, problematic.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: Problematic for the accused and

problematic for the system.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. BURRAGE: This issue of a self-represented

litigant, the self-represented accused, is a complex issue. It is one that is

not unique to this Province; it exists everywhere. It is not just a monetary

issue. In some cases, it is a matter of personal choice. It is complicated.

MS ROGERS: I think often, also, even if you are

middle class, it is a problem.

CHAIR: I am going to hold that conversation. I

think we have had the conversation and I am going to move on, Gerry, if I could,

please.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

CHAIR: Andrew.

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

I just want to quickly go back to 2.1.05, Family

Justice Services, if I may, line 03, Transportation and Communications.

In that you can see that what was spent last year was

actually less than what was budgeted and this year it has been budgeted down

lower. My question would be: What is being cut to achieve this new budget

figure?

MR. F. COLLINS: That is one of our cost-saving

initiatives within the department. Transportation is an area that we have looked

at across the whole board in our department. You will find, in a lot of cases,

it is an area where we think we can get some savings. With the specifics on this

one Debbie, I do not know if you have any specifics on this one.

MS DUNPHY: I guess the only thing I would add, Mr.

Parsons, is that when the Division of Family Justice Services was established a

number of years ago and you try to come up with the estimates of what it is

going to cost, you do not really know until you get a few years in. It does

appear that what we have budgeted at $126,000 is probably not really reflective.

If we look back at the actuals, yes, it was a good area to look at reducing the

budget overall or in some cases we may have reprofiled it to other areas where

it was needed.

Yes, we do anticipate just getting savings, not from a

reduction of service or anything but it may mean instead of two people attending

training out-of-town or out-of-Province, maybe only one goes; or instead of four

going, maybe they bring someone in, those sorts of things, but not to reduce

service in anyway.

MR. A. PARSONS: So it is related to staff and

training, it is not related to employees and going outside their

MS DUNPHY: No, certainly not.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: The directive of cost-saving

initiatives, programs were not to be negatively affected. Any cuts in

transportation are not going to negatively affect any programs (inaudible)

mentioned.

MR. A. PARSONS: Good.

Living in a rural setting we expect to have to travel,

so I am always sensitive to cutting down on that, no matter if it is justice or

education or whatnot. So I appreciate that.

Under 2.2.01 Criminal Law, we had $60,000 in 05

budgeted for Professional Services. I would assume this is another area where

you are anticipating a question. We spent $105,000, I am wondering why did we

spend extra money and who did it go to?

MR. F. COLLINS: This would be connected with the

retention of outside counsel. Most of the professional services data that you

will find having to do with the Civil or Criminal division, that sort of

indicates where you have to get outside counsel or special expertise, or by a

court order or whatever. The $45,000 extra there was due to retention of outside

counsel.

MR. A. PARSONS: Am I able to get a list of who

that outside counsel is?

MR. F. COLLINS: We want to give you the list of

law firms and what we paid; it would be in there somewhere.

MR. BURRAGE: We can add that to the civil list.

Usually, as the Minister said, the reason for retaining outside Crown

prosecutors in this case is either somebody is not available or you need a

particular expertise or that kind of thing, but by all means.

If the case has been concluded, I would have to give

some thought to, if it involves an ongoing prosecution as to whether or not the

disclosure of any of the information while the prosecution is ongoing, might be

of concern to the prosecution's office. It may not be, but if it is I would need

to take counsel on that.

Certainly, if a prosecution is concluded I cannot see

any reason whatsoever, but if it is ongoing I would need to check with the

prosecution's office. That is the only caveat.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is fair enough. Thank you.

I am moving forward to 2.3.01 Legal Aid. Under federal

revenue, I would assume that is money given to us by the federal government

$2.23 million, but we actually received a fair bit more. What was the extra

money from?

MR. F. COLLINS: That is sort of a catch up in

claims. You present your claim to the federal government for reimbursement and

sometimes it is two or three years behind. So we got a little windfall here. We

picked up some extra funds. We caught up with the system. We are still behind,

it is about at least a year, but more money came in out of this year's claims.

They were processed a little bit faster than we thought they would be.

MR. A. PARSONS: Do you mean the federal government

is slow on giving out to this Province their money?

MR. F. COLLINS: No, I did not say that.

As a matter of fact, we are slow sometimes in getting

our claims to the federal government. So it is a combination of both.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I am going to skip past the Commissions of Inquiry,

which looks like a bit of a placeholder there of $1,000.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is what it is.

