Social Services Committee — Department of Justice and Public Safety — 12 May 2015

2015-05-12

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

PDF Version

May 12,

SOCIAL

SERVICES COMMITTEE

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Eli Cross, MHA for Bonavista North, substitutes

for Glenn Littlejohn, MHA for Port de Grave.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Andrew Parsons, MHA for Burgeo La Poile,

substitutes for Lisa Dempster, MHA for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

The

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

CHAIR (Pollard):

Let's call the meeting to

order.

Good

morning everybody. This is Tuesday,

May 12, 9:00 a.m. We are into the Social Services Committee and we are doing

Justice and Public Safety.

I would

like to welcome everybody here. I

appreciate everybody coming out.

You all look sharp and bright.

We will

start by having some introductions to my right in the beginning, and then we

will go to my left for introductions.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo

La Poile.

MR. LETTO:

Graham Letto, Researcher,

Official Opposition.

MS ROGERS:

Gerry Rogers.

I work for the good people of St. John's Centre.

MR. MORGAN:

Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP

caucus.

MR. CROSS:

Eli Cross, Bonavista North.

MR. LITTLE:

Glen Little, Bonavista

South.

MR. CORNECT:

Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

MR. DUTTON:

Sean Dutton, CEO of Fire and

Emergency Services.

MR. KING:

Darin King, Minister.

MS MCCORMACK:

Marilyn McCormack, Assistant

Deputy Minister of Fire and Emergency Services.

MS DUNPHY:

Debbie Dunphy, Departmental

Controller.

MR. MOLLOY:

Donovan Molloy, Director of

Public Prosecutions and Assistant Deputy Minister of Criminal Operations.

MR. STANLEY:

Todd Stanley, Assistant

Deputy Minister of Courts and Legal Services.

MS JACOBS:

Heather Jacobs, Assistant

Deputy Minister of Strategic and Corporate Services.

MR. CHAFE:

Dan Chafe, Director of

Quality Management and Support Services for Public Safety and Enforcement.

MR. REID:

Derick Reid, EA to Minister

King.

MR. JOYCE:

Luke Joyce, Director of

Communications for the Department of Justice and Public Safety.

MS LANGOR:

Fiona Langor, Director of

Policy and Strategic Planning.

MR. F. COLLINS:

Felix Collins, Attorney

General.

(Inaudible) when it is relevant to him.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

He will introduce himself

when he comes down.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Thank you very much.

My name

is Kevin Pollard, MHA for Baie Verte Springdale and Chair of the Committee

this morning filling in for Glenn Littlejohn.

A few

remarks before we begin; the minister has fifteen minutes as you all know.

Then subsequent to him, the first speaker over here will have up to

fifteen minutes as well. Ensuing

members will have ten minutes thereafter.

How

shall we proceed this morning? Is

it Fire and Emergency Services? Is

that the proposal this morning starting off?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Actually, I am going to ask

that Fire and Emergency Services be done after.

We have somebody else coming out to do that.

Eddie Joyce will be handling that.

My plan was to start with Justice.

We can

tell him to get ready sooner rather than later, but he is not here yet.

MR. KING:

Okay.

MS ROGERS:

The same with George.

MR. A. PARSONS:

The same with George?

MR. KING:

Okay.

We were planning to do it in reverse because they are usually the

shortest, rather than having them wait the three hours towards the end.

MR. A. PARSONS:

When is George going to be

in?

MR. KING:

We will accommodate.

OFFICIAL : Pardon

me?

MR. KING: We

will accommodate. I cannot ask

officials to sit three hours. If

you do not mind, can you give us some heads up when these guys arrive?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes.

CHAIR: Okay.

Thank you for being accommodating.

MR. KING:

Perhaps the office could let you know when they arrive.

Give us a half an hour.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, we have a message sent.

MR. KING: Yes.

CHAIR: We will

start with you. I will call the

first heading, Minister.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What we can do too is as soon as we know, we can give a heads up and everybody

can come down, so there is no need to sit through.

MR. KING: Okay.

CHAIR: Okay, so

Fire and Emergency Services will be on standby.

Okay. Thank

you very much.

Elizabeth.

CLERK (Ms Murphy):

Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Subhead

1.1.01.

We have up to fifteen minutes for the minister to have

opening remarks and comments.

MR. KING: Sure.

Thank you, just brief remarks.

To my right is the Attorney General, the hon. Felix

Collins. To my left is my Deputy

Minister Paul Noble. We are pleased

to start when the members opposite are ready.

CHAIR: Page

18.3?

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am good to go.

Andrew Parsons here, thank you.

I will say a very quick thank you to everybody for taking

the time to be here off the start.

I appreciate it.

The first question I have is under the

Summary of Attrition

Details by Department. I believe

there are seven positions in this year's Budget related to Justice and Public

Safety. Can we get a list of those

positions being eliminated due to attrition?

MR. KING: There

is no specific list right now. The

budget dollar figure target is spread over all of the divisions to meet our

target. We have identified a number

of positions, through possible retirements, that we will identify through the

course of the fiscal year to reach our savings target.

At this point in time we have not identified the specific positions.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

going to move on to 1.2.01, Executive Support.

In the Salaries, I believe it has gone up about $100,000.

How many positions is this?

MR. KING:

Subhead 1.2.01, Salaries?

There

are no positions there. As you are

going to find in a number of these situations, that represents the 3 per cent

wage increase and salary steps for employees.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chair, just for

clarification for the members, if I could, we are going to go through

section by section. I am assuming

that is our plan, right?

MR. A. PARSONS:

That is the plan. There may be some

times when I ask a question that does not relate to that, I may have it in the

wrong space. Feel free to tell me

MR. KING: Sure.

As we get, say,

section 1 done, we will vote and then move okay.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Under the same section, under Purchased Services sorry, 1.2.02.

Yes, moving on, sorry.

Subhead 1.2.02, under Administrative and Policy Support, under Salaries,

obviously there is a significant jump there.

What is the breakdown of this?

MR. KING: The

increase in the Estimates for this year is approximately twelve positions for

the Domestic Violence Court.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Is there a breakdown on the titles of the positions, the functions?

MR. KING: There

is, yes. I am not sure I have them

here. I can get them for you,

though.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So maybe we can put that on the undertaking list to be provided after?

MR. F. COLLINS:

This would be the same list of team members who were involved, basically.

Not the same, but a similar list of people who would have been involved

in the family violence prevention court.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay. So we will still get a list

of them just so we have them.

I am just wondering about that.

I think the announcement, if I am correct, says that it is going to

reopen in St. John's, and one other location on the Island I think it actually

said, and then I think it said a sum of money towards Labrador.

Is that a case of exploring where we put it in Labrador, plus one other

place on the Island? Is the plan to

have it in St. John's, the Island, and Labrador?

MR. F. COLLINS:

The plan is to open a St.

John's court and then simultaneous with that, hopefully, or at least there will

be a short lag in between the opening of another court in the Province on the

West Coast at this point in time, it looks like it might be.

Then the extra money is to explore the

possibility of a similar situation in Labrador down the road.

These

are treatment courts, as you know, therapeutic treatment courts.

The treatment for Labrador Aboriginal people especially would probably

take a different focus than treatment in a non-Aboriginal court, so that

$100,000 is to explore the possibilities of that.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So I just have a couple of

questions stemming from that. When

you use the language going to explore the possibility in Labrador, is it going

to happen in Labrador?

MR. F. COLLINS:

Right now we are looking at

what would be involved in establishing a treatment court in Labrador for

domestic violence.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So, it is not for sure?

MR. F. COLLINS:

We are committed to the

Island and before making a commitment to Labrador, we are going to see what is

involved in it. A considerable

amount of work has to be done to establish what kind of court is needed in

Labrador.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So in terms of timelines, I

think it is $100,000, am I right, for Labrador for the exploration?

MR. F. COLLINS:

Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What are the timelines on

that? Is that to be explored over

this year with the hopes of it happening next year?

MR. F. COLLINS:

We will be engaging in that

process as soon as we can, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I ask this because we get a

fair number of calls from Labrador, when they heard this announcement.

So they will want to know there is no timeline, per se, right now.

How will you explore it?

Will you explore it within the department?

Is there going to be a team within the department, or is the $100,000 for

an RFP for an outside group to do that work?

MR. F. COLLINS:

I do not know if we have the

details on that yet.

MR. NOBLE:

The intention is to create a

team within the department and to utilize expertise of an external consultant,

based in Labrador ideally.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. NOBLE:

That is to be done as soon

as we can possibly get it going.

MR. A. PARSONS:

The big takeaway for me for

this is that you are committed to the exploration, but the actual establishment

is not for sure yet. They could

come back with information that you may not find feasible.

That is a possibility of an exploration, am I right?

MR. F. COLLINS:

I suppose that is always a

possibility, but the thing is the focus here is that we have to look at we

need to do something in Labrador; we are committed to that.

Just exactly what form it would take at this stage, we do not know.

So that is the whole purpose of the preliminary discussions.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Where

is the location on the West Coast Port aux Basques?

I am kidding. Obviously,

there are two locations. It is

going to be Corner Brook or Stephenville.

Has that site been selected?

MR. F. COLLINS:

Not exactly.

It is going to look at a number of things there.

Some of this work will be done by video surveillance and whatnot for

video connections from St. John's.

We are looking at facilities and assets in Corner Brook versus Stephenville.

Right now it looks like Stephenville, but we are looking at how best the

system can work in connection with the system in St. John's.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I may

be jumping forward here, but again we know that in last year's Budget there was

the announcement of a courthouse in Stephenville.

Will the fact that the courthouse is on pause, I think is the word,

affect the placement of the Domestic Violence Court, the establishment on the

West Coast? It could have been in

Stephenville but for the pause of the courthouse, or is it still a possibility?

MR. F. COLLINS:

The site of the court and

the function of the court I do not think will be terribly affected one way or

the other by the current facilities or new facilities.

I do not think that will be an issue.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Still

under 1.2.02 and I apologize, I may come back to that court because that is

one of the big announcements in this year's Budget obviously.

Under this same section, 1.2.02, Transportation and Communications went

up $80,000. What was the extra cost

there? It went up last year

sorry, I am looking at $277,000 budgeted and $357,000 was spent.

MR. KING:

The main cost there of

inflation was postage mail outs.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Good old postage.

I see

that the budget for Professional Services was budgeted at $150,000 last year,

spent at $105,000, and it is up to $200,000.

The increase there, what is that specifically related to?

MR. KING:

There were savings there

from the commissioner (inaudible) office as well as the Criminal Code review

board, less than anticipated costs there for reimbursement and travel.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Just moving one line down,

Purchased Services is a substantial jump there.

Is that also related to the Domestic Violence Court?

MR. KING:

Yes, it is related to

contracts with the John Howard Society as part of the Domestic Violence Court.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Those contracts are they actually in place or that is the anticipation?

MR. KING:

Anticipation?

OFFICIAL:

Anticipation.

MR. KING:

Yes, anticipation.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

just wondering now under the Revenue Provincial and I see it looks like

every year it is probably $63,000 budgeted.

Last year it was $263,000.

What is that all about?

MR. KING:

The upshot in revenue last

year was a court settlement that saw the government on a winning side of a court

case. It was about $190,000 or so

in increased revenue.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Am I allowed to ask what court case?

It is over, I assume.

MR. KING:

Yes.

MR. STANLEY:

We had a construction claim

where we were suing in respect of work that was done in Labrador and I think it

was on a municipal facility that was built.

I think we settled the claim.

It did not go to litigation, but that was the settlement amount that we

got.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, excellent.

I am

just going to move forward to actually, I am going to apologize; we talked

about this, Minister, before. I

understand that the Minister of Justice appoints the Consumer Advocate, but does

the Consumer Advocate's budget or salary come out of the department?

MR. KING:

Yes, the Consumer Advocate

is appointed by the minister. The

Consumer Advocate's budget falls under the Public Utilities Board and the Public

Utilities Board's budget is not administered by us.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Moving

forward to Legal Information Management, 1.2.03, the big thing there I notice is

Supplies jumped substantially last year just under $200,000.

