The committee met at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Dining Room.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Good evening everybody. Welcome.

We are here this evening for the first sitting of the Social Services Committee, reviewing the Estimates for the Department of Justice.

I thought at this time, to get set up, we will go through the process of electing a Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. I will turn it over to the Clerk for Chair.

CLERK (Mr. MacKenzie): Thank you, Mr. Hutchings.

Normally the Clerk would conduct the election of the Chair of Committee, and then the Chair would conduct the election of the Vice-Chair.

So I will open the floor for nominations for the position of Chair of the Social Services Committee.

Mr. Cornect.

MR. CORNECT: I nominate Keith Hutchings, District of Ferryland.

CLERK: Keith Hutchings is nominated.

Do you accept, Mr. Hutchings?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Yes.

CLERK: Are there any other nominations?

Third time: Are there any other nominations for Chair?

Then we will declare Mr. Hutchings elected Chair by acclamation.

CHAIR (Hutchings): Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: And the Vice-Chair.

CHAIR: Okay, we will move forward with the election of Vice-Chair.

I will call for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair of the Social Services Committee.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: I nominate Roland Butler, MHA for Port de Grave.

CHAIR: Roland Butler, MHA for Port de Grave.

Any other nominations for the position of Vice-Chair?

Final call for nominations for position of Vice-Chair.

Mr. Roland Butler is acclaimed as Vice-Chair.

We will take a brief recess and just wait for the minister and staff to arrive.

CHAIR: Good evening everybody and welcome to the first sitting of the Social Services Committee. This evening we are reviewing the Estimates for the Department of Justice.

Before we get started, it is probably best if maybe the committee could introduce themselves, starting at my far left, please.

MS MICHAEL: Lorraine Michael, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. PARSONS: Kelvin Parsons, MHA Burgeo & La Poile.

MR. KING: Darin King, Grand Bank District.

MS SULLIVAN: Susan Sullivan, Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans District.

MR. CORNECT: Tony Cornect, Port au Port.

MR. COLLINS: Felix Collins, Placentia & St. Mary's.

CHAIR: Keith Hutchings, MHA for Ferryland, Chair of the Social Services Committee.

I guess, in terms of the rules and the procedures, I will revert to the minister in a few minutes for some opening comments, and certainly he can, at that time, introduce his staff. As we go through the Estimates, I ask those who are speaking from the committee if they would identify themselves first. It is very informal. We can go fifteen minutes at a time or twenty minutes. I guess we will play it by ear as we move forward.

Minister, I will turn it over to you for some opening comments and you can introduce your staff.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you Keith.

I am Jerome Kennedy, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. With me are: Don Burrage, the Deputy Minister; Debbie Dunphy, Finance; Ken Morrissey, Communications; and Jonathan Galgay who is my Executive Assistant.

What I plan to do, Keith, is: simply, the materials are here in front of the committee and I am open to whatever questions anyone may have.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MR. PARSONS: Excuse me. You just went too fast on the names. Donna?

MS DUNPHY: Debbie.

MR. KENNEDY: Debbie Dunphy, yes.

MR. PARSONS: Dunphy. And your position was?

MS DUNPHY: Director of Finance.

MR. PARSONS: And?

MR. MORRISSEY: Ken Morrissey, Director of Communications?

MR. PARSONS: Communications?

MR. MORRISSEY: That is correct, sir.

MR. GALGAY: Jonathan Galgay.

MR. PARSONS: Galgay?

MR. GALGAY: Yes, Executive Assistant.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Congratulations, by the way, on your new appointment.

MR. BURRAGE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Again, just a final point for the members of the minister's staff. Before you answer questions, could you just, as well, state you name for the record.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall 1.1.01 carry?

Minister, are you finished with your comments?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I am.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Usually what we have done in the other committees is we pinch-hit. I will ask a few questions. It might be of a specific nature concerning a line by line item or we might get into some general type of questions. We usually alternate back and forth depending on who gets tired first here.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: Of course, Committee members who have any questions as well, usually just interject. That is what we have done.

CHAIR: Sounds good.

MR. PARSONS: It is pretty wide open.

Minister, maybe first off we will just get into some line by line stuff. On Page 227 of the Estimates, 1.1.01, the positions there in your office, the Salaries, who does that cover off?

MR. KENNEDY: The Salaries would cover the – is my salary also there, Debbie?

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay. Myself, Jonathan and Ken.

MS DUNPHY: No, not Ken.

MR. KENNEDY: No, not Ken, myself and Johnathon. Is that –

MS DUNPHY: Rhonda and Heather.

MR. KENNEDY: Tracy?

MS DUNPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: I notice we ran into a little discrepancy. In the first two Estimates we did last week for Business and Tourism, the ministers had listed, under their Minister's Office, Secretary to the Minister and Departmental Secretary to the Minister, which is the same as you have here. At that time we inquired because we thought that the Secretary to the Minister, as I understand it, would be the equivalent of your Constituency Assistant.

My question was: Why would we have the department paying for constituency assistants? I am on the Board of Management of the House of Assembly and my understanding was that constituency assistants would be paid for out of the House, whereas departmental secretaries would be paid for out of the departmental budget. Sure enough, the Minister of Finance confirmed for me, when we did the Estimates this morning, that is in fact how it is, that constituency assistants are paid for by the department. Yet, Ms Marshall, former Auditor General, who sits on our Board of Management, she was amazed as well and astounded. She cannot figure out the rationale as to why departments are paying for constituency assistants.

I am wondering if there is anything you can tell us to enlighten that, because the Minister of Finance could not. He said, it happens, but he did not know why and the other ministers did not know either. I am just wondering, because it is very unusual. Forty-eight members get a constituency assistant and ministers also get an EA, Mr. Morrissey, in your case. It is understandable that would come out of your office but we still have not figured out why CAs might be coming out of departmental budgets.

MR. KENNEDY: I can remember, Mr. Parsons, when we started this process and when my constituency assistant was getting set up, I had concerns as to – because her office is there on the same floor with me. I remember we checked into it. Now, whether or not we specifically checked into who was paying her or being paid out of the departmental budget, I do not remember that specifically. I do remember we checked into it and Debbie might be able to help there.

MS. DUNPHY: Mr. Parsons, I guess traditionally the budget is provided for the constituency assistant when it is representative of a minister, so the department is also expected to cover some of the miscellaneous office setups when they are located in the same building as the minister here in the Confederation Building. I guess the short answer is, the budget is provided to us for that position. As to why it is in the department, I cannot answer but we can certainly undertake to dig a little further as I am sure the Minister of Finance is probably doing as well.

MR. PARSONS: Again, just to confirm - because this is a question that will no doubt find its way back to the Board of Management now that Ms Marshall is aware of it as well.

MS. DUNPHY: Yes. We had some discussions with them at the House of Assembly, some of the administrative staff, regarding exactly what we could or could not supply to the Minister's constituency assistant, so we have had some clarification.

MR. PARSONS: I just want to confirm that the secretary to the minister identified there is in fact what we call – she does not do any departmental business. She is solely the minister's constituency person.

Moving on again to page 227, Executive Support: there seemed to be a fairly substantial increase there last year in the Salaries as to what was budgeted and what ended up being revised. Any particular reason for the increase?

MR. KENNEDY: There have been a number of changes. Last year, I think, Mr. Alcock was the assistant deputy minister and he was replaced by Mr. McNutt. Then, I think, when Minister Osborne was there, his salary was picked up, I think, from a month after the appointment of Cabinet, if I remember correctly, Debbie. We are dealing with the time frame, Mr. Hutchings, just so I make sure I have all my dates correct, from April 2007 to March of 2008. Correct? That is what these figures cover.

Other than that, unless Debbie or Don can point to something here, I do not know what the explanation – pardon?

MS DUNPHY: Just read a little further in the red, the extra positions.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. Sorry about that, Mr. Parsons.

We did have a replacement ADM for four months prior to the retirement of the incumbent, so there were two ADM's for Policing and Corrections. Then a new ADM position was created, and an executive position secretary created. In essence, there was an overlap in two new positions created.

MR. PARSONS: In the same heading there, Executive Support, 03, Transportation and Communications, can you give me just the – I notice it is up substantially too, by the way, from $37,300 to $92,300. What would the reasons be for the –

MR. KENNEDY: There are a number there. There was increased travel, as well as a larger executive team. I have to tell you, Mr. Parsons, I am also concerned with that travel budget. It is one that immediately upon getting into my position I had a look at. For example, the deputy minister who just left had four trips planned in May. There was quite a bit of travel going on, and we are looking at that now and saying, is all this travel necessary.

I cannot pinpoint it as being any individual who was travelling a lot. For example I know that oftentimes the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister would travel together, when, quite frankly, I thought that there was no need of that. There was increased travel that immediately became clear to me. We tried to cut down on it somewhat, and I can tell you right now that that effort will certainly be emphasized. I agree with you, that travel is very high.

MR. PARSONS: What was the breakdown, first of all, on the $92,300 that was spent? What was the breakout between Transportation versus Communications?

MR. KENNEDY: Do you have that figure?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, I can answer that, if you wish, or I can just pass it to you?

MR. KENNEDY: No, it is not there.

MS DUNPHY: No, it is not there.

The travel portion is about $75,000.