MR. A. PARSONS: Office of the Chief Medical

Examiner, we spent more last year in Salaries than was budgeted. What was the

reason for this? Was extra staff needed for it looks like the same amount is

budgeted this year, so I assume it was an extra position or employee?

MR. F. COLLINS: The shortfall there related mainly

to a retired employee, severance and retirement benefits. As well, there was

additional staff person hours required to address some operational requirements

that we had. It was a one-time cost.

MR. A. PARSONS: Under Professional Services, we

spent $20,000 more last year. What did this relate to?

MR. F. COLLINS: That was, again, operational

costs. Increasing lab costs, for example, transport of deceased persons, we had

some extra costs in there, some autopsy costs and whatnot.

MR. A. PARSONS: While we are at it, line 06

Purchased Services. We spent about $90,000 more last year.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is the one I was referring

to, I am sorry. Is that the question you asked me previously?

MR. A. PARSONS: No, I was asking about

Professional Services before. There was a $20,000 shortfall.

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sorry.

MR. BURRAGE: Do you want me to take it?

MR. F. COLLINS: Go ahead.

MR. BURRAGE: As I thought, it just really is the

cost associated with retaining pathologists to do work that the office requires.

Again, it is hard to predict from year to year how much of that there is going

to be.

MR. A. PARSONS: Just moving on here very quickly.

I have a question here on the closed circuit camera, that system that was placed

on George Street. I see there was something in the news on that tonight. I did

not actually catch the news but I am just wondering so far, maybe from the RNC

or RCMP perspective, how is that system working out?

MR. F. COLLINS: I did not catch the story either.

I heard of it, but the reports I get back are all very positive.

I will ask Paul Noble if he wants to speak.

MR. NOBLE: Mr. Parsons, I do not have any

statistics to give you off the top of my head but I do know the RNC have

reported that their calls for service and the number of complaints relating to

criminal misconduct and other rowdy types of behaviour on George Street has

decreased in the last year. I suppose one would be tempted to, in part at least,

attribute that to the presence of the CCTVs.

MR. A. PARSONS: Has the video been used yet in any

court cases or investigations I do not want to even say successfully. Has it

been used for that purpose, maybe?

MR. NOBLE: It has been used in a number of

prosecutions. Again, off the top of my head I am not sure how many.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

There was no issue, I guess, as to the

MR. NOBLE: Admissibility?

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. NOBLE: None that I am aware of.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. Good.

If I might go to

section 2.3.04 Human Rights,

obviously, there is a fair difference between when it comes to the Salaries

there is a sizeable cut there. What is that attributed to?

MR. F. COLLINS: You asked me earlier if there were

any positions cut at the department with respect to the 3 per cent. My answer

with respect to the 3 per cent cost-cutting initiative, there were no positions

cut two temporary positions at the Human Rights Commission, and a specialist.

These two positions were appointed on contract some time ago, two years ago, to

handle a backlog that was built up at the Human Rights Commission. This year's

budget, the money was discontinued for these positions because that issue had

been addressed. So these two positions have been the money for these positions

are gone.

MR. A. PARSONS: Technically speaking, there were

positions cut.

MR. F. COLLINS: A rose by any other name, I

suppose.

MR. A. PARSONS: If somebody was looking at this

topic, Human Rights, and sees a significant cut in the salary

section they would

say that something has been cut here. You are saying, basically, there was a

backlog, you had to hire on extra people but you do not need that backlog.

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, that was the reason for

which two people were hired in the first place. There was a significant backlog.

There is still a significant workload there for the current number, but the

backlog, basically, has been addressed.

MR. A. PARSONS: Under 2.3.05, Office of the Public

Trustee, my understanding is that there a job advertisement coming in that

department soon, or is one being posted I believe.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, there was an

advertisement and the competition is all but complete. We are in the final

stages now of deciding who that individual will be. There was an advertisement

for the Public Trustee and there was a publicly run competition through the PSC.

The competition is closed and we are just now in the final evaluation stages.

MR. A. PARSONS: It is not anticipated that that

hire will impact what you have budgeted for this year. That has been budgeted

in?

MR. BURRAGE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I just want to quickly go on to a topic here. This was

brought up in the Blue Book for this year's election; the drug treatment court

was brought up. Now, there was no mention of it in the Budget. Where does that

issue stand?

MR. F. COLLINS: We are doing some preliminary

investigation and monitoring of other jurisdictions of the drug treatment

courts. There are only about half a dozen drug treatment courts in Canada

federally funded.

