After Recess

The committee resumed at 9:41 a.m.

JUSTICE

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Does the honourable Minister of Justice have an opening statement?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. The Estimates for the Department of Justice for 1996-97 present the fiscal plans for the year. They contain detail about the total expenditures and the staff years devoted to the many varied programs that are provided by the department. Behind the numbers, however, are hundreds of hardworking Manitobans who day in and day out provide services that Manitobans have come to rely on. I wish, at the very start of my comments, to pay tribute to the dedication and the professionalism of the departmental staff. Thanks to them, the department has consistently been a national leader and continues to provide innovative approaches to the many problems facing the justice system in Manitoba and, indeed, across Canada.

The Department of Justice has been part of the administrative reorganization which this government has been pursuing in order to provide better services to Manitobans. At the start of this fiscal year, Land Titles and the Personal Property Security Registry became administratively a part of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This reflects the fact that these agencies, which were for many years part of the Attorney General's department and then the Department of Justice, administer service for the public that is different from the other services which are provided by the Department of Justice. We were pleased to have them part of the Justice family for all those years, but they fit very well with the other registries in Consumer Affairs.

Also, as part of the administrative reorganization, first Civil Legal Services and now the Public Trustee have been transformed into special operating agencies. As members are aware, the advantages of being such an agency are primarily the flexibility provided to management and staff in meeting the need for services for their clients.

In addition to these major administrative changes, the Department of Justice has also been making service improvements throughout the system. While it is not glamorous, while it does not attract headlines and probably will not be the subject of extensive questioning in the review of these Estimates, I believe it should be noted that we have amalgamated our personnel and Human Resource Services with the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship and have achieved economies of scale. As well, we are making greater use of technology throughout the department in order to deliver the same level of service and, indeed, very often an improved quality of service with the same staff complement.

Many services of the Department of Justice are taken for granted. We seldom pause in this House to reflect, for example, on the superb service we receive from the Office of Legislative Counsel. All government departments and the official opposition receive services from this branch as we deal with legislation. In the same way, the government receives excellent support from the Constitutional Law Branch and independent advice on issues from the Law Reform Commission. All Manitobans have access to the Human Rights Commission when they feel their rights have been infringed.

Another program that assists all Manitobans is Maintenance Enforcement. I am pleased to inform members of the success of the changes to the Maintenance Enforcement Program that were made last year to strengthen the ability of enforcement officers to collect on outstanding maintenance payments. The maintenance enforcement program is making aggressive use of the changes that were made, and, as a result of increased authority to demand information from employers and associates, the number of garnishment orders issued by the program, I am informed, has been increased by 480 percent. The number of federal interceptions, I am informed, has increased by 1000 percent. As well, maintenance enforcement has issued, I am informed, 85 driver's licence suspension notices, 120 refusal to renew notices, and garnished 27 pensions. In 1995, maintenance enforcement collected $35.4 million, which is an increase of 6.6 percent or $2.2 million over what was collected in 1994. It remains one of the most successful programs of its kind in Canada.

While these achievements are noteworthy, it remains the case that almost $160 million of the $168,378,000 that is in these Estimates for the Department of Justice are devoted to the criminal justice system. Public Prosecutions, Legal Aid, RCMP policing and most of the Courts budget, Criminal Injuries Compensation and Corrections are all part of the criminal justice system, and that is the area that usually attracts the most attention, not only in the media but also during the Estimates process.

I am pleased to report that Manitoba's lead in a number of areas is now being followed by other jurisdictions. For example, our anti-impaired driving program has been copied virtually in its entirety by Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Alberta has had vehicle impoundment for some time, and Saskatchewan has announced that it will be bringing in vehicle impoundment. As well, Ontario has announced its intention to introduce administrative licence suspension into that province.

More recently, Manitoba took the lead in developing a process which would allow for the notification of the community in circumstances where there are good reasons to fear that an offender will commit a crime. The Community Notification Advisory Committee has been very active, and it is functioning well. It has already authorized four full public notifications and 15 targeted notifications. Alberta has announced its intention to establish the same kind of process, and Saskatchewan has announced that it will be introducing legislation establishing a process similar to the Manitoba process.

Of course, there is only so much which the province can do itself, given that our constitutional responsibility is limited to the administration of justice in the province. We have continued to press the federal government for stronger action. While I am not completely satisfied with the federal response, I believe that the antistalking legislation which the federal government has introduced, as well as some of the changes to the Young Offenders Act, making transfer of older youths to adult court for violent crimes somewhat easier, are at least the beginnings of a response to these very serious concerns of this government and the public about these issues.

Manitoba has also urged the federal government to repeal Section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows murderers to seek parole prior to serving 25 years. We believe that this is inappropriate. The public has the right to insist that murderers serve the full 25 years before they have an opportunity to get parole.

One of the concerns I raised at the recent meeting of ministers responsible for justice is the position of victims in the criminal process. Too often they seem to be forgotten, and it seems that there has been a tendency to forget the issues of victims. I am pleased that ministers agreed that we should establish a working group to review what has been done with respect to victims across the nation, and to identify the most promising programs. My hope is that a national strategy will grow out of this initiative.

Here in Manitoba, the department is currently reviewing services provided to victims. We have retained an outside consultant to do a review of what is available and to identify any problems in the system. As you are aware, Wyman Sangster has joined the Department of Justice with a mandate to work with communities on crime prevention and victim services, and I am sure his leadership over the next few months will lead to more focused services providing victims the services they need.

A challenge which the Department of Justice faces is the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. Working with our aboriginal communities remains one of our priorities. We are actively pursuing negotiations with 28 First Nations communities under the umbrella of the First Nations Policing Policy. We have already signed agreements with eight First Nations communities, six of which have chosen to be policed by the Dakota Ojibway Police Service, while the remaining two communities have preferred to receive policing services from the RCMP. We have also been supporting initiatives like the Hollow Water Community Holistic Circle Healing and the St. Theresa Point youth court. These programs are currently being evaluated, and the challenge which we will face, assuming that there is a positive evaluation, will be to expand these programs to more First Nations communities.

* (0950)

Here in Winnipeg Legal Aid has opened the Aboriginal Centre law office at the Aboriginal Centre on Higgins Avenue. It can provide service in Ojibway and Cree, and we expect that it will prove to be a great improvement in furnishing services to aboriginal people who have come in contact with the law here in Winnipeg.

In the Corrections field, we have for many years provided elder services in our institutions, and we have been reviewing our programming to ensure that it is culturally appropriate. The most important time in an offender's career in our view is when he or she first comes in contact with the law. Usually this occurs when a person is a youth and subject to the Young Offenders Act. Manitoba Justice has promoted the creation of youth justice committees. We now have, I am informed, 74 youth justice committees operating around the province. They have had success in dealing with young offenders who have not yet committed serious and violent crimes.

Where the courts have determined that a custody sentence is appropriate for the young offender, we have made the youth facilities more rigorous, with an accent on programming which will make a difference in a young person's life. The effectiveness of our boot camps is currently being evaluated and, if any deficiencies are noted, we will make the changes in programs that are required to make them the most effective possible.

The recent Headingley riot should not blind us to the progress which has been made in the adult correctional system. We have been trying to strike a balance between the need to protect the community from dangerous offenders and the need also to reintegrate offenders into the community in ways that will give them the chance to be productive citizens.

As a result of the Arthurson case, we have been refining our system of offender classification to better identify potential repeat offenders. No system will ever be perfect, but Corrections is using the latest research and techniques to make the system a leader in Canada in its ability to protect the public.

As members are aware, Judge Hughes has been appointed to review the incidents that led to the riot at Headingley. Clearly it would be premature to speculate on what that report will contain or to make any announcements as to the changes that will be made in procedures as a result of the report. However, I can assure the members that as we repair and rebuild Headingley, we will take all reasonable measures necessary so that the guards are safe, the institution is under control at all times. We will do everything possible to ensure that no such riot could occur again.

