Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Nick Careen, M.H.A. (Placentia) substitutes for Mr. Glenn Tobin, M.H.A. (Burin - Placentia West); Mr. Beaton Tulk, M.H.A. (Fogo) substitutes for Ms. Kay Young, M.H.A. (Terra Nova); and Mr. Don Whelan, M.H.A. (Harbour Main) substitutes for Mr. Oliver Langdon, M.H.A. (Fortune Hermitage).

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Ladies and gentlemen, I think, even though all of us are not here, we had better start. Before I ask the minister for his opening statements, we will go through the ground rules again so that everybody is aware of how we operate this Committee. What will happen is that the minister will speak for fifteen minutes, he will introduce his officials and speak on his estimates for the fifteen minutes. Then, the person responding for the Opposition - I understand it is you, Ms. Verge, again tonight?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will be given an opportunity to speak for fifteen minutes. Then, I will be taking names, and as I point out the members of the Committee who may want to speak, I ask them to indicate that they want to speak and I will keep a list. As I get the names, you will be noted on this list and will be called in that order. Each member involved in this, you will have ten minutes when you speak. If you want to make a statement for ten minutes, it means that the minister will not have time to respond -you will have just ten minutes to get your opinions across to the minister; but if you wish, it can be a give-and-take in the ten minutes. You may use your time in a question-and-answer period if that is what you want to do.

Now, the Committee usually meets for three hours, and this is the time that was given to us. If we haven't finished by 10:00 p.m., then we will have a discussion in Committee, and if we feel that we can do so, we will carry on and finish up by 10:30 p.m. - I have already talked to the minister and outlined to him that this is the procedure that has been followed in this Committee - and if not, we will adjourn until tomorrow, in a parliamentary sense, to meet to pass the heads.

I will now introduce the Committee members who are here tonight. Shall we start with you, Ms. Verge?

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, MHA, Humber East.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, MHA, St. John's East.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, MHA, Port au Port.

MR. CAREEN: Nick Careen, MHA, Placentia.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, MHA, Harbour Main.

MR. CHAIRMAN: David Gilbert, MHA, Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

I believe we have a couple of more members coming, or at least one. I think Mr. Tulk is supposed to be here representing Ms. Young.

Anyway, Mr. Minister, over to you, Sir.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will not use fifteen minutes, in the interest of moving things along, but let me introduce the officials who are here with me tonight, some of whom may be known to some members of the Committee and others who may not.

On my immediate right, John Cummings, who is an Assistant Deputy Minister. He is responsible for the law operations within the department, by which we mean the civil law.

On my immediate left is Colin Flynn whose title is Director of Public Prosecutions, which is an Assistant Deputy Minister level position. Colin is the official directly in charge of prosecutions and the Crown prosecutors, the Crown attorneys throughout the Province, and has a great deal to do in that context with the two police forces in the Province.

Directly behind me is Robert Barter, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

On his left is David Hickey, Director of Human Resources. I may perhaps parenthetically add that Justice is one of the largest employing departments in government. We don't think of it often as an employing department but if you take in the police, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the penitentiaries and the correctional institutions, we have in the order of 1200 men and women who work with us.

Behind John, on Bob's right, is Seamus O'Regan Junior, my Executive Assistant.

Mr. Chairman, the department's programs cover quite a large gamut and I think they are revealed by the various sub-heads in the Estimates. Ms. Verge is a former minister and I know is intimately familiar with the department, particularly as of 1989. There have been some changes since then, of course, but she is very aware of our operations. Mr. Harris, like Ms. Verge, a learned member, a member of the Bar, is, I suspect, familiar with some of our operations, as well.

I don't propose to make a statement, I would far rather, Mr. Chairman, respond to comments or questions and help members in any way I can. We are asking, just for the record, for a total vote of $113,087,900 during the fiscal year, which is a substantial sum of money. I would be prepared to account for that and to answer as best I can for any of the expenditures that we request. Thank you, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to begin by asking the minister to outline for the Committee, his program, his aims and objectives for the next year - his legislative program, his plans for providing significantly improved or different programs and services.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister has no program. The government have a program. And I am not just trying to play games. I have to proceed in what I am about to say with a degree of caution because these are Cabinet decisions, but there are a number of areas that I hope will be addressed over the piece, some of the needs.

In no particular order, but as matters occur to me, there are a significant number of pieces of legislation that are under review, that need review, that are being reviewed, that will, I hope, in due course come forward. Most of these are not matters that will have a ready public interest, I would suggest. It is pretty difficult to get meetings in the community of Mud Lake, in my district, about the personal property security legislation in this Province, but those of us who work at the Bar will acknowledge that that is a matter to be looked at. We have a committee at work on, for example, advance health care directives. I would hope the government will be dealing with that.

There are a number of other areas where I would hope, over the next couple of years we can, as a government, make some progress. The penitentiary and correctional institutes require a great deal of attention. They are running at between 115 and 120 per cent of rated capacity. I used the words "rated capacity" because I want to be very clear that all of the information that I have indicates that we are operating them safely and humanely and with proper regard for the rights of the men and women who are in our custody in these institutions. But the fact remains, if you simply take the number of authorized beds and you take the number of men and women who are incarcerated on any given day, you will come out with somewhere between 115 or 120 per cent. This is a matter, Ms. Verge, of considerable concern to the Ministry, because we do not control the number of people committed to the prisons nor do we control, of course, the length of their sentences. Both of these are done by the courts.

These are a number of areas. I could go in others, but rather than go on with a rambling thing I would rather respond to particular concerns and questions. I will not try to speculate which may be in your mind. I can take a guess, Lynn, but that's not right. Let me try to answer what you want to raise.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) legislation, the minister mentioned deficiencies in the personal property security legislation. Is anything actually being done to reform that legislation and to provide an improved service?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is yes. I can expand on that somewhat. There was a significant project done two or three - I look to Bob; Bob, correct me - two or three years ago, involving the private Bar. I believe the Law Reform Commission had a -

MR. BARTER: There were forty submissions received.

MR. ROBERTS: There were some forty submissions received from different groups, consumer groups, or legal groups and what have you. That project did not go ahead. I have not got into it in the detail I want to go into. The major legislative initiatives of the last year have consumed a lot of time, the conflict of interest act, which was proclaimed, as members know, as of yesterday. I think there was a letter on our desk today from the commissioner. The police act, which caused a fair amount of discussion in the House, took up a great deal of time. The personal property security legislation is one of these areas. What we will end up doing is taking the present draft legislation, seeing whether it needs a further review process, and moving it forward.

Let me add that the abolition of the Law Reform Commission, which we did last year - which was not something that I turned cartwheels over, but it had to be done and it was done - did have a benefit for my department, for my officials, in that Chris Curran, who was the executive director of the Commission, came to work with the department as a solicitor. So, we now, for the first time, have "a policy capability" within the department. We do not have what I would like to see, and what I hope we can manage, but money is always a concern. We do not have a policy unit within the Department of Justice. I would like to see one. We must be just about the only department in the entire administration that doesn't have an in-house capability to review the - 156 acts, `Bob'?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and thirty-five, I believe.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. There are 135 acts. I thought I had the number of 156 - one hundred and thirty-five separate bits of legislation, Mr. Chairman, for which the Minister of Justice and his officials are responsible, but the personal property one will take a fair amount of time over the next couple of years.

MS. VERGE: Of the Law Reform Commission - that was going to be one of my next questions - I feel that the government was quite foolhardy in disbanding the Law Reform Commission since it cost very little money. Apart from Mr. Curran, there were only one or two other staff, and actually, for many years, Mr. Curran was the only paid staff of the Commission. The Commission, itself, comprised judges and lawyers who served with simply token remuneration.

I find it hard to understand why the government essentially disbanded a group of highly qualified, talented, dedicated, volunteers. I ask the minister whether he would consider re-appointing a Law Reform Commission?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member's question was: Would we consider re-appointing, and I think it is fair to say it is something that, in the best of all possible worlds, we would like to do. The problem is always one of priorities, and although the amount of money involved was relatively small, we did identify it as an expenditure that was not on the priority scale at quite the height or the level of some other matters, and these are always judgement calls, but it is one my colleagues and I reached, I guess, on the basis of the analysis that the functions of the Law Reform Commission could be done in other ways, and I think that we are and can do that.

I would also point out that the real problem with, not the Law Reform Commission - the real problem with the work of law reform is that the reforms were not becoming law.

I just asked Mr. Cummings if he could, offhand, think of any major changes made as a result of anything from the Law Reform Commission. I am not sure where we are on family law. I would have to look that up. That is not an area in which I worked in at the Bar and I do not claim any expertise there, but what I do recall is that a whole bunch of reports were produced by the Law Reform Commission with very good work. Executions, personal property, limitations, mechanics liens - now these aren't matters that there are meetings about in our constituencies, but they are all important, and none of them -

MS. VERGE: And there -

MR. ROBERTS: Just let me finish. None of them were ever translated into law.

MS. VERGE: And why was that?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I ask the minister. She was there when most of these were produced.

MS. VERGE: No, I wasn't, actually. I suggest to the minister that he review the file on the Law Reform Commission and he will find that most of the reports that he just cited were completed around early 1989.

MR. ROBERTS: The minister was there, of course, until mid-1989. I shall endeavour, Mr. Chairman, to have prepared - Mr. O'Regan hears as I speak - a list of the reports prepared by the Law Reform Commission when they were received by the department, but I can only tell you that my impression - and I do not put it more highly than that; I don't want to claim to have knowledge that I don't have. My impression is that they came in and nothing happened, and that some of them came in during the minister's time.

All of them are there, and I can tell you the amount of law reform that the - perhaps the hon. lady could take the time to tell us the law reforms that she introduced during her four years as minister. I have been there a year and I will match mine in the year against what the hon. lady did in four years.

MS. VERGE: I am not here to compete in a juvenile debate.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not a juvenile debate.

MS. VERGE: I am quite proud of my legislative record. But I am here now to ask questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you will have to wait until the next time, Ms. Verge, because your time has expired.

MR. ROBERTS: There will be another round, Lynn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I just want to start off, Mr. Minister, with a question I'm curious about. In the minister's office expenses, does that include - I know all Cabinet ministers, I'm not picking on you in particular, but all Cabinet ministers receive an allocation for a vehicle. I know the previous government provided vehicles. I don't know if they provided chauffeurs for anybody. But there were vehicles. This administration changed that, or the previous administration I suppose, and instead gave each Cabinet minister an $8,000 car allowance. Is that in your appropriation here under Transportation and Communications?

MR. ROBERTS: You will find that, Mr. Harris in 1.1.01.03. Transportation and Communications.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, it may be under salary. I am paid as a minister, as is each of my colleagues, $8,000 a year as a vehicle allowance, which is taxable in my hands. I report it as income and pay tax upon it. It's somewhere in 1.1.01, was the answer.

MR. HARRIS: 01 you think, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure whether it's in Salaries or Transportation and Communications. But it is there.

MR. HARRIS: I was curious about that. Because I know that, as I say, vehicles were provided before -

MR. ROBERTS: I do not have a vehicle, nor to my knowledge does the department have any vehicles other than police vehicles and that kind of thing.

MR. HARRIS: I just was curious as the previous, previous government, the Tory government, had provided a vehicle for ministers, and this government provides a vehicle allowance. I'm just curious as to whether or not as a Minister of Justice - maybe some ministers, maybe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation goes around and looks at roads or things. But as Minister of Justice, is there actually a need for a vehicle or a vehicle allowance to carry out your ministerial duties? I don't think you visit the courts or those kinds of things on a regular basis. Do you? Or is it really just sort of a perk?

MR. ROBERTS: I don't visit the courts on a regular basis - my regular place of business is here in this building. I can't offer you a judgement on whether any minister would need it. I travel on government business. I often rent cars. I prefer to fly and drive than to drive. That's just my own preference.

My understanding is that the $8,000 for each member of a ministry amounts to a benefit given to each minister. It's accounted for in that way. The same as members are paid travel allowances to enable them to do their jobs. The hon. lady shakes her head. My understanding is members are paid travel allowances.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. Members who reside outside of St. John's are given an amount to provide for travelling, I think -

MR. ROBERTS: I mean, I don't get the twenty-five dollar per diem that the hon. gentleman gets for a meal allowance in St. John's. I don't get that.

MR. HARRIS: No, no. This is a vehicle allowance and presumably as it relates to transportation.

MR. ROBERTS: It amounts to a benefit, as I said. No question about that.

