Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Justice. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.2.(e) on page 108 of the main Estimates book. The honourable member for The Maples was posing a question to the honourable Minister of Justice when we last met.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I was just wondering, the minister was speaking about the Restorative Resolution Program at John Howard Society. I do not know if he had finished his comments, if he had anything to add to what he was saying yesterday about the funding of that project and where to find it in the Estimates line.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Indeed, there were some comments that I wanted to make and as soon as my staff gets those details for my consideration. As I was saying yesterday, I believe that generally speaking we have been very supportive as a government of alternative mechanisms for resolving some of these very important issues. We have recognized that in Manitoba there are alternatives that are as effective as the more traditional ways of dealing with crime.

I speak, first of all, about things like the youth justice committees. I know the member for The Maples and his colleague the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) have been very important players in the development and support of our youth justice committees, and people like him are to be commended on that.

What we have tried to do in the area of Corrections and Restorative Resolutions is to work with the John Howard Society. I had indicated that there is co-operation between the provincial government and Corrections specifically in respect of this area. For example, when a person is charged with an offence, the court is presented with a plan that is developed by the John Howard Society worker. If all parties including the court agree, the accused is allowed to participate in the program and there are, generally speaking, the following criteria: The offender is facing a minimum sentence of 10 months; the offender has pled guilty; and, they are offences that fall within the acceptable category. This program has been operational for approximately five years. There are currently 123 active cases, and it is projected by the end of June that there would be about 150. We, as I indicated last, are quite supportive on an in-kind basis. We have increased our level of support, and we are supportive generally of this program.

One of the concerns, and I think John Howard recognizes the concern as well–and that is where I left my answer off last date–is the level of participation by aboriginal offenders. The member for The Maples, being a former police officer, understands that in fact there is a large degree of participation in our justice system by aboriginal people, unfortunately, more often as accused than as peace officers or court officials. We think that while that may be true for a number of reasons, the alternatives that we want to develop to the regular court system must also find a way to include aboriginal people. The Restorative Resolution Program does in fact include aboriginal offenders. While we see in our regular institutions a degree of participation, albeit not voluntary participation but as sentenced prisoners, we would see upwards of 60 or 70 percent as aboriginals in this Restorative Resolution Program, we see a participation level at about 22 percent.

Now part of that is due to the program criteria which restricts inmates charged with violent offences. Those are essentially the types of people who are going to jail in any event, if we look at the type of sentences people are receiving and the reasons why they are being sentenced. This, of necessity then leads to a lower participation, or not of a necessity, but by application I guess of the criteria, leads to a level of participation that I think needs to be examined on a continuing basis.

I do not suggest for one moment that John Howard or my own staff are in any way being inappropriate in terms of the criteria that they set. In all of these programs, we need to ensure that public safety is first. So I commend the staff in the development of this program, the application of the criteria. Although I would like to see a higher level of participation by aboriginal people in these types of Restorative Resolutions, I understand that there are some very practical limitations.

This was also, if I can just expand briefly, on some of the other steps that the government has been taking in order to look at ways of reintegrating aboriginal people into the general society where they have spent time in correctional institutes. That is why we have supported the program financially, the Legal Services of Winnipeg. I know the name has changed now, but the federal government and provincial government have contributed substantial sums of money. This is basically an aboriginal-based program. It is on a pilot project basis, so we have to see how it works.

The other issue, of course, that we have examined is the issue relating to the exploration of the idea that one of our correctional facilities, the Egg Lake facility north of The Pas, may be more fully utilized by aboriginals in a manner consistent with aboriginal programming. I know that there are issues that need to be dealt with in that context, and concerns, but we are supportive of exploring these alternatives in order to achieve what I consider to be the most effective type of corrections system, and that is a system that truly corrects people rather than simply warehouses them or puts them through the revolving door of prison and jail.

Just in that context, I note that in Alberta, where I was able to spend some time with the former Minister of Justice there, Mr. John Havelock, who has now been transferred over to Economic Development and Tourism, but I toured the Pincher Creek facility, which is a facility run by a native organization, as well as another correctional facility which is on a particular reserve, showed to me that there are different ways of dealing with these problems, and we need to keep mindful of those.

* (1500)

All I wanted to say is that Restorative Resolutions is part of that trend not only to try to find more effective ways of ensuring that people do not reoffend and in fact are corrected, but is also sensitive to the issue of our aboriginal people.

Mr. Kowalski: The low percentage of aboriginals involved in the program, I wonder if that is consistent. There is a report that has been put out by Lana Maloney in regard to conditional sentencing that is done in the province. I have had a chance to glance through the report. The percentage of aboriginals involved with conditional sentences, is it similar as to the number that are involved in the Restorative Resolutions project?

Mr. Toews: I welcome the question on conditional sentences, because it does deal with an issue that we as a government have been quite concerned about. In the context of that program I do have some information on the participation of aboriginal people, but it is also important, I think, to understand the program and then to deal with that specific issue, because it does lead to some questions.

As the member may know, Manitoba has opposed conditional sentences because of a problem of enforcement. There have been serious problems in the legislation. We have drawn those to the attention of the federal Justice minister and asked for certain amendments to those. An amendment indeed to address the enforcement issue comes into effect at the beginning of this month, July 1, 1999. The amendment partially solves the enforcement problems but raises other difficulties.

Some of the difficulties in enforcing conditional sentences until the new amendments took effect in July of this year has been the uncertainty about whether the sentence continues to run after a probation officer lays a breach. Defence counsel in a few cases successfully argued that a sentence in fact expired before the police executed the bench warrant. The court then had no jurisdiction to deal with the breach. We have the situation then of a court ordering a sentence, the sentence being breached, a warrant being issued, but because the convicted person serving the conditional sentence could not be apprehended until after the expiration of the conditional sentence, there was no remedy to the problem. Compare that with the suspended sentence which is still present in the Criminal Code, and why they left the suspended sentence, I do not know. I still think it is a much more effective way of dealing with exactly the same issue if the concern is too many people in jail, if that in fact is the concern.

The suspended sentence, if somebody breached a condition of the probation that might have been attached to a suspended sentence, the breach was laid and the person could be resentenced. As well, they would be charged with breach of probation.

One of the solutions that Manitoba in fact has done is to charge offenders with being unlawfully at large when they breach a conditional sentence, because as the courts continue to say, these people are imprisoned in the community, so if you have breached it you are unlawfully at large. This allows the court to hold offenders accountable even if the conditional sentence has technically expired.

