PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY First Session Forty-Eighth General Assembly Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Social Services April 27, 2016 - Issue 4 Department of Justice and Public Safety Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Assembly Honourable Tom Osborne, MHA

SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Department of Justice and Public Safety Chair: Lisa Dempster, MHA Vice-Chair: Tracey Perry, MHA Members: Paul Davis, MHA Carol Anne Haley, MHA Paul Lane, MHA Betty Parsley, MHA Scott Reid, MHA Gerry Rogers, MHA Clerk of the Committee: Lorna Proudfoot Appearing: Department of Justice and Public Safety Hon. Andrew Parsons, MHA, Minister Virginia English, Departmental Controller Andrew Green, Manager, Budgeting Heather Jacobs, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Corporate Services (

A) Luke Joyce, Director, Communications Jackie Lake-Kavanagh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Safety and Enforcement Fiona Langor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Corporate Services (

A) Wilma MacInnis, Director, Court Services Donovan Molloy, Assistant Deputy Minister, Criminal Operations Pamela Ryder-Lahey, Chief Executive Officer, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador John Samms, Executive Assistant Todd Stanley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Courts and Legal Services Also Present Sandy Collins, Researcher, Official Opposition Office Ivan Morgan, Researcher, Third Party Office

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 105 The Committee met at 5:35 p.m. in the Assembly Chamber. CHAIR (Dempster): We’ll get started, if everybody is ready, seeing the time of the evening. Welcome, everybody. I’ll ask the minister to introduce himself and his staff can introduce themselves. Then we can move to this side. When you’re speaking, I would ask you to just say your name for the purpose of the Broadcast Centre downstairs. I think that’s it. MR. A. PARSONS: Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo – La Poile, Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.

I guess we’ll go to my immediate right and then flip over to my left; I guess that’s how it works. MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: Jackie Lake- Kavanagh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Safety and Enforcement. MS. JACOBS: Heather Jacobs, Deputy Minister of Justice and Public Safety, Acting. MS. ENGLISH: Virginia English, Departmental Controller. MR. GREEN: Andrew Green, Manager of Budgeting. MS. LANGOR: Fiona Langor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Corporate Services, Acting. MR. STANLEY: Todd Stanley, Assistant Deputy Minister, Courts and Legal Services. MS.

RYDER-LAHEY: Pamela Ryder-Lahey, Chief Executive Officer, Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. MOLLOY: Donovan Molloy, ADM, Criminal Operations. MS. MACINNIS: Wilma MacInnis, Director of Court Services with the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. JOYCE: Luke Joyce, Director of Communications. MR. SAMMS: John Samms, Executive Assistant to the minister. MR. P. DAVIS: Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail – Paradise, Leader of the Opposition. MR. COLLINS: Sandy Collins, Office of the Opposition and retired politician. CHAIR: Welcome back to the Chamber. MR. REID: Scott Reid, MHA for St.

George’s – Humber. MS. ROGERS: Gerry Rogers and I work for the good people of St. John’s Centre. MR. MORGAN: Ivan Morgan, Researcher, NDP caucus. MR. LANE: Paul Lane, MHA for the District of Mount Pearl – Southlands. MS. PARSLEY: Betty Parsley, MHA, Harbour Main. MS. HALEY: Carol Anne Haley, MHA, Burin – Grand Bank. CHAIR: Thank you. Would the minister like to have a few words before I ask the Clerk to call the first subhead? MR. A. PARSONS: Sure. I’ll be very quick. We’ve all been through this stuff before. I’ll try my best to answer any questions.

Thankfully, I have good staff here that will follow up if there’s anything I can’t answer. If there’s anything we can’t answer, then I will make sure that if you ask, I’ll provide the information. Going back to what we’ve done in the past, anything I provide to one side, we’ll provide to the other side as well. I’m hoping, if you don’t mind, that we can start with Donovan Molloy in the back. He’s got a function involving the Crown prosecutors, ADMs from all across Canada. I’m hoping we can ask him and he can go back to that important matter. Then we’ll go right back to the front and let her go.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 106 CHAIR: What subhead, Minister, are you referring to? MR. A. PARSONS: That would be subhead 2.2.01, Criminal Law. CHAIR: Just for procedural purposes here, we’ll have the Clerk call that subhead. CLERK (Ms. Proudfoot): Subhead 2.2.01. CHAIR: Shall 2.2.01 carry? Go ahead, Mr. Davis. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. The first line, 01, would be under Salaries – we’re not going to take a lot of time in this particular area, but I do have some questions on it. The salary budget last year was at $6.2 million and the actual revised estimate was $6.1 million.

Can you tell me where those savings or reductions occurred? MR. A. PARSONS: It would have been savings due to vacancies, delayed recruitment and some new lawyers were hired at a lower starting salary as opposed to higher up in steps. That would be the savings on that one, I believe. MR. P. DAVIS: Sorry, vacancies and delayed recruitment? MR. A. PARSONS: Yeah, vacancies and there was some delayed recruitment, I believe. MR. P. DAVIS: So are there vacant positions there now? MR. A. PARSONS: I going to turn to Donovan on that one. MR. MOLLOY: Mr. Davis, there is currently one vacant position.

We were, as you may recall, flying prosecutors in and out of Labrador on occasion – well, more than occasion, I guess, last year. We had put certain people in the Goose Bay positions, but they were working from the St. John’s office. I’m very happy to say that we’re quite stable in the last year in the Goose Bay and Wabush area. We have one vacancy. The lady who was in the Labrador position went off on maternity leave. We had someone backfilling but then that person got a permanent position.

We have an articling clerk in Labrador who we want to keep, so rather than trying to find somebody in that six-month window, which is very hard to recruit anybody anyway because that’s all that’s left in a term, we decided to wait. The clerk is getting called in June. We’re going to submit an RSA to keep him on. He’s worked out fine and has expressed an interest in staying in Labrador. We purposely waited to fill that position. MR. P. DAVIS: We know there are changes coming to courts in different parts of the province.

What’s the impact on salaries or on positions when it comes to prosecutions and the Crown attorney’s office? What’s the impact on the closures of some of those courts? Harbour Grace, for example, is there a reduction in prosecution because of the closing of the Harbour Grace court that’s going to be absorbed somewhere else? MR. MOLLOY: No, Harbour Grace, maybe in the early ’90s, was staffed locally. We had an office there with a full-time assistant.

At some point in the ’90s, to the best of my recollection, they decided to close that office and have matters in Harbour Grace prosecuted out of our main office in St. John’s. That’s been the practice for as long as I can remember. The only change for us is, of course, that person won’t be driving back and forth to Harbour Grace as often. MR. P. DAVIS: Just to be clear then, there was a prosecutor who was assigned specifically to Harbour Grace court or were there a number of prosecutors who would travel out there? MR.

MOLLOY: We tend to try and have it confined to one person, simply because it’s better to have continuity in any area, it leads to more efficient processing of cases, but there were circumstances when that person might have a matter in St. John’s or there might be some conflict that we would send a different prosecutor out there. The intention was to have it, at all times, mainly concentrated with one person in the St. John’s office.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 107 MR. P. DAVIS: What happens to that one person? There are no job losses in that particular field or in that particular branch. MR. MOLLOY: No, I suspect, assuming the matters are going to be dealt with in St. John’s, that those matters will be distributed in the same way now that other cases in St. John’s are distributed. Meaning they’ll be assigned to prosecutors by their managers in accordance with the current system. So that person’s employment will not be affected. I suspect more people will be handling the files. That’s the only difference I anticipate. MR. P.

DAVIS: The Salaries under this section, do they include as well, support staff or support staff for prosecutors, or is this just simply – I see a bunch of heads going up and down. MR. MOLLOY: Yes, my understanding is it’s for all prosecution staff, whatever their function. MR. P. DAVIS: You said in Harbour Grace there’s one person who provided support in an office in Harbour Grace. MR. MOLLOY: No, that was back in 1992. They had a permanent office with a resident Crown attorney. I’m not familiar with the reasoning at that time, but they decided to close that office and have the prosecutions conducted out of St.

John’s. MR. P. DAVIS: What about in Labrador West and Wabush? Is it a similar circumstance there? MR. MOLLOY: I think it’s been since 2007, when Wabush was established as its own centre as opposed to simply being a circuit point, that we had a permanent Crown attorney there. The Crown attorney in that office does a number of circuits and also is routinely back and forth to Happy Valley-Goose Bay in any event, because the Wabush judge was sitting in Goose Bay prior to the recent announcement for a significant portion of each month.

So we’re exploring options, but that person may be able to continue to work out of the Wabush office. MR. P. DAVIS: As I’m looking further down, I see in Transportation and Communications there was $294,000 budgeted last year, $445,000 actually is the revised estimate of expenditure, but $326,000 is budgeted for this year. Is that related to this discussion we’re having now? MR. MOLLOY: No. My understanding, and I defer to Ms.

English on this, is in going through the budget historically this was an amount that – at least this is my simplified understanding of it – wasn’t used, or the average of what wasn’t used, and so that amount was deducted. Ms. English could better speak to it. MR. P. DAVIS: No, that’s fine. It’s not a big difference. I don’t know if the minister, if this is a place to answer this question, but I’m trying to grasp an understanding of how prosecutions and court will operate for Wabush. The Wabush court is closing, we understand. Then the prosecution cases, what would happen with those? MR. A.

PARSONS: What we’re going to do there – obviously, we have to work with the judiciary on it. It has to be done in consultation. We do have some prior practice we can go back to. Up to 2007, it had been a circuit court for 15-20 years. So I guess in this case, now that there is a prosecutor living there full-time – so depending on how we go about this, working with the caseload that’s there, it will likely be the same prosecutor, as I think Mr. Molloy said, that has been commuting back and forth between handling matters in Happy Valley-Good Bay and in Wabush. So we’re trying to figure it out there.

I guess the big change – not even a big change in some ways because the court hasn’t been permanent in many ways, given that the judge and the Crown prosecutor have been leaving to handle matters in Goose Bay which has a much higher caseload. These are things we’ll still be working through, obviously working with the judge and the administrators up there. We have Ms. MacInnis here also. So these are things we’ll figure out as we move forward.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 108 MR. P. DAVIS: I don’t know if it’s of this area. Do the prosecutor and judge actually live in Labrador West? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, that’s my understanding. MR. P. DAVIS: Even though I know the Wabush court is planning to close, you still haven’t sorted out exactly how that is going to (inaudible). MR. A. PARSONS: Well, this is the thing. We’ve given the notice there. They do live there but they have been commuting, I understand, for some time. They do a fair amount of work in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So it’s a matter of looking at what we’ve got there.

Again, I can’t talk about their personal circumstances, what their plan is, but I think if we work with the judiciary and work with the people there, I think you can still handle the caseload that’s there. Instead of having a full- time court, it may go back to a circuit court. I don’t want to say anything definitively, given that I have a duty to consult with the judiciary on that. It’s our belief that, given the caseload which has declined pretty significantly since 2007, we can make sure the cases are heard, probably using the same exact resources that are already there. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay.

Purchased Services, what is that? MR. A. PARSONS: Purchased Services; rent. MR. P. DAVIS: The reduction from $856,000 to $557,000 is expected to be what? MR. A. PARSONS: I might defer to Virginia on this one. MS. ENGLISH: The bulk of the money that was in the Purchased Services budget, a lot of it relates to rent. Some of it also relates to witness fees which are paid out of that budget. After some discussions back and forth with the Office of the Comptroller General, it was determined that some of those expenditures should properly be charged to Transportation and Communications.

So there was some change between the two budgets to reflect the proper appropriation for it. During a line-by-line review by the Department of Finance, it was also determined there were some historical dropped funds there and those were removed as part of this budget. MR. P. DAVIS: You mentioned rent is a good part of it. What rent is that? What rent is changing that would have an impact on that? I probably know. MS. ENGLISH: Atlantic Place is a big component of it. MS. JACOBS: Yes, Atlantic Place is a big component of it. We also pay rent in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the Crown attorney’s office and in St.

George’s, Stephenville, Gander and Marystown. MR. P. DAVIS: Is there something changing on the contract with Atlantic Place, because it’s $300,000 difference, which is a fair bit. Is there something – maybe the most major one, I would think, the most major rental would be Atlantic Place. Was there something changed in the contract there? MS. JACOBS: The contract, I believe, expires this fall coming and where Transportation and Works is currently in negotiation with Atlantic Place. CHAIR: Can I just remind Heather, before you speak, say your name for the purpose of the Broadcast Centre downstairs. Thank you. MR.

