May 18, 2004 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

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

CHAIR (Mr. Wiseman): Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the second meeting

of the Social Service Committee to deal with the Budget Estimates. This morning

we are going to be dealing with the Department of Justice, but before we start

the Estimates themselves, the Committee members have been distributed a copy of

the minutes of the meeting of Monday, May 17, dealing with Health and Community

Services, and I need a motion to adopt those minutes as circulated.

MR. FRENCH: I move the motion.

CHAIR: So moved.

A seconder for the motion?

MR. COLLINS: I second the motion.

CHAIR: So seconded.

All in favour of the minutes as circulated?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Accepted by the Committee.

On motion, the minutes of May 17, were adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Welcome Minister. This being your first opportunity to appear

before a Budget Committee, I welcome you and your staff. Just to give you a kind

of a sense of the process, the Committee is allocated three hours for the

proceedings, however, if we finish before then, it is a real bonus and we can go

about doing something else. The sequence that we will follow is, we will

allocate about three hours and we will take a break for ten minutes about

halfway through, just to give ourselves a bit of a break. What we will do is

provide you with an opportunity to make some introductory comments, if you want,

and then we will open the floor to the Committee to pose some questions. To

facilitate that process what we do is we allocate fifteen minutes for each

Committee member, they can pose some questions and engage in some discussion,

and then we will rotate through the Committee. At the end, if you want an

opportunity to wrap up and make some

summary comments, I will leave that to you.

Having said that, I would open the floor now to you to allow you to make some

introductory comments. Also, I would appreciate it if you would introduce your

staff so we know who we are dealing with. Also, too, to facilitate the recording

of the proceedings for Hansard, as you speak if you would just introduce

yourself, by name is fine. There is a seating plan where they have your name, so

just say who you are so Hansard will know who to credit the comments to. I say

that for both the Committee and your staff, Minister. If you would just

introduce yourself at the beginning.

With that said, the floor is yours.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the Leader of the Opposition summed it up yesterday when he said that

I was a new Justice Minister fresh out of the box, so this is new to me. As I

look across, I see a number of veterans over there who have been through this

before. I must say, I am pleased to be here and I am looking forward to this

process. My name is Tom Marshall and I represent the Department of Justice as

Minister and Attorney General. It is a pleasure to be here today to present the

information on the Department of Justice budget.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the officials of the

Department of Justice here with me today. On my immediate left is John Cummings,

Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General. On my right, in the

Premier's chair - after seventeen years of working for the government he

finally got there - is Mr. Ralph Alcock, Assistant Deputy Minister of Public

Protection and Support Services. On John's left is Chris Curran, the Assistant

Deputy Minister, Civil Law. Over my left shoulder is Donald Burrage the Director

of Civil litigation. Don can only be here until ten o'clock, so if there are

any questions on civil litigation maybe you can lead off with those. Next to Don

is Kathleen Healey, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. Behind me is

Theresa Heffernan who is Director of Finance and General Operations, and to

Theresa's right is Marvin McNutt, Director of Corrections and Community

Services.

This has been a difficult budget process, as you know, and a number of

adjustments have been made to the Justice budget in order to help manage the

huge financial deficit that the Province faces. This being said, the Department

of Justice remains committed to the protection and justice services to citizens

of the Province and will continue to support initiatives to the best of the

department's ability. There are numerous variances throughout the Justice

budget, both positive and negative, with respect to the budgeted and revised

figures. I will not introduce all of the details of the department's budget at

this point, I will await questions from the Committee on these adjustments,

however, I would like to briefly state a few highlights of the Budget.

The Department of Justice's budget for 2004-2005 increased by approximately

$5 million net, primarily due to increased funding relating to the continuation

of the Lamer Commission of Inquiry, the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and the

construction of the new Supreme Court facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, as

well as incremental funding for policing. We are pleased that this budget will

provide much needed funding to address some of the human resource equipment and

operational issues experienced by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

The budget supports a police studies program in partnership with Memorial

University which will train and recruit individuals for a career in policing.

Other budget support for policing includes training, equipment, miscellaneous

operational requirements including vehicle acquisitions and repairs, new

vehicles for the RNC, the addition of new Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officers

for Sheshatshiu, Rigolet and Makkovik, and support for an RCMP

telecommunications system for the Avalon, the Bonavista and the Burin

Peninsulas. Areas where significant reductions were imposed are the Whitbourne

Youth Centre and the closure of the Salmonier Correctional Institution.

These are a few brief notes relative to the Justice budget. At this point, we

would pleased to open the floor for questions.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The Member for Burgeo& LaPoile is the Opposition Justice Critic. Do you

want to start the questioning?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, thank you.

There are a lot of familiar faces over there. It is good to see you all

again.

I have some questions of a general nature but also some of a more particular

nature, so I may vary from time to time in how I approach the subject, but just

to get started, I guess, with a -

CHAIR: Excuse me! I apologize for the interruption. I have just been

reminded by the Clerk that for the benefit of the people in Hansard, I ask each

of you to introduce yourselves so they will know who is actually here today.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. COLLINS: Randy Collins, Labrador West.

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

MR. JACKMAN: Clyde Jackman, Burin-Placentia West.

MS GOUDIE: Kathy Goudie, Humber Valley.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, Conception Bay South and Holyrood.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I apologize for the interruption. Go ahead.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, of a general nature first. One of the major ongoing inquiries,

shall we say, right now is the Lamer Inquiry. I certainly do not wish to get

into any of the details of what is happening, but what are the costs to date on

the Lamer Inquiry and what is anticipated to be the complete cost once it all

wraps up?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Parsons, I know that the budget amount for this year

is $4 million. The costs to date -Theresa?

MS HEFFERNAN: Including a small amount for the conclusion of the

Power/Reid Inquiries and North Atlantic Refinery Commission, the total to date

is approximately $2.8 million.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, regarding an issue I raised with you yesterday, and I would like to

raise it again for the record, we have had it announced in your Budget that the

RNC, the policing course, will indeed proceed at Memorial University here in St.

John's with a view, of course, to not only replacing some of the officers who

will be retiring but also adding some new officers to the RNC. There is an issue

that has come to light, that being the current graduates of Holland College in

PEI. Indeed, there are seven of them. I believe all seven have gotten on the job

training postings with the RNC here in the Province. There has been some

information provided to at least some of those trainees that they will not be

eligible to be hired by the RNC. The rationale they have been given is because

government will be embarking upon this course at Memorial and all future hires

by the RNC will be graduates of the new provincial program.

I raise this issue with you, of course, because it is of concern. We have a

transition period from what we always had to what we are going to have. It seems

like these seven individuals are being caught in the mix here.

I am just wondering, what is your position and your department's position,

because, according to Chief Deering, he himself is unsure of how this matter

will be resolved. I advised him I would certainly bring it to your attention. It

just seems like it is an unfortunate situation where seven now trained

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if that information is correct, will not be

afforded an opportunity to be hired by the RNC.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The seven recruits that are currently at Holland College

and have on the job training with the RNC have not been excluded from employment

with the RNC. The hiring of these recruits, and also the hiring of any other

experienced police officers who may be out there, will depend on the level of

attrition that is incurred at the force. I understand that since January there

have been four retirements or resignations, so I would therefore encourage the

seven recruits to certainly apply.

The new police officers' training program that is being put into effect

with the RNC and Memorial will, of course, train twenty-five new officers a year

for three years. That is seventy-five new officers. We are anticipating that

over that period of time thirty officers will retire or leave, leaving a net

result of forty-five. If additional officers are needed, based on the changing

attrition numbers, the graduates at Holland College and other people out there

who may have police experience are all eligible to apply.

MR. PARSONS: With regard to the course, I noticed you, personally, as a

West Coast member, were interested in at least investigating whether or not the

course could be taught at Grenfell on the West Coast. The university has

decided, apparently for a couple of reasons - one being the shooting range and

another being $100,000 in additional costs - that they cannot justify doing it

on the West Coast. I am just wondering: That is the opinion of Memorial, where

does the government sit? I realize that dollars are important to this

administration, in trying to do things in the most cost efficient manner, but if

we used that criteria, Minister, we wouldn't get too much outside of St. John's,.

I noticed there was an editorial in the West Coast newspaper, The Western

Star, saying exactly that: If we in Newfoundland are going to judge what

happens in this Province, or in Labrador, based upon where it is cost efficient,

you are probably never going to overcome the fact that it might be more cost

efficient right here in St. John's. What is your reaction to that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: First of all, with respect to the police officer

training program, let me say that program is certainly positive for the

Province. As the Minister of Justice, I am certainly pleased that the program is

now moving ahead and will start in the fall. The program will, of course,

provide individuals with an opportunity to receive police training here in

Newfoundland as opposed to going to Prince Edward Island, Holland College, and

the cost to the students will be a lot cheaper than if they had to go to Holland

College. It is certainly a positive program for the Province. More importantly,

the program will address some real human resource needs that the RNC have.

Mr. Parsons, you know, as a former Minister of Justice, that these needs were

quite severe. I know the previous government put in a program to hire fifteen

additional police officers last year. We are now going to provide an additional

seventy-five over the next three years. It is extremely important we do that at

a reasonable cost to address those resource needs. I did not realize how severe

those needs were before I got into politics, but upon becoming minister, of

course, I had visits from many people, many stakeholders, expressing real

concern about the need for additional police officers. I met with Chief Deering

and with the RNCA and they all indicated to me, in no uncertain terms, that they

had to have additional human resources. I am very pleased we put this program

into effect.

Now, to answer you question: The program had been developed by the RNC with

Memorial University, the campus at St. John's. The Memorial campus previously

offered a Bachelor of Arts degree in police study, and this diploma program was

to replace that. When the government agreed to fund this plan, I, of course, as

MHA for Humber East, and with a great interest in seeing Grenfell College

advance, asked if any consideration had been given to Grenfell College in

offering this program. The answer was it had not been. I asked if Grenfell

College could be looked at to see if there would be advantages to offering the

program there, and it was agreed that they would look at that. I subsequently

had discussions with Adrian Fowler, the Principal of Grenfell College in Corner

Brook, and with Dennis Waterman, the Director of Finance and Administration at

the college, and informed them about this program and suggested to them that

this might be something they would be interested in offering and something they

could go after for the advancement of Grenfell. I also spoke to Dr. Meisen and

asked him to give every consideration to Grenfell College as a possible site

because Grenfell has much to offer. I remember saying to Dr. Meisen that the new

residence at Grenfell might be ideal as a resource to offer this program.