We are in the preliminary stages of planning an

investigation as to the possibility of setting up a drug court, and it has not

evolved much beyond that. We did some preliminary work on it, but right now we

are focusing on the Family Violence Intervention Court, as well as the Mental

Health Court and making sure we get these up and running and working well, and

doing preliminary investigations and work on the drug court.

For further information on that, I refer to Jackie

can you expand on that?

MS LAKE-KAVANAGH: We have done some research on

that. We have done a comparative analysis of what other jurisdictions have done

and we have looked at the various models that they have, because you cannot

automatically assume that what one jurisdiction does will fit for all others.

We have been looking at the complete model, the

eligibility, the kinds of services, and the kinds of costing that will be

involved. Again, it is at a very preliminary stage, but we have begun to

actually dig into actual models of drug treatment courts in other parts of

Canada.

CHAIR: A follow-up.

MR. A. PARSONS: A follow-up, if I might.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS: Two questions: One, like in a lot

of other things we have been talking about the hospital and there is $1 million

set aside for a feasibility study, was there any money budgeted to assist with

this or is it done in-house?

MR. F. COLLINS: The current investigation and

preliminary work, it is all being done in-house.

MR. A. PARSONS: Do you anticipate having to go

outside?

MR. F. COLLINS: Not at this stage of the game. We

still have a fair amount of work to do in getting ourselves up to speed on drug

courts. At this stage of the game, I do not envisage getting any outside

again, I will refer to Jackie, if she has any further information on that.

MS LAKE-KAVANAGH: No, I think at this point we are

able to handle that in-house in terms of the research and the analysis piece. I

suppose when we are prepared to move on to the next step and look at what

direction we need on that, that would be an appropriate discussion to have at

that point, but I think we are able to handle that in-house at this point.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there any anticipated timeline

on the establishment of this? This was: We will establish a drug treatment

court. So I am just wondering if something is going to happen in the near

future.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Blue Book has a four-year

term. We have some time to work on that, but we are not going to be bringing a

drug court obviously until we are ready to do it. We need to be ready to do

that. A drug court is a very sophisticated and significant court. All

specialized courts are very expensive, as we are finding out with the Family

Violence Intervention Court. It certainly will not be this year and it will not

be the early part of the mandate, I would not think.

CHAIR: Thank you, Andrew.

You have one more question to follow up. I will give

you one more question.

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

Do you think it will happen during this mandate?

MR. F. COLLINS: That is the intent of the Blue

Book, to have it within the mandate.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Andrew.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS: If we could go back to Human Rights,

2.3.04. The passing of the revamped Human Rights Code in 2010, the government

refused to recognize gender identity as prohibitive grounds for discrimination.

This essentially leaves transgendered folks without a lot of protection.

Transgendered individuals experience double the average rates of unemployment

and almost 100 per cent have experienced mistreatment and discrimination at

workplace. Are there any plans, Minister, to include gender identity in the

Human Rights Act?

MR. F. COLLINS: We did not include gender at the

time because most of the advice we got was not to include gender.

MS ROGERS: Gender identity.

MR. F. COLLINS: We could not find a specific

definition of gender. There were so many

definitions of gender that it was

almost impossible to arrive at one. We think most of the human rights issues

that occur in situations you just described would be covered under the sex

discrimination. For that reason, we did not include gender. We have no plans at

the moment at least to consider it. That is not saying going forward, in

pursuance to broaden the bill, we would not.

MS ROGERS: I think that there has been some very

interesting human rights work done around the area of gender identity in other

jurisdictions that may have best practices that maybe could be considered.

MR. F. COLLINS: A lot of work has been done around

gender, but a lot of it is confusing in terms of giving directions as to how to

proceed on it.

MS ROGERS: Gender identity can be confusing, sir

it can be confusing; however, with the human rights aspect of it, it is not so

MR. BURRAGE: The only thing I would add to that is

that the Human Rights Code, like human rights, is evolving. It is not static.

The department is always looking at the Human Rights Act as it is now called for

ways in which it can be modified or improved. As the minister said, at the time

we were coming forward with the act, gender identity, there was still a lot of

ambiguity around what it would mean, how it would be interpreted. We are always

looking at the act.

MS ROGERS: I would be interested in having a

conversation about that.

Office of the Public Trustee, did we go there already?

MR. A. PARSONS: We did ask a question about

advertising.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

We see a disparity there of about $686,000 from the

budget to the revised for the total

MR. BURRAGE: What section?

MS ROGERS: For 2.3.05, Office of the Public

Trustee.