Parliament addressed the enforcement issue through an omnibus bill known as C-51, and these amendments in fact stopped the clock. If there is a breach, it suspends the running of the sentence from the time the probation officer lays the breach until either the court denies bail or the court deals with the breach. A judge then has the discretion to recredit part, or all, of the time. Offenders are still bound by the condition even when the clock is stopped, and probation officers continue to supervise. Unfortunately, however, the maximum penalty for the breach is still the remnant. The amendments to C-51 do not change that. So if you have been conditionally sentenced in the community, the sentence is running, the clock stops at two months left, the only penalty is the two months. Under the old suspended sentence you could be brought back to court and resentenced. I think that is a much more meaningful possible disposition.

Also another problem with C-51, the new legislation, is that it makes sentence calculation extremely difficult. An error in calculating the sentence expiry date could lead to serious problems. The probation officer could supervise the offender too long and lay a breach in error after the sentence expires. Also, the probation officer may stop supervising too soon. This is not because the officer does not want to supervise, but it is so difficult to actually calculate the time on these conditional sentences. I think the federal government has to take a look at this entire issue and, frankly, I think they could have done much better by simply perhaps amending the suspended sentence section rather than this fiction of serving a sentence of imprisonment in the community.

In respect of the actual statistics on conditional sentences, Manitoba courts impose an average of 36 conditional sentences per month. Manitoba supervised 812 conditional sentences from September 3, 1996, to December 31, 1998. Mr. Chair, 686 of these were from the provincial court, 91 from the Court of Queen's Bench, 23 from the Court of Appeal and 11 from other provinces where they transferred jurisdiction. For Canada as a whole, the number of conditional sentences in that same time period was 27,721. Manitoba has fewer conditional sentences, and I think that is a percentage basis, than any other jurisdiction other than Prince Edward Island and the Territories. That has basically been because of our opposition to conditional sentencing and the problems. I know in certain jurisdictions, and I believe it is British Columbia, they have basically stopped enforcing all these conditional sentences because they simply do not have the personnel to enforce them. I think it is part of the entire problem about the crisis in the British Columbia provincial courts, and they simply are not able to supervise effectively.

* (1510)

I am not putting the entire blame on the British Columbia government. I think this is another example of how the federal government passes laws and then expects the province to enforce those laws and bear the cost. Similarly, with the Youth Criminal Justice Act that the federal government is presently proposing, they have tried to reform the Young Offenders Act and created some severe administrative and enforcement difficulties that the Province of Quebec has indicated will cost the Province of Quebec an additional $25 million to implement. I do not know how much of that is on an ongoing basis, but certainly the concern that we have about these types of programs is that the federal government should do more consulting.

In respect of conditional sentences, in Manitoba they have an average of 4.4 special conditions per order in addition to the mandatory conditions that exist. Probation orders had an average of 2.7 special conditions per order. So we see the number of conditions increasing in conditional sentences.

Many conditional sentences require offenders to take various treatment programs or counselling, and a variety of other conditions were ordered. The most common are 67 percent of them include the condition of abstaining from alcohol or drugs; 62 percent relate to curfew; 45 percent relate to community service work; 28 percent relate to residing at a specific place; 19 percent have no contact or communication with a specific person; 16 percent prohibit the possession of firearms, and 14 percent order restitution.

In Manitoba, and again this is what concerns me, I know that defence lawyers have said that conditional sentences are not being ordered in cases where there is violence. In fact, that is not correct. It has been a real concern of mine. I heard a defence lawyer being interviewed on the radio saying our judges do not grant conditional sentences for violent crimes. In Manitoba, offenders receive conditional sentences for the following types of offences: in 42 cases, 5 percent of them sex offences against children; in 18 cases, 2 percent sex offences against adult; in 93 cases 11 percent are family violence; in 162 other cases or 20 percent, other offences against persons. In 315 percent, that is 39 percent, the total offences against persons. In 286 cases, 35 percent were offences against property; 21 percent for narcotics cases, 167 cases; and 5 percent or 43 other cases, others, include failing to comply or impaired driving and the like.

The following national statistics are approximate only due to differences in how they are reconciled and because data is not available for Quebec. In Canada then, generally 6 percent involve sex offences; 25 percent are other offences against persons; 44 percent are offences against property; 4 percent impaired or dangerous driving; 5 percent are offences against the administration of justice; 10 percent are against the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act–I used to know that as the Narcotic Control Act–and 7 percent in respect of other offences.

So I see our government's concern about the use of conditional sentences as being a very valid concern especially in respect of sex offences or other violent offences. I know that fairly recently, the Manitoba Court of Appeal in the Bruyere decision came out, in a robbery it was, on a conditional sentence–on a robbery. Frankly, when you committed an offence years ago in respect of a robbery, you went to jail, if not penitentiary. I think this is a very dangerous trend.

Manitoba has appealed a number of these conditional sentences where we have stated conditional sentences are being inappropriately ordered by our courts including our Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear three of these cases, including some other cases from other jurisdictions. We hope to receive a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada setting out what types of offences are eligible for conditional sentences. Generally speaking, our prosecutors still continue to oppose conditional sentences.

In Manitoba, I can indicate that 73 percent of the Manitoba male offenders who receive conditional sentences had prior records; and for 74 percent of those 73 percent, the previous charges were for similar offences. So people are receiving conditional sentences for similar offences. In respect of females, 58 percent of the Manitoba females receiving conditional sentences had prior records; and for 79 percent of those 58 percent, the previous charges were for similar offences. In general then, 69 percent of all Manitoba offenders who receive conditional sentences had prior records. In other provinces, the percentages with prior records were 40 percent for Nova Scotia; 63 percent in Ontario, but a staggering 81 percent in British Columbia.

The sentence length, and I think this is a very important question that the member has brought forward, is 56 percent, six months or less; 27 percent, seven to 12 months; and 16 percent, more than 12 months. As the member is aware, conditional sentences are available only for sentences of two years less a day and under. If a person is appropriately sentenced to two years, the conditional sentence is not available. Indeed, the sentence that was imposed recently by our courts is under appeal where a conditional sentence that totalled I think about 44 months or so in the context of a federal prosecution is under appeal.

The issue that is directly related to the question is that the employment status at the time of sentencing for males, 40 percent were employed, females, 27 percent; part-time, males were 6 percent, females, 4 percent; unemployed males were 45 percent and females, 60 percent; students, males, 6 percent, females, 8 percent; retired males, 3 percent and females, 1 percent. I believe that then comes up to 100 percent in each category.

Probation officers prepared pre-sentence reports for 39 percent of the offenders; 44 percent of the reports were for property offences and 35 percent for offences against the persons. The success rate of these conditional sentences, that is, the sentence completed without a breach–and that I think is a relative success rate because we do not know from these statistics what happens the day after, but 51 percent of the sentences were completed without a breach; 16 percent, their sentences were breached; and 32 percent, the sentences are still under supervision at this time. Omitting sentences still under supervision, the breach rate is about 24 percent.

