Social Services Committee

2000-04-05

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

April

5, 2000

The Committee met at approximately 4:30 p.m. in Room

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Tom Rideout, MHA

Lewisporte substitutes for Tom Hedderson, MHA Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

CHAIR (Sweeney): Order, please!

My name is George Sweeney and I am the Chair. I will

ask my Committee to introduce themselves. I think we have two more coming.

Gerry, would you start?

MR. REID: Gerry Reid, MHA Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. WALSH: Jim Walsh, MHA Conception Bay East &

Bell Island.

MR. GORMAN: Wayne Gorman, Director of Public

Prosecutions.

MR. McCARTHY: John McCarthy, Assistant Deputy

Minister for Civil Law and Related Services.

MR. ALCOCK: Ralph Alcock, Assistant Deputy

Minister of Public Protection and Support Services.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, Minister of Justice

and Attorney General.

MS SPRACKLIN: Lynn Spracklin, Deputy Minister of

Justice, Deputy A.G.

MR. WHITE: George White, Director of Finance with

the Department of Justice.

MS HEFFERNAN: Theresa Heffernan, Manager of

Financial Operations.

MR. COLLINS: Randy Collins, MHA Labrador West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Sheila Osborne, MHA St. John's

West.

MR. LAKE: Calvin Lake, Senior Legislative Counsel.

CHAIR: Just some housekeeping before we start.

First of all, I just want to explain the use of this equipment. Only six mikes

at a time. If it should happen that we go over six I think we are in complete

failure here. After you speak, and if you see a couple of more lights on,

probably just hit the talk button and release it.

What else do we need to talk about? I will get this

right before I'm finished. The minutes of the last meeting.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Just for anyone who hasn't attended these

before, the procedure we follow is that I will ask John to call the first head

after the minister does his brief introduction. During that first head we will

continue on into the other heads of the Estimates. At the end, when discussion

ceases, we will call the total of heads and the questions. Is that okay?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

CHAIR: All right, minister, if -

MR. WALSH: For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to move 1.1.01 through 4.2.03.

MS S. OSBORNE: For the record, no.

MR. WALSH: I was waiting for you to look up.

CLERK: 1.1.01

CHAIR: The first head has been called, 1.1.01.

Minister, would you like to do your

preamble and then we will go into

discussion?

MR. PARSONS: I have just an opening comment. This

is my first time through the Estimates process. I certainly will have to defer

to my officials for some of the information. I have only been on the job a short

while but whatever I can answer I certainly will and whatever I cannot explain

in detail, because I was not here or don't have ready access to, we certainly

have the officials here who can comment on those questions. I look forward to a

learning process.

CHAIR: Thank you.

I guess we will start on this side for our first

question.

MS S. OSBORNE: 1.1.01.01, Minister's Office,

Salaries. In 1999 there was a budget of $188,500, it was revised down, and then

revised back up to $223,600. Could somebody explain the reason for that to me?

MR. PARSONS: The savings from what was budgeted to

what the revised were was mostly due to vacant ministerial positions for that

year. Minister Dicks was a minister but ordinarily the staff that would

accompany a minister were not in place because he filled two positions, Minister

of Justice and Finance.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: There were some positions that he did

not need to have filled.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible), Tom, freezing it at that

amount (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: There were oppositions in the past

who used to try to reduce the minister's salary to a dollar. We could entertain

that, but we are not like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) almost successful one

time.

MR. RIDEOUT: We did, or you guys did. It wasn't

us. (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: In 1.2.02.01, Administrative

Support, Salaries, there is an increase of almost $90,000. Does that reflect a

new position, and what position is it?

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me, the numbers again? Still

under .01?

MS S. OSBORNE: No, the next page,1.2.02, page 220.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

MS S. OSBORNE: In the top line there, there is a

difference of almost $90,000. Does that reflect a new position and, if so, what

position was it?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, there is going to be a new

Director of Policy and Planning position with the department as well. I think

this is the first time that this has been sanctioned this year, in addition to

the ordinary ministerial staff that would be there.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

The next line, Employee Benefits, there seems to be a

substantial increase from $93,300 and now the estimate is up to $158,300.

MR. PARSONS: Funding has been reallocated to

address increased administrative costs associated with workers' compensation.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

Transportation and Communications, line 03., do you

have - you don't need to articulate everything - a breakdown of what that

expenditure was for?

MR. PARSONS: Again, it would be ministerial

travel, whatever was done on behalf of the minister, I guess, and his staff,

plus all other department officials.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

WITNESS: (Inaudible) to administration.

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me, that is administrative

support, so that would not include the minister.

MS HEFFERNAN: Primarily departmental postage

costs.

MR. PARSONS: Transportation and Communications?

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

CHAIR: Could you identify yourself before you

speak, just for the record?

MS HEFFERNAN: With regards to 03., Transportation

and Communications, the majority of that budget is used for departmental postage

costs. Another major portion, I guess, is for communications costs.

MS S. OSBORNE: Can you break that down a little

bit? That seems high for postage.

MS HEFFERNAN: I think, Ms Osborne, it is a high

figure because it deals with things like mailing of traffic tickets and whatnot.

MS S. OSBORNE: Oh, okay.

MS HEFFERNAN: We have a high volume of that sort

of -

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, that explains it.

I am just going to skip over to 2.1.03., which is

Support Enforcement. On 01., there is a salary increase of $77,300. Does that

reflect a new position or a couple of new positions? That is page 223.

MR. PARSONS: Under 2.1.03.?

MS S. OSBORNE: Under 2.1.03.01., yes.

MS SPRACKLIN: That would reflect normal salary

increases, the 2 per cent -

MS S. OSBORNE: The raises?

MS SPRACKLIN: The raises primarily, and I think we

have a support enforcement guidelines expenditure there that will be coming back

from the federal government. We have some additional salary expenditures now

(inaudible).

CHAIR: Let the record show that was the Deputy

Minister, Lynn Spracklin.

MS S. OSBORNE: How many people are employed in

support enforcement? And, are they only employed in the Corner Brook office?

MS SPRACKLIN: Ms Osborne, I believe it is fifteen

and yes, they are all in Corner Brook in terms of the collection staff. I say

there are support enforcement guidelines workers employed in various courts

throughout the Province to assist in the implementation of the support

enforcement guidelines.