MR. KENNEDY: Could I see that, please?

MS DUNPHY: Yes. This is just the travel.

MR. PARSONS: It does not matter to us, Minister, if it is more convenient - maybe if the staff person wants to respond with the actual details, if that is of better assistance to you, that is not a problem for us. Sometimes it just expedites, because Ms Dunphy –

MR. KENNEDY: No, the breakdown of travel was $73,605.

MS DUNPHY: Basically, the balance was communications.

MR. KENNEDY: We had, for example, a deputy who travelled for $17,764, an assistant deputy who travelled for $15,844, and another assistant deputy who travelled for $13,910. If you add the three of them together, that is $45,000 there in travel between three people.

MS MICHAEL: Could I ask a question?

CHAIR: Sure, go ahead.

MS MICHAEL: What would have been the nature of that travel, Mr. Kennedy?

MR. KENNEDY: We have, for example, if I just take someone at random here - the former Deputy Minister happens to be first on the list, so I will use him as an example. The first two trips here show the unveiling of the plans for the Corner Brook court house and the swearing in Judge Goodridge. Then in September of last year it appeared to be three trips. There were trips that range anywhere from to Kelowna, BC to Corner Brook and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The trips related to everything from Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meetings to consultations in Wabush. That is the deputy.

If I again just take someone like, Mr. Burrage, for example, his travel is $9,600. Again, I am just taking this because it is here. The Assistant Deputy Minister for the courts and court services travelled everywhere from Kelowna to Yellowknife. Anytime you start traveling like that, it is going to add up.

It is listed as FPT meetings, and I will give you an example, Mr. Parsons. Each year there are about three meetings - this Legal Aid committee meets with about three meetings each year. As Mr. Parsons will remember from his days, this is a continuous thorn, the failure - Ms Michael you have heard this too – the continuous failure of the federal government to provide civil legal aid for women and children. Each year it is the number one priority at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial meetings, yet we have our Deputies and Assistant Deputies meeting two or three times a year to discuss it. Quite frankly, I do not see the point of discussing it anymore. The federal government's position is clear and those are the kinds of meetings that we are going to be cutting out.

There is a very practical issue here too, that when both the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister were gone to Kelowna, who was there to run the office? Mr. Burrage had fairly clear instructions early in his mandate to keep the travel to a necessary level.

That is an example. That is the only explanation I can give you, Mr. Parsons, as to why the travel in this case is so high.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

On the Purchased Services issue there, same one, 06, I notice it went from – not that we are talking big numbers here - but $2,600 up to $12,900. What was the nature of the Purchased Services?

MR. KENNEDY: There was new furniture, Mr. Parsons, additional furniture requirements due to new positions and also the redesign of the Justice reception area. I think that broke down a little bit further to –

MR. PARSONS: That would be 07 wouldn't it, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, $18,800? I am referring to the one above that.

MR. KENNEDY: Oh, I am sorry! You are talking about Purchased Services.

MS DUNPHY: I do not have a breakdown here but that is certainly something we can provide.

MR. PARSONS: Usually, Mr. Chair, too, we ask for a bunch of stuff throughout the meetings. The Chair usually keeps a list of what was to be provided so that at the end of the day the minister knows exactly, he has a readily available list.

CHAIR: Okay.

MR. PARSONS: I take it the 07 is the renovations that took place. I notice out front there you have changed the entrance to the –

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it involves Mr. Parsons, the front lobby, furniture for an ADM and a secretary, a sofa and chair for the former deputy, miscellaneous items and then a desk for the current acting Deputy Minister of Policing Corrections and a chair for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

MR. BURRAGE: Mr. Parsons, if I may, the lobby component of that was $7,509. The total is not the lobby. We got away a little cheaper on the lobby than the total number.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: I will switch over for a little bit now.

If we could come back to 1.1.01, Minister's Office, Supplies. In the revised Budget last year it went up by about $8,000. Was that some kind of a one-time expenditure, because the Budget is $5,200 and the Estimates for this year is $5,200 but the Revised last year was $13,200. Is that some kind of a one time - it is not usual to see that in supplies.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, we have done a lot of digging for that actually thinking the same thing, that it was just one-time. Mostly what we have come up with is just a general restocking of the office. We got some new administration in, some changes that way, but, yes, definitely a one-time thing. Of course, as with anything some of it is just the increased prices and the increased rate.

MS MICHAEL: You are leaving the Budget at $5,200. The Estimate for this year is $5,200.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, that is correct.

MS MICHAEL: So, you are assuming it was a one-time though you are not sure what it was.

MS DUNPHY: Well, like I said there was nothing we could pinpoint specifically that would drive it up, but it was just again mostly a restocking and that sort of thing.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, thank you.

If we could go to 1.2.02, to the next page, page 228, top of the page, the Administrative and Policy Support, under Salaries, a big difference between the revision of last year's Budget and now this year we are up to $1,236,000. Can you give us a bit of a description of what is happening around Salaries? Maybe that has to do with the ADMs that Mr. Kennedy was talking about. I do not know. It was $1,190,700, actually $1,191,000 approximately budgeted last year but revised down to $793,300 and now back up $1,236,000.

MR. KENNEDY: I will deal with the savings first. They are the result of delayed recruitment in the interpretation and the strategy under the Northern Strategic Plan, several vacancies in the accounts office and new employees being hired at lower steps than the previous incumbent. That would allow for the variance in that respect.

In terms then of the variance between 2008-2009 to 2007-2008, there was severance or leave payout included in the restated original budget. The Manager of Public Protection was budgeted under Administration Support last year for approximately $60,000 and this has since been classified and transferred to Adult Corrections Administration. There are new positions related to the family violence court projects. Those are the two variances we have there.

MS MICHAEL: How are you at the moment with regard to your recruitment? Are you almost there?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, when we talked with-

CHAIR: Excuse me, if I could interrupt for a second. I ask officials if they could just identify themselves for the help of Hansard.

MS DUNPHY: Sure, sorry. It is Debbie Dunphy.

We had some discussions with the Director of Human Resources in our department and as you are probably all aware we were very successful last year and we received a lot of positions in the Budget, I think upwards of 150. In speaking with Karen, what is not filled is either currently the process is ongoing or there has been a freeze for one reason or the other; but yes very successful in the recruitment area.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under the same head, subhead 05, Professional Services, they are going up a fair bit in the Estimates for 2008-2009. What are you anticipating there?

MR. KENNEDY: Ms Michael, that is under subhead 05, is it?

MS MICHAEL: That is right, yes.

MR. KENNEDY: That increased funding is being provided for counselling services for the family violence court pilot project.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, that is where it fits.

We know certain things are happening but we do not know where they fit in the budget. That is helpful.

Then sub 10, same area, Grants and Subsidies going up quite significantly in the Estimates for 2008-2009: what would those grants and subsidies be?

MR. KENNEDY: In the 2008-2009, that is increased funding for the community policing grants, funding which has been transferred for the RCMP. I think I have that. There is also, then – let us see, the Newfoundland Search and Rescue is to host a national conference, provide helicopter highland rescue training in the federal agreement and to purchase new equipment. There is the funding for the second year of a three-year federal agreement for specialized rescue training.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, if I just might add, the majority of that increase is offset by 100 per cent federal funding for some of these agreements.

MS MICHAEL: So the revenues down below – yes, I can see - so the revenues relate to that sub-head. Okay, that is great.

What would the provincial revenues be in this head? Where would you be getting provincial revenues from? Because you have $63,000 and consistently, right across, budgeted and revised was the same, and now in the new estimate –

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, that is the revenue we collect for notary publics, commissioner for oaths, those sorts of things, and some other miscellaneous items.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Maybe what I will do is ask one general question and then maybe Mr. Parsons will take over again.

I like to go back and forth from line items to some general questions. It just makes it a bit more interesting, I think.

We were looking at Budget 2007 and in Budget 2007 there was a commitment to implement forty-five recommendations over a three-year period from the Lamer Inquiry, I think for a total of $4.9 million. In 2007-2008 there was $2 million in the Budget to implement some of those recommendations. I was just wondering, Mr. Kennedy, which things in this year's Budget would you attribute directly to the recommendations of the Lamer Inquiry?

MR. KENNEDY: There is actually one fairly significant aspect to this year's Budget. It would come under the Crown's office and there has been a reorganization of the Crown's office. There was a review conducted within the department and it was felt that the department needed to be better organized. There is a new file management system and that file management system will be centralized in St. John's. That will include a number of legal secretaries being hired. We have also looked at the hiring of eight new prosecutors; four to start in October 2007 and four to start in April 2008, with positions to be located in Labrador, Corner Brook, St. John's, and what we call a floater, someone to go around.

There have been monies provided for policy development and long-term planning. Significant money for – this is all with the Crowns now – significant money for the training of prosecutors, such as travelling to conferences and exposing themselves to different ideas and different approaches. One example that comes to my mind is, during the summer the Ontario Crown Attorneys have a number of homicide seminars. They will have search and seizure, and also an articling program, funding will be provided for three articling clerks.

What we have there, for example, is annualized of $862,000, but in terms of this budget, the initiative we have now is, as I have indicated, the creation of a records centre which involves one permanent and two temporary positions for a records centre.

