CHAIR (R. Wiseman): Order, please!

Thank you, everyone. I guess my first order of business is to apologize to the minister and his staff and to my colleagues in committee for my lack of clarity around organizing and rescheduling this evening's discussions from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. So, my apologies for that, Minister, to you and your staff. It was my mistake.

The first order of business we need to deal with this evening - this is the second meeting of this committee. The committee members now have the minutes from the first meeting dealing with the Department of Education. I would ask for a motion to accept the minutes as circulated.

It have been moved by Mr. Parsons and seconded by Mr. French.

All those in favour of the motion?

WITNESS: Aye.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: This evening the Social Services Committee is going to review the estimates of the Justice Department. I would ask, Minister, as the first order of business, if you could introduce your staff or have your staff introduced to the committee.

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

On my immediate left is John Cummings who is the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General. On John's left is Ralph Alcock who is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Protection and Support Services. Next to Ralph is Chris Curran, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister for Civil and Related Matters. Behind me is Heather MacLean who is the Communications Director in the department. Next to Heather is Theresa Heffernan who is the Director of Financial Operations; next to Theresa is Marvin McNutt, Director of Adult Corrections; and next to Marvin is Don Burrage, Director of Civil Litigation.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Now I would ask, for the benefit of the minister and his staff, if the committee members could introduce themselves. Mr. Parsons, could you start please?

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parson, MHA, Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. BUTLER: Roland Butler, MHA, Port de Grave district.

MR. LEWIS: Andy Lewis, research.

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

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA, Conception Bay South.

MS GOUDIE: Kathy Goudie, MHA, Humber Valley.

CHAIR: MHA Randy Collins from Labrador West will be joining us very shortly. He is here and will be joining us shortly. I thank you very much.

Minister, to start the proceedings, I would ask you if you want to have some opening comments before we start our discussion.

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

The last time we met was May 18 of last year. I think the day before that the Leader of the Opposition, former Premier Grimes, referred to me as a new Justice Minister fresh out of the box. A year later, I am not so new, and I guess I am not so fresh, but it is a pleasure to be here once again.

The Department of Justice continues to face many challenges but we are making progress. New police officers, equipment and training have been introduced this past year, all of which we feel have made a positive difference and are steps in the right direction.

The Justice Department remains committed to enhancing public protection and justice services to citizens of the Province, and we will continue to support initiatives to the best of the department's ability. Residents of the Province want to live in a society which is fair, safe and accessible and we are committed to making sound investments to do just that.

We are certainly pleased that Budget 2005-2006 complements the investments that we have made the past year. The budget process remains challenging and we continue to make strategic investments in justice services and programs while remaining committed to making financially responsible decisions.

This year the Budget included funding for strategic and sustainable investments to enhance justice services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We are pleased that the Budget will provide much needed funding to improve technology, resources, infrastructure planning and security.

There are a number of positive Budget initiatives that I would like to highlight this evening, if I may. These would include the expansion of the Court Security Program to include the Provincial Court in Stephenville and both the Supreme and Provincial Courts in Corner Brook with a hope to continue expansion throughout the Province in future years.

I believe that in 1995, when the Court Security Program was introduced, it was intended in 1995 to go to Corner Brook the following year. Unfortunately this did not happen and we have a situation where court security was provided only on this side of the overpass. Fortunately, we have now made the initial step to bring this to the Western part of the Island which is the area that has the highest court load outside of St. John's. We very much hope to continue this expansion throughout other areas in the Province in future years.

Also, funding support for the planning and design of a new combined Supreme and Provincial Court facility in Corner Brook; additional RCMP positions and new Supreme and Provincial Court support positions; as well support for approximately twenty-five RNC positions to be introduced in the Fall resulting from the completion of the first year of the Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador Police Training Program; also improved access to courts in the Province with the introduction of a video conferencing pilot project for seven Supreme and Provincial Courts in locations that are to be determined; support for enhancements to the current Interactive Voice Response system for support enforcement; expansion of the RCMP telecommunications system into Central Newfoundland; the allocation of funding in support of the National Sex Offender Registry which will provide designated resources to administer and investigate non-compliant offenders in our Province; and the creation of a Victim Services Program for children which will strengthen justice services for the victims and witnesses under the age of sixteen who testify in criminal proceedings. The budget provides support for startup costs associated with this program. The program will be self-sustaining within the implementation of a 15 per cent provincial victim fine surcharge which will fund the program in its entirety and will include various provincial statute offences excluding parking offences and excluding offences pertaining to municipal acts.

Those are just a few brief notes on the budget for the department. At this point, we would be pleased to accept questions from members of the committee.

CHAIR: Just a couple of housekeeping things. I would ask, for the purposes of people recording this evening, as you speak if you would identify yourself. They have the seating plan there and they will just turn on your microphone. To help start the debate, I will ask the Clerk if she would call the first subhead please?

CLERK (Murphy): Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The intention was that I would ask a few questions and, I think, my colleague from Labrador wishes to ask a few after.

CHAIR: Sure.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, speaking of investments, could you give us an update to where we are with the Salmonier Line project closure?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, the Salmonier facility has been decommissioned. When you say an update, are you talking about the physical assets in the operation of the facility?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The facility has, in fact, been decommissioned. The inmates in the facility have, in fact, been deployed to other institutions: HMP here in St. John's, Bishop's and the West Coast Correction Facility in Stephenville. The remaining assets have been turned over to the Department of Transportation and Works, I believe, for disposal.

MR. PARSONS: I understand that is a valuable property we had there. At least, I understood it was. That is out of your department now, turned back to whomever, Public Works, I guess, to dispose of?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Dispose of, yes.

MR. PARSONS: Do you know if it has been advertised or due to be advertised, or anything of that nature?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think possibly - John?

MR. CUMMINGS: There may still be a debate on a portion of the property, whether it should be under our department or Works. I believe the rest of it is all under Works. We are not exercising any control over what becomes of the property.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I know the livestock - has that been all disposed of?

MR. MCNUTT: We were in the process of conducting an auction to dispose of all of the assets. The day before that was to be conducted, we were contacted by the Deputy Premier at the time, I believe, and asked that, although we could in fact dispose of the livestock, for reasons associated with a request that was made to the Department of Agriculture, that the farm implements actually be retained at the facility. So that part of the auction did not proceed. I am not certain what proposal or what suggestion had been made with respect to the alternate use of that facility.

MR. PARSONS: What were the timelines, Mr. McNutt, that this happened? When are we talking?

MR. MCNUTT: The facility was decommissioned on June 24.

MR. PARSONS: 2004?

MR. MCNUTT: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: This auction that you are referring to, when was it set to go?

MR. MCNUTT: That was just maybe a week or so before the facility was actually decommissioned.

MR. PARSONS: When you referred to Deputy Premier, to whom are you referring?