CHAIR: Are you talking revenue, Gerry, 02,

provincial revenue?

MS ROGERS: Yes. Did we already deal with that?

MR. A. PARSONS: We never asked specifics on that.

CHAIR:

Section 2.3.05.02, Revenue Provincial,

Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: Related to revenue?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Basically that is revenue that was

related to the previous year that came in, in 2011-2012.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Section 2.4.01, Legislative Counsel, the difference in

the budget for 2011-2012 to the new estimate

MR. F. COLLINS: On Salaries?

MS ROGERS: There is a decrease.

MR. F. COLLINS: The increase in Salaries in 01, is

that what you are talking about?

MS ROGERS: No, I am looking at the overall budget

and that there is a decrease there.

MR. F. COLLINS: Most of that has to do with

salaries.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is due to reclassification of

one of the solicitors if we are on the same line here?

MS ROGERS: Right.

MR. F. COLLINS: The budget of 2011-2012 of

$569,000, if you look at the bottom line there

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: The budget for the coming year is

$608,000.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: Is that what you are looking at?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: The difference of $38,000.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: That is broken down, as you can

see in the variance most of that is in 01, Salaries, and that is the

reclassification of one of the solicitors in there, that increase in salary. It

is also step increases for the existing staff under the existing agreements.

Basically, the bulk of that comes under that.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

If we can move on then to Law Courts, Supreme Court,

3.1.01.06, Purchased Services

MR. F. COLLINS: Debbie, do you want to speak to

that one?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

Ms Rogers, are you talking about the estimate the

significant increase?

MS ROGERS: The estimate is considerably more.

MS DUNPHY: That mainly relates the minister

referenced earlier that we did funding in this budget for a ramp at the Court of

Appeal, so there would be a contract let to actually

MS ROGERS: At the Court of Appeal?

MS DUNPHY: At the Court of Appeal here in St.

inclusion strategy.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MS DUNPHY: There was $325,000 provided for that.

As well, there was an additional $54,000 we are doing some significant work

with Supreme Court, like I said, administration and staff, so we need some

additional space, as well there are some extra judges being appointed Supreme

Court judges. We got some money for some extra accommodations for about six

months because we figure it is going to be that before there is a tender and

space available.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MS DUNPHY: That is the main reasons for the

increase.

MS ROGERS: Then, under 07, Property, Furnishings

and Equipment, we see that there was an increase, a variance there in the

revised budget.

MR. F. COLLINS: That mostly has to do with

creating efficiencies in the Supreme Court. We are going through a major

reorganization of administration of the Supreme Court and doing a lot of things

to improve the administrative structure down there, the court administration. It

was funded from savings elsewhere in the department. It had to do, for example,

with video conferencing equipment that had to be purchased for several court

locations, some new filing systems and so on.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

Then 3.2.01 Provincial Court, Salaries.

MR. F. COLLINS: As you know well, you would not

know, it was in the last session of the House we brought in a new salary

scale. A new judges' tribunal appointed to bring in a new salary scale for

provincial judges. That was implemented last year and retroactive monies also

apply to that, so that takes care of that. The budget for this year has dropped

to take care of that one-time extra cost.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much.

Under 3.3.01, Court Facilities, 06, Purchased

Services, if you can tell me a little bit about what is going on there?

MR. F. COLLINS: That relates to the new court

facility in Corner Brook and the problems we have had up there with the roof on

that building. The expenditures here relate mainly to salary and travel costs

for the Transportation and Works employees going back and forth, as well as the

removal of the slate roof from that building. There is an outstanding issue with

the contactor on that, so $450,000 is budgeted to look after that in the coming

year.

MS ROGERS: A roof will do it every time.

Police Protection before we move on to that, back to

the court situation. Where are we at with the possibility of a new courthouse?

MR. F. COLLINS: New court precinct in St. John's?

Well, certainly it is in the government's infrastructure planning going forward,

and it has received a lot of discussion. There have been a couple of reports

done on it, actually, studies done over the last number of years. We have had a

number of discussions and done a significant amount of planning on the court

precinct in terms of location and sites and so on.

There is no money in this budget, our budget, for

planning, but we are actively looking at the court needs for across the Province

not only the court precinct in St. John's, there are court needs in other

parts of the Province as well. We will make a decision hopefully relatively soon

with regard to what direction we are going in. With regard to planning, I think

you may have heard the Minister of Finance mention the other day there is a pot

of money for planning in Transportation and Works, and any planning that we need

to do on that particular issue will come from that fund.