In the Courts Division, members are well aware that the civil justice review has been undertaken and will be making its report in the fall. On the criminal justice side, we continue to have available trial dates well within the Askov guidelines. There has been some concern with court delays in northern Manitoba. I am pleased to, during the course of Estimates, speak about a number of the steps that we have taken to deal with the issues in northern courts. I can tell the House that aboriginal Cree-speaking magistrates alternate sittings with provincial judges courts. In four communities they deal with summary conviction, guilty pleas and by-law offences, and the magistrate court also acts as a first appearance court, so that the criminal matters are sent on to the provincial judges court docket only when they are ready for sentencing or for trial.

Mr. Chair, it is therefore with pride in the accomplishments of the department in the past and also with confidence in the department in the future that we will continue to provide outstanding services to the people of Manitoba, I present these Estimates to the House.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for St. Johns, have an opening statement?

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. This is the third series of Estimates with this individual as Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Over the course of her tenure in office we have seen many difficult issues come to the fore, and we have identified many shortcomings, some of which, a minute number I would suggest, have been addressed by the minister with varying degrees of success, but in our view, the great majority of shortcomings have yet to be addressed in any meaningful way by this minister.

Since we began dealing with this minister's approach to justice in Manitoba, we have pinpointed such areas as violence against women, maintenance enforcement, youth crime and violence as key areas that need urgent redress in this province. But today, here now at the third round with this minister, there are two different issues that have emerged and come to the forefront that have eclipsed even the very, very serious challenges that we face in youth crime and violence, violence against women and maintenance enforcement, for example. Those issues were certainly touched on in the earlier Estimates processes and indeed in almost daily questioning in this Legislature. Those two issues are the integrity of this minister and her competence.

The events of the past month have helped define for Manitobans what we in this Chamber have defined and attempted to explain to the public of Manitoba. We have here a minister who has moved the office of Attorney General from emphasizing public safety to public relations. We have a new era in the office of Attorney General where there is a very partisan, PR-stunt approach to the serious issues of public safety, and it is our view, Mr. Chair, that this is certainly not in the interests of Manitobans at any time, but what has been occurring at a steadily increasing pace are statements by this minister which are both contradictory one day to the next and contradictory with regard to the facts.

I think one of the more telling discrepancies that we have brought to this Legislature came following the testimony at the Lavoie inquiry. The minister has said both in this Legislature, which by the way, Mr. Chair, statements in this Legislature have historically been treated very seriously. There is an assumption that statements made in this Legislature have great veracity, and where statements made in this Legislature contradict each other clearly, the member faces, I would suggest, serious sanctions by this forum. Because it is in this forum where the public interest is ultimately to be protected, I would suggest even more so than in the courts; and in this Chamber, and in written materials, this minister went on talking about how not only in the Family Violence Court but throughout her Prosecutions department, the Crown attorneys were trained, received special training in domestic violence. At the Lavoie inquiry, we heard not one, not two, but three Crown attorneys, under oath, in answer to the simple question, have you received special training in domestic violence, respond, no.

From time to time, I have brought into this House statements by people who are in the know on certain issues and had to confront the minister. I have asked repeatedly on different issues, how could the minister say this when so and so said that? I think it is unfortunate that we have to bring the names and statements of other people into this Chamber, but it has come to that because the minister continues with her contradictory statements. But when we bring into this Chamber the transcripts of evidence, under oath, by her own department staff, we should not be surprised, Mr. Chair, about what is now coming to the fore, what has been exposed about this minister in the last month. Of course, the events that I am referring to revolve around the Headingley riot.

* (1000)

Immediately following the riot, the minister said that staffing levels were not an issue, were not a factor, emphatically said so. She was satisfied that security concerns had been addressed adequately at that institution, and then what did we hear? We heard from correctional officer after correctional officer, present and retired, officers at all levels, union officials, health and safety people, we received minutes from health and safety meetings, which confirmed over and over again that this minister has turned a blind eye to security at that institution.

We can debate at length how one gets to an effective correctional policy. Corrections is a very difficult policy area, but the path followed by this minister has been one of saying, I am tough, we have rigorous confinement, a new policy, a new regime. We are going to slam prison doors shut. They thought that was enough of a catch to put on TV during the election. They thought the prison doors was enough of a catch that they sent out pamphlets throughout Manitoba in the days leading up to and during the election. They were the party of law and order. Indeed, some of the media bought into that. I remember Maclean's, there was an article in there with the heading, Ms. Law and Order. I would commend that reading to anyone.

Mr. Chair, it is that puffery that has been exposed. Let us look at some of the issues that were raised as a result of the riot. The minister first--and I talked about this yesterday--came out after the riot and was flailing around saying, these inmates are going to repair this institution, by golly. As the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says, in-your-face justice, in-your-face corrections. Of course, we all want to move toward a system where there is restitution and where offenders are truly accountable and make up and face up for their wrongdoing. But that statement was made without authority. That statement was made without knowledge, without thinking through the ramifications, without thinking through the security implications. What was she going to do? Was she going to decide on who were the rioters? Who was guilty, and who was not? Was she going to supplant the role of the courts of law? Or is she going to put the victims to work doing that as well? Credibility into question.

Then we brought into this Legislature convincing evidence, I would say conclusive evidence, that barrier walls had been removed by this minister in cell-block 1 where the riot broke out. This minister mocked the member for Transcona when he raised this issue in the House, saying we bring in false information to this Chamber. Her senior official got on TV and looked into the camera and said, there never had been barrier walls in cell-block 1. Mr. Chair, the people who took down those barrier walls a couple of years ago could not believe what had been told to Manitobans. The person who did the drawing of the division in cell-block 1 could not believe what he heard from this minister. Credibility at issue.

Then the minister said, well, this is the first day in the Legislature following the riot. Today I am pleased to announce random urinalysis testing for drugs at the institution. I am sorry I could not do this earlier, but we were waiting--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I really hate to interrupt the member when he is in full flow, but I do want to remind all honourable members that we will keep the decorum at a very level pace in this committee, and I do not want to hear any chatter going back and forth.

The honourable member for St. Johns has the floor at this time. Anybody wanting to carry on a conversation can do so in the hall or in the loge. The honourable member for St. Johns to continue.

Mr. Mackintosh: She said, I am sorry but it was not until today that I could announce random urinalysis because we were waiting for a court decision. We went and looked. There are books on this subject. There are regulations on this subject, regulations passed in 1992 by the federal government, setting out how random urinalysis will take place in the federal institutions. I believe that urinalysis began in 1993 and has been taking place. I understand that as part of an overall drug response program, it can play a role as a deterrent. Credibility again, Mr. Chair.

And then the minister said, making fun of our Leader, I do not know where he gets his legal advice, but you cannot have a commission of inquiry and criminal proceedings going on at the same time. Here we are looking at criminal proceedings and the commission of inquiry into the Westray mining disaster going on in Nova Scotia. In the national news we are reading about it all the time. It is interesting there is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that says, yes, indeed, you can have both at the same time. There are checks and balances. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to be respected, but you leave that to the commissioner. The commissioner can ensure those protections are guaranteed.

Well, then along came a tragic murder at Inwood. Now Mr. Chair, we are all cognizant that individuals charged with any offence are only charged. They are not found guilty, but this amounts to a serious allegation, to put that mildly, by the police that the individual who was charged, Mr. Rouire, for the murder of Mr. Futch at Inwood, it just so happened, was on a temporary absence pass from Headingley Institution, and the pass was dated the day following the riot. Manitobans started asking some serious questions. It was our duty to follow up on allegations that individuals made, that correctional officers made, to pose those to the minister.

It is too often the case, of course, that is the reality, we are in opposition, we have to bring forward allegations when they appear well founded, as do the radio commentators in this city, as do television stations and others who are in the business of informing the public. When it was asked of the minister whether there was a new get-soft policy, I think some of the questions were posed, whether there was a loosening of criteria for early releases, temporary passes, the minister said, and I will quote just one of her statements. It is from the Legislature: “There were not changes to the criteria.” I recall--I am paraphrasing--I believe she said on television that, was there some loosening or was there some leniency? No, she said, all those who were released were eligible. They may have been eligible in terms of their time. The question that the public has is were they eligible in terms of their risk assessment, the community assessment? Were they eligible based on that old stand-by criterion of common sense? Was public safety sacrificed?