MR. MCNUTT: Actually, I am not sure. It was Mr. Byrne.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Minister, regarding the RNC, the twenty-five officers and the Police Officers Training Program that was established, we thought first it might go to the West Coast but I understand things got shifted back to Memorial. Everything is going okay, I take it, we are going to see our first graduates in the fall?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The deputy and I met recently with Chief Deering. We understand the first graduates from that program will be deployed in late summer, September. There will be a minimum of twenty-five. I understand there are twenty-nine in the class. Originally there were thirty, but I think one withdrew, so at least twenty-nine. There are fifteen women and fourteen men and they will be deployed in September.

MR. PARSONS: Cost to date of the program?

MR. ALCOCK: The incremental cost that we would have incurred, up to this particular point in time, is not substantial. Individuals have paid a tuition and are looking after their own costs, of course, while they are at Memorial University, as does any other student. Obviously we have incurred costs but those costs have been absorbed within the budget of the RNC. A larger portion of costs, of course, will be incurred when they are deployed this fiscal year.

MR. PARSONS: It is not the training costs as compared to the ongoing costs of operations after; salaries and equipment.

MR. ALCOCK: Absolutely. That is right, because the students themselves look after the cost of their education, including the third semester while they are in training at the RNC.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, the $400,000 announced in the Budget for the planning and design of a Supreme-Provincial Court facility in Corner Brook. I am wondering if you might give me the rational behind that expenditure. I saw a press clipping from the West Coast and the comment was: We are going to invest $400,000 in this planning and design, yet it may be ten or twenty years before we see any construction. The way I have seen things operate is, what you do this year is probably no good next year, let alone ten years out.

I am wondering what the logic was of spending $400,000 now for something that you, yourself, admit might never get built in our lifetime. In the context of Clarenville, which I understood to be the number one priority, where does this fit? Is the planning and design done on Clarenville, and if not, why are we putting Corner Brook's planning and design ahead of doing the planning and design on Clarenville, which was the number one priority?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Parsons, as you are well aware, previous governments have planned and built courts in Grand Bank, in Grand Falls, in Gander, and next week there will be the official opening of the Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It is my understanding the Clarenville court was designed in 1995 and remains unbuilt today. That is ten years later. I understand that the Happy Valley-Goose Bay court was designed at the same time, in 1995. It is being opened now ten years later. That will explain the reference to the ten years.

We have established a Courts Administration Advisory Board consisting of the Chief Judges of all courts, as well as governmental officials, in order to plan for the administration of the courts in a co-operative and collaborative manner. After the first meeting of that board, sub-committees were set up to examine the needs of the courts for the future. There were sub-committees set up for the court in Stephenville, for Corner Brook, and for St. John's to start the planning process noting that the planning for Clarenville had, in fact, already been done.

It might be helpful to refer to, not only the call of the Courts Administration Advisory Board to start the planning process for the courts of the future, but I might refer you to comments from Chief Justice Derek Green of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. When he opened the court, on September 13 of last year, he said: The time has come for the implementation, at an early date, of a detailed planning process designed to ensure that when appropriate capital funds are available a trial court facility, that would be adequate for many decades into the future, is constructed at an appropriate location in the City of St. John's. He then added, that similar sentiments could be expressed with respect to the situation in Corner Brook.

The same Chief Justice, speaking to the Canadian Bar Association, on Thursday, January 29, 2004, said: A start should be made in the development of the long-term plan for the accommodation of the courts in St. John's with a view to achieving efficiencies in this area. Even if we are ten years away from making such an idea a reality, the planning should start now. We agreed and we put the planning process into affect.

I made the comment based on the Clarenville situation and based on the Happy Valley-Goose Bay situation. I made the comment that we may not get the money for ten years, but at least we would do the planning, we would get it done, and then I would bring the plans to my colleagues in government and seek funding to move on with the construction phase. It may not come in ten years, but then again it may come within the next couple of years.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Minister.

Far be it from me to question the wisdom of Chief Justice Green, but I do believe, in terms of design - and you referenced Happy Valley-Goose Bay - it may have well been a plan many years ago, but the same Chief Justice had a lot of involvement in what was actually designed to go into Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It was not ten years ago, it was in very short order, within the last construction period, I should say, that the same Chief Justice got involved in the design.

You made a comment in this House recently, again, that we are not just planning, we are designing. My question is: Why are we spending money, there is nothing wrong with plans, but why are we spending $400,000 to design something that we do not even know is going to fit the needs ten years, twenty years out? You, yourself, differentiated between planning and designing, and you said here that we are designing. I suggest to you that to put $400,000 into designing a courthouse for Corner Brook for the Provincial and Supreme Court is putting good money to a bad use at this time if we do not even know what the demographics are going to be in Corner Brook ten years out. To plan it is one thing, to spend the money on a design that you might never ever use is another matter.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Parsons, we do have the benefit of meeting with the statistical agency of the Department of Finance who have given us their projections as to population trends. I believe we have the numbers to 2018. Your questioning and your comments are based on the assumption that we will not get funding for a Corner Brook courthouse. Possibly we will. We are going to proceed to plan the needs of the courts of the future. I believe in planning. I believe in being proactive.

The Speech from the Throne called upon an examination of the infrastructure needs of the future. The Courts Administration Advisory Board, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Trial Division, and the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, have all endorsed the fact that we start the planning for the courts of the future. We will do so and then we will bring our proposals to government for funding.

I said we may not get the funds for some time in the future, but on the other hand we may and we will proceed if we do. Obviously we cannot expect to receive funding to build all courts at the same time but we can do it one step at a time. We will plan first, we will do it properly, and then we will seek funding to start the construction process.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, minister.

In your estimates page 226, 2.3.05 on the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission issue, I notice there was an amount budgeted last year $316,900 which was subsequently revised to $125,000, and you did, pursuant to questioning in the House earlier, provide information as to where that $125,000 was actually spent. There is no amount budgeted this year. Could you give us some insight as to where or where not this Electoral Boundaries Commission might be going?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes. I think I am quoted in the past as saying that the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission will be appointed in 2006, to carry out their duties in 2006. We were proposed to bring forward legislation that will provide that the commission will operate in 2006, starting on April 1 of that year, and the act would be amended to provide that a new commission will be appointed every ten years thereafter. The purpose of this was to allow the work of the commission to be more timely so that the information will be available in time for the next provincial election which has now been set for, I believe, October of 2007.

MR. PARSONS: If it starts up on April of 2006, is that what you are saying?

MR. T. MARSHALL: April 1, 2006.

MR. PARSONS: April 1. How long do you see the commission having to do its work under the new legislation?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, the commission would have the balance of that year and the following year to do its work. The existing Act does place a mandate on the commission to finish its work in the year that it is appointed.

MR. PARSONS: So, they would be finished by December 31 calendar year or March 31 fiscal year?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is my understanding it would be the calendar year.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, so by December 31, 2006 you see them finishing their work and reporting back to government?