MS S. OSBORNE: There have been a lot of calls to

my office about how slow it is. I will just give one example. There is a couple

who are divorced, obviously, and they are on very good speaking terms. He works

at Revenue Canada and, for instance, he wants it deducted from his cheque and

funneled right out to support enforcement. That makes everything very easy for

him. That is a choice that he has made. His wife sometimes takes two or three

months to get the cheque, even though it is being deducted regularly. She has

called me a couple of times. I have had to call out and get a hustle on. Would

it be at source where they deduct it? We haven't been able to track down why the

delay, but it is constantly deducted so it should be rolling even if one was

deducted in November and she didn't receive it until January, then December's

she should receive in February. Do you know what I mean? Do you have a time line

on how long it takes to get from when the deductions are made, channeled through

Corner Brook and into the person who is receiving the support enforcement?

MR. McCARTHY: Ms Osborne, it shouldn't take two to

three months if it is being deducted at the source, two or three weeks would

sound to be normal. If there are any peculiarities to this particular situation

I will be happy to address them because I tend to deal with a lot of these

complaints.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, then what I will do is call

you because it does seem awful, especially with Revenue Canada deducting it.

That is pretty legitimate.

MR McCARTHY: It very seldom takes that long.

MS S. OSBORNE: When she calls and says: Look, I

didn't receive any money. He shows her the cheque stubs where the deductions are

made. It has been happening rather regularly.

MR. McCARTHY: That should not take that long. I

deal with a lot of complaints and that generally is not one of them, so there

must be something unusual about that situation.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Mr. Rideout.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few matters that I would like to address to

the minister. Perhaps, before I turn any attention to going down through the

heads, I will address a few areas that are more general that I am sure the

minister would like an opportunity to comment on.

Under the subheading 2.1.01, Civil Law, I think it is

an opportune time for the minister to tell us what is happening now in the

Department of Justice, if anything, with regard to the civil division. I don't

say this as a reflection of anybody who works there, but the general public out

there is getting shell-shocked with settlements and decisions that are going

against the government. Perhaps over the last two or three years there appears

to be more civil litigation involving the government than at any other time in

our history. I can't recall that there were ten or twelve cases before the

courts at any given time involving the government. We don't seem to be - just

going by media reports - doing very well with it. Can the minister sort of give

us a heads up as to what is happening, how he sees this unfolding, and what in

particular are any changes he thinks might be necessary so that the position of

the taxpayer is protected as much as possible?

MR. PARSONS: First of all, let me say that whether

we do win or lose a case I certainly would state empathically that it has

nothing to do with any lack of competence on behalf of the Department of Justice

staff. As you would be well aware, as a solicitor, quite often one deals with

the facts that one has. Then, of course, the judges in question apply the law to

that particular set of facts.

I did an interview recently with The Telegram

in which I thought I gave them a pretty comprehensive overview of the cases that

government has been involved with in the recent past. Fortunately or

unfortunately, whichever way you want to look at it, it didn't get carried.

Since 1996 government has had about fifty-nine cases

that have gone before various levels of court in this Province in a civil field.

Of those, the track record is not as devastating as one would believe. It

depends upon the publicity that various cases get. Of the fifty-nine cases,

government lost twenty-six of them and won the balance of them. I guess we only

ever hear about the losses. In terms of the fifty-nine cases and those

twenty-six, some cases are decided upon and judges make decisions that you have

lost and you shall pay x amount of damages; and there have also been some cases

that have been settled. I think right now, in the case of Mount Cashel, for

example, in cases that were settled, there was about $12 million in settlements

that were made by government since 1996. Of that $12 million, $11.4 million of

it was for the Mount Cashel cases. We can argue or debate whether or not it was

proper for a government to settle with the Mount Cashel victims, but government

chose that it was the proper route to follow. In the case of the settlements -

that is quite a substantial majority of that $12 million in settlements - it was

for the Mount Cashel cases.

With regards to the judgments, there were

approximately $11 million in payouts in the court judgments. That is on, if you

want to call it, the losing side, if you were to lump together the figures for

what you have paid out in settlements and what you pay out in judgments. On the

winning side, government has gotten back approximately $11 million from the

cases that they have won. We have had a recent decision involving the Harvey

Road fire that took place which was $3 million. If you were to only listen to

what you read, then yes, it appears to be a very negative position.

Some of these cases, no doubt because of the people

involved, the individuals, and the circumstances, do take a high public profile,

but those are the facts of the situation. In some cases you have $600,000 in

settlements. Given that you are involved in dozens of cases, forgetting about

the Mount Cashel settlement of $11.4 million, to spend $600,000 in settlements

is not, I would suggest, unusual in the circumstances at all.

MR. RIDEOUT: I thank the minister for his

response. On the issue of Mount Cashel, can the minister take the opportunity to

tell us -

CHAIR: Excuse me, Mr. Rideout, could you hit your

button again?

MR. RIDEOUT: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

On the issue of Mount Cashel, I wonder could the

minister give us an update on where we are with our legal position vis--vis

Christian Brothers in Canada, their property, and the legal proceedings in

British Columbia?

MR. PARSONS: Yes. We have retained counsel in

British Columbia. For the information of others who may not be so familiar with

it, government is pursuing an action against the Christian Brothers to try to

recover money from their properties in order to - of course, again, we have paid

out $11.4 million, so if government can possibly recover any of that amount we

would like to do so. We suggest that the proper parties to get it from of course

would be the Christian Brothers. Now I say government, but there are obviously a

lot of other parties who want to get a piece of any properties that the

Christian Brothers have.

There are two principal properties in B.C. that the

parties were trying to get at. As we speak, in fact, the case is ongoing in

British Columbia to decide if those properties in fact can be gotten at through

judgment creditors.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not settled yet, is it?

MR. PARSONS: It is not resolved yet. It is before

the courts as we speak. They anticipated when it started back in the first week

of March that it would possibly last about nine to ten weeks, and they don't

expect an immediate decision. They would think it is going to be reserved and a

written judgment would be filed some time after that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Flip over to the Law Courts on page 226 of the

minister's Estimates. I have not been practicing law very long in the Province

but I can tell you my experience is that the workhorse of the system is the

Provincial Court in various parts of the Province. I have had occasion now, over

the last couple of years, to appear in a number of them. In many cases - not all

cases, but in many cases - the facilities, support staff and the backup for the

Provincial Court system is atrocious. You go out to Baie Verte and you are in

the basement of the Anglican Church to try to do a three-week forty-odd count

fraud trial where you cannot even lock up your documents. You go to Corner Brook

and it is pretty good. Gander and Grand Falls have fairly good facilities. Down

at the Provincial Court in St. John's, it is not the best in the Province, I can

tell you that. I don't know if the minister has ever had occasion to be down

there.