I subsequently was advised by Adrian Fowler that Grenfell had some real

capacity difficulties in offering this program. They could only offer four of

the eleven courses that the RNC required in the diploma program. They did not

have the instructors to teach those courses and they would have to advertise for

instructors. The expertise they did not feel was completely within the West

Coast area. The fact that the program is a one-year diploma program that is

going to be funded for three years, it was questionable whether that would help

them obtain the necessary recruits that they would need. To offer the program at

Grenfell would cost, I think, in the vicinity of $152,000 over three years.

If the program was offered at the St. John's campus, I think nine of the

eleven courses were presently being taught, they would not have to have extra

sections put on, and the cost of offering the program at Memorial would be about

$42,000. That is where the $100,000 figure comes from, it is the difference

between those two numbers, the $150,000 odd to offer the program at Grenfell -

that is on the university's end - and $40,000 to offer the program at St. John's.

That is not a great amount over three years, but the $100,000 figure only deals

with the university end. There is also the RNC end, and the RNC had a number of

concerns.

The program is going to be three-term program. The first two are academic,

the third is practical training. In the first term there will be some practical

training, mainly in phys-ed. The RNC has a certified phys. ed. instructor on the

force here in St. John's, they do not have that in Corner Brook, so they would

have to hire that service in Corner Brook at an additional cost.

In addition, they had concerns about the shooting galleries, the indoor

ranges that are required, because that would be taught in the second semester.

During the second academic semester there would also be firearms training and

also use of force training, and the first of those would require the need for an

indoor range. There are two indoor ranges in Corner Brook, but they only handle

the small bore ammunition. Neither one of them is suitable for the RNC firearms

and ammunition, so that would be a problem as well.

The commencement of use of force training is a four module program which is

offered during the second semester and it requires the use of the indoor range,

as I said, capable of supporting police weapons and ammunition.

In the third semester there would be the full delivery of specific police

training through a combination of academic and practical sessions. The topics

would include criminal law, provincial statutes, power of arrest, crisis

intervention, traffic law enforcement, public order and crowd management, police

vehicle operations, first aid and CPR, criminal investigative techniques, and

others that will be taught during the semester.

The bulk of the infrastructure, the bulk of the instructional staff and

support resources, currently exist within or in close proximity to RNC

headquarters in St. John's, and therefore significant additional funding will

be necessary to relocate, replace or contract out these critical components in

Corner Brook. For example, the RNC training division would need to relocate to

Corner Brook for at least the last two semesters. This would involve substantial

travel, accommodation, meal and other allowance costs.

The police vehicle operation instructor would incur the same temporary

relocation costs. In addition, there would be a need to transfer the specially

equipped training vehicles to Corner Brook, and they would have to secure a

established training area at the St. John's Airport. Most in-house and many

outside instructors identified to deliver the practical training in term three

are located in St. John's and thus would require transportation and temporary

accommodations while conducting these sessions.

The most important aspect, I think, is that during the practical training in

the third term, this would involve students working alongside patrol officers

and criminal investigators. It is anticipated that at least twenty-five students

will participate in this aspect. The RNC fields three or four patrol vehicles in

Corner Brook and it has only two members assigned to the Criminal Investigation

Unit. It would therefore be extremely difficult to rotate twenty-five students

through the training field as a result. In contrast, the RNC in St. John's

deploys three to four times the number of patrol officers in St. John's and

has a criminal investigation complement that is twenty times larger than in the

Corner Brook division.

The police officers training program is still under construction, and hence

the full cost has not been determined, but an estimate to undertake term three

activities in Corner Brook, as opposed to St. John's, would be at least

$200,000. Add that to the additional $100,000 cost at Memorial and we are

looking at a true fiscal impact of about $300,000.

The comments, Mr. Parsons, that you made concerning not putting anything

outside of the overpass, I understand those comments, I have made them

frequently myself. In fact, if you were to buy into that argument you would

never have put Grenfell College in Corner Brook in the first place. Grenfell

College is as extremely important institution. In terms of economical

development, every community in Atlantic Canada that is experiencing above

average economic growth is one that has a university, and one that has a

university that has an advanced research and development component. We are

fortunate to have Grenfell College in Corner Brook, but Grenfell College has

always been a liberal arts and science college with a fine arts school there as

well. There is little, if any, research and development being conducted there

and that is the key to the advancement of Grenfell College.

The principal and administration of Grenfell College have identified advanced

research and development in the Environmental Sciences as the key to Grenfell

College's growth. I see that as a major catalyst for economic growth and jobs

in Western Newfoundland. The Humber Economic Development Board supports that

concept, the Corner Brook Economic Development council supports that concept,

and that is the niche that we see for Grenfell College, and I think that is

where its future lies rather than in a one-year police studies program that is

slated to only last for three years.

I trust that answered your question, Mr. Parsons. I am sorry to ramble on so

long.

MR. PARSONS: My colleague from Labrador West suggested that our Estimates

might last for three or four days at this rate.

MR. T. MARSHALL: All right, short, succinct answers from here on.

MR. PARSONS: The Committee has generally been rotating from speaker to

speaker. Mr. Chairman, I have had my fifteen minutes, so I will move on. I

should say the Minister has had his fifteen minutes. Maybe now we can move on

and we can get to question number two.

CHAIR: At the same time, having said that, I say to the member, if you

are in a line of questioning with respect to that issue feel comfortable in

continuing it. It is a good point to turn it over, by all means.

The Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

I just have a few short questions. I do have other commitments, so I will not

be able to stay for all of the session.

I would like to ask the minister: Given the fact that there is no longer, and

has not been for a while, a resident judge in Labrador West, I wonder if the

minister could inform me as to the cost of administering justice in the Happy

Valley-Goose Bay area, through the court system there, with a judge travelling

from Goose Bay to Labrador West, periodically, with his entourage? Anything that

happens between trips necessitates a couple of RNC officers and prisoners

transported to Goose Bay, for different purposes in the courts. I wonder if he

could tell me what the financial cost of that is, compared to having a resident

judge in Labrador West?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will just say, initially, that issue was raised with

me by the mayor and we looked into that. Unfortunately, there would not be a

cost savings by having a judge in Labrador West. As to the actual numbers- John?

MR. CUMMINGS: I do not think that we have any actual numbers with us, but

I think it is fair to say, it is the firm belief of the provincial court that

the way the system is being run right now is the more efficient way of dealing

with it.

MR. COLLINS: More efficient, financially?

MR. CUMMINGS: Financially, yes.

MR. COLLINS: Is there anything being looked at to establish the presence

of a local judge in the area?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is a proposal. We are in the early stages of

discussions with the federal government about a possible extension of family

court, the Unified Family Court in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that

discussion would include a Unified Family Court Judge in Labrador. Those

discussions, of course, have been delayed pending the outcome of the federal

election which is anticipated. We would hope that at some point in the future we

might be able to see an expansion of Unified Family Court which currently exists

only here in St. John's. We would certainly have an interest in seeing that

extend right across the Island and throughout Labrador.

I should also mention the initiative of Smart Labrador with the video

conferencing. I think that is certainly helping very much in Labrador, and I can

see that also helping throughout the whole Island.

MR. COLLINS: That is the way to go.

On legal aid: What is the complement of legal aid lawyers in the Province

now?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There are forty-two. I understand the legal aid budget

is about $7 million with a complement of forty-two.

MR. COLLINS: How many of those would be in Labrador?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There are two in Labrador. Recently we received $1.3

million in funding from the federal government for innovative legal aid

projects, and one of the projects is an Aboriginal specialist in Happy Valley-

Goose Bay and an Aboriginal Resource Center, in order to enable Aboriginal women

and men to have access to the Canadian justice system.

MR. COLLINS: I know that is a big problem in Labrador West, and I suspect

probably in other areas of Labrador. People are finding themselves needing legal

representation and having to rely on legal aid with no legal aid available in

the area, and of course the geography is such that you cannot just get aboard

your car and drive to where an office might be, not reasonably anyway. I wonder

if there has ever been anything looked at to establish a legal aid lawyer in

Labrador West, where we have a population of 10,000 to 12,000 people?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Legal aid is obviously extremely important. I think all

of us here strongly support access to Canadian justice for all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians regardless of their economic circumstances. One of the problems

we have in legal aid is - when criminal legal aid started in 1973, the federal

government was paying 90 per cent of the cost and we in Newfoundland and

Labrador were paying 10 per cent, we are now paying 36 per cent. I always get it

confused, whether it is 36 per cent in criminal legal aid and 38 per cent in

civil legal aid. I am sorry, we are paying 62 per cent and the feds have gone

from 90 per cent to 36 per cent, 37 per cent or 38 per cent, which is astounding

really.

Presently, negotiations are taking place on the new funding formula for legal

aid, and a number of the provinces, obviously provinces with large populations,

are pushing for the formula to be based on population. That, of course, would be

devastating for us here in Newfoundland with our declining population. I have

written the Federal Minister of Justice, the Hon. Irwin Cotler, and the week

before last I went and visited him in Ottawa, to urge him to determine the new

formula, the new financing formula, on the basis of need as opposed to on the

basis of population. He was extremely receptive to that proposal.

In addition, with respect to civil legal aid, again the feds are no longer

paying 90 per cent, they are paying - what is it Chris, 38 per cent?

MR. CURRAN: Thirty-four.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thirty-four per cent.

Civil legal aid at one time was in the CAP program. It was then switched to

the Canadian Health and Social Transfer and there it gets lost, it gets sucked

up with money for education and health. I spoke to the federal minister about

dedicating those funds, putting in a separate fund, so that it would not be lost

and it would be dedicated just for legal aid purposes, and he was very receptive

to that as well.