What was that jump for?

MR. KING:

That increase is a result of

going from print media to electronic subscription materials, increased costs.

Trying to move away from print materials to using more electronic

materials for our libraries.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Usually you hear that doing

that is going to save us money. Is

this sort of the up-front fee and there will be cost savings down the road, or

is it going to cost us more to make that jump?

MR. KING:

Todd will elaborate.

MR. STANLEY:

This is a combination.

We are kind of in transition where we are still running print services

for some subscriptions, but we also trying to move to electronic.

What we are finding is the cost of the existing remaining print

subscriptions is rising astronomically, so we are hoping to get a handle on this

in the next year or two to bring it all into electronic and then bring the cost

down.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

The

Purchased Services went up by $13,000.

Is that postage as well?

MR. KING:

No, that is related to

storage and retrieval costs for document handling and some costs attributed to

moving documents to a new storage location.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, this might be very

small, but are we moving it and now it is at a new spot and stays there.

Or was it moved for a short period of time and moved back?

MR. STANLEY:

I do not know. I think the movement

was one way. Most of these are

costs for our records centre to access the private off-site storage that we have

because we cannot keep everything in the records centre.

They just charge us for shuttling boxes back and forth.

So as activity goes up, the cost goes up.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am going to move forward again here to 1.2.04.

I will probably end off here because my time is running out.

So this

is, Appropriations provide for facilities planning and the acquisition of

tangible capital assets. Last

year, if I am correct, there was nothing budgeted, but we spent $373,000.

That is how I read it.

MS DUNPHY:

What this is, when we purchase police vehicles there is a piece of work that has

to be done after their purchase which is a fit up with the lights, silent

policeman, those sorts of things.

So that got charged to Purchased Services rather than the Property, Furnishings

and Equipment line. The budget we

had for police vehicles, a portion went towards that expenditure.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Is that unusual for that to

be put in a different spot?

MS DUNPHY:

Last year, or the year before we had some one-time funding approved through

Treasury Board to purchase some additional vehicles.

It was getting late in the year so then they had to do the up fit in the

past year. It does not normally

happen that way, but it just did last year because we did buy I think it was

eighteen vehicles fairly late in the year.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Seeing the time, I will end

off here, Mr. Chair, and probably return here.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Andrew.

Gerry?

MS ROGERS:

Thank you very much.

Thank

you everyone for being here. I know

how very, very busy everyone is.

Thank you for your incredible work.

We know

how fundamental a piece that justice is in our society and there have been lots

of changes. I would like to thank

you for all your work.

I would

just like to go back to the Domestic Violence Court.

Do you have a time frame as to when you are going to open the St. John's

court?

MR. F. COLLINS:

The determining factors at

the moment would be the recruitment of personnel, the team that drives this

court. As you know, it is a team of

professionals, as well as the John Howard Society, who puts together the

treatment counselling program.

The

John Howard Society has to recruit and train their personnel.

We have to recruit and get the Crown prosecutor, the defence people, the

probation people, and the Victim Services people.

All these people have to go into place to form a team.

It really depends on when we can get them into place.

To put

an exact time

schedule on it might be a bit difficult at the moment.

It is certainly going to take three or four months, or maybe even longer

to get all that done, but as soon as we get it in place we will have it done.

MS ROGERS:

Will the operation of the

court be similar to the Family Violence Intervention Court, the pilot project?

MR. F. COLLINS:

Yes, it will.

MS ROGERS:

Will there be much variance?

MR. F. COLLINS:

There will not be very much

variance at all. The scope would

increase a little bit. Debbie or

MS JACOBS:

No, the plan would be very

similar at this time. We will look

at it, as it is up and running, to see if we have to make any changes.

MS ROGERS:

Also previously, I believe,

it was the St. John's Status of Women Council that delivered the empowerment and

support groups, and therapy groups for the women and children.

Will they be doing that again?

MS JACOBS:

Yes, that is still the plan.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

The court on the West Coast, when is the anticipated opening of that?

MR. F. COLLINS:

We hope to do it even

concurrently with the St. John's court, if at all possible.

That may not be possible because some of the personnel in the St. John's

court will be used as an extension.

There may be a lag between it, but we are hoping to keep that reduced as small

as possible.

MS ROGERS:

So the West Coast location,

will it be the same as St. John's, or are you planning to operate that in a

different way?

MR. F. COLLINS:

The court will be operated

the same as the one in St. John's.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

What I am specifically asking about is how much are you thinking would be

video technology or video conferencing?

MS JACOBS:

Some of it will be video

conferencing, like first appearance, maybe, with the prosecutor.

The offender will appear in court.

Of course the on-ground services like probation, Victim Services, Legal

Aid, all of that will be in person.

MS ROGERS:

Great.

MS JACOBS:

As much as we can we will

and John Howard of course, will be done by video conferencing.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MS JACOBS:

For example, like the risk

assessment officer, we may only need one and that person may travel.

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MS JACOBS:

Or we may even consider some

video conferencing there. It is

still a little bit of a work in progress, but we are going to try to utilize

some video conferencing as much as possible.

MS ROGERS:

Of course you know that I

will have a hard time not asking every now and then when this is going to

happen.

Great,

thank you very much.

I will

pick up where Andrew left off at 1.3.01.

Actually, can we go to 1.2.04, Administrative Support, Operating

Accounts? That is the subtitle

there.

Okay,

we will go down now to 1.3.01, Fines Administration.

How is it going with the collection of fines?

I see that revenue there is $700,000.

MR. KING:

Which line item are you

referring to?

CHAIR:

Subhead 1.3.01.

MS ROGERS:

Yes, Revenue Provincial.

MR. KING:

What was your question

again?

MS ROGERS:

How is this going, the

collection? This is the actual

fines collected, or is this money to do the collection of fines?

MR. KING:

The revenue, the $700,000?

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. KING:

That is not fine

collections. That is billing from

third parties.

MS ROGERS:

All right, thank you.

That is

the end of one.

MR. KING:

Pardon?

MS ROGERS:

You wanted to vote on one before going on?

MR. KING:

Yes, that is the process,

unless Mr. Parsons has a question.

MR. A. PARSONS:

We all have questions on

this topic, so if we could continue on.

MS ROGERS:

Do you want to then pick up

there to finish

section one?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Is there an issue if we vote

at the end on everything? That way

there is

MR. KING:

What we try to do normally

is not be flipping back and forth through the binder.

Cover a topic, vote on it, and move on.

MR. A. PARSONS:

The problem is that Gerry

has four minutes left. I want her

to use it, but that does not

MR. KING:

Okay, fill your boots.

That is fine. No issue.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, so what did we decide?

Sorry.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Keep going.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Subhead

2.1.01 is page 18.6. Under Salaries

we see a considerable drop in Professional Services.

Can you talk about that?

MR. KING:

Your question is on the drop

to $1.8 million versus $2.2 million?

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. KING:

Okay, so there are a couple

of things there. One, an allocation

was provided in the past budget for the Provincial Court judges' tribunal

$150,000 has been removed. There is

also $286,000 removed from the access copyright file.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Subhead

2.1.02, Sheriff's Office, there is an increase in Salaries.

Can you explain that?

MR. KING:

Sure.

Those are additional funding for Salaries as a result of following

through on the external review that we completed a couple of years ago for the

new positions.

MS ROGERS:

So how many positions would

that be?

MR. KING:

There are, I believe, four

new positions.

OFFICIAL:

For this year.

MR. KING:

For this year, yes.

Four new in that dollar figure.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, and then there are

plans for more in the next year?

MR. KING:

I think this ends the report

this year is this the final year of implementation?

OFFICIAL:

This is the last year.

MR. KING:

I think this the last year

of implementation.

MS ROGERS:

So, does that fulfill the

recommended number of new positions?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

So it fills them all?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, an increase of $80,000?

MR. KING:

That is in the past budget

year?

MS ROGERS:

Yes, the revised.

MR. KING:

That is increased travel.

We had a number of situations where we had increased travel for

provincial court duties, judges travelling, and others.

MS ROGERS:

Why is that?

MR. KING:

We had a vacancy of one in

particular in Clarenville, a vacant judge.

So there had to be travelling for other judges filling in.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

There are a couple of other

costs in there too: circuit courts, increased costs; and some communications

costs, increased cost for the telephones.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

Purchased Services, there was a significant drop in the revised amount for last

year.

MR. KING:

The drop is related to the

Leigh DesRoches review. There was

funding provided last year, one time, that is not required this year.

MS ROGERS:

Last year there it was

budgeted for $429,000, but only $200,000 spent?

MR. KING:

That is correct.

MS ROGERS:

So what was that drop?

Because if you were anticipating $429,000

MR. KING:

Pardon?

MS ROGERS:

If you were anticipating

$429,000, but only spent $200,000.

MR. KING:

There were reduced jury

expenses, in particular. There were

eighteen juries scheduled, and only ten proceeded.

So it was significant savings there.

CHAIR:

Gerry, if I could hold you

there.

MS ROGERS:

Absolutely, yes.

CHAIR:

If that is okay?

MS ROGERS:

Yes, just for Purchased

Services then for $294,000, what would be some of those purchased services?

MR. KING:

What is included in here?

Debbie, do you want to speak to that one?

MS DUNPHY:

What is included in that

line object, as the minister mentioned, is administration costs for jury trials.

There is also a provision for the banking fees and services for the trust

account. It also covers any kind of

repairs and maintenance issues.

Just to

speak to the expenditures from last year as well, there was a significant amount

of money allocated for security enhancements and upgrades as a result of the

report. Those were carried out.

All of them were carried out and some of those costs were actually a

little less. That funding was only

one-time funding so that is why the budget has gone down as well.

MS ROGERS:

Were all the recommendations

then for the security enhancements completed?

MS DUNPHY:

There is one more.

After this year, there is another small amount.

No more positions after this year, but there is another small amount in

the third year.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I am

going to go back to 1.2.04, Administrative Support, and it is more of a general

question. I believe this is the

section that deals with monies for the planning of facilities.

I would assume that would include courthouses and penitentiaries.

If I am wrong, you can direct me to the right section.

Is there no money allotted for planning?

MS DUNPHY:

That heading kind of what

happens, I guess, is when there is some thought to a new courthouse or a new

penitentiary or whatever, we do not necessarily have a specific head for a

specific project. So if there is

planning money allotted we will put it in there, but it is very early in the

stages.

As you

go further through the book, you will see that there was a separate head for

correctional facilities and court

facilities. In this instance, there

is no money in this account for any facilities planning at this stage for any of

the projects noted.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Just so I know so I can make

sure I cover it off later, which head would it be under?

MS DUNPHY:

It would depend on the

project. So if it was planning for

HMP, for example, there is a separate head now.

There was a separate head

MR. A. PARSONS:

Court facilities.

MS DUNPHY:

for that specific project,

or if it was court; but this is very preliminary, sometimes when there is just

an initial I guess exploratory stage

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MS DUNPHY:

Rather than set a separate

head, it would go under here.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

I am

going to move on to 1.3.01, Fines Administration.

What is the current outstanding amount for this Province for fines?

I believe last year it was in the $37 million range, but I may be wrong.

MS JACOBS:

That is still around the

same amount.

MR. A. PARSONS:

When I say $37 million, I am

not

MS JACOBS:

Not too far off, no.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What portion of that is

considered bad debt or uncollectable?

MS JACOBS:

A fair portion of that

probably is as you know most of us, 80 per cent of us, do pay our debt and

there is the 20 per cent who do not.

I guess at some point what we should be doing is bringing forward more.

We did not do very much this year, unfortunately, to start writing off

some of this as uncollectable.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Gerry may have asked this.

Under Salaries, it is a decrease from last year, I guess what was

budgeted. It is an increase from

what was spent. There is no new

positions I assume in that section.

MS JACOBS:

For this year a new

position?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes.

MS JACOBS:

No, not this year, but what

happened was they did get a new position last year.