MR. HARRIS: I'm just looking at rough calculations here. I think when people travel by car for the government they get twenty-six or twenty-seven cents per kilometre for their own vehicle. That would rack up to about 32,000 kilometres to use that. As I say, the minister may travel on government business, and I have no doubt that he does, but I would suspect, as the minister says, that the travel is done by plane to the nearest place and rented vehicle.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the gentleman rising on a point of order now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The answer Mr. Harris, as I said, is that this is a benefit. If the Committee is not prepared to vote it then we'll have to deal with that. I draw the same benefits precisely as every minister of the Crown. Let there be no doubt about it, I draw the $8,000 per annum car allowance and it's included on my income and I pay tax on it. Of course it's a benefit. So are other benefits. That's the point I'm making.

MR. TULK: Nobody (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Fogo is out of order.

MR. HARRIS: The point I'm making. I guess we're dealing with appropriations here and if the appropriation is for vehicle travel I'm just wondering whether the minister actually uses it for travel.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course I do.

MR. HARRIS: It seems to me to be unnecessary.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course I do. But it's not the only means I use to travel - but of course I use it for travel. If I have to go to Government House tomorrow, as I did last week, I have two vehicles, both of which I own, both of which I owned before I came in here. I have a little red sports car and I have a Volkswagen Jedda. But I drove down to Government House in one of those vehicles last week. If I have to go somewhere I do.

MR. HARRIS: I think the point is that in terms of the amount of travel that the minister does on government business and the 32,000 kilometres it would take to use it up on the travel allowance, there is no real relation to the two, is there?

MR. ROBERTS: No, it is not an accountable allowance, there is no question about that. When the hon. member draws his twenty-five-dollar-a-day meal allowance, he is not required to put in vouchers for the twenty-five dollars, it is just a benefit that is paid, but it is open and it is proper.

MR. HARRIS: I am not saying there is anyone trying to hide it, it is not listed here separately of course, but the question is, whether it is a necessary expenditure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I did not realize the Member for Fogo is involved in a debate here, I guess he will have his chance to ask questions, will he?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an interjection not debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have run a pretty quiet meeting here for the last while, so if you would contain yourself until your turn to speak, I think the meeting would run a little better.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, I think the point has probably been made here, Mr. Minister, under that head. Under the issue of Securities Administration expenditure here of $176,200, there is some discussion and there has been some discussion that perhaps the Atlantic Provinces as a group, might co-ordinate some of their securities administration. Is there any recent news on that, is that something that has been tossed around as an idea, or is it under active consideration, is there any plan in place to put it in force? It is page 273.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Cummings tracks this day by day for us and I am just getting an update on it.

The four Atlantic Premiers had an initiative underway, they called it CAP, the Conference of Atlantic Premiers, and they had mandated the Attorneys General to look at this and we have had several lengthy conference calls; we have not had meetings because you know, it costs $600 or $700 bucks to go to Halifax and all that for a day, we have had several long conference calls on it and we have had several meetings with officials, John, you have been to a couple I think?

MR. CUMMINGS: That is right.

MR. ROBERTS: Our officials have been at meetings. The result has been that we have not come to any agreement on anything and I can tell the hon. gentleman the problem, but maybe I should say it for the committee. This is the registration of securities that are either issued in Newfoundland and Labrador, which are very, very, few, or securities which are being sold to people living in this Province and it also includes the supervision of the men and the women who are licensed to sell securities to residents in this Province, and the issue is whether we should have a joint Atlantic Provinces Commission, and the problem is, none of us is willing to give up the revenue, and there is also a problem of harmonization.

Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have relatively similar acts. The New Brunswick legislation and the Prince Edward Island legislation is very different so there would have to be, to begin with, one of the two groups would have to change their statute. We take the position that ours is quite new, it was done in the mid-80s I assume - could you tell me when John?

MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, it was 86.

MR. ROBERTS: It was 86 or 87, during the Peckford administration, a very good effective act was brought in and it is comparable I am told to the Ontario legislation and the general run of the mill across the country, so the short answer to your question, Mr. Harris, is that the committee has met and asked leave to sit again. There has been no resolution on these issues.

MR. HARRIS: Does the government see that as an area aside from harmonization issues, which would no doubt have to be resolved, but would that be seen as an area where government could save money, it is not a lot of money as I see here, only $176,000 but would one of their reasons for doing that be a cost saving measure?

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. In fact, if any thing, I would be happy to request increased expenditures there, if we wanted to do anything with it but it is not a money saving matter, it is meant to do two things, to ensure that consumer protection, the protection of the purchaser of securities, is enhanced as the initiative, and secondly, to make it a little easier to do business here because somebody wanting to distribute a securities issue in Canada now, must register with all ten provincial securities bodies, and ours is a commissioner, some provinces have a full fledged commission, and really, this is just a make work scheme for lawyers. Maybe you and I should not say that publicly but it is a make work scheme for lawyers in most cases because if an issue is registered in Ontario with the OSC, the Ontario Securities Commission, it is automatically registered across the Province. Nobody vets it if Ontario has approved it or if Quebec is the primary issuer, so the idea is to try to enhance it. This is quite a revenue source for the Province. There are areas in justice that make `money' and this is one of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Verge.

MS. VERGE: You said earlier that the penitentiary and adult correctional centre's population is up over 100 per cent of capacity and I would like you to give a profile of the inmate population indicating what types of offences they are in jail for. I realize that the minister may not have all that in his head.

MR. ROBERTS: Not only do I not have it but I do not think we have that information.

MS. VERGE: I will gladly wait until later to get detailed statistics, but does the minister or any of the staff with the minister know offhand whether there has been a noticeable change in the pattern of criminals sentenced to jail? Why are all those inmates doing time and why has there been a significant increase in the inmate population? I can tell the minister that when I left the department four years ago inmate population was down to such a low level that we were seriously considering closing one or two of the correctional centres in the Province.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, first of all the hon. member and I will agree that if there is one thing she cannot claim credit for as minister, or I cannot claim credit for as a minister is the inmate population. We are responsible for housing them but we do not put them in there nor do we say for how long they are sentenced. We do have some control over where they serve their sentences, of course. I will provide the committee, Mr. Chairman, with the annual report which is made public, of the adult corrections division. Now, remember youth corrections are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Social Services and there is a fair amount of data in there.

I can give the members, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. lady in particular, some impressions. The number of sexual offenders is up and that is no secret. It is not something that one should be proud of, but it is no secret. The length of sentence for sexual offences has gone up substantially. Generally, the length of sentence seems to be going up. A few years ago it was twenty-eight days and it is now, I am told, thirty-five. It is only seven days but that is a 25 per cent increase. Our incarceration rates are still well below, I am told, the national average but generally speaking the people in our penitentiaries are there for the more serious crimes, and as with all of Canada the pressure is coming on the number of people charged, and the number of people convicted is increasing. I do not think it is anything significant. Colin is in charge of the prosecutions end.

The other feature I have marked down, and Mr. Flynn reminds me of, is the Askoff (?), the Supreme Court of Canada decision a couple of years ago in a case involving a person named Askoff, a man in fact, that the processing of criminal matters must be done with reasonable expedition or the person's charter rights to a speedy trial are breached. Now, we understood that to be a bump. The prosecutors kept telling me of an Askoff bump but I can only tell you the Askoff bump has not been a bump, it has been a steady uphill climb. We have been averaging as many as six jury trials a week here in St. John's in the last few months. That is not a very full answer but I can only say to the hon. member that I do not have that sort of information to my hand but I will get her the report.

MS. VERGE: Can the minister tell the committee whether the number of sexual assault offence prosecutions has levelled off or whether it is still increasing?

MR. ROBERTS: I am told it is still on a gradual increase. We have not had any repetition, fortunately, of the rather spectacular series of trials that we had two or three years ago but I am told there is still a steady increase in the number of people charged and the number of people being convicted.

MS. VERGE: Does that apply to prosecutions of child sexual offences?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer is yes.

MS. VERGE: Still a steady - a slow increase but nevertheless an increase.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it is not a happy situation. My own impression on what I am told, my own belief on what I am told, is that we are seeing much better reporting. Persons working in the field are much more aware of the obligation placed on people to report any indication of child abuse, sexual or otherwise, directly to child welfare, I guess, is it? - to the social welfare authorities and we are still seeing an increase in prosecutions.

MS. VERGE: I was glad to see in the estimates a significant increase in what is forecast to be spent for victim services. The Wells government cut out the financial compensation program for victims of personal injury crime and that did away with up to a $1 million a year in spending. Last year the government budgeted $234,000 for victim services and set up, on a so called pilot basis, a victim services program with five victim workers -

MR. ROBERTS: Four and the Salvation Army, I think. We had the contract with the Army.

MS. VERGE: Yes, four staff and one contractual position serving less than half the Province's population and far less than half the Province's geography. Now, helping to pay for this program is revenue from the criminal code victim fine surcharge. I would like to ask the minister first of all, to tell us about revenue from the criminal code victim fine surcharge, a provision that just came into force a couple of years ago. When I asked about that in the first year or so, I was told judges were slow in responding to it and were ordering low fine surcharges and consequently the revenue was low but by the second year the revenue was increasing. In here in the estimates in 4.2.05 -

MR. ROBERTS: Down at the bottom line, the revenue line.

MS. VERGE: - owed to revenue provincial, we see last year $102,200 and this year $150,000. I assume that is from the criminal code fine surcharge, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: The revenue is entirely from the surcharge and as the hon. member just said, Mr. Chairman, the news is good. We had estimated last year we would receive $60,000. In fact, we got a little over $100,000 on that and we estimate $150,000 this year. I am not sure where the limit is but I am quite sure that we are not at the limit yet. I doubt if the thing will ever become self-financing and of course the federal government has done on this program what they have done on a number of others, they get a program up and running on 50/50 money, then they pull the rug out. That is why there is no -

MS. VERGE: That was the financial compensation?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Actually they did better than 50/50.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. We did better for awhile but there is no federal revenue coming in now -

MS. VERGE: No.

MR. ROBERTS: The only -

MS. VERGE: The criminals are paying this money.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes, yes. This is a charge on criminals.

MS. VERGE: Now, how is our fine surcharge revenue comparing to what other provinces are getting, because the criminal code applies nationwide?

MR. ROBERTS: It is comparable but nobody really knows what - I mean this is a program that came in on the code, I think three years ago, four years ago and it is only now beginning to get up and running. There are some difficulties, judges have to become used to it. A judge has the ability over and above a penalty, whether the penalty be incarceration, a fine or both, to impose a surcharge as well, to be paid towards compensating the victims and more and more judges are becoming aware of it. The prosecutors are raising the issues but also there are collection problems. I mean a lot of prisoners do not have a lot of money and it is difficult to collect the money but my understanding is that we are making progress and we are roughly comparable to the rest of the country but I do not hold that as an answer of art. I am not aware of any particular study, or any particular document on it. Colin, have we - we just don't have that information; I am not sure anybody does.

MS. VERGE: Is federal Justice making any effort to keep track of this?

MR. ROBERTS: Not to our knowledge, but one moment, please -

I am told there may be something done federally. We are not sure, but we will check and let the Committee know, Mr. Chairman.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

With the help of whatever revenue is coming in from the fine surcharge, the Province is now offering a limited Victims Services program with a few workers.

MR. ROBERTS: We have tripled the program this year.

MS. VERGE: But I see a significant increase in the budgeted spending. Can the minister tell us what service will be offered with the new money over the next year?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, we have had four of these Victims Services workers in - plus the Salvation Army, who were under contract to provide these services in St. John's - and the workers were in Gander, Corner Brook, Happy Valley, and Ms. Jacqueline Lake here at the headquarters. We are adding, I believe, seven new bodies - I am not sure if they will be men, women, or what - but persons, to do this. We have not yet decided where they are to be stationed.

The service, as the hon. lady says, has been restricted to - I think we use provincial court districts as the guide marks, and it has been restricted to a limited number of provincial court districts, so my hope is to expand it Province-wide. There may well be a need to double or triple it in St. John's, because I saw some numbers the other day showing that 60 per cent of all the provincial court offences are dealt with here in St. John's. Now, that is an umbrella figure ranging from a serious sexual assault to a parking ticket, but just on raw numbers of matters, processes of that order.

So most of the money will go into extra people. It is one of the few areas in the entire government where we are expanding this year, and I think it is a good thing. I would like to have more.

MS. VERGE: I think it is a very good thing, and I congratulate the minister. I would urge him, when looking at the deployment of new people, to consider the main purpose for which the program was instituted, namely, to assist victims of serious personal injury crimes, particularly victims of sexual assaults, domestic violence and serious physical assault.

The minister must know, as a member of the Cabinet that was asked to look particularly at the alarming rate of child sexual assaults in the Bay St. George/Port au Port area, of the need in that particular region. The one worker in Western Newfoundland now, based in Corner Brook, is limited to the Bay of Islands/Humber Valley area. It is a very small part of the Western Newfoundland population.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady -

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will have to wait until next time for the answer to that.

MR. ROBERTS: I was going to tell you, her point is well taken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize Mr. Harris, I have Mr. Smith's name down. Is there anyone else on that side who wants to speak, because I don't want it to turn into a Mr. Harris - Ms. Verge show.