We have a manager of administrative services, one paralegal and rent for Atlantic Place. So for this budget, another $294,700. Now, that is just criminal law or the Crown's office.

Are you asking further than in relation to Legal Aid or other –

MS MICHAEL: Yes, there are other things that are related to the recommendations from Lamer.

MR. KENNEDY: There is continuous funding and training for Legal Aid. In terms of this particular budget, while there is training in general, this goes back to part of the - last year, I think Legal Aid might have been a bit late in getting their training money for Lamer and so there is training money this year for the Lamer Inquiry. That would be the only issue in Legal Aid that would specifically relate to Lamer.

Out of the other recommendations that we have – Don, I do not know if there is anything comes to your mind or where we are on our forty-five recommendations or however many recommendations were on Lamer?

MR. BURRAGE: Well, arising from Lamer, some of these are ongoing costs such as the articling program. We have six article students now, some who work for the Crown and some who work for the Civil Division. That is all with Legal Aid. This is purely Legal Aid; the article positions, additional solicitors, an intake worker who started in July 2007, additional secretarial support, funding for transition of a Legal Aid pamphlet in the French, Innu and Inuit languages, and training and continued education. These are the things that I see that relate to Legal Aid.

Certainly, within the civil division of the Department of Justice there is also provision for article clerks as well which arose out of that.

MS MICHAEL: Do you have a sense of how far along you are, then, with regard to the recommendations, because you have a third year to go in the plan that was here?

MR. KENNEDY: I think when we finish this next stage with the Crown it will be very significant in terms of – for example, this internal review in terms of addressing the possibility of wrongful convictions or miscarriages of justice, there was a concept where there would be, I think the word might have been a pod, where Crowns would be divided into units and there would be four or five Crowns lead by a senior Crown. That Senior Crown would then discuss with them significant cases so that the decision would not be left to one individual Crown or two or three Crowns, there would be a group discussion and then it would work its way to the Senior Crown, so that basically there would be discussion to avoid tunnel vision.

Another point, Ms Michael, I think that is very important - and I do not know if this is online yet, but there is a discussion about putting it online - is the Crown policy manual which has been fully revamped. One of the crucial recommendations that comes out of Lamer and the gap we saw in Lamer, was the failure of the Crowns to address the reasonable possibility of conviction or the reasonable probability of conviction. In other words, what happened was once the police determined there were reasonable grounds, the Crown did not play that significant a role of protecting against the potential miscarriage of justice. Now, in the Crowns Office, that is there. There are disclosure policies that are quite stringent. I feel that, from the Crown's perspective, there are certainly significant factors that have either taken place or are taking place.

When we get to Legal Aid, again I feel that there have been significant steps made. One of the amendments we will be introducing into the House next week will be the right to counsel of choice in homicide trials. That will be significant, not only in protecting the right of the accused person, but also will open Legal Aid lawyers. It will give them more time to spend on other cases.

I think there have been fairly significant steps made. The one difficulty that we are having is trying to quantify miscarriages of justice, because we see, for example, the big ones. What goes on in provincial court on a daily basis, I mean there is really no way to determine that.

One discussion I had had at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meetings this year was perhaps the setting up of provincial, and there are constitutional issues here, but provincial wrongful conviction committees whereby an individual is not simply left to the - again I am not going to use the whim of the government. That would have been my other days, the last six or eight months ago. Basically that there was a buffer in between - if someone says I have been wrongfully convicted well there is a committee or there is a way of reviewing it so.

My proposal was not met with much success from my federal counterparts.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Do you want to go back to you, Mr. Parsons?

MS DUNPHY: I would just like to make a small comment, I guess, in terms of the three-year plan that you were talking about.

I guess when we initially went forward with the costing of the recommendations it was over $5 million total, so we were asked to try and spread this out so it would not be an issue. Some of the things that the minister and the deputy alluded to, I guess, were just a continuation. You know, we had said, okay, lets try to get some of these people hired, lets break it to July and then we will start some in August and some in January. This year we have increased the department's budget again by upwards of $2 million, but again it is just a continuation of some of last year's announcements.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, very much, Ms Dunphy.

MR. PARSONS: Just to go back, some explanation here again, on page 228 out of the Estimates book, I am looking at Administrative and Policy Support. It looks like you have Salaries, $1,236,000. When I go over to the other booklet on departmental details, it seems to be put together differently here. Under this one, Administrative and Policy Support, it shows to be fifteen persons or whatever, positions under that, $720,540. I realize that the staff complement being referred to in the salary details refers to permanent positions, but that is a substantial difference between the permanent positions of $720,540 in the departmental salary details book for that heading versus what we are showing here for salaries of $1,236,000. It is like a $500,000 difference. I just want to understand the structure. I do not know if I am missing something here as to how it is laid out?

MS MICHAEL: What is that forth column on page 169 of the Salary Details, because that is where the money seems to be located. It is called Permanent & Other Adjustments. There is $440,860 in that column.

MS DUNPHY: Some of what goes in there are the new positions that they announced in last year's Budget that were not yet classified, so they do not have a number assigned to them. Therefore, they are not listed specifically. Mr. Parsons, I think I can undertake to give you a better explanation rather than try to fumble through it here.

MR. PARSONS: Yes. In trying to figure it out, when I look at the Estimates and it says Salaries of $1.2 million I do not get any details there as to the number of bodies in Justice in Administration and Policy Support, but when I look to the details I only see fifteen.

MS DUNPHY: Right.

MR. PARSONS: Obviously there is a difference there.

MS DUNPHY: I do know that approximately $180,000 of that is new positions for the family violence corp, which again –

MR. PARSONS: That is true.

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: There is usually so much there for overtime and whatever. If you could provide us with a breakout as to where that half a million dollars, roughly, has gone.

MS DUNPHY: I will certainly undertake that for you.

MR. PARSONS: Just another curiosity more than anything. I notice in your description of 1.2.02, it says, "Appropriations provide for the management and control of the financial, policy and strategic planning activities of the Department." Yet, in 1.2.03 you have broken out Strategic Human Resource Management. I am wondering why Human Resource Management would be given a separate heading from Administrative and Policy Support.

MS DUNPHY: Last year the Human Resource divisions of all of government were completely overhauled and reorganized. That is the name that they have come up with for their Strategic Human Resource Management Division. I guess it is just to express that they are not just about doing job interviews and suspensions, it is more of trying to get into the work planning and workforce planning and a better future look, not just going day-to-day. The strategic planning activities in the Administrative and Policy Support activity, that is more along the lines of where the department is going and what their strategic view is overall, whereas the Human Resource is more of a people type division.

MR. PARSONS: Under that Strategic Human Resource Management piece, 06, Purchased Services, I notice last year about $400,000 was spent. What is the nature of the Purchased Services that you would have for Human Resource Management?

MR. KENNEDY: That is for training, and you can correct me if I am wrong, I think that is incremental funding for – sorry! Debbie will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is incremental funding for learning and development? That is the way that has been described to me.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, that is correct. The Public Service Secretariat has given us approximately $200,000 up front, halfway through the year. The Strategic Human Resource Management Division has to provide a learning and development plan. The PSS provides half of the funding up front and then partway through the year they will review and if we have been successful in spending that first half, they then will give us the second half to do a budget transfer up in the Department of Finance or Executive Council.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Moving on to 229, page 229, Administrative Support, 1.2.05, under the heading Capital, it talks about Property, Furnishings and Equipment of $657,000 last year. Does that tie into the renovations in Justice, or is that somewhere else outside of the department? Again, you have $1.1 million in there for this year. What is intended to be done?

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Parsons, this is additional funding that will relate to the following initiatives. It relates to Property, Furnishings and Equipment, the RNC's cyber-crime unit in terms of child exploitation and internet crime, additional drug officers and a canine unit, including vehicles for the RNC drug squad, communications equipment and it also relates to records management equipment for the Supreme Court.

MR. PARSONS: Rather than break these things out under a different heading - for example you have a section there, Supreme Court - you have just put it all under one catch-all here. Is that usually how it is done?

MS DUNPHY: Traditionally, Capital under the Department of Justice has been pretty much limited to the vehicles for some of the various areas. I guess, over the last few years there has been a shift in how Transportation and Works now move some of their money around. For example, we have a separate activity for the court house in Corner Brook where normally that would probably have been under Transportation and Works. This activity now, because there has been more money allotted for various capital initiatives, I guess - and if I may, the term capital has changed over the years as well. Now we are talking tangible capital assets as opposed to just buildings. In our budget system this breaks down further. We have a separate code for adult corrections, a separate code for Supreme Court, and a separate code for vehicles for the RNC. We can give you a detailed breakout, but it does not roll up, because they do not want to be adding a separate capital heading for each individual division, unless it is a major capital project. For example, as you get further over you will notice the RNC now has a capital activity, because there have been some significant developments over there in the last couple of years.

MR. PARSONS: On 230, Fines Administration, what currently is outstanding in fines?

MS DUNPHY: Minister, if I may?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, go ahead.

MS DUNPHY: I just brushed this up today, which is why you do not have it. My apologies! We are upwards of about $32.4 million of outstanding fines to the Province. Now, I do not have the figure with me, but a significant amount of that, as in most years, would be covered off through an allowance of doubtful accounts, because there is a significant portion of that that will probably be deemed uncollectable.