They ran several vacancies and we were a while before we filled that

position, and that position just got filled a couple of months ago.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What is the title on that

position?

MS JACOBS:

It was a Clerk III position

and it was to help the collection officers, kind of an admin position so that

the collection officers could do their work.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

This is

one of those topics where we see it all the time, it comes up in the news when

you get these people I do not mind using the word deadbeats getting pulled

over with $50,000 owing and this and that.

I know the Auditor General has looked at it.

Has there been any change in how we can approach it?

I know Public Accounts dealt with this a while back.

MR. KING:

I am going to ask Paul.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Perfect, thank you.

MR. NOBLE:

This year, I guess

recognizing that the kind of people, as you say, who are not interested in

paying their fines, largely live off the grid.

So collection officers behind computer terminals and on telephones have a

hard time locating these individuals because they are kind of subterranean in

their existence.

Our

thinking was that there is one group of people out there who probably know who

they are or where they are, and that is the police.

We have undertaken a pilot project with the RNC this year, given them a

list of names of I will call high-value targets and they are out there

looking for them. They do interact

with them occasionally. So when

they do we are holding them in custody, bring them before a judge, and then

there will be a hearing under the Criminal Code.

We have

had a few of these move through. It

is not going as quickly as we would like to.

The judges recognize there is significant jeopardy attached to these

people because they are looking at the possibility of imprisonment, so they want

to make sure these folks have adequate legal representation of course.

We are

really hopeful we can start zeroing in on some of these more significant

scofflaws, utilizing the police in this fashion.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

Just

moving forward there to 2.1.01, Civil Law and I know Gerry asked a question

and the minister responded about a Provincial Court judges' tribunal and there

was a savings there. Can you just

elaborate on that for me because I never quite picked up on it?

MR. NOBLE: Which

line item are you looking at?

MR. A. PARSONS:

I believe it was under Professional Services under 2.1.01, Civil Law.

MR. NOBLE:

Okay.

MR. A. PARSONS:

It had to do with the Provincial Court judges' tribunal, there was some savings.

Is that because it was not done last year and it will be done

MR. NOBLE: That

is absolutely correct, yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Again, I may be going off here, I apologize.

I understand this year there is going to be a revamp of the rules of the

Supreme Court, 1986. Is there a

portion of money allotted to that; and if so, where and how much?

I ask the question now so I do not forget.

I have them marked down.

MR. KING: It is

$126,000 under the Supreme Court head here a little later.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Perfect.

MR. KING:

Section 3.1.01.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Perfect, thank you.

Under this Civil Law, this is where sometimes government

has to retain outside counsel. I

assume you are anticipating me asking for a list of

MR. KING:

Subhead 2.2.01, you are into?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Subhead 2.1.01, Civil Law.

MR. KING:

Sorry, Andrew, I have gone off here.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Subhead 2.1.01, appropriations for representation of government in court.

Government has to go outside.

How much was spent last year in outside counsel?

MR. KING:

That would be $2.471 million.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am assuming that you have a list of the counsel that you will provide

to us because it is a standard request I think every year.

Is there a breakdown of that, like how many files are we talking here?

MR. KING:

Todd.

MR. STANLEY:

We do not actually have a

number for how many files are represented in that.

That external retention covers a large number of activities where we have

to go get outside counsels, and that amount this year actually covers a couple

of expert witnesses for some litigation that we had going on.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Is one of them still the

tobacco case? I do not know if it

is health care recovery or

MR. STANLEY:

The expenses relating to the

tobacco case come out of that budget.

This year, we did not have any significant expenditure on the tobacco

case amongst the expenses that are there.

It is just the way that the file has been going.

MR. A. PARSONS:

It is still ongoing, it is

just this year was

MR. STANLEY:

Yes, a slow year and slow

bill on that kind of stuff.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I might ask this might be

a silly question is that case anticipated to continue on for much longer?

I believe it has been in the department now for fifteenish years.

MR. STANLEY:

The current status right now

is we spent a lot of last year waiting and looking at decisions on strictly

procedural matters where the tobacco companies have been fighting us every step

of the way in court. We got a

decision on that, I believe it was last summer and now we are both trying to

co-ordinate the next step of what it would be.

I think the tobacco companies may have filed an appeal.

Also, we are engaged with discussions with the other provinces that are

also pursuing the same kind of litigation.

It is slow, but it is still continuing.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I think the number I had here was $2.471 million.

There was not a lot spent in the big tobacco.

Again, was there any case that was significantly large there?

MR. STANLEY:

We had significant

expenditures this year on outside counsel to help us with the pension reform.

The Department of Finance chipped in to the department to help pay for

some of that, but that was our major expenditure on outside counsel this year.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just to

confirm, so I will get a list of the breakdown of firms and amount

MR. STANLEY:

Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I know you cannot give

details, but I guess there is a file name or whatever.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Andrew.

Can we park there for now?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, you certainly can.

Thank you. I am done with

2.1.01.

CHAIR:

Okay.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

assume that any list that either Andrew and I ask for, we will both receive.

Great,

thank you.

The

tobacco case, exactly how much are we suing for?

Do we have an amount?

MR. STANLEY: I do

not believe we have put forward an assessment of damages yet in that file.

That is one of the things that we still have people looking at and

working on.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

I am not sure if it is under this section, but the case of

Kyra Rees who is going to court for the right to change her gender markers on

her birth certificate, do we know how much that case is costing us?

MR. NOBLE: The

file is being handled within the civil division, so there is no identifiable

cost broken out and associated with that file.

MS ROGERS: Is

there a budgeted amount of court time or staff time?

MR. NOBLE: No,

it would not be tracked individually according to the file.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you very much.

Perhaps under this category as well, the case of Desiree

Dichmont in the Supreme Court case, and I believe that she went to the Supreme

Court. Do we know how much that

cost us?

MR. NOBLE: If I

am not mistaken, there was no external counsel engaged by the department in

relation to that case. So, again,

it would not be any quantifiable amount associated with it.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, but there may be possibilities of, for instance, the Rees case, if they

ask for their costs should they be successful in

MR. NOBLE: That

is correct.

MS ROGERS: Is

there any indication where we are going with that, what is happening with that?

MR. F. COLLINS:

That is the Rees case?

MS ROGERS: Yes.

MR. NOBLE:

Without divulging, I guess, solicitor-client privilege, we do have instructions

on the file. I guess if I could be

a little circumspect, but at least try to respect your question, ultimately it

would be all our hope that we are not going to have to resolve this in court.

MS ROGERS:

Great. Good, I am happy to hear

that. Thank you very much.

I think

I am okay now for Purchased Services.

We have done that, the Sherriff's Office.

Civil Law and Enforcement continued, 2.1.03, Support Enforcement.

In 2014-2015, $24,000 was budgeted, but $66,000 was spent revised.

What was that additional $42,000 for?

MR. KING:

Which head are you referring

to?

CHAIR:

Subhead 2.1.03.

MR. KING:

Yes, which section?

CHAIR:

Professional Services.

MS ROGERS:

Under Salaries.

MR. KING:

Salaries?

MS ROGERS:

Purchased Services.

MR. KING:

Purchased Services.

CHAIR:

Yes.

MR. KING:

The $24,000 budgeted

actually resulted in $66,000 spent.

It is mainly attributed to increased banking fees with trust accounts.

MS ROGERS:

Wow, hey?

That is a lot.

It is

back down to $24,000. Do you expect

a drop in banking fees?

MR. KING:

We are hopeful that we will

not have as many fees.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Why would you not have as many fees?

MR. KING:

We do not know, but the

historical trend has been that we have not spent $66,000.

So we tried to line the budget more in line with what we have actually

spent in the past.

MS ROGERS:

You actually spent $66,000

last year.

MR. KING:

Right.

MS ROGERS:

Now you have gone back down

to $24,000.

MR. KING:

Right.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Family

Justice Services, 2.1.04, Transportation and Communications was budgeted $75,800

and revised to $45,800. Was there

work you had anticipated to do and decided not to?

MR. KING:

We had reduced travel

requirements. Also, we put a freeze

on discretionary travel. We found

some savings there.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Would that be some of the people who are involved in counselling

mediation who did not travel? Or

are they doing video conferencing?

MR. KING:

It would have been

discretionary travel. So anybody

who would have been required to travel for conferences and mediation would have

still travelled. This would have

been discretionary.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

It could be other

conferences, things like that.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Thank you.

MR. KING:

To be clear, there was no

freeze on travel for service delivery.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Purchased Services we see a drop of $72,000 for 2015-2016.

Is there any particular reason why that has dropped?

MS DUNPHY:

One of our budget

initiatives this year, when we were looking at our accounts, was to try and

reduce and make some efficiencies.

One of the areas was we changed the business process in the Recalculation Office

so that they are no longer using registered mail to send out notices.

Now it is just regular mail so there are actual savings of about $72,000.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

That would be registered mail to clients, is it?

MR. STANLEY:

Right now the regulations

require registered mail to be used for a variety of notices out to clients,

including notices of revised orders.

We are in the process of getting that changed.

We have to get the federal government's agreement on changing that due to

an agreement we have. We figure

that is not going to be a problem.

We are

going to try to get that streamlined as much as possible to move from registered

mail to just normal mail, and then hopefully from normal mail to even email for

some notices, if we can, just to cut down on costs and increase efficiency.

MS ROGERS:

What kind of notices would

you have sent by registered mail and now are not going to?

MR. STANLEY:

The Recalculation Office is

the one that does recalculations of support orders.

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. STANLEY:

The regulations require

right now that notices of your new support order, the recalculated support

order, go out by registered mail.

It is sort of an old practice for those kinds of things to be used.

We are going to streamline and just have those sent out by regular mail

and have the regulations deem a certain period of time you are just assumed to

have gotten it.

MS ROGERS:

So if somebody gets a notice

in the mail of their support order, is that the way they would be notified?

Or would they have been notified in another way and this is just backup?

MR. STANLEY:

The intention is they would

receive a reminder letter. Every

year the way the process works is you are supposed to send in tax information to

permit the recalculation.

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. STANLEY:

They should have received

some kind of a reminder letter notifying them ahead of time that they are

required to submit the information, and then they would have gotten a

recalculated order.

MS ROGERS:

Would the reminder mail have

been sent by registered as well?

MR. STANLEY:

No, I do not think the

practice was to do that.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. STANLEY:

That is one of the things we

are going to try to move from normal mail to an email system if we can.

We are looking at sort of revitalizing this to make it more streamlined.

MS ROGERS:

So if somebody has not

received their notification and are required to up their what happens if they

do not pay that increase because they have not gotten their letter?

MR. STANLEY:

There is a positive

obligation on people to supply the new tax information every year anyways.

The reminder letter is just supposed to be to prompt you.

If you

do not provide the information, there is a means where it can be deemed to have

increased under the regulations.

Then a new recalculation order can be issued on the deemed amount.

MS ROGERS:

No, I was wondering, if

somebody does not get the recalculation of the order because it is not coming by

registered mail now, what happens then?

Say you have been ordered to increase it by $200 a month and

MR. STANLEY:

You never saw it.

MS ROGERS:

you never saw it.

MR. STANLEY:

Eventually, I think the way the process would work is if you are not paying the

proper amount, either the person who is the recipient could identify that to the

court and/or to Support Enforcement.

A significant portion of these orders end up in Support Enforcement,

anyway, with the Province. Then

those matters can be straightened out

CHAIR:

All right Gerry, your time

is expired, if you do not mind.

MS ROGERS:

I just want to

MR. A. PARSONS:

It is fine by me.

MS ROGERS:

If I can, yes.

CHAIR:

It is okay?

Okay.

MS ROGERS:

I am just curious, because

in the end is it really a cost-saving measure?

So many people are transient, particularly after dissolution of a

relationship. We have constituents

who talk about their mail being stolen.

MR. STANLEY: Well

this is one of the reasons why we want to see if we can move to an electronic

delivery system for some of this stuff, if we can, because in those

circumstances you have people who have multiple mailing addresses.

