Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.
We are on Resolution 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Order, please. Before we get started, could I ask those members wanting to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge or out in the hall or in their offices, anywhere but here.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It is my intention to deal with a few issues on the Headingley riot examining the minister's own information and then move along. If the minister is going to remain of the view that the Corrections line cannot be moved up, I also ask the minister if she would not consider bringing in Corrections staff to sit with her as we go through this item in the Estimates?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As I said, I am happy to have Corrections staff with me at the Corrections line. We have a large number of issues to deal with. That was our decision Friday and appeared to be accepted, and that is the one that I think is the best way to proceed.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would like the minister to tell the committee what she knows--and this does not go to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Rouire--I just simply want to know what her information is as to when this individual was granted temporary absence, could she now tell this Legislature when that was approved?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as I have said before, I will not be talking about Mr. Rouire because his case is before the court, because the information which may be useful is information which I will be presenting in court, that is the role of the Attorney General.
The member opposite continues to ask for that information, and I am sure, hopes that someday I will breach my role as Attorney General and provide it. That may allow him to conduct a trial outside of the courts. So, no, I will not be speaking about Mr. Rouire, and I do not have information which I can provide to the member opposite because the case is before the court. The member does know that very well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Then, not dealing with Mr. Rouire, would the minister tell the committee whether or not a list of people, of inmates, was put together in the event of a correctional officers' strike, of inmates who would be granted temporary absences?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the member that that was not drawn to my attention. I have checked with the deputy minister, who tells me that that was not drawn to his attention. I am told the focus of officials in planning for a possible strike by MGEU was focusing on making sure our institutions were secure, that we had the plan in place to bring the RCMP in to deal with the institutions, that we were able to deal with policing across the province, as well, to the best of our ability. So in the planning which took place by senior officials, I am told that we, the deputy minister and myself, are unaware of such a list now. Corrections officials, when they are in the Chamber, may in fact be able to add more to that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister saying that neither her nor her deputy has asked whether such a list was drawn up by staff?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I have not asked about such a list that may have been drawn up in preparation for a strike. The deputy minister tells me that he has not asked for that information. The planning which went on was planning which was dealt with at a senior official's level, and then such a task may have been given, but I am not able to confirm that, Mr. Chair.
Again, as I say, our plan and our focus has always been on the issue of public safety. One of our big priorities was, of course, to make sure that in the event of such a walkout, our institutions would be secure. Our institutions, therefore, required us to make plans with the policing service to make sure that our institutions were in fact secure.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the minister's understanding that before one is eligible for TA, in addition to the time served and under the regulations, one must make an application for a temporary absence?
* (1510)
Mrs. Vodrey: That is the usual practice.
Mr. Mackintosh: On Friday, the minister told the committee that arrangements were made with Saskatchewan for the temporary housing of inmates following on the riot. Is the minister aware of how many inmates went to Saskatchewan today?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I do not have the total number of inmates who have been placed in the institution in Saskatchewan at this time. However, I will have that information when Corrections is here. I have asked for that number and have been given that number. I am sorry I do not remember exactly, so I will hesitate to put anything on the record that may not be entirely accurate.
Mr. Mackintosh: Were the arrangements with Saskatchewan made through the minister's office or through the deputy minister's office?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that the arrangements were made from Corrections division to Corrections division.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister's office involved, either her or her deputy or immediate staff involved at all, in decisions to move inmates out of other correctional institutions in Manitoba?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I think I understand the question the member was asking in that, was the deputy informed that inmates would be moved from other institutions to Saskatchewan or to Stony Mountain, from the institution they were in to other institutions? I am informed that movement to Stony required a signature. The deputy minister informs me that he provided that signature and that, for Saskatchewan, there certainly was discussion. Whether or not that required a signature, I will have to check. It was not my signature, but whether it was the deputy's, I will check. We were informed that inmates were being moved from their placement in some institutions into other institutions.
Mr. Mackintosh: In addition to Saskatchewan--and I just want to make it clear--were there other offers of support from other provinces to take inmates?
Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that there were discussions about the possibility of an arrangement with provinces other than Saskatchewan. Exactly which provinces, it would be best to have Corrections officials here to discuss those details.
Mr. Mackintosh: Further to the issue of the sexual offenders who were released, we have made inquiries and understand that Inspector Biener is the one in the City of Winnipeg Police Services to be advised by community people of sex offenders who may be a danger, and I wonder if the minister has taken steps on her behalf to reassess the risk of these sex offenders.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, in terms of the CNAC process, those are inmates who have finished their sentences. But certainly the member, if he has a concern, has the option to inform the police.
Mr. Mackintosh: I take it then that the minister does not have concern.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not sure where the member gets his information, I do not have any concern. I and this government had the concern to set up the CNAC process, one, by the way, which was not supported by him or his party. So I certainly have to say that if he is suggesting that I am unconcerned, that is not the case. If he is asking, is there a concern about a specific inmate or an inmate now released, and he has some information, then I would ask him to put that on the record so that it can be dealt with. But CNAC does work where people have been released. So I would ask him, is there something that he would like us to know about in the interests of public safety, because we heard on Friday, in the interests of public safety, he just did not have time to phone the police about his concerns? Perhaps he has done that now. Friday, he was more concerned about a news conference.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister should be aware that inquiries had to be made and contact has been made with Inspector Biener's office. I ask the minister, in light of this information, is she not concerned about the 11 sex offenders released in particular, and has she done a reassessment of their risk?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am concerned; I have been concerned; I remain concerned. Public safety is our No. 1 issue and No. 1 priority. Individuals have continually been reviewed by my department. I can only say to the member across the way, is there a case that he is particularly concerned about? Is there an area in which he believes that we can work together in the interests of public safety? If so, please tell me. If he does not want to tell me on the record, I will be more than happy to meet with him in my office and to attempt to deal with the situation, but we have had a series of questions leading along, and yet we have not yet heard from the member what he may want to have done.
I am still in the same position that I have been in with him in the past. If there is something that he knows and is concerned about and if he does not want to say it on the record, though on the record is really where it belongs, if he feels for whatever reasons that it should not be on the record, then will you come and see me in my office, make me aware of your concern, or will you do what is the normal process, and that is, will you make the police aware of your concern?
If there is something that you know, then it should be acted upon and allow those people whose professional expertise is that expertise which provides the assessment to do that assessment. I am concerned that my sense is that the member across the way is trying to make these judgments himself and is making them without a lot of reference points, without very much experience at all. In fact, I would venture to say none, but he may want to correct me on that and tell me what his experience in assessing sex offenders who have completed their sentences is. He may have some; I do not know. I do not think so. I just say to him, if you have something, the right thing to do is to please act on it. I will co-operate in whatever way is open to me, but it is best to have the people whose professional capabilities is to work in this area to have them do this work, not to try and do it himself.