MR. PARSONS: Can you give me a breakdown, when you get an opportunity, of exactly what that $32.4 million is made up of?

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

MR. PARSONS: There was an initiative a few years ago, I do believe, by Justice to actually try to recover more funds. I am wondering what the success rate of it was, where we have come from.

MS DUNPHY: We have hired four – I am pretty sure it is four – additional collection officers with the Fines Administration Division. A lot of these accounts are very old, as I am sure you are aware, and a lot of them are not necessarily through the model citizen. Many of these are repeat offenders, are people who are trying to work off some of this in our adult correctional facilities, that sort of thing. We have signed on for the federal Set-Off Program, and we have increased our collections efforts. As well, any of the judgements now are registered with the Sheriff's Office.

As to the success of it, again, I am not sure how successful we have been in actually collecting some of the fines, but I think we are certainly trying to increase our efforts and possibly write some of them off, if it is not going to be fruitful.

MR. PARSONS: You can provide us with that list then, can you?

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: By the way, when you finish your career as Director of Finance, you have a career calling in diplomacy. Your comment, model citizens - I have heard other names used.

Moving right along, 231, Civil Law, Professional Services, 05, had budgeted $2.5 million last year, spent $1.85 million and this year budgeted $2.8 million. First of all, I wonder if you could undertake to provide us with a copy.

I understand, by the way - correct me if I am wrong - that these professional services would be under civil law for any lawyers and stuff you would have hired outside of the department to do work for government. Am I correct on that?

MR BURRAGE: Yes, Mr. Parsons, that is correct.

MR. PARSONS: I am wondering if you could provide me with the breakdown as to the names of the law firms and what was paid to each of them for that $1,850,000.

MR BURRAGE: It seems to be an annual question. Yes, we can do that.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Also under the section there, 09, Allowances and Assistance, the $2.618 million, would that include the payouts, for example, for various claims of government, including the Dalton payout?

MR BURRAGE: Yes, that is correct. That is what we sort of cloaking refer to as the contingency fund used to pay out claims against the government. That would include Mr. Dalton's settlement as well.

MR. PARSONS: Can we get that list as well, as to what was paid out by government and to whom?

MR BURRAGE: Yes. Now, in terms of to whom, of course it is paid to law firms typically on behalf of various claims, so it is how much did we pay to each firm. Is that the question?

MR. PARSONS: I take it if you paid a million dollars to firm A, it might be three different cases that you paid on. Can you provide the names of the cases it was paid on or is that privacy issues?

MR BURRAGE: In a couple of cases I know there were concerns by the individuals, for example, if there was somebody who received a settlement for a sexual abuse and has asked that their names not be disclosed.

MR. PARSONS: Understood, and in those cases it not an issue. I am just thinking if it is a matter of public record, for example, a civil dispute whereby firm A dealt with this case and it was settled for this amount and B case was settled for this amount.

MR BURRAGE: Sure, yes.

MR. PARSONS: I fully understand.

MR BURRAGE: That is not a problem, subject to any privacy issues that people might have asked for.

MR. PARSONS: No question whatsoever.

Under the Sheriff's Office, 01, Salaries, I notice it is an increase. You spent $2.570 million there last year up to $3.3 million. I am assuming, Minister, that has to do partly with lease for the security in Labrador in the court up there, the Supreme Court.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Parsons. You are talking about the additional funds now are you?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: The additional funds, we have provided for annualized costs for court security expansion which includes additional staff for Corner Brook and Wabush. Then there is funding to cover step one to step three, an increased overtime budget, so that would equal that figure.

MR. PARSONS: Do all, shall I say, continuing courts, all established courts in the Province now, Provincial and Supreme, have court security?

MR. KENNEDY: It is my understanding, for example, that there was one, if not two, hired for Harbour Grace. I do not know if Don or Debbie can tell me, but the plan had been to ensure that - we know that Happy Valley-Goose Bay certainly got a couple of more. I am not sure of the situation in Wabush right now. The court has been opened again. Legal Aid has an office there, which will be opening, if is not open now. The plan had been to ensure that Sherriff's Officers were in each established court, but I am not sure if that is actually taking place at this point. Do either one of you?

MS DUNPHY: The funding has been provided to allow for Sherriff's Officers in all of the courts. As the minister indicated, the hiring for all of those has not been finalized, but I know, in January, they did a significant recruitment and training exercise. They have, just in the last few weeks, actually moved people out to various locations. As the minister said, we were successful in getting two new positions for the court in Wabush, but I know there is no one there yet. That will probably be covered through travel and overtime from some of the other areas, but they will be undertaking to fill those positions in Wabush.

MR. PARSONS: I am curious: it seems like once you start down a certain road sometimes you cannot get turned around. When the process started, I remember back years ago the Supreme Court Justices wanting guaranteed security in the Supreme Court, and then of course the Provincial Court wanted security. Now that we are getting to the point where we will have security in both Supreme and Provincial Courts in the fixed centres, has there been any approach made that when they do circuit courts they have security with them?

MR. KENNEDY: I know that situation, Mr. Parsons, arose recently, because on March 20 the court will go back, the Provincial Court will return the Sheshatshiu, for the first time in quite some time. I know there were some issues raised there in relation to security. I am not quite certain how that was resolved. It is certainly something we could look into, sir. If there are going to be court circuits, then, to me, it seems logical that if you have a need for security in Corner Brook then you would still have that potential need for security elsewhere.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, and I just wondered where that was because if they have not asked I am sure it is going it is coming down the road.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. The Coast of Labrador, of course, presents special difficulties of its own, but these were issues – when this discussion of Sheshatshiu took place it was pointed out that they have never had court security in terms of Sheriff's Officers on the Coast of Labrador but of course that is always because normally in the court proceedings there will always been an RCMP officer or officers present.

MR. PARSONS: On page 232, Support Enforcement: who is the actual Director now of Support Enforcement?

MR. KENNEDY: Craig Scott.

MR. PARSONS: I notice under that heading, 2.1.03, Family Justice Services Western.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: How much and where is it in there that has been given to Family Justice Services Western?

MR. KENNEDY: Go ahead Debbie, please, if you know the answer.

MS DUNPHY: If memory serves me correctly, the Family Justice Services Western component under the Support Enforcement, there is approximately - $561,000 is what we provide for Family Justice Services and we receive some federal revenue back of about $360,000. I could be off a little there.

Where it is actually located, I know we have someone on contract who does some work from here in St. John's, but they were in the building that recently, I think, they had to vacate in Corner Brook.

MR. PARSONS: I mean, where would I find it here?

MS DUNPHY: My apologies! In the actual Estimates book?

MR. PARSONS: In the Estimates, where would I look, what line would I look at to see where Family Justice is?

MS DUNPHY: It is spread out among all the main objects.

MR. PARSONS: So, it not one grant or whatever?

MS DUNPHY: No, there is some Salaries money and there is some Professional Services money. I can certainly provide you a breakdown if you wish.

MR. PARSONS: No, no! I am just curious. I did not know if there was a certain amount and it was in one little pot.

MR. KENNEDY: Under the 06 heading, Mr. Parsons, for example, there is $50,000 increased budget for the new rental agreement. Is that in St. John's, Debbie?

MS DUNPHY: That is in Corner Brook.

MR. KENNEDY: That is in Corner Brook.

MR. PARSONS: That was my next question. Under 06, Purchased Services, $487,000, what would be the nature of those purchases?

MS DUNPHY: We have a $200,000 Contingency Fund that Treasury Board has provided us. We cannot access it any time. We have to go to them for it. Basically, what often happens with this program and also with our Victim Services Program, a lot of times late in December or early in January, the federal government comes to them and says: other provinces have not spent all their money, we have some extra money, is there anything you can spend it on before the end of the March? Of course, when that situation is put to us, we have to find the money in our budget first so that we can spend it. Now we have this contingency fund established so that we can go to Treasury Board and say, the federal government can provide us with $50,000 to do a project, our people can do it, can we use this money in the contingency fund in order to do it, and the feds will reimburse?

MR. PARSONS: How much of the $487,900 is that contingency fund?

MS DUNPHY: $200,000.

MR. PARSONS: $200,000. And the rest are things that the minister referred to, $50,000 I believe for rent –

MS DUNPHY: For rent and just the regular – we pay the CMHI, I cannot recall what the initials stand for at this moment, but they do some kind of social work that we contract out to those people. They do some of that work. They are not our staff, but we pay them.

MR. PARSONS: On that page, under Access to Information, salaries, how many people right now work for that division? There is $600,200 there. How many positions are included in that?

MS DUNPHY: We have seven permanent positions and we also have two temporary privacy analyst positions that we were given initially when this program was first up and running, so there are nine. There is also a temporary lawyer position that is with that division as well, so there are actually ten positions in the division. Do you need to know if they are all filled?

MR. PARSONS: I was looking – okay, there it is. I could not find it, actually. I have it now. It says seven positions under Access to Information.

MS DUNPHY: Right, and there are three more that are temporary, a lawyer and two more senior policy planning and research analysts.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I will turn it back over to Ms Michael now.

MS MICHAEL: Is there anybody else on the committee first who wants to – okay, thank you.