The point I am trying to make is that - this is not

disrespectful of the Supreme Court - it seems that the Supreme Court - which is

not the workhorse of the system; it is necessary, but it is not doing the

workload that the Provincial Court is doing - seems to have much better

facilities in all the areas of the Province where they are operating than does

the Provincial Court. I am wondering. I am sure the minister as a practitioner

out there, particularly in rural Newfoundland for years, must have seen the same

kind of things that I see, and I have only been on the block for a couple of

years. What is his prognosis for the future? Are we going to be improving the

Provincial Court delivery system in the Province to a degree where the system

can deliver justice on a reasonably assessable basis to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter where they live?

MR. PARSONS: I would certainly concur. I have had

the benefit, since the appointment to this position, of doing a cross-Province

tour - at least along the Trans-Canada Highway anyway - to determine what

facilities that Justice are involved with, courtrooms being one of them. Now, in

my twenty years of practice of course I had the benefit of being in a lot of the

courtrooms, as you say, throughout this Province, many of them circuit courts:

Burgeo, St. Anthony, Springdale and so on. Port aux Basques was actually

converted, a few years ago, back to being a circuit court as well. Also in

places like Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Clarenville.

We were recently in Labrador in regards to some

issues, visited the Supreme Court, and saw the Provincial Court facilities in

Goose Bay. Nain, of course, operates on a circuit court system with, basically,

fly in justice, they call it I guess, where everybody - the prosecutors, the

defense counsel, the judges and everybody - flies in. I would concur that with

regards to circuit courts there ought to be appropriate places where the courts

take place. It is difficult in some communities. For example, in Burgeo there is

a circuit court that takes place down there, and if you get into a lengthy trial

in Burgeo you have a problem, as you say, in terms of council rooms, where to

store your equipment, where to do interviews with clients, because they rent

facilities such as the community hall in Burgeo. They do that in a lot of

circuit courts and quite frankly, albeit it is not the best, I can't see making

major investments in infrastructure in places of circuit courts where you go

there, in the case of Burgeo for example, once every three or four months.

There are alternatives in that case. If you are doing

a four month trial you can certainly ask to have it moved to somewhere where it

is more convenient for recording, storage and so on. I would also concur that

there are some places in this Province that are simply atrocious. For example,

the Clarenville Provincial Court is simply atrocious. I agree as well, in the

case of Goose Bay, that there needs to be some major input of dollars to improve

the infrastructure that these judges, these staff persons and lawyers work in,

and that accused persons go to have their charges heard.

I visited the Clarenville one. I was quite shocked, to

tell you the truth, with the state that it is in. We have requested, as a

department, not in my time but many years ago actually, to have some capital

expenditures. On the list of priorities Goose Bay is slated as number one and

Clarenville is slated as number two. Like all departments of government that

have buildings, we are into the situation that you get what you can for the

dollars that you have, and so far they just don't have the dollars available to

have seen these projects. It certainly is a concern and it certainly is a

priority with us to see that it is improved.

MR. RIDEOUT: I will just say one more thing on

that and then I will move on, Mr. Chairman.

To go up to the sixth floor of the Sir Richard Squires

Building in Corner Brook and look at the Supreme Court facilities, and come down

to the ground floor and look at the Provincial Court facilities and go in and

spend days in there at a time, there is not even an interview room - well there

is a storage room. You can get in there with the garbage cans and so on and

interview a client. This is the year 2000 and we are delivering justice in that

way. That is certainly not a circuit court. That is the Provincial Court

building in Corner Brook.

I certainly appreciate the minister's view. I know

there are a thousand priorities lapping at government's feet and justice is,

perhaps, not at the top of the list all the time. From the perspective of the

person who is involved in the judicial system, justice is very important and,

for the lack of appropriate facilities, if it can't be delivered on a timely

basis, when some of the other courts in the Province are not working near

capacity - that is what gets my goat the most. The Provincial Court is the

workhorse of the system and it doesn't appear to be that they are the priority

of the system when it comes to financial support.

MR. PARSONS: Point taken.

MR. RIDEOUT: On the two police forces that we have

in the Province, minister, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP,

there were some significant cutbacks in - I suppose the right word is person

power in these days - but in the number of people - vacancies left in the RNC

for quite some time have gone unfilled. You hear complaints quite frequently

from some RNC jurisdictions like Conception Bay South, in particular, Corner

Brook and Labrador as well. Then there was, over the last few years, some

significant cutback in the RCMP personnel in the Province as well. I wonder can

the minister tell the Committee whether or not we have turned the corner as far

as that goes and that funding at appropriate levels for police protection for

the population is once again a priority with the government.

MR. PARSONS: Again, I guess in terms of total

government priorities, health and education have been given the headline, shall

we say, rankings in terms of where the priorities lie. From a justice

perspective, yes, public protection and policing is obviously a major priority.

During program review, no doubt, both the RNC and the RCMP experienced severe

cutbacks. In the RCMP, for example, the highway patrol system was virtually

decimated in terms of cutbacks.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not much better yet.

MR. PARSONS: Well, they went from thirty-nine, as

I understand it, down to thirteen officers on highway patrol. Again, deemed to

be a necessity in terms of saving some monies, that is where justice got struck

with making the cuts. Fortunately we do have, as I understand it, some funding

in there this year at least to begin the, shall we say, clawback or start to put

back into the system. We hope to see three or four more persons headed back to

the highway patrol system for the RCMP this year.

Also, as you are aware, there is an extra initiative

in Northern Labrador with regards to some policing, in Makkovik, Postville and

Rigolet and well as in Cartwright. In the RCMP we have certainly seen some.

There is also some additional funding - I think it is approximately $1 million -

that went to the RNC that will be used for a variety of things including a few

staffing positions.

In the case of the RNC, you referred to CBS. Again, I

guess, you look at your options and try to use the resources that you have. The

RNC have just adopted this district policing model. As compared to having

detachments in the various communities, they have adopted a district - the

Northeast Avalon will be divided into four districts so that you get better use

of the resources that you have. For example, you may have in Conception Bay

South a problem with speeding incidents, in which case you direct the forces

that have to that particular problem in conjunction with your advisory group in

that community. Next week in another district arson may be an issue, in which

case you have to redirect your resources.