MS ROGERS: So planning

MR. F. COLLINS: We recognize the need for a court

precinct in St. John's.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: There have been a lot of issues

around a couple of things first of all, the site. The whole discussion of the

downtown situation

MS ROGERS: I have an idea for you.

MR. F. COLLINS: it is has raised a lot of

discussion, and the practicality of that and the costs of it are astronomical.

We will make Judge Green very happy whatever time it is done, but we are

continuing to explore and discuss possible options as to how to proceed with

that.

MS ROGERS: So, any money for planning and

exploration for a court precinct will be with Transportation and Works?

MR. F. COLLINS: Well, the planning fund for all

departments

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: rests with the Department of

Transportation and Works. So, if we proceed this year with any preliminary

planning on that, that planning fund would come from Transportation and Works.

MS ROGERS: Do you know, sir, if there is any money

allocated specifically in the planning fund for exploring the possibility of a

court precinct?

MR. F. COLLINS: No money has been allocated

specifically for this project and most projects it is a pot of money there

that planning would be drawn from.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you.

So, Police Protection, 4.1.01, 01, Salaries, we spent

$818,000 less than was budgeted?

MR. F. COLLINS: What is happening in the RNC as

you will also notice when you come to the

section on Corrections is that with

the retirement and attrition of senior officers being replaced by the junior

officers coming in, they are coming at a lower salary than the officer going

out, which constitutes quite a savings in salaries.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Speaking of that, I am really happy to see the

increase in the number of female officers in the RNC. I think that is great.

That is great for those who are employed; it is great for the citizens of the

Province. Is there anything specifically being done to assist female staff in

the RNC to move up in the ranks? It is still a challenge.

MR. F. COLLINS: It is a good question and

certainly one that we have paid considerable attention to in the last two years.

Specifically in the last year, there have been a number of senior promotions

that have evolved in the RNC with female promotions. One of the things that is

happening in the RNC, a lot of the female officers have not yet progressed up

through the system in terms of seniority.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: That will happen over time and we

expect to see a much rapid progression of female promotions as time goes on. At

the present time I do not have the numbers in front of me the numbers of

female entrants in the RNC is significant with the new recruiting program. They

are at the bottom of the scale.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: As they move up, you will see that

progressing. We have some great people coming in. Having said that, we appointed

two new senior inspectors last year. We also have a female with one of the

deputy chiefs. It is just happening.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS: The new Chief Johnston is very

cognizant of that.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

CHAIR: Thank you, Gerry.

MS ROGERS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Andrew.

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

I just wanted to go quickly back to that discussion on

the possibility of a new court. This is just something internal; there have been

no consultants hired at this time?

MR. F. COLLINS: There were consultants hired in

the past to make some recommendations with regard to possible sites and whatnot.

Then there was a follow-up study that put some costs around some of those sites.

How practical they are this time in the game is another question because it

happened some years ago.

At the moment we are trying to marry future plans and

a possible site together. We will have to do a lot of planning as to what is

needed for a new precinct in St. John's. It would be all inclusive, of all

levels of court, obviously.

Our buildings, the old Supreme Court building is a

beautiful building but the practicality of it, I am sure you have worked in

there, leaves something to be desired.

Atlantic Place, as a Provincial Court, we have done an

awful lot of work and made an awful lot of improvements in Atlantic Place. It is

probably now one of our better courts but it was never designed as a court, as

you well know. It was retail office space.

A lot of planning has to go into bringing all of that

together. It is a very costly project, and the process is ongoing. As of now it

is all internal, but it will eventually have to go outside as the planning goes

on to put some parameters around what we are looking for.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I just want to go back to, not go back, but something

that was mentioned in the Blue Book, and that is on the Lamer Inquiry follow-up.

It says we will remain vigilant in adhering to the recommendations of Justice

Lamer regarding wrongful convictions and shortcomings in the system.

Can you explain? What policy changes are you

discussing to continue on with this, to adhere to this?

CHAIR: Don.

MR. BURRAGE: I think, as it said, it is a matter

of remaining vigilant. A lot of the changes have already occurred. It is just a

matter of ensuring that we do not slip.

The Crown Policy Manual, for example, is available

online. It is there for people to see. There is a substantial fund that exists

for training of Crown prosecutors. We just signed off on sending I forget how

many it was, but quite a number of them to Crown school in Ontario where they go

each year. It is a matter of ensuing that having made those gains that we do not

fall back. I think that is really the impetus, but what did you tell me?