Let me adjust my thoughts here now. I hate to bring you back, but if we could just go back to 1.2.03, to that head? It is on 228. I think I know the answer to this but because – have you got it? Page 228, 1.2.03. I have discovered, in asking questions, that employee benefits can mean even different things even within the same department. It is not the same under each head, I have discovered. In this one, where it says, "Appropriations provide for the management and control of departmental human resource activities", which departments is it talking about, Employee Benefits, subhead 02, because it is quite high? It is $238,200 and last year it was revised to $250,000 and this year it is budgeted again for $238,200. What are those employee benefits in this category, because that is what I find is different everywhere.

MS DUNPHY: Ms Michael, what is normally budgeted under that particular heading in human resources is the Workers' Compensation payments that we pay out for the year which is why it is significantly high.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

It is the same, I take it, in your budget as well, that it means different things in different heads doesn't it?

MS DUNPHY: Yes. Again, this is an area that has sort of evolved I guess in the last few years. Normally we used to charge a lot of registration fees. Any law fees we pay in different divisions that is where it gets charged. Now the focus on training the last couple of years, we have kind of made a shift and our training costs now are mainly charged to the Purchased Services activity. In our Employee Benefits, except for the HR which is the Worker's Comp, most of it is for a registration fee or a professional fee or a conference.

MS MICHAEL: This would be the only exception that you are -

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, very much. I can mark that one off.

2.2.01, Criminal Law – this is, "Appropriations provide for Crown Attorneys at all Court levels for the prosecution…" Obviously most of the salaries in this would be for Crown Attorneys I would take it.

MR. KENNEDY: That is correct, isn't it, Debbie?

MS DUNPHY: Yes, and secretaries.

MR. KENNEDY: And secretaries also.

MS MICHAEL: Does everybody have it?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, we do.

MS MICHAEL: So, in subhead 01, Salaries, this year going up substantially to $5,426,400, what is the explanation for that? Is there an increase in the number of Crown Attorneys?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, I assume that we will see that there is a saving. We had seven new Crown Attorneys, I think, who were approved in 2007-2008, but I think - and Debbie you can correct this - they will now become full-time this year. Is that correct?

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: Through the hiring process.

MS DUNPHY: Right. I guess, as the minister discussed earlier with some of the Lamer recommendations, now it is the full year for some of these attorneys because some of them were probably not hired until late in the year and we probably were not provided the budget last year, but for only maybe six months. Now that cost is annualized. Of course, the majority of these solicitors are senior solicitors and they are high on the scale.

Again, as the minister indicated, it is to cover some of the new positions established through the Phoenix report which was the record centre and manager of admin services for the Crown as well.

MS MICHAEL: Where are Crown attorneys mainly located?

MR. KENNEDY: In St. John's, I do not know the exact numbers, but there are at least a dozen in St. John's. That is a rough guess because we have a special prosecution unit with three and then we have the Crowns. We have the Director of Public Prosecutions and the assistant.

In Clarenville, for example, there would be one. In Marystown there would be one. In Gander, I think, there are probably three. In Grand Falls there are one or two. In Corner Brook there would be three or four. Labrador has quite a big office in that in Happy Valley-Goose Bay there would definitely be three or four and then in Wabush there is one for sure. In Stephenville, if I remember correctly, there is one. I do not know if I have them all but that –

MS MICHAEL: No, no, just to give me an idea of the location. Thank you very much.

MR. KENNEDY: In Harbour Grace, for example, the Harbour Grace court would be serviced out of St. John's and the circuit courts, for example, in Placentia would be serviced out of St. John's.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Subhead 05, Professional Services: in the revision for 2007-2008 there seems to be a fairly big blip there from $109,000 up to $209,000. What was the reason for that?

MR. KENNEDY: One of the recommendations that came out of Lamer - if I understand your question correctly, you are talking about why is there an increase?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR. KENNEDY: One of the issues that arose in Lamer was the use of what I will refer to as external prosecutors. In other words, there was a recognition that during some cases you might be better off to bring in a lawyer from the private bar, to hire that lawyer to conduct the prosecution. For example, as we speak, there is a prosecution going on – I do not if they are in court right now - in the case of Oliver where there is an external prosecutor being hired.

It was accepted in Lamer that there are certain cases where it might be worthwhile, whether you do it for a specific expertise or there is a particular issue within the department, that you might go to outside counsel and what we would refer to as external prosecutorial assistance. That is what we are talking about there. The case I am currently talking about where there is a prosecutor is the case of R. v. Joseph Oliver.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Again - obviously this would be an easy one to answer - under subhead 07, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, somewhere there were a lot of furnishings or equipment bought in 2007. Could I have an explanation for that because the budget was $20,000 but the revised was $111,600?

MR. KENNEDY: Debbie, could you –

MS DUNPHY: Certainly.

MR. KENNEDY: It appears to be that $91,600 is the difference here, is it?

MS DUNPHY: Yes. When we first met with the officials at budgeting we had some property, furnishings and equipment asks in our budget requests for 2008-2009. Because we knew we were going to have some significant savings in a couple of areas, the Corner Brook courthouse being the main one, they suggested to us that if we could get any of the things that we needed - some of this was for a new set up in Wabush, a couple of replacement photocopiers and some furniture for the new prosecutors. They suggested if we could use some of that savings and buy it out of the old year that they would let us transfer that money. That is why there was a higher expenditure anticipated for last year.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

If we could turn to head 2.3.02, Commissions of Inquiry. In 2007-2008 there was nothing budgeted and then a revision to $219,900. What is that relating to? Which inquiry would that be relating to?

MR. KENNEDY: That would be to the Green review, is it?

MS DUNPHY: No, most of the change in the budget is for ER-PR.

MS MICHAEL: It is for the Cameron Inquiry?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: There are five categories where there was nothing budgeted and then there was a revision, so would all that be the Cameron Inquiry?

MS DUNPHY: My mistake, Minister, you are right. A portion of that is –

MR. KENNEDY: The Green review. There is a portion there of approximately - the constituency allowance review of $223,900 which cost a total of $692,700, but specifically out of this there is $223,900 referred to in these heads.

MS MICHAEL: So, it would be both of those inquiries.

Under Professional Services, subhead 05, is that all of the legal professional services?

MR. KENNEDY: There are, for example, salaries, Ms Michael, that are included. I am not sure, Debbie, if the salaries for the commission staff, the ER-PR staff – but in terms of the way the Professional Services break down, Madam Justice Cameron made a decision I think around October, in early October, not only in relation to standing but in relation to funding. It is my understanding that the funding that relates here – we have the commission counsel, Mr. Coffey and Ms Chaytor. Ms Chaytor has a number of individuals working with her. Then, Mr. Crosbie is funded for the patients, and Jennifer Newbury from Martin Whalen Hennebury & Stamp is funded for the Cancer Society.

It is my understanding, and I could be corrected if I am wrong, that the other parties to the inquiry are, for lack of a better term, paying their own counsel.

MS MICHAEL: So, it is the Cancer Society and the patients that are –

MR. KENNEDY: Cancer Society, patients and commission counsel are the ones.

MS MICHAEL: And commission counsel.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

MS DUNPHY: Just a comment, I guess, Minister and Ms Michael. The Professional Services activity also includes some of the media communications that they have hired. As well, some of the information technology costs have been budgeted under the Professional Services..

MR. KENNEDY: Ms Michael, for example, if you are looking for a – we have heard numbers in the last few days, but I actually have the numbers of March 31 of this year, in terms of what it has cost for each counsel. In any event, that is the way these figures break down.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

Want to turn it over?

MR. PARSONS: I will start right here. I will have to come back to it a little later, but I am a little bit nosier than that.

MS MICHAEL: I know that.

MR. PARSONS: Can you provide us with a breakdown on the $219,900 for salaries, who got paid and who got paid what?

MR. KENNEDY: If you are looking in terms of lawyers, Mr. Parsons, I can do that for you. I can tell you as of March 31, for example, what lawyers received what. It is a lot more than $219,000. I think that these numbers sort of go over or there is an overlap there.

MR. PARSONS: I would think there is a distinction here, obviously, between a salaried person and Professional Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, there is; than Professional Services..

MS DUNPHY: Yes. The commission staff would be included in the salaries. Now, Justice Cameron –

MR. KENNEDY: Her salary would be a judicial salary.

MR. PARSONS: That is right. She is paid by the feds.

MR. KENNEDY: Unlike Commissioner Lamer, there would be no – Commissioner Lamer, because he was a retired judge, he was actually paid, as was his counsel, Mr. Ratushny and as was commission counsel, Nick Avis. Rosellen Sullivan, however, was junior counsel. She was with the Department of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: That is right.

MS DUNPHY: For example, for the salaries, when these projections were done, I guess - we have some actual numbers now up to the end of March as the minister indicated, so the actual cost of salaries for the staff is right now at about $193,000.

MR. KENNEDY: $193,000, yes.

MS DUNPHY: Do you actually want the names of the staff?

MR. PARSONS: If you can, yes, who is who. Is there any problem with that?

MR. KENNEDY: No, I am just not sure who would be – I know there is a finance person.

MS DUNPHY: There is certainly no problem to get it for you, if we are permitted to.

MR. PARSONS: That is what I am saying. I do not need it today but if you would undertake to provide me with that –

MR. KENNEDY: I cannot see any problem. I mean, these would be people who would either be sitting in the room like in the Lamer Inquiry.