* (1520)

A comparison with other provinces is difficult because of differences in data; however, data from six jurisdictions shows that about 25.6 percent are breached, and that is roughly equivalent to what is occurring in Manitoba.

In respect of aboriginal offenders, the percentage of offenders who were aboriginal was 40 percent in Manitoba, males 38 percent, females 50 percent. In Saskatchewan 73 percent of the people on conditional sentences are aboriginals. So 73 percent in Saskatchewan, 40 percent in Manitoba, 20 percent in Alberta, 16 percent in British Columbia and 7 percent in Ontario.

Mr. Kowalski: Just to refresh my memory, when you were talking about restorative justice or resolutions, what percentage in that John Howard program were aboriginal? You mentioned a figure.

Mr. Toews: Approximately 22 percent. So here we see quite a higher rate as a total percentage of conditional sentences. That is why I say that there may well be some room to work with those numbers, but there are all types of reasons that John Howard may not consider certain people to be appropriate. It has to do with not only John Howard's willingness to work with them but also the court's willingness to send those to the Restorative Resolution Program.

In Manitoba there are some other aboriginal statistics very shortly. I could complete this, and this may be helpful for the member. I know that it was very informative for others in my department. In Manitoba aboriginal offenders in comparison to other offenders were more likely to be unemployed at the time of sentencing, about 66 percent. I do not think that figure comes as a surprise. They were more likely to have committed offences against persons, about 53 percent, and less likely to have committed property offences, about 25 percent, or narcotics offences, about 14 percent. They, generally speaking, scored higher on risk assessments; 44 percent were considered high risk to reoffend whereas 49 percent were medium risk. So the risk assessment tools being used by our correctional people indicate a higher risk assessment.

Aboriginals in comparison to other offenders received shorter sentences on average. They were also more likely to breach a condition; 55 percent of the persons charged for breaches were aboriginal.

So if you look at all the statistics one can see that there are some issues that need to be resolved. So the issue with John Howard only having 22 percent could well be complicated by some of the other statistics that I have pointed out. That does not mean we do not stop trying, but I think it is important to recall that.

Mr. Kowalski: On this line, and I have not been here for the entire Estimates, on this line 2.(e) managerial support, I believe it might have been explained already, the increase in the management position from 83.6 to 91.6, what is the reason for that?

I understand that it has already been explained in this committee, so I will read the Hansard in regard to that. The second part, I notice there is an increase in two full-time equivalent positions there in professional/ technical. Is one of those Wendy Huggan?

Mr. Toews: I can indicate that that was not her position. I do not have any other details available on that right now, but that is not her position.

Mr. Kowalski: But it is in this budget line that her salary does come out in this Public Safety department. This is where she is employed?

Mr. Toews: She certainly is employed in the Public Safety branch, and she is indeed under that line, 2.(e). She, in fact, filled in an existing position. The other ones relate to other positions. I can get you some more detail if that is what you want.

Mr. Kowalski: So we see an increase in staff of three full-time equivalents between administrative support, professional/technical people. What is the reason for that increase in staff?

* (1530)

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, the increase of three full-time equivalent staff for the Law Enforcement Review Agency, which is $131.2 thousand, and our salary increases resulting from negotiated collective agreement and elimination of reduced workweek, $153.5, and casual resources for women's advocacy re the Lavoie Inquiry Action Plan, $45,000. The explanation is in that footnote on page 41.

Mr. Kowalski: For the Public Safety branch in the next year, I know they have been involved in a number of conferences. Is their role going to be the same next year? Are there additional tasks being planned for them in the next year? Are we going to be seeing them having the same status as this year?

Mr. Toews: The member raises, I think, an important question with respect to the mandate of the Public Safety branch and I think, generally speaking, the mandate of the branch is twofold: No. 1, dealing with victims and, No. 2, crime prevention at a community level. I think these are all very, very important aspects of this government's philosophy towards the issue of crime. While we do not have the direct control over legislation, and indeed have a lesser degree of involvement in policing that, for example, in this province, falls mainly to municipalities and, of course, there is a provincial responsibility in terms of the RCMP where we are contracting with the RCMP as our provincial police force. Most of the direct law enforcement is done by either municipalities or the RCMP which do not always report to this government on an operational basis. The relationship is more of a contractual basis for the provision of these police services, whether it is in the municipalities or in other jurisdictions.

With I think the advent of the Charter of Rights, there had been a growing alienation of the victims of crime, and I think jurisdictions across Canada have felt it important to ensure that victims who have long been seen as the forgotten voice in the entire justice system in fact have a stronger voice in the system. Traditionally, it had always been the Crown prosecutor who not only spoke for society at large but also for the victim and indeed for the accused. The motto of the Crown attorney is not simply to obtain convictions but rather to see that justice is done, even in cases where it meant the acquittal of an accused.

The Crown attorneys I think have done an excellent job in maintaining that evenhanded fairness and ensuring that society generally is heard. But with the strengthening of the rights of the accused and the predominance of the interests of the accused in many of the judgments that we see coming out of the courts because of how our Charter of Rights is worded and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada, I think there has been a growing sense of frustration by victims and community organizations generally. So as this concern accelerated, it was incumbent upon governments to begin to address that concern, and hence this creation of this Public Safety branch to address the concerns of victims and also to stimulate crime prevention programs at a community level.

The victims' programs, for example, that we talked about last date that the RCMP essentially co-ordinate throughout the province that began as a pilot project, and we have talked about some of the grants last day as well, have been more formally and permanently recognized by our government to ensure that these programs are continuing throughout the province of Manitoba, not only in the city of Winnipeg.

The other very important function that the branch carries out is through the person of the crime prevention co-ordinator. That was the person that the member referred to earlier, Wendy Huggan, who has been recently hired by the department. One of her duties, of course, is to work with grassroots crime prevention, and that involves the COP program, the Citizens on Patrol Program, an extremely successful program that I think found most of its roots in the rural areas and which I know has been met with a tremendous measure of success.

Indeed, I know the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) wrote me a letter and asked me for more information on the success of these programs in the rural areas and indeed wanted to ensure that his community also benefited from these programs. I know that over the last year or so this branch has been instrumental in accommodating the requests of not only MLAs acting for and in the best interests of their constituents by helping with the creation of the Citizens on Patrol, but community groups generally. So we have seen, especially I would say in the core area of Winnipeg, these types of groups working together with community police initiatives in a very effective way. The role of the Public Safety branch is to support these groups either through practical assistance or indeed monetary assistance where that is available. I can say that, generally speaking, these groups receive small amounts of money and yet have been very good stewards of these small grants and have been able to utilize these grants and effectively take steps to protect their communities.