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is the obligation that the act presently puts on any commission.

MR. PARSONS: Okay. You do not see any change to that piece. It would be December 31, 2006 that the new commission would finish its work?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The legislation will be brought forward. The government will consider it. It will make the necessary policy decisions. Legislation will be brought forward into this House. I do not know what the members of this House will do. I assume there will be amendments. I do not know for sure what changes there will be made to that legislation, but it is the government's intention to bring forward legislation to activate the commission in that year and we would expect the commission to complete its work so that the new boundaries are ready for the election in 2007, subject to what the members of this House have to say when the matter is brought before it.

MR. PARSONS: I am just trying to get the timelines here. If they are the timelines and they report back by December 31, 2006, the election being in October, 2007, we have one legislative session in between all that in order to accomplish this. We would have to get the report back - because if you are going to change the electoral boundaries, my understanding is that the legislation has to come into the House to change the boundaries too. We are talking here about getting a report back by December 31, 2006 and having the report studied in time to bring in the legislative changes in the spring session of 2007, because that is the only opportunity there would be for the House to consider such legislation given these timelines that you are referencing here now.

Minister, have there been any layoffs in your department in the last year?

OFFICIAL: Twenty-seven at Salmonier.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am advised twenty-seven at Salmonier.

MR. PARSONS: Those are the only layoffs?

MR. ALCOCK: We have had some layoffs at our youth corrections facility in Whitbourne as well. I believe, in the last fiscal year it would have been in the order of ten to twelve to fourteen individuals. I do not have those numbers, Mr. Parsons, but I certainly can get them for you. I cannot recall of any other -

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. ALCOCK: I am just being reminded that there would have been one court position in Springdale and one in Placentia as well. Anything other than Whitbourne and Salmonier, of course, would be far less substantial.

MR. PARSONS: I take it the twenty-seven at Salmonier would relate to principally the correctional officers, the penitentiary staff. There were not many domestic people working there, were there?

MR. ALCOCK: No, you are correct. There were a couple of individuals, I believe, who worked for Transportation and Works, on their payroll, but primarily most of these individuals worked directly for the Department of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, have there been any hirings in the Executive, within the minister's office in the last year?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Larry Wells was hired as my Executive Assistant.

MR. PARSONS: Just the one position?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Just the one.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, on the Reid and Power Inquiry which was done by Judge Luther some time ago: What is happening in regard to the recommendations that were made, particularly concerning mental health initiatives in the Province?

MR. T. MARSHALL: As you are aware, Mr. Parsons, the responsibility for the Mental Health Act and the recommendations that were made that the Act be reviewed and modernized, that will take place in the Department of Health. In the Department of Justice, the recommendation with respect to the courts - the courts have instituted, on a trial basis, a mental health court that is being handled here in St. John's through provincial court. I believe that was the main recommendation of the department.

In terms of policing, they recommended additional training for RNC which has taken place, and collapsible batons. There were various pieces of equipment, including cell phones, for the RNC, training for the RNC, training for the RCMP in mental health matters, and I believe those are all of the recommendations.

MR. PARSONS: Has there been any backlash or any consequence here in the Province concerning this Taser dispute, speaking of equipment? I know the use of Tasers in police forces caused quite a stir publicly in Mainland Canada. I did not know if that has found its way here, and what was the response, if any?

MR. ALCOCK: The ongoing, I suppose, debate, in terms of the use of Tasers, is being monitored both by the RCMP and the RNC. We, as the Executive of the Department of Justice, have not received any backlash, that I am aware of. I cannot speak for both forces but none of that information has made its way to the executive offices of the department, at least not that I am aware of. Certainly, it is an ongoing debate within North America and it is being monitored by both police forces.

MR. PARSONS: Before I forget, Minister, one other question concerning the planning and design for the Corner Brook courthouse: The person chosen to do that, or who will be chosen, has the process been decided or has the person been chosen yet to design the actual facility?

MR. T. MARSHALL: No, no one has been chosen. We have contacted officials of Transportation and Works and we, of course, have advised them that the money is there in the Budget and we have asked them to start the process. I understand that it will involve the acquiring of a consultant to prepare a program. I would assume that will be done through Transportation and Works, and that it will done through some sort of public tendering process or Requests for Proposals.

MR. PARSONS: On the Legal Aid issue, I notice on page 224, under Legal Aid, it looks like the federal government has not been any more helpful to you this year than they have been in past years in terms of their contribution.

MR. T. MARSHALL: What page?

MR. PARSONS: Page 224.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I have two page 224s.

MR. PARSONS: It is 2.3.01 I am referencing, item 01, Revenue-Federal. I take it that is the federal contribution towards Legal Aid in the Province.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is correct.

MR. PARSONS: As I say, it looks like you have not been any more successful. I trust the effort was made and you got the same answer others did in years prior.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, there is some reason for optimism. I did go to Ottawa and meet with Minister Cotler and discussed this with him in some detail. One of the things that originally happened, they had cut funding for Family Justice Services in Central, but he reconsidered that and we did receive additional funding there. We did not get as much as we were previously getting, but it was enough to keep the program going. I just want to say, that program is now getting a good evaluation. We are certainly optimistic about that because this program, Family Justice Services Central, Family Justice Services Western, will be very important as a foundation to provide for Unified Family Courts in those communities if that proposal should be approved by the feds in the future. At the Federal-Provincial Ministers of Justice meeting we made a request to Minister Cotler that he go to his colleagues to increase the amount of funding for Legal Aid, particularly Civil Legal Aid, and that the funding be broken out in a special federal-provincial agreement so that it would not be tied up in the CHST block funding, and he has agreed to do that.

Now we all watched the Budget in anticipation, but he pointed out that it was not for this Budget, it was hopefully for the next one. I think all provincial Ministers of Justice and territorial Ministers of Justice made it clear that additional funding for Legal Aid was a major priority, and I am satisfied that Minister Cotler understood that and supports that, and he has indicated clearly that he will go to his colleagues to seek additional funding for Legal Aid and particularly Civil Legal Aid.

MR. PARSONS: The National Sex Offender Registry, where are we with that right now? I know finally everybody seems to have bought into it across Canada, when it was announced we are going to have it here. Where are we in terms of setting it up in the Province right now?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There was funding in the Budget to set it up. I understand the RCMP will take the lead on this. It will be centralized in the White Hills facility. I am advised that it is up and running. In the Budget, we provided for an RCMP officer to work in that registry together with another civilian employee for the RCMP, and in addition an RNC officer will work in that registry. I am advised that it is up and running.

MR. PARSONS: Also, on 224 I notice the Commissions of Inquiry referenced there. I take it that is the Lamer Inquiry that we are referencing.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes. I think there may be a small amount for Power-Reid and North Atlantic Refinery. Is that right, Theresa?