MR. ROBERTS: We don't want only lawyers in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I learned the rules after last night, Mr. Minister. I am told that in order to get on the list you have to say so right after you finish speaking, otherwise you could end up speaking only once or twice.

MR. ROBERTS: I have every confidence the hon. gentleman will find a way to get on the list. He has been on my list for some time.

MR. HARRIS: I just want to follow up on this issue of crimes compensation, victims' compensation. It is an issue I know something about, having represented a number of people who have gone through the crimes compensation system, and being aware of a lot of other cases, particularly in the area of sexual assaults where the crimes compensation awards that people have been granted have, in many cases, provided for counselling. As a result, a number of individuals who have received crimes compensation awards for pain and suffering and other associated awards, or loss of income, are also receiving ongoing counselling - some having started some time ago, and some perhaps not even started.

The question is whether or not, under the new Victims Services vote or head, these individuals who have received - now there is an upper limit on them, of course. You could only go if you get an award providing for counselling. The maximum you can get under all heads is $20,000 but there are some individuals who have ongoing social counselling or therapy or what have you.

Does the government include, under the vote for Victims Services, the cost of therapy sessions for people who already have awards? Is that provided for in that vote?

MR. ROBERTS: The answer to the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Chairman, is no, but let him give him the rest of the answer. The money is found up above in 4.2.04. There is still a residual vote in the Crimes Compensation of $125,000 and that is to meet the costs to be incurred during this fiscal year of the awards that - you know, where somebody has been awarded counselling over a two-or-three-year period. We will be funding this year's costs out of that subhead.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. So that is the $125,000 there?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: It takes care of that.

MR. ROBERTS: There are no new Crimes Compensation awards being made.

MR. HARRIS: No, no. But if there are individuals - and I have had a couple of people ask me whether or not counselling that they are receiving - is that going to continue? There didn't seem to be certain answers a little while ago from the officials who had been working that system, but I thank the minister for that answer.

MR. ROBERTS: I am told that the $125,000 is adequate, and that is something we should be able to estimate with some precision.

MR. HARRIS: Sure.

The question comes up from time to time, and I know, one of the individuals involved in providing this service to the government, has raised it himself, and that is the issue of forensic services and the possibility of replacing the system of having judicial inquiries into sudden, suspicious or unnatural deaths - replacing that with a medical examiner system that would, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the minister, or Mr. Flynn, perhaps, however it works out, as to whether or not a judicial inquiry would be held into a particular death, that all sudden deaths would be screened, I guess, by a medical examiner to determine a cause or decide whether or not a particular inquiry would be held. Is that something the government has looked at seriously? Or are you satisfied that the system, as it is, is working properly and that we are satisfied to have just inquiries as and when they may be required, based on discretion, I guess?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the government, by which I mean, in this instance, the fifteen men and women who, together, make up the Cabinet, have not become seized of the issue. It is a matter that I am trying to grapple with, with a view to bringing it forward in due course to Cabinet when I have worked it through in my own mind how I think we should go.

I have seen quite an extensive paper from Dr. Hutton, who is the forensic pathologist in the Province, and an extraordinarily capable and competent person, as well as a dedicated public servant. He, in addition to doing his job superbly, has developed quite an interest in this, and I suspect he is the individual to whom my friend refers.

There are pros and cons, as with anything. Two of the issues I have to look at: first of all, the availability of pathologists, is a problem. For example, if we have a death - well, two Germans died in Happy Valley in an unfortunate air crash about a month ago. Their bodies had to be moved here to St. John's for autopsies. The availability of pathologists is a concern. Then, there is also a cost element. My job, as any minister, is constantly balancing benefit against cost.

The present system is not - it is discretionary but it is not a discretion that we exercise often or lightly. The Summary Proceedings Act, Section 22, from memory, mandates inquiries into all cases of sudden - I look to Mr. Flynn to correct me where I go wrong - all cases of sudden death, unless there is a specific order to the contrary. That is normally done by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have a residual authority which I will exercise as necessary.

The other problem with the present system is that Provincial Court judges are given this chore - and they do it very well, but we have a limited number of Provincial Court judges and if one of them is off on one of these inquiries, then he or she is not judging in court. So, I guess what I am saying to my hon. friend is that I have a list of about forty-five topics. As the Minister of Justice, I hope to get my teeth into it, in view of moving them forward. The question of a forensic pathology or the coroner system is on that list.

MR. HARRIS: Okay, thank you. It is not pressing but it is something that does come up from time to time. Dr. Hutton is the man to whom I was referring and who is very fond of changing that system. I want to ask about the penitentiary. First of all, I guess I will ask the minister: Have you received complaints from inmates of Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St. John's about conditions at the penitentiary?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I have quite a lively correspondence with a number of inmates. I believe they are allowed to write to me without their letters being opened. I think that is entirely proper, and some of them have a great deal of time on their hands, I should think. I am not trying to be funny, I mean, there are people there who carry on extended correspondence with me. Mr. David Fleming, who is no longer in the Province, has been carrying on a very lively correspondence with me. So, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is yes.

MR. HARRIS: Have you had occasion to visit the penitentiary to look into some of the complaints? I say this because in the early part of May, in fact, it was the day before the election, I paid a visit to Her Majesty's Penitentiary, went around and spoke to each and every inmate, as a matter of fact, to say hello on behalf -

MR. ROBERTS: A number of the hon. gentleman's constituents, perhaps?

MR. HARRIS: A number of them were, as it turned out, and the number -

MR. ROBERTS: I once lost the penitentiary but won the Waterford - now, make what you want of that.

MR. HARRIS: Some of them actually voted for me, but that is not the point of my question. While I was there I talked to a number of people who said that they had complaints. They tried to complain about it and they were concerned that their letters had been tampered with, but that is a separate issue.

MR. ROBERTS: Are these people speaking of letters to me?

MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think to you. I was just wondering whether their complaints were getting through. Obviously, they are getting through.

MR. ROBERTS: Some are, I don't know if all are. I mean, I know what I have, I don't know what I don't have.

MR. HARRIS: In one area of the penitentiary, in particular - and I am not saying that this is true for all of it - I was spoken to by several inmates who complained about conditions in this particular part of the penitentiary, a very, very old part and I am not even sure of the local name for that particular area. But they complained of mice and rats, of poor food, of being served in their cell areas on paper plates. In fact, they showed me what they were served with. They felt that the conditions there were actually unwholesome, unsanitary and improper kinds of conditions for people to be in. Some of them expressed to me that they were very experienced prisoners, they have seen a lot of prisons in this country, and they were expressing the opinion that these particular facilities were very, very poor - the treatment in terms of food and in terms of sanitary facilities, the availability of showers, the availability of soap. One individual complained to me that he was a - he had an intermittent sentence; he was serving four days on weekends for a driving offence. He said he would come in on a Friday and leave on a Monday and not be given any soap; he was supposed to bring his own towel, that kind of thing. I am just wondering if the minister has heard that kind of complaint from the penitentiary?

MR. ROBERTS: I haven't heard that one. I confess, I have heard many that I would take more seriously than somebody - these cursed weekend sentences are an affront, in my view. They are proper under the Criminal Code and I don't quarrel with judges imposing whatever they are authorized to impose by the Parliament of Canada, but they are an affront to any idea of a civilized system of justice. I mean, this idea of - actually, in this Province, we let people out on the weekend on temporary absences so that we can have people check in for the weekend on these cursed weekend sentences. If you have broken the law, you should pay a penalty, not this (inaudible).

The hon. gentleman asked, Mr. Chairman, if I have been at the penitentiary - the answer is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sir, could you clue up?

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. I am sorry. He asked questions and I though he wanted the answers.

MR. HARRIS: I get on the list and we go back to that.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me simply say that I want to pursue it a little bit. I arranged to have my colleagues from the Treasury Board go with me to the penitentiary and we all met a number of our constituents. Some of my colleagues who were teachers met former pupils of theirs and one of the results, I am very proud to say, is that we are spending $1 million at the penitentiary this year to do so long needed capital renovations, but the answer to the question is, yes, and the rest we will have to come back to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I now recognize Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It might be a pleasant change of pace to get somebody who is not a lawyer and who does not have a legal background. If I could refer you to Head 2.3.05. Mr. Harris referenced the Forensic Pathology Services. I am assuming from the salaries that are listed there that this service is just available in one site in the Province. Is that right?

MR. ROBERTS: The service is available throughout the Province but again, as is so often the case, half the truth is not even close to the full answer. Doctor Hutton is based here in St. John's and he is the Chief Provincial Pathologist. He is effectively full-time at this work and there is a lot of it to be done. We contract out. If you go down to .05, Professional Services, we contract out autopsies in other parts of the Province as necessary and as pathologists are available. Now, sometimes it makes more sense to move a body to St. John's to do an autopsy, depending entirely on the circumstances. The service is available anywhere in the Province. If a person dies in the hon. gentleman's district of Port au Port tomorrow and circumstances require an autopsy, it will be performed. It may be done in Stephenville, it may be done in Corner Brook, or the body might be brought here to the Health Sciences Centre.

MR. SMITH: Okay. You referenced .05, Professional Services. I had noted as well to differentiate between professional services and purchase services. What would be the difference?

MR. ROBERTS: This is a standard thing throughout the Estimates. Purchase services are literally anything we purchase, rent, etc. It could be anything we buy from stenographic services, I am not trying to be funny, but to a cup of coffee or anything. This is a standard division throughout the Estimates. Professional services in this case would refer to pathologists and undertakers as well, because to move bodies it must be done properly.

MR. SMITH: Moving on down Page 275 under Head 2.3.06, the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. Looking at that I am wondering what the situation is? It does indicate there that the commission is to be convened in 1993. I assume there is no reference to the salaries.

MR. ROBERTS: The commission has been appointed. The head of the commission, the chair was appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, Chief Justice Goodridge, in accordance with the legislation which had been on the books for about twenty years. Chief Justice Goodridge appointed Mr. Justice Mahoney to be chair of the commission. The other four members were appointed by the Speaker before the election so it was the Member for Bonavista North who is now the Minister of Social Services. They are Mr. Ray Baird, Mr. John Nolan, Mrs Beatrice Watts, and Mrs Dorothy Inglis. The first meeting of the commission will be held on Wednesday, Mr. Mahoney tells me. I spoke with him within the last day or so. Mr. Mahoney will draw no salary because he is a supernumerary judge so he is paid as a supernumerary. He is paid what amounts to a judge's salary in accordance with the federal legislation. The other members will be paid a per diem on what we call Level 2 which is $350 a day less 4.5 per cent. Is that right? I think the 4.5 per cent has been taken off and I think it is $350 a day. It is a Level 2 board and they will be paid on a per diem of the work they do, so they are holding their first meeting here in St. John's on Wednesday coming Judge Mahoney tells me.

MR. SMITH: Is there a deadline for them to report?

MR. ROBERTS: The legislation says 31 December but I have said to the judge that since they were late getting up and running, the general election sort of put things behind, that if they needed more time I would bring the matter to my colleagues and we would see what we would decide, but the legislation does set a deadline of December 31, 1993. It is unlikely there will be a general election in 1993, 1994, or 1995 so I think they have a little leeway. Then again the man who sits in the seat the hon. gentleman is occupying has the constitutional right to call a general election any time he wants to.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

4.2.02 - page 283, and what we have here is Community Corrections.

MR. ROBERTS: Community Corrections, yes.

MR. SMITH: That is right. With regards to this, what does this involve and where would the different sites be located?

MR. ROBERTS: Well this is our adult parole and probation people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just adult probation.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, adult probation, parole is federal. There is a distinction there that only lawyers in a bad moment could appreciate. We have a substantial number of people who are on probation by order of the courts and we supervise them, it is under the direction of Mr. McNutt, Robert McNutt, and this is the subhead from which we pay the salaries and the expenses incurred in that. These are probation officers by another name, in fact I think that is probably the term we use, certainly day by day.

They are stationed throughout the Province, they are heavily overworked, heavily overburdened, they are carrying caseloads far in excess of what they should, and are doing the best they can in a difficult situation. It just makes an awful amount of sense to have people out on probation if they are non-violent offenders you know, and that kind of thing. It is also, as the member would appreciate, a great deal cheaper, it is costing us in excess of $40,000 to keep one prisoner in jail for one year.

MR. SMITH: Thank you. 4.2.04, Crimes Compensation. I just had noted there when I was looking through the estimates that there is no estimate for salaries and -

MR. ROBERTS: That program is being phased out, we ended it last year; last year was the last year. Mr. Badcock, who was Chairman of the Board, is now working with the department as a solicitor, and the only money we are asking for this year is a residual amount, that is the amount that my friend from St. John's East is raising, if he was to fund ongoing awards. We phased it out reluctantly but we did it.