I ask him again, I challenge him again, I have tried to present options to him in terms of how he might deal with the situation where he has concerns. So far, Mr. Chair, he has not done that, to my knowledge. He may have done something, but I do not think so. I would ask him again, if there is something that you are worried about, will you please come forward and say it?
* (1520)
Mr. Mackintosh: Certainly if the minister is going to suggest that there be any other revisiting the concept of visits in her office, she can think twice about that, because there is certainly no trust remaining there, which is unfortunate, because there has been a role that the minister's office has provided over the past where some matters can be dealt with by all parties together. That clearly--any confidence there has been lost, but it is my understanding that our staff has contacted Inspector Biener.
Of course, I do not have any knowledge of risk assessment, and I certainly have very little knowledge of the sex offenders released. All I had was a statement made to me over the telephone, and when Inspector Biener, I understand, returns tomorrow, he will be handed the information. The issue that is before this committee is the minister's knowledge. It is the minister's department that has the expertise. It is the minister who knows the names and knows the sex offenders and has the staff. I wanted to know whether all the proper procedures have been followed, whether the proper risk assessments have been followed, whether there is proper supervision in place, and I have some concerns about that. I will leave that issue, and we will be dealing with Inspector Biener with what little information we do have.
My next series of questions is on the information of the minister regarding what appears to be a history of concerns about guard security at Headingley Correctional Institution. I ask the minister, has she personally been involved in meetings during her tenure when issues of staff safety at Headingley were raised?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, let me start again with the member's comments about a visit to my office and how problems can be solved through such a visit. It certainly has worked for other members of his caucus. When other members of his caucus have decided that perhaps there is something that we can do together on behalf of the people of their areas or the people of Manitoba, their visits have been appreciated. We have worked with them to try and help the situation and simply to work with them, not on a political grandstanding basis, because in fact in those cases where this has worked there has been no grandstanding at all, in fact, very little media or discussion. I think that there are opportunities for this to happen in the interests of public safety for Manitobans.
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
The member opposite has never chosen that way, not in dealing with Maintenance Enforcement, which he used to bring to this House and throw out. Basically at no time to my knowledge, has he ever decided that where he had a genuine concern, if he was to bring it to my office, we would try and deal with that, and I am talking about personally coming and doing this, which his colleagues have done.
Mr. Mackintosh: Never.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member calls from his seat, never. That is true, never.
Mr. Mackintosh: Never Again.
Mrs. Vodrey: Never has he done that. Never has he done that. There was, of course, one time when I asked him to come, I asked him to attend, and he was the only person who could not give us a commitment. He was just unable to give us a commitment to act in what was seen as generally a responsible way--
Mr. Mackintosh: No one was asked.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the member says no one was asked.
Mr. Mackintosh: No one was asked.
Mrs. Vodrey: He was asked to give that commitment. He sat, and I remember him very clearly sitting and just staring ahead while we all looked at him. We knew then that he was not going to provide that commitment; we knew then on that day
Mr. Mackintosh: You never asked.
Mrs. Vodrey: The commitment was asked for, was readily agreed to by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), who clearly understood the situation. The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) simply stared ahead. It was quite unforgettable. However--and then he went ahead and did what he wanted, and we know now the results of that.
Mr. Chair, I find that very, very regrettable for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), but I do not think it is being lost on the people of Manitoba. I think the people of Manitoba have seen where ministers and colleagues in opposition can work together to the benefit of Manitobans. That is really what people ask of us. The one thing they ask of us is, could you please work together? Could you please try and make things better for us? Could you, at times, try and set aside what may be your disagreements if, in fact, there is a way to improve the situation for us?
I have worked with members, as have many of my other colleagues, I know that to be true. So, Mr. Chair, it is really just the member for St. Johns who is having trouble with the concept, perhaps others, certainly with Justice--
An Honourable Member: He should take an example from his colleague George Hickes.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, he could. There are a number of colleagues from whom he could take an example. I have to say that is very regrettable. It is very regrettable for his constituents, very regrettable if he has information in the interest of public safety for Manitobans that he does not feel he is willing to come forward and speak.
An Honourable Member: . . .you are silly.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I see the member is laughing. He thinks it is funny.
An Honourable Member: You are silly; you are funny.
Mrs. Vodrey: I wonder if you could--
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings, but the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) from his chair has called the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) silly.
* (1530)
I recall that on one other occasion I called the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) silly, I was told that was unparliamentary, should not be done, and it was objected to most strenuously by the members of the NDP, who now resort to the same tactics for themselves that they will not allow us. I would just ask that you call the member to order and ask him to be more gracious in his words, if not in his attitude.
Some Honourable Members: Apologize.
Mrs. McIntosh: Maybe apologizing would help.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The Chair was concentrating on the remarks that were coming from the Minister of Justice and did not hear any remarks coming from across the floor. If the honourable member for St. Johns were alluding to the fact that the Minister of Justice was silly or that any of her actions were silly, he would immediately be brought to order on that point. I thank the honourable minister for that.
* * *
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): I would invite the honourable Minister of Justice, to continue with her remarks, having approximately six minutes to complete her answer.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Well, the member did indeed say that, but we hear a lot coming out of his mouth--
An Honourable Member: That he will not acknowledge.
Mrs. Vodrey: That he will not acknowledge. He does not have the courage to put certain things on the record. He does this from sort of behind. He would like to slide over that now.
Mr. Chair, the other question or comment was have I had any discussions regarding the safety and security of correctional officers. I believe he means in all of our institutions or in Headingley specifically. I have sat down with senior Corrections staff. The issue of range bars, as I have said, has had discussion. I understood the process that was being followed, but I have given direction to the department that the issue of the range bars is no longer to be considered, that that is clearly a matter to be off the table.
The other issue which had been raised--this was the second issue--was whether or not inmates and correctional officers should eat together. That issue had been raised and the explanation was given about the up close supervision. However, Mr. Chair, that is an issue that the guards were very unhappy with, so I have given the direction that that is simply to be off the table now also.
As the member knows, we have a working group, a back to work group working at Headingley, and they will be dealing with other matters, the issue of locks and other security issues. Commitment was given by this government at the time when guards were off duty and RCMP was on duty in our correctional institutions. I hesitate to put a specific word to that, because I do not want to be incorrect in what I would call it, but a number of issues were dealt with at that time. I am pleased with that and certainly am very happy now that there is a communication process set up so that guards or correctional officers can be more confident perhaps in the communications process. I think that is a very important part.
Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the minister was, was she aware before the riot of security concerns by the Headingley correctional officers, in particular equipment problems, the problem of they key accessing spaces throughout the institution, the issue of range bars certainly, eating together, as well as other changes in security affecting the nursing staff, for example? Was she aware or had these matters been brought to her attention before the riot and during her term of office?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there was in the past a committee process also in place, not just the one that is there now. There has always been a committee process in place, a workplace safety committee, and issues were discussed at that, I gather on a regular basis. I gather minutes were kept at these as well, and routinely senior Corrections officials dealt with any issues which were brought forward by guards.
The issues which I have specifically mentioned, issues of range bars, did specifically come to me. I asked questions around that and wanted to make sure that nothing was done unless there was a full understanding and process in place to deal with any concerns. That now is off the table because that decision was made to give assurances to correctional officers right away that, if that issue was one which does not seem to be able to be resolved through the usual course of the workplace safety meetings, then that one should be off the table.
The other issues that I mentioned including whether or not Corrections officers eat with inmates, that also was an issue brought to me around which I did quite a bit of questioning, wanted to know what correctional practice was in other areas, and that, too, is off the table now. That, too, is one in which I have acted upon.
I know that there was a newspaper article around nursing staff, and I was prepared to answer that. I certainly questioned my department on that in terms of were there any changes, what the security was, and had detailed information on that brought to my attention. But, as a general rule, the issues of security and safety are dealt with by the workplace safety committee, as it was, and it may now be renamed because we do have new committee structures with the back-to-work at Headingley committee, and minutes were kept and issues were generally resolved or dealt with at the officials' level.
Mr. Mackintosh: During the minister's tenure and up to the time of the Headingley riot, had the issue of staff levels at Headingley been brought to her attention insofar as the staff level was alleged to have been insufficient to adequately protect the guards?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, to my knowledge, the issue of staff levels as being insufficient to protect the guards or correctional officers was not brought to my attention. As I have said in Question Period, historically, because the population was higher, there were more correctional officers at Headingley, and then when this government built the Remand Centre, which was able to house some of that population, then some of the correctional officers then moved with that population. So, although I am aware that there are changes in actual number, there have also been, I am told, changes in population.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister of the view that 19 staff to 321 inmates was sufficient to allow her staff safety?
Mrs. Vodrey: In answering the question, I just want to set a context for the member because I think it is important to say that public safety is the No. 1 issue for the Department of Justice, one of the major priorities of this government, and in all ways we have acted in the interests of public safety. At the time of the riot, our first interest was in public safety, the public safety and security of guards, correctional officers, and other individuals in the Headingley area. That is why we followed the direction of the RCMP; that is why we dealt with the issue as we did. Then, Mr. Chair, the next step that I took in the interests of public safety on behalf of this government is the step to call the independent review by Mr. Hughes. Those are two very important steps in the interests of public safety.
* (1540)
Mr. Chair, one of the issues which I have asked Mr. Hughes to look at is the issue of staffing levels, and that information which I had received indicated that ratios were not different. In fact, they were better than in some other institutions across the country. That is the information that I received.
However, Mr. Chair, we want to know what were the causes or the events leading up to the Headingley riot, and in looking at the causes leading up to the Headingley riot, one of the issues which I have asked to be examined is that of staffing levels, and we will be waiting for Mr. Hughes' assessment of the causes of the Headingley riot, and, certainly, we will be intending to act upon them.
Mr. Chair, we do not want to have an event such as a riot like this occur again, and that is why we did this in the interest of public safety, calling the review. Mr. Hughes will be examining that, and we look forward to his assessment around staffing levels.
Mr. Mackintosh: Before I leave this, I want the minister to state clearly for the record whether it is her view that the RCMP asked opposition, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and myself, at a meeting in her office not to make political comment following our meeting. Is that her position? I want that clearly for the record.
Mrs. Vodrey: I did ask members to come in to meet with a senior official of the RCMP, so that they were fully aware of what was happening at the time. At the time, there was still negotiation underway, and we did not yet have an accurate view about exactly what we might find within the institution. This was early in the afternoon. As we know, there were already comments that there had been deaths, not from us, not from any official spokesperson whatsoever, and that there had been severe mutilation such as castration. That was already a comment out there.
These had a very serious effect on families of Corrections officers, on families of inmates, on families of police officers, as they were sitting back watching, trying to assess what was the level of danger that was going on within the institution, what, in fact, might have to be the ultimate step.
Mr. Chair, we were told at this point that the method of bargaining or what had been asked for was not at this point organized, that there did not appear to be a regular set of demands, that things were fluctuating. There was a great deal of flux going on during that whole time, and it is our understanding--I apologize for taking a couple of moments to check because I want to be very clear that I put on the record the potentially dangerous situation that we were dealing with at the time, that the RCMP, in particular, was dealing with.
At the time, we were not sure if, in fact, there were hostages being held, inmates who were being held as hostages. We were aware at this time that correctional officers were now outside, but we were not clear about whether or not inmates were being held as hostages. Therefore, the suggested behaviour was that public comment would not be helpful at this time. That was certainly the position that I adopted. I adopted it historically, having, as I have said before, listened and watched my father as a hostage negotiator, as a police officer. I am well aware that they must be in charge of the situation, and that it is their information, that it is their recommendations which we believe were the ones to be followed. So I set the situation forward, asked the RCMP to comment.
It was clear that public political comment appeared not to be in the best interests of that situation. I have to say that I am very, very thankful that things worked out as they did, and that the member from St. Johns' (Mr. Mackintosh) inflammatory behaviour did not fan the situation further. It was very, very, very serious, and as much as I could divulge to him on that day, and as much as the RCMP were able to say to him, was said. The member from The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) understood that right away. If the member asked, did the RCMP order him not to speak, they did not order him, but what we asked and what was asked in that room, Mr. Chair, was a commitment not to speak publicly. Yes, and the member from St. Johns could not give that commitment.
Mr. Mackintosh: I regret the lack of truthfulness from this minister on this issue. She knows full well the RCMP made no request of me. She said they made a request of her. I think it is very unfortunate the minister would use this meeting for her own ends now. It is also well known to the minister that the comment from us was in the way of questions and asking for an inquiry, nothing that would inflame anything. But that is a matter that I am afraid will taint her office and taint this minister, to treat a meeting like that by advancing her own ideas that were not related to what took place there.
I ask the minister to confirm or deny information that came to me today, that new staff has been assigned to senior management at Headingley Correctional Institution, including the assignment, either temporarily or otherwise, on an acting basis or full-time, of the individual responsible for that institution. Can she tell the committee if changes have been made?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the only person tainted around behaviour on the day of the riot is the member for St. Johns, and that is clear in the public's mind.