Members may be aware of a project in Corner Brook called Family Justice

Services Western, which was developed by Judge LeBlanc and some lawyers on the

West Coast. It is a program that has been showcased by the federal government

right across the country. That program was duplicated in Gander, through monies

provided by legal aid, as a pilot project. Unfortunately, the federal government

announced this year that it was going to cut that funding. The funding was

$160,000 a year. This year the feds cut the funding and provided us with only

$25,000, obviously giving this amount to wrap it up. Again we contacted Minister

Cotler and we met with him in Ottawa the week before last. He has agreed now, in

view of the importance of the program, to reinstate funding between $80,000 and

$100,000, so that we can keep the program going for another two years. That is

certainly positive news. If we are successful in negotiating a new Unified

Family Court in Central then those monies will definitely be needed to assist in

providing those ancillary services which a Unified Family Court needs. It is not

just a court. The ancillary services are extremely important, these are services

for education, for mediation and for counseling, so we need those funds. I was

delighted that Minister Cotler agreed to reinstate that funding.

MR. COLLINS: RNC staffing levels in Labrador West: What is the complement

that was dedicated there compared to the numbers that are actually there now? Is

the full complement of officers in place?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am advised by the Assistant Deputy Minister that the

complement is twenty-two. They may be one short right now.

MR. COLLINS: Is there any intention to bring it up to the full

complement?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There is an application that just went forward to fund

an additional officer. That has gone to Treasury Board and we are awaiting the

results of that. I do not know where that position is going to be located.

MR. ALCOCK: Most likely there would not be a redistribution or a

reallocation where we are short until we fill the positions that result from

attrition. The positions that are hired will go back to fill attrition

positions. In Labrador West, it is likely that that may wait until April 1 of

next year or some time during that third term, when we would be able to allocate

additional officers either to the West Coast or to Labrador West. A firm

decision on that has not be taken at this time.

MR. COLLINS: With regard to the new training program and the recruits -

and I think I did hear you address this, Minister - will gender equity be one of

the main factors, because right now it is definitely lopsided.

MR. T. MARSHALL: You made that suggestion to me previously and I acted on

it. I have written to the RNC, the Women's Policy Office is involved, and a

gender equity program is being put in place in order to ensure that as many

female recruits as possible can be obtained for that program. In addition, I

have asked the RNC to canvass Aboriginal communities, both Innu and Inuit, in an

attempt to obtain Aboriginal recruits for the program, as well.

MR. COLLINS: Are there any plans being discussed about expanding the role

of the RNC in the Province?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No. I believe the government, in due course, will embark

upon a program renewal, and I would imagine that all aspects of government

programs, including policing and courts and everything, will be looked at; but

right now, no.

MR. COLLINS: I was thinking in terms of replacing the RCMP, in the

locations they serve, with expanding the RNC.

MR. T. MARSHALL: No.

MR. COLLINS: The applications: Are they being accepted, as we speak sort

of thing, for the new training program?

MR. T. MARSHALL: When I looked at the Web site, I think it was about a

month ago, they said the information was coming soon. I would imagine it is

there now.

MR. ALCOCK: If I could respond to that. There is an icon on the RNC Web

site that will be triggered very shortly, within a matter of days, and when you

click on that icon you basically will be able to get full access to the

recruitment process as well as the application. There is a lengthy application

associated with applying. In addition, either this weekend or next weekend we

will be advertising in the media for the positions. Currently, you cannot

directly apply but it will be only a matter of days before you will be able to.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I have a few general questions, but I will be going through the budget, item

by item, I guess, starting with 3.1.01, Supreme Court.

My first question is in reference to the revenue from the federal and

provincial. I was just wondering what the breakdown is as to where that revenue

would come from; on page 227. That is the federal and provincial revenues? The

federal is $15,600 and the provincial is $272,000.

MR. CUMMINGS: I am told the federal revenue represents a recovery of

costs for staff and space provided to the Federal Court of Canada when they come

to St. John's, and as well, certain revenue collected by the Province for

operating a registry for divorces. We are funded on a certain basis for that.

Then the provincial revenue is revenue collected for divorce application fees as

well as fees collected for the administration of estates.

MR. BUTLER: There is a total reduction of $184,100 from the Supreme

Court, that is over the overall budget. I am just wondering, with that

reduction, how much affect will it have on the operations? There is a reduction

of $184,000. That is in the amount to be voted there.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We do not anticipate any reductions in operations, as a

result. I notice that in the budget last year there was $3,684,000 and this year

it is $3,674,000, so there is a $10,000 difference there, but I see that the

actual spending was $3,858,000. There was an increase in Salaries, item

3.1.01.01, and this increase in funding was the transfer of funds to provide two

law clerks in the Court of Appeal. In terms of the overall reduction, we do not

anticipate any problems in the operation of the courts.

MR. BUTLER: Under 3.1.02, Supreme Court Facilities, just a short question

there with regard to the Supreme Court facility that is listed for Happy

Valley-Goose Bay: I was wondering: Was there a study done on how much it would

cost to renovate or upgrade that former courthouse versus the procedure that is

going ahead now?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I can only say that, since I got here that courthouse

was under construction, so I did not look at what happened before. There is $2

million in the budget to see that completed, and I think it is extremely

important. Maybe the staff can -

MR. CURRAN: The existing facility for the Supreme Court at Happy

Valley-Goose Bay was in, I think it is fair to say, atrocious condition. I think

it was recognized for a long time that Labrador was in need of a new facility.

You probably know that the existing facility consisted of two trailers that had

been put together on a new cement foundation, and that in the course of the past

year, or four or five years, there had been cracks in the foundation. It was a

makeshift building, in fact, intended only for a short period of time, but

because of the Province's fiscal situation had been pressed into service for

longer than was originally intended. The building has long since passed its

useful life, and we did not seriously consider, given its current condition, a

renovation of that facility. Certainly Work Services and Transportation did do a

study and it was shown that this was not a viable option.

MR. BUTLER: Was it a rented facility?

MR. CURRAN: It was a rented facility, yes.

MR. BUTLER: Under the heading 3.2.01, Provincial Court, I see a reduction

there of $1,815,900 in Salaries. I was wondering: How many positions, and what

positions, have been cut, and what affect will this have?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The actual salaries, I notice the budget last year was

$5.6 million and this year it is $6 million. The additional funding in the

budget is to provide for the annualization of the salary increases that the

tribunal had awarded to the provincial court judges. With respect to the revised

figure, the jump from the budgeted figure of $5.6 million to $7.8 million, that

was Special Warrant funding to provide for retroactive salary increases for

provincial court judges. As well, significant severance and paid leave costs and

expenditure reduction measures imposed in 2002-2003 were not achievable.

You may recall, there was a report of a tribunal which indicated what judges

salaries would be. I think the previous House of Assembly attempted to lower

that figure. The matter was reviewed by the Supreme Court and the attempt to

lower the figure was thrown out. Accordingly, Special Warrants were required to

obtain the additional money to pay the retroactive pay to our provincial court

judges.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, under subhead 3.2.01.03,

Transportation and Communications, I was wondering: What is the breakdown

between both of those and how much would it be for Transportation versus

Communications?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The increased amount from the budgeted figure of

$332,000 to $382,000 was mainly for court related travel and court circuits. As

you know, the courts travel on circuit to various communities. I guess, the cost

of travel and communications is increasing. As to the breakdown between

Transportation and Communication, I will ask Theresa Heffernan to answer that.

MS HEFFERNAN: I do not have the breakdown, actually, but we can provide

it to you.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We do not have that information, but it can be provided

later, if that is acceptable.

MR. BUTLER: That is fine, Sir.

I take notice, under Purchased Services - I know it is not a big lot, but

$10,300: What would the additional Purchased Services for the Provincial Court

be?

MS HEFFERNAN: It is not actually an increase as such. If you notice the

budgeted amount for 2003-2004 is $752,000. There was just a general reduction

made to bring it down to $743,000, I guess, in recognition of the fact that we

were able to come up with some savings during the fiscal year.

MR. BUTLER: I take notice under Revenue, $120,000: What would that be?

What would be the breakdown on that, under the same heading?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Treasury Board inadvertently entered this amount in

provincial revenue. The revenue is federal revenue and it reflects the

anticipated federal contribution to the integrated provincial court information

system.

MR. BUTLER: The next heading is 4.1.01, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

Salaries are up by, I think it is $1,019,000. I am wondering how many new

officers does this involve at this point in time, that increase that is listed

there under Salaries?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The additional funding is provided for the annualization

of new recruit positions, salary increases approved in 2003-2004, and costs

related to new training initiatives in special investigations.

How many positions?

MR. ALCOCK: We currently have 314 RNC officers. The only increase in that

number was for attrition, and the fifteen that were approved in the previous

year. The increase, of course, provides for that, as well as the cost of salary

increases for RNC officers.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I know last year the RNC appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, and I

guess this is just a general question and I hope that someone will be able to

give me some insight into it. I know it was a major concern with the Auditor

General, probably for two or three years, with regard to the storage for guns,

gun control and so on. I am just wondering: Has that been alleviated totally or

is that a concern now? Would anyone be able to answer that?

MR. ALCOCK: For the last five years, since the RNC have been an armed

force, armed in the context that they carry sidearms as to previously being

armed only in certain circumstances, the Auditor General has done an audit of

the RNC in each of those years. All of the issues which were identified by the

Auditor General in each of those five years have been corrected. There were a

number of issues in the last report and all of these issues are acted upon when

they are brought to the attention of the RNC. I would also comment to the extent

that the firearms policy of the RNC is equal, or better than, any other firearms

policy by other police forces in the country, and that, I would add, includes

the RCMP.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I am wondering if someone could give me a figure on approximately how much of

the budget was taken up by overtime during the recent public service strike?

MS HEFFERNAN: We are in the middle of throwing these numbers together.

Are you talking about for the entire department?

MR. BUTLER: Really, I guess, the overtime would be RNC more or less. That

is the

part I was asking about, but if there is a further breakdown on others,

then sure.