What happened, it is another of these programs that the feds got us into, or we got into it on a shared cost program four or five years ago, my friend from -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty years ago. - and then the Mulroney administration - and I do not blame them, I mean you have to cut and every thing you cut is painful - but, it was ended and the federal contribution went off to nothing and we just backed off, so that is why there are no salary votes. There are no people working there any more and there are no new awards being made.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Minister. That's it for me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Legal Aid. There is a very small increase and I am only guessing but there is a lot more poor people, without pointing fingers, that is the society in which we are living. In the cases of what you have appropriated, a guestimate is as good as you can, but I suppose the department is run like anywhere else, it is a household, if it goes over budget you always try to scrape from another part of the department, is that the way it goes? What else do you do?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman, some day in his career will run into the Treasury Board, which is the government's internal management operation, and the Treasury Board's approach always is countervailing savings, in other words you find it somewhere else in the department and if that does not work, you have to go back and try for Supplementary Supply.

MR. CAREEN: Okay, so these monies that have been approved, obviously you are projecting that there is that much more of an increase than from last year.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, no, if I may, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman will permit, last year's figures require some explanation. The hon. gentleman will note, we asked for $5 million in round numbers - the hon. gentleman is familiar with the format of the estimates. The right hand column on page 274 is the budget figure, which I would have asked of this committee last year. The next figure, the next column, the middle one which is $6.25 million, a 25 per cent increase, is what we actually spent. Then we're asking for $5.41 millions this year, again in round numbers. So we're asking for roughly a $400,000 increase.

The reason why it's less than last year is we discovered midway through the year, or I discovered, that there was a substantial backlog of bills. I can provide the explanation for that if one wishes. We brought it up to date. The other thing that's happened is we are going from certificates to staff lawyers wherever we can. One qualifies for legal aid according to the rules. One gets a certificate and you can take it to any lawyer who will work for that. The lawyer sends his or her bill into the Commission, the cheque comes out. That's one way we provide legal aid. The other way we provide it is with staff solicitors. We have increased the number of staff solicitors substantially and that has brought down the - what do you call it? - the per case cost? Whatever. The per incident cost substantially. I'm told this is a realistic estimate. Time will tell how good it is.

MR. CAREEN: The correctional facilities. You said there, well, nearly $2 million.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry. Correctional -

MR. CAREEN: I'm talking about the correctional facilities, renovations to Her Majesty's Penitentiary, 4.2.06. The Member for St. John's East didn't know the name of it, and I don't know, but there's a certain area of that old part of what Ray Guy calls the `Walled-off Astoria'. Very old part of it. He did it in his old columns. Are the renovations here in that particularly old area, or is it going right on through the building?

MR. ROBERTS: The renovations are being done at the Penitentiary to what's called the Centre Block. The Centre Block does not house prisoners. The Centre Block I guess is the original part of the Penitentiary. Built in the 1850s. It did house prisoners. It's now offices and interview rooms. Really, it's being rebuilt entirely to provide, a) offices and facilities, and b) program space. Because one of the big gaps we have is program space. There are some cells adjacent to it we've been using for weekend people. Pretty unpleasant cells, I have to tell you. There may not be such a thing as a pleasant cell. That may be an oxymoron.

The rest of the wings have been built at various times. The newest wing was built in 1981. It's the blue - I don't know if the hon. gentleman has ever been in the Penitentiary as a visitor, I (inaudible) -

MR. CAREEN: Not yet.

MR. ROBERTS: By the way, members are, unless the Prisons Act has been changed, automatically entitled, as a right, to visit the Penitentiary at any time.

MR. TULK: But not serve time.

MR. ROBERTS: If the circumstances are right we can arrange that too, Mr. Chairman. Anything to oblige the hon. gentleman from Fogo, if he wants to. The other wings are not that old, although there are still some cells that are certainly less salubrious than other cells. But the money will go on the Centre Block which is where the prison officials tell me it is most needed.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you. This past year, Mr. McNutt... what's his title?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. McNutt is Director of Adult Corrections.

MR. CAREEN: He was around and about several places looking at new accommodations.

MR. ROBERTS: We have a constant need, and also we get interesting problems. Mr. Flynn won't mind me telling, he came in one Friday afternoon to my office late to say: Minister, there's something you should know about. Well, that sounded official. I said: tell me, Colin. He said: there's a trawler on the way into St. John's with - what was it? - thirty, forty or fifty people on it who've just been arrested. The message has come on the radio saying: be aware, put up your fifty people. I said: oh yes? Have we got room? He said: of course not. We don't have fifty vacant beds in the penitentiary system. If you want to know the truth we told the trawler to steam around slowly for a day or two and take their time coming. This was these people from St. Pierre who'd been arrested. We made arrangements to house them at Torbay, in one of the gyms. So we do - we are in the market for additional accommodation but the problem is cost and security.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you kindly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. In the list of grants to so-called third party organizations that we pried out of the Minister of Finance just before the election was called, there are a couple of indications of new grants from the Department of Justice. One for a prison liaison program, $53,900, and another that I'll come to in a moment. Would the minister tell us what the prison liaison program is to be, and how the $53,900 is to be spent?

MR. ROBERTS: That is for the Labrador Correctional Institute, which is in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

MS. VERGE: In Naskaupi district.

MR. ROBERTS: In Naskaupi district, but the good news is that it was not put there at my request. It was put there for liaison program at the request of the officials, but with my support. This is liaison with the Innu and Inuit prisoners.

We have a peculiar problem mostly in Labrador because most of the Aboriginal people who are in the system are in Labrador, and I am disturbed and concerned that there is no bilingual person on the staff at the Labrador Correctional Institute even yet. There are a couple in the system. A very high proportion of the prisoners there at any given time are Aboriginal. We have no liaison with them or with their communities, and the $54,000 was a program - when I say suggested by the officials, I am not trying to - I mean, I take responsibility for asking for the money - to enable them to try to put into place a prison liaison program to address the needs of some of these people because they come out of prison - they are all there for relatively short sentences - not all of them, most - liquor related offenses and that kind of thing - they go back in their home communities and they are back in the system in a matter of weeks or months.

I believe they hope to hire some local people to work with these prisoners before they get out in counselling and see if we can improve things. It is not a very happy situation.

MS. VERGE: What is in place for the penitentiary in St. John's and each of the other centres across the Province for community interface with inmates?

MR. ROBERTS: Not enough.

MS. VERGE: Stephenville seems to have the best that I have seen, at both the male and female institution, in terms of interaction with the community college and others in the community.

I agree with the minister's comment that there is not nearly enough, and the biggest lack, in my view, is here in St. John's where we have the biggest concentration of inmates at the penitentiary.

MR. ROBERTS: We fund the John Howard Society. They have other sources, and I think they do absolutely splendid work. The problem - and the hon. member having been a minister will understand, I fear, only too well, Mr. Chairman - is that the easy things to cut are the most valuable things.

When you have a prison, you have to pay the staff. You have to pay the meals. You have to pay the light, the heat, the whatever. Then when things get tight, the things that get cut are the really valuable things - the programming.

We have a program, and I did not bring my little book with me, but there is quite an extensive program. When you check into the prison you are given a little book which, among other things, lists the programs, but it is not nearly extensive enough. One of the areas in which it breaks down is introducing back into the community, and also community involvement.

When people go to prison, they are not there for life. In fact our prisoners are all two years less a day, by definition.

MS. VERGE: Except for a few federal people (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There are very few federal prisoners. Are there any left now, other than remands?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We have none now other than remands. That is one of the ways in which the pressure has... In the hon. lady's time I suspect they had the luxury of housing federal prisoners and "making money on them".

MS. VERGE: We did.

MR. ROBERTS: But there are none left except for remands. When Brother Ralph came back for other charges, he would have been held here - that kind of people in the system being processed.

There is not nearly enough time. I could go on in some length because I would like to see some money spent in it.

MS. VERGE: There are two issues. What I was getting at when I first asked the question was involvement of members of the outside community in various capacities. As I say, the best example of that kind of activity that I have seen is in Stephenville.

A second issue would be what the minister just alluded to, and that is programming provided by the government, by the penitentiary staff, education and training. So I would like the minister to comment on them one by one.

MR. ROBERTS: My comments applied to both.

MS. VERGE: For example, in the case of involvement of outsiders, of members of the wider community, would the minister entertain having a citizens advisory committee for each institution to try to foster and promote more interaction between the wider community and inmates?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me put it another way. I think we would welcome, or I would welcome, and I suspect the officials would welcome, but if not, let me know and I'll take care of that - any group or any individual for that matter coming forward who want to become involved. We are, in the way in which the hon. member suggests, we're talking now - Mr. McNutt I think has been making statements in the press, with my blessing, he doesn't need my permission to talk to the press, about a prisoners' liaison - what's the name of it - a prisoners' committee? I've met recently with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Prisoners' inmate committee. Which involves as well people outside, some of whom are in fact former prisoners themselves. I'm not familiar with the Stephenville one so I won't attempt to speak of it. Generally speaking, the problem we have is there's not a lot of interest in prisons by people who are not in prison. The John Howard Society is really the only organization I can think of readily that addresses itself to the situation of prisoners, and the John Howard Society operates outside prison. It deals with people who are on probation or in one stage or another.

That's a long answer. The short answer to the hon. lady's question is yes. I would welcome anything that we could do to - people are being punished, but it's not a life sentence. They have to come back into society. It's in our interest and their's -

MS. VERGE: And rehabilitation is one of the goals presumably.

MR. ROBERTS: - to have them come back into the system. You pay your penalty, you get on with life.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The next item on this list of third party organizations is Consumer Association. Nothing last year, approved for 1993-1994, $35,000. What is that?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. member will recall that we ended the - what was it? - the consumer advocate, Mr. Brace's position. Mr. Brace had a contract. We honoured the contract. Mr. Brace is now out in the private sector. I know he's practicing, I don't know what he's doing.

MS. VERGE: Filling in for Bill Rowe during the election.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MS. VERGE: Filling in for Bill Rowe during the election.

MR. ROBERTS: That's not a legal practice. It may be good practice or something else.

MS. VERGE: I know, I realize that.

MR. ROBERTS: Anyway, be that as it may. We terminated the position. We are in discussions with a consumer group - and I'd ask the hon. lady not to ask me which it is, but she can guess which one it is if she wants - but a consumer group with a view to funding it to enable it to intervene on behalf of consumers whenever hearings come forward. There were none last year. Mr. Brace finished the CRTC hearing which he had begun, and the $35,000 is our best guess as to what will be needed this year to fund them.

I don't want to say too much, but we believe that consumers operations, which are not government, will get intervenor funding from the board in ordering costs. So this should not be the total amount spent. The hon. lady knows what I'm talking about and I guess she doesn't want me to go very much further because it's in nobody's interest to talk about the fund. Consumer groups appearing before the appeal board, the CRTC, are entitled, in the general practice, to receive. It's in the discretion of the board to receive funding. Government agencies aren't.

MS. VERGE: Next question. The Registry of Deeds.

MR. ROBERTS: Another revenue source.

MS. VERGE: For years and years work has been going on trying to modernize the Registry, putting all documents on microfilm and computerizing the index. Progress has been very slow. I've been told that the future is somewhat uncertain. What's the department's commitment to completing that work?

MR. ROBERTS: The minister has an interest in having a long look at the whole land titles system. Specifically, whether we should continue with the present system or go to some other one. Now this is a massive project. I have to tell you, you're talking to a lawyer who avoided assiduously the Registry of Deeds. I was in practice full-time for, what, fourteen or fifteen years, and if I was in there twice it was because I got lost once in the bowels of the building here.

But I have seen some information and some friends of mine do practice law that involves some time in there. The volume of materials is increasing geometrically, you know the two, four, eight, sixteen, increasing rapidly. We now have on microfilm back to 1980, I am told - and we do not plan to go back any further? There is a study underway with a view of coming up with some alternatives but I do not think we will be going back a lot further than 1980. We are up to date, all new deeds are being put on. I can offer the hon. lady a thought, and this is certainly not government policy, this is a thought that what we should do in this Province is perhaps, and this will cause the lawyers in the country heartbreak, is go to a system whereby the government hires a bunch of searchers, a bunch of lawyers and certifies title, go to a proper land title system. The fee for registering your land title would include an insurance premium which would go into a fund to compensate people for the inevitable mistakes. This would mean he would not need lawyers to transfer title. As I say, I can hear the law society now tromping in, one more concern, and that has to be addressed but the present system is outdated, anti-dated, inefficient and about to collapse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, your time is up.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. On the issue again of the institutional operations and security vote 4.2.03 the penitentiary's - the concern that I raised is a very real one. I understand that the minister has an appropriation for a correctional capital vote of $700,000 from another department but I am concerned about the current situation and what certainly appeared to me, and I am no expert in evaluating prison facilities, but the circumstances that I saw on that Sunday morning where these particular inmates were being served what went for lunch, in a corridor outside their cells which would be about three feet wide, on a bench of sorts, which is maybe twelve -

MR. ROBERTS: I have been in that part of the penitentiary.