I am speaking on Hansard and all comments are recorded, and therefore I always want to be careful that nothing said is--I cannot think of any other way to put it than that it gives people ideas at another time of how they might construct a riot or how they might act at the time of a riot.
The member across the way has very often said to us, outline specifically what the security process is for a certain issue, and I have said to him, why would I give criminals a blueprint? Why would I give them a blueprint?
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, I have to continue to raise the issue of the truthfulness of this minister, and I will ask her to clarify for the record, so she will avoid future matters of privilege. I had asked her to explain what the Youth Crime Intervention Team had as its policies, what its modus operandi was. That is what the questioning was, a team, by the way, that I understand was not doing any surveillance, interagency surveillance, as the minister claimed. That was the matter. I did not ask to know whether someone was hiding in a bush or not, for crying out loud. I simply wanted to know if there was surveillance, if it was through computer, what agencies were involved, so I want the minister to clarify that because she is digging herself deeper. It is not doing anything for the office of Attorney General in this province that we have a minister who puts on the record matters that are simply not true.
* (1550)
An Honourable Member: On the same point of order.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order, but before we proceed with the comments from the honourable Minister of--sorry--Education, excuse me.
I would invite all members of this committee when they are placing matters on the record, and these are matters of a sensitive nature or a contestable nature, that they direct their remarks to the Chair in order to make the free flow of debate proceed in an orderly fashion. I would vigorously urge all members of this committee to comply with that request.
Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The member has twice now called into question the truthfulness of the Minister of Justice's responses, which I believe is unparliamentary even in the committee level. Secondly, the member asked a question which the minister was clearly answering, the minister explaining that to divulge computerized systems, security systems, all of those things that are in place to protect the public, to reveal those for the record is to do exactly as the Minister of Justice was explaining which would be to tell people who have evil intent how to get around the things. So I think she was clearly answering the question, and the member had no point of order in saying that the minister was not being relevant. She was being relevant, very much so.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The honourable member for St. Johns--and may I just interrupt the honourable member for St. Johns. Are you speaking to the existing point of order that is on the Order Paper at this point in time, or are you raising a new point of order arising out of remarks that are being made?
Mr. Mackintosh: I will simply say, Mr. Chair, if anything unparliamentary has been said, then I will address that; otherwise, I wish the minister would address the question. We have the public interest to consider here, not some nonsense and debate through a point of order from other members.
An Honourable Member: It is your point of order--
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Order, please.
An Honourable Member: I have a right to respond to your point of order.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Order. I would advise members of the committee that I have listened most carefully to all the debates and comments that have been placed on the record. I find that the honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order, that, in fact, the Minister of Justice and the member for St. Johns have a dispute on the facts. I would ask that debate resume in an orderly fashion on the issue of the examination of the issue under debate.
I would at this point urge most vigorously and assiduously that all members please confine their language to a respectful nature for one another and for this process and for the business of the governance that we are about today.
* * *
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Having said those few remarks, the Minister of Justice, I believe, was completing her answer. I note that the minister has approximately five minutes left and I apologize, my time records may be a little inaccurate at this time, but I would invite the Minister of Justice to proceed.
Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I believe that the Hansard will show some of the specific measures that the member has asked me to speak about publicly, and, yes, one of them was to discuss the surveillance practices that may be in place in the area of youth crime. Each time I have said, tempting as it may be, to lay out before the people of Manitoba all of the surveillance tactics. That does not seem to be in the best interests of public safety, and that in the interests of public safety I will not be doing that because it would just lay out a blueprint for criminals. So in terms of responding to the issue of the member and how he is tainted around his behaviour on the day of the riot, I am always tempted to give further and further information. I believe that in the interests of public security, of not laying out a plan for any individual who may in the future wish to take over an institution, a building, an office, a store, a school, who may wish to take over any, any area, any public area or any institution, I would not put on the record today some of the background reasons in asking for a commitment to not speak publicly during the time of negotiation.
It was clearly stated at that time there will be a lot to say following, when we bring this to a conclusion, when we have brought the riot to a conclusion. It was fully understood, whatever needed to be said by opposition members would be said then, but at the time of the sensitive negotiations, there was a discussion around why it would be not helpful for members to go out and speak publicly, and the member for St. Johns chose to not abide by that. We could not get a commitment.
That does bring into consideration for me very seriously how one can have a working relationship with a member of the opposition who would like to have access to information which may, in fact, be somewhat private and we want to be careful with, because we can never get that commitment, or we certainly have not had it in the past.
The question the member raises is, has there been a change now in the administration of Headingley Institution. I am informed, yes, the answer is yes, that there is now in place a person who will now act as superintendent and is not being appointed in an acting capacity but has received an appointment.
Mr. Mackintosh: Who is the individual who has received the appointment?
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: There is an individual who has received the assignment as superintendent of Headingley Correctional Institution. This person is Mr. Reg Forester from the Corrections division.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee of any other reassignments following on this assignment?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is a question that I think is best left until Corrections officials are here, so they can describe any other reassignments which may have taken place with the reassignment of Reg Forester to the superintendent's position at Headingley institution.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell us whatever happened to Mr. Krocker?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have a lot of details about Mr. Krocker's new position or the work that he may be doing within government. I can tell the member that I was informed that Mr. Krocker had asked for reassignment, and when he had asked for reassignment, the civil service became involved to look at what that reassignment may be. I am told that he has now been reassigned within government. I am not able to tell the member what that reassignment is.
Mr. Mackintosh: Why can the minister not tell us about his reassignment? Does she not know?
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: No, I do not have the details of what Mr. Krocker is undertaking at the moment, and when we get to the Corrections line, I will be happy to inquire of Corrections officials what, in fact, Mr. Krocker is doing now, but I think that among the important issues was that he did ask for reassignment. I understand the Civil Service Commission was involved in that and that this has taken place.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee whether Mr. Krocker is still serving in the Department of Justice?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that, yes, he is still considered an employee of the Department of Justice. Whether or not he will be seconded elsewhere in government, I am not able to tell the member at this time.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the member's understanding that he is now currently assigned in the Human Resource Services branch of the Department of Justice?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told, no, he is not at the moment.
Mr. Mackintosh: What division in the Department of Justice is Mr. Krocker now serving?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member is asking details about a staffperson that is, in fact, a personnel issue, and I do not have those details. As the member knows, ministers do not reach in and manage the personnel issues specifically. If that was to be done, the member would then call that there had been political interference in the management of placement of individuals within the department. I have told him from the beginning that when Corrections is here, I will be happy to update him on what work and where Mr. Krocker is undertaking that work and what the work is.