Debbie reminds me that we hosted a convention here on

the Wrongfully Convicted last summer and that was through the Crown's office.

So, it is just a case of not becoming complacent now that we have made gains and

improvements.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Move forward to the Supreme Court, 3.1.01, and just a

quick question on line 05 Professional Services. There was just under $41,000

budgeted last year, none which was spent, but this year we have upped it to just

under $65,000. Are you anticipating an additional cost this year?

MR. F. COLLINS: When Ms Rogers asked a question on

line 06 earlier, I thought that was the question she was referring too. I passed

it on to Debbie, but it was a question on Purchased Services of a wheelchair

ramp.

So I will take the opportunity now to pass it back to

Debbie.

MS DUNPHY: Back some time ago, probably in

2006-2007, there was some money approved for the whole expansion of the Unified

Family Court and the creation of Family Justice Services Division. At the time

there was $1.5 million approved.

Over time, we have not had to use all of that money

because the expansion has not happened as quickly as was anticipated back then,

but in 2012-2013 we do anticipate having some additional costs; some

administrative pressures that we have been trying to deal with in relation to

that expansion. So we are going to be using some additional money this year.

It may not all go through Professional Services. It

may have to be moved around, but this was money that was previously approved. It

sits in our base, and I know I get caught up in the finance talk, but it is in

our base and for a number of years we say we are not going to spend that on that

purpose, just move it out to another year. This year we have actually accessed

some additional funds for that to deal with some of these pressures that we are

having in that area.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

Just quickly moving down to Provincial Court,

Property, Furnishings and Equipment. We spent a bit more than was budgeted under

Property, Furnishings and Equipment, just under $50,000. What was that for and

what court was it for?

MR. F. COLLINS: I think that was for video

conference equipment, basically, and some other required equipment. Again, we

were able to get that from savings.

MR. A. PARSONS: What courts did the video

conferencing gear go in?

MS DUNPHY: I can undertake to provide it to you.

They have not actually been installed yet. We do have all of the equipment. It

is stored in an office on the fourth floor. We are waiting on the televisions

that go with everything else.

I do know there were some for St. John's and I am

going to say Grand Bank, Clarenville and Corner Brook, both Provincial and

Supreme but it is different locations. If you wish we can put that in with the

rest of the information and give you the specifics of which court, if it is the

Provincial or Supreme and where it is located.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there any video conferencing

gear at the courthouse in Port aux Basques yet?

MR. BURRAGE: I am not sure. I think it unlikely,

but when we provide you the list of where that is intended to go it will be

obvious as to where it is going.

MR. A. PARSONS: A follow-up to that question, once

I get it, I do not believe the gear is in Port aux Basques.

MR. BURRAGE: No, I do not think there is.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am wondering, is this something

that is on the radar and it comes under Access to Justice? There is no video

conferencing gear that I am aware of. I think it is a necessary component,

especially in a rural setting where you get a circuit court.

Are there any plans to make sure that video conference

gear is available to all rural courthouses?

MR. BURRAGE: I can provide you with the listing of

those courthouses that have been identified as receiving video conference

equipment. That I can do. I really cannot take it much further than that.

MS DUNPHY: If I could just add, some of these

units are not even new units. They are replacing existing, but some are new. We

take direction from both courts as to where they feel the most demand is, but,

as Don said, I cannot answer if they have a further plan down the road.

MR. A. PARSONS: Is there any plan to expand what

already exists in terms of video conferencing gear?

MR. F. COLLINS: We always want to expand and

improve the situation in as many courts as we can. As has been mentioned, we

take our direction there from the Provincial Court Chief Judge. Basically he

gives the direction, within the parameters of the money we have, where it is to

be spent. As has already been said, I am not sure where Port aux Basques court

stands in it at this point in time.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

I just want to discuss the RCMP contract, which was

negotiated and signed off on this year. I understand it was perhaps a little

more difficult than it had been. It took a little while.

How long is this contract? Are the terms different?

What are the new terms as opposed to, say, previous contracts?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am going to refer to Paul Noble

on that. Paul was one of the chief negotiators on that contract. I will ask him

to answer your questions on that.

MR. NOBLE: Mr. Parsons, the new agreement is for a

term of twenty years. There is no change there from the last agreement. With the

new agreement, as with the old, there is an off-ramp, if you will, or the option

for an early termination which can be exercised by either level of government,

either the federal government or the provincial government, by giving two years'

notice to the other party.