P. DAVIS: The only other one was on Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Is that the normal property, furnishings and equipment? Is there anything else there? I’m sorry; on Purchased Services, that doesn’t include – I noticed there’s a line for Professional Services. It’s not a big amount, $59,000. That’s staying much the same, but are there any other services other than that in Purchased Services? There’s nothing in Professional Services or outside counsel or any of those types of –?

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 109 MR. A. PARSONS: No. Outside counsel I think is mostly under a different heading, if I’m correct. That’s under civil. Am I right? MR. P. DAVIS: If outside counsel was brought in, for example, in a conflict matter or something like that, where would that be? MR. A. PARSONS: That’s a good question. MS. JACOBS: As you can see, this amount in Professional Services for Criminal Law is fairly low.

So if outside counsel is brought in for prosecution we would use the money there, but quite often the money comes out of Civil Division, Professional Services, just because the amount here is not as much. In Civil, I believe it’s usually $1.5 million, but I believe we have more money this year. MR. P. DAVIS: You’ll probably have to remind me of that when we get to Civil. MS. JACOBS: Sure. MR. P. DAVIS: I think that’s all. That’s 2.2.01, and I think that’s all the questions I have at this point in time. CHAIR: Okay. So we can move to Ms. Rogers if it’s okay with Mr.

Davis – he has two minutes left on the clock – and we’ll cover 2.2.01 here. Then I understand that’s it for this gentleman. MR. P. DAVIS: Madam Chair, I’m sorry. There was another area I wanted to ask questions on. I can do it after, if you want. It’s up to you. CHAIR: Is it the same? Is it pertaining –? MR. P. DAVIS: On the same area, yes. CHAIR: You may as well, yes. MR. P. DAVIS: On protection orders; there’s a concern in Labrador West that was a concern about processing on Emergency Protection Orders, Child Protection Orders and so on. How would that change?

What would the implications of not having a court in Wabush be? Would that be part of Prosecutions or would that be another area? We can leave it until later if you want. MR. A. PARSONS: Feel free – if Donovan or anybody else wants to speak to it. I will say it will probably be back similar to what it was in 2007, before that. It’s the same thing. I don’t have the exact times here. Wilma or Donavan might be better able to talk about when the court sat, when there was nobody there or there or whatever else. Maybe Donovan can speak from the criminal side of it. MR. MOLLOY: Mr.

Davis, Prosecutions doesn’t have any involvement in the procuring of Emergency Protection Orders. It’s either done mostly by the applicants themselves or a police officer on their behalf. We only become involved if a person is charged by the police with the breach of an Emergency Protection Order. I don’t know if that answers the question. MR. P. DAVIS: It does. It’s not your area is what you’re saying. So I’m not sure if this is the appropriate time to inquire on how that would happen. The concern that’s been raised with us is in the case of Wabush, so remote. Back in 2007 there were no EPOs. MR. A.

PARSONS: What we can do is go back to – when we do courts we can make sure we bring that up because Donovan doesn’t have any handling in that. MR. P. DAVIS: Sure, okay. MR. A. PARSONS: We’ll make sure we do discuss that when we go back to the Provincial Court heading. MR. P. DAVIS: Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR: Okay. Ms. Rogers. MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much for being here this evening. I can imagine how tough some

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 110 of the decisions have been in many of the departments with the current fiscal situation that we’re in. So I want to thank you for your dedication and your hard work, and probably some real creativity to try and continue to fulfil your mandate, even though there is such a strain on the fiscal situation within our province. I actually have no further questions. All the questions I did have on this topic area have been answered. So I’m fine, thank you.

CHAIR: Is it the wishes of the Committee that we continue on in the two, or do you want to go back now and start from the beginning? MR. A. PARSONS: Donovan owes you. OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) MR. MOLLOY: Thank you very much for allowing me to go first. CHAIR: Okay, I’ll ask the Clerk to call the first subhead. CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01. CHAIR: Oh, I have an error here. We should have called for – CLERK: No, we can do that when we do the totals. CHAIR: We can do that after? Okay. Go ahead. CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01. CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry? Can we start with Ms. Rogers this time? MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much.

Under Transportation and Communications there’s a change there, an increase of $30,000. MR. A. PARSONS: I think that has to do with the minister living over on the beautiful Southwest Coast. But, no, I think that has to do with the transportation that may not have been there with previous ministers, I think, having been closer to St. John’s. So I think that’s pretty much all of that actually, an estimated increase which, again, hopefully after a full year we can figure out and have a better gauge of where we are on that. MS. ROGERS: Okay. And what a trek you have as well. MR. A. PARSONS: It’s 890 kilometres. MS.

ROGERS: One way? MR. A. PARSONS: One way. MS. ROGERS: Yes, that’s a lot. That was the only question I had there. Under General Administration, 1.2.01, under Salaries, we see a reduction there of – CHAIR: Excuse me, Ms. Rogers; we’re still on the – we didn’t call the second one. MS. ROGERS: Oh, I see. You’re going to do each one separately? CHAIR: Yes. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Fine. CHAIR: Well, we could do all of the one if you want. That’s fine; we’ve done it different ways in Estimates. MS. ROGERS: I’d be fine with that. MR. A. PARSONS: If I might say, it doesn’t matter to me.

Whatever is easier for you guys or the Chair, it doesn’t matter to me. CHAIR: Okay. We’ll get a vote for all of them inclusive, but I’ll ask the Clerk to call the second subhead. CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01 to subhead 1.3.01. CHAIR: Okay. Shall 1.2.01 to 1.3.01 inclusive carry?

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 111 Okay, Ms. Rogers. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Thank you very much. Under Salaries you see a reduction of $151,000 there. MR. A. PARSONS: If I am correct – and I hope they’ll correct me if I’m wrong – there was a vacant communications position that we decided not to fill and to get rid of, I think. Also, there was a vacancy in the ADM position for a little while but that’s now been filled. That might explain the discrepancy there. MS. ROGERS: Okay. And the vacant comms position, would that be part of the 650 jobs that were announced as being cut? MR. A. PARSONS: I think so.

That’s my understanding. OFFICIAL: An attrition position. MR. A. PARSONS: Attrition. Sorry. MS. ROGERS: So it’s an attrition? Okay. Thank you. And then 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support, the Salaries there; we see a significant drop in ’15-’16. Can you explain that $1.3 million? MR. A. PARSONS: I think – and again, Virginia will save me if I’m wrong – it has to do with the Domestic Violence Court. There was some delay there in getting that started. So that’s why there’s been – it went down because the positions weren’t filled and there have been a number of positions.

I think we can probably get a list of those positions as well. MS. ROGERS: That are now filled? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, that we’re creating and we’re in the process of filling. Most of them, I think, are filled now. So we can get that list. So that explains why the number is back up. I think that was October 2015 is when they started getting filled. There was also a vacant clerk typist position and something to do with student budget I also believe. It might have gone to other divisions. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Can you give us an update on the rollout of the court now? So St. John’s is fully in operation? MR. A.

PARSONS: Yes. MS. ROGERS: Because we see also – well, let’s get at that and then we can go back to this. Where are we on the West Coast and Labrador? Can you give us an update on that? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. St. John’s is up and running. Actually, the stats I have here in front of me say they’ve heard 32 cases total; 22 active, three have been sentenced and seven have opted out. Stephenville; there’s been 12 cases total, seven active and five opted out. Stephenville; in the short period of time I’ve been here I’ve seen Stephenville starting to get up and running now.

I know a lot of staff have actually been travelling to do the training that comes with it. Part of my mandate, obviously, was to – and part of what we said we’d like to do is increase it to Labrador and to Central. I believe, actually, last year – I might get it wrong on dates – during the summer I think staff internally did some work, and met with the different interest groups and stakeholders to work on what the model is going to be and how we’re going to do it. So that’s something, again, I can’t put a timeline on it, but the plan is obviously to do that. Central is the same thing.

Right now we’re trying to figure out how we’re going to do it, where would you put it in one of the courthouses that are out there. You’ve got different options there. So that’s what we’re trying to figure out. So it’s something I’d like to see. And I think with these courts I don’t think anybody disputes the value of it. But it’s like anything, too, I think you’ve got to get the members of the bar on board as well and get some education there. It’s not something that everybody is obviously used to.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 112 St. John’s is already started. I think Stephenville – as people get used to it on the West Coast, it will see an uptake there and hopefully we’ll see more go through there. MS. ROGERS: And so can we go back to Labrador? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MS. ROGERS: Where is that at now? What’s the process? MR. A. PARSONS: We’re still, internally, trying to figure out what we want to do there, how we want to roll it out. Obviously, there are some different challenges up there. We have a pretty busy courthouse. It’s not ready to roll out by any means yet, I don’t think.

It’s like anything. I hate putting timelines on anything if I can’t guarantee what it will be. Given that we have two models, or two up and running now and we have the two left – and again, we all recognize that Labrador has some different challenges also when it comes to the hiring side of the individuals that you need as well. It is going to happen; there’s no doubt. Prior to me ever being here, I know staff have met with a lot of the groups whether it was the Innu, Nunatsiavut – Jackie did a lot of the work, so she is probably better off speaking to it. MS.

LAKE-KAVANAGH: We had some meetings in Labrador there the fall and we met with representatives from Nunatsiavut. We met with the deputy minister and probably about six or seven of her staff. It was a really, really productive discussion. One of the comments that they made is that they were more interested in broad, overall issues of violence in the community and not just violence against women or intimate partner relationships. We thought that was interesting. We also met with the Chief Qupee from the Innu Nation and a couple of representatives from the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation as well.

That was a really productive, constructive discussion, very positive. One of the things that they did say is that they were quite interested, but there was obviously a lot of ground to cover and a lot of discussions that would need to take place. But the initial discussions were very positive. MS. ROGERS: So is there any money in the budget this year for the rollout of the Labrador court? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, there has been budget monies allotted to continue studying it and figure out what we want to do. MS. ROGERS: So how much is that? MR. A. PARSONS: I think the rough figure is $300,000. MS. ROGERS: Okay.

That’s to continue to study (inaudible) – MR. A. PARSONS: That would be both; that would be Labrador and Central. MS. ROGERS: And Central, okay. Again, it’s the assessment but not for any kind of implementation. MR. A. PARSONS: I don’t want to say that for sure. I don’t want to go out and say implementation because I’m not convinced that that’s entirely possible this year, but again it’s one of those things – I haven’t had an opportunity. I’ve been planning to get up to Labrador myself in February then between weather and everything else. I want to get up there myself.

I’ve been up there before, but I want to get up and have the same conversations myself. Hopefully I can get up when the House closes; it’s kind of difficult. I’d like to get up there – depending on when the House closes, it might even be a summer visit. I don’t want to move forward myself without even going up and maybe talking to the people on the ground. MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. If we go back to Salaries, from the original budget of ’15-’16 to the estimate for ’16-’17, we see a drop of almost $720,000.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 113 MS. JACOBS: Part of that is all the money for the Family Violence Intervention Court was put into Administrative and Policy Support. When the court was started up in St. John’s and Stephenville, we transferred the salaries out to the proper areas; for example, Victim Services, Probation, Provincial Court, Legal Aid, Prosecutions and CYFS. So the money is now transferred out to those particular heads. MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. That makes sense. Thank you for working so quickly on that, once it was rolling again. I see my time is up. Thank you. CHAIR: Mr. Davis. MR. P.

DAVIS: You’re probably going to hear this question a fair bit tonight. I’m not sure if I should ask it at the end or at the beginning or throughout. So you can judge yourself accordingly, as long as I get the information before the end of it. While we’re on 1.2.02, Salaries, you said the $720,000 difference is salaries that are transferred to other budget heads. I understand that. The salary changes here, the $720,000, are any of those positions being eliminated or lost through attrition or vacant positions or otherwise? MS. JACOBS: Not at this juncture, no. MR. P. DAVIS: What does that mean, not at this time?

MS. JACOBS: No, Mr. Davis. MR. P. DAVIS: It was at this time that – MS. JACOBS: No. MR. P. DAVIS: Is there a plan? Well, is there anything budgeted here for reductions in the department in the months to come? MR. A. PARSONS: I can speak to that. Obviously, everybody knows, and you remind us in the House every day, we have this one budget and then we have the next budget coming up. I can say, obviously, we’re not looking at cuts, per se. That’s not where I’m going.