I have told him I do not have that information. We have now taken, well, approximately an hour of our Estimates time where, in fact, I have said to him the detail he is asking should be answered when Corrections officials are here, and though I can give him a general answer, the specifics of my answer should be managed when Corrections are here.
Mr. Mackintosh: I take it from the minister's response then that Mr. Krocker is serving in the Corrections branch. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told by the executive director of Human Resources that we cannot confirm at the moment where Mr. Krocker is being placed, and though they would like me to tell them, I am not able to confirm that and will be happy to when Corrections is here.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain--there is public interest, there is interest by staff who would like to know where Mr. Krocker is. There are all kinds of rumours going on there.
This individual is paid for by the public. He performs a public function. Is he or is he not in the Corrections branch? What is the secret? Is there some good reason for some kind of a cover-up here? Why are they stonewalling on this?
Mrs. Vodrey: No cover-up, no nothing, no effort to cover up. I have told you to the best of my knowledge he is still an employee of the Department of Justice, but the executive director of Human Resources has told me that he is not able to confirm exactly which branch, which division or which part of a division Mr. Krocker is currently working in. I am aware of the fact that there was discussion that he may do work with other parts of government. I am not able to tell the member right now, but will when Corrections is here, or I will make sure that I know when we sit next in the Estimates of the Department of Justice where in fact Mr. Krocker is placed.
The member suddenly asks about a member within the department, and I know, and I think it is very important to say, that whatever decisions were reached were reached within an agreement with the civil service and with Mr. Krocker himself. I think it is important to say again that this is a personnel matter. Though the member says, well, this is somebody paid for by the taxpayers and so on, well, so is every person within government and on government's payroll, but ministers do not generally stand up about any individual within their department and try and explain where they are. [interjection]
The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) says, well, this just is not any old member of the government and employee of the government, and I agree that there is certainly interest around what the former superintendent of Headingley is currently doing. In response to that interest, I have told the member that I will find out exactly what he is doing and I will bring it back.
But, you see, the member himself says, well, there are lots of rumours about this guy, and there are lots of rumours about what he might be doing. That is exactly what I want to avoid, exactly I want to avoid. I want to avoid saying, oh, well, I think he might be doing this or I think he might be doing that. There is no point in adding to the list of rumours that the member, according to the rumour mill that is a source of information all the time, seems to have. He today admits that his information comes through the rumour mill, and that is simply not what is open to me.
So the member and the rumour mill have a whole list of ideas of what might be happening. Mr. Chair, I am undertaking to find out. The executive director of Human Resources is with me this afternoon. We will find out exactly what Mr. Krocker is doing, where exactly he is employed, what projects or responsibilities are that he is undertaking. There is no effort to avoid the question, but there is an effort to avoid adding to rumours which the member says are his source of his questioning.
Mr. Mackintosh: I do not think anyone likes rumours. That is why I asked the minister a simple question that has taken several minutes. I asked the minister to explain and I will be going on to other issues here now, and we can return to this when Corrections comes up.
Would the minister explain, when I asked her in the Question Period why the government broke its promise of a quarter million dollars for Victims Assistance funding 1996 and '97, she responded by saying, that money went to the RCMP victims services units program. Why did she say that?
* (1610)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, this government funded a program for the RCMP to deal with victims, and there was a plan for that funding then to slowly be finished, because the commitment is not ongoing operational fundings from where that was funded and that the community or other funding sources would be found. There has been a question about how services to victims should be provided across the province, what kinds of services, how might those services be provided. So we as a government undertook to continue--and I believe this is the second year--the RCMP victims program which I believe is in the amount of $225,000, so it is that amount that I assume the member was referring to.
In terms of additional funding, we do have a commitment to victims. We are undertaking a victims strategy. We have a victims study going on. We want to look at what the needs of victims are across the province, and with that information we will then be able to evaluate exactly how we support victims, how we can continue to support victims, and I am certainly looking for ways to continue to improve our support to victims.
Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister to explain on the record why in answer to my question she said the quarter million dollars went to the RCMP victims services unit, because the promise was made on April 13 that victims assistance funding will be increased by $250,000 in the 1996-1997 fiscal year. That is an amount, not $225,000. It is not a continuing program; it is new money. Why did the minister say it was going to the RCMP program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, obviously I answered that because that I had understood to be the question. Though I had communicated with those communities involved, I know that there is always a desire for as much certainty as possible. So that is how I answered the question, as another way to provide certainty that that program is continuing for another year. The amount is about $225,000.
In terms of additional funding or other funding that may come to victims, our government has made a commitment to do that. Our government has made that commitment, and the first step of that commitment is the study of victims' needs across this province.
Now, I do not know whether the member assumes that all of that election commitment would be spent in a single year; I do not know if that is what he believes is the case. However, my effort in answering him was to say yes, there is money being spent; yes, I can confirm we are supporting the RCMP victims program this year; yes, I can confirm to him that we are doing a study, and yes, this government did make an election commitment to enhance the position of victims, and we certainly will be doing that during the course of our term.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who I understand was the co-chair of the Conservative election campaign, tell this House whether she was in any way involved in putting together a press release of April 13, 1995, which stated: Court system to get tune-up, task force to make system more accessible, responsive: Filmon. Does she have any knowledge or recollection of that press release?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am assuming the press release the member is speaking about is one which relates to our plan to review the civil justice side of courts. Does the member have a question around that? Is there something that is unclear about what was said, or does he have a problem with that review?
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister recall in that press release that a promise was made for increased Victims Assistance funding for '96-97 in the amount of a quarter million dollars?
Mrs. Vodrey: If the member has it in front of him, I would ask that he table it. That certainly would be helpful to see what he is using as his reference point. He may have something in front of him, and I would be interested to know that.
Mr. Mackintosh: I will do one better, and I will read it into the record, Mr. Chair. I will first ask the minister, does she have any recollection or knowledge that a promise was made for additional monies for Victims Assistance funding in the election campaign?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is our government's intention to continue to enhance the position of victims and to continue to bring victims back into the justice system. One of the ways in which we have made our continued commitment that way is in the continued funding this year of the RCMP program, and also in our position around a study for victims, study of victims services across the province. So that is our government's commitment. I believe that we are living up to that commitment. If the member has something in addition, then he might like to put it on the record.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware of any election promise being made about increased funding to the Victims Assistance Committee?
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: I apologize for the slight delay. Let me introduce Mr. Les Kee to the committee, who is the Director of Special Prosecutions and Programs, since the area of services to victims falls within his direct area of responsibility.