Yes, we have a problem with the numbers but the

district policing model will hopefully make better use of the numbers that we do

have so that they are used more efficiently to address the problems that we do

have.

CHAIR: Mr. Collins.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

Under subhead 1.3.01., Fines Administration, the

revenue for the Province is $700,000.

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me, 1.3.01.02.?

MR. COLLINS: Yes, subhead 1.3.01.02.

MR. PARSONS: Provincial revenue?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

Is that the source of fines collected, or things that

have nothing to do with that?

MR. PARSONS: Justice administers the fine

collection system in the Province - for example, for Memorial University or the

City of St. John's and so on - and that is a fee that we charge to those bodies

for administering their tickets. We incur the costs, but -

MR. COLLINS: Seven hundred thousand, I figure I

own half of that.

MR. PARSONS: If you get a ticket in the City of

St. John's, for example, the administration on the payment of the tickets and so

on, and the mail-outs, are done through one coordinated group in Justice but we

charge a portion back from those tickets.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

Subhead 2.1.02.12., Sheriff's Office, last year both

revised and budgeted were $35,400 and this year it is $117,600. There is about

an $85,000 difference there. I was just wondering -

MR. PARSONS: The difference in the revised in the

salary column there?

MR. COLLINS: No, the revised and budget last year

were the same but this year the estimate is $117,600 up from $35,400.

MR. PARSONS: Under the Information Technology?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: That is the additional funding that

is being provided for remote electronic registration and enquiries to the new

judgment enforcement system.

MR. COLLINS: It is technological.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. There is a new judgment

enforcement act, and what it will allow is that people in remote locations who

have law firms, for example, or people who wish to use the judgment enforcement

system, can do it by using the technology rather than by mail. It is electronic.

MR. COLLINS: Subhead 2.3.01., Legal Aid and

Related Services, I would just like to ask the question: What is the demand for

legal aid in relation to what is provided? Is there a much greater demand than

can be met by the lawyers who are providing the legal aid services?

MR. PARSONS: I guess it is a question of how you

interpret the demand, because there are a lot of people who make a request for

legal aid services but there is a criteria that they have to meet in order to

get legal aid representation. Yes, there are a lot of requests that do not -

MR. COLLINS: What I am concerned about is people

who meet the criteria to apply for legal aid. Is there much of a demand over and

above what can be provided with the services?

MR. McCARTHY: As the minister pointed out, if an

applicant meets the financial eligibility criteria, it is a question then of the

nature of the matter. Obviously, for example, some of what we consider very

minor matters, maintenance matters for example, that are factually based as

opposed to involving legal issues, legal aid does not send a lawyer. We don't

have the resources to do it, but in most cases there is no need for a lawyer in

any event.

In one sense there is a greater demand, even amongst

those people who are financially eligible for legal aid, but then there is the

type of work or the legal issues involved that will determine whether or not

legal aid will send a lawyer. Obviously a serious criminal charge, for example,

will be defended. Some minor criminal charges that will not result in

incarceration, legal aid does not send lawyers in those cases, for example, in

the main; but, by and large, we are meeting all the demands for significant

legal problems.

WITNESS: I cannot think of anyone, or I am not

aware of anyone, who was qualified under the criteria - requested legal aid and

qualified - and did not get representation.

WITNESS: Could I just interrupt, Randy, if you

don't mind? What is the criteria to qualify for legal aid? What is the benchmark

on employment - or income, I should say?

MR. McCARTHY: There is no absolute salary level

for the income. There are words, if you like, or criteria, set in the act

talking about an ability to provide yourself with legal representation without

having to incur extraordinary costs, that sort of thing. I don't have the exact

wording here; but, for argument sake, obviously if somebody is on social

assistance and charged with a criminal offense they will receive legal

assistance from legal aid.

Some of the so-called working poor, somebody may have

a job and may have a serious legal issue - let's say criminal charge - and may

have to support three or four children and a mortgage, and may not be able to

afford a private lawyer. Somebody like that as well may qualify for legal aid.

We don't arbitrarily set a ceiling in salary because that would be unfair. That

would (inaudible) a lot of hardship. The situation is addressed in each

individual case.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

Public Protection, page 227, subhead 4.1.01., I would

just like to ask a question. In Labrador West - and I have not been current on

it in the last little while - I know for most of last year the Labrador West

branch was short one sergeant. I will just explain what happened in order to

show you why.

With the RCMP, if an RCMP officer is transferred,

applies for a transfer and is transferred, they put their house on the market

and if it is not sold at fair market value - I think in a period of three months

- their house is purchased by the government and they go on their merry way.

With the RNC, if someone is needed in Labrador, for example, and they are living

in Manuels or the Goulds, and they want to go there, and they put their house on

the market, if it is not sold then nothing happens. That prevents, sometimes - I

know in one case for sure it has prevented a position in Labrador West from

being filled because the person could not go unless their house was sold here

first. I guess my question is: Why is there a difference between the RCMP in the

way they are treated and the RNC in the way they are treated under similar

circumstances when we are paying both?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't think that you are correct in

terms of the RCMP policy for housing. There have been a number of RCMP policies

over the last five years for housing. The one that currently is in place

provides for some support for officers when they are relocated. We have been

looking at a similar program for RNC officers who are transferred, and basically

the program works on the basis of the loss that would be incurred by a police

officer on the sale of their house. Some of that loss is paid for by the

employer, whether it be the - well, in the case of the RCMP, of course the RCMP,

and it would be by Justice in our particular case. We have researched the

policies in place for the RCMP as well as the OPP in Ontario and have been

crafting a similar policy for implementation for the RNC.

MR. COLLINS: When you say it is paid for by the

employer, the RCMP, wouldn't the RCMP's money come from the Department of

Justice?

MR. ALCOCK: It does come from Justice but the RCMP

has a contractual relationship with Justice. We pay a lump sum for services

rendered on a yearly basis.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, but I still think it is fair to

say that whether it is 100 per cent of what I described or whether it is 60 per

cent of what I described, there are still differences in the way both forces are

treated under identical circumstances.

MR. ALCOCK: I am not sure, quite frankly, whether

or not that particular policy applies to the 70-30 cost split. We would have to

check that out. George White is here. George, do you know if that is a part of

the cost?

MR. WHITE: Yes, it would be part of it.

(Inaudible) pay 70 per cent.

MR. COLLINS: I guess the second part of that

question is: Is the Labrador West branch still short a staff person, staff

sergeant?