* (1010)

We understand that there were demands on spaces in the adult correction system as a result of the riot. That is only common sense and that there may have been some extraordinary decisions made that could be warranted but not at the expense of public safety. But what did the minister say? She did not say that. She said there has been no change. Everything is tickety-boo. We are the toughest, we are one of the toughest, and if this new rigorous confinement and we are carrying on and, by golly, no one is getting out from our institutions that would not get out otherwise. And what happened? The number of T.A.s in the few days after the riot skyrocketed. Mr. Rouire was one of them. Mr. Rouire, this does not go to whether this man is guilty or innocent, because that is not my function, and indeed it would be wrong for me to comment. This goes to the question, how could this individual be eligible looking at all the criteria, not just how long he has served, how could he be eligible for a temporary absence pass? This is an individual who according to the records of the Provincial Court, which, I am sad to say--this reflects on the minister's staffing--was incomplete at the time we requested this individual's record, very unfortunate that the Provincial Court would not give us the complete records when asked. But we went back, Mr. Chair, because we had serious questions about what information was given to us.

It was discovered that this individual, according to these records--I am just reading them; this was what appears--was convicted for 12 offences since February of 1995. We have listened to the sentencing, the transcripts. We heard about the vicious assaults this individual was involved in in this community, the place where he was sent back to. He was convicted for assault caused bodily harm twice in the last year alone, apparently jumping on a man's head for one thing. But what is very telling, this individual apparently--according to these records--breached every probation order that was thrown at him. This is an individual who has no respect for the law. This is an individual who a temporary pass would mean nothing to, I would suggest, based on his record, criteria, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, which the Justice minister and her department are required to take into consideration when granting temporary absence passes. This individual had over half of his sentence yet to serve.

What message is the Justice department and this minister giving to Manitobans and to those who do what is worse in their community? And if there was no change to the criteria, I would ask, what is the sense of the criteria in the first place then if individuals like this get out? What rigorous confinement is this?

You know, if there is one essential role for prisons, it is to protect public safety. We hope that individuals are changing for the better in those institutions; we have serious questions as to whether under this minister that is occurring, but what happened to public safety? But the minister said, no, even faced with that. Everything was tickety-boo. Not one person had been let out under unusual criteria. Then she went on to say, well, I think 24 were let out following the riot. Well, there is a link. So now the bells are going off. This is just getting too much. Then she said, 63 were let out, and as I interpret what the minister said, those were 63 on temporary absence. I do not believe that included those who were at end of sentence.

The minister when asked, just tell Manitobans, tell us here how many were let out, what their offences were, she said, yes, and tomorrow morning I am going to have on my desk a full report and I am going to report back, and she never did. In fact, every day she says I am going to report back and she never does. It was Richard Cloutier yesterday who said to her, just posed a simple question, why do you not put some of these matters to rest? Just give us the information, just tell us. We are asking questions. We are asking her to confirm or deny what has now come to light.

It started last week on a talk show with Peter Warren, who had good information that three or four sex offender--I think he originally said four sex offenders had been released early as a result of the riot. The minister came out of her office in a strange public relations exercise on Friday afternoon and essentially confirmed everything that Mr. Warren was alleging. Then yesterday it came to our attention from a correctional officer that, no, four was not the right number at all; it was 11. We cannot confirm or deny that, Mr. Chair because we do not have the knowledge, we do not have the list that the minister has. Only the minister could have stood up and said whether that was correct or not.

Now today there are allegations in the media that this group of sex offenders included pedophiles and perhaps some who are a high risk to the community. And then I do not know what happened. Despite questions going back two or three days from the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), I do not understand why the Community Notification Committee was not advised that these individuals were released. I mean, the minister goes around the country talking about a Notification Committee, and she goes around the country talking about sex offenders and how we have to have long-term supervision and a different regime. She started talking about that. Of course, that was after the Arthurson, the Sarah Kelly inquest report which damned this minister's policies on sex offenders. She has the gall to go to Ottawa with that puffery, and meanwhile she lets sex offenders out the side door who had not completed their sentencing, who had not completed their programming, and I ask, what incentive is that for sex offenders to keep their programming going?

Mr. Hughes has been called on to look at the causes of the riot, and I met with Mr. Hughes briefly last Friday. I have full confidence in Mr. Hughes's abilities. He is the right carpenter but this government refused to give him the tools that the public of Manitoba needs to ensure that all of the truth is uncovered, the ability to examine under oath, compel witnesses and documents, because this minister, her department, have a spin that everything was tickety-boo. They will try and impress that spin, no doubt, on Mr. Hughes but we will rely on Mr. Hughes, a person of great integrity, to cut through that, but we lament that he was not given the tools to do the full job.

* (1020)

I asked Mr. Hughes whether it was his intention to call the minister. I understand the interviews will be behind closed doors. This is not a public review. Manitobans should be reminded of that. Mr. Hughes looked surprised and said, well, no. So when the minister says, well, I have added to Mr. Hughes's scope questions about what happened after the riot, she of course does not agree to examination under oath by Mr. Hughes, because the questions that are in the public mind are not just the legality of releases following the riot. The issues are also the integrity, the contradictory statements made by this minister, indeed the veracity of the minister, and second of all, the competence of this minister and indeed just the common-sense nature or lack thereof of correction policy on releases in Manitoba.

So Mr. Hughes has not been given the mandate to deal with what Manitobans are concerned about.

Justice begins with honesty and the Justice minister's office. I do not know where else it begins. On that, Mr. Chair, this minister must go. She is not serving the public interest, and I for one am of the view there is very little that she can say now that is credible and that we on this side and Manitobans and indeed the victims of crime in this province can rely on. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic for his opening statement. I would remind members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a) is deferred until all other items in the Estimates of the department are passed. At this time we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.

Is the minister prepared to introduce her staff present at the committee at this time?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased this morning to introduce Mr. Bruce MacFarlane, who is the Deputy Minister of Justice; Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Pat Sinnott, who is the executive director of Administration and Finance; and Mr. Greg Yost, who is the executive director of Policy and Planning.

Mr. Chairperson: The item before the committee is item 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Chair, I move that this committee has lost confidence in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member for St. Johns that this committee has lost confidence in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The honourable member for St. Johns.

Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns has been recognized to start the debate on this motion. I would ask all honourable members to carry on their conversations in the loge or in the hall.

Mr. Mackintosh: This side, as it has in the past on motions dealing with the Minister's Salary, the previous two go-rounds of Estimates, where it also moved motions of no confidence in this minister, three years in a row I would add, Mr. Chair, takes this issue very, very seriously. This motion is a very serious motion. We believe that it only follows, not only on the issues raised in my introductory remarks, but on the concerns that this side has had over the course of the tenure of this Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). The time is up for this minister. We have called on this minister to resign. We have called on the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to remove this minister.

This motion of no confidence reflects our disdain, the appalling record of this minister, particularly as I emphasized in the beginning of my remarks, in light of the questions of her veracity and competence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to have a little bit of time to speak to the motion. I believe that is the opportunity that I have now. There are a number of issues which I think need to be addressed in the time that I have, and others may address some from there.

First of all, let me just say that the position of this government and for myself as minister, the goal on behalf of Manitobans is a goal of public safety. There has never been any question about that goal. The actions of this government over the past eight years and the actions in the past three years while I have been in charge of this department speak only strongly to that.

I think it important to talk a little bit about those accomplishments, to talk a little bit about what has been done in the interest of public safety for Manitobans and particularly what has been done in the light of the great lack and vacuum that was left to us by the NDP.

The NDP now try and come forward and they try and say they are very interested in domestic violence, they are very interested in maintenance enforcement, they are very interested in youth crime, and they are very interested in corrections. They are trying to have us believe that in some way they took some action in those areas and that now we have not taken any.

Well, the facts are exactly the opposite. That has been the case for the member for St. Johns and the members of the NDP party in the time that they have been in this House as opposition. They have very often brought forward information which is totally wrong. They have brought forward also information which is only a part, and the part of the information that they bring forward we find is clarified in the part that they just did not bother to read. We found that with the member for St. Johns, when he was speaking about Street Peace. He only read one part of the card and did not bother to read the other part, which was the explanation. So we often find that they are easily, easily taken in by half pieces of information which simply are not helpful.

So, Mr. Chair, I am happy to speak about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forward and that during the time that I have been minister this government has considered and brought forward as well.