We may see if we can change the it requires a bit of an amendment to

the rules of the court as well, to require that they provide us with an email

address that they will commit to keep live.

If we provide that information through email, we do not

have to physically find them, which I think will actually increase the amount of

information distribution. That is

moving to a new paradigm, to use a better term, from what was a very classical

system where notices are sent out by registered mail.

So we have some work to do just to change the regs and that kind of

thing.

MS ROGERS: Is

it being done in any other jurisdictions in the country?

MR. STANLEY: A

number of jurisdictions have moved away, with the agreement of the feds, from

registered mail.

MS ROGERS:

Have, you said?

MR. STANLEY:

Have, yes. So we are just following

their lead on that.

I am not sure whether or not a bunch of jurisdictions have

moved to fully electronic yet because it is like I say, for lack of a better

word sort of a stuffy environment for this idea of notices of court and this

kind of thing. I think most people

are also trying to change the system to increase efficiencies to the greatest

extent possible.

MS ROGERS:

Great, thank you very much.

Thank you for the information.

MR. STANLEY: No

problem.

CHAIR: Thank

you.

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am

not going back, but you will have to correct me, I am not sure what heading it

would be under. I know back in the

fall, I believe it was, that private counsel was hired to represent the HMP

employees. It was Jerome Kennedy.

I am

just wondering what heading that would have been under and how much.

Is that relationship concluded or has there been a payment made yet?

MR. NOBLE:

Yes, the file is concluded. I think

Erin Breen was retained as well. So

that would be in the earlier heading that we examined the $2.4 million.

That would be contained within that.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am specifically interested

to know how much Mr. Kennedy was paid, for obvious reasons.

MR. NOBLE:

I cannot recall off the top of my head.

It was not a significant amount, but it should be broken down in the list

that we are going to provide although, no, that is by law firm.

Do you know offhand?

MR. STANLEY:

I do not, but the total amount paid to Mr. Kennedy's firm last year was $3,600.

MR. A. PARSONS:

To Roebothan?

MR. STANLEY:

Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So they did not get paid

anything for the tobacco file last year?

MR. STANLEY:

I do not think so, no.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just as

a general policy thing, again I understand if I am correct, the individual who

is the employer retained Mr. Kennedy and then the relationship was struck where

the employee's fees would have been paid because he was employed by government.

I am

just wondering how that works. Are

all government employees entitled to private counsel of their choice for

incidents occurred during employment?

MR. NOBLE:

In this particular case, the employee in question retained Mr. Kennedy directly,

personally, and we agreed to underwrite the account, underwrite his billings.

In that case, the employee was a member of the bargaining unit, a

correctional officer, and there was an obligation under the collective agreement

to provide him with counsel.

Similarly, an employee was in the management ranks and we extended the same

benefit, if you would, to the management employee who, of his own accord,

retained Erin Breen.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I just wonder: Does that go

outside to other departments, through other collective bargaining agreements?

I am just wondering if somebody in Transportation and Works has an

incident

MR. NOBLE: We

have actually. Last year, legal

advice was extended to various officials in Transportation and Works arising out

of a couple of occupational health and safety investigations where there were

fatalities. They were entitled to

choose counsel to provide some initial representation to them.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. NOBLE: It

is a very rare occurrence, as you can appreciate.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes. So those matters, that

specific case, those are

over?

MR. NOBLE: Yes.

In relation to the HMP

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR. NOBLE: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Under 2.1.03 and 2.1.04, the ones Gerry just did, Support

Enforcement and Family Justice Services, under Salaries, would both increases be

from the 3 per cent and step? There

are no new positions or anything like that, it is just

MR. KING:

Salaries you said.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Salaries, yes.

MR. KING: Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am going to move forward to 2.2.01, Criminal Law.

Under the Salaries

section there is an increase there.

Is that the same thing? Has

there been a new Crown Attorney or is that increases, step, whatever?

MR. F. COLLINS:

The breakdown there, from budget to revised, we were able to save $146,000 as a

result in delays in filling vacant positions last year.

The budget increase is primarily the result of salary increases and

adjustments.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Just there under Transportation and Communications, there

is a little jump there from what was budgeted last year which is the same as

this year. There was $375,000

spent. Was that just an

accumulative thing or was there what would make that up?

MR. F. COLLINS:

Some of that came from additional travel for Labrador circuit courts.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay. This covers off Public

Prosecutions for Crown Attorneys, so it is pretty much status quo in terms of

the number of Crown Attorneys.

I understand the Crown Attorney's Office is overseeing the

case with the RNC out in Corner Brook.

Has there been any allotment?

Will that cost us any more to have that?

What is the status of that?

MR. F. COLLINS:

I do not think so. Donovan, do you

want to respond to that?

MR. MOLLOY:

There was some delay in receiving the file from the RNC because, of course, as

part of our review we would want all of the officers' testimony at the initial

trial transcribed. The court will

not transcribe anything unless there is an appeal.

They just completed that and the file was received at my office on Friday

of last week. Work will commence as

soon as possible.

There should be no additional cost.

It will be done in-house, most likely by me.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

Any timeline on when you expect your office to have that

MR. MOLLOY: The

DPP's office is extremely busy. We

are supervising all of the major cases throughout the Province.

So it will be done as quickly as possible, but I suspect it will be at

least sixty days for sure.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, thank you.

I will move forward to Legal Aid, 2.3.01.

Is there any change in the number of positons in Legal Aid?

Is that still the same?

MR. F. COLLINS:

In this year's budget, the second phase of the recommendations, we are hiring

three additional solicitors for Legal Aid.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Three solicitors. Where will they

be where are the positions?

MR. F. COLLINS:

One is Grand Falls, one is

Stephenville, and one is St. John's.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Would this be the heading

for instance, if people are entitled to private counsel of their choice

depending on the offence, is this where this heading falls under, the amount

spent on private counsel?

MR. STANLEY:

The instances where the Attorney General is required to provide private counsel

to people actually occurs outside the Legal Aid funding.

It is actually back in that Professional Services budget again under

civil division. That budget is also

used to pay for AG appointed counsel.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Are you

able to provide a list of people, I guess that breakdown of outside counsel for

the last year and the cost?

MR. STANLEY:

Well, the names of the outside firms that would have been appointed would be in

the list of the total expenditures.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

believe there was an increase in the tariff for private solicitors.

I think it went from what was it?

MR. STANLEY:

It went from a maximum of $60 an hour to the plan in the budget is for $135.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Has

there been any analysis done based on the last number of years' trend toward

what you think the increase will be for this year and years forward?

You have a general idea. It

is going to change every year, but you have a general idea of what that cost is

and now you know the rate is increased.

Do we know what that figure might be or an estimate?

MR. STANLEY:

The budget increase for Legal Aid for that, we provided them with an extra, I

think it was $450,000 in the budget this year to cover off what we expect to be

based on past years, what we are projecting to be their increase in cost as a

rate of increasing the tariff rate.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

just looking at the Revenue Federal line under this heading.

It is pretty big changes in the numbers there.

Can somebody explain that to me?

I do not know what that means.

MR. F. COLLINS:

I will get Debbie to explain

that in a minute. Before we put

significant monies into Legal Aid last year, the Legal Aid administrative team

had a lot of challenges trying to keep their audits up to date.

The federal government owes us $2 million a year for Legal Aid and

because the audits were not up to date for previous years, we were back owed

significant amounts of money.

With

the investment of Legal Aid, especially appointing a new Director of Legal

Services last year, we are now able to get all the audits up to date.

So we are now in a positon where we are able to bill the federal

government and get all of our money that is owed to us.

Debbie

can probably take that a little bit further.

MS DUNPHY: Sure.

Received the past fiscal year were actually claims from

four prior fiscal years. We have

increased it for this current year as well because there are still two claims

outstanding, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

We will be caught up this year.

As the minister indicated, it has been due to the amount of

work put in by the team down at Legal Aid to get these outstanding claims

resolved.

MR. A. PARSONS:

You say there was a new positon added to help with that.

Did I mishear that?

MR. F. COLLINS:

One of the positons added last year was an extra Director of Legal Services.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS:

In addition to that, we also hired, under the first phase of the

recommendations, I think it was four legal assistants.

There is a new board also now appointed.

The whole administrative structure has improved

significantly. As a result of that,

we are able to take care of the backlog in audits and so on, which puts us in a

much better position.

MR. A. PARSONS:

If Gerry will just indulge me, I have one last question on that.

You annually get the $2 million.

So it is not more money, it is just different years based on that.

That has not increased. It

is just that you are getting more because you are caught up.

MR. F. COLLINS:

Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank

you, Andrew.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

The new tariff regime, when does that come into effect for

private counsel?

MR. STANLEY:

The new tariff regime; we are expecting to get it in place in the next couple of

months. It requires an amendment to

the regs to bring into effect. So

we have not quite got that done yet, but it is something we are working on right

now.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

So any private counsel, currently, will still be operating

under the current rates?

MR. STANLEY:

Yes. I do not think we are

intending to make it retroactive.

It will just be under the current rates until we get that done, yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

What will that involve?

MR. STANLEY:

I am sorry?

MS ROGERS:

What will it involve in

order to get to that point to be able to enact the new rates?

MR. STANLEY:

The rates are set out in a

schedule to the Legal Aid Regulations.

So what we have to do is just revise that schedule.

We are going to change the rates and a little bit of the structure of how

they are calculated because the structure is actually a little obscure right now

in how it works out. Then we just

need the new regulations to be passed by Cabinet and

MS ROGERS:

So it is not a legislative

change. It is just a regulatory

MR. STANLEY:

The rates are not a legislative change, no.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Commissions of Inquiry, 2.3.02, so we are anticipating - Subhead 2.3.03, Office

of the Chief Medical Examiner; there was a bump there from the 2014-2015 budget

revised to $462,000. That was a

$63,000 increase. What was that

for?

MR. KING:

That was extra

administrative assistants for the ME's office.

MS ROGERS:

Are those permanent

positions?

MR. KING:

No, it was temporary support

that we put in this year, but the budget, you will notice for the next fiscal,

reflects permanent assistants there.

MS ROGERS:

How many positions would

those be?

MR. NOBLE:

It unfortunately has been a busy office.

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. NOBLE:

To reflect that, there have been some temporary administrative assistants

required in his office. So we are

kind of rightsizing the budget to reflect that.

well, there is a portion of money here for a second part-time medical examiner.

While he has had that for some time we are actually, as I say,

rightsizing the budget to reflect that expenditure.

MS ROGERS:

Great, thank you.

The

extra administrative support; will that be a permanent position this year?

MR. NOBLE:

Not at this time, no.

MS ROGERS:

It is a full-time

contractual?

MR. NOBLE:

Yes, temporary.

MS ROGERS:

Temporary.

MR. NOBLE:

For the year.

MS ROGERS:

One?

MR. NOBLE:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

subhead 2.3.04, Human Rights, we had $689,000 in 2014-2015 budgeted.

The revised amount there was a drop by $135,000.

MR. KING:

That is correct

MS ROGERS:

What was cut?

Why was that amount not spent?

MR. KING:

There were some delays in

filling vacancies over there.

MS ROGERS:

What vacancies were there?

Do you know?

MR. NOBLE:

There was a solicitor's position and an intake worker.

MS ROGERS:

Have those positions been

filled?

MR. NOBLE:

Certainly one has for sure.

I believe the other one is very close to being filled.

I will ask Todd Stanley to provide the details.

MR. STANLEY:

The intake worker position is, I think, on the verge of being filled, if not has

been filled in the last week or so.

MS ROGERS:

The solicitor's position?

MR. STANLEY:

The solicitor's positon was filled, I believe, in January.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

there a delay or a wait-list for cases at the Human Rights Commission now?

Do you know from intake to actually how are they doing?

MR. STANLEY:

The Commission had some challenges in moving files through their system.

I do not have any numbers on a wait-list or the number of files in place

or anything, but they have been working to change their processes to move to far

more of a front-loaded, I should say, mediation service, as opposed to a formal

investigation process. They are

moving that way in an attempt to try to eliminate as many files as they can

upfront and get them resolved more quickly.