MS HEFFERNAN: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: The reason it was down from Budgeted to Revised in 2004-2005, I take it that is because of Justice Lamer's physically being unavailable, and it just did not proceed for that reason?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, in part. Decreased activities of the inquiry into wrongful convictions and delayed appeal. Are you referring to next year's budget?

MR. PARSONS: I notice it was down by $1.5 million from what was anticipated last year to what you actual spent, and I take it that is because Justice Lamer was ill, principally.

MR. T. MARSHALL: That is the major reason.

MR. PARSONS: This year, the $1.5 million: Do you see that being sufficient to conclude the inquiry? He is suppose to clue up by end of 2005.

MR. T. MARSHALL: He is supposed to clue it up by the end of this year. We are hopeful that will happen. The total we have spent to date on that inquiry is about $5.5 million. We have anticipated next year $1.6 million for a total of $7.1 million for the cost of the inquiry.

MR. PARSONS: I would like to turn it over to my colleague from Labrador at this time.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Parsons. Good evening all.

I just have a few questions on a couple of the issues that I have been concerned about. First of all, I would like to just make a comment and say that it was great to see the gender split, or the gender balance, that took place for the new recruits for the RNC officers. I think a lot of people in the Province have watched that and are pretty pleased to see that gender balance was recognized in the new intake, because currently the police forces are somewhat out of balance when it comes to being gender equal. It was just a comment I would like to make.

On the Legal Aid system: Do you have any idea what a normal wait period would be, or an average wait period would be, for someone seeking the services of Legal Aid?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The average wait system?

MR. COLLINS: Wait time. I know a lot of people in my district have difficulty obtaining Legal Aid because there are not any legal aid lawyers available in the immediate area. They have to go through the Goose Bay office and a lot of times there is a fairly lengthy process to get justice.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am not aware of the average time line it would take. Chris?

MR. CURRAN: There is the application processes provided for in the Legal Aid legislation, and the applicants for Legal Aid would have to establish illegibility for the service. Of course, there are appeal processes provided for in the legislation in the event that one is found, at the first level, not to be illegible. All those processes take time. I am not aware of, though I could get that information for you, what the standard timelines would be in a normal application in Labrador, both in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Wabush. I could have that information made available to you in short order.

MR. COLLINS: How many Legal Aid lawyers do we presently have in the Labrador region?

MR. CURRAN: My understanding is we have three. We were very fortunate this year in obtaining funding from the federal government for a special project led by Jenny Reid, who I think is the lawyer who has been retained on a contract basis to study the Legal Aid system in Labrador and to make recommendations towards improvement of that system. We are expecting, in the course of the next few weeks or so, Jenny Reid to file her report and we are looking forward with expectation to what she will tell us about services that are currently provided. The intent is that she make recommendations for improvements to Legal Aid delivery in Labrador.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

MR. CURRAN: There is additional legal support to the staff in Labrador from St. John's. I know that Dennis MacKay from the legal aid office here in St. John's routinely goes to Labrador to provide service. I might also say that we are experimenting, both at legal aid and in the court, with video conferencing equipment and facilities in Labrador. We see that as a means of making some progress there.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

My next question, Minister, is: Since there is no resident judge located in Wabush and they have to court visit there on a periodic basis, I think it is a week a month or something of that nature, has there been any cost analysis done concerning whether or not it would be financially advantageous to have a resident judge in Wabush verses the judge in Goose Bay with his entourage coming to Wabush, the cost of flights, hotels and other things that are involved in taking the show on the road sort of thing, rather than having a resident judge?

MR. T. MARSHALL: That was done, I think, last year after you raised it. We did the analysis and the analysis was that the most cost-effective way to do it was to continue the present arrangement where the court comes on circuit from Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the one week a month. As I did say last year, and I will repeat again, we do have an application into the feds for additional Unified Family Court judges throughout the Province. Right now there are two Unified Family Court judges and they are both stationed here in St. John's. A proposal has been made to the federal government to expand the Unified Family Courts hopefully throughout the whole Province, the Island and Labrador. The proposal for Labrador is that the courthouse there has been identified, in Wabush, as a good site, that if we are successful in obtaining a Unified Family Court judge for Labrador it would go to Wabush.

MR. COLLINS: When would you have a final resolve to that, or answer?

MR. T. MARSHALL: We are waiting for the federal government. It is there call. Our application is in. We do not know when it will happen. I went to Ottawa and met with the federal minister. The same day I was doing that, Chief Justice LeBlanc of the Supreme Court and other department officials made the presentation to federal officials for the extension of the Unified Family Court in this Province. We have to wait for the feds to make that decision and we do not know when they will do it or if, in fact, they will do it.

MR. COLLINS: Can I get a copy provided of the cost for the past year that was incurred as a result of everybody coming to Labrador West, and the additional expenses that the RNC incurred by having two officers travel with prisoners whenever someone has to be in court compared to the -

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, we will undertake to provide that.

I just want to repeat what Chris had said about video conferencing. Last year, or possibly the year before, video conferencing apparatus was placed in the Provincial Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I went to Happy Valley and saw it in operation. In this year's Budget we have provided, on a pilot project basis, seven video conferencing apparatus to be distributed between the Supreme and Provincial Courts. That will provide easier access to justice, to cover the situation where people do not have to travel long distances in order to access the courts.

I know there was a note from Judge Handrigan of the Grand Bank court indicating that he was calling a meeting of the stakeholders in that area to comment on the fact that video conferencing was now starting. We certainly have high expectations for how that might enhance access to justice for people in rural areas of the Province.

MR. COLLINS: The support enforcement orders for people who have enforcement orders against them: Is there a system to track that? If someone leaves this Province and does not live up to the support enforcement orders, say, in terms of child support, is there an agreement with every other province, a way of tracking that person? I have had cases recently where we called to Corner Brook and nobody seemed to know where to find a particular person for the last year. I thought, with a Social Insurance Number or something, that people would pop up and be easily identified, as to where they might be. Could you explain a bit how that system works, if someone skips the Province and goes to another province?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will just say that, I understand there is now an agreement with the federal government where the enforcement orders, the amounts owed for child support and whatnot, can be intercepted from refund cheques, Income Tax refund cheques and GST refund cheques. That will certainly aid Support Enforcement in being successful in collecting the monies that are needed for child support and spousal support.

Chris, would you like to elaborate on that?

MR. CURRAN: It is interesting that you asked this question, because last year in Corner Brook the Directors of Support Enforcement from across Canada met and put in place a new system for the reciprocal enforcement of support orders. Under the old system, it was necessary that an order from the province where the spouse resided, chasing a spouse who had gone out of province, be registered in the court and then filed with the Support Enforcement agency in, hopefully, the enforcing province. This process, I think, was generally recognized across the country as being more cumbersome then it need be and having inherent delays built in. The directors agreed that a new process should be put in place and that has been happening now for the last six or seven months. That process does not require a new court order in the province, but will go directly, by agreement and by amendment to legislation, to the director in the enforcing province and will be registered on their system for enforcement.