Where I am right now, I guess being five months in, I’m still trying to get a handle of the department to see where – I do think there are things we can do differently. That’s not code for efficiencies or anything else. I just think getting in and trying to ask a few questions – is there something we need to change the model on? I don’t know. Is there something we need to add people to, change people? Right now, I’m still at the process where, quite frankly, when you first get in trying to get your head wrapped around it and keep up with it.

Then lately we’ve been, obviously, bogged down between the House of Assembly and the budget. So once that moves forward, I want to get back to looking at sort of the fundamentals of the department on the different aspects, some that aren’t concentrated on enough and maybe other things. Going back to what Ms. Jacobs said, I would say the answer is no. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. I understand. If I can paraphrase, the change in the Salaries is not a reflection of any job reductions or employment reductions.

Having said that, you as the minister, which I would expect you to do, will go back to the department and look at how operations are conducted and if there are more effective or more efficient ways to do that, that could result in a job loss, you wouldn’t say that can’t happen or won’t happen and I appreciate that. MR. A. PARSONS: Well, I guess I’ve been around long enough to know that I’ve got to be careful with what I say. MR. P. DAVIS: Absolutely do. MR. A. PARSONS: Because those words can be taken the wrong way. MR. P. DAVIS: I’ve learned that. MR. A.

PARSONS: I’m not looking actively to find jobs to get rid of, but I think anybody that

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 114 looks at their department, or anybody who looks at anything, you are looking at is there a way we can doing things – are we doing things the best way they could go? So it’s not something I’m actively looking at. I don’t want to – MR. P. DAVIS: I wasn’t trying to suggest you’re trying to find a way to eliminate jobs. MR. A. PARSONS: No. MR. P. DAVIS: It’s just how you do business and if that change in business results in a loss of a job or a position then – MR. A.

PARSONS: I guess if I were to look at something and I think it can be done differently, differently by hopefully better, then I’m going to examine it. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. Under this area there’s Revenue, federal and provincial revenue, can you explain that to me? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. Under the provincial revenue, I believe the understanding of that is that it’s budgeted revenues from Commissioner of Oaths, Notary Public applications as well as autopsy reports, which is kind of morbid the fact that the number actually increased. So that makes up that information there.

Under the federal revenue which is $30,000, I’m very happy to report that we reached out to our federal Minister of Justice back when I got in, probably within the first three or four weeks. So we’ve gotten $30,000 in funding to do a drug treatment court feasibility study. That’s something I’ve been meeting with members of the bar and administrators on. We’ve secured the funding so that’s something that we’ll be, hopefully, getting done. The feds do cover the cost of the feasibility. So that’s the first step in, hopefully, moving forward to explore that model. MR. P.

DAVIS: What happened in the Revenue from a budget of $63,000 to a revised of $240,000 and now budgeted $210,000? MR. A. PARSONS: I would say that the $210,000 is probably a best estimate based on what we had last year. The significant increase, if I’m right, is from increased autopsies, Notary Public applications and Commissioner of Oaths. MR. P. DAVIS: Really from $63,000 to $240,000? MR. A. PARSONS: I know I felt the same way when I looked at it. The $210,000 would be a guess but I mean, obviously, like any kind of revenue – when it comes to autopsies, I obviously don’t want to see that revenue increase. MR. P.

DAVIS: No, absolutely. Madam Chair, maybe if we go back to 1.1.01 and 1.2.01, we could just clear those up. Actually, I think you’ve covered everything I have on 1.1.01. Only that, in the Minister’s Office, no change in staffing levels? There is a small increase in salary but there is no staffing change? MR. A. PARSONS: No staffing change but the salary increase would have been with one of the previous ministers didn’t have a constituency assistant. So now we’re factoring in – it’s the same makeup. It’s myself, the EA, you have your executive secretary, Ms. Rhonda Stewart and that’s it.

It’s the same staffing level. MR. P. DAVIS: In Executive Support under 1.2.01 – and that’s all my questions on 1.1.01, Madam Chair, but on 1.2.01, the $150,000 you said was a position that was vacant, an attrition position, no other position changes under that area of Executive Support? MR. A. PARSONS: No, it’s a new ADM at a lower salary scale. There was the one vacant communications position that was removed. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. Maybe in the short time I have left we can move ahead now to 1.2.03 which I think is the next area. The first three would be completed, unless Ms.

Rogers has to go back there or wants to go back there, maybe she will.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 115 CHAIR: You can finish up your time if you want, Mr. Davis, because we’ll continue on before I call it up to 1.3.01. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. Under Salaries, we see an increase in salaries there. Can you explain that one, Minister? MR. A. PARSONS: 1.2.03, Legal Information Management? MR. P. DAVIS: Yes. MS. JACOBS: We had wrongly – we had an Aboriginal research position that we had the salary put in the civil division. So now it’s properly put over into Legal Information Management, where it should be. MR. P. DAVIS: Oh, so it’s just a move to another subhead. MS.

JACOBS: Yes. MR. P. DAVIS: You guys do that a lot. MS. JACOBS: We’re tangly. MR. P. DAVIS: Supplies, what would be supplies under Legal Information because it seems to be as very high number for supplies, relative to other areas? Why would that be so high? MR. A. PARSONS: I think that’s the subscriptions to the different materials that make up the law libraries. As we know, we’ve seen an increase in that. Even when you go from hardcopy to electronic now, the publishers are still going to find a way. I guess we’ve seen that, whether it’s Memorial University or anywhere. So that’s my understanding.

Is it all subscriptions? Mostly? Obviously, there are still the usual supplies like paper, pen, whatever, but I think the increase is mainly due to the subscriptions. MR. P. DAVIS: So subscriptions wouldn’t be under Purchased Services, it’s under Supplies? MR. A. PARSONS: Purchased Services is actually storage and record retrieval. MR. P. DAVIS: Your cost more than doubled. It’s a relatively small amount compared to some other areas, but it’s more than double last year and the estimate for this year is double what it was last year. Do we have that many more records or is it a contract? MR. A.

PARSONS: As time goes by we are storing more. I think looking back, the historical trends show that the new number is probably a little more accurate than what was actually budgeted, previously. I can see this is something we’ve seen when you do a line by line through government. What we’re paying for record retrieval is crazy. It’s a huge expense across government. The storage is one thing, but the record retrieval is a big cost. So the $25,000 is probably the more – well, that’s obviously what we spent, but the $20,000 is hopefully something more accurate. MR. P. DAVIS: Would they be long-term contracts?

Is that how they work? MR. STANLEY: The contracts are tendered. I don’t know if they’re long, long-term. They may be three, four or five years but that’s about it. It’s not a 10 or 15 or 20 year contracts. Most of the expenses are in relation to the retrieval and putting it back, as opposed to a monthly cost for storing boxes. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIR: Okay. Ms. Rogers. MS. ROGERS: Yes, just to bring us back to 1.2.02, Administrative and Policy Support.

Under Purchased Service we see a sharp reduction in revised for ’15-’16 and then also a reduction for ’16-’17 compared to the original budget for ’15-’16.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 116 Can you just tell me what some of those Purchased Services might be and why the fluctuation? MR. A. PARSONS: (Inaudible) I think the big one might have been funding for copiers which again is another huge expense. So it’s the funding for copiers, previously budgeted and was paid through this division. Now it’s reallocated throughout the department. That’s the big thing there. The other part of Purchased Services – obviously, we’ve got some money set aside there for funding allocated for possible expansion of the Domestic Violence Court.

There will be some necessary for that and the possibility of counselling services that would go with that. MS. ROGERS: So the community groups that provide the – the empowerment groups, that kind of thing, does that come under Purchased Services for the Domestic Violence Court? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. And all that copying – we were supposed to become a paperless society, hey. We were supposed to have more leisure. We have neither. It was all supposed to be that way. MR. A. PARSONS: I can remember, it wasn’t that long ago, hearing we were going to move towards paperless and no. MS.

ROGERS: And computers were going to give us a four-day week. They’ve given us a seven-day week. Okay. Thank you very much. 1.2.04 under Administrative Support; we see quite a reduction there under Property, Furnishings and Equipment. MR. A. PARSONS: There was a delay in the purchase of vehicles for the Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Division and the RNC. I think the actual expenditure – and Virginia might be better talking about this than I am because there’s a bit of a convoluted explanation to this. MS. ROGERS: I remember a little bit of it from last year, I think. MS.

ENGLISH: There was $771,000 budgeted last year for vehicles, mostly with the RNC and Fish and Wildlife. We projected $619,000 because we were waiting on approvals for the vehicles. We’ve actually spent $689,000. The budget for ’16-’17 is reduced. That was a Budget 2015 decision. MS. ROGERS: Okay. I wonder, Madam Chair, are you wanting to call at the bottom? CHAIR: Yes. You’re done in

section 1? Okay. MS. ROGERS: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes. MR. A. PARSONS: I guess before you call it, I don’t know if Mr. Davis has any more – MR. P. DAVIS: On 1.2.04? MR. A. PARSONS: 1.2.04, before you call it, you might want to have a – MR. P. DAVIS: No, she asked the question and it’s a fairly – there’s a difference that Vanessa explained. I’m fine with that one. MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. MR. P. DAVIS: On 1.3.01, do we want to do that one first? MS. ROGERS: Sure, yes. MR. P. DAVIS: Because that will end that section, right. MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. MR. P. DAVIS: Did you want to go ahead, Gerry? MS. ROGERS: Sure, thank you. The provincial revenue, we see an expectation that there may be more.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 117 MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, there’s been a change in the fees there. I think it used to take in $7 from the City of St. John’s, MUN and the hospital parking lot tickets or fines. That’s been increased to $9. MS. ROGERS: Of the tickets that they issue, the province would get $7 of that. Now they’re going to get $9 of it. MR. A. PARSONS: We do the processing, I believe, and the collections. And in the City of St. John’s we were doing the prosecuting, but we’re moving away from that September 1. MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. I’m good. Thank you.

CHAIR: Okay, I’ll ask the Clerk to call the – MR. P. DAVIS: I’m sorry – MR. LANE: I have questions as well. CHAIR: Okay, my apologies. Mr. Davis and then Mr. Lane. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. On 1.3.01 on Salaries, same questions as before; any position adjustments or changes under that heading? MR. A. PARSONS: No, I don’t think so. Is there? No. MR. P. DAVIS: No. Okay. MR. A. PARSONS: The salary variance might have been due – there were some vacancies there, I think, for a little while. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. CHAIR: You’re good? MR. A. PARSONS: And I will say that Ms.

English has been doing two jobs so there was a savings there. MR. P. DAVIS: Don’t remind her. CHAIR: Mr. Lane. MR. LANE: Yes, just out of curiosity, I was listening to the conversation. I’m just wondering how autopsies wind up being a revenue to the province? I’m just wondering how that works, just out of curiosity and education. MR. A. PARSONS: If reports are requested there’s a fee that comes with it, I guess, through the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner who does the autopsies. MR. LANE: But who would be asking for an autopsy that we would be charging a fee to? MR. A.

PARSONS: I would assume the health authority, probably. I don’t know if there are private requests for autopsies as well. I think there are private requests sometimes for autopsies. So there’s a fee that comes with that. MR. LANE: Okay. And if it comes from health, it’s showing as a revenue on your budget. But obviously it’s an expense on the health care budget, right, a wash? MR. A. PARSONS: Again, I wouldn’t call it a cost per se; it’s a time thing. It has to be done by Dr. Avis’s office, so it is a revenue.

It sounds weird saying it when you’re talking about autopsies as a revenue generator, but there is a significant amount of work. From what Virginia tells me there are actually quite a few requests. MS. ROGERS: So if my mom dies and I want an autopsy, then do I pay for that? MR. A. PARSONS: Autopsy report. MS. ROGERS: Report, okay. MR. A. PARSONS: I think there’s a difference between the autopsy and the report. Am I right? MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: If an autopsy is required under the legislative provisions of the Chief Medical Examiner’s office, there’s no charge for that.

But if somebody wants the report, then afterwards, if they’re looking for it, there may be a charge for a report. They don’t charge for autopsies.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 118 CHAIR: Are we good now with

section 1 up to 1.3.01? Yes. Okay, I’ll ask the Clerk to call them again. CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01 to 1.3.01 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 to 1.3.01 inclusive carry? All those in favour? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIR: All those against? Carried. On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 1.3.01 carried. CHAIR: The next subheading we’ve done, but we won’t call that. We’ll continue on and do it at the end. I’ll ask the Clerk to call the next one. CLERK: Subhead 2.1.02. MR. A. PARSONS: We didn’t do 2.1.01, did we? CHAIR: Yes, we did that with the gentleman that left. MR. A. PARSONS: That was Civil Law, wasn’t it?