So it

has been recognized that there is a problem with the amount of time that the

files are taking at the Human Rights Commission.

They are actively involved in trying to change their processes to get

more people through and satisfied with the resolution more quickly.

MS ROGERS:

How come there is such a

backlog?

MR. STANLEY:

The backlog is partially a result of their process.

The Legal Aid Commission's traditional processes have been very

investigation oriented, a complaint comes through and there is a full

investigation and report done.

That

process is just time consuming. As

you can see, we added more resources last year to help, but it has been part of

a partially processed piece. The

idea of how they have been doing files they have gone back and looked at,

because they realize that it would be more beneficial to everybody if files

could be mediated between people more quickly.

That is where they are trying to move to now to resolve that problem.

MS ROGERS:

They would do the mediation

themselves?

MR. STANLEY:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Then if they cannot come to

an agreement

MR. STANLEY:

If the mediation fails, then it would go through their more formal process.

That is their hope, to move to a model like that.

MS ROGERS:

Do you have any concern at

all that they are understaffed, under resourced, that it would affect outcomes

in cases and our human rights legislation?

I do

not mean to put you on the spot there.

I am hearing that there is a problem from people needing to hear back.

MR. KING:

I think no matter what part

of our department or any department you deal with, you are going to hear

complaints from people. Some are

legitimate and some are not. That

is just the nature of what we do, but our focus in the department is to try to

maximize the resources that we have, the budget allocation and the human

resources. We are confident and

comfortable that what we have at that Human Rights Commission is able to do the

job and meet the legislative requirements.

We will continue to make sure that we focus on that.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Office

of the Public Trustee, we see an increase in the Salaries line there.

Can you explain that?

MR. KING:

Sure.

There are two additional temporary estate officer positions, as well as

salary increases and step increases.

MS ROGERS:

Two additional

MR. KING:

Estate officer positions.

MS ROGERS:

They are temporary?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Is it because there is a big

lump this year, or is the amount to work that they are dealing with going to be

the same next year? How come they

are temporary?

MR. KING:

It is not unusual for

government, when we put new positions in, to make them temporary until we see

how they work out and how the workload works out.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Transportation and Communications, there is a bit of an increase there for

2015-2016.

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Anything in particular?

MR. KING:

That is a result of two new

employees going to work. So we

added appropriate fees in appropriate headings to support them.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

Purchased Services, an increase there, is there any specific reason for that?

MR. KING:

That is for professional

audit fees.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Revenue

Provincial, can you explain that a little bit?

We see a variance from the budgeted amount for 2014 then the revised for

this year.

MR. KING:

The revenue there from the

Office of the Public Trustee, obviously, is where they settle estates.

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. KING:

We project from year to year

it is hard to know because there are years when we can settle a lot of

accounts and realize a lot of revenue.

So last year we projected $320,000.

They actually settled enough accounts that it came in at $682,400.

The

estimate for next year, again trying to be modest based on historic trends, so

we put it at $400,000.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am going to stay on the

Public Trustee while we are there.

The two new positons are temporary.

What are they six month or

MR. KING:

No, a full year.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Full year, okay.

It is

my understanding that one of the issues with these jobs is that there is

learning curve associated with it and that you need some time in the job to

really become effective at it. So

is there some thought to, if these people do not stick around it is one thing

to come in and not like it if we do not keep them on, we are not getting the

full value out of it because there is a learning process to this type of work?

MR. KING:

Our goal, as a department,

would be to make those positions permanent, but given the fiscal climate we are

in this year, we are very lucky to have secured two new positons in light of

what is happening elsewhere.

We will

certainly advocate, as we did in the budget process, to make these positions

permanent, recognizing the value of what they do because when they settle

estates there are two positive outcomes.

Obviously, there is some revenue generated for government, but there are

also families out there who finally get to put things behind them and move

forward.

recognize the value of the positions.

It would be our goal to secure those on a permanent basis.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am fully in agreement with

that. In fact, I have tried to

advocate for that as well because it is one of the few areas where it is a

revenue generator and I think there is money there to be made.

In fact, I think there is more there to be made because I do get the

complaints even now. I used to get

them before and I get them now where people are not happy with the length of

time that it takes to get an estate done.

MR. KING:

Sure.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So anything that is going to

increase that and bring more money in, and I think it comes back to the point

the AG made and maybe this could be applied to Fines Administration.

I know I am meandering off here, but under Legal Aid you brought in a

director and you have those audits done, that is more revenue.

This is an area where there are new jobs so hopefully there is more

revenue. Maybe there is some

thought to in certain areas increased employees means they will actually make up

what they take back in.

I have

to go back, just for a second, 2.3.03, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

I think Gerry asked about this.

Again, this is the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, which is

responsible to the minister including the reporting of all deaths.

I am

going to go to the case that we dealt with recently, Mr. Dunphy.

Have you received any indication from the CME when he should expect to

report to you on that?

MR. KING:

No, I have not.

I have not had any communication whatsoever.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Is it one of those

situations where you would check in after a period of time to see the timeline

MR. KING:

In all the time I have spent

in Justice, I have never had a conversation with the ME around that.

I always just wait and let the report take its course until he is ready

to submit it.

MR. A. PARSONS:

You have not gone to him and

he has not gone to you.

MR. KING:

No.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

going to move forward just under 2.3.06, Electoral Districts Boundaries

Commission. I am going to make a

wild guess that the increases in that have to do with this bill that we debated.

Is that a fair guess?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am not going to belabour that.

That is something that will come up again at another junction.

Given the time is starting to go, I want to move forward.

So I may come back to that.

I am

going to move forward to 3.1.01, Supreme Court.

Under the Salaries

section there is an increase.

Is this positions or step/salary?

MR. KING:

It is a combination of all.

There is an additional position for the Court of Appeal and also step

increases and the 3 per cent salary increase.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What is the position at the

Court of Appeal?

MR. KING:

Court Officer.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Court Officer.

Okay.

Under

Purchased Services there was a significant amount budgeted last year and just

about half of it spent, and that is what the budget is this year.

What is the change there and what you do not need?

It looks like it is ongoing.

MR. KING:

There were initial plans to

have an outsourcing of transcription services.

That did not go ahead. So

there is a savings of $152,600 there.

The one-time money that we had put in there of $150,000 for that project,

we now removed that in the out years.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So that is still done

in-house. That is the plan.

Is this

where you would find maybe I am in the wrong spot.

The courthouse out in Corner Brook, which I guess is the Supreme

Court/Provincial Court, where would the budget be for the repairs to that

building? We hear about different

issues with the building whether it is the roof or whatnot.

MR. KING:

Heather.

MS JACOBS:

Usually that money is found in Transportation and Works.

They would give us an allocation of money for different areas.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Was there any money spent on

repairs or renovations to that building last year?

MS JACOBS:

On the courthouse in Corner Brook or St. John's?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Corner Brook.

MS JACOBS:

In Corner Brook I believe there was because they were doing the roof, but I am

not sure the exact figure.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Redoing the roof?

MS JACOBS:

Well, fixing it.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now you know where I am

going.

We have

heard a lot about that roof. It is

a new building and the roof continually has issues.

So my question is simple, and I know this might be outside, this might be

Transportation: what is going on?

That might be a question better suited for the minister.

I have heard rumours of what is wrong.

I guess it is a slate roof?

MS JACOBS:

The slate has been removed as far, as I understand, and they were putting the

shingles on.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I guess

maybe what we could do because you might not have it we will need to

send a letter to the minister saying: what was spent on the new courthouse to

repair it this year?

MR. KING: The

Minister of TW would (inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS:

That would be Transportation and Works.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, that is fair.

MR. KING: To be

frank, we do not engage in any of that kind of discussion.

If we have an issue, TW manages the building.

Our role is simply the provision of justice services in the building.

We would not even necessarily be briefed on what they are doing out

there.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Would TW have paid there was a renaming ceremony, so now it is the Danny

Williams Building. There was a

ceremony out there, there is a new sign up on the side, and there would have

been pictures and all that. Who

would have paid for the ceremony?

MR. KING:

I am not sure.

Paid for it; what do you mean?

Like the plaque and that you mean?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Well, there was a ceremony

in the courthouse, so there would have been the little do, and there is the

picture. There is all that stuff

that goes into it for the renaming and the name on the side.

I am just wondering what the cost was to rename that building the Danny

Williams Building.

MR. KING:

The actual sign was TW.

MR. A. PARSONS:

TW, okay.

How about everything else?

There was a ceremony. I am assuming

there is a cost associated.

MR. KING:

I imagine it was us.

We can check it out for you, if you want.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

So you are wondering if we

paid for refreshments, or music, or microphones.

Is that what you are getting at, those kinds of costs?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, there would have been a

cost, like any ceremony for anything.

I think there may have been a painting commissioned and stuff like that.

I would just like to have an idea of what that cost.

MR. KING:

Okay, we will follow up for

you.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Maybe I

am wrong, but I asked earlier about the two new courthouses.

One is in Stephenville, which would fall under provincial.

The new courthouse that was announced for St. John's back in the fall,

the planning, there was an RFP, I believe, that was supposed to be issued.

This was on November 6th.

Where are we on that? Did that RFP

go out?

MR. KING:

I am just checking.

The section, actually, you are referring to would be 3.3.01.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Subhead 3.3.01.

MR. KING:

Court Facilities.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Oh yes, okay.

Maybe what I will

do is wait until I get there, which could be shortly.

No, I am going to go right there and I might have to come back to

provincial. There was the

announcement down in courtroom 7 on the new courthouse in St. John's.

My understanding is that an RFP was to be issued in what was in the

coming weeks.

MR. KING:

Yes.

The RFP was issued and we, obviously, received feedback from that.

Government has taken a decision at this point that we are going to delay

moving forward with anything further in that process.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I understand that the wording on it is: paused until fiscal situation

improves. I might be going outside

of what we are supposed to be doing here.

I know right now it is May 11 or 12 and this was November 6 and we get

into the price of oil.

I appreciate the

fact that you were not the minister at the time, that it was the previous

minister and the Premier, but wouldn't there have been some thought that the

situation was the same back then?

The price of oil was not that different back then than it is now.

There was a big announcement made and now it is paused.

MR. KING:

It is probably an appropriate question

for the Premier in Question Period.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Fair enough.

Right now, that

courthouse is effectively on hold for an indefinite period and there is no

planning. There is no money being

spent this year from planning, no money allotted.

MR. KING:

No.

The only money that might be spent actually no, there is no money in

there. If there were any

outstanding bills we would settle that, but in this case there is not.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I apologize, Gerry.

What was spent for that to date on that courthouse, whether it was the

announcement or the putting out of an RFP?

It probably was a minimal amount.

MR. KING:

Yes.

There would have only been internal costs in terms of the paperwork

because we did not proceed with the RFP at all.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Excellent.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Is it the wish of this Committee to

take a five minute break for the people downstairs.

MS ROGERS:

Sure.

MR. KING:

Grab a quick coffee.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Not a problem.

CHAIR:

Okay, we will pause for five minutes or

so.

Thank you.

Recess

MR. KING:

Are we good to go?

Is your mic on?

MS ROGERS:

Not yet.

MR. KING:

A mic for Gerry?

Somebody is watching.

MS ROGERS:

There we go.

Thank you very, very much.

For

Provincial Court

MR. F. COLLINS:

Gerry, the reason why we

request that is some of the people here might have a hearing problem in the back

(inaudible).

MS ROGERS:

It would not be you.

I know you are fine there.

So am I, Felix; can hear a pin drop.

Subhead

3.2.01, Provincial Court, we have a bump of over $500,000.

Can you tell us what that is?

MR. KING:

Sure.

It is a combination of salary increases, step increases.

As well there is salary there for a new judge for Clarenville.

There is salary for a court officer in Harbour Grace, a court officer in

St. John's, and a transcriptionist for St. John's.

MS ROGERS:

Those are permanent

positions?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Has a judge been chosen yet

for Clarenville?

MR. KING:

No.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

Are you interested?