MR. HARRIS: - twelve inches wide, having to stand up to -

MR. ROBERTS: Is that the one they call the east wing? That is the east wing.

MR. HARRIS: I am not sure exactly -

MR. ROBERTS: I have been in there, yes. It is one of the older wings.

MR. HARRIS: - and the situation was not - it is partially underground, if that is the same one you are thinking about, look out the window and have the rat holes pointed out to you and be shown the places where the mice come in and roam around. The conditions in terms of the location are not very pleasant but also I think it is fair to say, just from what I saw and from the complaints that I heard, that the ongoing expenditures to look after just people's physical needs, hygiene, nutrition, meals, cleanliness, personal cleanliness and also the facilities were very, very seriously under what would be normally expected. I see in the appropriation for supplies, paragraph 04, line 04, a decrease of about $50,000 from last year. Can you tell us how, in an overcrowded system that we have, as you said bursting at the seams, as we all know and anybody who sees it knows and I am sure the correctional officers who work there, I am not blaming them and do not get me wrong, I am not blaming them for the conditions, they have to spend what money they have but how does one save $50,000? Is it saved on supplies? How do you reduce the amount of supplies? Are you reducing the amount of food or -

MR. ROBERTS: I cannot answer that. The amount of food will not be reduced. The quantity and I would hope the quality will not be reduced. I just do not know the answer. The officials here with me are not familiar with it so rather than wing it I will - I am not sure what procedure you use, Mr. Chairman, I will file a letter with the committee or I will ask the official concerned to speak with the hon. gentleman if he prefers. The answer is - I do not know the answer and I would just as soon leave it at that. I am sure there is an answer and I can tell the hon. gentleman that we are not reducing the meals or anything of that order. We may be doing things a little smarter down there or there may have been some one-shot expenditures last year.

MR. HARRIS: Again, I am trying to find, I suppose, where in this appropriation - obviously salaries are not related to it. I suppose it is either supplies or purchased services. Is there a catering service? I do not think there is. I think they have their own -

MR. ROBERTS: No, the -

MR. HARRIS: They do their own cooking -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) in-house as it were.

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Some is done by trustees, I think, is it not - by prisoners themselves?

MR. HARRIS: I would imagine the cooking is being -

MR. ROBERTS: Some of it is being done by prisoners.

MR. HARRIS: I think the cooking is being done by prisoners themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) catering.

MR. ROBERTS: There is catering?

AN HON. MEMBER: They used to do it in-house.

MR. ROBERTS: My officials tell me there is catering, but I will have to get Mr. McNutt in next year.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. Well I suppose whatever way -

MR. ROBERTS: I can only tell the hon. gentleman, the last time I was there prisoners were working in the - there is a kitchen -

MR. HARRIS: They were working in the kitchen -

MR. ROBERTS: In that east wing going down... There were prisoners working in the kitchen -

MR. HARRIS: They were working in the kitchen when I was there.

MR. ROBERTS: - because I had quite an animated chat with one of them whom I knew in another life - his, not mine.

MR. HARRIS: In addition to checking on the decrease in supplies and as to what that might be related to, would the minister undertake to check into the complaints that these prisoners have? I'll be more specific to the minister when I find out exactly what that particular wing might be called. i think it may well be what you said.

MR. ROBERTS: My answer is an unqualified yes. If I am given any details of complaints I will have them looked into and I will ensure the hon. gentleman gets an answer. Where we go from there depends on what the answer is. There's nothing to hide. The prisons are not everything one might want them to be, but my enquiries, and I've made I hope sufficient enquiries, show me that the prisons are safe and there's a regard for human decency and for the fact that these people have rights. Getting locked in jail doesn't mean you're thrown into the dungeon and the key is thrown away. If the hon. gentleman has complaints, if he will ensure that I'm made aware of them, I will ensure they are looked into it and he knows what comes of it.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Again, let me assure the minister, we're dealing with a variety of individuals who are there. Some of them are experienced prisoners, let's say, who've been in prisons across the country. Others are serving weekends for usually a driving offence. In fact, I met two individuals, one was seventeen, the other was sixteen. I asked one what they were doing there. They had been in closed custody situation and had escaped and were down there. So they're not all of one sort, and they are all in the same population.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should realize as well that we have other institutions which are lesser level of security and which are newer. The Salmonier prison camp is a very different situation. The Clarenville, Bishop's Falls, and West Coast institutions are all - we offer everything except maximum security custody.

MR. HARRIS: Does anyone know what this appropriation, line ten there, is, the $53,000 for Grants and Subsides? It seems to be a new appropriation.

MR. ROBERTS: That's the Labrador - the prisoner liaison program that the hon. lady asked me about.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: I found a more extensive note but it only says what I'd said. It just says it a little more elegantly.

MR. HARRIS: In the prison population down at HMP do we have at any one time, has there been an experience of having Aboriginal prisoners there? People whose only language may be Inuktitut or...?

MR. ROBERTS: I can only assume yes, simply because Aboriginal peoples come into the system in certain numbers. Obviously, before the centre was built in Happy Valley they would have to be housed at the penitentiary or elsewhere in the system. But no doubt - everybody I think starts at the penitentiary.

MR. HARRIS: I guess the question is: is the Happy Valley facility adequate for all those on the Labrador Coast who might be -

MR. ROBERTS: Almost all of the Aboriginal peoples who come into the system are housed in Happy Valley, excepting those who serve longer sentences. I don't think we have people in Happy Valley serving two year sentences. It's an institution with limited facilities. It's sort of a short stay place. Again, I'm not going to say there aren't exceptions to all these rules. People are moved from time to time.

I hear frequently from members who've heard from constituents who, usually for good reason, say: can we arrange to have a prisoner moved from Bishop's to Clarenville? You know what I mean, nearer the home or what have you. So prisoners are moved throughout the system from time to time. But almost all the Aboriginal people I should think - men - Aboriginal women are another problem, of course. But Aboriginal men are housed in Happy Valley for anything except a longer sentence. Then of course the federal prisoners go into the federal system.

MR. HARRIS: Is this the facility in Happy Valley - Goose Bay where you were concerned about not having someone on staff who could speak the language?

MR. ROBERTS: Either Innu or Inuktituk.

MR. HARRIS: Either one. Do you have people available, either on staff or on call, for translation services?

MR. ROBERTS: There are interpreters. There are people in the training programs at Holland College coming on staff... soon? Anybody know? I think this Spring there are people coming through (inaudible).

We also have union agreements and that is part of the problem because I mean, there is one unit in a bargaining sense and the people have seniority, so we have to work within the confines of the collective agreement in bringing staff in, but there are people in - I think it was an Innu-speaking person at Holland College and that was maybe an Inuktitut-speaking person.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I am not suggesting that you could not post a job for someone who spoke Innuit and not be able to hire a person because someone who did not have that skill had more seniority. Having practised labour law for fourteen years, I have never encountered that kind of difficulty.

MR. ROBERTS: The answer I am given, I have not practised Labour Law, the answer I am given is, that is a problem with which we must contend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has now expired Mr. Harris and it is now close to 8:30, so I think we will break for fifteen minutes. There is coffee in the hon. members common room and if you care to have some, you are welcome to come in and have it.

MR. ROBERTS: Any tea, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not know about tea, you can make your own.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

First on my list at this time is Mr. Tulk. He will be the first one I will recognize, then I have Ms. Verge's name so if anyone else would like to get on the list - Mr. Harris, we are adding to it; anyone else -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am going to recognize you now, sir. I am just taking down names. The minister asks if he could have a couple of minutes to correct a couple of statements that he made earlier so I will ask the minister now to start off.

MR. ROBERTS: One correction and one explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The correction is, I am told the catering services at the penitentiary are catered, that although prisoners are employed at a modest wage in the food operations, the services are catered, the cooking and the food preparation and all that business.

The other word of explanation, Mr. Chairman, is the 4.2.03. There was a question why the subhead for supplies was down by $50,000. I am told every third year we provide an issue of uniforms to the warders and last year was the third year and the cost was $50,000, there is no cost this year. One will note, Mr. Chairman, that the food which is under Purchased Services covers the catering. Last year we estimated $ 1.5 million, we spent $1.65 million and we are estimating $1.642 million this year, so there is no significant change in the food vote. We have been running as I said at 115 per cent to 120 per cent of capacity; I am not sure it is the food that brings people in there but, if it is, we are doing well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tulk.

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the question, I think, it is a more general question, should be asked under the minister's salary. Are you pretty lenient or -

MR. CHAIRMAN: In this committee we usually pass the -

MR. TULK: Okay, I am a stranger to your committee, but the minister would probably not have any problem answering anyway, it is a very general question. Youth Corrections: there is a debate ongoing in the Province and indeed in the country I guess, as to whether youth corrections should be left under the Department of Social Services or placed under the Department of Justice.

As a result of some work experience that I had a couple of years ago, I have somewhat of a concern about - I guess as a former educator in the Province - I have some concern in the way youth corrections are placed, whether it is under the Department of Justice or under the Department of Social Services and the minister will recognize in the department, the two components of it. The two different components of what we are talking about when we are dealing with young people, justice versus shall we say, social services or the education side of things.

Where is that debate now? Colin Flynn will probably grin all over his face, but are we going to make a decision or is it still the debate that is ongoing between the two departments of government?

MR. ROBERTS: The debate is ongoing, Mr. Chairman, within the government. My understanding, and I would ask Mr. Flynn, whom I think is probably the official most knowledgeable in this matter to correct me if I am wrong, my understand is that eight provinces operate their youth correctional facilities as part of the Justice Department, whatever it may be called. It may be called a Solicitor General's Department in some provinces, but provinces have recently been merging Solicitor Generals' Departments into Justice Departments, and two provinces, of which this is one, operate through the Social Services Department, whatever name it (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Where is the other one?

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TULK: Where is the other one?

MR. ROBERTS: I can only tell my friend, we do not know, but until I find out -

MR. TULK: I think it is Prince Edward Island. I am not sure.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. O'Regan might slip out and ask Mr. McNutt. (Inaudible). I will get you that answer.

The matter is obviously a contentious one, and the issue raises strong viewpoints. We have not resolved it definitively. Perhaps we, as a Cabinet, never will.

The new Whitbourne institution and all of the youth facilities are in the votes of the Social Services Department as they were, I suspect, during my hon. friend's tenure as an ADM in that department.

There are no immediate plans by the Cabinet to move them. The matter is very much under review. We have a number of concerns. Youth - the short-term holding facilities, both here in St. John's and elsewhere throughout the Province, are a continuing concern. The pressure - it is not for me to get into social services estimates, but my understanding is that at Whitbourne the new building is filled and the old buildings are filled. We have an incarceration rate in this Province of young people, I am told, that far exceeds the national averages, and I have no idea why that is or why it should be, or whether it should be.

MR. TULK: There is a simple solution.

MR. ROBERTS: I would welcome it. As to what it is, I do not know. What is it? Well I do not know what the simple solution is, but -

MR. TULK: Put them in jail.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TULK: Put them in jail.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Whitbourne is a jail. Whitbourne is a secure custody facility which, although I have not been there, is a jail. It is a very - I will not say a very good jail; that is an oxymoron, Mr. Chairman - but it is a very expensive facility to operate. The non-program costs, and I emphasize the non-program costs at Whitbourne, I am told, are roughly twice per prisoner, per inmate, what it costs us to operate the adult institutions.

Now that may be inevitable. I am not making a judgement, but my general response to the gentleman's general question, Mr. Chairman, is that the debate is ongoing. It tends to elicit extraordinarily strong views. Everybody seems to have a fixed position on this which is like cement - hard and immobile. Whether it will ever be resolved satisfactorily I do not know. One can argue the case, I think, either way, but at present these institutions remain - the Young Offenders Act, prisoners or inmates - within social services. There are no immediate plans to move them.

I do not know if that answers the question fully, but it is a matter we will hear more of, and I do not know of an easy solution. I am not even sure I know the right one, to be candid. We will find out where that other province is. Mr. O'Regan is gone to make a phone call.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it, Mr. Tulk?

MR. TULK: Oh yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: I will come back to land titles. The minister was musing about the possibility of converting to a land title system and having government guaranteed land titles. That is an attractive model which some of his predecessors have thought about. Is the minister seriously going to embark upon a process to explore this, get Cabinet approval to do a cost-benefit analysis?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me make a general comment and then I will deal with the hon. lady's question specifically. I have always made it a practice never to say what I shall recommend to Cabinet, for obvious reasons given the convention of Cabinet solidarity, and I certainly would not say to the committee what I intend to recommend to the Cabinet. I am not trying to avoid the answer. I will come head-on into the question.