Your question with respect to whether the various agencies across the country have the ability to track defaulters under the system depends really on the resources of the province to which the defaulter has gone. Sometimes it is difficult to track defaulters, to have accurate information on them. The directors are making their best efforts too, using federal information where there was an agreement to track parties. Of course, parties often change jobs if they want to avoid their obligations, and that is an issue that is very difficult to address.

The simple answer is, they are making efforts, we have seen improvements, and we have seen our own success rate on these orders increase in the last year, as reflected in the Auditor General's analysis of our agency. It is not perfect still, but it is getting better.

MR. COLLINS: It is improving?

MR. CURRAN: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: The firearm replacement program and training for the RNC: Could you provide an update as to where that stands now, how many officers have been trained, how many side arms or equipment have been replaced?

MR. ALCOCK: I do not have the current situation on that issue, but I would be very glad to get it and provide it to your office.

MR. COLLINS: Are there any plans by the Province to expand the jurisdiction of the RNC?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Not at the present time. I know there has been a program renewal process. I do not know if there will be any recommendations there, but at the present time there are no plans to change the areas policed by the RNC and the RCMP respectively.

MR. COLLINS: What is the difference in cost to the Province, say, for an RNC officer versus an RCMP officer?

MR. ALCOCK: That is a somewhat difficult question to answer. The reason for that is because the Province pays, as you are probably aware, via agreement with the Solicitor General's office, 70 per cent of the cost of the RCMP, the provincial RCMP service in the Province. Of course, there is a federal component of the RCMP in the Province as well. The cost of running the RNC is spread over a number of departments, so when you look at what may be in the Estimates as the cost to run the RCMP and the cost to run to RNC, you are really comparing apples and oranges. For example, we pay a rental fee for an RCMP detachment, however the government built the Fort Townsend headquarters of the RNC so there is no rent cost associated with it. The same would apply to Labrador West and to Corner Brook. Those are government buildings. We pay, for example, with the RCMP directly - it is in the Estimates here - for pensions and EI and so forth. That is paid directly out of Justice accounts for the RCMP. However, with the RNC, the overhead as far as employee benefits is paid through the department of Finance. The cost of running the RNC is not only the cost that appears in the Estimates of the Department of Justice, but is spread over a number of different departments for the provision of that particular service.

Additionally, for example, the running of the payroll system: Well, the running of the payroll system for the RNC is done by the Department of Finance and there is no cost to the RNC for running the payroll system. There are a significant number of services provided to the RNC through the headquarters of the Department of Justice that never appear in the Estimates that are shown for the RNC.

Probably the long answer to your question, and probably not directly answering the question, I guess the answer I would like to give, is that the costs are not as suggested in the Estimates for both police forces.

MR. COLLINS: You are not in politics, are you?

[Laughter]

MR. T. MARSHALL: We will have a test on that answer tomorrow.

MR. COLLINS: Minister, the detachment in Labrador West I know is understaffed. Are there any plans to bring staffing up to the levels that they should be? From what I am hearing, it is probably two or three officers below the complement, or probably even more. I know that very few of the officers have any time off and they are at two per shift. I was wondering if there are any plans to address staffing issues in the Labrador West detachment.

MR. T. MARSHALL: When the Cabinet was in Labrador West recently, I went along with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation and Works. Inspector Garland gave us a tour of the facility and he did indicate to me that he would like to have additional officers. I discussed it with Chief Deering and we certainly look forward to when the additional officers, the twenty-five new recruits, are deployed, twenty-five minimum. The Chief indicated that he will deploy the resources where he considers the priorities are, and I am optimistic that they will be equitably deployed throughout the three detachments.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much, everyone.

Those are all the questions I have. I will not bother to get into the cell phones with you this evening.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I was waiting for you, Randy.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Butler.

MR. BUTLER: I have a few questions, and some of them are, I guess, what is in the Estimates here, and just a couple of general questions.

The first one is on page 221, 1.2.04, item 07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment. There was $415,000 more spent than was budgeted, and I was just wondering what the break down of that was?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The shortfall resulted from urgent operational requirements, replacement vehicles for prisoner-resident escorts to adult and youth correction facilities, as well as upgrades and replacements of security cameras throughout adult correction institutions. The budget was original set for $741,400, projected it $1,156,400, a difference of $415 thousand.

MR. BUTLER: The next one is under the heading 2.1.01, item 09, Allowances and Assistance.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Which page?

MR. BUTLER: Page 222, under the heading 2.1.01, item 09,Allowances and Assistance. There is a budget forecast of close to $ 1 million more than what the actual was. I was just wondering if you could give me -

MR. T. MARSHALL: Under 2.1.01, item 09, Allowances and Assistance?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, Sir.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The $74,000, or the million?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, there is a $1million there.

MR. T. MARSHALL: You mean the increase in this budget over the last one?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. T. MARSHALL: It is incremental funding to address anticipated increases in legal claims against the Crown.

MR. BUTLER: Pardon? Page 222, 2.1.01.09.

MR. T. MARSHALL: In Budget 2004-2005. there was $2 million budgeted for that and in the Budget for 2005-2006 it has been increased to $3 million, a difference of $1 million.

MR. BUTLER: Civil Law and Enforcement, item 09.

MR. PARSONS: On that issue, Minister, I do not mean to interrupt but rather than have you come back to it: Why would you anticipate the expenditure of another million? What is happening to think that there may be more claims?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will allow Don Burrage, director of our council, to address that.

MR. BURRAGE: There is a claim that we are aware of which is essentially on the verge of resolution, which is in the tune of $1 million, so we know now that we will be paying that, and it will be paid out of this fiscal year as opposed to last fiscal year, so it has increased by $1 million beyond the regular $2 million.

MR. PARSONS: Are you at liberty to tell us what that might be, as a matter of public record?

MR. BURRAGE: Well, it has not yet been settled. It still has not been finalized, I should say, so perhaps I should not.

MR. PARSONS: I appreciate the predicament you are in. I am just wondering if maybe we could get an undertaking, once it is resolved, that we get some linkage between that million dollars here and the case that you are referencing, so at least we will know what the tie-in was.

MR. BURRAGE: I do not see any difficulty with that. All the cases are public afterwards.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: The next one is item 3.1.01., Supreme Court, item 05., Professional Services. There was approximately $22,000 more spent than what was budgeted for 2004-2005. I think that is correct.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Twenty-two thousand?

MR. BUTLER: It was budgeted at $40,900 and the revised was $62,900.

MR. T. MARSHALL: As part of program renewal, the Supreme Court indicated the desire to do its own renewal process rather than have the department do it. Funding was provided to the Supreme Court to have a study prepared by Mr. David Norris, and the difference is to reflect anticipated costs of that study.