MS ROGERS:

I cannot imagine a more

difficult job, a job more difficult than yours Darin, as a judge.

I just cannot imagine it.

Thank God there are people willing to do it.

MR. KING:

There is a process, in all

seriousness, outside of government.

The Chief Judge of the Province initiates a process, solicits applications for

interested parties and a short list is developed and forwarded to the minister.

The minister then would select the person, but you select it from a list

provided, just to clarify, by the Provincial Court judge.

So, you need to talk to him.

MS ROGERS:

It is a difficult job of

being a judge and you have the difficult job of choosing who that judge might

be, in the best interest of the people.

MR. KING:

Correct.

MS ROGERS:

Yes, people who do that

work, thank God there are those who are willing to do it.

MR. F. COLLINS:

For your information, Gerry,

the provincial judges who have been appointed in the last seven or eight years,

two-thirds of them at least have been women.

MS ROGERS:

I have been counting, Felix,

thank you. That is good news.

I think that you should take some credit for that.

That is great, but I do count.

Thank you very much.

I think

we can move on. There was talk of

drug court. Was that promised in

the last election? Is there any

talk of a drug court?

MR. KING:

Yes, there was a commitment

made in the last election, as part of our platform, to explore the

implementation of a drug court. We

have not followed through on that direction at this point in time.

We have been giving it careful consideration; but, as you would recognize

from the Budget, there are other issues that took priority for us in securing

funds for positions like the Provincial Court and the Domestic Violence Court.

Given the climate we are in, fiscally, it is difficult to secure much

more than we did in the Budget for Justice and Public Safety.

MS ROGERS:

I was in Corner Brook

yesterday for the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and heard testimonies

from families who have adult children with severe and persistent mental health

issues, particularly adult children who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia

or bipolar, and this incredible suffering that these families are going through.

The

Mental Health Court, how is it doing here, and is there any way to be able to

extend its reach beyond St. John's?

MR. KING:

Do you want to speak to

that?

MR. NOBLE:

In relation to the operation

of the Mental Health Court here in St. John's, I am going to ask the Director of

Public Prosecutions to give us an update on that.

Then, the second part of the question, I think might be appropriate for

the minister to address.

Thanks.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

MR. MOLLOY:

I think the experiences are largely positive in the Mental Health Court and the

outcomes are positive as well. I do

not know if anybody has kept any data with respect to the recidivism rates, but

it does require a lot of intensive work.

So it is not easily shipped to any other jurisdiction, because it

requires a certain level of community supports, health care providers and things

like that. We have always had the

sense that it was going well, but I am unable to comment sort of on its

transportability to another location.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

Any

thought of anything in other parts of the Province?

We know that our correctional facilities have become our new asylums and

that the majority of our inmates have probably persistent mental health issues

or addictions issues. Do you have

any thoughts?

MR. KING:

Yes, we have certainly given

it thought, but we have no plans at this point to move forward.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

The

Mental Health Court is not in a pilot position is it; it is a permanent court?

MR. KING:

That is correct.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

The

resourcing of the court, in terms of its caseload, are there wait-lists?

Are they able to keep up with the demand?

MR. MOLLOY:

I guess anecdotally I have always been of the understanding because there are

no extra funds involved for the Mental Health Court.

If I recall correctly, that might have been a project of Judge Orr

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. MOLLOY:

who initiated it. We worked

together for some time to come up with the framework and the parameters, but we

have never devoted extra resources to it in the sense of hiring a prosecutor

specifically for Mental Health Court.

I have not heard any issues with respect to resources, or more

particularly to your question, any concerns about lack of resources.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

So then

folks who have persistent addictions issues, are they able to go through the

Mental Health Court if they do not have a specific mental health diagnosis or

MR. MOLLOY:

It has been some time since I read the protocols, but my recollection is that

absent a also having a mental illness that you would not be eligible if you

did not have a persistent and continuing mental illness that was seen as

contributing to your difficulties in sort of living in the community.

often see those in conjunction with drug treatment.

So someone who has a mental health issue and a drug addiction issue, I am

assuming, would get help for both as part of their treatment paradigm.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you very much.

Police

Protection, 4.1.01, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, under Salaries we see an

increase of $2 million. Can you

tell us a bit about that?

CHAIR:

Subhead 4.1.01.

MR. KING:

Subhead 4.1.01.

MS ROGERS:

Yes, and an increase of $2

million.

MR. F. COLLINS:

The RNC?

CHAIR:

The RNC.

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. KING:

The salary increases can be

attributed to increased budget for overtime, as well as the creation of ten new

officer positions.

MS ROGERS:

How much of it is overtime?

MR. KING:

I do not have the breakdown

here for that. Do you have it?

OFFICIAL:

A million dollars.

MR. KING:

It is $1 million.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, $1 million in

overtime. That is projected for

2015-2016?

MR. KING:

Correct.

MS DUNPHY: There

is an increase of $1 million

MS ROGERS:

Right.

MS DUNPHY:

added to the budget for overtime.

MS ROGERS: For

overtime. Why is that?

MR. NOBLE:

There has been an increase in violent crimes in St. John's, the Northeast

Avalon, particularly shootings. For

the most part, this has been largely directed by rival gang members towards each

other. Obviously there is a huge

public safety concern and risk associated with that.

Each one of these shootings has to be investigated by a major case

management team.

These are complex investigations utilizing a whole range of

investigative techniques. Frankly,

they are very expensive investigations, and most of that kind of work is done

outside of the normal day-to-day business hours that most of us maintain.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, I guess you have to use the specifically trained officers to do that work?

MR. NOBLE: Yes,

these are the largely specialized positions.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. NOBLE:

There is a lot of surveillance involved in these kinds of investigations.

The surveillance can run for many, many hours in the course of any given

day.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

CHAIR: Okay,

Gerry, your time has expired, if you do not mind.

Or Andrew, are you

MS ROGERS: Can

I just ask about the ten new officers?

The ten new officers positions; are those general officers

or are they for a specific unit?

MR. KING: No.

Well they all come in as recruits, of course.

MS ROGERS:

Right.

MR. KING: Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, so it is not ten new specialized positions?

MR. KING:

Normally new recruits come in as patrol.

MS ROGERS:

Right.

MR. KING: From

there, they develop a specialty or do further training.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank

you.

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I am going to go back to 3.2.01, Provincial Court, just for

a second. Gerry brought this up.

It is more a general question.

I am going to imagine that Judge Pike is happy that there is a new

position. Is there any timeline on

when this judge will be appointed and placed in the Clarenville courtroom?

MR. KING: Well

I have given direction for him to proceed.

I gave the direction several weeks ago so it is in his court now.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. KING: We

will fill it as soon as we get a list submitted to us.

The chief judge has to go

through the process, I

guess, of soliciting resumes, expressions of interest, and so on.

You are probably more familiar with that process than I am.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am sure there is a list

that has been sitting there and they will go through the listing.

MR. KING:

Yes.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am just wondering I looked at last year's Estimates.

Back then Jim Bennett was the critic.

He asked how many judges were there and the answer was twenty-three.

Jim asked the question: Is that a full complement?

The answer was yes. I am

just wondering that was last year in the Estimates.

Now there is a new judge appointed so it was not a full complement last

year? Was this sort of not planned?

MR. KING:

At the time, twenty-three

was the full complement. There was

some consideration, some direction taken actually that we thought there would be

an elimination of one position, not from Clarenville, but from another part of

the Province. Based on historical

patterns of busyness in the courthouse shall I say or put it that way, it looked

like we could remove a position upon a retirement.

That did not happen.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

We did not want to be

perceived to be messing with the judicial system, so we simply put the money

back to reinstate the judge in Clarenville and not take the one out of the other

part of the Province that we were considering.

MR. A. PARSONS:

This retirement that was

thought would happen, is that not on?

When is the next judge scheduled to retire?

Are there any timelines on that?

MR. KING:

First of all, that one did

not happen. You are right.

I think that individual could retire at any point in time.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

If that retirement did happen the plan is to fill that position now?

MR. KING:

Correct.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

This is more of a general question, it is about policy, but it does fall

under Provincial Court. It was not

that long ago that Chief Judge Pike had an

article in the paper about changing

procedure at the courtroom when it came to first appearances; everybody would

show up and then everything would be pushed back a year.

I do

not know if the AG wants to talk about this or even the Director of Public

Prosecutions. Is that going to

happen? I think it is a case of all

first appearances will be set over for a year.

There was a story on that.

That is of interest to the entire legal community and to people who are charged.

I am just wondering if that is going to happen.

MR. MOLLOY:

The short answer, Mr. Parsons, is that nobody knows.

The idea was brought up about two years ago by Chief Judge Pike in a

meeting of the criminal justice committee which was formed after the Lamer

Inquiry. Prosecutions, PPSC, and

Legal Aid wrote a joint letter raising concerns about the plan.

My understanding is the RCMP, RNC, and maybe some other stakeholders sent

a similar letter with concerns about the plan.

advised that if the court was not prepared to consider any other plan that we

would work with them to make the best of it in the circumstances.

We never received any reply to those entreaties.

In fact, after the recent meetings some of the internal stakeholder

meetings that we had were cancelled by the court.

We are

at a point now where we have no communication from the court as to whether or

not they intend to go with that plan or any other plan.

That is something you would have to address to Chief Judge Pike.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, I appreciate that,

thank you.

That

may be something that will be brought up because that would be a significant

change to procedure. I am sure

there will be some concerns by different counsel on both sides as to how that

would all work. I appreciate your

answer there.

I am

going to go back to Court Facilities, 3.3.01.

I asked about the St. John's court.

I want to go to the Stephenville court that was announced last year.

That one, I believe there was an RFP on.

I think there was a company and I cannot remember the acronym, KMA or

something.

Can

somebody give me an update on the status of where I assume the Stephenville

court is on pause. I am just

wondering about the status of that court.

MR. NOBLE:

Yes, the RFP was actually awarded.

I do believe there was a functional program provided, or some options around

various functional programs, similar to the St. John's courthouse complex.

That project is being deferred.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I think $70,000 was the RFP?

MR. NOBLE:

Yes, I do not recall off the top of my head what it was.

It sounds about right.

MR. A. PARSONS:

The contract was awarded.

The company got it. They

have provided the plan to government so they have fulfilled their end of the

bargain.

MR. NOBLE:

Correct.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now we just sit and wait,

and hopefully the plan is still useful whenever that

MR. NOBLE:

Correct.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, until oil goes back

up.

OFFICIAL:

Or we strike gold.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Or we strike gold.

Okay.

So that

is the two courthouses. Are there

any other renovations to courthouses, court facilities that I am not aware of?

MR. NOBLE:

Security enhancements to the Trial Division, Supreme Court, on Duckworth Street.

Last year those enhancements were undertaken in the courthouse in Corner

Brook and the Family Division on King's Bridge Road.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

Thank you.

I am

going to skip forward to 4.1.02, RCMP.

Under Professional Services there is a significant increase there.

I am wondering does that relate to the detachments, I believe, that were

announced in the Budget. There were

three, I think. Can you give me a

breakdown of that?

MR. KING:

Sure.

It basically covers $3.5 million for their major capital program and $1.4

million for current service level adjustments.

That relates to cadets, recruiting, and other costs.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So when you say service

level adjustments and there is more money, does that mean we have more RCMP?

MR. KING:

No.

Debbie, maybe you can give us some more

detail on that.

MS DUNPHY:

They are costs related to general increases for EI and CPP that the employer has

to pay. Also, there was a change in

how the Province is billed for the cadets recruiting and police dog services.

There

are some other general increases as well relating to the service delivery of the

provincial prisoners; some increases for biology casework; and, of course, as

you mentioned, the major capital.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

When

you say new detachments because I am not familiar that is actual new

detachments. Is there a detachment

there, the three new places?

MR. KING:

In some cases it is

replacing an old facility, so it already exists.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, so it is actual

physical construction of new

MR. KING:

Yes, in other cases, it is

remodeling and refurbishing what is there.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

going to move forward to 4.1.04, that is Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

Capital. I am just wondering, there

is a significant decrease there in Purchased Services.