Again, I come to the same answer to the member. The program for the RCMP victims programs was, in fact, funding which had expired, for lack of a better word. It was given for a certain length of time, and that funding was then to be gradually reduced while it was taken up by other sources within the funding agreement. That is a clause within the agreement. However, because issues were raised by the municipalities and by people within the province about what the services to victims should be, we decided that, rather than expiring and showing, if you like, that budget, that amount of money printed down, then we would make sure that was allowed for within the budget, that there was a clear commitment able to be seen by municipalities in terms of the funding for that program. That is what you do see within the budget for the Department of Justice in the victims area.
Mr. Chair, we are, as I have said, in the process of a victims study, and we are looking at what kinds of services to victims might be made available across the province, what the best way is to provide that service. As we are looking at that, we will see what comes out. That is in progress and I hope, when I have that, to be able to act on it. At that point, government will have to make a decision about anything further if we are able to act immediately upon what the results say.
I stand by the fact that this government has made good on its commitment again to fund. I believe it is for the second year, because I believe the project would have expired a year ago and we extended funding, and we have made a commitment to have that funding this year.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to be perfectly clear, then, the minister is saying that the money, the $250,000 promised on April 13, 1995, in the press release, was for the RCMP victim services unit. Can she confirm my understanding for the record?
Mrs. Vodrey: The money was for victims, and the member laughs, more than they ever put forward, believe me, and we will get to that when we get to the details. I will be happy to, when we get to that line, talk about the tremendous increase in funding for victims by this government over what the NDP ever did, though they are trying mightily now to put forward a sensitivity. However, that money was for victims and victim services, and we this year chose to make sure that the RCMP program was continued. We are also doing a study of victims needs across the province.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the $250,000 promised on April 13 for the RCMP victim services unit?
Mrs. Vodrey: Very much, Mr. Chair, and as I have said at least three times before this, the program was a time-limited program. The time had expired. This year we have chosen to continue to use money to support that program, and at the same time we are doing a study of victims services and needs across the province, and at that point we will be able to develop a more comprehensive program. We will be looking to have that study yield us the best way to service victims across this province, and whether it involves enhancements or changes or changes in delivery method, I am not even going to begin to guess.
My answer has been the same to the best of my understanding--that is, where that money has been spent, and it is an extension of a program that would have expired and government chose to put their money into that program for another year.
Mr. Mackintosh: I thank that minister for the confirmation. I will now read that promise into the record. This is the press release of April 13, 1995. It says: In addition, the Premier said victims assistance funding will be increased by $250,000 in the 1996-97 fiscal year. Victims programing will receive a boost this year partly as a result of tough new measures such as a sale of property confiscated in prostitution and drug cases. The Victims Assistance Committee will have the responsibility for determining how the additional resources will be put to work.
How can the minister reconcile the nonsense she put on the record in Question Period and again here today with what the press release said on April 13?
* (1630)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I can tell the member that I am told the Victims Assistance Committee in the very beginning approved this RCMP program and was supportive of this program. Not only were they supportive of the program and approved it for funding in its first type of funding which has now expired, but municipalities were also supportive of that. If the member is not, if the member has some other ideas, perhaps he would want to put that forward.
Then, in terms of money which would flow from the proceeds of crime, I am informed that at the moment we are in negotiations with the federal government regarding the splitting of money which would come from the proceeds of crime. We are developing a Memorandum of Understanding, but for us, we want to be clear that we, as a province, have the discretion to spend those dollars where we believe they should be spent and that is in the area of victims.
Mr. Chair, the federal government, in working out this negotiation, may have different priorities than we do. So, at the moment, this issue is under negotiation. Manitoba's position is that money which will flow from the proceeds of crime that will be reached through this Memorandum of Understanding, for us the priority is in the area of victims; but that Memorandum of Understanding is not concluded at this time.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister confirm that the Victims Assistance Committee this year has not received an additional quarter million dollars as promised?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the money promised to the Victims Assistance Committee is money promised to victims--[interjection] The member laughs. It is money to be made available to victims.
Mr. Chair, what we have done is, we have continued for another year, for I believe a second year, almost a second year, a particular program which had the support of the Victims Assistance Committee when it started, when the project started, which we have continued to support. We are in the process now of doing a victims study. Following that, we will have, I believe, further information on which to make decisions. Then, as I have said, monies from proceeds of crime, I have explained that monies from proceeds of crime is still under negotiations with the federal government, that it is still our commitment that our share of those dollars will in fact be spent for victims. The federal government may have another idea, and that is why we want to have the discretion to spend that money ourselves in the area of victims.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister explain what the tough new measures are on the sale of property confiscated in prostitution and drug cases? What tough new measures are there that were announced?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have asked the federal Minister of Justice to look at amending the Criminal Code to allow for the forfeiture of vehicles for those who have been users in prostitution. I have written him a letter and I have not received an answer back yet from the federal government. That, however, would be a practice, if adopted through the federal Criminal Code, which in fact is a position on tough new measures regarding prostitution.
Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess? The committee will recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed at 4:38 p.m.
________
After Recess
The committee resumed at 4:49 p.m.
Mr. Mackintosh: So is the minister confirming now that there certainly were no tough new measures such as the sale of property confiscated in prostitution and drug cases, that it was simply some hope that some negotiations would begin with the federal government and some changes might happen? Is that what she is saying now?
Mrs. Vodrey: This is one measure which does require the federal government to assist us, so we have asked for that assistance. We think it would be very helpful. I know the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) also has an initiative which she is bringing forward, so government is attempting to deal with this in a comprehensive way. I believe that we have made ourselves clear on where we stand in the matter of prostitution, particularly where it involves young women. We have asked the federal government in the past, as well, to extend sentences for those who are procurers, for those who bring young women into a life of prostitution because that, in fact, can ruin their lives.
* (1650)
So we have looked at it from a sentencing point of view which does require the federal government and have acted on our request to the federal government. We have also requested the federal government assist us in the area of forfeiture of vehicles, and as I can say, and the Minister of Family Services should speak for her initiatives, but they are part of our government's initiatives to deal with prostitution and particularly focus on prostitution where very young women are involved because we recognize this as really something which can ruin their lives.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell us of just one new measure she has responsibility for that has been brought in regarding the sale of property confiscated in prostitution and drug cases? I want to know what this press release is talking about.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I know the member is aware that the federal government is in charge of the Criminal Code, and that we are in charge of the administration of justice. So, in fact, in bringing forward some of our initiatives, initiatives which originate from the government of Manitoba, we do require the participation of the federal government to assist us.
Here are some of the things which we have put forward. Number one was a letter to Allan Rock more than a year ago dealing with sentencing in the area of procurers of prostitution; and then a letter to Allan Rock to assist us in the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles for those who are users of prostitutes. Thirdly, we would like to have the ability to use some of the proceeds of crime dollars on behalf of victims, and some of that may flow towards prostitution. At the moment, the federal government with this new legislation is proceeding fairly slowly, and so we are negotiating the MOU with them, but to date it is not complete.