MS HEFFERNAN: Oops.

MR. BUTLER: Volunteering it

MS HEFFERNAN: I do not have it with me right now, but we can follow up

with that.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I guess, as a general question I have been asking all the way through, I am

just wondering, for information purposes: The provincial and federal revenues

that are listed under the same heading, 4.1.01, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

I was wondering what the breakdown would be on those.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The decrease in the federal revenue is mainly due to a

decrease in the number of officers on federal secondment. The provincial revenue

is additional revenue anticipated due to increased fees for cost recovery

measures. The federal money is all for officers on secondment

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading, 4.1.01.06, Purchased Services, I was

just wondering: I guess that is, more or less, going along with what was

outlined in the Budget, more equipment or vehicles or what have you, for the RNC?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, the additional funding is for vehicle repairs,

special investigations and operation requirements for the new recruitment

initiative. Overall, there are new vehicles, there are additional monies for

repairs and maintenance of vehicles, there is new money for training, there is

new money for sidearms, the semiautomatics, there is money provided for tasers,

there is money for collapsible batons - that is a recommendation of the Luther

Inquiry - there is money for new uniforms, and, of course, there is money for

training.

MR. BUTLER: I am just wondering if you could give me the figure, because

I know this came up at the same Public Accounts Committee. When it comes to the

vehicles themselves, the actual vehicles that the police officers drive around

in - I know they were saying how dilapidated the vehicles were at that

particular time - I was wondering what percentage of that budget would be for

that.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think the core was $300,000. There was a top up of

$200,000 and another $126,000 to provide vehicles for the new recruits. I think

the total number would be $626,000 - is that correct? - for new vehicles.

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry! The funding is for vehicle repairs, special

investigations and operational requirements.

Was your question about new vehicles?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is where?

MR. ALCOCK: The three amounts that were identified for the acquisition of

new vehicles were the correct amounts. The amount is not shown in the

section

that we were just discussing, but if you go to page 221, and you look at

Administrative Support, Property Furnishings and Equipment, that is where the

amount is budgeted for vehicles.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Under 1.2.04, Property, Furnishing and Equipment,

$741,400, that is for the new vehicles.

MR. BUTLER: Which item was that again?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is page 221. The item is 1.2.04. It is called

Administrative Support, and it is number 07, Property, Furnishings and

Equipment. You see the figure there, $741,400. That is new vehicles.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

So really then, the purchase over here in 06, that I asked about, has no

relation to vehicles at all?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No..

MR. BUTLER: The next heading, 4.1.02, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I

know the budget has gone from $40,660,000 to $41,927,000. I was just wondering:

How many officers are being added with that amount and are they posted in

different areas around the Province?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There are four new RCMP officers being provided in this

budget. Two are in Sheshatshiu and there is one each in Makkovik and Rigolet.

Previously, there was a one unit detachment in Rigolet and Makkovik, but

recently, for occupation and safety reasons, the RCMP have decided that they

will no longer have one person detachments. Each detachment now has to have a

minimum of two. As a result of that, the government agreed to fund an additional

RCMP office in both Rigolet and Makkovik to ensure that these detachments would

not close.

The Newfoundland Government pays 70 per cent of the cost of every RCMP

officer and the federal government pays 30 per cent. I am going to repeat that,

because the first time I heard it I thought it was the opposite, but we pay 70

per cent and the feds pay 30 per cent.

There is a program called the First Nations Policing Program, and under that

program which provides police officers in Aboriginal communities the feds would

pay 52 per cent of the cost. Their share of the cost would go from 30 per cent

to 52 per cent and our share would drop from 70 per cent to 48 per cent. We have

undertaken negotiations with the federal government and with the Aboriginal

communities to see if we can get both a framework agreement with the federal

government and a tripartite agreement with the federal government, the

provincial government and the Aboriginal communities.

The week before last, I went to Ottawa to meet with Anne McLellan, the Deputy

Prime Minister and the federal Minister responsible for the RCMP. We discussed

this program and she is receptive to us entering into an agreement. Our

officials are now working with federal officials to put the process in place and

we are having discussions with the Aboriginal communities to see if they are

willing to sign on. If we are successful in that regard, our costs for every

RCMP officer in Aboriginal communities in Labrador will drop by 22 per cent. We

have agreed to leave those monies into Aboriginal communities, either through

increased RCMP officers or additional Aboriginal community constables or other

justice services. We will consult, of course, with the Aboriginal communities

and Aboriginal leadership to determine what initiatives they would prefer. It

means additional resources in Labrador, so we are optimistic that we will be

able to put those agreements to bed.

MR. BUTLER: I have to be honest, Minister, this is the first time I have

heard that. Probably a lot of people did not know the difference, the 70 per

cent-30 per cent. I thought it would be the other way around, as well.

Just a general question, I guess, any of my colleagues will ask you now,

seeing as we are on this topic: When it comes to the RNC, I guess the full 100

per cent is provincial, is it?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, it is.

I should also mention, when I was in Ottawa I set up a meeting with Minister

Efford to let him know the negotiations that the Province was involved with,

with the feds, relating to legal aid, the Unified Family Courts, and this police

issue. Unfortunately, he got called away before we had the meeting, but I did

meet with his Chief of Staff, Rodney Mercer, and I briefed Rodney on what was

going on so that the minister would know that we were looking to try to put

these agreements to bed as quickly as possible.

MR. BUTLER: I do not know how my time is going, but I guess they will

notify me shortly.

The next heading is 4.1.03, Public Complaints Commission. I notice there that

there is a reduction in the total budget of $82,700. Now I know it was budgeted

last year at $192,000 but it went up to $274,000. Do you anticipate the

estimated for this year, $191,000, will rise in that order again, or will there

be an actual reduction? If so, how will this affect the work of the Commission?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry?

MR. BUTLER: It is page 230, Minister.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Page 230?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, under heading 4.1.03.

MR. CUMMINGS: We do not anticipate that there will be any reduction in

the work of the Commission as a result of the budget. There were some higher

than normal requirements for the Commission in the last year, they probably will

not be repeated this year, so we think that will be adequate for the current

level of operations.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

Heading 4.2.01, Adult Corrections: There is a reduction of $850,000 in

Salaries. I am wondering: Is this due to the closure of the Salmonier

Correctional Institution, or have there been other cuts?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, you are correct. The funding has been reduced to

reflect the decommissioning of the Salmonier Correctional Institute. There is

increased funding there that is provided to continue the Correctional Officer

Recruit Training program. This program's budget is offset by provincial

revenue via tuition from participants. I do not know how many people know, but

the Province has been conducting a training program for correctional officers as

well, and this is the second year of the program.

You are correct, the salary reduction is because of the decommissioning of

Salmonier and the closure of a ten-bedroom unit at Whitbourne.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, with the decommissioning of the Salmonier

Correctional Institute, what system will be put in place to, more or less, carry

out some of the work that was done there? The victims of crime and the

assistance that was provided, like information support and counseling services,

how will that be done now once the Salmonier Correctional Institute is totally

out of the system?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think recent correctional research shows an offender

risk reduction can best be achieved through a highly structured cognitive

behavioral program which targets specific risk factors, such as substance abuse,

inability to control anger and emotions and distorted thinking patterns. These

programs which deal with those particular items, such as anger management

programs, substance abuse programs and even adult basic education, these can be

offered just as effective in other provincial correction centres and

conventional prisons as well as at Salmonier.

MR. BUTLER: Will there be any savings, and how much, by the closure of

Salmonier?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think it is $1.9 million a year annualized savings.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry, $1.5 million a year.

MR. BUTLER: Under the same heading there, 02, Revenue-Provincial,

$214,000, can I get a breakdown on what that is?

MR. T. MARSHALL: This will be lost revenue resulting in the closure of

Salmonier. There was sale of milk from the dairy herd there. That reduction will

be offset by increased revenues from the Correctional Officer Recruitment

Training Program which I recently mentioned.

MR. BUTLER: I am going to convert back now to Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, just a few details, again, starting on page 219 of

the Estimates. There does not seem to be much change in the Minister's Office

and Executive Support, vis- -vis salaries,

other than the fact that the Director of Communications has been moved from the

Minister's Office to the Executive Support, I guess; that being the fact that

now Directors of Communication are hired through the Public Service Commission,

that being the rationale for that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is correct.

MR. PARSONS: On the other items throughout your Estimates, under all the

headings called Salaries - and they are in virtually in every other subheading

from page 220 onwards - and we have asked this of the other departments as well,

could you provide or give us an undertaking to provide, because we have the

Departmental Salary Details, but it is not evident from the Departmental Salary

Details, what positions are currently filled, what positions are currently

vacant, which are permanents, and which are temporaries. For example, the

Minister of Health and Community Services has acknowledged that in her

department there are some that are currently vacant which she has no intention

of filling this year, and she is going to provide us with a complete list

showing that: here are the salaries for each of these breakdowns, here are the

positions for each, here is who are permanent, temporary, vacant, and here is

what we will be keeping vacant, as far as we know. Obviously circumstances

change and if you have to hire for some reason you will. I am wondering if you

and your staff could undertake to provide us with that information, for your

department as well.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, Mr. Parsons, we can undertake to provide that.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

In that regard, Minister, as well, once the Estimates wrap up, which is due

to happen this week, we have what we call a Concurrence debate in the House

whereby any and all- it is part of the Budgetary process, this being one part of

the Estimates Committees. We come back here to the House, we have a Concurrence

debate, and it is at that time that we do our final, concluding debates and

comments regarding Budget issues. We have asked that that information be

provided prior to the conclusion of the Budget debates here in the House,

otherwise it is irrelevant. There is not much point of getting the information

if we do not get it until after the House closes and the Budget has been passed.

The reason, of course, is to have it in case there are questions which we can

follow up on with the appropriate minister here in the House during the

Concurrence debates, for any further clarification that we might need. I just

want to emphasize that we need that information. I would suggest, given the

timetable that myself and the Government House Leader have discussed, we are

probably looking at the week of May 31 as being the last week that the House is

open in this session. So, we would certainly need the information prior to that

week. I just wanted to give you some idea of the timelines we are talking about

here.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Did you say May 21?