Let us start with legislative issues, let us start with the position on the Young Offenders Act, because it was this government that led the way across the country in terms of how the Young Offenders Act should be strengthened. It was this government who first raised the issues in terms of very specific ways of strengthening the Young Offenders Act to the new federal minister, and I can tell you, Mr. Chair, there was no help from the other side. They did not believe that you should toughen the Young Offenders Act; they did not think that was the way to go. In fact, there was not even a peep from that side. They just did not believe it. But our government certainly believed that and took forward very specific--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to inform the committee that we will have a very interesting debate here and that this is a very serious matter before the committee at this time, and I would ask for the co-operation of all members to give the common courtesy to hear everyone who is putting their words on the record.

The honourable minister, to continue.

* (1030)

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Obviously the other side has great difficulty when I point out the weaknesses that they have had in their time when they had an opportunity.

Now let me also just very briefly list off a list. Then I will go through discussing, and we can talk about strengthening the Young Offenders Act. We can talk about strengthening our policy in the area of Youth Corrections, because we made it clear that where federal government was not prepared to act, this province was prepared to act in the area of its jurisdiction.

Let me speak about the area of violence against women. It was this government that set up the Domestic Violence Court, the Family Violence Court. It was this government that took those specific actions. It was this government that introduced zero tolerance. It is this government that has continued on that path with no support, a vacuum from across the other side. It is this government that called the Lavoie inquiry. It is this government that has made the commitment to look at what is raised as a result of the Lavoie inquiry.

Mr. Chair, it is this government that took the steps to make the strongest changes in the area of maintenance enforcement legislation because we believe that economic security, women's economic security is an important matter and that people should not be victims of a weak maintenance enforcement program which the other side had and supported. I see that we got some support from them in our bill, not total support.

When we developed the Community Notification Advisory Committee which was to deal with notification of communities, if there was an offender who was still considered to be at risk to the community, that was developed here in this province because, again, the federal government has not yet acted in that area for high-risk offenders. We did not get support from the other side. In fact, the whole work of that committee has been totally minimized by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). I believe the day that they issued their first report, the member from St. Johns was seen in the room speaking to the press, wildly flailing about, as he likes to talk about, and when he is thinking and talking about flailing, he was flailing about that day, trying to find some way to minimize and say that this meant nothing. I am paraphrasing, but in his words, this meant nothing, this did not do anything.

In fact, across the country, other provinces have looked at our model and will be adopting our model or models very similar to it because they recognize that this is an important step. This government was the first across the country, and we have indemnified those people who have taken the position of acting on that committee.

Let us not in any way have that member think that they have acted on behalf of women because we set up the Domestic Violence Court, that they have acted for economic security of women because we were the ones who brought in the maintenance enforcement act, that they have acted on behalf of youth crime and violence because they did not have a position on the Young Offenders Act. The list goes on--support to victims. We have not heard from them on the issues relating to support to victims, but it was this government that said that victims must be recognized within the justice system and have asked for legislative changes federally to recognize the role of victims, particularly, of stalkers. I would like to see some of those changes recommended for stalkers expanded to domestic violence. Position on stalkers--I am not aware that the other side has taken a strong position to protect, by and large, women who are victims of stalkers. It was this government that took the proposals forward to Ottawa. It was this government that has continued to persevere in this area, and this government will.

So, Mr. Chair, in the area of dealing with Manitobans and public safety, I start from the beginning. It was this government who dealt with legislation, federal and provincial. When we deal with violence against women, it was this government who developed the domestic violence court. It was this government who developed zero tolerance.

It was this government who dealt with the issue of the cross-charging policy. In the area of youth crime, it was this government who held the summit on youth crime and violence. It was this government who put into place preventative programs such as Street Peace. It was this government that recognized that you could not just do to young people as they would do. Instead, you had to involve young people. It was this government who has involved the community in youth justice committees and recognizes the importance of community participation. It was this government who has continued to work involving young people, and it was this government who recognized that there had to be consequences for young people who were offenders.

All of that, Mr. Chair, with the opposition of members opposite, members opposite who have always felt that fighting other issues, other important issues as well, but fighting other issues was more important and that a soft approach to public safety--they always thought we were too harsh--they never agreed, that would not be their position. So the facts speak for themselves on what this government has done.

We are now dealing with a very difficult issue. The riot at Headingley was a very difficult issue. It was very difficult for all concerned. No one would ever seek to minimize what happened that day. As a result of that, we are dealing with Mr. Hughes to look at the reasons. We want to make sure that this does not happen again. We want to provide the best justice system for the people of Manitoba, to do so with an open mind, and to do so with policy that is consistent and has been consistent on behalf of the people of Manitoba, in the interests of public safety. I think we will hear half the story from other members opposite, and at every opportunity, Mr. Chair, in either this debate or the discussion of Estimates, I will be here to clarify everything that they have put on the record that is, in fact, not correct.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I welcome the opportunity of rising in this debate, Mr. Chairperson, to put on the record some of my concerns, the concerns of my constituents and, I believe, the concerns of Manitoba concerning this minister and the motion that is now before us.

The motion that is before us deals with lack of confidence of this Chamber of members on this side of the House with the capabilities and the functioning of the office of the Justice minister and the Attorney General, Mr. Chairperson. We do not take that very lightly. It is not often in this Chamber you will see a motion brought forward where members of the Chamber state their lack of confidence in the ability of a minister. What we have seen demonstrated in this Chamber over the past several weeks and indeed over the past several years are serious failings in the office, and it comes down to something that is fundamental to our democratic process and fundamental to the operations of this Chamber, and that is ministerial responsibility--ministerial responsibility and failure on the part of this minister and indeed the First Minister to accept their responsibilities as guardians and stewards of the justice system in the province of Manitoba.

There is nothing more fundamental than the rule of law as it relates not just to proceedings in this Chamber, but to the very functioning of the government of Manitoba. Never before do I believe in the history of Manitoba have we seen more of a lack of confidence in the ability of a Justice minister to undertake the responsibilities of his or her office in the Province of Manitoba.

What this debate comes down to is the inability of this minister to undertake her responsibility and her roles and the failings of the First Minister to undertake his responsibility to remove this minister from her position and restore confidence in the justice system for the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson, I have sat in Question Period and I do not think I have seen a more abysmal performance by a minister in response to legitimate questions asked by members on this side of the House, and I have seen--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but I have already advised the committee that we do not want any disruptions. This is a very serious matter before us at this time. It should not be taken lightly, and each and every one of the members of this committee will have an opportunity to put their words on the record if they so choose. I would ask that they give the opportunity to this member, and the common courtesy.

The honourable member for Kildonan, to continue.

* (1040)

Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I have seen some bad performances in this House, most notably by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), both in the emergency hospital dispute and certainly in the fiasco that is occurring in the privatization of home care. While I have suggested and recommended that the Minister of Health ought to be removed as well, this issue, the competence and the response and lack of responsibility by this Minister of Justice is so fundamental to the functioning of the government of Manitoba that it is a most serious concern, and the minister cannot be removed too soon.

Mr. Chairperson, I want to go back to the day of the Headingley riot and question the Minister of Justice appearing, holding press conferences and talking about how tough the government of Manitoba was going to be in the face of this particular dispute. I believe the quote--well, it has been quoted, I am sure it will be quoted during the course of this debate--but I question the very requirement for a Minister of Justice to proceed to the site and to take the stand that somehow she is in charge. Having done that, whether or not it was advisable or not, she has become responsible for the consequences of her actions and her words that day and her subsequent words.

That day she was wrong. She said the prisoners would be going out there and cleaning up immediately, and that has not happened. So the Minister of Justice, by proceeding to set herself up and put herself in the position where she was taking responsibility and then subsequently not living up to those responsibilities, has put her in no other position, no other honourable position than to resign because she has lost the confidence of Manitobans.

It does not just deal with the prisoner cleanup. It has to deal with prisoners out on T.A. It has to deal with notification of sexual offenders. Who is responsible? Is the minister responsible? Are her staff responsible? Where does the buck stop? The minister has taken responsibility. The minister says she is going to get tough. The minister has talked about all of the activities she has done to get tough, and then when it comes to questions about what have you done, she says, I do not know. She says, I am reviewing it.

Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable for a minister to come to this House and to this Chamber and say, I am going to review the facts as to why a prisoner got out. Either you are responsible or you are not, and if you are not responsible then you ought to leave your position. The minister has time and time again come to this Chamber and said, I am going to review. Well--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Kildonan, and I know he is speaking loud enough.[interjection] Are there any other conversations we want to carry on? At this time the honourable member for Kildonan has the floor.

Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I am offended as a member of this Legislature and as someone who has had some experience in the legal profession to hear a Minister of Justice, who has indicated she is in charge and she is getting tough, come into this House and say, I do not know why those prisoners got out; I do not know why those sexual offenders did not go through the notification process.

Mr. Chairperson, either you are responsible and you made the decision or you are not responsible and you did not make the decision. In both cases, you have no choice. Either you know what is going on in your department and you direct what is going on your department and take the responsibilities for the activity of your department or you are not responsible. In both cases, the minister has no honourable choice but to resign, to leave that position. She cannot continue to blame her departmental officials.

This is the minister who went and said she was going to get tough. This is the minister who said she was in charge on the day of the riot. She was down there, she was in charge, but now she is not in charge for the concerns about the cleanup? She is not in charge for the T.A.s? She is not in charge for the sexual offenders non-notification? Mr. Chairperson, you cannot have it both ways. Either way this minister is either responsible for her department and failed to undertake her duties adequately or she is not responsible and not in control and has contradicted everything that she said when she went down and said she was going to get tough, when she says that she has these policies in place.

In addition, she talks about half-truths. This minister has been contradicted more times in this House between what she said in the House, what she says in the hallways and what is coming out from her own officials who appear to be at odds with the minister, Mr. Chairperson, and are a further indication of lack of confidence in this minister, her own officials who have no confidence. How can we have confidence that justice will be administered in a fair, evenhanded and appropriate fashion when her own officials contradict her, when her own words in the House contradict her, when she is not taking responsibility for her very activities that she is sworn to deliver? Or, if she is responsible and has not adequately fulfilled those duties, how can we have any confidence in this minister undertaking, in a very difficult portfolio, in a very difficult position, the administration of justice?

We have no choice but to bring a motion of this kind forward. We are doing it in the interests of Manitobans, and the sooner that confidence is restored in the office of the Attorney General and Justice minister, the better off all Manitobans will be. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I have been in this House for about 10 years, I guess, a little over 10 years, and I have heard a number of speeches given in this House from a wide variety of individuals, people who have been in government, people who have been in opposition, on a wide variety of issues both in Estimates and in debate in the House on some pretty contentious issues, but I have never heard a more pompous, arrogant speech by a member than I have heard this morning from the member for St. Johns. Mr. Chairperson, it was absolutely unbelievable. I have not seen tactics like that since I was in grade school and the schoolyard bully used to bounce around the schoolyard, and that is exactly what the member for St. Johns reminded me of, a schoolyard bully.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair.)

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please. The minister has the floor. Please proceed.

Mr. Ernst: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member for St. Johns and the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) recently in his address to the Chamber exactly did that, went right at the personality of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). They were the ones who started this whole issue, the fact that they have performed with the kind of tactics that we have seen just in the last few minutes.

Our government and the Minister of Justice have been extremely strong with regard to the issue of young offenders. Members opposite were opposed to that. We were very strong on the question of domestic violence and I would not say opposed, but they were at least lukewarm on the other side of the House about that. Boot camps were--great derision came from the members opposite. The fact that you want to deal with young offenders in a strong manner, came nothing but derision from the other side of the House.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please.

Mr. Ernst: So the initiatives that this government has taken, strong initiatives, initiatives appreciated by the people of Manitoba, supported by the people of Manitoba, we get from the members opposites nothing but derision, opposition and at very best, lukewarm. I have never seen more negative people in my whole life than the members opposite and particularly when it comes to Justice issues.

But they are tough, the members opposite. They are tough on PMU herds, they are tough on hog barns. They are soft on criminals and tough on hogs. Real, real class people that want to form the government of Manitoba--unbelievable. They come into this Estimates process. They do not want to ask any questions. They do not want to seek out any answers. They do not want to talk about issues related to Justice or even any of the events that were mentioned in the speech by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). They do not want any information. They do not want any facts. They do not want to ask any questions. They simple want a political grandstand.

Mr. Chairperson, we have seen that every day in Question Period. When they stand up they are not interested in facts, they do not want to hear what the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) has to say. They do not want to hear any of the information that is related to these issues at all. They are simply here to political grandstand, try and get a 10-second clip on television, trying to get their name in the newspaper.

They are not interested in the facts--and then to come in here and not even want to talk about issues related to the Estimates process, not even want to seek out additional information, to ask questions, to have the minister's staff here so that questions can directly be put through the minister, they do not want any of that. They want to political grandstand. They want to stand up and the very first thing they did after making, as I said, a very pompous and arrogant speech in my view, the very first thing he did was want to move a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Justice.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Quite frankly, I do not care if they have any confidence in the Minister of Justice because the people on this side of the House do and we are the government. We have confidence in the Minister of Justice. We think she is doing a good job. Quite frankly, if they do not have any confidence I really do not care because it will not matter in the long term because the Minister of Justice will carry out her duties, will do the job that the people of Manitoba expect and will bring forward the kind of policies, the kind of actions that are necessary so that we have law and order in this province, that we have the kind of things that the people of Manitoba want. We will see criminals dealt with in an appropriate manner. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, we certainly support the Minister of Justice and have no cause for the issue raised by the member for St. Johns.

* (1050)

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I am pleased to rise to enter into this debate today to also express on behalf of the people of my constituency nonconfidence in the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). I do not make those statements lightly. It is a very, very serious situation we have in this province by a Minister of Justice who refuses day in and day out, question after question in this Chamber, making statements that she has outside of this Chamber, where she refuses to accept any responsibility for her actions and for the events that have transpired in this province to call into disrepute the office that she currently holds.

I want to go back to the time on April 26 where it came to our attention that through unfortunate circumstances, the inmates at the Headingley correctional facility had rioted and that the Minister of Justice chose to make a statement on national television, to choose the opportunity to have that 10-second clip on national television saying that we were going to take the steps necessary, she was going to take the steps necessary to force the inmates that were responsible for the riot at Headingley correctional facility to clean up the mess that was there and to repair all of the damage.

She said, and I believe I am quoting accurately, this is in-your-face corrections in the province of Manitoba. What did we find, Mr. Chairperson, April 26 until yesterday? Yesterday, the minister admitted in this Chamber, was the first day that a single inmate had performed any work in the Headingley correctional facility since the riot. What happened in the ensuing time period? With the minister's words that inmates were going to be responsible and clean up the mess and clean up the damage at the Headingley correctional facility, is this the in-your-face corrections that the minister talked about?

I think we need to go back to what we see, to what I believe are the root causes of the riot that the minister refuses to accept any responsibility for, fundamental causes of the riot, I believe. I have in my hand here a document showing that the intermediate barrier wall on block 1 of the Headingley correctional facility was removed some two years ago. What this caused was that there was a 10-block, 10-cell section outside of that barrier wall in block 1, and behind that barrier wall there were a further nine cells where inmates were housed. By the removal of that barrier wall, which the minister refuses to acknowledge was removed under her responsibility as the Minister of Justice for the Province of Manitoba, it put at risk the employees, the correctional officers that were serving the public and the Department of Justice, protecting all of us, putting at risk those corrections officers in the performance of their jobs.

The minister even today in this Chamber refuses to accept any responsibility for the removal of that intermediate barrier wall that allowed inmates in 10 cells and a further nine cells to be in the same block section with open cell doors, that when the corrections officers went in to do their search and seizure, they were outnumbered 19 or 20 to seven. Now can the Minister of Justice, in her mind, explain how it is logical to have corrections officers outnumbered 19 or 20 to seven in their search and seizure? How is that protecting the security of those people that are performing the security measures for protecting the people of the province of Manitoba?

The Minister of Justice who was the co-chair with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province, development of the Conservative Party philosophy in the last provincial general election campaign, she was in the development of the slam-the-cell-door-closed policy that this government went through the election campaign and told the people of Manitoba, we are being tough on criminals in this province.