OFFICIAL: That was Criminal Law. MR. A. PARSONS: That was Criminal Law – OFFICIAL: Sorry, you’re right. MR. A. PARSONS: – this is Civil. OFFICIAL: Yeah, Civil Law. CHAIR: I’m glad somebody is awake. MR. A. PARSONS: How dare you skip over my Estimates here? CLERK: Subhead 2.1.01. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01 carry? Mr. Davis. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. The same questions as other headings. Under Salaries, any position changes under Civil Law. MR. A. PARSONS: Okay, that’s where we talked earlier about there was an Aboriginal research position. That was the change there.

But I can probably go out and – do you know what? To save us some trouble going forward, how many positions did this budget – in our department? It’s 31? Thirty-one positions, I think, total. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay so – OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) MR. A. PARSONS: Yeah. Am I right to say that? MR. P. DAVIS: Do you have a breakdown of those available? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, I can definitely get you a copy of that. Some were vacant, some were filled. I think there were 17 associated with the courts, am I right? Close? MR. P. DAVIS: Minister, do you have that as FTs or, actually, people? MR. A.

PARSONS: I’m pretty sure that’s people, isn’t it – or positions. Now, again there were a number of them vacant too, I think, wasn’t it. Let’s see. There are nine vacant, four layoff notices issued, 17 notice of notice issued and one called continued arrangement. It’s a total of 31, but what I can do is I certainly don’t mind providing a sheet with this information as well. MR. P. DAVIS: What was the last one you said, one what? Notice of – MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, there was a layoff notice issued, notice of notice issued and then continued arrangement.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 119 MR. P. DAVIS: What’s a notice of notice issued? MR. A. PARSONS: Oh, that’s the prosecutor in Wabush. There is not a position gone there. She’s not losing her job, but there’s a change, I think, in the status of it. Where she’s in Wabush, where is she going to go. That’s one of the ones we are still working on. MR. P. DAVIS: So you said 37 in total? MR. A. PARSONS: Thirty-one. MR. P. DAVIS: Oh, sorry, 31 in total. MR. A. PARSONS: Yeah. MR. P. DAVIS: Nine vacant, four layoffs, actually got notices; 17 – MR. A. PARSONS: Notice of notice. MR. P. DAVIS: Notice of notice.

MR. A. PARSONS: That’s the courts, I believe, and sheriff’s officers involved with the courts. MR. P. DAVIS: Which is the next heading, which we’ll get to. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MR. P. DAVIS: I want to discuss that a little bit further. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MR. P. DAVIS: Under Civil, there are no impacts? MR. A. PARSONS: No. MR. P. DAVIS: Also, in Professional Services we see a big change from what was budgeted to revised to the estimate for this year. Can you explain that one? MR. A. PARSONS: What is it we’re anticipating this year? OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) MR. A. PARSONS: I’ll let Mr.

Stanley answer that; he’ll do a better job than me. MR. STANLEY: This year, based on our past experience with some of the expenditures we’re having in various files relating to mostly energy related matters but also files for where it’s Attorney General appointments of counsel in court, we went forward and asked for additional funding, just in anticipation of some of the files that we see coming. Based on our historical numbers, as you can see, last year we exceeded the budget as well.

Just for reference, this budget supports both government’s outside counsel retentions but it’s also the budget that is used to pay for counsel when the court appoints counsel in criminal matters. That’s something we’re seeing a lot of growth in and we have no control over it. We’re basically just required to pay the bill when they come. MR. P. DAVIS: I’m sorry, maybe you can explain to me in a little bit more detail when that would happen. I know it happens from time to time but, generally, when does it happen? MR.

STANLEY: There are a couple of mechanisms under which an individual who is charged with a criminal offense can apply to the court and ask for the court to appoint them, or appoint for them a counsel at the expense of the Attorney General. There’s a provision under our Legal Aid Act, if someone is charged with a homicide they can opt – sorry. Traditionally, there’s a provision under the Legal Aid Act. It’s still there for people to apply for to get their own counsel.

What we’re finding is that we’re having a number of instances where people are claiming they can’t find counsel at the rates that we used to pay for outside counsel under legal aid, which was about $60 an hour. So people were claiming they couldn’t avail of counsel under the Legal Aid Act; therefore, they wanted the court to appoint counsel paid for by the AG at market rates. In the last couple of years we’ve had a swing where we’ve had a number of these people appointed where we’re paying – we’re paying significant amounts of money per hour for these criminal appointments, and these trials, once

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 120 someone gets appointed, can take a couple of years to wind through. So we’ve had some significant bills come in, and we’re anticipating some significant bills on that next year. To minimize or reduce this activity, that’s one of the reasons why we increased the legal aid’s outside counsel rate last year to $115 an hour, to try to keep it within the legal aid system as opposed to coming straight to the Attorney General for funding. We’re starting to see some benefit of that, in that we’re getting more people willing to take up certificates at a legal aid rate. MR. P.

DAVIS: Legal aid rates now are $115. Where do market rates run? MR STANLEY: For criminal, locally we can see up to $200 an hour. Maybe even a bit more, depending on who the practitioner is. Actually, we’ve seen, I think, up to $300 an hour for one or two people but the usual rate is something (inaudible). MR. P. DAVIS: Does legal aid have a conflicts office? MR. STANLEY: Yes, they do, here in St. John’s. MR. P. DAVIS: And that hasn’t been an avenue when a person can – MR.

STANLEY: Well, when legal aid – if an individual gets assigned legal aid counsel and then has a problem with that legal aid counsel and wants another lawyer, legal aid will assess. They will use the conflict office if they think that the reason the person wants to get rid of their first legal aid lawyer creates a potential conflict. Legal aid is always very sensitive to conflict issues, but a lot of the times we have these individuals who’ve gone through three, four, five lawyers at legal aid and then claim they can’t form a solicitor-client relationship with anybody at legal aid.

They can’t form a solicitor- client relationship with anybody in the private sector at legal aid rates; therefore, they want the Crown to pay for the lawyer of their choice. We have those applications. It’s sort of a yin and yang thing. We’re back and forth with the courts fighting them. Sometimes they’re successful, sometimes not. Not every one of those applications is successful. MR. P. DAVIS: Is there a time or a case where an accused would say I need two lawyers? Does that happen? MR.

STANLEY: When we’ve done these AG retentions, we have agreed to pay for a second counsel on a file where it’s a significant matter, such as a homicide. We usually require some kind of a discount for the second counsel. We’ve also been agreeing, actually in the last year or so, to pay for a paralegal just in an attempt to keep the cost down of the overall processing. Because of the amount of paperwork and everything that can be involved, records and disclosure for a significant criminal trial, like a murder, can be substantial. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. MR. A.

PARSONS: If I might add, I do have a list here of all the legal expenses paid out. So I’ll make sure I provide that as well, money paid out, mostly for civil, but obviously it covers off just about everything. It’s mostly counsel but I think there are some consultants, expert witnesses and stuff. So I’ll make sure that I do provide that. I know when I was there I used to ask for it all the time. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. I have a couple of minutes left in my time here. I’d like to move to 2.1.02, if I may, Madam Chair, under Sheriff’s Office.

You mentioned there are a number of sheriff’s positions being eliminated. Can you outline that for me? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, let me see now. I think the total is eight positions from the Office of the High Sheriff. I think most of these people are engaged in bumping. So I don’t know if there’s actually anybody – there are vacancies that are there. I understand that these people,

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 121 when they go through the process, will not actually end up out of a position or job. MR. P. DAVIS: So there are eight vacancies? MR. A. PARSONS: Eight positions. MR. P. DAVIS: There are eight vacancies they will move into. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MR. P. DAVIS: Would I be right in thinking there will be a reduction of eight positions when this is all done? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, and I think that’s associated with the courts. MR. P. DAVIS: There are eight positions but there are eight vacancies.

Essentially, what’s happening is you have eight vacancies that are being eliminated. No one is losing a job. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. Well, what it is, there are the four courts: Wabush, Harbour Grace, Grand Falls-Windsor and Grand Bank. So I think those eight positions are tied up mostly with that, and there’s one – MR. P. DAVIS: Sorry, which ones again? MR. A. PARSONS: What I’ll do, I’ll let Ms. Jacobs talk because she’s got it off the top of her head better than I do. MS. JACOBS: There were six positions associated with the closure of the courts.

As Minister Parsons indicated, there are vacancies that if they, for example, want to move to another position, there are vacancies in other areas to be able to fill. There were two other positions, I believe, in headquarters. There was a vacant IM position. As well, there was a realignment of duties and there was one layoff in that position, in a management position. MR. P. DAVIS: So it’s the Information Management, six sheriff’s positions, and what was the other one? MS. JACOBS: Manager of Judgement Enforcement. MR. P. DAVIS: In the case of a sheriff’s officer, say in Grand Bank, what are their options?

Are you saying they can bump to Gander or Corner Brook or St. John’s? MS. JACOBS: Sorry; in Grand Bank, I believe they’d all be absorbed, maybe over in the Provincial Court there because the Provincial Court won’t be closing in Grand Bank. It’s the Supreme Court there. MR. P. DAVIS: The Supreme Court, yes. Okay. In Grand Falls-Windsor? MS. JACOBS: The Provincial Court is remaining open there. So I’m assuming, Mr. Davis, now I’m not 100 per cent positive, that there are vacancies there. I think maybe what you’re getting at, if in Wabush, would the person be willing to move to Happy Valley-Goose Bay? MR. P.

DAVIS: Yes. MS. JACOBS: I don’t know the answer to that question at this time. MR. P. DAVIS: If they did, if they bumped to a vacant position – I know it’s hypothetical and difficult to answer and if you’d rather not, I understand. But if there was a vacancy in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, then does the employer relocate the employee at the expense of the employer? MS. JACOBS: I think I’ll leave that to my HRS friends because I’m not sure of the answer. MR. A. PARSONS: We can ask Dan on that one, though. There might be some HRS tie-up in that. I definitely don’t want to speak for that crowd. MR. P.

DAVIS: Of course the same thing for Harbour Grace if someone had to relocate because of a – MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: There are three positions in Harbour Grace that would be identified that would have opportunities elsewhere.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 122 MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. CHAIR: Mr. Davis, in the interest of time, can we now move to Ms. Rogers? MR. P. DAVIS: Yes, certainly. MS. ROGERS: Thank you. CHAIR: I’m hoping that we can stay within up until 2.1.04 and we’ll call that before we move on. MS. ROGERS: Sure. If we go back to 2.1.01, Civil Law, you had mentioned that some of them were energy cases. Can you tell us what energy cases they might entail? MR. A. PARSONS: I’m going to refer to a resident expert Mr. Stanley. MR.

STANLEY: The biggest expense that we have is in respect of arbitrations with the oil companies in respect of basically the ongoing maintenance of the royalty regimes we have offshore. So it isn’t litigation that is actually in the courts; it’s actually through the arbitration processes that are in the arrangements or the agreements with the oil companies. I think the biggest ones last year, we had one to do with Hibernia and I think there was one on White Rose. We’re finding that it’s a constant turn, that there’s always issues and we try to negotiate them and if we can’t get them, then we are in arbitration. MS.

ROGERS: So you go with outside counsel for that? MR. STANLEY: Oh, sorry; we handle those files with a combination of outside counsel and internal. We’re trying to move it to internal more and even going to look at doing a business case to see if we can possibly even staff up to avoid the costs, because they’re becoming bigger files than we were expecting them to be and we’re consuming a fair amount of resources on outside counsel. MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you. Is this where the tobacco file would be? MR. STANLEY: It is. We actually didn’t have any expenditure last year on tobacco-related matters at all. MS.

ROGERS: Is there an expectation that there will be this year? MR. STANLEY: The matter has kind of been in abeyance because we’ve been waiting for a decision or two from the Supreme Court on preliminary jurisdictional matters. I think the decision has been received or it is anticipated shortly, so we could have expenditures this year but we’re not expecting it to be significant. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Will it be with the same law firms who were initially handling this file? MR. STANLEY: Yes, we haven’t changed those retentions at all. MS.