MR. PARSONS: May 31. I believe May 31 is on a Monday, so we have this

week, and next week is the long weekend so we are back here on Tuesday, I

believe, the 25 th, and we are back here, according to the

schedule we

have now, at least for the week of May 31 which takes us to June 3, on that

Thursday. Probably we will go to the next week but we are not certain of it. I

just wanted to make those timelines known so that we do not run into a problem

where someone says: I did not know how much time we had for that information.

MR. T. MARSHALL: My officials say that we can do that.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, can I raise a question of privilege right

now?

CHAIR: By all means.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I would like to know why the members of the committee

all have Tim Hortons coffee and we only have water over here? Do you want to

take that under advisement?

CHAIR: I will indeed, yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay, thank you!

CHAIR: This is last night's meetings and today, and I do not know who

the mystery buyer is. I am not aware who is buying this, but I know it is not

coming out of my pocket. I thank whoever is doing it.

MR. T. MARSHALL: My deputy tells me the government cannot afford it

because of the restraint program, so the Opposition must be buying the coffee.

CHAIR: Actually, on that point, we had talked earlier about talking a

break at ten thirty, but I am sure you and your staff, Minister, will be anxious

to wrap up as soon as you possibly can. I am just wondering if maybe we move on

through. We may not be all that much longer beyond the ten thirty time as a

reasonable time?

MR. PARSONS: I certainly cannot give any commitments to be finished

before noon even. I have not began to ask any questions yet. I think I have

gotten three in so far. I am assuming that is not a problem?

CHAIR: No, no, no. It is your time. I had said to the minister and staff

that we would probably break at ten thirty, which would give us about halfway

through. We normally allocate a three-hour period. If we thought we would go to

noon, I do not have any difficulty with that. I will give you all the time you

need. If I thought we were going to clue up around elevenish or so, then maybe

we would just move on through.

MR. PARSONS: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding

that under the Standing Orders of the House there are three hours that get

docked from the seventy-five hours of Budget time in order to get through the

Estimate Committees, but the committee is not restricted to only sitting for

three hours. We can sit for twenty hours if we wish. It is just that three hours

is the time that is docked out of the Budget time.

CHAIR: I understand that.

MR. PARSONS: I do not want to feel pressured here, that I am being asked

to get out of here by eleven o'clock.

CHAIR: No, no. We are both under the same understanding of the time

allocations. What we have done, in addition to that, is we have blocked out a

three-hour period for this particular session. If, in fact, there is a need to

have a lot more time to debate and discuss the Estimates, then we would set

another time for another meeting. We do that so that people budget their time.

That is why we block out the three hours. I appreciate your point and agree with

the math that you have done in terms of how we clock the Budget Debate time.

MR. PARSONS: We should get out of here by noon. I can see that the

answers are forthcoming and I am sure we should not get beyond noon.

Minister, under item 1.2.02, Administrative Support, on page 220 - this is

just for some clarification, most of these - I notice under the IT

section

there, 1.2.02.12, Information Technology, we have had a couple of hundred

thousand dollar decrease there. What is the explanation for that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: You say decrease, year over year?

MR. PARSONS: It looks like we went from budgeted last year, $304,000, to

$295,000, and we are down to $114,000 this year.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The reduction reflects miscellaneous adjustments by

Information Technology management with Treasury Board. Mainframe related

allocations have been reallocated to fines administration, IT. As well, hardware

purchases have not been funded but will be considered part of a government -wide

computer lease program.

MR. PARSONS: Under 1.2.04 on page 221, Property, Furnishings and

Equipment increased by about $225,000. What is the explanation there?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry! Would you give me the reference again?

MR. PARSONS: Page 221, item 1.2.04, Property, Furnishings and Equipment,

07, gone up from $541,000 budgeted last year to $741,400 this year.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is additional new vehicles for the RNC.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, so that is where that is from.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Annual vehicles are found there. When I was speaking to

Mr. Butler, I incorrectly talked about new purchases, but that was the vehicle

repairs and maintenance. New vehicles are here in this one you just referenced.

MR. PARSONS: I heard a rumour, maybe you can verify it as being factual,

that the courtesy of paying for parking for Supreme Court Justices has been

discontinued. Is that correct?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is correct.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

On item 1.3.01, Fines Administration, Salaries have gone up there roughly by

$85,000. Is that just annual-

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is annualized funding for the fines collection

project, for additional staff to collect fines.

MR. PARSONS: Under item 2.1.01, Civil Law, page 222, I guess we will get

those details when you provide us with the information I requested earlier, but

it looks like Salaries, in that heading, have been reduced by something like

$287,000. Do you have the information available as to -

MR. T. MARSHALL: Year over year, the salaries are actually being

increased, Budget 2003-2004 versus the Estimates for 2004-2005. That is

increased funding reflecting the reinstatement of the 2003-2004 planned savings

which are not achievable. No new positions were funded. With respect to the

increase in the revised figure for 2003-2004 over budgeted 2003-2004, the salary

requirements related to the health care cost recovery and the Aboriginal land

claims project, the funding was transferred from their respective budgets under

Professional Services.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

My colleague raised the issue about the closure of Salmonier. What is the

government's intention with respect to the land itself at Salmonier, once it

is decommissioned? I understand there is in excess of 2,000 acres of land.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I understand there are 2,500 acres, of which 300 are

cultivated. That decision will be made by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. They will be handling the decommissioning. After the transfer of

the prisoners, they will be disposing of the livestock, the land and the farm.

MR. PARSONS: I am wondering if maybe Mr. McNutt can give us a status as

to where it sits right now, vis- B -vis

the animals, vis- B -vis the quotas. I

realize that technically it might come under Works Services, but I am sure Mr.

McNutt, being familiar with quotas and what they are valued at, the animals and

whatever, can give us some idea of where that sits right now in the

decommissioning process?

MR. McNUTT: In the discussions we have been having with the union, the

actual decommissioning date is scheduled for June 24. The staff actually have

asked for a decommissioning ceremony to be conducted by the superintendent. With

respect to the disposal of the livestock, most of the livestock, including the

beef herd, the laying hens and so on, will be disposed of by way of auction.

However, with respect to the dairy herd, there is a rather lucrative value

attached to the quota. It is estimated to be around $500,000. We are currently

consulting with the Milk Marketing Board in terms of how that will be disposed.

MR. PARSONS: What is the estimated value of the land, the acreage? Surely

you must have an appraised value or an estimated value of what the 2,500 acres

is worth at current market prices.

MR. ALCOCK: We have not had a formal appraisal done on the property. We

know it is a multi-million dollar property. Works, Services and Transportation

are currently considering the value of the property, but at this particular

point in time we do not have a professional appraisal done on the property. Of

course, it will depend on the use of the property that is sold, for what purpose

the property will be sold, i.e., the agricultural land, the amount of land that

will be left vacant, and the amount of land that would be cottage lots and so

forth.

MR. PARSONS: We have at least a ballpark, then, on the land, i.e.,

multi-millions, and the quote of $500,000. What about the animals themselves?

What about the dairy herd? The quota is one issue, that has a value, but the

actual animals themselves, what do you estimate will be the recovery, Mr.

McNutt, from the auction of the animals?

MR. McNUTT: The actual value of the animals, apart from the milk quota

itself, would not be that much. We have about sixty head of beef cattle. It may

bring in a few thousand dollars, but that is all. The dairy cattle, without the

quota, are not worth that much at all. Normally, the cattle would accompany the

quota, but without the quota the dairy cattle are not worth very much. If we

disregard the milk quota, we could expect to garner less than $20,000 for the

sale of the livestock.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, concerning the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, we asked a question earlier about the proclamation. I

am aware that it was delayed for some time, i.e., there was a lot of in-house

work that had to be done in terms of departmental training. A certain gentlemen,

Sandy Hounsell, was involved very heavily in doing that. I am assuming that

process has been completed in terms of the departmental preparation for

proclamation of the new act. What is the status today, as to when we might

expect to see that act proclaimed?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The work at the ATIPPA office is not fully completed as

yet. As you are aware, the act received Royal Assent in March of 2002, but it is

not yet proclaimed. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

commonly referred to as ATIPPA, will have a major affect on over 460 public

bodies, all government departments and agencies, all school boards, all health

boards, all municipalities, and all public post-secondary institutions. The

ATIPPA office headed by Sandy Hounsell has conducted approximately 100

presentations on the consequences of the act to the different government

departments and agencies. The office has developed a detailed policy and

procedure manual, they have prepared standard forms and letters, and they have

constructed a web site as well as a data base.

Notwithstanding all this work, the ATIPPA office had been recommending to

government that there be the development of a full-day workshop with advice from

the Center for Learning and Development of Treasury Board to be delivered to all

access and privacy coordinators prior to proclamation of the legislation. The

workshop was developed but its presentation was delayed because of the public

sector strike. I understand the workshops were given last week. I am advised by

Mr. Hounsell it is now necessary to provide a final briefing to Deputy

Ministers.

I understand, as well, that the intended Commissioner is making his

preparations with the Speaker, because the Commissioner under the act will in

fact be an Officer of the House of Assembly. I understand those preparations are

not yet complete but as soon as the Commissioner informs us that his

preparations are complete then we will be in a position to proceed to introduce

a resolution in the House for the appointment of the Commissioner and at the

same time to proclaim the legislation.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, it is my understanding that the Commissioner has

indeed been appointed.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry?

MR. PARSONS: The Commissioner has indeed been appointed, is my

understanding. Mr. Mitchell is the Commissioner, am I correct?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think he is appointed in an administrative capacity

but he is not formally appointed under the act. That is my understanding.

MR. PARSONS: Because the act has not been proclaimed?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Is a resolution of the House of Assembly required to

appoint the Commissioner?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We have to proclaim the act first and then a resolution

of the House of Assembly has to be passed to appoint the Commissioner, because

he is an officer of the House of Assembly not the Department of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: That is the whole issue. We have a Catch-22 here. Mr.