Did that have to do with the fact that the new building is done so there

is less needed? It has gone from

$9.7 million down to $2.3 million.

MR. KING:

That is correct.

That is related to cash flow for the renovations.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So the Purchased Services

for and this falls under appropriations for planning and construction and

extension and redevelopment. So

given that is a new building, that $2.3 million, how will that be spent?

MS JACOBS:

It is to complete the construction of the annex.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I do

not want to start a new heading, so I will go right back to Gerry's side.

CHAIR:

Thank you, Andrew.

Gerry.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Andrew.

Subhead

4.1.01, under Salaries, Purchased Services, we see an increase of $400,000.

What is that for?

MR. KING:

Subhead 4.1.01, RNC?

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. KING:

There are a number of things

build in there: $423,000 is to address current operating pressures; $500,000

towards vehicle maintenance.

MS ROGERS:

What does that mean, to

address operating pressures?

OFFICIAL:

Debbie, could you provide the details on that for me, please?

MS DUNPHY: Sure.

The vehicle fleet for the RNC obviously takes a toll.

They are pretty much running twenty-four hours a day.

We have had some struggles in recent years with the budget that has been

provided for vehicle maintenance.

So the main increase here relates to additional funding to assist with keeping

the vehicles in top-running condition.

There was also some additional funding for the AVLs, the

Automatic Vehicle Locators, that were provided last year.

There is an annual fee so we have provided some funding for that.

This is offset by last year we added in $125,000 for

expenses relating to mental health initiatives.

We had funding from the Bell Pioneers.

That was only a one-time thing.

That has been removed and that is why the difference of $423,000.

MS ROGERS: The

$423,000 operating pressures is about vehicles as well?

MS DUNPHY: That

is vehicle maintenance, yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

What was the mental health initiative?

MS DUNPHY: I do

not have the details, but the Bell Pioneers provided $250,000 over two years.

It is basically for mental health first aid.

The cost was to train the first responders, as well to be trainers to

provide it to employees and other officers to assist them in identifying mental

health issues.

MS ROGERS: Do

we know how many officers were trained?

MS DUNPHY: I do

not have that information.

MS ROGERS:

Okay. It is a great program.

It is really a great program.

What is happening with the

RNC, RCMP joint

MR. KING:

Combined forces.

MS ROGERS:

anti-violence thing for women.

I had it written down there somewhere intimate partners program.

MR. KING:

Can you be more specific?

What do you mean when you say what is happening?

MS ROGERS:

That was announced last year

as the initiative instead of the Family Violence Intervention Court so I am just

wondering I had it written down here.

Where did I put it? Okay,

here we go. What is the plan for

the joint RCMP, RNC project on intimate partner violence, how about that?

MR. KING:

Sure.

It is a very vague question to say: What is the plan?

We announced last year we are putting more human resources into that

model of providing supports, and we have done that.

Both forces are working towards that end to move that initiative forward,

to train their officers, and spread the expertise throughout the force.

MS ROGERS:

Is the main focus of this

project to train officers?

MR. KING:

I think there is a dual

focus there. There is a

professional development aspect to it, obviously, for officers in both forces

and reaching out to clients. As we

have debated many times in the House, the difference between that and the

Domestic Violence Court is the Domestic Violence Court is designed to try and

intervene after something happens.

This one is intended to locate possible perpetrators of a domestic crime and

intervene beforehand.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you very much.

Corrections and Community Services, 4.2.01.

CHAIR:

Subhead 4.2.01.

MS ROGERS:

On Salaries in 2014-2015 the

budget was $25.8 million. The

revised was $28 million. Can you

tell me what that revision was for?

MR. KING:

Sure.

There are actually a variety of factors.

There is increased overtime and increased shift differential costs.

We had some accommodations for employees with medical and other

challenges that we had to accommodate.

We also had a high number of retirements, which required severance and

leave payout, just about a half million dollars, and there were signing bonus

payouts for correctional officers of a little over $300,000.

MS ROGERS:

So have we lost positions

then of correction officers?

MR. KING:

No.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

Can we

have a list of overtime? How much

money specifically was spent on overtime and in which facilities?

MR. KING:

For all corrections in the

Province?

MS ROGERS:

For the correctional

facilities.

MR. KING:

Sure.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

Supplies, there is an increase of a little over $100,000.

MR. KING:

Sorry, an increase of a

little over $100,000?

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. KING:

That is to provide for new

clothing for inmates.

MS ROGERS:

Oh, the uniforms.

Where will the uniforms be used?

Is it just HMP or is it in all the correctional facilities?

MR. NOBLE:

Right now it is just HMP.

MS ROGERS:

Just HMP.

Have the other facilities been asking for it?

MR. NOBLE:

No. As a matter of fact, there has

not been a single seizure of contraband in any other facility in the Province,

other than HMP.

MS ROGERS:

Even storing people's

clothes and going through it has been hard, hey?

MR. NOBLE:

For HMP?

MS ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. NOBLE:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, so just HMP.

Thank you.

Purchased Services, we saw an increase in 2014-2015 from the original amount

budgeted.

MR. KING:

Yes, that is for the

increased catering cost contracts.

MS ROGERS:

For any particular facility

MR. KING:

All facilities.

To be clear, there are also some camera upgrades as well for facilities.

They are a small amount but

MS ROGERS:

Surveillance cameras?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thank you.

We see

a bit of a bump in revenue from the Revenue Federal.

Have we been housing more federal inmates?

MR. KING:

That is a result of the

victims fines surcharge was higher than we budgeted.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

MR. KING:

Sorry, am I on the wrong

one? Revenue Federal, sorry,

Gerry. That is a result of a

retroactive payment from the federal government for an adjustment to the per

diems.

MS ROGERS:

Do we have an increase in

the number of federal inmates that we have?

MR. NOBLE:

We have an overall increase in both populations, provincial and federal.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Subhead

4.2.02, Youth Secure Custody. We

know that it was deemed that we no longer needed Whitbourne, that it was not

providing an efficient service, that there were very few youth that were

remanded to Whitbourne. So what is

the plan for it now?

MR. KING:

Maybe you could clarify I

am not sure who deemed that we no longer need it.

MS ROGERS:

It was the Whitbourne

facility here we go, I have it right here.

MR. KING:

That was not our party

policy. I am not sure where that

came from.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, so the minister had

not noted that the facility had outlived its usefulness because of declining

numbers of inmates.

MR. KING:

Yes, but there is a

difference between that statement and saying that it is no longer required.

The facility

MS ROGERS:

Okay, why don't we talk

about then has it outlived its usefulness because of the declining number of

inmates?

MR. KING:

What are you quoting there?

Just give me the background context?

MS ROGERS:

Ivan.

MR. MORGAN:

It was quoted from the minister two years ago.

MS ROGERS:

Oh, it was quoted from the

minister from two years ago, from our current minister

MR. MORGAN:

In Committee.

MS ROGERS:

in Committee.

MR. KING:

In Committee discussing the

cutbacks? I am just asking for the

context of the quote.

MS ROGERS:

Yes, I am going to get that

for you.

MR. MORGAN:

Discussing Whitbourne.

MS ROGERS:

Discussing Whitbourne.

MR. KING:

So, as I said then, I will

say again today, the facility as it was being staffed and run had outlived its

usefulness.

MS ROGERS:

I remember this conversation

now, yes.

MR. KING:

Right.

I never ever said that there was no need for the facility.

MS ROGERS:

Right.

MR. KING:

We absolutely have a need

for the facility, for a facility.

MS ROGERS:

That is right.

MR. KING:

I think the long-term plan

would be that we are probably going to try and find alternate arrangements for

Youth Secure Custody. We have a

huge facility out there now that is not even close to capacity.

Back to the discussion you raised there at the time, the reason for that

discussion was that we significantly reduced the staffing levels out there.

I mean, we were staffing at one point almost three staff for every single

youth that we had there.

MS ROGERS:

I know, yes.

So,

where are you at now with a plan of looking at an alternative to that facility?

MR. KING:

We are not actively planning

for a replacement of that facility at this point in time.

Within officials, I am sure it is constantly being discussed, as most

aspects of Justice would be. From

time to time they will bring things to my attention for discussion; but, from

government's perspective, we have more than enough to handle in Justice right

now.

This

year, we are back now with the new Domestic Violence Court.

We are looking at three locations.

That is a significant project to take on.

We have challenges now around some delayed infrastructure that we are

going to have to turn our attention to.

I suspect we will turn our attention back to that; but, as we speak,

today we are not focused on replacing that facility.

CHAIR:

Okay, Gerry, I have to stop

you there because you have gone into double overtime.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

Andrew.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Let's hope tonight does go

to double overtime.

I am

going to stick with Youth Secure Custody just for a second.

There has been no change in positions out there.

I assume that increase is benefits, salary, or whatever.

MR. KING:

Salary raises, that is

correct.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

How

many are currently in custody at that facility?

I know it may be hard on a day-to-day basis.

MR. NOBLE:

It typically ranges between ten and fourteen.

I think that would be the normal range.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, you mention the size

of it. What is the capacity?

How many could you house?

MR. NOBLE:

I think it is around sixty.

MR. KING:

Sixty or sixty-five,

something like that.

MR. F. COLLINS:

(inaudible) almost twenty

each.

MR. KING:

It is sixty.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

not sure, Gerry may have asked this.

If so, I apologize. Under

Professional Services it went from $491,000 budgeted to $351,000 spent and then

$301,000 budgeted this year. There

is a decrease there. What does that

account for?

MR. KING:

The $140,000 variance there

was a redistribution of funds to reflect our actual expenditures relating to the

intensive rehabilitative custody supervision.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Can I get a bit of a

clarification on that?

MR. KING:

Debbie will provide some

detail to you.

MS DUNPHY:

I am sorry, Andrew, I missed your question.

MR. A. PARSONS:

The $140,000 decrease in

Professional Services was for a reallocation of funds that had to do with

intensive rehabilitation, so I am just wondering how that

MS DUNPHY:

It is actually a program that is funded by the federal government.

To answer the second part of your question, that is why there was a

decrease. We had some increased

funding one time. The way, I guess,

the money is expended, some of it is on counselling but some of it may be to

purchase supplies, or to purchase textbooks.

It is kind of just an accounting exercise of moving it from Professional

Services up to Supplies, down to Professional, that sort of thing.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

going to go back up to 4.2.01, Adult Corrections.

I know there is $100,000 for the uniforms, which again is something that

I have mentioned in the past in meetings.

When is that program going to start?

When will you see the changeover?

MR. KING:

We can inquire for you

through HMP, but we do not know exactly what the timelines will be.

The money is appropriated so they are free to go

MR. A. PARSONS:

It is up to them.

MR. KING:

Yes.

We can get an update for you on that.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

I am

going to turn to 4.2.03, Correctional Facilities.

Obviously, the big question there is Her Majesty's.

We know that in November 2013 it was announced that it is going to be

proceeding and the initial design phase is well underway.

Can we

get a status update on that? It

does not look like there is any I do not know if there is any money planned

for it or how this all works. There

is $300,000 here under Purchased Services.

It looks like there was $1 million last year, $60,000 spent, and $300,000

this year.

MR. KING:

There is a little bit of

money left there to pay some outstanding bills that we have related to the

current work that has been done. There

is no new money allocated.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What is the current work

done?

MR. KING:

We are up to the design

stage, facility design.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So when you say up to the

design stage, has a design been presented to the department by the

MR. NOBLE:

Not a detailed design, but what the architects call functional programming

design.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Has the site been identified

or finalized?

MR. KING:

No.

MR. A. PARSONS:

That program may have to

change depending on where you decide to construct.

MR. KING:

It could.

Although based on my knowledge, any number of sites the six or eight

they were considering all could accommodate the design that we have at this

point.

MR. A. PARSONS:

So there is a list of

possible sites. There is functional

plan, but in terms of going forward this year, there is no money allocated and

essentially no more work to be done on that for the time being.