ROGERS: So that would be Roebothan McKay Marshall, and then Humphrey, Farrington & McClain? MR. STANLEY: Yes, in the US. OFFICIAL: (Inaudible.) MR. STANLEY: Yes. Yes, sorry, it is the same firms; we haven’t changed those retentions. MS. ROGERS: Okay, so we expect some activity after the federal court decision? MR. STANLEY: We’ve been waiting for – the entire matter has been held up with preliminary matters. I’ll have to double check, because actually I haven’t looked at it recently. We were awaiting decisions from our Supreme Court. I think we got a decision, but then it may be under appeal.

But it’s all preliminary stuff on jurisdiction and who can give affidavits and requests – the churn. MS. ROGERS: So this can still be a really long time?

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 123 MR. STANLEY: Oh yes, this is a marathon, not a sprint for this kind of litigation. MR. A. PARSONS: If I might jump in there, I think the tobacco companies are very consistent in that they like to expend as much resource as possible to extend their cases long, which means their product continues to sell. MS. ROGERS: Who can stand the longest, huh? Okay. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. A. PARSONS: What? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.) MS. ROGERS: Yes. MR. A. PARSONS: Pretty much. MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you. So if we can move on to 2.1.03? MR. A. PARSONS: 2.1.03? MS.

ROGERS: Yes. MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. MS. ROGERS: The only issue that I’m drawn to here is Purchased Services. I can see that there was a spike there in the revised in 2015- 16? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, that would be banking fees. MS. ROGERS: Banking fees? They are high. MR. A. PARSONS: Again, we know that this division there is a government rate that comes with the banking fees. But across government, again, this is another one of those areas where I think a lot of departments are dealing with it. I think it’s something that needs to be looked at. I will say, while we’re on this topic, obviously Mr.

Scott and his department aren’t here but the good news is we’re very lucky that we’ve got probably, if not the best, one of the best Support Enforcement Divisions in Canada. The rate of return is tremendous. They always get high marks, so we’re pretty lucky to have them. And the people that use the service get good return on that. So they’ve been doing good work for a number of years. MS. ROGERS: And what would you attribute that to? MR. A. PARSONS: I think it starts with the leadership within the department. I think Mr. Scott – again, I used to deal with him back before I was ever in this.

I just think he’s a good manager. He knows what he’s doing and it leads to perhaps higher productivity. It’s just a case of a good leader. We’ve got good systems in there. It’s just a good department. Maybe we have people in this province that want to pay their child support, I don’t know. MS. ROGERS: I was just wondering if that was part of it. MR. A. PARSONS: Whatever they are doing, it seems to be working because they do extremely well there. Again, it’s one of those things where obviously we don’t see any revenue but that revenue is going to the parents, which is excellent. MS.

ROGERS: It’s going to be interesting to see what happens now in the downturn in the economy, particularly those people who have been commuting back and forth to Alberta and whether or not there’ll be any who’ve lost their jobs, whether there’ll be any impact on that. MR. A. PARSONS: There’s no doubt and that’s why I think it’s also important. We’ve seen movement in the past but you have to continue at it when it comes to interjurisdictional support orders. We have to have that co-operation.

We’ve been dealing with Alberta, which is obviously one of the big ones, but I think you’re going to see more co-operation amongst provinces to make that easier to get through. We don’t need parents having to go through a lot of rigmarole to get the money that their children are entitled to. But again, I agree, when you see that downturn that’s going to – you may see a lot of applications to vary, changes there. Will they go through the normal route of every year

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 124 submitting their notice of assessment, or not submitting it and getting the 10 per cent? If they’re losing their money, they’re going to have to start making their applications to have their own varied because you can’t just say that you’re going to pay less because you’re getting less. It still has to go through that route, which is difficult for everyone involved. MS. ROGERS: Yes. 2.1.04, under Salaries we see a reduction in the revised amount and then a reduction again in Estimates in ’16-’17. MR. A.

PARSONS: I think that was three positions that actually ended up in Support Enforcement. The one that we just did, there was an increase there. MS. ROGERS: Okay. MR. A. PARSONS: I think that is what that was. The budget and three staff transferred to Support Enforcement for recalculation, but I think Mr. Stanley will also speak to it as well to provide some context. MR.

STANLEY: Yes, we had, under the Family Justice Services Division, a very small office in Corner Brook that actually – it’s a recalculation service so people who have support orders can submit new tax information and get the order recalculated every year. The office, we realize, in Corner Brook would be better from an administrative management point of view if we brought it under the Support Enforcement office, which is also located in Corner Brook and does very similar work. MS. ROGERS: Okay. MR.

STANLEY: So we just moved the three people from basically one division head to another and they physically co-located with the Support Enforcement people, and it’s working out fairly well. MS. ROGERS: And there were no job losses in the transfer? MR. STANLEY: There were no job losses or anything out there. MS. ROGERS: Great. And, under 01, the federal revenue, we see a significant change there. MR. A. PARSONS: Yeah, that would have been, I guess, catch up. That was revenue for two years. You’ll see that in a couple of headings under here as we move forward.

I think Legal Aid is the other one where you’ll see like a big – MS. ROGERS: I remember that, yes. MR. A. PARSONS: So this is the same thing. It’s caught up so the number for this year should be one year. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Thank you. Are we finding that people – how is the use of counselling remediation going? Is there a big uptake? How is it working? MR. A. PARSONS: I guess I can speak anecdotally; it’s something I dealt with prior to getting into this. I think it’s a great service to have these people, whether it’s to counselling and mediation. I still think there’s room to – I wouldn’t say grow, but to change.

I’ve seen cases in the past where I had clients that would be mailed DVDs. Sometimes I wonder whether that’s actually getting used or not. Sometimes these people have to travel, which, again, is a cost on them. I think you can also – and this may require coordination amongst departments. I’ll just use Port aux Basques, for example. We don’t have Family Justice Services out there all the time; they come out, I think, during circuit courts. But there’s no reason somebody, if they had to do a teleconference, couldn’t go to the hospital or to the college and do a teleconference with somebody in Stephenville.

So it takes away that travel cost which really isn’t necessary, it’s not a medical appointment. So I think there are things we can do there. I think it’s a necessary service. I think anybody that uses it will find it – and I think in many cases if you can resolve a dispute through a

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 125 method like this rather than going the full gamut, I think it’s better on everybody involved, especially when you have children, obviously, involved in the matter. Again, I think we have a new gentleman that has stepped into that role there. Is it Derrick Oldford? MR. STANLEY: Yes. Wilma MacInnis, who’s sitting behind me, moved from Family Justice Services to Provincial Court. So in Wilma’s stead we actually have appointed sort of an acting director, one of the lawyers who was working in that area before from the Civil Division.

He’s now serving as the acting director while we have some HR issues in positions we have to determine and that kind of thing, and then we’ll be filling the position full time. Just to the issue of success, the service is very successful mostly – outside of St. John’s it has a very high success rate and the courts are very pleased with it. The courts are always driving us to make this service as useful as possible because it facilitates easier access and movement of matters through Family Court. In St. John’s we have a slightly lower success rate.

It is still fairly successful, but we find that you have more complex cases that are more difficult for people to sit down and just mediate. We have more cultural issues and that sort of thing. We are working to try to improve and we’ve had a couple of HR issues in our office here with people off. So we’re working to improve the FJS service here to get it up to the level. The Supreme Court judges here in town are constantly ensuring that we try to maintain high levels of service. MS. ROGERS: Okay. So where are the services located in the province? MR. STANLEY: I’m going to defer to Wilma who used to be in charge.

MS. MACINNIS: I’ve been dying to talk about Family Justice here. MS. ROGERS: Great. MS. MACINNIS: Offices across the province were located in St. John’s, Clarenville, Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Goose Bay and Stephenville. I don’t know if I’ve missed any, Todd. Just last year, actually, we went through a process just in terms of efficiencies. Because at one point we were jointly delivered by two government departments and there were certainly some challenges in terms of that process. So last year we had a transition process where, as Mr.

Stanley referenced, in terms of the movement of the Recalculation Office to Support Enforcement. But, also, right now all Family Justice Services are provided solely by Justice, plus Justice staff. As Mr. Stanley referenced as well, we certainly do have good relationships all across the province with the courts and it is a free service. Just in terms of the promotion of that, the courts certainly do a good job in promoting that.

Any applications that are filed with any of the Family Courts, they automatically send those to Family Justice Services before they get a date in court so that at least we have an opportunity to contact them and say: Are you even aware that this free service exists? There is certainly a lot of uptake in that. Sometimes people aren’t aware so certainly, yes, as Minister Parsons mentioned in terms of the promotion of that as well is very important. MS. ROGERS: That’s great. It’s just wonderful. What other department was involved before it was all consolidated? MS. MACINNIS: It was Advanced Education and Skills. MS.

ROGERS: Okay. Interesting. Thank you. CHAIR: Is everybody good up to 2.1.02 so we can call that and move on? Okay. Go ahead.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 126 CLERK: Subhead 2.1.01 – do you want 2.1.04? CHAIR: Yes. MR. P. DAVIS: No two, you said. CLERK: You said two. CHAIR: Oh, we didn’t go beyond – CLERK: We did go, we went – CHAIR: We did go to – MR. P. DAVIS: Did you want to finish the other two first? CHAIR: Pardon me? MR. P. DAVIS: Did you want me to finish? I just had a couple of quick questions. CHAIR: You have a couple of questions on 2.1.04. Well, go head. MR. P. DAVIS: 2.1.03 and 2.1.04, actually. I have just a couple of questions on it.

I thank you, and I have to tell you, I was going to comment, and I will comment on this before we finish up tonight, but I think these are two areas that are very challenging work for officials and people who work on front lines under your department, Minister. I can tell you that I personally have a great deal of admiration for them who do that. It’s very difficult work to do. I know that some of them – Wilma MacInnis is a good example of it – that work very, very well. Turn around there for a second, Wilma. She’s got a great background and experience in dealing in very trying and difficult circumstances.

I’m not surprised to hear her say she has good relations with the courts because she’s got a history and record of that. This is the type of person that we need working in these areas, does a fabulous job and, as I said, sometimes under very stressful and trying circumstances. So for you, minister and deputy and to your staff, I have a great deal of admiration for all of them, but particularly these two areas. I know they’re very tough. On positions, my understanding is the only change was three positions moved from under Family Justice to Support Enforcement.

That’s all that’s taken place, as far as any changes there. I noticed in Transportation, changes in both of them. Under Support Enforcement it’s fairly significant, from $41,000 budget down to $14,000, and under Family Justice. Is there a change in how business is operating? What would be the reason for each of those? MR. A. PARSONS: I think actually these trends started back in 2013. I think they actually started looking at different ways to reduce this cost if they could. I think that relates to both sections there, Support Enforcement and Family Justice Services. They’re going on historical trends.

I thank you and I agree 100 per cent with your opening comments there about the staff in both of these divisions. I mean, that’s tough work. When you’re dealing with Support Enforcement, we all know some of those phone calls they get are not pleasant. You’re dealing with upset people and people going through serious times. I think, especially on the Family Justice side, there’s a way we can still make sure the service is accessed. I think technology can play a big role in that. I’ve seen that done. I think it can still provide the same service.

I don’t know how much of it has to do with telephone costs or whatever else, but in terms of the actual travel – MR. P. DAVIS: I was going to ask that. I know in the last few years there have been fairly healthy investments in technology: video conferencing, those types of things. So that’s what some of that is. I think I see your deputy nodding her heading in agreement. Instead of having to travel for meetings, you can do it through those types of ways. MS. JACOBS: Yes, and historically, as Minister Parsons was saying, when we did the line by line, historically, the travel money wasn’t

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 127 used. So rather than have dropped balances, the money was removed from the budget. MR. P. DAVIS: Yeah, I think staff in the past have argued that they needed it, but good for you. If you want to call those, I’m fine with those, Madam Chair. CHAIR: Yes, please. CLERK: Subhead 2.1.01 to 2.1.04 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 2.1.01 to 2.1.04 inclusive carry? All those in favour, ‘aye.’ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’ Carried. On motion, subheads 2.1.01 through 2.1.04 carried.

CHAIR: Now, I’m going to suggest – we’re about halfway through – that we take a five minute break; strictly five minutes. MR. A. PARSONS: Sounds good to me. Recess CHAIR: We’ll get started again. We’ve called 2.2.01, so we’ll move on to the next one. I’ll ask the Clerk to call the subheads. CLERK: Subheads 2.3.01 to 2.4.01 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 2.3.01 carry? It is Mr. Davis now? MR. P. DAVIS: I think so, yes. CHAIR: Yes, go ahead. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. I understand how budgeting works with Legal Aid, but, Minister, can you give me an overview of the current structure in Legal Aid?