MR. BUTLER: The other one I have is 4.1.02., Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Professional Services. I think there was $549,700 which was overspent from the budget amount. I was just wondering what that amount would have entailed.

MR. T. MARSHALL: This is salary increased funding provided to the RCMP. This was offset by a transfer funding to Administration Support to fund three months extension to the Community Constable grants in Makkovik and Rigolet. Essentially what happened was, we had single person detachments in Makkovik, RCMP detachments in Makkovik and Rigolet, and because of labour, or occupational health and safety matters, the RCMP decided they would no longer have single person detachments, so all detachments had to have a minimum of two.

In order to fund that, it became necessary for the government to eliminate the payment of funds for the Community Constable Program; however, government has undertaken negotiations with the federal government and with the various Aboriginal communities to attempt to obtain a tripartite agreement under the Aboriginal First Nations Policing Policy of the federal government.

I did go to meet with Anne McLellan, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the federal minister responsible for the RCMP, and she indicated a favourable preference to entering into such an agreement. The government has commenced negotiations with the various Aboriginal communities with an attempt to obtain such an agreement which, if successful, will reduce our cost of RCMP officers in each of those communities by 22 per cent.

The government has undertaken that, if we are successful, those savings will go back into the Aboriginal communities. We would anticipate that if there is such an agreement then we will be able to reinstitute the Community Constable funding in Makkovik and Rigolet.

MR. BUTLER: Would they be covered off for this year while the negotiations are ongoing?

MR. T. MARSHALL: There was originally a request made by the Member for Torngat Mountains that the funding be increased, or the funding be continued, and it was continued for a period of time subject to the execution of an agreement. The funding did run out. We agreed to fund for an additional three month period. That time period has run out and the funding is not being provided at the present moment.

MR. BUTLER: Just to go back to, I think, a response that was made earlier, and maybe I am totally off base on this one, I do not know if it was yourself, minister, or someone else who mentioned that with regard to the RCMP and the breakdown, provincial-federal, was it 70 per cent the Province pays? Was that correct?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, for RCMP officers, the provinces pay 70 per cent of their salary and the feds pay 30 per cent of the salary. Remember, I raised that last year and I always say it twice because most people think it is the opposite; they think the feds pay 70 per cent. In fact, we pay the 70 per cent.

If we can get an agreement with the Aboriginal communities and with the feds, this tripartite policing agreement, then it changes, and as a result of that change we would save, for each officer - the Province would save, for each officer - 22 per cent, because the change is then 52 per cent and 48 per cent with the feds paying the 52 per cent and us paying the 48 per cent. So we would go from 70 per cent down to 48 per cent, and the feds would go from 30 per cent up to 52 per cent. We would save, we would net, 22 per cent per officer; but, of course, we have agreed that we will not take the money out of the system. We would keep it in the Aboriginal communities in different justice services, and that would be determined by consultation between the department and the Aboriginal communities.

I would anticipate, with respect to Makkovik and Rigolet, that they would want the Community Constable funding to carry on.

MR. BUTLER: Just for clarification, I am of the understanding that, where you moved from one detachment to two detachments, until this agreement is all finalized, the Province is picking up the 100 per cent. Is that correct? That is not correct, is it? I am misunderstanding that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The RCMP constables themselves, we pay 70 per cent and they pay 30 per cent, but there are also two Aboriginal community constables that we pay 100 per cent of.

MR. BUTLER: Okay. Sorry about that.

MR. T. MARSHALL: No problem.

MR. BUTLER: The other one is 4.2.01.Adult Corrections. It shows an amount of, I think, from the budgeted amount to the revised of $408,100, and I notice this year the estimate is $17,591,300. I was just wondering if you could give me a breakdown on that amount.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Salaries?

MR. BUTLER: Yes, item 01. under 4.2.01.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Okay, the $408,100 shortfall can be attributed to four items. One was a decision to allow correction officers to access their leave banks for single annual leave days. That is an increased demand on casual requirements. Secondly, increased long-term sick leave usage has increased demand on casual requirements. Thirdly, an increase in the number of female inmates has increased the demand on jailers in the Corner Brook lock-up. Fourthly, changes in standard training requirements has increased the use of casuals to backfill during training periods.

The net reduction in last year's budget over the budget for 2005-2006 can be attributed also to four items. First of all, there is incremental funding provided to Victim Services to children programs of $135,000. Removal of funding which was originally provided for the phase-out of the Salmonier Correctional Institute is $488,000. Thirdly, the transfer of one administrative officer position to Youth Corrections is $40,000; and, finally, the removal of federal funding provided to Victim Services of $25,000.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

I was wondering if you could provide the amount that was saved or spent as a result of the public sector strike and, in conjunction with that, I guess, the amount that might have been spent in overtime for RNC and management.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will refer that to Ralph.

MR. ALCOCK: We have those numbers, and we certainly can provide them to you, but we do not have them with us this evening. We certainly commit to providing those numbers to you.

MR. BUTLER: The other one that I was going to tie it to wasn't in relation to the same strike, and this is not a strike, I suppose, in one sense. I was just wondering, similar to what is happening with the dispute with the crab fishery now, I guess there is more security around the building and I was just wondering if that could be provided as well.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes, we can undertake to provide it, but my understanding is - and I think this came up in the public service strike as well - that within this House it is the Speaker who controls matters, and the Speaker's office has a security division, including a director of security. What they do, it is not the Department of Justice that deals with additional security requirements within the precincts of the House of Assembly.

MR. BUTLER: Does the cost go back to your department?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes. If they call on the RNC, I am advised by the deputy, yes, that cost would be in our department, and I undertake now to provide you with that information.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

I was wondering what the impact on the closure of the Springdale Provincial Courthouse may have had, and what increased activity it may have placed upon the Grand Falls-Windsor Courthouse.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Springdale Courthouse - I am just trying to recall now. It was awhile ago, but I think that a lot of the cases that were attributed to the Springdale Courthouse were, in fact, originating in Grand Falls. On that basis, I do not know if there has been a major impact. Chris Curran?

MR. CURRAN: That is correct. I think that five or six years ago when there was some initial discussion of changing the activity level at the courthouse in Springdale there was an attempt to provide more work to that courthouse, basically, and this was done by providing all the small claims work that had been done in Grand Falls was then shipped out, basically, to Springdale to be done.

During that five year kind of test period, the level of the other work in the Springdale Court fell drastically and, even with the small claims work, the amount of activity in that court was less than was required, was less than would justify having a judge there even two days a week. So, on the recommendation of the Chief Judge of the court, the workload that was there went back to Grand Falls, really, from whence it came in the first place, so there was not a significantly raised level of activity in Grand Falls as a result of that decision.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

The last question, probably in a couple of parts, I was wondering if you could give me the information on what cost has been associated with, I will call it dismantling, the Salmonier Correctional Institute, when it comes to anything that may have been taken down there, or any environmental cleanup or relocation of the assets that may have been there, apart from, I guess, the structure itself is still there. In my understanding it is, anyway.