MR. ALCOCK: Again, I cannot answer that. I can get

the answer for you. There are basically nineteen positions in Labrador West. I

think you will find that in terms of the police to population ratio that is a

very attractive police to population ratio in Labrador West, particularly if you

look at the level of crime in that location. The number of police officers that

are actually providing the service is very good in terms of a policing service

and our ability to provide police officers throughout the Province, or in fact

anywhere in the country for that matter, in terms of the population and the

number of police officers.

MR. COLLINS: What I am saying is that their

requirement and their staffing levels call for two senior officers - if you want

to put it that way - for a whole lot of administrative reasons I would imagine,

outside of policing.

MR. ALCOCK: There is one management position in

Labrador West. The sergeant, while it is a relatively senior position, is a

unionized position. From time to time in any location, I guess, we do have

vacancies that we carry. The RCMP are in a similar circumstance. They have

vacancies as well that they carry. I think you will find in any large detachment

- Corner Brook or St. John's - that there are, from time to time, vacancies.

MR. COLLINS: 4.2.03.19, Youth Corrections

Facilities, Voted in Other Departments: Development of New Facilities, page 229.

That is the new facility that is being built here.

MR. PARSONS: That is correct.

MR. COLLINS: I am just wondering if we could get a

breakdown of the $3,245,000? Is that solely for the purpose of -

MR. PARSONS: That is for the access, the design,

the construction of the facility.

MR. COLLINS: Okay, because I noticed before that

the budget for that was $1,800,000 and the revised was $700,000.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, the work that was allotted for

that particular year, 1999-2000, it was anticipated that we would go $1,800,000,

but what happened was that there were various delays - as I guess anybody is

aware - last summer about the location of the building. Because of those delays

the amount of work we had anticipated getting done did not get done. Hence the

reason why the expenditures were less.

MR. COLLINS: So full guns ablaze this year? Okay.

CHAIR: Would anybody on this side like to ask a

question?

MR. WALSH: No, Mr. Chairman, we are going to

follow through as we have done in past days. We are going to allow our

colleagues to ask as many questions as they like. There might be the odd time we

might want to, because of a subject they brought up, but in fairness it gives

them an opportunity to receive all the answers that they would like to have.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS S. OSBORNE: 4.2.01, Adult Corrections. When you

were going across the Province, minister, did you drop in on the women's

facility in Clarenville?

MR. PARSONS: I did.

MS S. OSBORNE: Has the expansion begun?

MR. PARSONS: Yes. It was completed, I believe,

except for one final door that they were putting in from the old to the new.

MS S. OSBORNE: Are there still the same amount of

cells? Was that just an expansion on the recreation facility?

MR. PARSONS: Also the educational facility.

MS S. OSBORNE: There are still the same amount of

cells out there, are there?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MS S. OSBORNE: How many women are housed there?

What is the maximum and for how long a period would it be full?

MR. ALCOCK: The facility was originally

constructed as a male facility. It provided for twenty-six residents. When it

was converted to a female facility it was reduced down for various reasons to

twenty-two residents, so twenty-two is the maximum capacity. The maximum number

of residents that has ever been there, I believe, is fifteen. On average it is

in the range of six to ten residents at any given time.

MS S. OSBORNE: How many cells are there, Mr.

Alcock? I was there but I can't remember, I really can't. I think there are

seven or eight.

MR. ALCOCK: No, my guess is that they are probably

in the eighteen to twenty range. I am not 100 per cent sure on the number of

cells. Let me put it this way: there are more cells than we have ever had

residents, female residents.

MS S. OSBORNE: When I was there I spoke to some of

the females who were there and their concern to me was mostly centered on

privacy. I saw one cell off the cafeteria - the eating area - and I don't

remember how many are going down on each side. Is that all the cells that are

there, or are there more?

MR. ALCOCK: No, that is correct. I think the one

you are referring to off the eating area was actually a segregation cell. It is

not used for that purpose any more but what you are referring to as the block

is, in fact, where all of the cells are.

MS S. OSBORNE: There are not eighteen cells there.

I thought there were something like ten or eleven. They gave me a figure and I

honestly don't remember it, but when it goes to - I think it could accommodate

ten or eleven, and when it went more than that there were two in a cell. While I

subscribe to the fact that folks should be incarcerated when they commit a

crime, I think incarceration is the penalty, not humiliation, I suppose. The

women did express to me a lot of concern around bathroom facilities and things.

I don't know if you noticed that the cell doors don't close, only from the

inside or with a key, so if the women need to go to the bathroom - there are

male guards there, too - and if there is not another female around to keep the

door closed, then there you are. I saw that physically myself. I just wondered

in the expansion if something was done to provide for more privacy for them.

MR. ALCOCK: The only requirement that has been

identified for expansion has been in the programming area. There has been 500 or

600 square feet of programming area provided. It has never been identified to us

that there has been a problem with the number of cells. Quite honestly, I can't

tell you as to exactly how many cells there are there. I can get that

information for you.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.

MR. ALCOCK: In addition, there is a gender

staffing ratio so we always have female employees on staff in the institution to

deal with privacy issues that may arise for the residents. Quite often, in the

staffing ratio actually, there are two females who are on staff at any given

time. As a matter of fact, when the minister and I were there, on that

particular day there were two females.

MS S. OSBORNE: What I experienced when I went in -

you know the main area where the cells are - they brought me in there, and then

there was a female sort of down in the middle of where the cells are, and one of

the male employees was about to walk down. Basically what she said was: Somebody

is on the potty. If she wasn't there, then what would happen to somebody who was

on the potty? I saw that and I suppose, being a female, I had a lot of empathy

for that particular person. They did speak to me about it and I think it was

also addressed in the report from the Elizabeth Fry Society. I remember speaking

with Mr. McNutt about it. I have brought it up on a couple of occasions and I

just wondered, in the expansion, if it was addressed.

MR. ALCOCK: Again, no, it hasn't, not the cell

space.

MS S. OSBORNE: The privacy space, basically. I

don't know what to do to fix it but I think it is something that probably should

be looked at again to be fixed.

MS SPRACKLIN: Ms Osborne, I have had some

discussion with the staff out there on this issue. Staff are very carefully

trained to announce their presence on the block to the residents and seek

permission before proceeding down the block, in particular male attendants, so

that they would not go parading down through the block without announcing their

presence and making sure that there is nobody in a compromising position.