Finally, Mr. Chair, Bill 35, which is before the House now--I know the member has it sitting on his desk--and which was brought forward by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), deals with the use of the Child Abuse Registry to name those individuals who use young women as prostitutes, to be named to the Child Abuse Registry. It also deals with pimps, those people who act as procurers.
Mr. Chair, we ask one thing of members opposite. We ask them to pass this bill before the end of June. We ask them to come forward and take decisive action--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind all honourable members that we should not be referring or pre-empting any debate on a bill that is before the House at this time. That would be out of order at this time.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, certainly I do not want to preclude any debate. May I just ask the Chair, however, if it is in order to speak about our desire to have swift passage of that bill, which will require the agreement of members opposite?
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. In the question that the minister poses, there is anticipation of the bill being brought forward for debate. It is the anticipation which is not allowed under our rules of such a bill. So I have to ask the honourable minister not to refer to or explain the bill or get into the bill as a whole.
The honourable minister, to continue.
Mrs. Vodrey: Then I wonder if this is in order, that it is the fervent hope of this government that members opposite will consider the bill seriously and look for speedy passage. Without anticipating any debate, I can simply say that there was a commitment by this government to deal with certain matters that would express our concern for young people used in prostitution. But, of course, to act on that quickly, we would hope that members opposite would be in agreement, and would be supportive of swift and speedy passage whenever such a bill might come forward.
* (1700)
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister has done another disservice to legislators in general because this promise, the $250,000 this year, 1996-97, for expenditure through the Victims Assistance Committee is a promise that has been broken. The minister can do all the dancing she wants. To put in the press release, the statement that the programming will receive a boost this year, partly as a result of tough new measures such as the sale of property confiscated in prostitution and drug cases, has not been backed up by this minister whatsoever. She has talked about some change in the formula for the proceeds of crime. She has not talked about what tough new measures there are, about confiscation. This is just another broken election promise. It is another fudge to the people. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) made a statement, made a promise, and unique. It was a promise, specific, not only in amount, but with regard to the fiscal year, with regard to how the revenues would be raised and who was to decide on how the money was spent.
It is just one more example of how the talk from this government is not backed up by the action. It is scandalous. What is even worse is that the minister then engages in misleading the public of Manitoba, misleading people in this room, particularly misleading victims by saying that this money was going to the RCMP victims services units. She knows darn well that that was untrue. The victims services unit money was granted in March. It was for a different amount, $225,000, and was not an amount to be raised from confiscation nor to be expended through the Victims Assistance Committee.
So when the member goes around with the puffery about how she is concerned about victims in this province, we know what goes on here. She will make a statement or the Premier will make a statement about how victims are important and then you see what happens when the minister gets her hands on the issue.
She even has the nerve to go off to Ottawa and talk about a national victims strategy. Here at home she is breaking an election promise, a specific one. Here at home, of course, she has been cutting grants under her tenure to the Victims Assistance Committee. In fact, our calculation is, it is a whopping 43 percent cut in the amounts going to the Victims Assistance grants, and that is in just four years. Of course, victims assistance generally got the biggest single service cut in her whole department. I would hope that the minister would learn from what has been--how her statements have damaged the office that she occupies temporarily, as any Attorney General does, and how there must be a different standard for Attorneys General than other ministers, because Attorneys General are there to uphold the law, and there must be confidence in that office.
But for her to come back, instead of saying simply, we decided to change our minds, we broke our promise and we will take the heat, she comes back and says, oh, no, that was some other funding, that was something else, I think that is even worse, Mr. Chairperson, than just coming clean. I hope that she would have done the right thing today and said that she was wrong, she misled the House earlier and that this money now will not be granted to the Victims Assistance Committee.
But, oh, no, she went on and on and tried to make it look like this was money for the RCMP program. It is very sad and unfortunately reflects not only on her but all the good people that occupied that office in the past and reflects on the integrity of that office.
It is my intention to move through Executive Support now. I have one question. I understand Wyman Sangster, formerly of the RCMP, has now been hired in the Justice Department, and I just wonder what role that individual is performing in Justice.
Mrs. Vodrey: I will take a moment to speak about a standard of behaviour from the Attorney General, a standard of behaviour that I can tell the member I take very, very seriously, have acted upon according to my oath, and a standard of behaviour in which he constantly seeks to change.
Mr. Chair, I have to reflect on the role of the opposition in speaking about the role of the Attorney General because I fully understand our parliamentary system and the importance of an opposition, the importance of an opposition to raise on behalf of people questions and to have issues raised. But the integrity of the opposition and the member from St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) is called into question when he constantly tries to diminish the role of the Attorney General, tries to continually, even though explanations have been offered that cases cannot be spoken about because they are before the court, certain issues cannot be discussed because those points must be made in court, then the member of the opposition, the member from St. Johns, decides that the standard of behaviour for the Attorney General should apply except when he is asking the questions. When he is asking the questions, there should not be that standard applied, but, in fact, all information, totally inappropriately, should be provided. In fact, he comes, as I have said, dangerously close to the line time after time after time in information that he gives out which brings him very, very close, in the opinion of many, to contempt of court.
So, in talking about the standard and the integrity of the office of the Attorney General, I for one accept that it is a very important standard and a very important office, and the office of Attorney General is different from that of any other cabinet minister because the Attorney General does not accept any political direction or political advice. The decisions of the Attorney General must be made separate and are. But, Mr. Chair, the member opposite for his political point of view, for his political gain, always tries to influence the Attorney General, always tries to come forward and get information brought forward that should not be spoken about outside of court, and always tries for his political agenda to influence that very special role.
I have patiently, over the time of my tenure, explained to the member across the way why certain issues cannot be spoken about because of the special office that I hold. It is one, however, that he appears to have never understood, ever, and that makes me fearful because in the role as someone in opposition with supposedly an important function to serve on behalf of the people of Manitoba, we have a member opposite who has no understanding of that, and who, for political reasons, constantly tries to diminish and attack that role.
So, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make sure that it was put on the record by me, in the position I occupy as Attorney General, the very important role that I hold and how it is that I fulfill that role, working with many members of the opposition on issues which they bring forward, but the member from St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has had the most difficulty understanding that role.