The substantive changes between the new agreement and

the last agreement would be in the level of accountability at the federal

government and the RCMP, and the extent of the partnership between the RCMP and

the Province in terms of being consulted in advance on substantive decisions

that will affect the quality, the cost, and the administration of the force in

the Province. That has given rise to the creation of a contract management

committee, which has national scope. It is comprised of all of the provinces and

territories that would be eight provinces and three territories that receive

provincial policing services from the RCMP, as well as representation from

Public Safety Canada and the RCMP.

The idea is that this overarching committee would meet

probably twice a year to discuss the more substantive policy issues,

administrative issues, and costing issues that are impacting on the RCMP. The

provinces and territories that are receiving the services can have an

opportunity to discuss with the federal government some of those planned changes

or proposed changes and provide our perspective.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. NOBLE: Oh, I am sorry. I am just reminded as

well by the deputy the other significant change between the new agreement and

the old has to do with the accommodations or the infrastructure of RCMP

detachments and buildings in the Province. We have created a discrete fund now

to invest in the renovation and construction of new RCMP detachments in the

Province. There is an additional amount of money that has been earmarked in the

new agreement; it is just about $3.9 million on average for the next five years.

The infrastructure program is one that is developed

jointly between the RCMP and the Department of Justice, assessing the needs,

their infrastructure needs, their detachment needs, across the entire Province

and working with the Province in identifying those needs and funding the

construction of new detachments or the retrofitting of older detachments as

well.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Minister.

MR. F. COLLINS: If I could add to that, as well,

this contract being a twenty-year contract, the accommodations agreements are in

five-year increments. There is an accommodation and refitting detachment

infrastructure program for five years and then it is followed by another five

years. We have four incremental programs, which gives us twenty years to address

the infrastructure needs across the Province.

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay.

I just have a question on the RNC firearms. This was

something that did come up in the AG report, as well; it has been flagged as an

issue since 1999. Have there been any changes in terms of that policy, storage,

and moving forward to avoid these issues?

MR. F. COLLINS: I will let Paul speak to this in a

minute, but in the AG report the discrepancies found in the report were mainly

in Corner Brook and Labrador, which make up only 15 per cent of the RNC force.

With regard to St. John's or the Northeast Avalon, we have a compliance rate of

100 per cent. So we are quite pleased with the way that has been handled.

Prior to, I think it was 2009, the Auditor General did

the review of the firearm policy with the RNC. In recent years, with the

increase in resources and whatnot, that audit is carried out now within the RNC

itself, and that is working very well. Where there is a discrepancy, obviously,

we have to deal with it and we discuss it with the RNC. We do not think there is

going to be a problem complying with the AG on that.

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, going back to the RNC and

something in the Blue Book just talking about building on our investments to

strengthen police forces and train officers, et cetera. What is the situation

currently on RNC hires? Is there a retirement wave coming? Are we expecting new

hires in the next little while? What is the anticipated growth?

MR. F. COLLINS: The recruitment program is

ongoing. Obviously, we will have retirements of senior positions with the RNC,

but they are being replaced by the recruitment classes we are doing in

conjunction with Memorial University. That speaks also to the question raised

earlier with regard to salaries. The recruitment process is working very well

and will cover off the retirements of senior officers.

MR. A. PARSONS: Are you hiring more personnel?

MR. F. COLLINS: The recruitment class is around

twenty-five to thirty. They all go right to work when they are trained.

Paul, do you want to elaborate on that?

MR. NOBLE: The number of funded positions for

uniform officers, I think, is in the range of 400. As far as I know, it is going

to stay static or stable at that level.

The challenge for the RNC is trying to project on the

early basis how many officers they anticipate will retire in the next year and

then to mount a recruitment campaign that, as best they can, will cover off the

number of anticipated retirements or resignations. They have been hovering

between twenty and thirty over the last six or seven years. For the foreseeable

future, we will continue to see that, depending on the numbers they can

anticipate in terms of retirements for any given year.

CHAIR: Thank you, Andrew.

Gerry, if you please.

MS ROGERS: In Corrections and Community Services,

4.2.01.05, Professional Services, we see an increase, Minister, from $705,000 to

$1,000,000 and increase of $300,000 there.

What might that have been?

MR. F. COLLINS: There were some invoices

incorrectly charged to Professional Services here. They should have been charged

to Purchased Services.

I will let Debbie elaborate on that.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Rogers, you mentioned earlier asking

the difference, well, see we struggle with the difference too. Sometimes that is

what happens.

Mostly under Professional Services here are your

medical costs and dental costs relative to inmates, as well as some counselling

services, that sort of thing.