MR. CUMMINGS: As far as we know, the Department of Works is dealing with all of that so we are not involved with it. We do not know what the costs would be.

MR. BUTLER: Okay.

The last one, I guess, is probably going to be a similar answer, but seeing I have it here I will ask it.

I notice you mentioned the date when it was decommissioned and so on, and turned over to Transportation and Works. I was just wondering if your department may have any knowledge of if there were proposals called for, and what involvement may have been by some individuals. It was partway through, and my understanding is that all of a sudden it came to a halt again and everything was placed on hold. I guess you probably would not know that, either, even though it came from your department to Transportation and Works.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am not familiar. Possibly Marvin -

MR. McNUTT: This was information that was really passed on to us through other sources, but apparently it was some association associated with farmers in the Province, and a proposal had been made on a very preliminary basis that government consider converting the facility for use as an agricultural employee training facility. Now, a number of individuals have also approached us, entrepreneurs in the Province, but all we have been able to do is actually refer them to the Department of Transportation and Works.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you.

That is the last question I have, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, do you have any concluding questions?

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, first of all, a comment. We have a lot of undertakings flying back and forth here tonight. I am just wondering if we could, in the minutes, note what exactly the undertakings were so that we do not lose track of these. In the earlier Estimates that we did, of course, there were references to documents tabled and so on. I just thought, for the purpose of keeping track here - we had Mr. Burrage and we have had different ones on Legal Aid and whatever - if we could have those listed.

CHAIR: You are requesting that they be included in the minutes as we circulate them next week?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, so it is easier to keep track of them. When we receive the paperwork, we do not have to be saying all the time, did we get it or not get it? We all know what we did or did not get by using that process.

CHAIR: We will be able to review the tapes of Hansard to get that.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, the Privacy Commissioner, to whom does he report?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Privacy Commissioner is an officer of the House of Assembly and would report presumably to the IEC and the Speaker.

MR. PARSONS: I am just looking for some clarification on your page 223 there, item 2.1.04. I take it the cost of the Privacy Commissioner himself is not within that salary figure there?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am advised no.

MR. PARSONS: I take it that this refers to Mr. Hounsell's salary.

MR. CURRAN: Mr. Hounsell's former position is now vacant, of course. Mr. Hounsell has since assumed a new position in the Office of the Commissioner. Mr. Hounsell previous position was that of Co-ordinator for Access to Information and Protection of Privacy in the Department of Justice. That position has been advertised since Mr. Hounsell's moving on, and I have been advised that the competition is closed. There were a number of candidates, and they will be interviewed in due course and the position filled.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I have met the Privacy Commissioner. I do not think we are going to control him.

[Laughter]

MR. PARSONS: I have had the pleasure.

Concerning the Privacy Commissioner, are you in a position to tell us what the former Commissioner, Mr. Wayne Mitchell, what the cost was to government for his termination?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I understand it was not a Justice cost, so we are not aware of what the cost was.

MR. PARSONS: I presume, however, Justice was involved in the process.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Burrage, were we involved?

MR. BURRAGE: No, I was not involved. We do not have a file on Mr. Mitchell. He was not paid out of the contingency fund.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, legal opinions on the FPI matter, particularly the selling off, or their request, I guess, to sell off the marketing arm of the company - there has been reference here in the House to it - was that work - for example, the opinions - done internally or was that done by external counsel?

MR. T. MARSHALL: It was done by external counsel.

MR. PARSONS: Are you in a position to tell us who did that?

MR. T. MARSHALL: The legal opinions obtained by the Department of Justice, as Mr. Parsons knows, are, in fact, privileged. I believe they are also excluded from the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or they are exempt under that legislation as they were under the Freedom of Information Act. We did get an external opinion, but the information is privileged and we will hold it as such.

MR. PARSONS: I am not asking for the opinions, Minister. I am just asking who prepared the opinions. I would think that should not be confidential, privileged information. I specifically make it clear, I am not asking for the legal opinions that an independent, external, publicly paid for law firm or firms might have done. I am just asking who did it.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The opinions were rendered by the Stikeman Elliott law firm and the Fasken Martineau law firm.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

They are both very reputable law firms.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Very much so.

MR. PARSONS: I trust our colleague, Mr. Tobin, did not do it from Fasken Martineau. He is a business advisor, I understand, not a legal advisor, with that firm.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I do not believe he signed the opinion, Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: I was just wondering, was there ever an appeal undertaken regarding the Astron case which was ruled on recently by Justice Barry in the Supreme Court?

MR. BURRAGE: There has been no appeal filed to date. I do not know whether an appeal is planned or not. External counsel is advising on that matter - external counsel out of Labrador - the name escapes me at the moment.

MR. PARSONS: Pardon my rustiness, Mr. Burrage, on appeal periods, but are we beyond the appeal period of the judgement?

MR. BURRAGE: I do not know if the final order has been filed. I have not seen the order on it. The appeal period would run from the date of the order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

On the issue of video conferencing which was referenced, and Mr. Curran made reference to it as well, where exactly are we anticipating now going with the video conferencing? I realize the special initiative that has been undertaken with SmartLabrador, but on the Island portion in particular, where do we see this working in the context of provincial courts, supreme courts, both, and in what geographic areas do we see it trying to be implemented?

MR. T. MARSHALL: We anticipate that the video conferencing equipment will be deployed in both courts and that we will work with the courts in a collaborative manner to determine where the units should go.

MR. PARSONS: So that will be an operations decision left to the courts?

MR. T. MARSHALL: In consultation with officials in the department, yes.

MR. PARSONS: Minister, have there been any expenditures in your department for media monitoring since November, 2003? If so, how much and to whom was this paid?

MR. T. MARSHALL: I think the answer is yes, media clippings are provided to me. As to the cost, I think we would have to get that information.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Has there been any media training cost incurred?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: I take it the minister is -

MR. T. MARSHALL: Well, isn't it obvious?

[Laughter]

MR. PARSONS: I guess the fact that you had to ask me, Minister, you might wonder why I am asking.

I am wondering if you might undertake to tell us just how much was expended, and to whom, to undertake your media training. We will determine how extensive it was from that, I guess.

MR. T. MARSHALL: We would be very happy to provide that information: the Barry McLoughlin Group. As to the cost, we will have to ascertain that information and provide it.

MR. PARSONS: The Lobbyist Registry - we passed the Lobbyist Act last fall. Have we got that established and up and running yet? Maybe you can give us some details on that process.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The work in setting up the registry will actually take place in the Department of Government Services. There will be the establishment of a full service physical registry as well as an electronic registry system. That will facilitate compliance by lobbyists and ensure that all information on lobbyist activity is open and accessible to the public. There will be a physical registry in which members of the general public can go to the department, and there will also be an electronic registry which will be accessed on line.