Our difficulty with providing for privacy in these

institutions is that, regrettably, we also have to concern ourselves with inmate

safety. We have a lot of people who are intent upon self-destruction,

unfortunately, so it is very difficult to balance. We are doing a very difficult

balancing act between doing what you would like to do to protect privacy and

also putting ourselves in a position where we can ensure that inmates are not in

a position to harm themselves. We are very conscious of it and I think they are

very conscious of it in their procedures.

MR. PARSONS: If I might just comment as well, when

I toured that particular facility I made a point of speaking not only with the

management and the correctional officers but with the staff as well, and that

wasn't raised as an issue at that time certainly. I seem to recall however that

you mentioned on the potty. I think every cell there has a decal that you can

hang.

MS S. OSBORNE: One of those little tags on the

door.

MR. PARSONS: If you are going to be on the potty

you hang it out so that anybody who is on the block, they do not have to come to

your cell because they can see before they even get there, through the small

window, that you have your sign up.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, but also the door won't pull

right to. They don't close right to. They are ajar like this, and when you push

them they come open about this much. You can't close the door in the cell unless

one of the staff physically locks it. It won't close and snap to without being

locked like an ordinary door.

MR. PARSONS: I see what you mean.

MS S. OSBORNE: It stays open a bit like that. The

inmates there did express to me a concern about that and because they were so

concerned - I think one of the inmates out there did it with needlepoint or

something - they have those little tags that they hang on the doors. It is a

problem and they demonstrated that their only way of addressing the problem was

to make the little decals.

I can't imagine going into a bathroom where the door

didn't close. The doors are always open like this and the toilets are right

inside the door and on an angle. I thought the rest of the facility was fine.

They did need some expansion for recreational facilities and stuff. I didn't

have a problem with the structure and things, but that was one of the things

that has profoundly remained with me, the fact that they don't have privacy

because the doors the doors won't close, only if one of the guards are there to

close it. They stay ajar.

CHAIR: I guess we could probably say that is a

point well taken.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, beaten to death now.

CHAIR: Minister, you may want to have some of your

officials check into it and see just what the procedure is.

MR. PARSONS: Again, the privacy and the protection

issue has to be balanced.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, but I don't know that their

protection will be compromised if the door could close.

MR. PARSONS: Point taken.

MS S. OSBORNE: Just close the door, not lock, just

close rather than be in there and have the door open so much.

I will move on to another heading, 4.2.02, and that is

the Youth Corrections. I know the minister hasn't been there very long, but how

many of the recommendations in the Linda Inkpen report have been acted upon?

MR. ALCOCK: I don't have the numbers precisely. I

can tell you my recollection is that there were fifty-two recommendations, I

believe, from the Inkpen report. My recollection is that all but probably in the

order of five or six have either been completed or are in the process of being

completed. It is a small number compared to the fifty-two recommendations that

were made in the report.

MS S. OSBORNE: Would it be possible - not now, but

some time in the near future - to get a copy of what has been done, what has

been acted upon?

MR. ALCOCK: Sure.

MS S. OSBORNE: That would be fine.

I would like to go back to Police Protection, 4.1.01.

I have been told a couple of times that, on any given evening, between Cape St.

Francis and Seal Cove there are seven RNC officers on patrol. It doesn't seem to

be a lot.

WITNESS: From where to where?

MS S. OSBORNE: From Cape St. Francis to Seal Cove

or Kelligrews, out in that area, there are seven officers. Can anybody confirm

or...?

MR. PARSONS: Certainly the number of police in any

particular area would be an operational decision that would rest with the chief

and his staff. We certainly wouldn't dictate to the RNC or the RCMP how they

deploy their resources.

MS S. OSBORNE: I think it is because of a lack of

manpower available to put out there. That was the impression that I was given,

and that doesn't seem to be a lot of people. As a matter of fact, what triggered

that in my head was that this morning there was a presentation from Mothers

Against Drunk Driving. It also triggered another recollection that I had at

being over at the Health Sciences Centre when the police were arriving with a

person who had just been killed as a result of an alcohol related, drunk driving

accident. I knew the policeman and I just said: Oh, my, that is terrible. He

said: Yes, it is drunk driving related. Unfortunately, we don't have enough

people to patrol. He said the statistics that show how many people are picked up

with drunk driving does not reflect the amount of drunk drivers that are on the

road; it is just that more people are not being caught because the resources and

the police are not out there to catch them. What we are seeing on paper is how

many people have been apprehended; it does not reflect the number out there

driving around. This is what I have been told consistently.

MR. ALCOCK: The answer to the first part of your

comments, Ms Osborne, is that there are approximately twenty-eight or

twenty-nine - I can't tell you the exact number, I don't recall it - police

officers who are a part of what we call the patrol division that would be in the

Northeast Avalon area at any given time. In addition to those officers, of

course, there may be other officers working that may, for example, be a part of

identification services, the dog team, the CID, or whatever the case may be.

It is fair to say that of those twenty-eight or

twenty-nine individuals at any given time as well there may be someone off sick

who is not replaced, or there may be some other reason why that number may be

down somewhat.

MS S. OSBORNE: There are twenty-nine on each

shift, in each of the three shifts, two shifts, or whatever they do?

MR. ALCOCK: Yes. Of course, during the day you

will appreciate that when the majority of the force are working there is quite a

large number, much in excess of that particular number. That is the patrol

division, I guess, what I am referring to, the people out in the cars

(inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. ALCOCK: I guess the only comment I would make

in terms of your second point is one of agenda. Oftentimes the representation

that is made to individuals, particularly to politicians, may fall within the

agenda of the Police Association. Of course, part of the agenda of the

association is to - bluntly put - recruit more members and pay more dues.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

WITNESS: I can safely say I have not had that

representation made to me.

WITNESS: His or hers?

WITNESS: The Police Association.

WITNESS: I thought that is what you meant.

MS S. OSBORNE: Just as a matter of interest, what

population of the Province, what percentage of the population, is served by RNC

and what percentage is served by the RCMP? This is just a matter of interest.

MR. PARSONS: The vast majority is the RNC, of

course, given that the majority of the population is on the Northeast Avalon;

plus, you have Corner Brook and you have Labrador West so the more populous

centres would be serviced by the RNC.

MR. ALCOCK: Just to clarify and add to that, it is

the more populous areas. I guess the three areas that the RNC serve are the

Northeast Avalon, Corner Brook and Labrador West. In terms of actual numbers,

approximately one-third of the actual people population is policed by the RNC

and approximately two-thirds of the people population is policed by the RCMP.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

I have one other question, and it is back to

Provincial Court, 3.2.01., that my colleague referred to as the workhorse. Can

you tell me the approximate time it would be from the time the person, an

accused, goes before a preliminary hearing, before the transcript of the

preliminary hearing is received?