We have had a closer look, and again it has been a

labour of digging into some of these accounts obviously, there are significant

expenditures and ensuring now for the future we will be properly categorizing

these. That is why our budget is staying at the same level.

Under Purchased, to kind of complement that, that has

gone up a little while the Professional Services is down. We have gotten some

additional funding there for our catering and that sort of thing. So, it is

something we keep an eye on, but like I said, it is a work in progress,

constantly.

MS ROGERS: Is it possible to get a list of the

professional services and the purchased services under this category?

MS DUNPHY: Anything specific? Like what exactly we

are paying out, or the types of expenditures or the actual contracts? I am not

sure

MS ROGERS: I am interested in the types of

services that you are contracting out, particularly as they relate to catering,

and as they relate to programs and services within the institutions' programs

for inmates.

MR. F. COLLINS: We can give you an updated list on

programs in our institutions and who is implementing them.

MS ROGERS: That would be great, yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: I do not have a problem there.

MS ROGERS: Okay, great.

Are there any plans to expand any of the programs

right now? What kind of programming are we seeing in the prisons now? For

instance, in Her Majesty's, in Clarenville, and in Stephenville?

MR. F. COLLINS: Again, we can certainly give you

an updated list of programming, but there is a long list of programs and

improved programs. Of course, since the Decades of Darkness report in 2008 we

have spent a lot of money on programming.

Service providers are people like the John Howard

Society, Stella Burry, Turnings, Canadian Mental Health Association, but then

there are also other programs. In Stephenville, you have Correctional Services

Canada doing federal programs.

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: We can provide you with a complete

list of all the programs that are being provided.

MS ROGERS: What I would be interested in as well

is the addictions and violence programs, for instance, the federal ones in

Stephenville and the wait-list as well for those programs. Because I understand

some of our provincial prisoners can avail of those programs if there is room.

So, if we can take a look at that? Also, I am looking forward to visiting these

facilities.

MR. F. COLLINS: Provincial inmates can avail of

some of the federal programs

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. F. COLLINS: - depending on numbers and the

length of time that the provincial prisoners are incarcerated. Again, we can get

you that information.

MS ROGERS: Okay, great. That would be wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Minister, you had mentioned in the House a little

while ago that there was a peer review done on the psychiatric services at Her

Majesty's Penitentiary. Can you tell us where that is and when we can expect to

see it?

MR. F. COLLINS: Our understanding is the

groundwork has all been done. As I told Mr. Parsons, we are waiting now on the

report. The review has been completed and we are waiting on the report.

MS ROGERS: Do you have an expected time when that

might be complete?

MR. F. COLLINS: We certainly hope we will have it

in a timely fashion. We have gone back to see if there is any further

information we might want to require and, as far as I know, all of the review

work has been done and whatever time it takes now for them to get the report to

us.

MS ROGERS: You have no time frame on the

contractor or this particular person?

MR. F. COLLINS: It is difficult to put a time

limit on it. We would like to have it next week, but if I said that and we did

not get it until the following week or the following month then I would be

misleading you.

MS ROGERS: Yes, it is kind of global ones.

MR. F. COLLINS: We hope to get it as soon as we

can, put it that way.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

Is it possible to know who has done this review?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sorry?

MS ROGERS: Who did the review?

MR. F. COLLINS: The report?

OFFICIAL: Who did the review?

MR. F. COLLINS: No, not at this stage. We will

release that when the report is here.

MS ROGERS: Okay.

I would like some information, if possible, about how

many prisoners have been placed in the SHU over the past year and length of

stay? Is it possible to get that kind of information?

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sure there is a record of it

somewhere in HMP, how hard it is to access, I am not sure.

Paul, would you have any further elaboration on that

because I know Mr. Parsons asked a similar of type question. Although I did not

get back to him with the answer yet, the same answer applies. Some of this

information is in the system within the facility, the institution.

Paul, would you have anything further?

MR. NOBLE: I see Debbie Dunphy making a note, so I

am assuming we will compile that. Off the top of my head, of course, I do not

have the information in front of me.

MS ROGERS: Of course, I understand that, yes.

MR. NOBLE: I would expect that there are records

kept, absolutely.

MS ROGERS: Right.

There is another bit of information I would like to

have access to, the number of hours of outside recreation for prisoners in all

the

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2012-05-01
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga47_2012-05-01_20_ssc-justice_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c879b1b4a1299df69d01d9bfce2e6f8753506da7

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).