MR. PARSONS: The breakdown on the - you are saying so much of this, up to March, was for the Green Report – the breakout as to what was Green, what was Cameron, and who got paid what under what.

MR. KENNEDY: I can give you the 2007-2008 cost. There was still a miscellaneous – for some reason there was $8300 left over from Lamer or some work that Justice Marshall was doing with a review. I do not think there was a charge from him but he had counsel. The Green Review – the MHA constituency allowance for 2007-2008 was $223,900.

MS DUNPHY: Mr. Parsons, we certainly have that breakdown, Minister, of, say, what Chief Justice – not Chief Justice Green but the various people he had hired. We have that breakdown and we can certainly provide that.

MR. KENNEDY: He had a number of people hired, yes.

MR. PARSONS: That is no problem, you can provide it. Like you say, the other portion of that would be for Cameron Inquiry counsel, the same thing, whatever your figures are.

MR. KENNEDY: I can give you those now if you want them, in terms of the counsel who have standing and funding, I can give those to you now as of March 31^st. Smith Coffee or Bernard Coffey as of March 31^st was paid $412,600. Cox Palmer, which is where Sandra Chaytor works, and she had a couple of other lawyers, I think, work with her; as of March 31^st she had been paid $380,300. So Commission counsel, as of March 31^st , have been paid $792,900. Ches Crosbie Law Office, as of March 31^st, had been paid $225,040. This could be other lawyers, Mr. Parsons, than Mr. Crosbie. I am just saying his office was paid. I think that he has also had $66,000. We do not have the numbers right now for Mr. Coffey and Ms Chaytor but I think for Mr. Crosbie there was $66,000 in April. You can add that one on. We just do not have it for the others.

Jennifer Newbury for the Cancer Society has been paid, to this point, $101,920. That is as of March 31^st.

MR. PARSONS: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: I know you asked a question earlier today, and I know my officials are going to say, do not be volunteering information, but I tend not to listen. The numbers we have, just to put this is in perspective for you, Mr. Parsons, because I know you did raise it earlier today, to put it in perspective, we know - because these numbers are all public money, so it is out there; it can be found - we know that you raised Mr. Avis. Mr. Avis, for three years, in the Lamer Inquiry - times were lost because Commissioner Lamer was sick - Mr. Avis was paid, over three years, dealing with three cases, $1,059,000.84.

Then, because you also raised the point, Commissioner Lamer had his own counsel come in from Ottawa, and I am not sure if this includes disbursements in everything; this was Mr. Ed Ratushny, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. This includes disbursements also, Debbie? Because they flew back and forth from Ottawa, and Mr. Ratushny was paid a total of $826,043.

MR. PARSONS: How about Lamer?

MR. KENNEDY: Commissioner Lamer was paid a total of $778,403. Now, we would have to break that down into disbursements because I think if that includes disbursements it would have been fairly high disbursements. So, what you are looking at there in total, as I have indicated, Rosellen Sullivan was there but she was being paid by the Department of Justice at the time. The figures are also available, Mr. Parsons, for all of the other counsel who were paid, including my law firm.

MR. PARSONS: Can you get me those, too?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, do you want me to start with the top and go down?

MR. PARSONS: Sure.

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, Barry Walsh & Associates; it would have been Jim Walsh. He was paid $326,701, but Mr. Walsh had clients during both the Parsons and Druken phases.

MR. PARSONS: What was Walsh's again?

MR. KENNEDY: It was $326,701.

MR. PARSONS: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: We have it broken down by year, if you want that.

Benson∙Myles: Mark Pike was there for a number of different lawyers, and David Buffett was also there for - excuse me, Mark Pike was there representing policemen. I can't remember if he was there during the Parsons phase. He was definitely there during the Druken phase, representing Staff Sergeant Des Peddle, and David Buffett was there representing Lieutenant Gerard Kieley during one phase. So, Benson∙Myles was paid a total of $404,268. Jeff Budden, from Budden, Morris, was there representing Cindy Young, the daughter, if I remember correctly, of Brenda Young's family, during the Druken inquiry, part of the inquiry, and he was paid $34,818.

I see, then, from Clarke Boyne - and the only thing I can think of there is that is when Brian Casey from Nova Scotia was here; he had changed firms in the middle of the inquiry, because when he initially started he was there with Joel Pink, but Boyne Clarke, if I am correct on that, shows $2,897 and that was in the year 2006-2007.

Bill Collins and his firm, who were there during the Randy Druken phase, where paid $203,959. Ches Crosbie, Lois Hoegg was there representing the Public Prosecutions' Office, and she was paid $234,021.

John Dawson was there representing Wayne Gorman during the Randy Druken phase, and he was paid $55,202. Then we have Si Halyk; he was representing Cathy Knox, and I don't know if his disbursements coming in from Saskatchewan were paid. He lived in Saskatchewan.

MS DUNPHY: Normally (inaudible) disbursements.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Halyk was paid - yes, but I don't know, coming in out-of-Province, he would have been…. In any event, he was paid $320,788 and they were involved in one case, the Parson's case.

Lewis Sinnott represented Bernie Coffey, and I am trying to remember if they represented anyone else. Coffey would have been involved in both the David Hurley, they were involved in definitely Parsons and also, I guess, Druken; they were paid $330,171. Brian Casey was there representing the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary police association. He was working with Joel Pink at the time. He was paid $264,913 and he would have been there through both the Druken and Parsons phases. Poole Althouse, there is a bill for $1,224. I don't know who would have been there, how Poole Althouse would have been involved.

I have gone through Mr. Ratushny. Roebothan McKay, $10,021, they must have been involved with one of the police officers in giving some advice. I can't really tell you; I don't remember them being present.

Sack Goldblatt, that was a lawyer by the name of Melvyn Green from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, and James Lockyer, who both came down here at different points during the systemic phase, were paid $26,033.

Simmonds Kennedy O'Quinn, that would have been both myself, Mr. Simmonds and Erin Breen. We were present throughout the Dalton, Parsons, and as observers during the Druken phase, and were paid $320,429.

Then we have a stipend (inaudible), which would be Commissioner Lamer, and we have a Steven Travis who I have no idea, for $1,250, who he would have been.

So, that is the breakdown. It is over a four year period because some people billed into 2006-2007. For example, I notice with my firm there were no billings in the firm in the year 2006-2007 whereas other firms, Lewis Sinnott, billed $10,000 in 2006-2007, as did Jim Walsh.

MR. PARSONS: The total of all of those plus Lamer, Ratushny and Avis, the total cost on legal (inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: The total cost, what we are looking at here, if you want it broken down – do you want it broken down by year or total?

MR. PARSONS: No, no, the total is fine.

MR. KENNEDY: The total cost is $5,236,490.

MR. PARSONS: And that is exclusive of any support staff, we will call it, secretarial, rental (inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, but there would be disbursements. I cannot tell you, for example, Mr. Parsons, Commissioner Lamer, what his disbursements would have been. I don't know if Mr. Casey's disbursements were paid coming from Nova Scotia. I don't know if Mr. Halyk, but I can also do it for by year. In 2003-2004 I can give you the total cost of the Lamer Inquiry.

MR. PARSONS: I appreciate you going through that. Maybe Debbie can provide us with a breakout of what you just said, because that would also show the years; as well, the other costs, rental costs, what -

MR. KENNEDY: The total cost, to put it in perspective, what I have here listed as the total cost of Lamer, is $7,617,257.

MR. PARSONS: And that is exclusive of any compensation that was paid, correct?

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it would be, and –

MS DUNPHY: Just the inquiry itself.

MR. PARSONS: Just the inquiry itself, it has nothing to do with any compensation -

MR. KENNEDY: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Parsons, no.

MR. PARSONS: - (inaudible) Dalton, I believe, was $850,000. There was further payment to Gregory Parsons.

What was the total compensation paid as a result of that?

MR. KENNEDY: Part of it was paid - with Parsons, for example, when your government was in, there was approximately $600,000 dollars paid there. Parsons ended up at $1.3 million. Druken was what, two point…?

MS DUNPHY: Two million and thirty thousand.

MR. KENNEDY: Then Dalton was $750,000, correct?

OFFICIAL: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: So you add that up and then you have your total cost to the system there.

MR. PARSONS: So that is two, three, you are looking at about four million there roughly in compensation.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: That does not include - do you have a figure on the price tag associated with implementation of Lamer's recommendations? I realize you are not through this yet, you are still working through, like, you mentioned here today information management systems -

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, but the implementation, Mr. Parsons, if you look at just the changes made to the police, we have not talked about that today because (inaudible) Ms Michael earlier, a lot of them have been done. I mean, the implementation costs in the police alone were significant. The Crowns, Legal Aid, you are talking millions.

MS DUNPHY: Just over five.

MR. PARSONS: Just over $5 million?

MS DUNPHY: Just over $5 million.

Last year, again, I guess, I do not have the number in front of me but when we talked about costing the recommendations last year it was over the $5 million mark: $2 million last year, $2.3 million this year, and the final $750,000 would be next year. It is just an annualization but it was over $5 million.

MR. KENNEDY: To put Lamer into perspective, there was $2.795 million in 2003-2004, $2.871 million in 2004-2005, $1.616 million in 2005-2006, and $334,325 in 2006-2007.