MS. VERGE: Well I will ask the question (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My comment was serious. I think it is a major problem. It is one that is getting worse.

MS. VERGE: Does the minister have any idea whatsoever of what it would cost?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I do not.

What I want to say is that it is a serious problem and my comment is serious. I think it is one that we have to address. Where it would fall on the list of priorities is another thing. I came into this ministry a year-and-a-half ago roughly, and spent the first six months almost entirely on the constitutional dossier. For better or for worse, that is where my time went. Then the Fall came on and we have had the budgetary thing. I am not trying to seek sympathy in order to make excuses but my list of priorities is not much advanced from where I was when I came in.

MS. VERGE: In the meantime, we have the system that has been in place -

MR. ROBERTS: And it is functioning.

MS. VERGE: - for many years. It is not functioning as well as it could because of the slowness of the process of doing a completely computerized index and putting the documents on microfilm.

MR. ROBERTS: We are now looking at that to see whether we should cut it off at 1980 or whether we should continue going back -

MS. VERGE: That was what I was trying to get at earlier.

MR. ROBERTS: We are looking at that, yes.

MS. VERGE: So, you are not necessarily committed to going back and doing all the records?

MR. ROBERTS: My understanding is we are having a look at it to see whether it is worth the effort because 1980 was thirteen years ago. I know you need a forty year rule of title on all of those things but the fact remains, in real life, the volume of conveyances - there cannot be a whole lot of bits of property that have not been dealt with in some way in the last fifteen years in this Province, a mortgage, a charge of some sort, a conveyance of some sort.

MS. VERGE: When do you expect to have the results of this review?

MR. ROBERTS: I am also told that this is the joy of having officials who know in detail the study, looking at the best way to achieve it.

MS. VERGE: The best way?

MR. ROBERTS: The best way to achieve -

MS. VERGE: When do you expect to have the results of that study and be in a position to make a decision?

MR. ROBERTS: My answer is quite some time.

MS. VERGE: Thanks, okay.

Court facilities; do you have any plans to build any new court facilities or to significantly alter the current court facilities?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, we have all sorts of plans. The new court in Gander will open shortly.

MS. VERGE: The Winston Baker Memorial Court House?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the Winston Baker Memorial Court House. People have had far less worthwhile monuments than that courthouse. I intend to be the first Minister of Justice in history not to leave court facilities behind me.

MS. VERGE: I do not think that you will be the first actually.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the hon. lady had plans to expand them in Corner Brook I understand. It is amazing -

MS. VERGE: I had hoped.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, she may not have been able to carry her colleagues with her on the point. The Grand Bank -

MS. VERGE: No actually, just to interject, to be fair, I embarked upon a plan of improving court facilities in order of priority and I said publicly then that Gander was at the top of the list in terms of -

MR. ROBERTS: - and we have honoured that priority and Clarenville is the one that needs to be done next. The facility in Clarenville is very inadequate. The big unresolved issues are Corner Brook and St. John's and there are ongoing studies, there are ongoing discussions. We are not close to a resolution in my judgement, in part because of the pressure of other things. I mean, in life, in administration, the immediate so often displaces the important but also because the costs are very significant.

MS. VERGE: Yes, okay thank you.

Back to Victim Services, this is page 284 of the estimates, 4.2.05. Earlier the minister talked about increasing the number of personnel from four plus the one contractual position, five, by seven, I believe he said. I notice the estimates are itemized in such a way as to suggest that there are some notions of how these people are to be engaged, there is $297,600 for Salaries, there is $115,700 for Professional Services, $71,600 for Purchased Services and then $97,600 for Grants and Subsidies. I would like somebody to explain the plans for each of those four line items; Salaries, Professional Services, Purchased Services, Grants and Subsidies.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, let me take a run at this. The Salaries, we are phasing in. In other words we will not have seven FTE's this year but I understand that the -

MS. VERGE: What are FTE's?

MR. ROBERTS: Full-time equivalents, it is the new jargon, sometimes called PY's, person years. It used to be called MY's in the benighted past. We have not actually hired any of these people yet but we may be training some, so they will be coming on stream, I am told, over the period up until next November. The $297 is not an annualized amount. It is what we shall spend this year.

MS. VERGE: Are these positions going to be recruited and filled through the Public Service Commission?

MR. ROBERTS: My understanding would be, yes. In fact some of them may have already been recruited and be in training programs of one sort or another. The $115.700 Professional Services is mainly for counselling.

MS. VERGE: If I might interject again? The ones that are either hired or in training, if there are any, where are they to work?

MR. ROBERTS: We have not established yet where they are to go. I thought I said that earlier.

MS. VERGE: You mean you have hired people without telling them where they are going to work?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, people move all the time. The lady who was in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Ms Meehan, moved to St. John's. People move around. They are hired knowing this is that kind of work. The $115,700 is for counselling services. We see an need for purchased counselling services in connection with this. We have not actually hired anyone beyond the original four, plus the Salvation Army.

MS. VERGE: But when you do hire you will use the Public Service Commission?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: If not there will be all-devil to pay, so, yes, of course. The $115,700 I was trying to say, we see the need for counselling services of one sort or another and that is that subhead there.

MS. VERGE: What is Purchased Services?

MR. ROBERTS: Whatever we purchased. I am not trying to be vague. These would be operational. The primary expense involved with Purchased Services involves rental space for seven new offices in addition to the existing five offices, and additional costs will also involve printing as well as repairs and maintenance.

MS. VERGE: Finally, Grants and Subsidies.

MR. ROBERTS: These funds will provide an opportunity - I am just reading briefing notes now. They are so brief I have not seen them - these funds will provide an opportunity for the community to share in the responsibility of providing services to victims. It is anticipated that victim services regional advisory committees will be put in place and these are to help to fund these.

MS. VERGE: How many regions are you contemplating?

MR. ROBERTS: We are not dividing the Province as such into regions. We see the provision of services in the areas of the Province that do not have them now.

MS. VERGE: Are there any advisory committees for victim services now?

MR. ROBERTS: No, there are none at this stage. This service only began a year or so ago as a pilot project and we are only getting it up and running now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Ms Verge.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In vote 2.1.02, Sheriff's Office, I see an increase of $100,000 in salaries over last year's budgeted amount. Does that cover new positions or how many new positions are there?

MR. ROBERTS: Seven, I am sorry. The eight new Deputy Sheriffs we have hired as part of our new court security program experiment here in St. John's.

MR. HARRIS: Does that have any relation to the six or eight that were laid off a couple of weeks ago?

MR. ROBERTS: We did not lay anyone off a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday or the day before we gave notice to court criers of a Summer layoff. Now, the hon. gentleman will acknowledge that there is a difference between court criers and security services. The court criers here in St. John's and the one in Gander, all except two were given notice they would be laid off in July and August, and those notices were given May 31 in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement. Those are the layoffs I think to which the hon. gentleman is referring.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I only based it on an obviously improperly heard news story. I heard the minister make some comment about it but it wasn't involving criers. But that's the positions that are being laid off for July and August.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't recall making a comment of something other than criers, but I mean, the only people we have laid off recently are these criers on a short-term Summer layoff because the courts, as the hon. gentleman knows, are closed in the Summer for routine business. They function on an emergency basis or a limited basis.

MR. HARRIS: Would these eight new deputy sheriffs, would they be needed all Summer?

MR. ROBERTS: Well.

MR. HARRIS: These are full-time year-round positions, aren't they?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: In addition to the court security these people serve process and warrants of committal. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have a rather substantial backlog in the traffic end of it. But these people are only going through a training program now. They're not up and running yet.

MR. HARRIS: But they're intended to be year-round positions, are they?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Do they have other duties? Are they involved in serving jury summonses as well?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, they would be. The primary duty is to see if we can get police officers out of the courts. The hon. gentleman has practised and he will recall that we have a practise in this Province - it's not a law, it's not a rule of the Supreme Court, it's simply a procedure that's grown up - of having two police officers in full dress uniform accompany every prisoner appearing in court, or at least in the Supreme Court. The Provincial Court, it's just only in cases of need.

This costs us a great deal of money. If you take a police officer's cost to the order of, what? Fifty thousand a year, direct and indirect. You get the anomalous situation of a person on trial, who's out on a judicial release order, a bail order. Ten o'clock in the morning the court sits. You've an RCMP officer in full dress or an RNC officer in full dress on each side. Lunchtime comes. The police officers go off to their lunch, the prisoner gets up and goes off to his lunch, home. The same in the evening. We're using highly paid, highly trained people for this work. If it's necessary to have them it's certainly not necessary to have that level of expertise and associated expense.

Accordingly we have put in this program to put the deputy sheriffs in on an experimental basis, and I may say with the full cooperation of the Chief Justice of the Trial Division and his brethren and sisters on the Bench down there. That's the primary job of the deputy sheriffs.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister tell us how much is the expected saving by using this new system?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm having trouble getting a number. It could be several hundred thousand dollars a year if we can get it up and running throughout the entire Province. Also, a lot of it is straight efficiency. Some of this is overtime, some is just - the police officers find it's very distasteful duty. Because it's really, babysitting, that's not what I mean, but it's a waste of everybody's time. If you have a dangerous prisoner you might need three or four police officers in the court. There have been occasions when there have been armed police officers in court. Whatever is needed will be provided. In most cases the people charged with crimes are not much of a security risk to anybody except themselves, you know. But it is several hundred thousand dollars a year. It's a lot of money.

MR. HARRIS: Under 2.2.01. for Prosecutorial Services. There's an increase of about 10 per cent in salary vote. What's the current status in terms of numbers for Crown attorneys on the prosecutorial staff?

MR. ROBERTS: One of my predecessors, Mr. Hickman, ran the largest law firm in the Province. Well, it's far larger now. We have thirty-two Crown prosecutor positions. Twenty-eight of them are now filled. Three more we have recruited and will be filled tomorrow. The appointments will be made tomorrow. The thirty-third position is Mr. Flynn, who spends some time in court, not as much as he would like, more than his ministry would like to be deprived of him, so we are effectively fully staffed but as Colin would say, we could use more prosecutors if we have to, but almost all our prosecutions are now done by staff Crowns, we still have some agents in the Province, we still use some agents.

MR. HARRIS: Of the thirty-two, twenty-eight are filled and the other - is it four to be filled tomorrow?

MR. ROBERTS: Three.

MR. HARRIS: Three.

MR. ROBERTS: And they know who they are.

MR. HARRIS: But there is one vacancy?

MR. ROBERTS: The recruitment process is just about done. This is done by Mr. Flynn in the Public Service Commission.

MR. HARRIS: The increase of $205,000, does this represent new positions, how many new positions are we - Are they step increases?

MR. ROBERTS: It is five new positions which my colleagues in the Treasury Board authorized last year. It is more cost-effective to use Crowns than it is to use Agents, assuming we have a given volume of work and unfortunately, the given volume of work is there, this is a growth industry.

MR. HARRIS: Once again we have Professional Services and Purchases Services with large amounts. I would assume that Professional Services was agency work; Purchase Services, does that involve rentals primarily?

MR. ROBERTS: Mainly the witness travel accounts. You know we do have -

MR. HARRIS: Travel accounts?

MR. ROBERTS: We have a lot of travel. I am forever signing warrants up there to bring witnesses around, yes.

MR. HARRIS: And that is a different subhead than Transportation and Communication, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: The Transportation and Communications is our staff (inaudible) travel.

MR. HARRIS: It is staff travel.

MR. ROBERTS: It will be noted, Mr. Chairman, the Professional Services have gone down from $900 to $600, that is a saving of $300 for a cost of $200. I am speaking in generalization.

MR. HARRIS: Oh I appreciate that.

MR. ROBERTS: Private lawyers, as my hon. friend will agree are very expensive animals to hire.

MR. HARRIS: I have never done any agency work but I am told by those who do it, that it is not nearly as expensive as some of the lawyers would like it to be.

MR. ROBERTS: I concur.

MR. HARRIS: Speaking of which, the minister made a great deal last session about the tendering of legal services, and I wonder if the minister is in a position to report on the success of his tendering process.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. The announcements will be made I think, in the next three or four days. The process was interrupted by the fact that for two months the government was involved in consultation with our electors, but the decisions have been taken and my officials are now working out the details of the communicating with the successful tenders. Is that the right phrase, bidders? the lucky guys if you wish, the lucky people or the unlucky people maybe, but anyhow -

MR. HARRIS: Well I guess the question is, does the minister anticipate that this new system will result in cost-savings, cheaper and less money expended under -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, we actually had a case, where, somebody who had been doing work at $100 an hour, came in at ninety dollars an hour for the same work. I find that very interesting and it was a very significant account, was it not, very significant account, six figures? An account that billed over $100,000 a year to an agency or the government, I do not want to be any more specific.