It is anticipated that there will be another four to six months to open a full physical and electronic registry. Significant information technology work is needed to design and customize the electronic registry required to ensure that the objectives of openness and accessibility are met from the start. There will then be a public education, communications plan undertaken before the act is proclaimed to ensure that lobbyists and the public are fully informed about the registration requirements and the different available services.

I am anticipating - I am certainly not going to say stay tuned, but I am anticipating - that a target date for registry start-up would be some time in the fall.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, on an issue - and I realize this is not strictly in your bailiwick but it is of concern to a lot of lawyers in the Province, in particular in rural Newfoundland, that is the Registry of Companies, and the searching and so on. We have had a lot of emphasis in past years put on technology. In fact, some great improvements have been made in the Registry of Companies in recent years to bring them into the modern-day world, but a practical concern - I am not sure if you have encountered it yourself - for example, a searcher, if someone who works in the law business outside of St. John's, for example, Corner Brook, calls an agent in St. John's to get a search, and there are professional searching services here and you have a searcher, my understanding is, that searcher physically gets in line downstairs in the Registry of Companies, goes in and accesses the registry equipment to get the information they require, but they cannot come out and use the existing technology to get that information to you in your Corner Brook office - for example, Blackberries, cellphones, whatever - because physically that cannot be done from within the confines of this buildings. For example, you may have in this building, on any given day, fifteen people working down here in the private business of searching, with fifty law firms outside of St. John's waiting for search results and they cannot get them because the person down here must get out of the line, for example, once they have the piece of information, actually physically leave the building in order to transmit that information to someone outside the Avalon. That is my understanding - and I see Mr. Curran is nodding his head, too - of how that works. Despite all the advances we have made in technology, and all the fees that we are charging in our registry - and we both know, as lawyers here, what it costs the clientele to pay for these fees. Is there any way, or have you had any discussions, that what seems to be a very rudimentary piece of technology cannot be achieved in order to - right now all the technological improvements you made do not get us where we need to go if you cannot get the information out of the building.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I was not aware of that. Are you saying that technologically they cannot make the call? Or, is there a rule that -

MR. PARSONS: Apparently they cannot, for whatever reasons - airwaves, structure of the building - they need some kind of way to be able to get the information out of the building. Their phones will not work, their Blackberries will not work. They just cannot do it. So, instead of you sitting down there and doing your work in the basement, and being able to send to Marks and Parsons or Monaghan Seaborn in Corner Brook the research report right there and then, you cannot do that. You physically have to leave the building. You can type it into your Blackberry but you physically have to leave the building to go somewhere else to transport it, which seems to me to be very unnecessary, in this day and age.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I certainly would agree. I was not aware of that. I certainly do agree with your comments.

It is my understanding, and again I do not want to interfere with any comments that my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, will make, but it is my understanding that there are some major technology moves taking place in the registry and, as a result of those moves, it will be possible for people to access the registry electronically from outside. It will no longer be necessary to come within the registry in order to access the information, or at least a good chunk of the information.

MR. PARSONS: I have raised this question because a lot of times law firms and lawyers who have this problem might convey it to the Law Society, or might convey it to the minister, but whether it is actually getting through to the minister who actually controls the registry now and that she has an appreciation of the nature of the problem and, for example, gets it dealt with then, I do not know if that is happening or not.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The Minister of Government Services is well aware of the importance of the Registry of Deeds to the conduct of business of this Province, and she is certainly well aware of the fact that the Registry of Deeds is a major revenue producer to the government of this Province. As a result of that she has taken steps, proactive steps, to ensure that the registry is modernized. I certainly will mention to her this fact, that you cannot make telephone calls or Blackberry messages from inside the registry. I was not aware of that.

I think I should say that, when I got here, I expected that the Registry of Deeds would be within the bailiwick of the Minister of Justice. I was quite surprised to find out that it was not. I have gone on down to the registry to have a look around and I will certainly be happy to discuss it with the minister.

MR. PARSONS: The reason I raised it is because, besides being an antiquated system, this does not just impact the twenty or twenty-five searchers who make a living at this; it impacts everybody in these law firms who use it, and it impacts the general public, basically, who is using the law firm, where you cannot close their mortgages for them and so on because you cannot get your information out of St. John's until Mrs. Such-and-Such or Mr. Such-and-Such goes home and sends you the information that night from their computer. It is just unfair to everyone.

I have no further questions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Are there any other members of the Committee who have any questions of the minister or staff?

Well, thank you, Minister. Obviously you have done a thorough job, there are no other questions. You have answered everything for everybody.

I thank you and your staff for being so insightful and sharing your information with us.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you very much.

I thank the members of the Committee.

CHAIR: We have followed the normal practice of dealing with all of the subheads together. I will ask the Clerk now if she would call all of the heads from 1.1.01. to 4.2.02. inclusive.

CLERK: Subheads 1.1.01. to 4.2.02. inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall the total carry, from 1.1.01. to 4.2.02.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01. through 4.2.02. carried

CHAIR: Shall I report the total Estimates of the Department of Justice carried without amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

CHAIR: Again, I thank the members of the Committee for this evening. Once again, I apologize for my mistake at the very beginning.

I want to remind the Committee that our next scheduled hearing will be on Tuesday, April 19, at 9:00 a.m. here in the House, where we will be dealing with the Department of Health and Community Services.

MR. PARSONS: Is that the amended schedule, Mr. Chairman? I understood today, from the Government House Leader, that Health and Community Services were changed off with Finance. Is this the revised schedule?

CHAIR: No, this is not a revised scheduled. Do you have (inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: My understanding is that the Minister of Finance is the Acting Minister of Health and Community Services, and there was a request put to me today by the Government House Leader that the Minister of Finance wanted to switch Finance for Health on that particular day because he wanted a few more hours to help prepare for the Health one. My understanding was, he wants to put Health into the evening and Finance into the morning.

CHAIR: He is on for Finance.

MR. PARSONS: I am not sure if what you have there is what he requested or did not, but there are some moves afoot to do a switch, I believe, so that Health is next Tuesday night rather than Tuesday morning.

CHAIR: Not having that, while the Committee is here, I am assuming that will be okay with the Committee. We were not dealing with Finance as a Committee ourselves that evening, so this is an addition for this Committee here for that evening. Is that okay with the members of the Committee, if the -

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: It has been suggested that we may end up, on Tuesday, April 19, rather than having a hearing in the morning at 9:00, we will be having a hearing in the evening at 7:00, on Tuesday.

That being said, I will advise you on Monday morning if that is the case. If there is a problem with a member not being able to attend, maybe we can find an alternate, because we will endeavour to accommodate the minster if that is the request.

Thank you very much.

Again, Minister, thank you to you and your staff.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you.

On motion, the Committee adjourned.