MR. PARSONS: Again, just to put it all in perspective, we had - and I don't mean to simplify it like this because I realize the Lamer Inquiry was more than about three individuals and three wrongful convictions; it talked about systemic problems that existed in the system.

MR. KENNEDY: No, the systemic phase was very - I can tell you, we spent a week on the systemic issues. The systemic issues were identified throughout, we did written briefs, but in terms of the actual calling of systemic evidence, it was a week, two weeks at the most.

MR. PARSONS: So, under the –

MR. KENNEDY: Dalton only took two or three weeks, because it only (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Under the current one, Cameron, for example, we are dealing with a situation where albeit they are not being dealt with individually, we had hundreds of people affected by the hormone receptor piece. So far we are saying we have spent, according to these figures here, $2.6 million on Cameron.

MS DUNPHY: Actually, it is less. Those were the projected amounts and the minister has the total there of what we spent to date.

MR. PARSONS: I am looking at your revised amount there for 2007-2008.

MS DUNPHY: Yes, that is what we estimated at the time that we would spend in 2007-2008, before the Estimates book was printed.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, so it is not revised, actually, it is estimates.

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

MR. KENNEDY: What I am giving you is actual figures.

MS DUNPHY: The numbers the minister has is actual, which is just over $2 million, I believe, Minister?

MR. KENNEDY: What I am seeing here, yes, it is $2 million.

Also, Mr. Parsons, an Estimate came in with one of the recent lawyers seeking an extension. That was – I forget the figure now, but up until July or November it was not as significant in terms of these numbers. Of course, when you are comparing this, then what we have to look at, as the Premier reiterated again today, he talked about liability, so the amount of monies that will be paid out in this will be very significant.

MR. PARSONS: That is right, and I would think Mr. Crosbie is nowhere on the chart here yet in terms of what the liability issue might potentially be.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know where that is. The cost of this inquiry, not only the implementation but the cost of this, the ER-PR inquiry, when we actually get to compensating the victims, will be - I do not think the Parsons, Dalton, Druken figures will….

MR. PARSONS: I think I asked, Ms Dunphy, on 05. there, that you would provide the breakdown of those figures now as to what has been paid to date to whom?

MS DUNPHY: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: I know that particularly was not what we are dealing with today, Mr. Parsons, but I felt, since this issue was out there, and issues have been raised, it is better to be totally up front with it, and here are all the numbers and let's –

MR. PARSONS: It was either today or a Freedom of Information Request.

MR. KENNEDY: This is public money; I think the public have a right to know.

MR. PARSONS: This is faster.

MS MICHAEL: Exactly.

Thank you.

Subhead 2.3.04, Human Rights, again coming to the salary line, 01., a big jump there. Is this just bringing things up to where they should be, because of vacancies, or are there new positions being filled? We have gone from just over $300,000 up to $677,900.

MR. KENNEDY: Ms Michael, you and I had met and discussed Human Rights, I think.

MS MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: I don't remember the date of that meeting but, if I remember, that was in December. Does that sound right?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, it sounds right.

MR. KENNEDY: In any event, around mid-January I discovered that we had a huge backlog at the Human Rights Commission. I can tell you quite frankly that I was not very pleased and we set about right away trying to rectify this matter.

There have been a number of contract lawyers hired. We do not have enough space for them. We have investigators on. There are new permanent positions being hired. You know, we felt it was necessary to get to this, and that is where we are right now in terms of monies required.

MS MICHAEL: I have to say, Minister, I am delighted to know that. I am very pleased to know that.

MR. KENNEDY: So we are trying to clean it; we are trying to fix it up.

MS MICHAEL: You are trying to clean that up, right.

I don't have any more questions under that one; everything else is fairly stable, I think, besides the salaries. Where are they all located, though? You said that you did have space problems.

MR. KENNEDY: What is happening is, we have a rental space. They are up in the - is it the Crosbie Building, I think, they are located?

MS DUNPHY: The Beothuck Building.

MR. KENNEDY: The Beothuck Building, they are located, and we rented more space but it did not become available until May 1 and it is my understanding that renovations are now taking place to make it – we had lawyers up there working out of boardrooms, lawyers working at home, but we are starting to get the situation, I feel, under control.

MS MICHAEL: So that is not reflected in the estimated budget for this year, is it, the new rental and everything?

MS DUNPHY: No, Ms Michael, it is not, but we feel that it – some of the new positions the minister alluded to, I guess, a couple of them are only temporary, to try to clear up the backlog, and we will review again, I guess, when the next budget discussions – talk – but we feel there were enough savings elsewhere in the department to be able to cover the incremental rate.

MS MICHAEL: Okay.

I am not complaining about that one. I am very glad to see it.

The next head then, 2.4.01, Salaries: it looked like you had a plan in the Budget for 2007-2008 that you did not maybe fill positions that you were expecting to fill and you are going to budget for those budgets now in 2008-2009, because you have gone back up to $485,800 as the estimate.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. There were two positions that – again, Debbie, correct me if I am wrong, but we had two employees who were working elsewhere and we had only backfilled one of the positions, I guess, and now we will fill them.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Under subhead 06, Purchases Services, you are anticipating a purchase of something here under services because you are budgeting $15,400. What are you anticipating there?

MS DUNPHY: That is for the legislative counsel I guess, in consultation -I think Mr Mackenzie may be aware - to host a national conference for legislative counsel. As well I think the House is co-hosting two events at the one time.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MS DUNPHY: That is one-time funding just for that purpose.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I remember hearing about that when we were doing pre-budget discussions. Thank you.

3.1.01, Supreme Court.

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry?

MS MICHAEL: 3.1.01, Supreme Court: under subhead 05, there seems to be a big increase in the Professional Services for this year's Budget.

MR. KENNEDY: What we are doing, Ms Michael, is that there are information management problems at both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal that result from, quite frankly, a lack of space, antiquated facilities whereby files are literally kept in every corner and every crevice. There is a concerted effort ongoing to secure those files. The term is called IMCAT, the information, management, courts – in any event it deals with information management within the courts. These funds are required for the implementation of the Records Management Strategy.

MS MICHAEL: Again, a good thing.

Mr. Parsons, do you want to ask anything further about that because you did have some concerns about the security of files et cetera?

MR. PARSONS: No.

MS MICHAEL: Very good. I am going by questions you asked earlier on in the week. We have been at too many of these together. God help me, I am starting to get inside of his mind. I know how his mind-

MR. PARSONS: God help you.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, that is what I said.

So, 3.2.01, that is pretty straightforward.

I do not have a lot left. In this one, 3.3.01, Court Facilities, "Appropriations provide for the planning, design and construction of court facilities," I am presuming this must cover both Corner Brook and Lab West, does it?

MR. KENNEDY: Are you talking about the $250,000?

MS MICHAEL: Well, the $250,000 I think is Corner Brook, is it, or am I wrong?

MR. KENNEDY: No, it is not. The $250,000, there are monies in this year's – wait now. These are savings. There was less work completed on the Corner Brook courthouse than was anticipated this year.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so you are holding it, you have brought it over. What about under Purchased Services? It was budgeted last year, $11,300,000, revised to $3,700,000, and now back up to the $17,293,700?

MR. KENNEDY: Debbie can correct me if I am wrong, but one of the difficulties that – I do not know if this relates to the cost of the courthouse. The increased cost with this courthouse had been projected initially to be $13 million and now it is up to $20 million.

MS MICHAEL: Where, in Corner Brook?

MR. KENNEDY: In Corner Brook, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Really? Wow!

MS DUNPHY: Yes, it is mainly a cash flow, kind of moving it from one – it did not get spent this year, but it still has to be done.

I guess the other $250,000: we want to look at St. John's. It is not planning money, it is nothing like that, it is just we want to look at what the needs are and what our options are, in terms of –

MR. KENNEDY: Yes. To elaborate on that, Mr. Parsons and Ms Michael, basically, we looked at the courts throughout the Province, and Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls, Grand Bank and Goose Bay all have good court facilities. The St. John's facilities are a little bit antiquated. There is a beautiful courthouse down there in Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, but we are looking now at the possibility of a new combined court facility for Provincial Court and Supreme Court, much like Corner Brook. This $250,000 budgeted this year is for what I would refer to as a needs and options assessment. It is not pre-planning, it is not approved. We are simple saying, let us have a look at the viability and feasibility of this potential facility.

MS MICHAEL: A related question, not with regard to Corner Brook and St. John's: we have money in the budget for the design and planning for the facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, we do.

MS MICHAEL: When is the hope to actually start construction? In the next budget, or have you thought that much ahead? I am sure you have.

MR. KENNEDY: We will be into, I think it is $300,000. Is it $300,000? I am trying to remember correctly; I think it is $300,000.

MS MICHAEL: I think it is $300,000, yes.

MR. KENNEDY: What we are looking at is a separate facility that would have almost three wings.

Ms Michael, the difficulty we ran into in Happy Valley-Goose Bay when we visited there, you had the RCMP holding cells, and it was a big area, and there might have been eight or ten cells but they were all kept together. So we have different units to deal with people with various needs, and we are hoping that by the time we get to the next budget that we would move to seek monies for the construction of that facility.