The firm that had the work for years came in 10 per cent cheaper, so we do see some savings, yes. We also think there is a fairness issue on it, and this is the first time the government of this Province has ever opened up for everybody to get at the legal business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Harris, your time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: You could put me on the list again I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to go on the list again. Very good.

I now recommend Mr. Whelan.

MR. ROBERTS: Just before then, may I answer the question raised by my friend from Fogo?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.

MR. ROBERTS: There are in fact, two other provinces where social services handle youth offenders; they are Saskatchewan and Quebec and I am told that in Nova Scotia and in Ontario, sixteen-year old and seventeen-year old are handled by the Justice department by whatever name; people younger than that would be handled by the Social Services department by whatever name.

MR. TULK: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have a question with regard to Income Support Legislation. I understand legislation was introduced in 1983 and again I think it may have been amended in 1989 -

MR. ROBERTS: Income Support or Enforcement?

MR. WHELAN: Income Support Legislation.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the enforcement agency.

MR. WHELAN: Well, in dealing specifically with women who have had problems garnishing men's wages -

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, okay.

MR. WHELAN: - husbands who have left their wives, yes and probably gone out of the Province. I was wondering what the success rate has been with regard to women who have attempted to garnish the wages of their ex or departed husbands?

MR. ROBERTS: We do not have the numbers here in detail. I can talk in a general way, there is a sub-head here called support enforcement agency which is located in Corner Brook. Again, one thing that I am very pleased about this year, the government has managed to find some money to increase the number of people working there because the agency is heavily taxed. The staff are working very hard and under very real pressure. We had two new positions established last year and two this year. So we have increased the number of people there significantly. Particularly, in a year when the government has a whole are not growing. I just do not have it here, I will ask my officials to get for the hon. gentleman the details on out of Province or in Province - we are making progress but it is not easy.

One of the problems is that an inordinate amount of time is consumed by a very small number of cases because if some individual, it is almost always a man, decides that he does not want to honour his obligations as stated by the court, could cause an immense amount of trouble. The hon. gentleman would be, I hope surprised and certainly I am sure shocked, at the length to which some people will go to try to avoid looking after their former spouse and above all their children. I have seen someone coming to me for one reason or another and inordinate amounts of staff time are taken up with a very small percentage of offenders. I think, by and large the system is working fairly well.

These are some numbers that Mr. Cummings has given me which may help the hon. gentleman, these are approximate figures but Mr. Cummings - this is one of the areas which he runs for me and does it very well (inaudible). There are about 4,000 active files in the support enforcement agency at the present. Since 1989 when the operation began, about $22 million has been collected and there is about $8 million in outstanding arrears. I can tell the hon. member that we have another problem, the Government of Canada is not playing the game with us yet on NCARP. There is a problem there that I would hope the Government of Canada will remedy more quickly than they have hither to.

MR. WHELAN: With regard to the number of success cases, how does the figures translate there? Is there a success rate of 50 per cent, 60 or 75?

MR. ROBERTS: I am not sure what you mean by success but -

MR. WHELAN: Well, what I am saying is, if a woman goes after her husband to garnish his wages, I would say that she would be successful if she garnished his wages. So -

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, we will get him. The constraint we have is that the staff can only handle so many cases at a time but eventually we will get the guy and if he has any we will get him. Now some go to awful lengths, some of the stories I have run across, as I said, are hard to believe but if the hon. gentleman is on the wrong end of an enforcement order or the right end if you wish, we will get you. It just may take awhile depending on the volume of work and that is why we have been increasing the number of staff at the agency but it is getting better. We now have access to all of the federal things except NCARP. Eventually, I hope Ottawa will - Ottawa needs to amend an order in council, add NCARP to the list of payments but if anybody out there is on the wrong end of the support order and is not paying it, we will get him. Now bankruptcy and death, these are things that are hard to avoid.

MR. WHELAN: So, does UIC come under the category?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. It is a big source I am told, but NCARP - it is not anybody deliberate. It is just one of these accidents that comes up. For some reason the feds listed on their order, or regulation, the sources that they could intercept. Of course, there was no NCARP, so NCARP was not on the list. We have been six or eight months trying to persuade the feds to make one - I am sorry?

MS. VERGE: It is more like nine or ten months.

MR. ROBERTS: Well my hon. and learned friend was at it a little before we were. It has been nine or ten months, and we have not been able to get the massive machine in Ottawa to do something that could be done with - the hon. lady agrees - the snap of a finger, and it is as frustrating as the bedevil.

We have gone to Mr. Crosbie and he is, I think, making his best efforts. He tells us he is. I accept that, but it is just incredibly frustrating - but UI is a huge source of revenue, because it is a huge source of income.

MR. WHELAN: With regard to other provinces, how much co-operation have you been having with them - for example, British Columbia, Alberta?

MR. ROBERTS: Substantial, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There is a Canada-wide network. All the provinces co-operate with each other. You cannot beat the system by getting out - by going to another province. Change your name and we may take longer. I am being dramatic. People do all of these things, but the system - the hon. lady gets credit for bringing it into this Province, and a large measure of credit is due to her - the system has been going through teething problems, and it is getting up and running. It is getting much better as we go, but it is becoming a very heavy administrative load.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Careen.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some of our correctional institutions, like the women's in Stephenville, and there are others, people are in for a certain amount of time anyway - longer than the usual weekend or the thirty-day people. How many of these - or do any of them - have training facilities? I know that is an extra cost, and it is an extra program or an extra department mixed in with them, but how many of them have training components for these citizens?

MR. ROBERTS: We have training programs in all of these institutions, but there are different levels of programs. Some institutions have more than others, and the Stephenville one is one of the ones that has fewer than others. It is a very small institution. It has twenty-four beds and generally runs at one of the lowest capacities. The women of this Province do not make up a very large proportion of our inmate population.

The other factor is that we have an awful lot of prisoners, or a very substantial number of our prisoners, who are there for very short times. What I am told by the officials is, if you are there for two weeks, or twenty-eight days, there is not much of a training program that - now there are - my friend from Port au Port is an educator. He can probably speak more knowledgeably on this, but you cannot do much with anybody in twenty-eight days by way of a training program. We do offer facilities of one sort or another in every facility, and this year we are adding full-time instructors at Bishop's Falls and Clarenville - the two correctional centres there. These will be in-house - not inmate - but in-house instructors for the prisoners there.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

From time to time, and I have not heard it lately, but over the years you hear about backlogs of cases within our courts. What way is it? Is there a good flow going through now? Can you look at, say, the Supreme Court and say that it is at a crisis, or near crisis, or is it going very good?

MR. ROBERTS: Well now, this is one of these, is the glass of water half full or half empty? The provincial courts are up-to-date. If the hon. gentleman is on the wrong end of a process or proceeding in a provincial court, he will have a chance for his day in court really as quickly as one would want, and in many cases I understand the lawyers are complaining that we are moving too quickly.

A lot of these delays, I have to tell you, are the result of lawyers playing around - not necessarily trying to delay things, but taking on too much work.

In the trial division - the Court of Appeal is super up-to-date. That is two of our three levels of our courts. The third court, the trial division of the Supreme Court, I am told, is up-to-date everywhere except St. John's. I am a year-and-a-half away from practice, but I understand the civil docket is what, six or eight months? Does anybody here know? None of us does civil litigation work, but my friend for St. John's East may know. He is still doing some, but I am told we are six to eight months away from a trial on the civil list.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is more like a year.

MR. ROBERTS: More like a year? But one should not just look at raw numbers, because an awful lot of the matters set down for trial get settled before they are ever called for trial.

The criminal trials continue to be a problem. We have had about six courts going. My director of public prosecutions and his associates meet regularly with the Chief Justice of the Trial Division and they are trying to find ways to move these through the courts. Seriously, we have not lost any Askoff cases?

AN HON. MEMBER: We have lost very few, but we have lost some.

MR. ROBERTS: We have lost very few cases because of Askoff. Ontario lost thousands when the thing came in, but that is a constant concern. Part of the problem is facilities and part of it is there seem to be more serious matters. I do not hear many complaints from either practitioners or clients that they are not having their matters dealt with in reasonably satisfactorily periods of time.

MR. CAREEN: From time to time you hear that it blows and then all of a sudden it dies down, but where it comes from I do not know.

MR. ROBERTS: There is often a story behind the story if one looks into it.

MR. CAREEN: 5.1.01. I was missing for a while earlier because I have a dirty habit of going out. I do not know if somebody asked this, but if they did not, the abolition of the office of the consumer advocate is to be provided for by a consumers' association. How does it work, how many are there, and has it started it's process?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. Member for Humber East asked a question which touched upon this. The consumer advocate, Mr. Brace, held the position.

MR. CAREEN: That is the young fellow who was on Open Line there a short while ago?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. His practice, if that is the right word, was confined to appearing before the regulatory bodies, the Public Utilities Board for Light and Power and CRTC for TelCo and the cable company. That was his role and there have not been any hearings since his office was abolished except the continuing one at CRTC which he carried on with and finished. In fact we announced in the Budget that we were six months later implementing it because this hearing was in process, so we are making arrangements with a consumers' association. There are no rate increase applications anticipated this year. As far as we know there are none anticipated this year, so we will be ready when they come. The job of the consumers association will be to go in and test the applicant to make sure that the consumer's interest, which is part of the public interest, is addressed and protected. Does that answer the hon. gentleman's question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Careen.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Lotteries licensing is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, although the revenue derived from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation goes into general revenue. I know it is the Department of Finance that -

MR. ROBERTS: They have to do with Atlantic Lotto.

MS. VERGE: - is represented on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, but since Justice licenses lotteries, both the Atlantic Lottery Corporation lotteries and the church and charity lotteries, I would like to ask the minister about the revenue forecast. Lotteries revenue has more than doubled in the past two years. It went from about $20 million a couple of years ago up to $44 million last year. I am told most of the increase results from the video slot machines in bars. I noticed the estimate for revenue this year is the same as what was realized last year, $44 million. I am wondering if the minister can explain the basis of the estimate? Since there has been such sharp growth over the last two years why is government estimating no further growth?

MR. ROBERTS: I cannot answer that. It is not a matter that falls within my direct responsibility as minister. My colleague the Minister of Finance would have to deal with it. I can get the answer, or the hon. lady could ask the question in the House, but I just do not know the answer. These lotteries here are the criminal code licensing and Atlantic Lotto of which the government is a shareholder, which is a very lucrative investment, is run by a corporation of which -

MS. VERGE: Yes, I know that, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: By and large, these are concerned with the bingos and athletic associations.

MS. VERGE: Another topic now. The Village Shopping Centre men's washroom cases that people have heard so much about through the news media and through the rumour mill. I'm not going to get into the details of any of the cases -

MR. ROBERTS: These cases are still before the courts so I can say nothing.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: I may be able to answer a general question on policy, but....

MS. VERGE: Okay. What I was about to ask, and if there are some cases still before the courts -

MR. ROBERTS: There are.

MS. VERGE: - this perhaps can wait until after. I'll ask the question in any case. Has the minister, to use one phrase, learned any lessons from that whole episode? As a result of that experience does the minister feel that any policy changes or changes in practice on the part of the provincial authorities are warranted, or any reform of the federal Criminal Code is in order?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure I understand the Criminal Code concern. There are offenses created by Parliament, and the offenses with which people are charged, and some of these cases are still before the courts. Were, what, obscene acts or indecent acts in a public place, Colin? I understand that there is evidence to support charges being laid. I'll leave it at that. The courts can dispose of that.

I became aware of the investigation when charges were to be laid. That is not unusual. I do not want to be involved in investigations and I suspect and assume that the hon. member did not become involved in investigations, or wasn't made aware of them, when she was the minister. It would be folly for a Minister of Justice to become involved in these. Mr. Flynn may or may not have known. That's not for me to know. I was told about them because there was obviously the possibility of publicity and I had to be able to respond to comments.

I think the one thing we have learned is that it would have been immensely more desirable if all of the charges had been laid at once.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Flynn quite properly reminds me we had planned to do that. By "we" I mean - the charges were laid by the police. But Mr. Flynn, I think it's fair to say, had been consulted, as is often and properly the case. There was a particular problem. I do not - not I do not want to, I will not say anything here. I will see the hon. lady outside, because there is a case before the courts. There was a particular case in which for other reasons - they were valid reasons, I know what they are; I will tell the hon. lady or any member on a private basis, but I will not say so publicly - why charges against an individual had to be laid, and so they came out piecemeal.

But the plan was to lay them all at once. There were, what, thirty or forty individuals who were charged. If one was to say: were it done over again would I order it done differently, or would I try to change something? Yes, and in that respect.