Now, Mr. Chair, in terms of the funding to the Victims Assistance program, I have explained very patiently over a significant amount of time the details of the amount of money which is, in fact, going to victims, the $225,000 to the RCMP program approved by the Victims Assistance Committee, the memorandum of understanding which we are engaging in with the federal government to deal with the proceeds of crime, our efforts to work with the federal government on the forfeiture of vehicles which would provide us with additional funding, so there are significant ways in which I have patiently explained to the member across the way who is almost acting in a childlike fashion and is clinging on--[interjection]
* (1710)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I really hate to interrupt the minister, but--[interjection] Order, please. We have been doing fine till now. The honourable minister has the floor at this time, if we could give the courtesy to let the minister finish her statement.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member has also made allegations about a percentage amount of change which he has arrived at. When we get to that exact line, I will be happy to compare for him the amount of money spent by this government on victims' services and the amount of money spent by the former NDP government. Believe me, Mr. Chair, it is a significant difference in that this government's commitment financially is significantly greater than the NDP ever made or ever thought of making or ever will make.
He should be very clear, when he comes to be critical, about what his own party did and their lack of commitment. It is this government which has been focusing on issues of concern to victims, not only through the funding of programming, some of which was never funded by members opposite when they were in government, and also a concerted strategy to take the best of programming for victims, the best of ways to deal with victims across this country and put it together in a national strategy, and the fact is it was this government, the government of Manitoba on behalf of the people of Manitoba, which took that forward to Ottawa and had it accepted by ministers across the country, and that is fulfilling a commitment to the people of Manitoba, as well.
So the member opposite is very selective in the kinds of things that he brings. He tries to concoct a case, but the facts, Mr. Chair, have been different time and time again.
Now, in terms of the specific question about another individual personnel matter, Wyman Sangster who has joined the Department of Justice, he comes with two specific tasks, one, to work with the community around Manitoba in areas of crime prevention programs, to attend with communities and to help them develop at the grassroots level ways that they can participate and also to work in support of victims' programs.
At the moment, as I explained, we are doing a study of victims' services, and then he will be the lead individual to look at how we will be developing our victims' services across the province, and we certainly look for that to provide an enhancement.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. Item 4.1.(b) Executive Support (2) Other Expenditures $81,000--pass.
Item 4.1.(c) Policy, Planning and Special Projects (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $255,200.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just going back over the Estimates in earlier times, I noticed that it was usual to ask for a list of the projects that were ongoing in this area. Can the minister provide, either in writing or orally today, a list of the projects that are being studied?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I can give the member some of the initiatives which are being pursued and will commit to table a list tomorrow, a more complete list, of the projects being undertaken by Policy and Planning.
But just to give a little bit of information today, first of all, they are taking part in the case management pilot project through Family Law. I think that is an important one. They are also participants on the steering committee for parent education which is being done through family conciliation. They are responsible for analysis of all juror stat reports. They are taking the lead to co-ordinate the Law Reform Commission report on professions and occupations review. Those are some of the initiatives which I think are, perhaps, of specific interest to the community, and I will table a full list tomorrow.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): A point of order. I am just wondering, when things are asked for by the official opposition Justice critic, if I could assume that the minister would also table those for the Liberal Justice critic.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point or order, but if the minister does table any documents we will see that the member gets a copy of it.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, though that was not a point of order in your ruling, I just think it is important to put on the record that, yes, I am certainly willing to provide that information to the Liberal Justice critic.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister put in place some kind of a comprehensive follow-up to all the election promises made on crime in the last election?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, each division is responsible for the pursuing of election promises which would fall within that division, and certainly I ask for accountability that we are able to have fulfilled or are moving in the direction of fulfilling our election promises. As the member knows, some of those promises do require co-operation of others, including the federal government very specifically, and so that is another part of the communication that we have to do in terms of dealing with our election promises.
Mr. Mackintosh: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: The item is accordingly passed. 4.1.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $153,400--pass.
4.1.(d) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $791,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $270,700--pass.
4.1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $600,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $136,500.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister give the committee information on the number of aboriginal peoples employed in the department with a breakdown by division?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed the percentage is 6.28 percent of aboriginal people within the Department of Justice. I am told that we do not have that broken down by division today, but we can get that broken down by division and we will provide it to the member.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 4.1.(e) (2) Other Expenditures--pass.
4.1.(f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $630,600.
* (1720)
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that the common offence notice system is not operating as it should and that for approximately the last year or so, the computer system has not been able to let the licensing branch know when individuals are in arrears on their fines so that licences are not renewed or issued to people that are in arrears. Would the minister explain why this deficiency exists, and what steps are being taken to ensure that the courts let the licensing branch know about this important matter?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the details of the member's comments would best be discussed under 5.(b) in which this will be dealt with in Courts division.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 4.1.(f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits--pass. (2) Other Expenditures $403,700--pass.
We will move on to Resolution 4.2. Public Prosecutions (a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,840,800.
Did you get that on the record? Where did I stop? I am just going to back up to (f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $630,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $403,700--pass.
Resolution 4.2. Public Prosecutions (a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,840,800.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would like to go back to the first Hughes report of September 1991 in regard to the procedures following the investigation and subsequent stay in the matter of Harvey Pollock.
In that report, Mr. Hughes had made a number of recommendations, and I ask the minister if she would tell the committee what recommendations there have been acted on and which are still outstanding.
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member said, that was a 1991 report. We do have a new assistant deputy minister, and so we will undertake to get that information in terms of the changes made since that report. If the member has a specific question, I will be happy to take that, as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, is the minister herself aware as to the status of those recommendations and their implementation today?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, this was a very lengthy and comprehensive report. There were a number of recommendations. Some of those recommendations, I understand, were directed to the police, some to us in the Department of Justice, and we have, I understand, reorganized to ensure the independent assessment of cases.
However, to provide more detailed information, I would like to undertake to get that information for the member and to provide it to him.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister now revisited the issue of the Crown or departmental indemnification for individuals who have to proceed with private prosecutions because the department has refused to prosecute, and where have those prosecutions been successful?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told and as the member knows, I am sure, in deciding whether to prosecute, the department does apply a test. This test is applied uniformly, and sometimes that test results in the fact that the department determines not to go ahead. Charges are laid by the police as the member knows, and then the department has to apply their test in terms of proceeding to a prosecution.
At this time, there is not a consideration to provide an indemnification for an individual who decides to proceed with a private prosecution. There has not been that consideration at this time.
Mr. Mackintosh: I ask why that consideration has not been made, given that it is her department's decision not to prosecute that led to often substantial cost to an individual and where the matter is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Surely, if we are to uphold justice, that should be given consideration at least.
Mrs. Vodrey: No, the answer is the same. At the moment, we are not looking at an indemnification. Where a person decides to bring a case of a private prosecution, they do bear the costs.
Just in a quick discussion, it is my understanding that there is not this indemnification in other parts of Canada, and, in fact, in some other parts of Canada, private prosecutions are not allowed.
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5:30 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being 5:30 p.m., the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).