Tough talk, weak action. Slamming that cell door is not what occurred. What it did, by the removal of that intermediate barrier wall, precipitated the riot actions in the province of Manitoba.

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, just on a point of order, perhaps the member did not hear the clarification around the wall. I believe that it had been clarified to him that it was very difficult to tell which wall he was referring to, that in some cases walls were removed. They were removed with Workplace Safety and Health's involvement and in the case of--I am not going to be specific as to which wall because I do not have those notes here--were removed at the request of guards so that they felt that they had a better view. So the member is putting on the record information, again part information.

I would like to clarify that, though I would say I do not have my notes here to specifically note that we are talking about the same wall. Some walls were removed. In some cases there was not a wall there.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts.

Order, please. At this time I would like to advise the committee that points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure of standing orders or the customary modes or proceedings of debate. It is not to bring to the attention the incorrectness of a statement or to correct any statements made by any members in the House.

* * *

Mr. Reid: I have in my hand, as I explained to the Minister of Justice a few moments ago, a document from the Headingley correctional facility that shows that there was an intermediate barrier wall that the minister refuses to accept any responsibility for the removal of. The maintenance people, the maintenance supervisor I spoke to personally told me that he had instructions to remove that wall, and it was removed some two years ago. So let not the minister say that the wall is still there. She can go out there if she wants and check the lines on the floor. I am told they are still there on the floor.

I want to go to another point. The minister said that she does not have a directive. There is no directive from her staff saying that in her policy, Mr. Chairperson, let us do lunch, that the corrections officers do not have to take meal breaks with the inmates of Headingley correctional facility which causes hardship and stress for the employees of the correctional facility, and at the same time puts them at risk, something I think that this minister has denied time and again.

I have in my hand here, and I will quote it, I will quote it for the minister's reference: It is expected that all the staff shall support divisional institutional directives and/or philosophies which in part necessitate active participation in case management process and usage of the combined inmate-staff dining room when taking advantage of institutionally supplied meals.

* (1100)

That was a directive that was given to all of the part-time and full-time correctional officers at Headingley facility. So let not the minister say that she does not have a let-us-do-lunch policy in this province because documents from her own facility show very clearly that it is her policy that forces the inmates and the corrections officers to share meal facilities and mealtimes at the facility.

People of my community are offended that the Minister of Justice allowed dangerous people back out into society, dangerous sexual offenders, those who chose to terminate their counselling training or support programs in the facility and that there was no continuation of those programs. People of my community have raised with me in the past, and I raised it with the Minister of Justice in this Chamber last year, that they are very concerned about dangerous sexual offenders in our communities in proximity to our families and yet this minister continues to release people with those problems from Headingley facilities back into our communities, putting at risk the communities and the people who live in them.

So I support the motion that was brought forward by my Justice critic saying that we have lost confidence in the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the allowance to speak on this resolution.

It is four weeks ago today that the riot took place at the Headingley Correctional Institution. It is not the first riot that has taken place in correctional institutions in Manitoba. Hopefully, it will be the last one. But this riot four weeks ago has illustrated the major weaknesses of the Minister of Justice in terms of the administration of the justice system and has amplified to the public of Manitoba a Minister of Justice who talks before she knows, talks without any knowledge, is more interested in the press and press opportunities than the facts and honesty in terms of the people of Manitoba. We, of course, on this side have absolutely no choice but to raise the discrepancies between what the minister says and how she says it and what has actually happened and is happening today and, regrettably, under the stewardship of this minister will happen in the future unless this motion is supported by all members of this Chamber. If members of this Chamber are going to vote with their constituents instead of along party lines, if members of this Chamber are going to vote with the people instead of voting along party lines because some whip in the Tory caucus has to support the Minister of Justice, the members opposite will vote with the people and against this Minister of Justice. The members opposite will vote with the NDP on nonconfidence in the Minister of Justice so Manitobans can have a Minister of Justice who will provide for the safety of Manitobans in an honest way.

The Headingley situation is one example where--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I do hate to interrupt the honourable member, but I am having trouble--[interjection] Order, please. All honourable members will have an opportunity to put their words on the record. At this time, the honourable Leader of the official opposition has the floor. Let us give him the common courtesy to listen as he has listened to the other presentations.

Mr. Doer: What did the minister say on the weekend of the riot? We will hold responsible all those who were responsible for the riot, and they must clean up the institution and repair the institution. She went on to say on April 28 and again on April 30 that she expected those people to be cleaning up the same day or that week that the riot took place.

Of course, you should not threaten people with action if you cannot deliver. I mean, the whole premise of authority is you use your authority in a way that you can deliver your actions to your words. It makes a farce, unfortunately, of a very serious situation because all Manitobans want to hold accountable those people responsible for the riot, with criminal charges, with sanctions in jails and, yes, with cleanup if possible. But you should not be so interested in a national clip that you put in disrepute your own word and your own authority and your own ability to delivery and you put to ridicule the justice system and the Justice minister for comments that you cannot deliver on. It is the first rule of any authority. You do not say anything you cannot deliver on.

If you are a parent, you do not say something to your child that you are not prepared to deliver on. If you are a shop steward, you do not say something to the management lawyer unless you are prepared to deliver on it. If you are the owner of a company and you are dealing with employees, you do not threaten something unless you can deliver on it. You deliver on your word and you know first before you open your mouth what are the consequences of what you are saying. You do not just go for the 10-second clip unless you can deliver day in and day out on what you said.

Secondly, this minister--and I asked her in this Chamber--she said that staffing levels were not an issue to the riot. It was in her own ministerial statement. We knew full well that the staffing levels had changed and the deployment of staff at Headingley had changed, and the numbers of people on security in the jail had been reduced from up to 25 on the evening shift down to between 16 and 19. The minister said it was not an issue. The guards said it was an issue. We say it is an issue. The minister was wrong.

The minister said that the barrier walls were not an issue. She came to the House when we asked her the question, and she says, oh, you know, you do not get your facts right.

If you go to cell-block 1 you can still see the spots where the wall was taken out under the stewardship, not actually of this minister, I believe, of the former minister, the Conservative minister in '92-93, or it may be between the two of you. Of course, all we wanted was a straight answer to the question. We had a memo saying that the range bars were put back in 1987 and the range bars were approved to be removed under this minister's stewardship. I have the memo. I tabled it in the House. It is signed by a Mr. Wolfe. Again, on and on and on.

I am glad that the minister had to do a U-turn on the range bars, but on the cleanup you are wrong, on the staffing levels you are wrong, on the barrier wall in cell-block 1 you are wrong, and it goes on and on and on.

Then, of course, the tragic situation last week on the T.A.s at the Headingley jail. We asked a very simple question to the Minister of Justice. We asked was this individual who committed the alleged murder on a temporary absence and how many people from Headingley were on temporary absences and did the riot play any part in the decisions on temporary absences in the Justice system. The minister said, no, it did not play any part, but senior correctional officials a week before said that, yes, the riot did play a part in accelerating the number of temporary absences from the jail.

Why did the minister not just say that in the House last week? Why did she not just tell the people the truth? Who are we to believe, a long-time senior employee of the Department of Corrections who is nonpartisan, or are we to believe the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), who says that the riot was no consideration for the release of temporary absences?

Every guard knows the minister is wrong. Every probation officer knows the minister is wrong. Everybody working in Corrections except the minister knows she is wrong. We have even been told that the minister was advised to give another answer to the public and tell the truth at the first step, because it is a lot easier in a difficult question and in difficult circumstances, it is a lot easier in the long run to say that, yes, there were a number of T.A.s approved, ultimately found at 63. We know that some of those were accelerated.

When you look at the criteria of danger to the public and length of time served, Mr. Chairman, we know that people were released on an accelerated basis. The public knows that. The guards know that. The senior correctional officials had confirmed that. The only one that has not had the ability to tell Manitobans the truth is the Minister of Justice.

* (1110)

I recognize that this is a very, very serious situation. A person was murdered, a 72-year-old man. His family is very concerned about it. But the first place we have to start, we have to start with a minister that will tell Manitobans the truth. As tough as that may be, as hard as it may be to deal with it, you have to face these issues with courage, and courage requires honesty.