MS. VERGE: One controversial aspect of the investigation was the placement of a camera in the washroom. Does the minister agree with that?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure if it's a matter of me to agree or not. First of all, it's only in the public areas of a washroom, and a washroom is a public place. Now there are cubicles where certain private functions are performed, but my understanding - Mr. Flynn will correct me if what I say is incorrect - is that the surveillance was lawful, according to the law of Canada, the Criminal Code in this case, and so it doesn't trouble me in the least. The same as telephone communications are intercepted according to the law of Canada. It is incumbent on us all as citizens, in my view, not to break the law. Some of the people have been convicted and those people have broken the law. The others I make no comment on. So I'm not - if the hon. lady is asking: am I troubled by the thought of surveillance? Surveillance is simply a different means of - electronic surveillance is no different than a policeman asking questions or somebody overhearing something.

MS. VERGE: In addition to the camera being put in the washroom, why was there not a big sign put on the door saying: The Criminal Code of Canada says -

MR. ROBERTS: Do not break the law?

MS. VERGE: - it is unlawful to do certain things.

MR. ROBERTS: Why would one put a sign on the door saying: Do not break the law, or do not conduct yourself in a way in this washroom that is improper? I am not trying to be difficult, but should we put signs on banks saying: Do not steal?

The conduct that went on in at least some of these cases - the ones that have been disposed of - was against the law. One does not go into a public place in Canada and do what these people have been convicted, or have pleaded guilty to doing, without realizing one breaks the law. That does not trouble me at all.

There is electronic surveillance in this Chamber. Most people are not aware of it. There is electronic surveillance around this building. Most people are not aware of it. It does not trouble me in the least.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

Another topic -

MR. ROBERTS: I would add that those who are not doing anything wrong have nothing to fear.

MS. VERGE: The Public Utilities Board estimates are down sharply. How has that (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, that is very simple. We have told the board that they are to recover their costs from the utilities they regulate - Hydro and Newfoundland Power.

MS. VERGE: Good.

MR. ROBERTS: The operation of the board has not been reduced in any way. It is just they have been told to charge more. As the hon. member knows, the board charges back most of its costs. They were told to increase what it charges back.

MS. VERGE: So presumably the difference will be made up by the rate payers.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. There is only one taxpayer, it does not matter what we call it.

MS. VERGE: Consumer Affairs - over the past couple of years the government has closed two of the Consumer Affairs offices - the ones in Gander and Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Is the government committed to maintaining the remaining offices?

MR. ROBERTS: To maintaining?

MS. VERGE: The remaining offices.

MR. ROBERTS: There are no plans to close them at this stage, but that answer is good for 1993-'94. I am not trying to be coy. This is an area where we have reduced operations for financial reasons. Will we have to do more? I cannot say. I do not know, but there are no more closures planned during this year.

MS. VERGE: Where are there offices now?

MR. ROBERTS: St. John's, Corner Brook -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gander, Corner Brook and St. John's.

MR. ROBERTS: Gander, St. John's and Corner Brook.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I thought the Gander office was closed. It was the Grand Falls office that was closed, was it?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Grand Falls was closed. Gander's was not.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

Actually, last year there was - is there more to this story?

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. Mr. Barter says Goose Bay was closed, but the lady had mentioned that so I did not -

MS. VERGE: Last year, I think it was - within the past year - there were plans on the part of the department to add a position in the Corner Brook office, but that was abandoned at the time of the mini-Budget.

MR. ROBERTS: The good news is that we have not closed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The position, if it was vacant, disappeared.

MS. VERGE: Are there any plans now to add a position, as was planned this time last year?

MR. ROBERTS: No. The government has not reduced them any further, but we certainly have not increased them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. Your time has expired.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Tulk had his name down but he has left the Chamber so I will call on Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I have one question related to Ms. Verge's topic she brought up concerning the investigation side of it - that is what interests me - at the Village Mall.

While this issue was in the press and was the topic of conversation around town, a number of people raised a question as to why the investigation was necessary to involve such a long period of time, that once a complaint had been made and individuals had been either surveilled or however, that if arrests were made any initial arrests would have amounted to a deterrence. Certainly while there's no licence - I'm not suggesting that there's a licence to break the law or anything like it - that certainly one aspect of police activity, whether it be surveillance or presence or patrolling or whatever, is prevention and deterrence.

It's been suggested by some people that the type of investigation that was conducted over such a long period of time without laying any charges or attempting to deter anyone, that while not amounting to any improper activity such as entrapment on the part of police, that there may be a sense of victimisation by putting cameras in place, waiting such a long period of time, and then trying to round up everybody who happened to fall into the trap.

MR. ROBERTS: Come now. Nobody could say, Mr. Chairman, that this amounts to entrapment.

MR. HARRIS: No, no one suggested that. Not amounting to entrapment. But it may well amount to, you know, there's been suggestions of victimisation because of the nature of the crime.

MR. ROBERTS: There's no victimisation in a man who goes into a public washroom and engages in an act which would be lawful between consenting adults in private but is not lawful in a public place. The fact whether it's a washroom or the lobby of Confederation Building makes no difference. That's not victimisation at all.

I am told that the surveillance was carried out for a period of the order of sixty days. The police didn't originate this. They didn't wake up some morning and say: let's go into the Avalon Mall or the Village Mall and see what we can see. The original complaints were that children were involved. Now that's a very sensitive subject in this Province, with good cause. We've had some pretty horrific experiences. In the judgement of the police officers - and I do not attempt to second-guess the RNC - it was their investigation - or the RCMP, had it been theirs. The period for which the surveillance was run was necessary to ensure that in fact there were no children. The good news, if there is good news in this sordid tale, is that there were no activities involving children that were recorded or detected, and there'll be no charges laid involving any child molestation. These are all adult males.

I don't know how much further I can go. The hon. gentleman really is repeating - I appreciate in good faith, and I certainly don't mind him raising it - but what amounts to tavern gossip. There's a more prurient gossip about this... I mean this disgusting filth that's going around with names. We've all heard them, I'm not going to repeat them. It's tavern gossip. I say again, those who do not break the law have nothing to fear. People who are going into washrooms and are not engaging in this type of activity have nothing to worry about. It doesn't trouble me that people who are going into washrooms and engaging in, what, masturbation and fellatio and whatever was going on in there, might have it in their minds that they might be caught.

There are also people who use these washrooms. One of the disturbing things - these are public facilities - is that people went in on occasion, I'm told, and sort of turned around and went out when they saw what was going on. It's not a matter of being vindictive. I don't feel a great deal of sympathy for people who are charged. Let them stand their trial and abide the consequences.

MR. HARRIS: The minister will note my question was about the nature of the investigation and whether it was necessary to carry it on for such a long period of time. That's the question that I asked.

MR. ROBERTS: I tried to answer to it.

MR. HARRIS: You answered that particular question. The rest of what you had to say has nothing to do with my interest in the issue.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not suggesting the member had any improper interest. It's a perfectly proper subject to raise.

MR. HARRIS: The Police Complaints Commission is now being funded for a year. I'm just curious about the - there was an expenditure in the previous fiscal year of some $20,000 for Professional Services.

MR. ROBERTS: Did we spend anything?

MR. HARRIS: Let me find that here now.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Twenty thousand for Professional Services in 1992-1993. I'm just curious about what that might have been. I don't know if the Commission was up and running prior to that.

MR. ROBERTS: Will the hon. gentleman give me the page number?

MR. HARRIS: Page 282, Mr. Minister.

MR. ROBERTS: We did not actually spend any. I have no idea what we spent it on, and I do not think we did spend anything, in fact, that was the revised figure but I will get the hon. gentleman an actual figure. My recollection is we did not spend anything in the '92 - '93 fiscal year. Dr. Harris' appointment was effective from the time the act became effective which I think was the early part of April.

MR. HARRIS: That figure for Professional Services is for the commissioner, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: Not necessarily, oh, you mean in the new one, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Well line item 5, Professional Services, that is the figure that we paid the commissioner?

MR. ROBERTS: The salary item is for an investigator and a secretary and I assume the commissioner will appoint these. My recollection is - whatever the act says, they are his appointments and as far as I know, Dr. Harris will make these.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps the minister can correct me or someone can. I always understood that the revised figure that shows up in these budget documents is in fact the actual or as near to actual as one can get when these documents are published, usually about a couple of weeks before the end of the fiscal year.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is correct but the revised figure might still have been carried forward anticipating expenditures. We had hoped to have this operation up and running before the end of March, the end of the fiscal year. Can you tell me when the revisions would have been done? Yes, the figures would have been sent to Treasury Board at the end of February or early March, that kind of time but I will let the hon. member know what we actually spent in that subhead. I will file it with the committee, Mr. Chairman, and you can take it from there. My recollection is we did not spend anything but that could be wrong.

MR. HARRIS: Does the minister know whether there have been complaints forwarded to the Police Complaints Commission to date?

MR. ROBERTS: I have not heard of any.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Flynn tells me complaints have been filed, but I have no role in the operation of the commission as the hon. gentleman would recall; but complaints have been filed. Mr. Flynn tells me he has heard that complaints have been filed.

MR. HARRIS: So there is no notion of how many complaints or anything like that.

MR. ROBERTS: In fact, I have not seen Dr. Harris or spoken to him since we made the arrangements with respect to his appointment. I understand that he has been in touch with my officials, getting things up and running administratively but I have not seen him.

MR. HARRIS: The minister brought in a most interesting piece of legislation before Christmas last year, concerning the Law Society and I understand that members of the society have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter. I happened to look at a brief that was prepared by the society the other day, I did not read it thoroughly but I did note the concerns raised by the Law Society in particular with respect to the plans of the minister to substantially increase up to one-third I understand, the number of lay persons on the Benchers. He did a comparison across the country and found that while most Law Societies had lay members including disciplinary panels, the proposal by the minister, who was higher by far than any of the other provinces in terms of that particular aspect of the bill, is the minister reconsidering his position on that, or is he -

MR. ROBERTS: It is not my position. The bill was and is a government bill, but I gave a commitment on behalf of my colleagues in the House that we would await the Law Society's representations. They told us they would get them by the end of January and I think they came in on the 5th of May. It was the 6th of May. I have read the brief but have not had a chance to do more than have a preliminary talk (inaudible) -

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps they heard about the elections too and -

MR. ROBERTS: What is that?

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps they heard about the election too and didn't think the minister would be so busy.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I assume that some were involved in the election one way or the other and I hope so. The Liberal Party's program in the election included a commitment to ensure that all professional societies discharged the obligations - discharged properly the powers vested in them by the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, well let me just finish this sentence, if I may, Mr. Chairman. We have said we will study their representations and we shall, whether or not we change our policy remains to be seen but the bill will be back in the House, I anticipate, in the Fall. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you and Mr. Harris your time has ran out. Now, no one else has indicated that they want to speak. Now if nobody else wants to speak, it is the time that we would normally call the heads - very good, at this time I will now ask the Clerk if he would proceed.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01 to subhead 5.1.08.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall they carry?

CLERK: The total $108,501,400.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the total carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

MS. VERGE: Nay.

I think the `nays' have it, Chairperson. We have three `nays' here and only two `ayes'.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will do it again. We will have a show of hands. Maybe that is the way to go right now. Shall the total carry?

MS. VERGE: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carried.

MS. VERGE: Does the Chair get two votes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall I report the total heads carried?

MS. VERGE: Wait a minute now, I think we had better check our rules. It appears that if the Chair's vote counts as one, we have a tie actually.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Interesting -

MR. ROBERTS: What you might have to do is to adjourn to check out the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have to possibly adjourn, I think, and find if the other member is there. So, will we adjourn for a few minutes until we see if we can find the other member?

MS. VERGE: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the adjournment is at the -

MR. ROBERTS: The Chair has the power to adjourn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have the power to call the adjournment, so we will do that for a few minutes and we will see if the member is around.

MR. ROBERTS: If not David, all I have to do is to appoint myself to the committee so -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now call the meeting to order again. Due to the fact that we have had an adjournment and we are now back, we will go through the process again. Shall the heads carry, without amendment?

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, before we adjourn there are a couple of things that we should do here tonight, one is that I will ask for someone to make a motion that we adopt the minutes of the last meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: - if you would just wait, I was going to thank you, if you would just wait, we will do a little housekeeping. I know you would like to go but we will wait - anyway, I would now ask that someone make a motion that we pass the minutes of the committee meeting from last night where we examined the Department of Health.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we adjourn. Our next meeting is Tuesday, June 8th and we will examine the estimates of the Social Services Department. Before I ask for the motion to adjourn, I would like to thank you, Mr. Minister, and your officials for coming and enlightening us tonight on the Department of Justice.

I will now call on someone to make a motion that this meeting be adjourned. First Mr. Minister.

MR. ROBERTS: The questions covered a wide range of topics and I think got to the point and I am glad. I say this as one who was mixed up in more than my share of rows. I am glad we got through it without any untoward rows and I say that, as I said, as one who mixes it up from time to time in the House.

On motion committee adjourned.