MS MICHAEL: That facility is specifically the facility for women and youth with mental health issues.

MR. KENNEDY: Well, no, there will be actually three. There will be youth because of the situation that involves the young offender or the young person, excuse me, in the holding cell in Goose Bay, who was held for eight days. Then we had the situation with the two ladies and the response to the civilian – what is Barry called? - the Citizens' Representative report, but also what we found there, Ms Michael, and when we went through the facility, there was one room in the Happy Valley – or, excuse me, in the hospital there - so that if you had a person with complex needs they either had to hold them in the cell, and again particularly if someone was suicidal, because they could not hold them in the hospital. This was in a particular area within the hospital, so this would be for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system, who are arrested under the Mental Health Act, that there would be a secure facility so that we would not have to go through holding them in a holding cell when their needs are certainly more complex.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

So, with regard to low-risk female offenders - I am trying to get a sense - are you saying that you would have a facility that will have sections to it, and all of the needs that have been identified in Happy Valley-Goose Bay are going to be covered by…?

MR. KENNEDY: This will be a remand centre. This is not meant to be a long-term facility.

MS MICHAEL: No, no.

MR. KENNEDY: This would be a remand centre. For example, the two situations that arose were ladies who were held pending court.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

MR. KENNEDY: Those were both situations that arose, so this will be a remand, a short-term holding -

MS MICHAEL: That is all that is planned for there?

MR. KENNEDY: That is all the plans for that right now, yes.

MS MICHAEL: Okay, so we still have women who would be longer term having to come down to the Island.

MR. KENNEDY: Well, we are hoping now, and we have not specifically addressed this, but in the prison review if you have any particular concerns then we can certainly give you the names of the consultants, if you wish, who are conducting the prison review. We have not really ruled anything out. We are looking at Her Majesty's Penitentiary and elsewhere, but if you have particular concerns you want addressed we will give you….

MS MICHAEL: I would like that very much.

Will those consultants be looking at the Clarenville facility?

MR. KENNEDY: Primarily what has been identified with the Auditor General's report, and from everything we see, the primary difficulties have been identified with Her Majesty's Penitentiary, but if you want to contact either Mr. Burrage and get the names, or we will certainly put you in contact, we have no difficulty. There are two people who do it. Well, actually, we have added a third person; I don't know if this is announced yet. Simonne Poirier, she was an assistant superintendent or superintendent at the Nova Institute, that is a female institute in Truro, Nova Scotia.

MS MICHAEL: Right.

MR. KENNEDY: Greg Brown is also there, and Terry Carlson, former executive director on the John Howard Society. Terry will also be working on this committee.

MS MICHAEL: Wonderful.

Well, I will probably have my researcher get in touch with Mr. Burrage and get the contact information, because we would like to (inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: So you can deal with Ms Poirier directly or whatever.

MS MICHAEL: Right, that would be great.

Okay, I think I will turn it back now.

MR. PARSONS: I would like to go back for a second to page 233, under Criminal Law, 2.2.01., the Purchased Services there under 06. was $806,300, came in at $775,000, and is now budgeted at $939,000.

Am I correct in assuming that those Purchased Services there would be for private lawyers who would be hired to perform prosecutorial services?

MR. KENNEDY: No, that is, in fact, Mr. Parsons - I know you had just left the room - the hiring of external prosecutorial assistants, we will call it, that comes under the 05. Professional Services. The Purchased Services actually relates to an increase in Atlantic Place costs in terms of the courts; it is one of the reasons. Just to give you some numbers - and I know everyone wants to get out of here - one of the things we are looking at in a new court facility in St. John's, we are paying approximately $2 million a year in rentals between Atlantic Place and other court facilities. So, if you take that over thirty years you are starting to get your numbers together, so Atlantic Place is really an expensive - and Debbie might have the actual number. I think it is between $1.5 million and $2 million for rental at Atlantic Place.

MR. PARSONS: So the full $775,000 last year was for Atlantic Place rental under Purchased Services?

MS DUNPHY: No, Mr. Parsons, some of that is also for witness costs; they get a meal stipend, I guess, and also some travel cost to bring witnesses in.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

Under Professional Services then, the $209,000, I take it that would be the purchase – I am thinking of a situation, for example, in circuit courts like Port aux Basques and Burgeo, that I am familiar with, usually a Crown prosecutor would come out, if they did not have their own Crown prosecutor, they would sometimes hire - David Mills is one that comes to mind. He used to do some Crown work. Is there much of that now? Is that what the $209,000 would be for?

MR. KENNEDY: I don't think there is as much any more with the circuit courts, but the example I used, Mr. Parsons, was the case that is ongoing now. There is a murder case ongoing, the Worthman–Lockyer murder, where Joseph Oliver has been charged. Jim Walsh has been hired by the Public Prosecution Service to prosecute that case. He has with him a Crown attorney, a regular Crown attorney. I don't know the exact reason as to why they went outside, but one of the recommendations from the Lamer report was at times you could look at outsourcing in certain cases to bring a different lens to the examination of the case. I don't know if that is the reason it was done here in this case but I do know, for example, that is what we are talking about there when you talk about external services.

MR. PARSONS: Okay.

On the same page, 2.3.01., Legal Aid, the Grants and Subsidies, the $12 million, I take it that is our share of what we put in to pay for Legal Aid services in the Province? I understand we –

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, just one second now. We are in 10?

MR. PARSONS: Page 233.

MR. KENNEDY: Are you talking specifically about the variance in the budget?

MR. PARSONS: No, I just notice last year it was $9,787,000.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Grants and Subsidies, that also involves some of the budget initiatives. For example, this includes the establishment of the Legal Aid Office in Labrador City–Wabush, which, I don't remember, it was announced the other day in the House, I think we said it was $200,000 or between $200,000 and $300,000.

The mental health project has been expanded to include the – because of the new powers under the Mental Health Act there has been, I think it might be just a paralegal and a social worker, Child, Youth and Family Services in Corner Brook, and also the intake officer in relation to the criminal justice system task force. That is everything.

I am trying to remember the number, Mr. Parsons, but our contribution to Legal Aid is something around, again, $7 million maybe and we have also allowed $400,000 to allow counsel of choice in homicide cases. So you add all that together and you should get that –

MR. PARSONS: What I am looking at there, your total is $12,171,000 for this year.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: It looks like the feds are kicking in $2.3 million, so the Province is picking up the tab for $9.8 million for the -

MR. KENNEDY: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: - Legal Aid. That includes your Aboriginal court system program and the Labrador Legal Services and so on.

MR. KENNEDY: No, the Labrador Legal Services, that is the federal contribution, correct?

MS DUNPHY: The portion is reflected, but Labrador – we do fund a portion of that as well, also included in that grant.

MR. KENNEDY: I think, Mr. Parsons, $2.3 million, that sounds to me like the federal contribution to Legal Aid in a global figure that they are contributing.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: Because I think we are about 66-33 right now, or something, or 70-30 with the provincial-federal contribution.

MR. PARSONS: You mentioned that everybody is getting anxious to get out of here. I just throw it out, that I have at least a couple of hours of questions left. I did not know if you wanted to discontinue and continue at another time or what.

MS MICHAEL: You are serious?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I have not even gotten to my general stuff yet. I do not know how you want to handle it. We have been here now for a couple of hours.

CHAIR: About an hour and a half or an hour and forty-five minutes. Do we want to recess or do we want to reconvene?

MR. PARSONS: It is up to the Committee. I just throw it out because the minister mentioned everybody might want to get out of here, and I did not want to hold people up. If we are tired, we are tired. If you want to take a break and move on, if it is okay by the minister and his staff.

MR. KENNEDY: I am ready to go, but it does not matter. I am more concerned about the Committee members and everyone else.

MS MICHAEL: I have to have something to eat. I cannot go that long without food.

MR. PARSONS: Anyway, maybe we will plug ahead for a little while. Maybe you will shut me up before too long, unless you want to eat right now.

MS MICHAEL: Go ahead, I will make my decision. If it gets too much, I will just leave.

MR. PARSONS: We should accommodate everybody, if we can.

MS MICHAEL: The thing is there is no place to get food here in the building.

CHAIR: Mr. Parsons, how long more are you thinking; not to put a timeline or anything on it here?

MR. PARSONS: I have not gotten into the generic stuff which usually takes a lengthy discussion. It is not the first time that we had an Estimates Committee that did not get done. In this case, too, we have to appreciate that everybody has been on the go since this morning. Usually you come in, in the morning, and you are refreshed, but we have had lots of precedents where we did not get it done in three hours and we have come back the next day and finished up.

I just put it out there. It does not matter to me.

CHAIR: We can certainly look at reconvening again. I guess the one concern is the timeline in terms of getting it in.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to stay any longer, my back is – I am not going to last another two hours.

MR. PARSONS: That is what I am thinking, some people have issues.

MR. CHAIR: Why don't we just take a recess for five minutes or so.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn until Tuesday morning, May 20, at 9:00 a.m. right here in the executive dining room.

CHAIR: Do we have a seconder for that?

MR. COLLINS: Seconded.

CHAIR: Just before we leave, I just wanted to remind the committee that we will be meeting tomorrow morning in the House of Assembly at 9 a.m., Municipal Affairs.

Thank you.

The Committee stands adjourned.