MR. PARSONS: It depends on the particular

transcript, number one. You mean, if he has had his preliminary and he has gone

on to the Supreme Court?

MS S. OSBORNE: Between the time that he appears

for the preliminary hearing, not from the time he is brought in and then put

over for the preliminary hearing, but from the time of the preliminary hearing

until the typed transcript is received so that person can proceed to trial.

MR. PARSONS: First of all, once the preliminary is

conducted, as I understand it, it depends on the length of the preliminary. If

you have been involved in a preliminary that only took two days, obviously it is

a far shorter time to prepare that transcript then it would be if the

preliminary took two months.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, say a preliminary hearing

that took three days, just as an example?

MR. PARSONS: I did have a stat sheet on that. A

couple of months ago one of the Justices in the Court of Appeal had made a

comment about preparation of transcripts. I guess generally the best thing to

say is that it is very timely. In the case of criminal, for example, anybody who

is awaiting a transcript, whether it be not necessarily a preliminary hearing

but any kind of transcript from a trial, if anybody is going to be - if their

liberty is at risk as a result of waiting for it, they certainly get priority.

MS S. OSBORNE: So it has been speeded up. A person

who I knew went before the preliminary - his preliminary hearing was in December

and his court date was in May. His court date had to be postponed because the

preliminary transcript was not typed. Has that been speeded up any? This was

probably seven or eight years ago.

MR. PARSONS: Was it a criminal or a civil matter?

MS S. OSBORNE: Criminal.

MR. GORMAN: I don't know the facts, obviously, of

that particular case but I can tell you just in a general sense that over the

last few years we have found a real improvement in getting our indictments filed

in terms of getting transcripts from the preliminary inquiries. I don't know

what happened in that case but it does not appear to be a major problem these

days.

MS S. OSBORNE: This particular person told me that

from the time he was arrested until he was exonerated by the Court of Appeal was

twenty months. That is a long time for somebody to be held up.

MR. GORMAN: That is a long time. That could easily

occur. For instance, if it goes to the Court of Appeal, once the appeal is

argued we have absolutely no control over how long it takes the court to render

its judgment.

MS S. OSBORNE: The court process was pretty

untimely, from December for the preliminary, and when the court date was set in

May the transcript was not ready so it had to be postponed. It was ready in the

fall. That is a long time. Like I said, that is seven or eight years ago but it

is a long time. I just wondered if it had been speeded up. Nobody has spoken to

me about that since but I just wondered, for my own information, had that been

speeded up.

MR. GORMAN: Generally speaking there is not a big

problem with the preliminary inquiry transcripts.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of

questions for the minister now and we are pretty well finished, I guess.

On the issue of legal aid, is the private Bar involved

at all in legal aid now?

MR. McCARTHY: Most of the work is done by staff

lawyers at legal aid. There is the odd time when a (inaudible) is sent out to an

outside lawyer for unique reasons, but obviously for cost purposes it is much

cheaper to have staff lawyers than to assign these cases out to private

practitioners.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do I understand that we send legal

aid people now, say, from Corner Brook to the various circuit courts and so on?

Is that the way it works?

MR. McCARTHY: I am not sure if I understand your

question.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do I understand that, say, whenever a

court goes on circuit - Baie Verte is the area I know best; it does not happen

in my district because they go up to Grand Falls or Gander - if the court goes

on circuit from Corner Brook to Baie Verte, is there always a legal aid person

to travel with the court?

MR. McCARTHY: I don't know if it is always, Mr.

Rideout. I know if there are criminal charges, like first appearances, there is

usually a duty counsel to assist. Certainly if individuals have been charged in

advance of the circuit court they apply for legal aid and they are assessed

individually. There will be lawyers present for those particular people.

MR. RIDEOUT: I found your answer interesting in

terms of criteria and how you assess it. Is there a cutoff limit for family

income at which point legal aid won't consider helping a person at all?

MR. McCARTHY: I don't think so, minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is wide open?

MR. McCARTHY: I could check that for you.

Certainly, when I looked at it last there was no income ceiling. If I may be a

bit simplistic here - I touched on this earlier - you may, for example, have a

young man charged with a criminal offense who is maybe working part-time and

making $12,000 a year. That doesn't sound like much, but if he is living at home

with mom and dad with no expenses he may not get legal aid or he may be required

to contribute to his legal aid expenses.

On the other hand, for example, I know of a situation

where a woman required legal assistance quite significantly. Her salary was

maybe $25,000 to $30,000, she had four children at home, and a mortgage, and the

ex-husband was paying nothing. She did qualify for legal aid. She did have to

contribute to the cost over a long-term, but to my knowledge there is no

absolute salary ceiling on legal aid. I could certainly check the regulations to

see if there has been any changes lately but it hasn't come to my attention.

MR. RIDEOUT: I appreciate that and your commitment

to check it. I worked with a legal aid clinic in Ottawa when I was going to law

school, and I can tell you that there was a limit on what Ontario legal aid

would consider as family income. That was in the days before the dirty Tories

got in office too in Ontario. I don't know what the situation is in

Newfoundland.

One final question for the minister, and that is about

the federal gun control legislation. We asked your colleague the other night

when we were doing the Resource Estimates, the Minister of Forestry and

Agrifoods, about the yellow envelope, I believe it was, that appeared in the

moose license applications that went out across the Province a few months ago.

WITNESS: That is why they were delayed.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is why they were delayed. Your

colleague told us at the time that he has had so much reaction to it that if he

had his time back again he wouldn't have sent the yellow envelopes out with the

moose license applications.

I guess my question is: Where is the Province on the

federal gun control legislation? Did we take intervener status at the court case

that is still pending, have we kept quiet and done nothing, or have we been

vocal in the support of the federal gun control legislation?

MR. PARSONS: I am certainly not aware - maybe my

Deputy is - not since I have been here if there has been any actions in that

regard.

MS SPRACKLIN: The regime is administered by the

federal government in Newfoundland. I think it is safe to say that the

Government of Newfoundland (inaudible) or the department was supportive of any

measures which would enable police to deal more effectively with the illegal

acquisition of guns. You can have all sorts of arguments about whether this

particular scheme is good or bad, I guess, but I think in general government or

the Department of Justice supported the desire of the federal government to

restrict access to guns. We don't in principle have any difficulty, I don't

think, with the principle of registration of firearms. We have not been involved

in the particulars of this particular regime. It is administered by the federal

government here.