How many staff do you have there? Have there been any changes in this year or in recent times, or any anticipated changes in how they operate, or staffing levels? MR. A. PARSONS: I will defer to Todd on this. He will probably provide a more conscience answer than I’m able to. I don’t think there’s any change in the staffing – MR. P. DAVIS: Sorry, I’m more interested in the structure. Just explain to me the structure of Legal Aid, how it operates, where they are located and so on. MR. STANLEY: Legal Aid has approximately 125, 130 staff. That’s split about 50/50 with solicitors and administrative staff.

Legal Aid has a higher than you might expect, at first instance, administrative staff for two reasons. They handle all of their own corporate administration. They do their own HR, their own accounting. They avail of none of government’s back-office stuff, as a stand-alone entity. Also, they have a fair amount of staff who are dedicated to processing and assessing eligibility for legal aid claims, which takes a fair amount of time, having to get the necessary information from people and do the assessments. They have 11 offices, I believe, around the province. I’m not sure I can identify where they are.

There are two in St. John’s. They have one right now in Carbonear, Clarenville – I’m going to say Grand Bank, but I’m not sure that it’s actually in Grand Bank or if it’s in Marystown – Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander, Stephenville, Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush. I’m not sure, is that the basics or – MR. P. DAVIS: It is. I was hoping to understand the change in the budget from $16,900,000 last year to $17 million this year. It probably just reflects changes in the cost of operations. MR. STANLEY: Yes, there are actually three separate things going on in that.

There was the final addition for implementation of part of three solicitor salaries to do with the Royal report. We had a three-year, phase-in plan for the Royal

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 128 report and this year, the last year of the phase-in, required us to fund three solicitor salaries. We also put money into Legal Aid in relation to the Family Violence Intervention Court. There also was an offsetting reduction for some of that increase with Legal Aid. Through this budget process, they eliminated two vacant positions. They laid off an individual and there was a solicitor salary removed from their funding relating to the closure of Harbour Grace.

Whether or not Legal Aid actually lays off a solicitor, or however else they might manage that, is really up to them because we just adjust the funding that they get. So, one person, I think, was laid off as part of the budget process and two vacant positions were eliminated. MR. P. DAVIS: So when you go through your process, your budget with them, do they come in and make a presentation to the department on what they’re seeking and you discuss their budget or what they’ve requested? MR. STANLEY: Yes. CHAIR: You can go ahead, Minister. MR. A. PARSONS: I will let Todd (inaudible). MR.

STANLEY: Legal Aid, both in terms of what they’re looking for and in response to a request from us to see what savings they could bring in, the executive of them go through their board, get approval and they bring it in to us to say here’s what we could do and here’s what we need. In the end, with us, it boils down to the gross grant amount that we give them. MR. P. DAVIS: So there could become a time they come in with a presentation, you ask them to go back and find more, change more, look really in certain areas or that type of thing. MR. STANLEY: Entirely, yes. MR. P. DAVIS: Sorry, Minister. MR. A.

PARSONS: I will jump in here again. I can say too that during, I guess, the short time I’ve been here, I actually did take the time to go down to Legal Aid, down to the commission, and I was told I was actually the first person to actually go and visit in ages. So I went down, met with the board, met with all of the solicitors and had a chat. They actually did come up to our office and meet with us as well, plus they met with Treasury Board, if I do recall correctly. They’ve done a lot of work catching up, too, on the financial side.

You’ll see there in the federal revenue, the discrepancies there – I’ll sort of jump ahead, and this is what Gerry was talking about earlier – where they’re catching up on the amount that is owed by the feds. This year it’s only $2.1 million. That’s because they’re finally caught up, I guess, basically filing their paperwork with the feds and getting reimbursed. It was behind for a number of years and they are finally caught up there. Hopefully, this will also change at some point because I think part of the federal budget is there’s actually going to be increased Legal Aid funding.

The 10-year arrangement just concluded. Again, one of the holdups there is that they negotiate with all of the provinces and they’re not doing one-offs with everybody; it’s everybody at the one time. So this has been a contentious issue for years – you go in; we want more money. So now, this year, we do understand that there is going to be an increase. Figuring out how much it is going to be, we’ll figure that out. It’s not for sure. I think we have an idea, probably even in the range of a couple hundred thousand, but again, we don’t want to say for sure because I don’t know for sure.

Legal Aid has come in, they’ll tell us – I have to say they’ve been great to deal with, the whole board and solicitors there. I’ve dealt with them in the past, knowing the workloads that they have, and I think half of their problem in the past has been perception. I mean, people have this perception; we talked about it earlier when you get an appointed counsel. Oh, I don’t want a legal aid lawyer. That’s garbage, as far as I’m concerned. Legal Aid has great lawyers. They have huge caseloads. They have fantastic solicitors to do a lot of work and travel and stuff.

I’ve said that before, I’ll say it again, they have a great staff. They’ve done a lot of work to make sure they function as good as they can.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 129 One of the issues we all hear, I guess as MHAs, is we get clients come in who are trying to access the – trying to fill out the applications and get through that. Sometimes that can be a challenge too. It’s like anything. I think they’re improving on that. They have good staff doing the work there. MR. P. DAVIS: Yeah, I mean I agree. It was common one time to hear complaints about legal aid. Slow response, I can’t get to speak to a lawyer. I have to make a decision or a legal decision, those types of things.

You don’t seem to hear those as much as we used to or I don’t anyway. The phone will start now tomorrow because I said that. MR. A. PARSONS: Yeah. MR. P. DAVIS: But hopefully that’s a reflection of improvements on it. Madam Chair, I’d like to move to 2.3.02 under Commissions of Inquiry. Can you explain that heading to us, Minister? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. What you’ll see there, and I think for the last number of years, it’s always a budget of $1,000 which I guess was just a cursory amount that was put in because there was no Commissions of Inquiry anticipated or planned.

Obviously, this year part of my mandate letter, and something I’ve spoken about on a number of occasions, is that I’ve been mandated to conduct three inquiries. So we’ve allocated $1 million to hold – the plan is to hold an inquiry this year. So we’ve based that on, I think you’ll see salary there was to anticipate administrative support officer, anticipate 12 weeks, eight hours per day, X dollars per hour. Then you have the T and C, Supplies, Professional Services. The Professional Services would actually be the anticipated cost of counsel for anybody that’s involved in it.

We came up with the figure of $1 million which is anticipated. I’d like to think that like anything you’ll do what you can to, not reduce cost, but if you’re going to need space there’s lots of government-owned space out there that you can use. I think we’ve had people come to us that have said look, we have the space here you can do it. So that’s obviously something that we would consider. That makes more sense than going and renting space. Depending on who your commissioner – who’s going to head up the inquiry, is it judiciary? Is it somebody else?

These are all things that we’re factoring in as we come up with terms of reference and stuff like that. So that’s what’s factored in there, but I know there are probably more questions so lay them on me. MR. P. DAVIS: I know the three inquiries. Do you know which one you’re going to call this year? MR. A. PARSONS: We’re anticipating that we will go with the Humber Valley inquiry this year. I’ve said our logic behind it – obviously there’s the federal one. I call it the Winters’s inquiry, young Burton Winters.

That one involves a bit of co-operation with the federal government, given that there’s joint services there. So I don’t think that one is quite ready to go because it requires a bit more co-operation. The second one, obviously, is the Donnie Dunphy inquiry. We’ve all heard and seen, that one requires the police report, I guess, to figure out where that goes. We don’t know when that matter is going to be heard but I don’t think it’s sensible for any inquiry to go ahead until you have the conclusion of that matter, which I can say here and I’ll say anywhere, I have no idea when that will happen.

We know that matter was investigated here. It’s been referred to Alberta. That will come back at some point. That one, we don’t know when that will be. So, Humber Valley, in terms of readiness to proceed, was the first one we think was ready to go. You have a static set of facts and timelines. So that’s the one we’ve anticipated going first. I don’t think it has anything to do with importance per se. It has to do with which ones are ready. MR. P. DAVIS: What’s the intention of an inquiry?

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 130 MR. A. PARSONS: Well, the intention of any inquiry, I think, is two-fold. Number one, any inquiry I’ve ever read about or seen, the first thing you want to do is identify a particular set of facts, what happened no matter what it is. This province has a history of inquiries, whether it was Cameron. I think there was the Gushue inquiry back in the day of nursing homes. So that’s the first thing that comes out. Obviously, the set of facts has to be such that there’s public interest in it and different cases.

Some of them involve loss of life, some involve public confidence, some involve a set of facts that we feel is important enough to investigate. The second part of any inquiry is to come up with a set of recommendations to prevent said fact pattern or fact scenario from happening again. That would be the purpose, I guess, of any inquiry. I don’t know if that’s a Webster’s Dictionary version of that, but that’s just sort of how I would take it off the cuff, I guess, or that’s sort of how I see it. MR. P.

DAVIS: I’m inclined to think when I see $1 million – to be honest with you – my first thought was that wouldn’t be enough to hold an inquiry. Do you have any idea from previous inquiries – Cameron was a very extensive inquiry. In recent years, there were the Norman Reid and Darryl Power inquiries. Do you have any idea what they cost? MR. A. PARSONS: I think the Cameron inquiry was up in the $5.7 million. That one was established July 2007 and received in March 2009. Lamer was a three-year inquiry. It took $7.6 million.

Now, I tend to think that the fact patterns and the time patterns are substantively different, but I’ve said this before, and I think it’s documented that I’ve said it on – I don’t know if it was radio or an interview or something I did – it’s not a case of cutting a blank cheque. It’s not a case of skimping. I don’t know if I’m using the right words. It’s not skimping, but at the same time you don’t cut a blank cheque. You have to have cost controls put in place. That’s why you do things where you have the office space and work to do what you can to keep that.

It’s like anything that any government or any business or any person does, you want to do what you can to ensure your costs that you anticipate stay at the level that you anticipate. We’re confident that the number we’ve proposed here will cover off the cost of that inquiry and what goes into it. MR. P. DAVIS: Madam Chair, I know my time is up. I’m just wondering if it’s okay with Ms. Rogers, if I could just continue for another few minutes, and I’ll be sure to – MS. ROGERS: On the inquiries? MR. P. DAVIS: On inquires, yes. MS. ROGERS: Okay. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, if that’s okay with the Chair.

So in the case of Norman Reid and Darryl Power, which I think was around 2003. MR. A. PARSONS: 2001? MR. P. DAVIS: I think it was 2003, maybe. Do you know what the cost was on that one? MR. A. PARSONS: It was $1.2 million. MR. P. DAVIS: It was $1.2 million. MR. A. PARSONS: The fall of 2002 was the inquiry. So Power and Reid, that’s right because those incidents both happened pretty close together. The report was submitted December 2003. MR. P. DAVIS: Sorry, when was it put together? MR. A. PARSONS: It started fall 2002, report submitted December 2003. MR. P.

DAVIS: So fall 2003 is when the inquiry actually began to call evidence. Is that what you mean?

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 131 MR. A. PARSONS: No, the information I have is the fall of 2002. The report was submitted – Judge Luther’s final report came out December 2003. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. So was that when the inquiry was called and actually began? Is that what you mean or was it when the inquiry began, in the fall? MR. A. PARSONS: I think my information is that it was the fall of 2002 the actual inquiry started. Again, I don’t know how long that took. MR. P.

DAVIS: The reason I ask, Minister, is that my recollection was it took some time to find counsel and Judge Luther had to clear his schedule. It took several months for all that to happen before the inquiry actually got underway. MR. A. PARSONS: I guess so. I’d have to talk to whoever the Minister of Justice was at that point. I can’t remember who that feller was, but – MR. P. DAVIS: Have you had any discussions with any potential commissioners? MR. A. PARSONS: No, I can say that I’ve discussed internally where do you go, what kind of pool do you want to go from?