Mitchell, as I understand it, was, by unanimous resolution of this House,

accepted as the Privacy Commissioner. He is designated as the person, it is just

that he cannot go to work until the act is proclaimed and the proclamation of

the act rests in government's hands, not the House anymore.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Commissioner is asking that the act not be

proclaimed until he has completed his preparations, and as soon as he tells us

he is ready then we can proclaim the legislation.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, I happened to be party to correspondence that the

designated Privacy Commissioner had sent to the Speaker, as being a member of

the IEC Committee of the House, asking when it can be proclaimed because he

wants to go to work. Now, this is somewhat contradictory information I am

getting here this morning, that a person who was designated last September to do

the job, who has written to the Speaker and the IEC asking, when can I go to

work, who we have been paying, personally, $5,000 gross bi-weekly, who has had

his support staff down there since last September, and now I am being told today

that the same Privacy Commissioner has given you different information, that he

is not ready to go to work. I have a problem with this.

MR. T. MARSHALL: As I said, there were two factors. One was the ATIPPA

office, Mr. Hounsell. He had asked us to hold off until such time as he had

prepared and developed this workshop and presented a workshop to the various

government agencies. That was delayed because of the public sector strike. I

understand that last week a number of those workshops were, in fact, presented.

He also indicated that there was a final briefing for Deputy Ministers to be

held, as well. I do not believe that has been held yet.

WITNESS: No.

MR. T. MARSHALL: No. Those two things have to be completed. As I said

earlier, it was my understanding that the intended Commissioner had requested a

delay until he completed his preparations. What you are saying to me today is

news to me.

MR. PARSONS: And it is news to me what you are saying, Minister. I,

certainly, as a member of the IEC, which is the House Committee and which the

Privacy Commissioner comes under, the latest correspondence I have had is that

he was ready and willing to go to work and, in fact, wrote a letter to the

Speaker weeks ago saying, can I go to work, I cannot go to work until the act is

proclaimed, and this is embarrassing. This led to my questions in the House of

Assembly. That shifted the onus. Based upon that correspondence, in my eyes that

shifted the onus back to the government, namely the Department of Justice which

carries this act. It was going to be the department, I guess, responsible for

this act. What was the problem? You know yourself that the answer I got in this

House was, stay tuned.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, and at the time that you asked me that question I

was anticipating that the legislation would be proclaimed very shortly. I am not

familiar with the correspondence of the Commissioner to the IEC. Maybe the

Deputy Minister can -

MR. CUMMINGS: The Department of Justice is ready to go. Our understanding

is that the Commissioner is sorting out his staff and he is sorting out his

office. In terms of the correspondence that you mentioned, I am not aware of

that. I am not aware of what discussions have gone on with the Internal Economy

Commission, but we are ready to go and we understand the Commissioner is still

working on these practical things so he will be ready to go.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Cummings, it is my understanding - and I stand to be

corrected - that the Commissioner has had office space, has had a staff, was

given a budget last year, which budget for 2004-2005 is now confirmed again in

these Estimates, and that these things were ironed out, he was ready to go. The

only delay- and I understand from information, there has been no indication from

Mr. Hounsell up to this day, as to why there was any delay from his perspective.

All of a sudden we are being told here, on May 18, that he has to do further

work,

whereas all indications that we have had is that the preparatory work was

done, he has gone around the Province and done all of the educational pieces

that he had to do with these 460 public agencies that come under the new act.

That was the whole reason behind the confusion here, if everybody is ready to

go, why aren't we going.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Parsons, we seem to be going around a bit in circles

here. What I will undertake to do is call the Commissioner and ask him point

blank is he ready to go or not. If he is ready to go, then we will be ready to

go.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Again, just to repeat what Mr. Hounsell advised, Mr.

Hounsell wanted to develop and present an additional workshop, one additional

workshop, with the assistance of the Centre for Learning and Development of

Treasury Board. This could not be delivered because of the strike. I am told

that some of the workshops, I do not know if all of them, were delivered the

week before last and then he wanted to make a final briefing to Deputy

Ministers. In light of the discussions that we have had today, I will contact

the intended Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell, myself and ask him. If he is ready to

go, then we will be ready to go. I will further write to you, Mr. Parsons, and

let you know what he says to me.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Just as we appear to have wrapped up on that particular point, and

in fairness to the minister and his staff, and especially in light of his

comment about the Tim Hortons coffee - I cannot promise you a Tim Hortons

coffee, but there is a fresh pot of coffee in the government members' caucus

room. If we want to take a ten-minute break to allow us to get a quick coffee

and stretch for a moment, we will come back at 10:40 a.m.

Recess

CHAIR: We will proceed. I think when we left off, the Member for Burgeo

& LaPoile was engaged in some questions. I will turn it back to you.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay, he has handed it back to his colleague.

The Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will not take that long,

I only have three or four other questions.

I guess to continue on through, the next heading would be 4.2.02, Youth

Secure Custody, and that is on page 231. I am wondering: Is the reduction in the

Salaries due to the closure of the ten beds in Whitbourne that is listed under

that heading.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, the reduction measures in salary are imposed to

achieve savings, the closure of the second living unit when lower resident

counts permit and the abolishment of two programing positions.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, God forbid, I hope all those units close and we

never have to put anyone in such a facility, but is there any plan in place?

Those units are there, and I know when you say closure that does not mean they

are going to be closed forever and a day. If something should occur, I guess

there is a plan in place that that could be reopened at any point in time, if

the need should arise.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is correct. If there is an unexpected increase in

youth inmate populations then we would reopen the units.

MR. BUTLER: Minister, the other thing is - and I am fairly familiar, I

will not say all the way, with it - the Alternative Measures Program. Because I

attend and support and work with the units out in the Conception Bay North area,

I have heard comments made, not through the Alternative Measures staff, but from

other people involved, and I am just trying to get a comment back on this. They

are saying that, why those units are closing and why there is not so much need

there is that many young offenders go to the courts now and they are back on the

street within two or three days. Some, not all, have reoffended within two or

three or four or five days of being released. They have a concern with that,

wondering if this is a trend. If we close out those units like that and not

offer the service, which is a good service, they have major concerns with that.

I was wondering if someone could make a comment on that. Is that the situation

or is that just not correct, what I just stated?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The trend in youth inmate populations has been

drastically decreasing over time. In 1996, for example, there were 53,400 in the

twelve to seventeen age group in the Newfoundland population. In 2000, it was

45,000. It is projected in 2010 that that number of youth in the twelve to

seventeen age group will be 34,500. That is a drop of 35 per cent in that age

group population in the Province. We are seeing a dramatic decline in the number

of youth sentenced to secure custody. This is due to two factors, the

demographic factor which I just mentioned, decreasing youth population in the

twelve to seventeen age group, which is expected to drop in the future, as well

as the impact of the Youth Criminal Justice Act where such things as probation

and community service rather than incarceration in secure custody is the norm.

In addition, there are decreasing incarceration rates. Given that decline in the

youth offender population, the decision to close the ten-bedroom unit is a

prudent and responsible one. Presently at Whitbourne there are 114 public

servants plus eleven teaching, so that is 125 for- and I have the latest count

here- an average daily count of twenty-four. That is 125 staff for twenty-four

youth inmates. As I say, those numbers have been heading the same way over a

long period of time.

When the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre at Whitbourne was

commissioned in 1992, there were average youth inmate populations of between

eighty-five and ninety, and it is now averaging twenty-three. As a result of

this trend, the Whitbourne Boys Home was closed in 1997. That was twenty-two

beds that were closed. There were sixteen positions lost there. In 2001, the

Pleasantville Remand Centre was closed, there were ten beds there, and the

positions were transferred to Whitbourne. In April of 2003, my predecessor, as

minister, closed one ten-bedroom unit for the same reasons that we are closing

one ten-bedroom unit now. I think in April 2003, when the previous government

decided to close one ten-bedroom unit, the average population was forty-five. It

is now twenty-three. The reasons given by the minister then are the same reasons

now and, as a result, the decision is a prudent and responsible one.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

On page 222, headings 2.1.01 and 2.1.02, Civil Law and the Sheriff's

Office: it shows there, Minister, that Salaries have been cut while Professional

Services have increased. I am just wondering: Is this a result of contracting

out work that could have been done within the department?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am sorry, Mr. Butler, I was a little late catching up

with you. Hit the heading again, please.

MR. BUTLER: Heading 2.1.01 and 2.1.02, Civil Law and the Sheriff's

Office. Both of those show a cut in Salaries and an increase in Professional

Services. I was just wondering: Could you explain if that is contracting out or

some other means, contracting out or something that could have been done within

the department?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Under Salaries in Civil Law, 2.1.01.01, the increased

funding reflects the reinstatement of 2003-2004 planned savings which were not

achievable. No new positions were funded there. The revised figure mentioned

there, the $2.6 million or $2.7 million, that is salary requirements relating to

the health care cost recovery and the Aboriginal land claims projects. Funding

was transferred from their respective budgets under Professional Services.

Professional Services, 05, the 2003-2004 budget of $2.5 million was revised

down to $2.1 million. Funding was reallocated to various salary and operating

accounts for costs associated with various legal projects such as Health Care

Cost Recovery and the Aboriginal land claims. The estimate of $2,230,000, under

Professional Services, is funding continued for various legal matters such as

legal assistance, Aboriginal land claims, court ordered counsel and these type

of things, including Voisey's Bay.

MR. BUTLER: Page 226, under the heading 2.3.05, Electoral Districts

Boundaries Commission, I can see it going from $130,000 to $316,000. I am

wondering: Can we get an update on what the plans are? I know there are plans to

review the district boundaries but I am just wondering: Can you give an update

on when we might anticipate hearing something on this?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The figure in the Estimates, $316,900 is funding to

continue this Commission. The Commission was appointed under the Electoral

Boundaries Act. The Act required the Commission to report by a certain time and

that time has passed. It will be necessary to bring in legislation to

reconstitute the Commission because after they fail to report by a certain time

they are finished, they are functus. We will have to bring in legislation to

reactivate the Commission and that will mean, I guess, a new Commission,

although I believe under the Act I would expect that most of the same

Commissioners would be reappointed, maybe with some minor changes.