In an anecdotal way, I can say that I had a conversation just outside of the community policing office in the Selkirk housing project, and a citizen, a member who is very active in the local Citizens on Patrol and working with community policing there–and I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has some more than passing familiarity with that area. It may well have been part of his beat at one time, so he knows the area that I am talking about and the very serious social and criminal challenges that that area presented.

We had made a particular announcement at the community policing office there. Constable Ducharme was there, Willy Ducharme, I believe his first name is, certainly a well-accepted police officer in the community, working together with the community, working together with community organizations. This specific citizen told me that the calls for assistance, and this is anecdotal so I cannot confirm that, but he indicated that the calls for assistance dropped in that Lord Selkirk Housing area and the immediate area from 700 a year to about a hundred a year. Again, I attribute that success not only to the very active role of the community police office and efforts of the police but through the Citizens on Patrol organizations.

So what we have seen is the success of these kinds of programs not only in the rural areas where in some areas crime has been able to drop 60-70 percent in small communities where these Citizens on Patrol groups have been formed and are maintained. But even in our urban areas, one often thinks about large urban areas as not amenable to that type of solution. I think that community organizations who deal with the city on a block-by-block basis realize that there are vibrant communities and communities of interest that allow these people to get together and, with minimal support from government, can make a tremendous difference in their community.

So these types of responsibilities are the responsibility of the Public Safety Branch. The additional responsibility that they will be acquiring is the responsibilities under the community protection act, and that is the act that this government has recently introduced into the House. To some extent it is experimental, but I think it is a very important tool again in giving people in the community an opportunity to take control of what is happening in their community, not simply to wait for government to do something, not simply to wait for the cruiser car to arrive, but like the Citizens on Patrol programs, involve them in an active and ongoing way, in a way to protect and enhance living conditions in their community.

* (1540)

So this act, for example, allows community organizations to make applications to the courts for various orders, initially at the Provincial Court level and then subsequently at the Queen's Bench level which could eventually involve the padlocking of residences that are used for purposes that are destructive to the neighbourhood. Again, this idea has a root in our legal system. In the 1920s, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case called Bedard and Dawson, dealt with a narrower version of this type of legislation where it dealt with the idea of bawdy houses and padlocking bawdy houses. This legislation is in fact an expansion of that idea and incorporates a number of American ideas where in New York and Los Angeles and other jurisdictions, they use these types of civil remedies to help communities make differences. They have proved successful. Clearly, the degree of success depends on the measure of community involvement that will occur. The issue though cannot simply be left on the community, and that is why we have in this budget enhanced the resources that will be available, including investigators, to assist community organizations. So we want to work with the police, with the community. These investigators can help marshal some of the evidence that will be required in this type of activity.

It is often difficult to look at how one measures success. I know that sometimes people look at statistics. It is a very misleading thing sometimes to look at statistics. I know the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) stated today that there had been no cases in Manitoba where a case involved The Parental Responsibility Act, where a parent of a child, in fact, has had a judgment award against him. That is incorrect. My information leads me to believe that there has been some success in that. Specifically, I am aware of a case in Flin Flon where a judgment was awarded against the parents of a child who had broken a car window with a rock.

But you do not measure success in the number of cases that may be brought under a particular statute. It is like trying to measure the success of our legislation dealing with the seizure of motor vehicles for prostitution-related activities. I mean, how many motor vehicles have been permanently forfeited? I am not aware of any at this time. But to say that the legislation has not been effective is being extremely misleading, because we know from police sources and community organizations that in fact it is a very welcome tool. Similarly, with The Parental Responsibility Act, in my conversations with youth justice committees, they were very interested in The Parental Responsibility Act, indeed, incorporated the thinking in The Parental Responsibility Act in how they administered justice. So the issue of a parent being responsible is sanctioned by our Legislature, that there is a degree of responsibility for parents in respect of criminal activity of their children. I hope that legislation continues to be used, not only in the direct mechanism provided under the legislation, but that the legislation affords community organizations, and I include youth justice committees in that context, with new ways of thinking about problems and realizing that government, as a principle, supports the idea that the family unit owes a measure of responsibility, not just the child. We cannot isolate the child from the family unit, hold the child accountable by himself or herself.

As staff points out, while we know that there has been utilization of The Parental Responsibility Act, again, we do not know how many cases have been settled out of court as a result of that. If we looked at the number of Queen's Bench judgments that are being handed down in civil cases generally, I think we will see a remarkable drop over the years in civil cases generally. That is attributable to a number of reasons, one of them being the no-fault auto insurance, and other reasons. But that does not mean that the courts do not serve a useful purpose or that specific pieces of legislation do not serve a useful purpose.

For example, if a parent or a person who has had property damage against their property knows that the kid a few houses down did the damaging and goes up to the parents and says, look, your kid tossed a rock through my window, under the law, you are responsible, what responsible parent, knowing that maybe they had not been as responsible as they should, would not say, look, I am going to make that good in terms of paying that off and then deal with my child in that context?

So court statistics are a real misleading way to measure success. I think in many respects this is something that we will also see in the context of the community protection act. We may not see full padlock orders, just in the same way we have not seen full orders of permanent seizure of motor vehicles. But as MLAs in the areas that might be affected by prostitution-related activities or houses being used as crack houses, I think, anecdotally, and then over a period of time, we will be able to see a demonstrable effect, not necessarily reflected in court dockets, because certainly court dockets, in some sense, reflect a failure of our legal system. The idea that a judgment in the court is somehow a success is not in fact necessarily a measurement of success. How many cases we are able to resolve peacefully by other means in fact is a much truer representation of success and in fact much more difficult to quantify.

So I think those who walk around spouting figures and saying this is a measure of our success or lack of success really need to have their thought processes examined. The issue, for example, on domestic violence, we have seen an increase in violent crimes in the area of domestic violence. Does this mean that all of a sudden Manitobans became more abusive toward their spouses? Of course that is not correct. What the statistics indicate and Statistics Canada specifically recognizes in respect of Manitoba, is that we have taken a private problem and made it public. This indicates the level of violence that may well exist in any community, whether it is in Manitoba or otherwise.

* (1550)

I know people say, well, look at these tremendous violence stats in Manitoba in this area. Is it not shameful? In fact I think it is a credit to the police and indeed to this government that this prior secret problem where people were abused and threatened and killed is being brought out into the public. Again, the statistics are not really an indication of the level of the problem or the lack of the problem.

In other areas, like the laws that we have passed in respect of drinking and driving since 1989, the traffic research institute has indicated how effective our administrative suspension laws and seizure laws have been in that respect. The true measurement of the success is not the number of arrests that police officers make for impaired driving but indeed the number of deaths or injuries and the reduction in those deaths and injuries. That is the true measure of success. The number of arrests are of course dependent on the level of enforcement. But there is something about a dead body that speaks much louder than every single statistic, that is, you cannot hide the dead body, you cannot hide the serious injuries. So when we see real reductions in those kinds of deaths or injuries, I say then we are beginning to see progress in some of these programs that we are making, and, eventually, these kinds of programs of the Public Safety Branch, which the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has already recognized has been a tremendous success in rural areas, will also bear fruit in our urban areas because I have no less a high regard for the people of Winnipeg than I do for the people of Manitoba generally.