MR. RIDEOUT: Minister, maybe you would know the

answer to this. I have heard that there are fifty - that is the number I heard -

active RCMP officers taken out of active duty and put in the firearms

registration centre in New Brunswick. If there are fifty active officers doing

that, then that has to have negative implications on policing, property

protection and so on. I would assume it has negative implications for

Newfoundland as a contractual partner with the federal government on police

services, as it would have for any other province in Canada. I heard that in an

interview as late as this morning. Is there anything to that or is it just a

bunch of foolishness?

MR. PARSONS: As I understand it, we have a

contractual arrangement based on the money that we can afford to pay. If we have

enough money to buy 100 officers in our contract, based on our 70-30 split

between the Province and the feds, if that is what we bought that is what we

get. We don't contract for, say, 100 officers based on the contract and then

they turn around and take ten to put on gun control. If they do then that is

something that they decide to do as a federal government responsible for the

RCMP -

MR. RIDEOUT: Out of their complement.

MR. PARSONS: - but it would have nothing to do

with our contract.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is all I have.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. SMITH: If I could get in to interject here,

Mr. Chairman, that it is interesting (inaudible).

They won't have any problem paying for it. I went

through the process myself before Christmas. Just to license a shotgun and a

rifle it is $50 just for the licensing. Right now there is quite a debate

brewing, and we have been a little late off the mark here in Newfoundland, but

in my district now I am hearing every day from people who are really upset about

the whole process. Having gone through it personally, now that I have gone

through the process I have to say I have some difficulty with it as well. To me

it is intrusive. Particularly I had great difficulty with the fact that I had to

provide, in addition to the $50 fee, a head and shoulders photo, a passport

photo, that now somebody has on file somewhere in New Brunswick.

Now it is not bad enough they have my social insurance

number; I can't go anywhere but now there is a picture floating around

somewhere. They not only know my number but now they know what I look like. I

think that is the debate that is out there. A lot of people are very upset and

they have no difficulty with - the thing that I have (inaudible) had some

difficulty with, for the life of me I don't understand how the federal

government knowing that I own a shotgun and a rifle and have it in my residence

in Lourdes is going to do one damn thing in terms of reducing crime and

everything else in this country. I really have great difficulty.

MR. PARSONS: Now we have two, because we also have

you on your driver's license.

MR. COLLINS: A driver's license photo, hardly

anybody is going to recognize you from that one.

WITNESS: Good point, Randy.

MR. COLLINS: I just have a couple of things, one

on the gun control. Most people are saying - and really I think it is true - it

is just another tax grab that Ottawa has imposed upon people. I agree with

Gerry, it is not going to do a thing for crime control, but it is putting people

through a heck of a lot of bureaucratic paperwork and at substantial cost. I

have been asked about this a number of times. I think there are six provinces

that are fighting the federal government on this issue in court, that have

signed on. I would have thought that given the ruralness of this Province and

the lack of a lot of big urban areas that our Province, for sure the people of

this Province, would state quite clearly that they are against that in any form.

Not that they are against crime prevention, automatic weapons or handguns, but

certainly when it comes to hunting rifles and shotguns most people do that as a

basic right of living in this Province and certainly will oppose any

restrictions to it.

However I would like to go back, and I would like to

say first that I don't necessarily agree with a comment that Mr. Alcock made

when I talked about policing to a question that was asked by Sheila, that if you

hear from the police there are not enough officers that they are just interested

in increasing their numbers and increasing their dues. I don't believe that for

a minute. I think the police officers of this Province take very seriously their

job of public protection and they are the ones that are on the road. They are

the front-line workers in that and they know better than anyone else, I would

suggest, whether or not there are enough people to do what is required of them.

I don't think it is a fair statement to say, when you hear things like this from

a police officer, that they are interested in increasing their numbers and

increasing their dues. I take exception to that.

Going back to the policy -

MR. WALSH: If I could, just for a moment. I

understand you wanting to take exception to it, but from where I am sitting I

have difficulty when I hear a spokesman for the police officers on an open line

show in the morning making reference to the fact that they may decide which laws

they are going to enforce over the coming weeks, that they might not give

speeding tickets or they might not do something else.

MR. COLLINS: That is a different issue altogether.

That is not what I am raising.

MR. WALSH: The exception that can be made, though,

is that exceptions could be made on both sides and -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I think we are getting a bit into the philosophical

part of the agenda here.

MR. COLLINS: My basic question is this, on the

policy. When I asked the question earlier about the relocation assistance to

officers of the RNC versus the RCMP, you said your policy is being worked on or

drafted, as I understood it. There is the policy being worked on? If so, I will

just ask the question: When can we expect that to be brought forward?

MR. ALCOCK: I would anticipate that the

implementation of the policy would probably be within the next number of months.

The policy is pretty much drafted. We are going through, I suppose, the final

fine tuning of the policy at this particular point in time. We are getting some

input from a couple of other sources and I would anticipate that that policy

would be in place in the next several months.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much.

MS S. OSBORNE: I just have one more question.

(Inaudible). It is on legal aid.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: I am going to double it up so that

I will get away with just one. How many lawyers are employed at legal aid and

how many people, on an average, will be served, say, for a year? That is all.

MR. McCARTHY: I am not sure I can answer that

myself. I think they have approximately fifty staff lawyers throughout the

Province. I couldn't tell you how many people are served per year, not without

checking.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.

CHAIR: Does that conclude discussion?

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move

1.1.01 through 4.2.03, but before I make the actual move I wonder if the

minister could add some credibility to the rumor that you may be looking at

building a new facility on Bell Island.

CHAIR: I want (inaudible) for Harbour Grace

actually.

WITNESS: That is federal, (inaudible).

CHAIR: I would still ask.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 4.2.03 carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads,

carried.

CHAIR: I would like to thank the minister and his

officials for coming today and being frank and pleasant with us.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I

express my thanks on behalf of myself and my officials. This was certainly a

learning experience and it is nice to be able to have an opportunity to justify,

I guess, and hopefully next year I will be more informed than I was this year in

terms of some of the details.

The Committee adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	2000-04-05
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga44_2000-04-05_ssc-jus_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dd20b001071cf3137abacd9dedd9f6dd3cb58fbd

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).