MR. KING:

No, that is correct.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

I am

going to move forward to 5.1.0 just to give a heads up, I guess, will the

folks from Fire and Emergency Services be returning?

Do you have a time set for them?

Do you want to give them a heads up maybe?

MR. KING:

Yes, they will.

MR. A. PARSONS:

If they are on the way and

then the Committee is on the way then

OFFICIAL:

They are on their way.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Fish and Wildlife

Enforcement, under Salaries there are no new positions here I assume.

MR. KING:

No, the increase is similar:

salary increases and step increases.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Under Supplies, there was a

pretty big jump there last year.

What extra had to be supplied?

MR. KING:

Additional requirements for

a combination of uniforms and body armour for new employees.

MR. A. PARSONS:

That had not been, I guess,

allotted or budgeted for, it just came up?

MR. KING:

Yes.

We were following through on a commitment a couple of years ago.

We put new officers in the field, so that was the final follow-through.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

getting towards the end and I know that there will be some questions on Fire and

Emergency Services so I want to save some time for my colleague.

I do have a couple of general questions if that is okay.

There was an Advisory Council on Crime and Community Safety announced by

the Premier in January, I believe.

I want to get some idea on that.

What is the budget for that? Have

they met?

MR. NOBLE:

They have had seven meetings so far.

The plan is to do public consultations in June and later this month they

are travelling, or some of the members of the committee are travelling to

Labrador. Work is proceeding.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What is the goal?

What is the mandate? Is

there a strategy to come out of this or recommendations?

MR. NOBLE:

Exactly that: a strategy and recommendations on improving community safety, and

I guess policing strategies to improve community safety.

The big thing they are finding so far is making sure that community

safety is not just a policing initiative, I think, as you can appreciate.

It is engaging the full spectrum of social agencies that deal with people

who often commit crimes. A big part

of this, I think, is the bringing of those communities together.

MR. A. PARSONS:

What is the budget for the

group?

MR. NOBLE:

We are absorbing it within the department's budget.

The costs are minimal. These

are volunteers.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Going to Labrador is

MR. NOBLE:

It is absorbed within our department budget.

As I say, they are volunteers and we are providing some assistance.

We have some people in the policy and planning

section who are providing

some research assistants, so we are absorbing the travel costs.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I am just wondering now

and I might be off, but I think it falls under this department.

There was a proposal put forward by, I think, Egale under LGBTQ, would

that fall under Justice. I think it

was a three-year pilot program. I

do know that Justice had some

part in it, and I know the Attorney General

may have had some awareness of this, but that does not fall under

MR. KING: I am

not familiar with it, no.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I think there was and I

will double-check March 27 Justice backgrounder.

So I will go back and check that for my next round.

MR. F. COLLINS:

What group was that again?

MR. A. PARSONS:

I tell you what I will do, I

will double-check. I do not have it

right here in front of me. There

was a press release on that last year, so I will get that.

OFFICIAL:

(Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS:

I believe so, yes.

So I

will get that. Instead of sitting

here surmising, I will come back with it.

MR. KING:

Okay.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I think that is what I have

for now my time is running out. I

do have one question for Fire and Emergency Services in terms of the allotment.

Is it possible to get a breakdown of monies spent under Fire and

Emergency Services when it comes to equipment, fire trucks, et cetera, district

by district for last year?

MR. KING:

Yes.

You did well you did very well.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Some would disagree.

MR. KING:

Comparatively speaking.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Like I said, I will see the

list and judge it accordingly, but the list for this year has not been figured

out?

MR. KING:

No.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Any idea when that will

start rolling out?

MR. KING:

I would say I will start

moving on that within a couple of weeks.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay.

MR. F. COLLINS:

I have much the same

question, Andrew.

MR. KING:

The application deadline was

a while ago for communities to submit their requests.

A list has been compiled; I saw a draft of it.

I am meeting with staff probably sometime this week to get a sense of

things.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Okay, excellent.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

Time has expired.

Gerry,

do you have any more?

MS ROGERS:

Back to 4.2.03.

So the functioning programming design has been completed.

You probably do not even need to look at that.

Basically I am asking about the new HMP.

With that amount of work, does it give us any ballpark idea of what the

budget might be for such a facility, with the work that has been done to date?

MR. KING:

Yes, I guess it does, but we

are not really in a position to speak about it now because it is irrelevant; we

have paused the project. The

relevancy will be when we bring the project back on stream.

MS ROGERS:

Okay.

About

the current HMP, in the review of the psychiatric services it was recommended

that the current psychiatrist not work in isolation, and also the recovery

model, which is best practices in any kind of mental health therapy or delivery

of mental health services would be used.

We know that the facility, in and of itself, is not conducive to

implementing the recovery model.

Can you

give us an idea (

a) is the current psychiatrist who is providing services still

working in isolation? If not, how

has that been remedied? Also, what

is the plan going forward since it is going to be years down the road before we

see a new facility, yet we have a legal and a moral obligation to provide the

best practice and the best services we can for mental health services for our

people who are incarcerated? What

is the plan going forward for that?

MR. NOBLE:

With respect to the first part of your question, the psychiatrist is not working

in a silo. He is consulting

routinely with physicians in the community who may have followed the care of a

particular inmate. He works as a

member of a case management team for some of the more complex cases in the

prison. Others on the team might

include the prison psychologist, the nurse practitioner, and the John Howard

Society justice project. He would

be an active participant in those case management teams.

If I am

not mistaken, I believe he has a peer who has been identified nationally who has

expertise in providing psychiatric services in correctional facilities as well.

The

second part of the question with respect to the recovery model, I know that

training has been received. I am

not sure, so I do not want to speculate, but I did not think that the

implementation of that model was necessarily dependent on new physical

infrastructure. I think there are

certainly principles and philosophies of that model that can be implemented even

in the current facility, but I would want to check on that to be certain.

I know the training has been sought and received.

MS ROGERS:

I guess some of the

direction of the recovery model, there are space requirements for groups.

There are space requirements for and I think that is probably what is

problematic. I have visited HMP

where there is a drug rehab program and people are packed in like sardines,

which is not conducive to intensive therapy.

The space is actually the antithesis; it is detrimental to the work that

needs to be done.

MR. NOBLE:

Yes, as you know there is

certainly some very good work being done there, to the best of their abilities,

with the constraints they have. I

do think the recovery model can at least parts of it, as I say, some of the

foundational principles I think can be introduced to the prison.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, thanks.

course I have a million questions, but I will not do that.

I do have a question about the Human Rights Commission while we wait for

Eddie Joyce. How many complaints

went before the Commission this year?

Have we seen a rise or an increase?

MR. KING:

We do not have that

information here. We can get it for

you.

MS ROGERS:

You can get it?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MS ROGERS:

Okay, great.

Actually, I can probably get it from their annual report, so I am fine.

Thank you.

MR. KING:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Before we proceed to Fire

and Emergency Services, we will call the subheads to dispense of that business.

CLERK:

Subheads 1.1.01 to 5.1.01

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall 1.1.01 to 5.1.01

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

MR. A. PARSONS:

I just stepped out for a

second. What are we doing?

CHAIR:

Subheads 1.1.01 to 5.1.01,

all the pervious business to be dispensed of before we get into Fire and

Emergency Services.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Contra-minded?

Carried.

motion, subheads 1.1.01 to 5.1.01 carried.

CHAIR:

Are we ready for the switch

to Fire and Emergency Services? We

will take a minute.

Recess

CHAIR:

Okay, the light is on.

To save time, I suppose, can we just introduce the new people?

Would that be okay?

MR. A. PARSONS:

That is fine by me.

CHAIR:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

Eddie Joyce, MHA, Bay of

Islands.

MR. DUTTON: Sean

Dutton, CEO, Fire and Emergency Services.

MS MCCORMACK:

Marilyn McCormack, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fire and Emergency Services.

CHAIR:

Okay, thank you.

CLERK:

Subhead 6.1.01.

CHAIR:

Subhead 6.1.01.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

have one observation to make before I turn it over to my colleague and it refers

to the allocation of funds per district.

I just ask for a list to be provided.

Just

for clarification, I guess the concept of doing well depends on how one looks at

doing well. I think that once the

list comes out I want to point out, as far as I understand, Burgeo La Poile

got $56,000. Now, I am not sure how

well that was compared to other districts, but I just want to say that sometimes

the concept of doing well depends on which angle you are looking at.

This is in response to the minister's comment earlier.

MR. KING:

To that I would say, if you

compare the $56,000 to the dollar value of other districts, you did well.

I will

get you the list.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I look forward to seeing

that list, Minister.

I am

going to turn it over to my colleague.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

Minister, first of all, I do not know if you would like to have a few comments

because I would just like to recognize all the volunteer firefighters.

I am sure you would also recognize all the volunteer firefighters and

firettes in towns that provide their services to the districts.

What we

usually do is let the minister have a few words about the Fire Emergency

Services, about the headings, so if you want to

MR. KING:

You go ahead, that is fine.

MR. JOYCE:

You are fine?

MR. KING:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

I just want that on the record the great job they are doing.

Minister, 6.1.01, Salaries went over a small bit by $87,200.

MR. KING:

Yes, that is a severance

payout for a retiree. Also, there

was an Administrative Officer I positon moving into Executive from our Disaster

Assistance area. There was a summer

student cost as well.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

This

year it is up to $696,000.

MR. KING:

That is correct.

The increase of $92,500 is the result of 3 per cent salary increases and

step increases, as well as the transfer of that position on a full-time basis

from Disaster Assistance into Executive.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Professional Services, $150,000 can you tell us what that is allocated for,

please?

MR. KING:

Do you want to speak to

that, Sean?

MR. DUTTON:

When the funding for the 911 implementation was approved, some of the funding

for that over a two-year period was re-profiled from this line item into

Emergency Services, and there was some additional one-time money approved for

budget 2013-2014 to pay for implementation.

So with the conclusion of that project, the $150,000 returned to the base

funding in Executive Support. So,

the other funding came to an end because it was a one-time initiative.

MR. JOYCE:

So, this money is taken back

from 911?

MR. DUTTON:

Yes, at the time in budget 2013 in order to fund the implementation of 911 there

was funding re-profiled from here.

In previous years this would have been the source of money for the cost of the

POMAX report, which would have been completed in 2012.

That was put towards the cost of 911 implementation.

So it is returned to the base this year.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

My question to you I have a copy of the proposed budget and it says

that they are going to get the money back from government over a four-year

period, so

MR. DUTTON:

That is correct.

MR. JOYCE:

So how did you get this

money back, they only started putting in the seventy-five cent fee

MR. DUTTON:

No, out of these funds in 2013 and 2014 where we would have expended that each

year, that would be part of the total amount the government spent on 911

implementation over a two-year period, and that would be recovered over time

from the 911 fee over a five-year period.

So we have agreements with the 911 bureau, they start to collect the

telephone fees I think the first payments are due by Friday from the telephone

companies, and they have a repayment plan with us where they will repay the

agency on a quarterly basis over that five-year period until that debt is

returned.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay.

Purchased Services stands at $400,700, actual expenditure is this a contract

of some type? Can you tell us what

this is for, Purchased Services?

MR. DUTTON:

The primary cost is for office rental, including for the Fire and Emergency

Services headquarters building at Hallett Crescent in St. John's.

So most of the cost is related to office rental.

MR. JOYCE:

Four hundred thousand

dollars?

MR. DUTTON:

I think it is about $350,000 for office rental.

MR. KING:

It also includes equipment

repairs, maintenance, advertising, printing, copier charges, and

MR. JOYCE:

Can we get a list of what

that is for? That is an awful lot

for rent.

MR. DUTTON:

I think it is also for one of our other locations.

We have offices in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Deer Lake, Grand

Falls-Windsor, and Clarenville.

However, the offices for most of those locations are paid by Transportation and

Works or another depa

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2015-05-12
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga47_2015-05-12sscjusticeandpublicsafetyandfireandemergencyservicesnl.html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d43263a099ba653f0aeeec6b8490d4158f749d23

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).