That is what our motion is about all today. We cannot have confidence in a Justice minister, in terms of the safety and security of Manitobans, if we cannot have confidence that she is giving full and proper answers to tough issues that a Justice minister must deal with, she is giving full and honest answers to tough issues that we pose in this House.

We asked the question about the Headingley riot. We have asked about staffing. We have asked about the barrier walls. We have asked about the issue of the philosophy that had changed the jail to be much more of a kind of a love, trust, pixie dust philosophy under this minister rather than safety and security of inmates first. You know, it was under her stewardship that all these kind of flip-chart jail policies were developed rather than the safety and security of people.

So we can go on and on about the backlog in courts, the increase in offenders unfortunately in our communities, the cut in victims' assistance but, unfortunately, when the minister wants to say in-your-face to all Manitobans and she wants to have the bravado, she has got to deliver. If she cannot deliver, she should resign. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. David Newman (Riel): Mr. Chair, I am very proud to be the legislative assistant to this minister. She is a conscientious and hard working and responsible minister, and she is performing a very difficult job. Honourable members opposite may not appreciate the very challenging and difficult and lonely role it is to be an Attorney General of any province in this country under our system. You must stand alone on many occasions because you do not want to ever give the impression, certainly never the reality, but not only that, the impression that you are interfering with the exercise of discretion of prosecutors. You cannot ever do anything that would suggest that there is political interference. That makes you very cautious, and some ministers are more cautious than others in the common law system that we have in our western democracies. More caution is better in the sense that it means less likelihood of interference, but it also means many times you are exposed to the sort of attacks that the honourable members opposite have chosen to levy, to render to this particular minister, with the support of the media in a large measure.

I found it very interesting, coming in from a career as an advocate where you had due process in courts or before administrative tribunals, you had a natural justice sort of format. I have discovered that the goal in this Assembly of this particular opposition party and the honourable members speaking for it is to try and either intimidate a minister into resigning or to use the processes of Question Period and the very short time span you have and the very limited opportunity you have to expand on anything, to use that process to judge and then pass judgment on the person who is under attack in that process, often in an orchestrated way with a joint-and-several effort, not just by people in the Legislature representing the opposition party, but also with the full support of the media. It certainly is very much like a pack of wolves who smell blood and move in for the kill.

I might say it is very good training for all of us on this side of the House that have not had the honour and the responsibility and the exposure and the vulnerability of being a minister. I must say, it makes one think twice, sitting here and watching the process that one must endure when one wears those sorts of responsibilities. It is no wonder that many people outside, very qualified people, might consider never running for office at all if this is what it means and this is what you risk.

When you attack in 15-second clips, human beings performing duties responsibly and conscientiously as stewards on behalf of the citizens of this province, the way it is done you hurt them, you hurt their families, you hurt their friends and you hurt all of those that believe in them. It is very easy, as I say, to make that happen, but the courageous ones like this minister are not going to give into that, nor is the team that she is a part of because they see it for what it is, and even if there were any justification for it you would resist it because you appreciate how unjust the process is.

(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

We must be reminded that this minister, in dealing with this riot at Headingley, something that was thrust upon us--it was an event that took place that makes nobody happy, and it has had consequences. You put the event in the context when we have had an act of civil disobedience and illegality, probably, at Waterhen involving the native people in part and gangs in part associated with Headingley in part, you put it in the context of the labour disputes that were going on and the feelings and tension, you put it in the context of the feelings in the Legislature when certainly there is a lot of subjective anger and negative emotion about home care and other events that do certainly inspire emotion, feelings and different opinions, we are in a very, very emotional time.

So you put the Headingley situation in there as well, and what do you do? Well, the wonderful thing about our system in Manitoba and in this country is that we do have the rule of law. We look to due process, and we look to that process to come up with the truth to generate the evidence to examine the real issues. Not in the seconds here before television cameras--and I am not questioning the role. The role of the opposition is to highlight these things but let us not carry to an extreme. Let us not, and hopefully if I ever am in a position where I am in opposition, I will not conduct myself--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Order. Excuse me. I would ask the honourable members to try and contain themselves. The honourable member for Riel has the floor at this point in time. This is a highly controversial aspect of the proceedings of the committee, and I would ask every honourable member in the committee today to honour the individual member who is speaking at this point and award him the respect.

Point of Order

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member for Riel would define “extreme” for the House?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Excuse me. I do not believe that is a point of order. That is a request for interpretation, and I would rule that is not a point of order. I would ask every member to keep their comments to a minimum on this and keep them to themselves.

* * *

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Would the honourable member for Riel please proceed.

Mr. Newman: My experience in this House has demonstrated to me that very commonly there is an attempt by the honourable members opposite to usurp the function of due process and carry to extreme these sorts of situations. Just like collective bargaining resolves many things and often without sort of an interference that has been demonstrated in this House very well and sometimes faster without interference, so the due process that is going to be conducted by retired Justice Hughes will bring about fact findings and reliable and complete enough information that then conclusions can be drawn.

* (1120)

It would be inappropriate, I would submit, and not with respect to process, to judge this minister, the people who work within the Justice department, the people who work within the Government Services department, the people who work within the Labour department responsible for workplace safety, it would be wrong to judge those situations until a process has been completed and the information is in.

That is exactly what Justice Hughes is embarking on. Justice Ted Hughes, a resident of British Columbia, has a proven track record for making constructive and helpful recommendations. He is well known across the country for being objective and impartial. A long-time judge in Saskatchewan and then Deputy Attorney General in B.C., after retirement he served in a number of significant roles in the last six years: Conflict of Interest Commissioner for the Northwest Territories, Complaints Commissioner for the British Columbia Police Commission, chair of the 1991 commission of inquiry involving justice issues in Manitoba.

All of us want to know what may have led to such a violent and tragic incident as Headingley, and I am confident the Justice Hughes review will lead us to the answers.

His mandate is complete. It is to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice on actions which can be taken to prevent or minimize the chance of another riot. His report will be made public and will address the management of the institution; the immediate precipitating events; the impact of the presence of authorized and unauthorized drugs in the institution; the training of correctional officers and equipment available to correctional officers; staffing and resource levels in the institution, including the mix of security and program personnel; living conditions in the institution; adequacy of security measures for protective custody inmates.

In addition, Justice Hughes may report on any other areas that he considers necessary to investigate the causes of the riot.

I urge all honourable members to respect this process and not make any premature judgments on this particular issue. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I have a few words that I would like to put on the record with respect to the whole issue of justice in the province of Manitoba, in particular this resolution.

You know, it is interesting, during the last provincial election everyone recalls this whole let-us-get-tough-on-crime attitude that this government has had both during the election, even leading up to the election, where they had the one brochure talking just about how tough they are going to get with crime.

I guess what they were trying to address is what they believe was public opinion and feed into public opinion. Public opinion was saying, look, we want you to get tougher on crime, but had they read a bit further into it, they would have discovered what the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), our critic, had discovered.

That is that in order to get tough on crime, you have to start getting tough with some of the causes of crime. That is where this government has really been missing the boat and failing quite miserably. Whether it is youth justice or adult justice matters, they have not put in the effort. Rather, what we have seen is somewhat of a facade.

It came to a point when we had a crisis in the province of Manitoba in the sense of the Headingley uprising that took place, and virtually instantly after the riot was put to rest, we had the minister, and we expect that the minister had conferred or consulted with the Premier (Mr. Filmon), coming out strong, she wanted to send a strong message to the public to give the perception that the government was really tough on crime, and that is, you know, there has been a bunch of bad boys over at the Headingley Correctional Institution. They caused a riot, and we are going to make those guys clean up the mess that they caused, Mr. Chairperson.

A lot of people within the public would look at that and say, you know, there is the minister really getting tough and standing up for the public by forcing these individuals to clean up their own mess, only to have to retract on that. First you hear from the lawyers that say, well, we are not too sure if that is against the Charter and then there was a question in terms of security, do we really want individuals that have caused the riots to have some of the equipment that would be necessary in order to clean up the mess? So then the minister starts backing down.