Mr. Kowalski: You mentioned about the investigators that somehow will be assisting with enforcement of the new legislation that has been presented in the House, yet I do not see additional positions in this budget for the investigators. Where are these investigators coming from? Is it people who are already in the department? Who are these investigators going to be?

Also, while I am asking about that, today in the Free Press and also on CBC Questionnaire, as I mentioned in the House, there is heightened concern about the fires that are going on in a particular part of the city and the housing stock and the property values. I believe Tom Simms mentioned that the Minister of Housing's constituents will be paying higher taxes next year because even if there is a zero percent property tax increase with reassessment, the shift of the tax burden will be going to his constituents. So Tom Simms made sure that he mentioned that today on CBC Questionnaire.

But, with that, will there be any direction by the minister to target that area as far as enforcement of this legislation? Would there be any strategy? Where would the direction be coming from for the investigators to look at, especially in that area where it is receiving a lot of notoriety? Will that be a focus of their work?

Mr. Toews: The focus of this unit, generally speaking, will be to provide the government infrastructure for the support of these communities. So it will be, in many senses, a community police officer working together with a community organization that says, look, we have this issue of a crack house or indeed some other booze can or something, and we need some kind of support.

In many ways, we want to ensure that the initiative remains at the community level. These are community organizations that need to take the step to say we want to help the police not only in terms of the regular enforcement that they can do but also through this new mechanism.

So it will be a resource available and, in that sense, supportive of proactive measures by the community.

Mr. Kowalski: But having worked in those communities, that is one of the problems because of the transient nature of the population and a lot of rental properties. It is wonderful to have this legislation, but there needs to be supports for community building, to identify the leaders.

Sometimes in some of those communities the residents do not have the necessary skills or background or confidence, and I am wondering–it is fine to have this legislation, and it is fine to say that it is to be a community initiative, but will there be supports, will there be encouragement to the community? Will there be community building, so that they can take advantage of this legislation as another tactic in the strategy to solve some of the problems going on in areas of the city that are having a lot of problems these days, a lot of decay.

Mr. Toews: The member raises a good point in terms of support for community organizations and the issue of whether community organizations, viable community organizations, exist in some areas. That has always been a concern in working with many of the programs that the Public Safety Branch, in fact, has been responsible for.

It was the same concern that was raised when we set up our Urban Sports Camps or our community sports camp. There were apparently no community-based organizations that could undertake this initiative, and yet through the assistance of the Rotary and other organizations, individuals were identified, so that we now see two very successful, large community sports camps and various satellite programs run out of them in other locations in the city working as a result of tapping into community organizations and community groups, one of them being the Winnipeg Native Alliance and Mr. Troy Rupert in that respect.

The legislation that was developed here in Manitoba and, as I say, has its roots not only in some of the constitutional litigation from the 1920s, but indeed from American research that people in my department have done. I know that one of our senior policy analysts, Mr. Glen Lewis, was involved in the development of this. Not only was Mr. Lewis involved, but I know that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had a number of discussions, and others had discussions, with Reverend Harry Lehotsky, who works in the downtown core area and who has been very effective in terms of the contributions that he and his organization, his church, have made in that area.

One of the mechanisms, and I have heard him speak about it a number of times, that they would utilize is they would stand in front of crack houses or drug houses or booze cans and hold prayer meetings, just stand out in the street and hold prayer meetings. The people would come out of the homes and say: what are you doing, you know, you are essentially interfering with our business? This is very troubling.

The response was a very peaceful one. Well, you are being very destructive to our neighbourhood and we are just simply trying to pray that you understand this kind of problem.

I know that he is very supportive of this kind of legislation, and it is a tool that he, in fact, sees as being effective. You or I may debate about the merits of prayer, or we may not debate about the merits of prayer, but he not only believes in the merits of prayer, he also believes in certain statutory actions that his organizations could use. So he has been very supportive of this.

Even recognizing that a person like Reverend Harry Lehotsky is a very sophisticated individual and is well known in that particular area and brings some of his experience from other jurisdictions to bear on the resolution of this problem, not every organization would be quite as sophisticated as his in terms of his church organization or community organization and some of the other projects he is involved in.

* (1600)

Even if you look at the other less sophisticated organizations, as organizations they may not be sophisticated, but I think it is very misleading to view the people in these communities as not being sophisticated. They know what their problem is. They have been dealing with it on a lengthy basis. Sometimes as these individuals come together into even loosely knit organizations like our Citizens on Patrol organizations, they have made a tremendous difference.

So what we are hoping is that through our public safety branch and some resources being granted in that respect, and I believe for this year, the resources being granted, we are estimating that about $100,000 are being required in this fiscal year as that program starts. I think the support that we can give is very, very important. Again, depending on the measure of uptake on this, I think it will be very important to support these community organizations, so that government plays a facilitating role, government plays a supportive role, but essentially the police and the community organizations are the ones who will have to actually come out and say: we have a problem; how can you help us? We can work together with them in that respect.

We estimate, I just indicate for the member's knowledge, that while $100,000 will be necessary in this fiscal year, probably $200,000 will be necessary in the following fiscal year.

Mr. Kowalski: This afternoon we talked about the restorative justice program that John Howard runs and we indicate that it is now included in a line in the budget and that there are people seconded to it. It started off as a pilot project, and now it is in the Estimates. It is an ongoing situation. It gives rise to one of the problems for an advocacy. Whether it be the John Howard Society or Elizabeth Fry Society, they have a role to play as advocates. As advocates, they are advocating for a side of society from which you do not get any votes, supporting prisoners or prisoners' rights. Nobody has much sympathy for people who commit crimes, yet they still do have rights. Their complaints have to be fairly dealt with, and that is why we have organizations like John Howard and Elizabeth Fry.

When we get into a situation like this where the John Howard now has become part of the government Estimates, their program, does it restrict their ability, then, when they see the provincial Corrections doing something that maybe they do not agree with from their role as advocates? As the government moves to service delivery from these organizations outside the government, does that hamper their ability in their role as advocates?

Mr. Toews: I think the member raises a very important question and role of government in respect of an advocacy organization, and we understand that the John Howard Society has perhaps more than just the role of advocates. Indeed, we look at them in terms of being service providers. That is what the government of Manitoba and Corrections specifically contract with John Howard Society. We are looking for the provision of services, and we contract specifically for the provision of services. We do not quarrel with the fact that they may, as an organization, have another role as advocates, and may have a philosophy that might be at odds with our government's philosophy in some respect. But, if we can utilize that organization in order to fulfill a legitimate government need as determined by the Legislature, then we will continue to contract with outside organizations.