I can tell you, I think there’s a protocol that comes from, I think the Supreme Court, that you should follow in the cases of inquiry. So, obviously, if you were to go the judicial route, getting a justice or a judge, then obviously you have to talk to the chief judge or justice of those courts because they’ve got a

schedule that they’ve got to maintain as well. We do know there’s a protocol that has to be followed. I don’t know, I’m assuming it was followed in the past, but it’s been made clear to me that you should follow it. MR. P. DAVIS: So are you having any discussion with people or contacted anyone to say this is – as potential commissioner for the inquiry. You haven’t reached out to anybody. You’ve only had discussions internally is what you’re saying. MR. A. PARSONS: I have had the chief judge send me the protocol. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. As well, what about commission counsel?

Have you had any discussions there on who would be commission counsel? MR. A. PARSONS: Not that far yet, although I’ve had people – obviously they’ll say to you in passing I’m interested in that. Everybody that’s involved will need counsel, right. So we’re not that far yet in terms of figuring out who that is. And I might be wrong; I think there’s obviously some choice of the people involved. I think the commissioners themselves would get counsel, so they’re probably going to have a say in who that is.

And then the people involved would probably have a say in the counsel that they get because I don’t know if you want to force counsel on somebody. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. My understanding is that there are precedents. I don’t know if you know this or not – or maybe some of your staff can discuss it – but there are precedents, such as the case with Mr. Dunphy, where investigative steps are still underway when an inquiry is called. And the fact there’s an investigation doesn’t pre-empt an inquiry from being called. You said until it’s done you shouldn’t call the inquiry.

My understanding is that there are precedents for calling an inquiry in the circumstance that exists similar to where we are with Mr. Dunphy. MR. A. PARSONS: I can say I’m not aware of that. If you have that, by all means, I would look at it. I don’t know if somebody else has any information. I guess from my perspective it seemed to us when you looked at it, if you have a matter that’s still going through the investigative phase where we’ve had an investigation done and this investigation has been referred to Alberta – but we don’t know what’s going to come out of that.

Again, this is a case of where are charges laid, are charges not laid?

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 132 It would seem that it prompts the very strong possibility of causing issues if you were to go ahead and start that when the matter is still not completed. But if there’s precedent to that, I don’t know. In the cases I’ve always seen, the matter has been done and passed and there are no facts left to happen. But I’m certainly willing to – MR. P. DAVIS: But the police investigation is actually over, right? MR. A. PARSONS: I think the RCMP investigation is over, yes. The RCMP has referred that to the Alberta SIR Team, ASIRT, I think. So that’s going on there.

Now, what the return on that is, I don’t know. I don’t know what will come out of that. I don’t know if that will recommend no charges, charges, more investigation to be done, we should have done some else different. I have no clue what goes on there. That was sort of what prompted us to make that decision, was the possibility of stuff happening that you can’t control, you don’t know where it going to go. MS. JACOBS: Mr. Davis, my understanding as well is the RCMP investigation is not considered completed because ASIRT may be coming back to them saying, well, you should do this, look at that.

So until ASIRT kind of puts a bow on it, we wouldn’t consider that investigation completely finished. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay.

I’m interested in the perspective of if you consider an inquiry to be a process to identify and understand clearly the facts of a set of circumstances of an event or events surrounding a matter, and if you look at that the intention is to find recommendations to prevent those circumstances from happening again, in some of these cases, particularly in the search and rescue Burton Winter’s matter and also in the matter of Donald Dunphy, wouldn’t there be some urgency to hold an inquiry to prevent a set of circumstances like that from happening again?

Because if I hear what you’re saying, Minister, there may be an inquiry called this year. It may take some time for it to be established and set up. It probably will run into next year and it would be some time before you called the second one and the third one. So we’re talking potentially four years from now before the inquiries are completed. These are around matters that are important to life. The idea and the intent of an inquiry are to prevent loss of life under similar circumstances in the future. Wouldn’t there be an urgency to get to them? MR. A.

PARSONS: Obviously there’s a difference in those that involve loss of life. That’s even in The Public Inquiries Act, I think, because depending on what the fact pattern is, that can dictate what kind of inquiry you do. When it comes to the Dunphy one, basically on that, as I’ve said, we did have a loss of life but the matter is not closed, which is what’s preventing the moving forward on that side. When it comes to the search and rescue one, we do have the passage of three years, I believe – no, it might be four years. Was it 2012? 2012 I think it was, so we do have the passage of four years there.

Again, it’s a different scenario in that when it comes to that one – what I say now might be different than the terms of reference. I’m just sort of speaking as I see it. You have to come up with a terms of reference here, but that may require some co-operation with the federal government. Given that we’ve only been in a position really since December 14, and you’re going to have to co-operate with the federal government there as well, that presents some logistical challenges. We made it quite clear from a long time ago that we obviously think it’s important. We want to get it done and it will get done.

Then, when you go back to the other one that we’re going to do – which I still think is a serious matter. It doesn’t involve a loss of life, obviously, which I think we’re all glad to see, but it involves something we can handle in our jurisdiction quickly. We have a fact scenario, or supposed fact scenario, that’s constrained within, we think, a certain period of dates. Again, I think it does have issues when it comes to public confidence.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 133 So doing one before another doesn’t diminish anything in terms of importance. I think the important thing is that we’ve said we’re going to do three; I’d like to see all three done and done right. I don’t want to do something that may – again you’re not going to do it. There’s a term I’d use here now, I don’t want to use it half – we want to do them right. So that’s our perspective. MR. P. DAVIS: And to be clear I wasn’t suggesting – MR. A. PARSONS: No, no. MR. P. DAVIS: – that you try to rush them or hurry them, it’s just that it wasn’t very timely. MR. A.

PARSONS: No, it’s a fair question you’re asking. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I may come back when Ms. Rogers is finished as well. CHAIR: Okay, I was going to suggest that actually. Ms. Rogers. MS. ROGERS: Thank you. Minister, I just want to double-check. You said that you were confident that the $1 million will cover the Humber Valley Paving inquiry in its entirety? MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MS. ROGERS: Oh. Okay. Why would you not have the Auditor General look at this issue? MR. A. PARSONS: I think the Auditor General did look at it. MS. ROGERS: So why would we move on to an inquiry? MR. A.

PARSONS: Because there were five components of it that the Auditor General – when he looked at it he boiled it all down, at the beginning of the report, to five things, five questions. He answered three and two he didn’t answer. There are still unanswered questions there, so we felt it was – MS. ROGERS: What are those two outstanding questions? MR. A. PARSONS: That’s funny; I don’t have that right here.

But I think there was some question as to why everything was concluded on the date that it was concluded and why we had multiple Cabinet ministers contacting the deputy minister of a department at the time, the day before the closing. The Auditor General came back – the first three he came back, and it’s more of a contractual point of view – and said, I found some discrepancies, some stuff that you shouldn’t do it like this. He answered those questions, but the last two he came back and said, no, I don’t know. MS. ROGERS: Right. MR. A.

PARSONS: The other thing I will say is that the Auditor General – and inquiries, too, there are things. An inquiry has more of an opportunity for questioning, cross-examination, that vehicle of truth seeking. MS. ROGERS: Okay. I’d like to take us back to Legal Aid. The legal aid offices in Carbonear and Wabush, what will happen with those offices now that the courts have moved on? MR. STANLEY: Legal aid is still trying to determine how they’re going to handle that, whether they’re going to move the positions, what they’re going to do in respect of the office that’s in Carbonear.

As I understand it, they haven’t confirmed to themselves what they’re going to do. There was some thought that they might leave it open as a service centre, because there is a certain – almost like a storefront retail operation with legal aid dealing with clients, but I’m not sure if they’ve concluded that’s feasible with the people who are going to be travelling, the lawyers who’ll be travelling to St. John’s to appear. So they’re working that out.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 134 I don’t think right now they have a strong feeling there’s going to be a requirement for layoffs. I don’t think they’re seeing that. I think they may be moving staff. MS. ROGERS: Yes, because the same amount of work still exists. MR. STANLEY: Yes, the work isn’t going away. It’s just the physical location. MS. ROGERS: So if the solicitors are moved to, for instance, St. John’s, then folks from that area, from Conception Bay North, would be required to go to St. John’s to see a lawyer to get assessments? MR. STANLEY: Yes.

If the legal aid office moved the lawyers into St. John’s, yes. In order to meet with your lawyer, the default would be anyone in that area would have to come into St. John’s to the legal aid office to meet, but there are times these days already where things like that can occur. If the local Carbonear office is in conflict on a particular matter, then there are people now who might have to travel into St. John’s to meet with their legal aid lawyer because the Carbonear office couldn’t handle the matter.

So it can be kind of complicated getting legal aid staff and people physically matched up because they can be required to assign staff from offices all over the Island already. MS. ROGERS: Do you know how many staff are in both of those offices, Wabush and Carbonear? MR. STANLEY: I can get you that information. I think I know but I don’t want to misstate. We can get that information for you. MS. ROGERS: Okay. So that would be staff who were permanent positions in those two offices. MR. STANLEY: Yes. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Thank you.

There was some talk about some of the work going to Clarenville was there, from the Harbour Grace closure, or is everything going to St. John’s? MR. A. PARSONS: There is some going to Clarenville, depending on the location of the matter. That’s the plan we had. Clarenville just opened up again. When did the judge – OFFICIAL: September. MR. A. PARSONS: September, yes. That’s when that court reopened. So I think there is the possibility of some of the matters going to that court as well. MS. ROGERS: When we see the work kind of splitting, going to maybe Clarenville and St. John’s, will judges move as well?

How will that –? MR. A. PARSONS: Well, there’s a judge in Clarenville. There’s one judge in Harbour Grace. That judge would have to be relocated. Likely to St. John’s, I would assume. That’s the move there, I think. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Thank you. I’m good with that. Commissions of Inquiry; I’m fine. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; under Professional Services we see a significant variance there. MR. A. PARSONS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s the funding we put in to do a review of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.

That’s underway as we speak, in terms of acquiring the services of the person that will do it. That’s something we’re hoping to move quickly. MS. ROGERS: Okay. The variance in Purchased Services; we see an increase in the revised amount for 2015-16. MR. A. PARSONS: I believe that’s the transportation of human remains. MS. ROGERS: Wow, that’s a lot. There’s quite a jump there in revision.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 135 I’d also like to bring up the issue of the death of two women from Newfoundland and Labrador at Nova. In the case of Ms. Strickland, the investigation was completed. Is there a role for our Chief Medical Examiner to look at the situation of the fact that we had two women from Newfoundland and Labrador who both died within a few months of each other while incarcerated? MR. A. PARSONS: I guess what I’m saying here is just my assumption.

I don’t have what I think is the definitive answer, but I think given the jurisdiction was in Nova Scotia, I think that it would fall under there. I don’t know if they’ve reached out to our Chief Medical Examiner or not. Would there be a role? It’s hard to tell. I know the two matters are serious. They’re sad when you think about it. I’m definitely aware of the case of Ms. Strickland. MS.

ROGERS: I guess I’m looking at the role, not only of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner but also the role of our Department of Justice knowing that we had two citizens, two women who were incarcerated in a facility in another province – and I understand it was federal. One of them chose to go federally so that she could get appropriate psychiatric care, and she died in that facility. There was another woman who died in that facility. I believe there is a provincial role to look at what is happening. Those were two deaths within a close period of time for each. MR. A.

PARSONS: Yes, what I would say on that – and we’ve all heard it, whether it’s those cases or anybody who watches the news. We’re hearing more frequently now, people saying they sought a higher sentence so they would have to go federal, and they want to go federal because they get services. It’s unfortunate when you’re hearing that. That’s something I’ve recognized, and I think it’s been recognized by a lot of people. We saw that on the all-party committee. We had the opportunity to go down and talk to the people down there. So that’s something that is on our radar. That’s something we’ve talked about.

I’ve been down on a number of occasions, even since then, and talked to the people providing the services. I can’t remember the name of the body; they had the mental health day. I agree with you there. I think when you have a citizen that leaves and has that happen – they’re leaving to get access to services – I think that concerns us. It might not just be a justice issue, that’s a health issue. I tend to agree with you in theory. That’s something I’m working with, and we’ll talk about it once we get the corrections I’m sure.