What one would have expected of the minister would have been an apology: I made a mistake, I should not have said what I have done. You know, the minister could maybe learn a lesson from the Deputy Prime Minister and what the Deputy Prime Minister did with some of the comments that she had made, made an apology, even went a bit further in terms of seeking another mandate from her constituents. Well, Mr. Chairperson, we are not suggesting that the minister has to seek another mandate from her constituents. Many Manitobans would argue that they would like to see the whole government seek another mandate. I think that there are a lot of valid arguments to why it is that they maybe should be seeking a whole entire new mandate, because the Minister of Justice is not alone.

I went through, as the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) did, health care Estimates and we make reference to a number of areas where there is outright incompetency, where government fails to recognize where it has made a mistake and to rectify that mistake. There is nothing to coming forward and saying, look, I made a mistake; I should not have said what I said and this is, in fact, what is going to result from it. Then what we find with this particular minister, Mr. Chairperson, is that she will say one thing in an attempt to--at least on the surface--appear to cover up. For example, the other day she said in the Chamber that, look, we are now having inmates starting today cleaning up the mess. Well, on the way to work this morning, I hear on one of our radio stations that it was four individuals in an area in which the riot did not occur.

Well, whether that particular radio report is correct or accurate or not, the problem is that this is a Minister of Justice who fails to bring information to this Chamber unless that information is supportive of what it is that she is doing or the actions that she has taken. Again, a complete absolute failure from this minister to acknowledge where she has made a mistake. She keeps on digging herself deeper and deeper in. What I have found to be somewhat interesting in this whole process, to a certain degree--as I pointed out at the beginning, the Conservative image of, we want to be tough on crime. Over the last couple of days, one might argue that the New Democrats are trying to say, we are going to be tougher on crime. So you have two political parties here that are trying to demonstrate to the public that we are going to be really tough on crime: We can be tougher than you; the government is nothing but a facade; they do not know how to be tough on crime whatsoever--an interesting perspective from where we are sitting in terms of watching this on what appears to be more of a day in, day out, at least over the last week or since the Headingley riot.

Mr. Chairperson, we do have very strong reservations with respect to the confidence of the Minister of Justice. We feel frustrated in the sense that she is not coming forward. You know, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) had the opportunity to meet with the minister and the RCMP where there were explanations that were given. We respected that particular meeting. The minister at that time appeared to want to share information, to let us know and through us we can let our constituents know, and through our critic, the critic is allowed to address the fears that Manitobans might have and it is based on information. But what has happened is that information, in many cases, has now been inaccurate. There has been a lack of information. [interjection] Well, the minister says not her, it is coming from the New Democratic caucus. Well, it is something in which no doubt, from our perspective, the member for The Maples will filter through and advise our caucus accordingly.

* (1130)

But, Mr. Chairperson, there is no doubt a lot of confusion is out there, and I do not believe for a moment that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) is innocent on this matter, that the Minister of Justice can be more straightforward with the answers that she has been giving in the House and, at the very least, ensure what information that she is providing us is accurate and not try to defend at all cost whatever positions she and her government have taken on this issue in an attempt to save face. If you have done something wrong, admit that you have done something wrong, and then go on to rectify the problem.

With those few words, Mr. Chairperson, I will leave it at that.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for The Maples. Order, please. Thank you. Order, please. I have recognized the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). I understand that, yes, we normally do rotate, but you will notice that the NDP had--I am sorry, I had seen the honourable member for The Maples at his feet first. If the honourable member for The Maples can sit down at this time, I am more than pleased to recognize the honourable member for Osborne.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank too the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), who has behaved most honourably.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to put a few remarks on the record. My concern, of course, is, as the critic for the Status of Women and as the MLA for Osborne, with protecting women and children, both in my community and in the broader community. It seems to me that the minister's behaviour in all these matters, matters of protection as of late, particularly relating to the early release of inmates from Headingley, has been opaque, has been coloured by prevarication and certainly by uncertainty.

There appear to be several stages to the whole affair. I understand, of course, first there was the riot and the reasons for that. There was the settlement of that, and that itself is a murky matter. The cleanup remains a very murky matter, and the early releases is an extremely murky matter.

On Tuesday in this House, I rose and spoke to the minister from the information I then had which identified the early release of three offenders. The minister did not suggest to me that indeed there were any more than three offenders, but one would assume if she were on top of her ministry, she would have had all information, especially in this extremely serious matter.

It appears that the minister either has not done her homework or does not know what is going on or is misleading this Chamber because, by Wednesday, Mr. Chair, the number of early released offenders had increased to 11. On Thursday, I learned, not only is the number 11, but there is a possibility that eight of them were serious sex offenders, three rapists, two serious pedophiles.

We still have no clear information, we still have no answers. The minister told us yesterday she does not have the information. She told us yesterday she does not know if the Community Notification Advisory Committee has received any names, if any of the names have been sent to this committee. It seems to me that this leaves Manitobans not knowing if there are dangerous pedophiles loose in our community. The Community Notification Advisory Committee set up by this government to provide us with this information may have received these names, may not have received these names. The minister is uncertain, has not given us the information. It seems to me that the whole climate of justice in the province of Manitoba is uncertain, just like the minister, and clearly the minister has lost the confidence of this committee.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Chairperson, it is with great sadness that I rise--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before the honourable member for The Maples continues, could I ask all honourable members wanting to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member.

Mr. Kowalski: As I started to say, it is with great sadness that I rise to speak to this motion today. I do not like politics. [interjection] Someone says, what am I here for? Well, I am here to present a view, to bring forward my experiences. I have been in the criminal justice system for well over two decades, first with the RCMP and then with the Winnipeg Police Services and as a probation officer. That experience in the justice system has taught me some things. The training, first of all, trains you to come forward in conflicts, bring the parties together, to lower the level of aggravation and then to find a solution. We cannot always do that here. Finding solution is not always the best way.

In police work, I have also found that it is more of an art than a science. Many times there are judgment calls made whether to arrest someone or let them go, whether to give a warning, whether to take someone in for a mental health examination or take the chance that they might commit suicide. Know what? I have made mistakes. You know, who has not made mistakes in any field or endeavour?

So in speaking to this motion, I wonder what really is the purpose. We know what the result is going to be. The government has more members so this motion is not going to pass. So why do we put these things? To put our dissatisfaction about the minister's policies on the record--well, that has a value. To get the media attention--I do not think any member in this Chamber has no guilt about trying to get media attention. No matter what side of the House we would be on, we would be doing many of the same, similar things, and there is a lot of theatrics by all members in this House.

Have I lost confidence in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey)? I have not lost confidence in her intelligence, her abilities, but I have lost confidence in the direction of her policies, a direction that has taken us and has maybe--no, not maybe, has done a disservice to the justice system in Manitoba, that has tried to make the justice system seem a simplistic system, that if we lock up more people, we lock them up for longer and we keep them in jail, that it is going to make our streets safer. The justice system is a lot more complicated than that and by trying to put perception in front of reality--and I believe that there is a political purpose for that.

Advocating for inmates is not politically popular. Advocating for more dollars for corrections is not politically popular. Advocating for prisoner reform, whether it is having lunch with inmates, whether it is having inmates treated as human beings and not people who have to be locked in segregated cells with divider walls maybe is not politically popular and maybe there are many people who have been in the Corrections service for a long time who would not support any changes in the correctional system and believe that prisoners should be locked in their cells and get bread and water and get the lash once a day and should thank us for doing it, but they do not work. There are programs out there that do work. Restorative Resolutions, a project of the John Howard Society, does work, but it is not politically popular.

So, yes, I have lost confidence in the minister's policies and the directions and what it has done to the criminal justice system and the perception of the public about the criminal justice system in Manitoba. For that reason, I will be supporting this motion.

* (1140)

Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee is the motion by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh),

THAT this committee has lost confidence in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the motion?

Voice Vote

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

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

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

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The motion has been defeated.

Formal Vote

Mr. Mackintosh: A formal vote.

Mr. Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested by two members of this section. Call in the members.

All sections in Chamber for formal vote.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. In this section of Committee of Supply meeting in the Chamber considering the Estimates of the Department of Justice, a motion was moved by the honourable member for St. Johns, and the motion reads,

THAT this committee has lost confidence in the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

The motion was defeated on a voice vote, and subsequently two members requested that a formal vote on this matter be taken. The question before the committee is on the motion of the honourable member for St. Johns.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 21, Nays 28.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.

The hour being 12:25 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being after 5:30 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.