The issue raised by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) in the prior question relating to organizations like Citizens on Patrol, in a sense, we do contract with them as well. We give them $2,000, and they provide a service. Not in the same formal way that, perhaps, we contract with the John Howard Society, but we recognize that there are certain groups outside of government who can very effectively fulfill a role.

* (1610)

For example, in Corrections, we contract with various ministers and elders to provide religious services to the inmates in our facilities. Those ministers, whether they are United Church or Presbyterian or Mennonite or otherwise, may advocate or talk about issues that government may not always agree with. That should not be the concern of government. Clearly we do not want to see them advocating breaking the law and that kind of thing, but, generally speaking, we respect their religious freedoms, and we contract for a certain provision of services. That is what we are also doing with the John Howard Society. We recognize that they believe that they have an advocacy role, and so we want to ensure that, despite the fact that we may not always agree, they, in fact, do provide the services that we are contracting for, and that I as minister am responsible for.

In that context I know that the John Howard Society has taken issue with this government in respect of some levels of funding, and I know they were critical originally when this government stopped funding the advocacy portion of their services. I believe that happened a number of years ago when we basically went to them and said: look, we are looking at you to provide certain services.

Now, the John Howard Society published a newsletter in the spring of this year which was critical of decreasing government funding to private after-care agencies, and specifically to the John Howard Society by what they claimed 30 percent over the past 10 years. I also think that, while they are advocating, which is in fact what they are doing, they are advocating for more money, government also has a right to respond to those types of criticisms. The newsletter was critical, for example, of the capital investment at the Headingley Correctional Institution, and they indicated that at the same time there was decreased funding for community agencies.

Now, on May 17, I responded by letter to the executive director of the John Howard Society, basically challenging the depiction of information presented in the newsletter with some of the following points. My points were that the article failed to accurately acknowledge the actual level of funding provided to community agencies. The article also failed to acknowledge the very significant level of in-kind contributions in support of the Restorative Resolution Program since 1993. That has totalled approximately $300,000 annually, and this has never been acknowledged in the newsletter. So, if you are going to say we have cut actual dollar funding but fail to mention the in-kind funding, we think that is unfair, and it leads to an inaccurate understanding of the true situation by the community.

I know that for the fiscal year, which they fail to recognize, in 1999-2000, an annual grant of the $76,000 for the operating funds of the Restorative Resolution Program had been approved, further demonstrating our commitment to the restorative justice program. Also, in this fiscal year, the funding to Mediation Services has been increased from $65,000 to $136,000 annually. Again, this might not directly mean money in the hands of John Howard Society, but the Mediation Services, we think, is also a very important community organization. Also, the government of Manitoba, we pointed out in the letter, is allocating $1.5 million in the Justice Initiatives Fund for such programs as Ganootamaage. In '98-99 that was $200,000, and the Northern Justice Strategy, which is approximately $200,000 in the current fiscal year.

Other initiatives include continuing support for the Hollow Water and the St. Theresa Point, and again these are alternative or diversion programs in our justice system. We also pointed out that funding is provided to justice committees in the amount of $41,000, and this is in support of 70 justice committees. Just recently, government announced the additional funding of $56,000 that was just announced. Again, this is money to organizations. It might not be to the John Howard Society or it might not be to the Elizabeth Fry, but it shows a continuing commitment to the idea of private after-care or other private organizations to play an important role.

The Urban Sports Camps are allocated $1 million until March 31, 2001, with an additional $2.5 million allocated through Winnipeg Development and Urban Safety to fund programs such as the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club, the Salvation Army Weetamah program and the Circus and Magic Programs, CAMP. I know that our Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) is very supportive, as well.

So the current level of funding to the John Howard Society is reflected as follows, including Brandon: $119,000 annual grant, $76,000 annual grant for Restorative Resolution, and $224,000 in in-kind contributions.

Mr. Kowalski: Yes, that was interesting, but what I was talking about was the advocacy groups in particular, and because they are advocating for people who are not favoured by society, it is a tough road. If the service delivery, the funding of that service delivery can be held over the heads of these advocacy groups as pressure to dissuade them from bringing forward matters that maybe they should be doing in their role. A hypothetical situation, if the Department of Justice funds program delivery to Elizabeth Fry, and they go into Portage Correctional facility and the person who is funded sees things that they have objections to that they feel in their role as an advocate. Does that mean that if that is brought forward, therefore, Elizabeth Fry will not be funded for that service delivery anymore because they bring it forward? Can that be used as a pressure tactic?

Mr. Toews: The issue that the member raises is a very, very difficult one. I acknowledge the difficulty and the importance that advocacy groups play in our society. It is always the relationship between government and private organizations who rely on government funding. To what extent do you take government money and then are beholden to the government and in a sense trapped by government. That is something I think each organization has to live with. I know that in the context, and I am bringing this up by way of analogy to perhaps explain some of my thinking in this area, is the independent schools.

Independent schools had advised that they have a constitutional right to a certain degree of funding. That was a position that was denied by the previous NDP administration. Our government, rather than dealing with the matter on that constitutional basis, attempted to arrive at an equitable settlement with independent schools, recognizing the very important role that these independent schools play in various provinces and communities across Canada. In speaking to some of the people, eventually what we agreed to was a 50 percent level of funding. So 50 percent of what the province pays for public schools, independent schools receive this. Partly, then, independent schools funding comes from government.

Generally speaking, I think, they are satisfied with the level of funding because, as one individual explained to me, the higher degree of level of funding and dependence upon the provincial government, the more the possibility that some of our religious principles can be compromised. That is the tension that any private organization, not just in a religious context, but any private organization has in coming to government and working to government with funding. Obviously it depends on what the good will of government is and the Legislature is at any one particular time, because the Legislature could defeat this budget and Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Society receive nothing. It has nothing to do with their position with respect of advocacy or otherwise.

* (1620)

So relying on government funding is always something that should be a cautious thing. That is why many of the community organizations that we talk to in terms of funding, we say we will provide funding to a certain level or to a certain extent in terms of years, and after that you have got to have developed a plan to supplement that funding or in fact to replace that funding when government funding disappears.

Our position as a government vis-a-vis John Howard and Elizabeth Fry is that we contract for services. We want them to provide a service that we feel is necessary for prisoners in our provincial jails. We do not pay them any money for advocacy. That is their business, just in the same way as a minister whom we contract with to provide religious and other kinds of perhaps psychological services to a prisoner. We simply want that service provided in the jail, and the provision of those services is really the business then of the minister and the person that he performs those services to. We do not get involved in how those particular services are carried out provided the four corners of the contract are met. Again, we do not provide any money for advocacy. So if John Howard or Elizabeth Fry want money for the advocacy, they will have to go to some other agency. I know that they receive money from the United Way. They receive money from federal Corrections. Again, I do not know whether federal Corrections says a portion of your budget will be for advocacy, and so the federal government may well say that that is something that they think is important and that is a service they want to contract with or in fact pay for.