I’ve got concerns about not just the inmates but the staff, because a lot of these divisions and areas we talk about, it’s high stress stuff, and down there it’s especially high stress. So that’s one of the things I’ve considered as well. Whether it’s your inmate population or the people who are down there providing the correctional services, it’s tough. So we need to make sure we’re doing what we can there. MS. ROGERS: Okay. 2.3.04 – CHAIR: Can we just call the – MS. ROGERS: Yeah, sure. CHAIR: – quickly, because we have to call the subheadings on those. Thanks. CLERK: Clauses 2.2.01 to 2.3.03 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall 2.2.01 to 2.3.03 inclusive carry? All those in favour, ‘aye.’ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’ Carried. On motion, subheads 2.2.01 through 2.3.03 carried. CHAIR: Did Ms. Rogers have time on the clock? CLERK: She did. CHAIR: Yes, okay.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 136 You can call the – CLERK: I already called those. CHAIR: Oh, you called those? CLERK: Yes. CHAIR: Okay, Ms. Rogers, I’m not sure what you had left on the clock. MS. ROGERS: I don’t think I had anything left on my clock. CHAIR: Okay, so is it okay – MS. ROGERS: Absolutely. CHAIR: Thank you for your honesty, since I’ve clearly had a long day and I’m ready to go home. Mr. Davis, would you like to start, 2.3.04. MR. P. DAVIS: Did you want to call those, or you’ve already called them? Oh, you already called them. You just said that, didn’t you?

Madam Chair, I’m cognizant of the time, and I’m sure all the officials in the room and MHAs, my colleagues, are all aware as well. Under Human Rights I just very shortly wanted to have a discussion regarding concerns expressed about access to services from them, and if there is anything there to deal with. I want to make it clear to the minister that I have a number of questions regarding policing. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. MR. P. DAVIS: And some on public complaints, and also on Adult Corrections and Youth Secure Custody. MR. A.

PARSONS: Do you want me to do this and if you want, we can jump ahead to make sure you get those and then work your way back to the other ones, whatever – I don’t care what order you want. MR. P. DAVIS: I’d be fine doing that unless – MR. A. PARSONS: It doesn’t matter to me. MR. P. DAVIS: If you want while we’re on Human Rights, we could come back to it. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Human Rights I’ll just put out there, obviously I don’t think there was a significant reduction there. I think the reduction has been in non-personnel. It’s been in T&C, Supplies – and that’s been the normal line-by-line process everywhere.

I’ve had the pleasure of going over there now and sitting down with the board and sitting down with Remzi – actually I’m going to hopefully sit down with him again soon. I think what we’re seeing is an increase in numbers. There are more people coming forward, which you can look at it and say it’s positive that more people feel they can go to this group and have their concerns heard. The bad side is that obviously we don’t want to see more complaints. So I don’t know if it’s a case of increased complaints or increased reporting. But again, that’s something that we do take seriously.

I could sit here and go on about it, but I don’t want to use up the time. What I can say is I’ve sat with them, sat down with Carrie, and they’ve been pretty easy to deal with; a really good bunch, doing good work. There was a story a little while back on that. I don’t know if it was in the paper. Was there a story on that? MR. P. DAVIS: There have been lots of stories on it. MR. A. PARSONS: I haven’t had any actual complaints brought to me, that I’m aware of it. I haven’t seen it but if there’s something brought forward, obviously, we have to look at it, consider it and deal with it. MR. P.

DAVIS: Yes, I appreciate that. I bring it to your attention because I’ve heard the concerns in the past from people who are long periods of time waiting for investigations to be finished and findings, and quite often will signify that it’s a result of resources don’t match the number of investigations and requests for services from them.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 137 More so than ever before, I think it’s an important branch that provides an important service to the people of the province. MR. A. PARSONS: This is a group, if I recall correctly, that went through a significant downsize in 2013. I think we’re trying to stabilize that, but at the same time you have to look at the demand. I’d like to think that going forward they will come to us, if these concerns are raised. I think we have a pretty good relationship going in that if they have concerns, they’re willing to come to us and talk about it.

Are there ways we can do things more efficiently? Are there ways we can do things differently? I’m willing to sit down – so far they’ve been really communicative. They’ve been open to me coming over and certainly both ways. Again, if we see more, I hope it’s people reporting it as opposed to the actual number going up. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. Madam Chair, I have some questions under courts as well. We mentioned EPOs and CPOs earlier, but being cognizant of time, I wanted to have a discussion around policing resources, as I mentioned, and also Adult Corrections and youth corrections.

So I don’t know if we can – CHAIR: What subheading are you referring to? MR. P. DAVIS: 4.1.01. CHAIR: 4.1.01. Are you both done with 2.3.04 to 2.4.01 or will we need to come back because if not, we can – MS. ROGERS: I have one question on (inaudible). CHAIR: Can we ask one question and just clear up those two pages, skip over to four and come to three. MR. P. DAVIS: Yes, absolutely. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. CHAIR: Thank you. MS. ROGERS: The Human Rights Commission, part of their mandate is not simply to receive complaints but also be proactive and to do outreach and education.

Do you know if they are able to do that under the current budgetary restrictions and staff that they have? MR. A. PARSONS: Again, when I met with them, it’s not something that I can recall being brought up. I think they’re like everybody. You can look at Justice – I can remember reading the letter to Chief Justice Green dated 2004 where we talked about Justice resources. That’s been an issue, I think, for years. It’s always an issue; we always need more in Justice. But, Human Rights itself, when I met with them that’s not something they mentioned specifically to me.

If it was an issue, then I would have that chat because, again, I agree with you that there’s an awareness component and education component. MS. ROGERS: Which I think is so vital. MR. A. PARSONS: Definitely.

What I would suggest is if there was something there, I’m willing to listen and to figure out ways that if we can do more there, by all means – and I did actually suggest if there were ways that, through existing Department of Justice resources, whether its communications or whatever, then if there’s a way that we could help spread the word, do what we have to do, that’s the co-operation part that we’re trying to get to. MS. ROGERS: Okay, thank you. I am good there. Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission, I’m fine. CHAIR: Sorry, I didn’t hear you. MS. ROGERS: Yes, I’m fine there.

I imagine the variance in the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission was because of our change in our boundaries. MR. A. PARSONS: I think some of that funding was before the year-end. I think some of

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 138 it might have been actually paid for by Finance as they figured out where it went. So I think there was monies expended before March 31, 2015, and then this year money would have been expended after. MS. ROGERS: Okay. Under Legislative Counsel, I do have one question. Minister, it’s about the request for a buffer zone around the Athena clinic. Can you tell me where that is at? MR. A. PARSONS: Actually, I’ve asked my staff to continue working on that.

Again, I’ve had the pleasure of having people come to me and feel comfortable enough to come to us and say, look, this is an issue, because it wasn’t something I had dealt with before. Again, we’ve had this chat. I know there’s legislation being drafted elsewhere. I know I have staff that are actually working on it and I’m thinking that I can maintain the commitment that I made – I’m hoping, which is I didn’t anticipate us being able to get it on the legislative agenda for this session, but I’m aiming for a fall agenda just given there’s a lot of work being done now.

That’s not, obviously, to diminish the importance. The other thing, though, is that having seen jurisdictions that have gone there, I think the good news is we can use their experiences to guide us both in the drafting, and are there things they would have done differently or changed. I am supportive. I think it’s necessary, and the stories I’ve heard on it are enough to make me think that I’d like to get it done. MS. ROGERS: Yes, and there are people who go to that clinic for various reasons – it doesn’t just provide abortion services – who are also being harassed. MR. A. PARSONS: That’s right. MS.

ROGERS: I understand the last contact they had with the Department of Justice, it was recommended that the owner of the clinic go the injunction route, which would be very costly, and was told that perhaps a buffer zone wouldn’t withstand a Charter challenge. Although we know BC has instituted buffer zones, and they have survived a Charter challenge on their buffer zones. So I’m wondering if someone could clarify that for the clinic. MR. A. PARSONS: I’m not aware of that, that’s for sure. MS. ROGERS: Okay. So maybe I’ll see that they contact the department. MR. A.

PARSONS: Yes, but I can say, given that I had the opportunity to meet and have that face-to-face contact, I’m probably the person to deal with. MS. ROGERS: Okay. MR. A. PARSONS: Maybe it’s a case, too, of – I would imagine any solicitor would suggest all options available right now, given that the legislation’s not available. I think any solicitor – again, this is what they do. They suggest the possible issues, challenges. I would toss out that, yeah, maybe there’s a Charter challenge. So I also agree with you.

I think it can withstand that, and given other places have gone through it, we’ve got that opportunity to see how they did it and what they went through. So in my case, what I’ve said to the individuals I met still stands. MS. ROGERS: Okay, great. That’s good news. I know they would like it sooner, but the fall is not so far away. It’s an important issue and a matter of safety and dignity and respect. Thank you. I’m good. CHAIR: Okay. CLERK: Clause 2.3.04 to 2.4.01 inclusive. CHAIR: Shall 2.3.04 to 2.4.01 inclusive carry? All those in favour, ‘aye.’ SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 139 CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay.’ Carried. On motion, subheads 2.3.04 through 2.4.01 carried. CHAIR: Now, is it my understanding we’re going to skip 3 and we’re going to start at 4.1.01, that’s your wishes and we’ll come back? Okay. Mr. Davis. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. So minister – CHAIR: Oh, sorry. We just need to call it. MR. P. DAVIS: Oh, sorry. CLERK: Clause 4.1.01 to 4.2.03. CHAIR: 4.1.01. Go ahead. MR. P. DAVIS: Thank you. Minister, maybe we can start at Salaries, and maybe you can give us an overview on budgeted last year, revised and estimates for this year. MR.

A. PARSONS: I think the difference there, we went from $47 million budgeted, $45 million spent and back up to $46 million estimated. That comes down to there were savings due to retirement vacancies, other vacancies, trying to fill positions, and then there have been junior officers hired that are coming in at a lower pay scale. That’s my understanding. MR. P. DAVIS: Okay. Then the salary change for this year? MR. A. PARSONS: I think that’s based on – again, you would know, obviously you’ve dealt with this. We certainly know your background.

In this case, depending on what comes in, the Chief knows who’s going to get hired and not. The workforce, I believe, has stayed the same except there are the 14 – OFFICIAL: Salary increases. MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, some of them are step increases or salary increases. Again, I can’t say that I know how exactly all that works. There were 14 positions, I think four were vacant constables that were not filled, and 10 were for the cadet recruits, was it? OFFICIAL: Yes, it was (inaudible). MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, they’re in last year’s budget, had not been filled and will not be filled. So that’s the 14 there.

It’s 14 positions, but there were no individuals. Actually, it wasn’t a reduction in the actual officers that were working. I’ll let Jackie – MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: The 10 new cadets that were identified in the recent budget process, that was a part of an approval a couple of years ago to add 10 additional cadets last year and this current year to grow the force by 20 new cadets, 20 new positions essentially. So this past year they graduated 31 cadets, which was the biggest class ever. They normally have between 12, 16, 18. The current cadet group going through right now has 17 in it.

That was as many as they could recruit this year. So they didn’t even recruit enough to be able to have those additional 10 cadets even in their cadet roster this year. The 10 cadets that were taken off the books and deferred, they are not cadets that are currently in the program. They were originally envisioned to be an additional 10 cadets, 10 new positions that the force would have grown by. So this doesn’t affect any of the current cadets, this deferral of those 10 cadet positions. MR. P. DAVIS: This year’s class, you say there are 17. So all of them will be hired in September, is what you’re saying. MS.

LAKE-KAVANAGH: Yes.

April 27, 2016 SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 140 MR. P. DAVIS: In ’15-’16, you said there are 31, and then 17 – if I can only get my numbers right. So this year’s class there are 17, who all will be – MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: Currently, right now, that are going through the training that will finish up the end of the summer, exactly. MR. P. DAVIS: What’s the target then for ’16- ’17 for the cadet class? MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: It depends on what they will recruit. Their normal recruitment class is somewhere in the mid-teens. MR. P. DAVIS: So is there a plan then for hires for next year?

I would assume if you’re going to a cadet class, I would assume the practice has been for every class that everyone gets hired. MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: Yes, they have a recruitment process underway right now. MR. P. DAVIS: Yes, but you don’t know the number of –? MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: I don’t know what the numbers will be, no. Because a few years ago they had 12 cadets go through, last year they had 31 go through, with the additional 10 positions that were added in. Their cadet classes typically fill their attrition needs. MR. P.

DAVIS: So if they were able to recruit, say, for example, 40 this year, are you saying they’d hire them all? MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: Not if they didn’t have positions for them. MR. P. DAVIS: Right. So the positions would depend on retirements. Is that what you’re –? MS. LAKE-KAVANAGH: In large part, yeah. MR. P. DAVIS: Do you know how many – I think I do, but I want to check the number – officers are eligible for retirement at this tim