The Commission will then do its job which is to divide the Province up into

districts based on the formula that is set out in the legislation. There could

very well be a policy decision to change the number of seats.

MR. BUTLER: Can I anticipate that coming before the House during this

session or will it be in the fall session?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No, I would anticipate that will be in the fall session.

MR. BUTLER: The last question I have, Minister, is from page 223, under

2.1.03, Support Enforcement. There is a reduction there and I was just wondering

- I know single mothers count on the support from the enforcement agency for

food, clothing, and whatever, for their children - and I was wondering: Why is

there an authorization and a reduction within this department? Can you explain

why the reduction there?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am advised that the reduction is because of a

reduction in federal funding, but no reduced services.

MR. BUTLER: When you say there are no reduced services, in layman's

language where would you pick up the slack? You are going to get the same

services but that amount of money will not be forthcoming. Something must be

happening somewhere else within that division.

MR. T. MARSHALL: What they have done is they have instituted a major

computer system and I am informed - maybe John can add here. I think, even while

the strike was on, because of that new computer system, they managed to carry on

and accomplish and complete their tasks. John?

MR. CUMMINGS: Some of the federal funding reflects projects that are now

complete, and one major project was the new computer system at Support

Enforcement which we are all delighted with. It has greatly reduced the staff

time that has to be devoted to administrative tasks, moving paper, bringing in

applications, moving money, et cetra. We are confident we can maintain the same

level of service, as a result of that, as we have in the past.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PARSONS: Just a few more questions, Minister, most of a general

nature. On the electoral boundaries issue, I guess they are indeed functus now

that they did not file their report or get their work done within the required

time lines.

MR. T. MARSHALL: In fairness to the Commission, that was not their fault.

I think they were late in being appointed and there was the election, I guess,

which delayed things. I am not putting any negative connotation on that, that

they did not do their job. I think they were appointed late and just did not

have a chance to do their job.

MR. PARSONS: I understand that. They were indeed appointed, though, in

conformity with the old act. That was done in a timely manner. They were there

as required, as I recall, and appointed. They just did not get to, for whatever

reasons, finish their work in the anticipated time, and we did have an

intervening election, there is no doubt. In terms of the legislation that you

reference, you are saying that it will probably be this fall before we see that

legislation?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Do you anticipate any change in the criteria? Do you just

see a re-commissioning of the Commission because they did not get things done in

a timely fashion, or is there any likelihood that the criteria, for example,

that the Commission has always functioned under, under the legislation, might in

and of itself be changed?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I would guess, if government is to consider bringing in

legislation to reconstitute the Commission, when government conducts its policy

review other amendments to the legislation could very well be forthcoming.

MR. PARSONS: We have had pieces of legislation for many years. I am just

curious as to whether that is the intent, to redefine, shall we say, new

criteria that the Electoral Boundaries Commission, once reconstituted, will be

required to work with, or are we just going to have what we have always had? Do

you, at this point, see any reason for changing the criteria that the Electoral

Boundaries Commission has always used?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Not the criteria. Personally, I would make the

suggestion of possibly changing the number of seats. That is something that

Cabinet would have to consider, obviously.

MR. PARSONS: That becomes an issue. Once the Electoral Boundaries

Commission, as I understand it, does its job, following certain criteria, they

come back to the House, the report is tabled here in the House, it becomes a

matter for debate, and then the government takes a policy position as to whether

they want to accept, reject or amend the report that the Electoral Boundaries

Commission has given. I realize that is government's prerogative to do that.

My question deals with, not where government wants to go later from a policy

perspective. I guess what I am saying is, if a government wants to go in a

certain direction, i.e., reduce the number of seats in the Province, it makes it

easier to get there later on if, in the first instance, you put in criteria that

restricts what the Electoral Boundaries Commission does. If your goal is to have

lesser seats in the Province you can design the criteria for the Committee so

that they are restricted. When they come back to this House with their report,

their report is based upon the criteria that you gave to them. Then government

can say: Look, we are only following what the Commission has told us as

justification for, say, a seat reduction policy,

whereas the Opposition will be

saying: Well, that is quite obvious, they gave you what they did because they

were restricted in what they could do. You told them that.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I believe, Mr. Parsons, under the Act the criteria is

set out and there are a number of seats as set out in the Act. The job of the

Commission is utilizing the criteria set out in the Act to divide the Province

up into districts based on the number of seats but following the criteria.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. My concern is not where the government wants to go in

terms of rejection, acceptance or variation of a Commission report, or if it is

this government's and administration's desire to go to lesser seats in the

Province. My concern would be that the criteria that you dictate through this

new legislation to the newly constituted Commission might be very restrictive,

so that they can only bring you back certain conclusions. I think that is a way

to get through the backdoor what you could not get through the front door. If

you leave the criteria as they currently are, I guess we all live with it, as

many former administrations lived with those criteria.

My question to you is: Do you, at this point, anticipate that the legislation

would include any changes to the criteria that an Electoral Boundaries

Commission currently uses?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No, I would not anticipate any changes to the criteria

with one possible exception and that would have to deal with - there has been no

discussion along these lines, this is my own personal thought. The only criteria

change I could see is that if there were a decision to go to a lower number of

seats - and, of course, Mr. Parsons, there could be a decision to go to a larger

number of seats - but if there were a decision to go to a lower number of seats,

I would be concerned about maintaining a certain minimum number of seats in

Labrador. That is the only criteria change I can see.

MR. PARSONS: That been a factor and considered in the past as well?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: You mentioned about the Committee members. You are not

certain if the Committee makeup would remain the same.

MR. T. MARSHALL : The reason I say that is that the government does not

select them. I believe the Chief Justice selects the Chair and then the Speaker

selects the members of the Commission.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. Again, in that regard, it has been an all-party

contribution in the past whereby the Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal

Party and the NDP Party have had representation on this Electoral Commission in

the past. Given your comment that you are not sure if the membership would

remain the same, my concern is, again, is there any thought being given to the

fact that you might change the usual makeup of the Committee, i.e., that it

would be representative of all political parties in this Province?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No. The manner of selecting the members of the Committee

would stay the same. The reason I said it might change is because it is the

Chief Justice who would select the Chair and the Speaker will select the other

members. I would not presume, of course, to tell either one of them what to do.

I do not know if they would reappoint the same members or select new members. It

would not be within our control. It is in their control.

MR. PARSONS: It is my understanding, Minister, that the Chief Justice is

the Chair and that is mandated by the piece of legislation as we have now.

MR. T. MARSHALL: No. I believe under the legislation it is the Chief

Justice or his designate, and Judge O'Neill was chosen by the Chief Justice as

the Chair.

MR. PARSONS: Am I correct in saying that, i.e., the Chief Justice selects

a member of the Supreme Court or, in this case, a retired member of the Supreme

Court was deemed to be an eligible candidate as well, but it is the judge

selected who is the Chair? Whoever the Chief Justice selects is the Chair under

the current legislation.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is correct.

MR. PARSONS: The members cannot vote amongst themselves, for example, and

decide that A is going to be - it has to be whoever the judge is who is

appointed.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Of course, the Chief Justice may reappoint Judge O'Neill

or he may appoint somebody else. That was my reference to the membership may

change, not that the government would do it, but that the Chief Justice and the

Speaker might do it.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, could you briefly tell me what the status is of

the Health Care Cost Recovery action?

I am sorry, I realize Mr. Burrage is gone who would be the person to deal

with this, but I had not thought of it earlier.

MR. T. MARSHALL: If memory serves, I believe we are awaiting the outcome

of a BC appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are awaiting the outcome of

that because our legislation, as you well know, mirrors the BC legislation. We

are awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Otherwise the plan is

unchanged.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, I do not wish you, of course, to breach any confidentially since

you will not anyway, but the status of negotiations with the RNCA at the present

time, I understand their contract is up for renewal again this year. I am not

sure if it is the end of June or the end of July. They have binding arbitration

now, of course. Do you anticipate that it will be successfully negotiated, vis- B -vis

the RNC, or do you anticipate we may end up having to go to binding arbitration?

MR. T. MARSHALL: All I can say is that we received notice from the RNC to

start the process. Beyond that, I believe it is the Treasury Board and I think

it would be premature to speculate where we might end up.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, just a minor issue - back to the Access to Privacy

Information Act again for a moment - a cautionary note, I guess, is we are

currently dealing in this House with a piece of legislation vis- B -vis

the health information corporation being established. I mentioned it in the

House in second reading last week that that is going to be a Crown Corporation

that will take a whole pile of information from our health care facilities and

institutions in this Province and use for the purpose of research that might be

beneficial and so on. That act expressly refers to the ATIPPA Act as being

applicable. I pointed out, at that time in second reading, that we have to be

cautious, I think, that we cannot be here passing, maybe even this week, this

health information piece of legislation which is contingent upon the privacy

act. I am not sure if anyone picked up on it. I say this because I realize your

department is responsible for the privacy piece. I just wanted to - again, I am

not sure if you were present in the House at the time that discussion took

place, but I just wanted to point it out because I think it would be

embarrassing if we pass a piece of legislation here and we have not proclaimed

the privacy act. We certainly would not want a situation where if that newly

created corporation goes out and starts to try to do its job but yet they do not

have the protection, and the people do not have the protection that they are

deserving of under the privacy act. It could be an embarrassing situation. I am

not sure if yourself and the Minister of Health have had that discussion.

MR. T. MARSHALL: She raised that very issue with me yesterday.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be sure of that because I

was not sure if you were here.

Minister, I understand there has been a consultation - I know there was an

issue concerning random checks by the police or the possibility of amending the

Highway Traffic Act to permit police agencies to have greater possibilities or

legitimacy or random checks. I understand there was a consultation process

implemented whereby the department went out to various interest groups in the

Province to solicit their input. I would assume that the Mothers Against Drunk

Drivers association, as well as the police agencies themselves, and I understand

that the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women were consulted.