It is curious that the federal government would contract for those advocacy services in the sense of paying them to do advocacy, that organization, and yet with I know–what is it? LEAF, yes the advocacy group for Charter challenges and the like and the advocacy for that, they have basically stopped funding the advocacy and simply allow on a project-by-project basis. They no longer provide just core funding. I believe it is LEAF that is the organization. I know that there has been some controversy and discussion between that organization and the federal government in that respect. But again, it is something that the federal government has said: we will not pay for any advocacy in that respect. So in this case they have in fact contracted for certain services. I think this has to be seen then in the context of what other safeguards exist.

So the member says, well, if they then granted, they do not receive any money for advocacy; what if they do advocate, will that impact negatively on the monies that they receive for delivering the services in other context? That question in itself raises two responses. Number one, let us say there was an organization–I am not suggesting that it is either John Howard or Elizabeth Fry–but that John Howard or a similar organization, not John Howard and not Elizabeth Fry, but this organization makes scurrilous accusations against members of a government department, let us say of a jail, and they provide services and work on a day-to-day basis with those people, work on a day-to-day basis, work together in the delivery of those services. Okay. Then in their advocacy they make scurrilous accusations about the conduct of certain government employees. And let us say that those accusations and those comments are totally without fact. That is hard to imagine, but let us just deal with the extreme kind of situation, that they are totally without fact. There is no basis for them making those accusations. In the end, when let us say the government people in the facility are cleared of the allegations, the same people then who have made the scurrilous accusations continue to provide services under contract. And yet they have to work with the same people that they have made accusations about.

What should the government's response be in that context? Should the government say, well, we are just looking at the provision of contracts or the provision of services pursuant to a contract and even though they were totally irresponsible in their advocacy and the making of accusations and we know that it has irreparably harmed the relationship between the government staff and the advocate who also performs these services, we will continue working, insisting that these two groups go together. Now that makes for a fairly bad working environment. I think government, if that kind of situation should ever arise, certainly it would be incumbent upon government to say, look, they have not reneged in terms of the contract. They have carried out the contractual obligations, but their activities in other contexts have made the working relationship between that organization, and the regular government staff untenable and therefore we are going to have to look for these same services from another organization.

* (1630)

It is, I think, similar to the situation with Mr. Keegstra who as a teacher said, well, I did not bring my racist Nazi views into the classrooms, and if I continue with my racist Nazi views outside of the classroom that would be all right. Now, the school board in that situation said, we do not think that is all right. We think that the advocacy that you do outside of the classroom, even though we contract with you to provide certain types of education, we think that we have a right to examine our contractual relationship and deal with that issue.

Again, I am not suggesting in this context that John Howard or Elizabeth Fry are in any way involved in that kind of advocacy, but we do, I think, come to the situation then where, not the extreme, but, for example, assuming what I have said about John Howard in the letter to them is accurate, that while they have performed their services well and we are satisfied with their service and their performance, what about advocacy that puts them directly into conflict with the government by saying that government does not care about alternative mechanisms of resolving dispute, let us say if they deliberately withheld information that makes their newsletter misleading to the public. What should the government response be? I guess, on the extreme, one could say, well, the contract should be terminated. I think that there are much more effective ways of dealing with those kinds of situations, other than those kinds of extreme situations where there has been a gross misrepresentation by some organization where the working relationship has just utterly broken down.

But I know that my staff, for example the assistant deputy minister, meets with the John Howard Society I believe on a quarterly basis. That is what they have agreed to, so that issues regarding their relationships can be worked out on I think a minimal basis.

I think, as well, that there has been a proposal that we deal with Elizabeth Fry in a similar way, that high-level government officials meet with Elizabeth Fry in order to resolve issues on an ongoing basis. I think what happens when you do not meet on an ongoing basis and you are funding, sometimes miscommunication develops, misunderstandings develop, and you do not have a regular path by which to air differences. I think that is truly an important aspect about these funding relationships and the broader relationship in terms of the various components of the organization, whether it is advocacy or otherwise.

I think that there are a number of other independent people or agencies that Elizabeth Fry or John Howard can work with in order to ensure that they are not being mistreated, or, let us say, dealt with in an arbitrary fashion; that is, in an unprincipled fashion.

I would just refer the member to people like the Ombudsman. I mean, Elizabeth Fry or John Howard, if it is somehow seen that there is an improper connection between funding and their advocacy, you know, that one is contingent upon the other, and there is no good basis for making that contingent, then they can go to the Ombudsman; then they can go to the Child Advocate; they can go to places like their MLA. As you know, an MLA has free access to jails on a regular basis. I believe it is virtually unimpeded access to our jails, with the exception of I think some emergency situations where there are issues of life. But in our correctional act there, in fact, is a very specific safeguard in that respect.

The other point that needs to be made is that our government is not worried about advocacy. There are a number of situations where we, in fact, do support the funding of advocates. We see this as a very important part of a service delivery. For example, under our Victims' Rights Act, there is an important element that we have just introduced, and it relates to what is commonly referred to as O'Connor applications, where a witness wants to advocate her position in respect. This usually relates to sexual assault cases where the background of the victim has now become a legal issue. Counselling records then certainly are requested by defence counsel. Our concern, of course, is that these types of things not turn into fishing expeditions. So, in fact, under The Victims' Rights Act, the witness wants to advocate her position, and there is provision made available for counsel to advocate on her behalf. We see that as a very important role, given what has happened in the Criminal Code and the interpretation of the Criminal Code by the Supreme Court of Canada. The other very important aspect of advocacy that our government believes in is Legal Aid.

Under our Legal Aid program, and this is available to prisoners as well, is the protection of prisoners rights through the Legal Aid system and the accused rights through the legal aid system. We fight, you know, through Legal Aid, charges in the courts. Legal Aid, as the member knows, when it first came about was funded on a 50-50 basis by the federal and provincial governments. Now the federal government contributes about 25 percent of the net cost of Legal Aid. The total Legal Aid costs in Manitoba are about $15 million on an annual basis. That is reduced by contributions from interests from lawyers trust funds and the Law Foundation, leaving a net cost of about $12 million coming from government, $3 million of which comes from the federal government and $9 million coming from the provincial government. So we have continually backfilled the situation as the federal government has capped its contribution and indeed reduced its contribution, and we have continued to contribute to that. And so, very important.