Could you tell us what the status is of that consultation process at the present

time and, in particular, what type of feedback you have been getting regarding

these random checks?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The process is ongoing. It has not concluded as yet.

When we hear from all those that we have asked for input we will determine our

position and make recommendations to the Department of Government Services,

which is the department responsible for the Highway Traffic Act. We will make

recommendations to them, then they will come forward with their policy decision.

MR. PARSONS: The Status of Women - actually, I received a mail-out

yesterday that they have circulated. I understand they are vehemently opposed to

any such expansion in police authority. Is that correct?

MR. T. MARSHALL: They are, as are the Human Rights Commission.

MR. PARSONS: The Human Rights Commission is also opposed to that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Commission or Association.

MR. CUMMINGS: I think it is fair to say that we are waiting to receive

final confirmation of what the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights

Association think on this issue.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, I am wondering if someone, probably Mr. Alcock, I guess, would be

the best person - the add-ons that were done to the RNC, vis- B -vis

expansion of their services, the transport of youth back and forth from

Whitbourne and so on and using it as a stopover for interviews with council and

medical personnel, and visitations - how is that working out since that was

implemented?

MR. ALCOCK: For clarification, you are referring to (inaudible) down

adjacent to the RNC headquarters building?

MR. PARSONS: Correct.

MR. ALCOCK: We are using it intermittently. It is primarily used late in

the night or in the early hours of the morning. For example, let us say 10:00 or

11:00 p.m. up until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. That is only occasionally. Oftentimes, the

individuals are transported directly to Whitbourne. In terms of it being used

specifically as a detention centre immediately after arrest, it is not being

used extensively. It is being used, however, when we bring in youth and need a

location for visitation, for example, from families or to detain the youth while

they are in St. John's for some other particular purpose. By and large, as a

detention centre it is not used extensively.

MR. PARSONS: There was some concern raised about transporting the youth

back and forth from Whitbourne and that there might be a safety hazard. Has

there been any incidents at all since this has been ongoing and they are being

transported back and forth?

MR. ALCOCK: No, there has not.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, I am wondering if you could tell me: What is the situation

concerning the priorities of your department now vis- B -vis,

courthouses in the Province? We had an ongoing issue and a priority list, I

guess, of - Clarenville was always in the mix, Happy Valley-Goose Bay was always

in the mix, which I am very pleased to see is being continued and will be

finished. I see a $2 million capital allotment there this year for that. There

was a major issue that Clarenville - under the old list, at least - was

designated to be, or thought to be at that time, the next priority after Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, but somewhere in the mix the Corner Brook situation, the

Corner Brook courthouse became the priority versus Clarenville, as I recall.

There were some ongoing discussions between groups in Clarenville and the

department as late as last summer, in August and September, about possibilities

that things might be done to rectify the Clarenville situation. Can you tell us

what the status is at the present time regarding Clarenville and what, indeed,

the priorities are now in your department for courthouses?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Our main priority, of course, is to get the Happy

Valley-Goose Bay courthouse finished. That is number one. Number two, with

respect to Provincial Court, the Provincial Court has indicated to us that their

main priority is Corner Brook and Stephenville. That is their priority. With

respect to the Supreme Court -

OFFICIAL: Clarenville is an issue.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Clarenville is an issue, and as a result of that I am

going to Clarenville next week with a very capable and handsome Member of the

House of Assembly for the purposes of reviewing, or looking at the Discovery

Centre building and also looking at a piece of land. I think it is on Maryland

Drive, which, I understand, was land originally acquired for a new courthouse in

Clarenville. I understand that the building consultant's report concerning the

Discovery Centre is not favourable for converting that building into a

courthouse, but I am going to go out with the MHA and meet with members of the

Bar and the judges there and just have a general discussion concerning

Clarenville and the future of Clarenville.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, has there been any discussions since the change of

administration regarding the possibility of utilizing the Colonial Building as a

new Court of Appeal?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No. I did meet with Chief Justice Wells and we discussed

a number of issues of concern to him. He just happened to mention in passing

that there was a proposal but he was not going to put it forward.

MR. PARSONS: In terms of advising government, agencies of government,

does the Department of Justice advise the Chief Electoral Officer, vis- B -vis

matters that come up within his parameters? The Chief Electoral Officer is an

officer, actually, of the House of Assembly, but I am just wondering,

technically, how does yourself and your department view the requirement to

provide legal advice to officers of the House? Is it done? Should it be done? I

am thinking here particularly, not of the Chief Electoral Officer in his role as

the Chief Electoral Officer, but in his dual capacity as Commissioner of Members'

Interest and providing advice as to whether members are or are not in conflicts

of interest.

Has there been any experiences so far in the Department of Justice whereby

the Commissioner has sought the advice of your department in that regard, for

example, members' interest and particularly conflicts? If so, could you

identify what that might be?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I cannot personally recall anything from the

Commissioner in his capacity as Conflicts Commissioner. I can recall one with

respect to the Chief Electoral Officer seeking council to represent the Chief

Electoral Officer in a court battle in Corner Brook. But, with respect to the

conflict situation -

MR. CUMMINGS: We would provide some advice, the meaning of certain

provisions of the act, but if they get into an issue they would go to outside

council which would be funded by us out of our Professional Services vote. It is

a mixture of some elementary advice from Justice and then outside council when

there is a particular issue to be addressed for particular members.

MR. PARSONS: I guess some level of comfort is what we would seek here as

well in that regard, minister, that that indeed would be your position as a

department, that if there is an issue that ever arises by any member of the

House, vis- B -vis conflicts, that it

would not be appropriate for your department to be providing legal advice to the

Commissioner because the Commissioner is supposed to represent everybody fairly

in this House and not be giving advice to any particular individual. I just want

the assurance, I guess, of knowing that is your philosophy as well in the

department.

MR. CUMMINGS: That is our practice.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am advised that is our practice. We are talking about

the Commissioner of Members' Interest here. Is that what you are specifically

dealing with -

MR. PARSONS: That is correct, yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: In that capacity?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: My final question, minister, and I guess this is of a

philosophical bent or whatever: What are your thoughts on provincial Ministers

of Justice and Attorney Generals having input into the selection of justices of

the Supreme Court? It is my understanding that as a protocol the federal

Minister of Justice would normally contact the provincial AG if there were to be

an appointment. That was a protocol that was expected to operate anyway, I am

not sure if it always happened, but that was only as a protocol.

Whereas the

current federal government, and particularly of Mr. Martin, there has been a lot

of talk by Minister Cotler as well about the possibility of having substantial

input, shall we say, into the selection processes for judges. I am wondering

what your thoughts are on it? Should it be a requirement that any Supreme Court

Justice appointed in this Province be subject to even the consent of the

provincial AG?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I was not aware of such a protocol. It was my

understanding that in

section 96, judges were clearly appointed by the federal

minister and that we had no input other than possibly as a courtesy they might

call.

MR. PARSONS: That is it. Actually, it is only a courtesy. In

section 96

they have total authority.

My question is, I guess, where do you, as a minister and AG, sit

philosophically? Do you think we ought to, as provinces, have some say,

especially now given the tenor and the application of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms in our Province, which have become more than just legal jurists for the

point of unraveling legal

interpretations? It is almost - and I believe one of

the Chief Justices of Quebec recently commented that they are making some

pretty, major decisions that impact on the lives of citizens. Do you feel,

philosophically and morally, that we, as provinces, notwithstanding the

authority under

section 96, the feds should be subject to consent for selection

purposes?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, I would agree with that. I would feel that any

judges appointed in the Province of Newfoundland that, obviously, the Province

should be consulted and the Province should have an input. In fact, I would go

so far as to say that if they wish I would be happy to make the appointments.

MR. PARSONS: If we get to the consent

part I would be pleased, at least

at this point.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your staff as well.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

Mr. Parsons, while we were on break I asked Chris Curran if he would contact

the intended Commissioner. He spoke to the Commissioner and to officials in

Executive Council. There are questions about the Commissioner's office

readiness that are being discussed between the Speaker and the Clerk of the

Council. These are being addressed on a priority basis. I am wondering, Mr.

Parsons, if you might be willing to give me a copy since I have not seen a copy

of the letter from the Commissioner to the Internal Economy Commission. I wonder

if you would be kind enough to let me have a copy of that, if that is

permissible?

MR. PARSONS: Actually, I do not have a copy. Our information - the way it

normally works is we distribute the information at the meetings, we deal with

them and it all goes back to the Clerk of the House and the Speaker. The Speaker

certainly has, in his possession, a copy of that letter which I referenced.

MR. T. MARSHALL: And I assume that is not confidential. It is available

to all Members of the House of Assembly?

MR. PARSONS: Again, I am not certain how - the IEC normally do not

circulate information that is dealt with in their meetings on a public basis,

but I certainly have no objection to you having a copy of it. I will undertake

to discuss it with the Speaker so that he can provide you with a copy of such.

Your government members do have a majority on the IEC. Minister Byrne is

there, Minister Marshall and Minister Sullivan. I certainly have no objection to

a release of a copy of that letter to yourself if it is fine with them.

MR. T. MARSHALL: It appears that there is a conflict with what may be in

the letter and what we are being told by the Commissioner and Executive Council,

but hopefully this can be resolved quickly.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

I will ask the Clerk now to call the subheads, please.

CLERK (Ms Murphy): Subheads 1.1.01 to 4.2.02 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall subheads 1.1.01 to 4.2.02 inclusive carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.02 carried.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

On motion, total heads carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report that the Department of Justice Estimates are

carried without amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

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

CHAIR: Thank you.

Minister, having been your first time appearing you have done a great job.

Obviously, you have gotten a grasp of your department pretty quickly.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

I want to thank the members of the Committee for not going too hard on me.

CHAIR: Thank you and your staff for your attendance this morning and for

being so well prepared. I thank the Committee for their insightful questions.

I remind members of the Committee we are back here again tonight to deal with

HRL&E - a new title, I think - at 7:00 p.m. here in this same room.

Thank you all.

The Committee meeting now stands adjourned.