Another advocacy point again is the Public Interest Law Centre, which I think is very, very important. The Public Interest Law Centre has been there, as the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) will know, for a number of years. Mr. Arne Peltz, who heads up that particular organization, has been very active working on behalf of advocacy groups and interest groups in terms of ensuring that certain problems are addressed by the courts. I know that he just very recently won a recommendation.

My deputy minister advises me that the current Legal Aid bill is approximately $16.5 million on an annual basis. Again, the federal government, I believe the contribution is being capped. The provincial government keeps on raising its contribution, and indeed as late as last week the provincial government increased certain domestic law tariffs in various categories from $250 to $270 and $500 to $540.

* (1640)

The other example that I could bring for the member for The Maples attention is the Egg Lake consultations. We in fact wanted to consult with communities and provided a certain measure of money, again on a specific per-case basis. These Egg Lake consultations dealt with the possibility of turning the Egg Lake correctional institute into a native healing centre or some other kind of correctional institute that would in fact be run by a First Nations organization, an aboriginal organization or the like, because we felt it was important that we continue to modernize our justice system to ensure that we continue to work together with aboriginal people. So we presented a cheque in the amount of $66,000 to a First Nations organization to allow in fact the community to advocate for a particular position regarding the possibility of a correctional facility that might in fact be run by a native organization.

So again, this government has not been worried about advocacy and indeed has funded advocacy in a number of contexts. So the member's point, as he states, would the government somehow hold this threat over the John Howard Society that they might advocate certain positions that would be contrary to the government of Manitoba, our focus, as I have said, is to identify the services that we need to be provided. That is what we are contracting for. We do not contract for the provision of advocacy services with either Elizabeth Fry or indeed with the John Howard Society. So the issue still remains then to what extent would advocacy impact adversely on an agency's specific contractual obligations that it carries out. I think I have indicated that in those cases where there would be an extreme situation, where the working relationship is simply no longer tenable, there would be a specific concern that the government would need to address from a labour relations point of view.

I know that the assistant deputy minister in respect of Corrections has committed to John Howard, has indicated that they will meet, if John Howard wants to meet, on a quarterly basis, and indeed I hope that that continues. It has been a remarkably successful format that this assistant deputy minister has been responsible for in the context of working together with the union on the one hand and management on the other in the context of the Headingley Correctional Institute. Many of the improvements made at Headingley have come, if not all of them, through that joint labour-management team that was chaired by John Scurfield, who chaired it and made numerous recommendations.

So I can see the John Howard Society working together with our department and trying to iron out any misunderstanding that might develop. The John Howard Society, when I read the newsletter, I cannot say that I was extremely happy with the letter because I thought it was inaccurate, and that is why we wrote the letter. It went out under my signature. I wrote the letter to–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am interrupting the proceedings of this section of the Committee of Supply because the total time allowed for Estimates consideration has now expired. Our Rule 71.(1) provides in part that not more than 240 hours shall be allowed for the consideration in Committee of the Whole of Ways and Means and Supply resolutions respecting all types of Estimates and of relevant Supply bills.

Our Rule 71.(3) provides that where the time limit has expired, the Chairperson shall forthwith put all remaining questions necessary to dispose of the matter, and such questions shall not be subject to debate, amendment or adjournment.

I am therefore going to call in sequence the questions on the following matters, and I would remind members that these questions may not be debated, amended or adjourned, according to the rules of the House.

Resolution 4.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,909,800 for Justice, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. Shall the resolution pass?

The honourable member for St. Johns, on a point of clarification.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Just for clarification, are we going through item by item? Is that what we have to do? Right now, we were on 4.2.(e). Is that what we are passing right now?

Mr. Chairperson: We are proceeding resolution by resolution and passing resolutions in order. We are dealing with Resolution 4.1. Shall the resolution pass?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those against, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

An Honourable Member: Count-out, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been called for.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Maybe you could seek some clarification. When the hours of Estimates are closed, I believe that you said that there was no further debate or challenge. So I believe, Mr. Chairperson, that the request for a vote may have been out of order, because it was my understanding that when Estimates are finished, there are no further questions, there is no further debate regarding the Estimates process, that the process has stopped.

It would appear that the proceedings were interrupted on a point of order, and the point of order then asked for a vote on the proceedings that you have asked for. I would think that maybe, Mr. Chairperson, it may possibly be an interpretation of the rules, that there is a seeking of clarification on that.

* (1650)

Mr. Mackintosh: Just on the same point, Mr. Chair, just as advice to the Chair, the Chair read out the rules of the House. There is no debate on this and there is no adjournment. There are no amendments that are possible, but, of course, the House always must and the committee must always have the final right of voting on any matter. I mean, that is the very basic fundamental operation of the Legislature and its committees.

In terms of points of order, too, if the minister was concerned about the point of order that was raised, I do not think there is any consequence to that, but, again, points of order must be available to be raised at any time on any matter of proceeding.

But this is a simple matter of calling a vote on a resolution. All the items have been passed on that resolution except the Minister's Salary and it is directed to the Minister's Salary for which the House must make a determination, yea or nay.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The only changes that can be made to this resolution, or the ones that I have mentioned here, a recorded vote has been called for.

Mr. Chairperson: The committee will go to the Chamber for that vote. We will recess for the vote.

________

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I will call the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 254, back to order to consider the resolutions of the Department of Justice. We will proceed with Resolution 4.2.

Resolution 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $74,700,600 for Justice, Criminal Justice, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

Resolution 4.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $21,926,200 for Justice, Civil Justice, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

Resolution 4.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $70,544,300 for Justice, Corrections, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

Mr. Kowalski: I do not know if it is a point of order or a point of clarification. Once this department is passed, do we go into other departments? What happens at that point?

Mr. Chairperson: We will proceed with the passing of the resolutions of the other departments whose Estimates were not completed.

Mr. Chairperson: Resolution 4.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32,747,000 for Justice, Courts, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

Resolution 4.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,365,000 for Justice, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. [passed]

Resolution 8.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,960,400 for Government Services, Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000. Shall the resolution pass?

Mr. Kowalski: We are in the Ministry of Government Services now.

Mr. Chairperson: That is correct.

Mr. Kowalski: Okay, I would like a recorded vote on that.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the honourable member have support?

An Honourable Member: I do not think so.

An Honourable Member: What does he want to vote on?

An Honourable Member: Government Services.

Mr. Chairperson: Resolution 8.1: RESOLVED that there by granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,960,400 for Government Services, Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Mr. Kowalski: I am asking for a recorded vote on this budget line.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for The Maples must have support in order to. Does the honourable member have support?

Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the resolution, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those against, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Kowalski: Could I have Yeas and Nays?

Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote has been called.

________

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 254, please come to order.

The hour now being 6 p.m., committee rise.